Talk:Godfried Danneels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Copy vio?[edit]

A possibly plagiaristic site to this article.

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Poor Quality[edit]

Gosh, this reads like a puff piece. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The victim of Vangheluwe did not go public as alleged in this article. Michael Wood 2468 (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Godfried Danneels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

On the March 2017 Revision and Expansion of the Article[edit]

This article owes its expansion to the appearance of the 558-page biography of cardinal Danneels by Mettepenningen & Schelkens (M&S), which is now the main source of the article. I have left what was correct in the previous version, unless I judged it contributed nothing new. Links affected by linkrot have been updated where I could and deleted where I could not.

I corrected two serious mistakes.

  • Danneels never studied at the Bruges seminary to become a priest. His bishop, Msgr. De Smedt, sent him directly to Leuven to study philosophy there. When Msgr. De Smedt appointed him spiritual director of the seminary—Danneels was barely 26—he didn’t even know his way in the building. It happened several times he got lost and that the students he asked for directions asked him ironically in which year he was a student. (M&S 81)
  • Danneels did not lead the funeral service of Grand Duchess Josephine Charlotte of Luxembourg; cf. the article "Adieu, Mme la Grande-Duchesse" in La Dernière Heure of 17 January, 2005, which mentions "La messe, célébrée par Mgr Fernand Franck, l'archevêque de Luxembourg".

I based all the translations that I added on the Dutch-language sources I consulted, rather than the French-language ones, since Dutch is Danneels’ native language (and mine). The translations that were already in the previous version I compared to the Dutch originals, and when I changed them I did this to reflect these originals more closely. Polla ta deina (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

St Gallen group[edit]

I've not seen any evidence that suggests Danneels identified as being a member of the so-called St. Gallen group. Nor that this group is significant enough to merit the addition of a specific category entry. I've removed this category for now. I'd welcome thoughts. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It has been on the National Television of Belgium, it is true. No secret in Belgium. please restore?--Carolus (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes but what exactly did Belgian tv say? And does it make sense to mark this as a specific category or is not sufficient to simply include a reference in the text. I'm nervous about giving this UNDUE weight. It's also not helpful for you to have gone in and added the category back until we have achieved consensus. Please remove it until we've decided that it's relevant. I have big concerns that we're fuelling a big conspiracy theory here to play up to a conservative Catholic agenda. Big risks of violating NPOV. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
No comment, i made my point, this so called conspiracy theory is nothing news in Belgium (Danneels destijds lid van geheim netwerk met Europese topkardinalen= Daneels was a Member of a SECRET NETWORK of European TOP-CARDINALS).--Carolus (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks but that doesn't reassure me therefore that the article needs to link to a specific category. Sounds to me that it's just exaggerated reporting with little substance. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Then why you ask my opinion then?--Carolus (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Contaldo is well aware that this group has been reported on in mainstream sources (not just in Belgium, but also the National Catholic Register and others) so the blanking can be treated as vandalism at this point. Not only that, but Danneels has since 2015 openly associated himself with the group in televised interviews promoting his authorised biography by Jürgen Mettepenningen and Karim Schelkens. Contaldo knows this because he has read the St. Gallen Group article, where such references are presented and is attempting to blank both it and articles pertaining to it, because he favours Danneels soft stance on homosexuality (politically motivated) and for whatever reasons wants to hide this activity. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The category has now gone so the discussion has moved on and the tag can be removed. Claíomh Solais - I've warned you before, however, to stop your attacks. If you can't edit without pursuing some crazy "conspiracy-motivated" agenda then please move on. One more reference to my sexuality, nationality or religion and I'll formally make a complaint about you.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The revert in the section "Member of the group of Sankt Gallen"[edit]

I reverted the anonymous edit (of 14:00, 18 November 2018), which substituted, without justification, "That remains unclear" for "That is misleading". ("That" refers to the claim, made by some pundits, that the Sankt Gallen "mafia" worked to elect cardinal Bergoglio and were opposed to Ratzinger.) The revert again shows that is claim indeed is misleading, by providing two arguments, both footnoted.Polla ta deina (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

No editor should be stating anything as fact in their own words. This is called "personal commentary" is is not permitted in articles. You need to refer to what reliable sources have said. Also read MOS:CLAIM. Anglicanus (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I substituted for the second revert of a paragraph by a text that basically undoes this revert, but is shorter than my former version and avoids the word claim, which Anglicanus, referring to MOS:CLAIM, objected to.Polla ta deina (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Can't we just remove the bulk of material around St Gallen and just state simply that some sources (and cite them) have said he was part of a group nicknamed st gallen - and then link through to the main article where people can read more about it. At the moment the article looks very petty - he said, she said, maybe they did, surely he couldn't have etc. I really don't think this issue is substantive enough to warrant more than a footnote or so in the article. We have clearly drifted into WP:FRINGE elements. Would welcome views. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Dear Contaldo80,
I couldn’t disagree more. M&S, Danneels’s authorized biography, considers his membership of the St. Gallen group important: it devotes its entire chapter 24 to it. Its is not "some sources" that say he was part of the St. Gallen group; it is Danneels’s own archives, to which M&S had access. The group was not nicknamed St. Gallen group; that was the term used by the members themselves. Unfortunately the main article on the St. Gallen group is a disaster. On its talk page the whole article is accused of WP:FRINGE, because it seems to describe a conspiracy. What is needed there is a cool-and-collected, objective description of the group, its activities, and the polemics it generated. These polemics are anything but fringe-affairs. If you google "Gallen mafia" (between quotes), you’ll get almost 20,000 hits.
As of now, I have merely provided the two citations you requested. Depending on your reaction, I'll leave it at that or I'll do more. Polla ta deina (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Royal baptisms -- link to wrong person[edit]

Can someone who knows more about the Belgian royal family fix the list of "royal baptisms"? The section refers to Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant, but the link is to Elizabeth of Austria, and implies he baptised her, even though she was born over 60 years before he was. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Citations added and citations deleted[edit]

Dear Coffeeandcrumbs,

You inserted quite a number of "citation needed" tags. I replaced eight of them with the citations you requested. One tag simply disappeared when I replaced the entire section on Danneels’s membership in the St. Gallen Group with a simple sentence and a link to the article on the St. Gallen Group. Another also disappeared because I deleted the—indeed somewhat superfluous—sentence after which it stood. Yet another I replaced with a text referring to a previous section of the article.

But I purposely deleted five tags, yet leaving the text as is. In what follows I quote the sentence(s) (in italics) after which you inserted the tag and then indicate the reason for these deletions.

  • The following sections discuss his activities and—often controversial—standpoints with regard to various issues. • What kind of citation can follow the mere announcement of a discussion of a series of standpoints?
  • The claim that he advised the King to sign is pure speculation. • This is the concluding sentence of an entire section, which shows that the conversations of Danneels and the king were "colloques singuliers" between the two of them. Danneels and the king both are dead. It follows that no one now knows what Danneels said, and that all "reports" on these "colloques singuliers" are pure speculation. What source for this concluding sentence is conceivable? It simply indicates the logical consequence.
  • As an editorial in De Standaard of 1 September 2010 put it: "For days he kept the shock of Vangheluwe's confession to himself. He did not contact the ex-bishop again to convince him of what was inevitable: his immediate resignation. He did not refer the matter to the Adriaenssens Commission. And he did not involve his own successor, archbishop Léonard." • This is a citation, with quotation marks, and sourced in the text.
  • Danneels was ranked #90 in Les plus grands Belges (2005). • "Les plus grands Belges", in blue, links to the article in this Wikipedia itself.
  • His mother tongue was Dutch (both Standard Dutch and the Kanegem dialect, barely mutually comprehensible), and he also spoke English, French, German and Italian fluently, as well as Latin (at least during his studies in Rome). • There is a citation, to B&L 50. I could have deleted the phrase in brackets, but that would extend the scope of B&L 50 to the rest of his life, and if someone lives in Belgium for decades, his spoken Latin is likely to suffer badly. Maybe he still spoke Latin when he was back in Belgium, maybe he didn't, but B&L 50 merely says he spoke Latin during his student days in Rome.

I regret I am unable to supply the other citations your requested. Polla ta deina (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)