Talk:Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger

From Academic Kids

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)

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)

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