Talk:Early life of Pope Benedict XVI

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Christianity: Catholicism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance).

European Microstates: Vatican City Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Vatican City portal This article is supported by WikiProject Vatican City (assessed as Low-importance).

Membership of Hitler Youth

Was membership of the Hitler Youth compulsory? There was a letter in the Guardian (a british newspaper) recently from an ex-member of the HY saying that it was not, he knew young people who were not members, they did experience difficulties e.g. applying for civil service jobs but nothing drastic. PatGallacher 00:08, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

"By 1935, the HJ comprised 60 percent of the country's youth. Following the Nazi seizure of power, other right-wing youth groups were merged into the HJ. From December 1, 1936, under the Jugenddienstpflicht all other youth groups were banned and their membership was merged into the Hitler Youth. HJ membership was made compulsory for youths over 17 in 1939, and for all over the age of 10 in 1941. By 1939, Hitler Youth membership comprised 90 percent of the country's youth."[1]
"In 1936, it became all but compulsory to join the Hitler Youth. Youths could avoid doing any active service if they paid their subscription but this became all but impossible after 1939."[2]
This seems clear: in 1936 Ratzinger was 9; in 1939 he was 12. Only in 1941 did membership for his then age (14) become compulsory. However, the original German text of the 1939 law [3] suggests 10-14-year-olds had to be part of a youth wing of the HJ (on pain of imprisonment or fine), so I need to do more research. Rd232 08:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Post 1939 the membership was compulsory, like school. The entry age was not 14, but 10. HBS 09:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a nice "clean" war record. Are facts here, or do we take it all on faith? Imacomp 21:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also seeing Holocaust 1st hand seemed to have little effect either way, as the story is told? Imacomp 21:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imacomp, I removed your {fact} after every statement that you disagree with, or want further clarification for and instead put on a NPOV section tag. Big Jock Knew 09:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to have the answers Big Jock Knew, why not put them in yourself? Imacomp 14:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the answers and to be honest don't particularly care. I was actually agreeing with you as I can't find reputable sources to verify the statements. The only change I made was an attempt to improve the style of the article. I will change it again as the word fact appearing looks wrong. Big Jock Knew 02:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "allegiance" inset showing the vile swastika symbol on Mr. Ratzinger's page seems inappropriate. First, there is no evidence that young Mr. Ratzinger had pro-Nazi sympathies. Second, it has been suggested that, if anything, his family was anti-Nazi. Third, this same article says that from early childhood, Mr. Ratzinger wanted to do nothing other than be a priest. Fourth, there is considerable question as to whether or not his "service" in the HJ was significant or, if so, whether it was voluntary. Fifth, it appears that Mr. Ratzinger is being singled out, as other Germans of his generation do not have their pages defaced with Nazi propaganda symbols that may be antithetical to their values. Significantly, German politicians like the chancellors Helmut Schmidt and Helmut Kohl do not have such symbols on their pages, even though the first one was active as a leader in the HJ and the latter was, like Mr. Ratzinger, conscripted into the army at the end of the war. Unless the use of these symbols is ideologically motivated by a desire to embarrass Mr. Ratzinger or "ding" his religious views, then these symbols should be removed. They are offensive to many people. Because the Nazis killed millions of innocent people, indiscriminately, and without any justification at all. 70.165.51.18 (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

Footnotes are cumbersome. I have just got them in order in this article. The reason why they get jumbled is (I suspect) because editors get confused by the fact that there are only 6 notes but 8 numerical references. Don't be confused, the reason why reference [8] points to note [1] is because that is the first source cited. It just gets cited at the neginning and end of the article. Stroika 21:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notes

(admitted Catholic apologist Dominick's censorship rv --WIKIPEDIANS: beware Catholic censors and apologists like Dominick prowling this page) God forbid. Edit notes like this have no place on Wikipedia. Dominick ^(TALK) 23:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"cult of the spade"

"He was posted to the Hungarian border area of Austria ... Here he was trained in the "cult of the spade" ..." - could somebody explain what "cult of the spade" means?--128.139.226.37 18:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly "cult of the spade" was Cardinal Ratzinger's description in his memoir "Milestones" of the work he had to do when in the army digging trenches etc.Stroika 05:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cult of the Spade is how the poor guys that dug the trenches refered to their jobs (they used a spade to dig them). They were always together digging, so it was like they were in their own special group, it's a pretty commonplace, like truckers calling themselves road warriors

--130.108.185.219 (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 4 does not support the text

I don't see any relation between the text and the sources cited in the footnote. --Nrglaw (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– Seams pretty silly to use their papal names prior to their inauguration; particularly when the article text uses their legal names exclusively. See also: Joseph Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose but respectfully. I see why you want to do this, but I think it's more WP:RECOGNIZABLE using their better-known Pope names. Red Slash 23:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These individuals are most associated by their pope names. I see these all as sub articles to the main article and thus believe the current names are most appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for WP:CONSISTENCY with main article titles, but I have created the redirects in case anyone searches for them that way. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Deletion of Father Article

See Talk:Joseph Ratzinger Sr. for links to earlier discussion of deletion of article about Ratzinger's father.--Jahaza (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]