Talk:Jean-Marie Lustiger

Untitled
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. Fear ÉIREANN 23:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Standardizing is mostly good and the arguments reasonable. But please make sure that for every Johannes Cardinal Doe, there are redirects (or disambiguations when applicable) both at Johannes Doe and at Cardinal Johannes Doe. / u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 21:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * And surely more to the point, at Cardinal Doe, which is surely the actual common usage (as opposed to the strictly conventional). Alai 22:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Correct naming conventions. violet/riga (t) 23:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

Still a Jew?
There is a difference between the halakhic category of ben Israel (usually translated as "Israelite", though not to be confused with Ancient Israelite) and a yehudi ("Jew"). If you are making the distinction, then Lustiger follows into the former category but not the latter one. (I also doubt that he can be considered to be a "child taken captive", since he was of age (halakhically) when he converted.) Hasdrubal 29 June 2005 23:16 (UTC)
 * Cite sources please. Jayjg (talk) 29 June 2005 23:23 (UTC)

Lustiger's attention to the media should be noted, also his (?more restricted) attitude to ecumenism as instanced in his speech to the Archbishop of Canterbury at Notre-Dame in 1981.His role in the education crisis which precipitated the fall of the Mauroy government needs exploring,also his attitude to liberal clergy in his own diocese and to Msgr GaillotClive Sweeting

Cardinal-Elector
I note that Cardinal Lustiger lost his right to vote in a conclave today (17 Sep 2006) upon reaching the age of 80. His status as an elector or not would seem to be an important bit of information, however its not obvious to me where it might fit within the current article. Is there a standard way of indicating this?--Dcheney 04:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * All cardinals lose their right to vote in conclaves when reaching 80. It's automatic. So there is no reason to mention it. JHobson3 (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Lung Cancer
Was the Cardinal a smoker? I'm just wondering how he got lung cancer.J.J. Bustamante 05:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 15% of lung cancer cases are non-smokers ; 10 percent of men and 20 percent of women with lung cancer never smoked Hoserjoe 02:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Telegraph versus International Herald Tribune
These papers' accounts of Lustiger's situation in early World War II contradict each other.


 * IHT: Lustiger and sister sent to Orleans after the German invasion in May/June 1940
 * Telegraph: Entire family relocates to Orleans after outbreak of war in September 1940


 * IHT: Lustiger lives with a Catholic family in Orleans and is exposed to Catholic beliefs
 * Telegraph: Lustiger lives with his own family in Orleans and is discouraged from contact with Christian religious culture.


 * IHT: Lustiger was still in Paris in Holy Week 1940.
 * Telegraph: Lustiger was in Orleans in Holy Week and decided to convert on Holy Thursday/Good Friday (March 21-22) 1940, in Orleans Cathedral.


 * IHT: Lustiger's father dies in 1982.
 * Telegraph: He dies in 1980.

Obviously, somebody has their facts wrong - but who? Both newspapers are regarded as fairly reliable. I've been editing the article to reflect the Telegraph's account, which I *intuit* to be more accurate, but other people may support the IHT. What we don't want is contradictory statements. For example, if he moved to Orleans after the May/June invasion, he cannot have converted in Orleans in March.66.183.165.57 21:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Le Figaro articles states: "À Orléans, où ils l'envoient avec sa soeur à l'annonce de la guerre, le futur cardinal demandera explicitement à être baptisé dans l'Église catholique, à l'âge de 14 ans." (In Orleans, where he was sent with his sister at the announcement of the war, the futur Cardinal explicitly requested to be baptized in the Catholic Church, at age 14.) Henri Tincq in ''Le Monde also explicitly states that the conversion happened in Orleans during the Holy Week of 1940. The French press thus back up the Telegraph, not the IHT. Tazmaniacs 21:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Concerning the deletion of yellow badge and Statute of Jews, don't assume anything is "too well known" here on Wikipedia. What is "too well known" to one person (let's say a 50 years-old French) is not that well known to another (let's say a 13 years-old from the other side of the planet). Furthermore, his parents wore the badge, so it's important info. Finally, contextual info is always nice as it brings the individual in context with the period. Tazmaniacs 22:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
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 03:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was a reference to the (cold) welcome extended to Abp Robert Runcie deleted?Clive Sweeting

Multireligious?
I wonder if we could classify Cardinal Lustiger as multireligious or syncretic, based on comments and practices. 68.37.254.48 (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jean-Marie Lustiger. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930211021/http://www.zenit.org/article-9568?l=french to http://www.zenit.org/article-9568?l=french
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927235204/http://www.zenit.org/article-12902?l=french to http://www.zenit.org/article-12902?l=french
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070615052753/http://www.academie-francaise.fr/immortels/base/academiciens/fiche.asp?param=687 to http://www.academie-francaise.fr/immortels/base/academiciens/fiche.asp?param=687

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jean-Marie Lustiger. 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:
 * Added tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1186557415675&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930212611/http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article2841322.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article2841322.ece

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Correction on yellow star
The article previously said "In October 1940, the Vichy regime passed the first antisemtic [sic] laws, which forced Jews in France to wear a yellow badge." This is incorrect. The sourcing on this claim is a defunct link. Per the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Jews in occupied France were not forced to wear the yellow star until June 7, 1942. Vichy France did not require the star at all. When Germany invaded Vichy France in November 1942, per Yad Vashem, Jews in the formerly unoccupied zone were not required to wear the yellow star. The Vichy government nonetheless did promulgate dozens of anti-Semitic laws and decrees that, with time, imposed increasingly draconian restrictions on Jews in France.72.78.202.204 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)