Talk:Pope Francis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Article for translation

There is a quite lengthy article on no: about Bergoglio that can be translated, instead of mendeling with the copyright article. no:Jorge Beroglio Profoss 22:42, 2 April 2005 (UTC)

If you're well versed in both languages, it would be a real asset for you to translate for us. Andrew³²⁷ 02:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, you know we generally don't reply to comments that are 8 years old... If you want to let him know about this now, you should probably post on his talk page. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! Now our work begins

I expect lots of edit warring here, so this is a request to editors to take issues to the talk page before making controversial edits to the article. Andrew³²⁷ 19:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2013 (1)

He was transferred in 1980 to become the rector of the seminary in San Miguel where he had studied. Tonylatt (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Andrew³²⁷ 19:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Place of birth

It reads he is the first Pope born in the Americas but then says he was born in India. Can we clarify / correct that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.232.4 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2013‎ (UTC)

He was not born in India - FIX THAT

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.84.197 (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2013 (2)

Liberation theology Bergoglio is an accomplished theologian who distanced himself from liberation theology early in his career. He is thought to be close to Comunione e Liberazione, a conservative lay movement. [edit]Abortion and euthanasia Cardinal Bergoglio has invited his clergy and laity to oppose both abortion and euthanasia.[3] [edit]Homosexuality He has affirmed church teaching on homosexuality, though he teaches the importance of respecting individuals who are gay. He strongly opposed legislation introduced in 2010 by the Argentine Government to allow same-sex marriage. In a letter to the monasteries of Buenos Aires, he wrote: "Let's not be naive, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God." He has also insisted that adoption by gays and lesbians is a form of discrimination against children. This position received a rebuke from Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who said the church's tone was reminiscent of "medieval times and the Inquisition".[4] [edit]Church and AIDS Main article: Roman Catholic Church and AIDS His doctrinal orthodoxy emphasizes Christ's mandate to love: he is well remembered for his 2001 visit to a hospice, in which he washed and kissed the feet of twelve AIDS patients. [edit]Social justice He consistently preaches a message of compassion towards the poor, but somewho? observers would like him to place a greater emphasis on issues of social justice. Rather than articulating positions on matters of political economy, Bergoglio prefers to emphasize spirituality and holiness, believing that this will naturally lead to greater concern for the suffering of the poor. He has, however, voiced support for social programs, and publicly challenged free-market policies. [edit]Relations with the Argentine government See also: Dirty War On April 15, 2005, a human rights lawyer filed a criminal complaint against Bergoglio, accusing him of conspiring with the junta in 1976 to kidnap two Jesuit priests, whom he, as superior of the Society of Jesus of Argentina in 1976, had asked to leave their pastoral work following conflict within the Society over how to respond to the new military dictatorship, with some priests advocating a violent overthrow. Bergoglio's spokesman has flatly denied the allegations. No evidence was presented linking the cardinal to this crime.[5] [edit] Mmhmbop (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Little early for this, isn't it? In any event, your proposed edits are non neutral and unsourced, and are unlikely to be included. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This edit request includes information that is potentially monumental. I strongly encourage you, Mmhmbop, or other editors interested in adding content on the Dirty War to please seek out good references if these claims are indeed verifiable! That would mean the world to me and my family. Eekiv 19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I was initially surprised to see this much material summarily deleted (it was present since 2005), but it makes sense to remove it from the main article given the lack of citation. However, it does make sense to leave them on the Talk page for re-inclusion once people provide supporting citations. Given his location, I would expect most useful citations to be in Spanish or Italian. For example, here's a citation for the foot-washing event: <http://www.zenit.org/es/articles/cardenal-argentino-lava-los-pies-a-enfermos-de-sida>. English-language searches turned up nothing earlier than 2005, when the unsourced material was added.

Spelling

The following edit should be made: "conformation" should be "confirmation" and "Papem" should be "Papam" in the cite for the reason for "Francis". Collect (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference ^ Habemus Papam! Cardinal Bergolio Elected Pope - Fracis I (Archived at WebCite) needs "Fracis" edited to "Francis". (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

References

The references section is doubled! Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 19:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Authenticity of twitter account

Have you verified that the account @JMBergoglio truly belongs to him? There are several twits in that account that would lead to believe it's a fake, and it's been used as the first reference in the article. forgot to sign EOZyo (мѕğ) 20:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In any case, the @Pontifex account is the more reliable source. It is the verified Twitter account of the Pope afterall. Xeltran (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I'm pointing it out because the above it's currently being used as first reference EOZyo (мѕğ) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Do bear in mind if people haven't already WP:ELPEREN --wintonian ^talk 20:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes the JMBergoglio twitter account should definitely not be linked in the article in any way until it's been confirmed as official (or perhaps it becomes notable enough to be mentioned here even if it's not official, which is unlikely). Even from a Google translation of some of the twitter messages I came to a similar conclusion to you. Nil Einne (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm almost certain it's fake: It contains outrageous statements and links to articles critical of himself with the hashtag #NoLoLean (Don't read it). Particularly amusing to this community: "Quiero que eliminen esto de Wikipedia" MarcusGraly (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 13 March 2013 - Class Equality section

During a May 2010 speech in Argentina regarding the poor, he directed his message to the wealthy by saying "You avoid taking into account the poor. We have no right to duck-down, to lower the arms carried by those in despair. We must reclaim the memory of our country who has a mother, recover the memory of our Mother"

Raphistorian (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

ref goes to: [1]

please don't use refs in talk pages, talk pages don't have reflists, so refs won't be visible...

does los sufficientes refer to the rich? google translate just says says sufficient, and makes zero sense..

"sufficient", he warned, "do not take into account the poor"

is what google says it means. I speak german and english, my knowledge of spanish is almost nonexistent, so if anyone here knows spanish, the original is:

El obispo primado argentino, cardenal Jorge Bergoglio, volvió hoy a criticar a "los suficientes" que, advirtió, "no tienen en cuenta a los más pobres" y exhortó a pedirle a la Virgen de Luján que "cuide a nuestra patria, en particular a aquellos que son los más olvidados". Jorge Bergoglio, volvió hoy a criticar a "los suficientes" que, advirtió, "no tienen en cuenta a los más pobres" y exhortó a pedirle a la Virgen de Luján que "cuide a nuestra patria, en particular a aquellos que son los más olvidados".

I can't say yes or no to the request if I don't know what it is saying. Aunva6 (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Here los suficientes refers to those who have sufficient material means of living (the rich and the upper middle class), or could also mean the arrogant ones. --Againme (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

thank you, I will add it in as soon as I can wade through the mass of edit conflicts. hell, even the talk page is difficult to use... Aunva6 (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Since this is a page about a new Pope, I would strongly encourage the editors to check for grammar and spelling before adding anything. Thank you very much. 63.3.2.130 (talk)

Lede sentence re: languages

It really doesn't belong in the lead...., but where? --j⚛e decker^talk 21:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This discussion got picked up later at Talk:Pope_Francis#Languages. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Section blanked on 8 March 2013

You can see it in the most recent edits of the offending user here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.180.76.19 S/he seems to have a history of various vandalism/blanking. Not sure what the protocol is for something like this as I stopped editing for a few years during university, but I thought I should bring it to attention. Davidmhaley (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I just posted a level 2 warning on the user's talk page. There have only been two acts of vandalism in the past month, so no further action is needed. Andrew³²⁷ 21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I should have been more clear, I wasn't so much concerned with the user as the large chunk of (good?) information (section titled episcopacy) that was deleted and doesn't appear to have been re-added. I was going to undo the changes but it appears that is no longer an option after today's events.Davidmhaley (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia servers use

The peak on the right.

Wikipedia servers use between yesterday and today. From 50,000 to 70,000 requests per second with habemus papam. emijrp (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Statistics can be fun. The dips during the nights are much bigger than this peak, in spite of English Wikipedia likely being used all over the world. Railie May (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Very cool. I've tried playing with data dumps but they smash my computer. Are the hourly pageviews available as their own download? If so, it would be interesting to play with them in R or STATA and see just how big the jump is. Andrew³²⁷ 23:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The files are here, I think. 88.148.249.186 (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

First Jesuit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Francis is not the first jesuit elected as pope, to my knowledge. At least one predecessor (Leo_XIII#Early_life) was a member of the jesuit order.

Many reliable sources, including this one, have verified that he is the first Jesuit. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So what matters is the so-called "reliable sources" - even if they are inaccurate. The truth does not come into it, does it?

EDIT Indeed Leo XIII only attended jesuit education and later became a "regular" clergy and not a member of the jesuit order (same Leo_XIII#Early_life entry i quoted myself!). Then yes, nevermind, he's the first one!

Haha, OK. Yes, Leo XIII was Jesuit-educated only. ;) --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

suggest removal of prophecy material

I suggest removal of the recently-added "connection to prophecy" section. The marginal news sources given are not enough to warrant inclusion of this tangentially-related superstition into this biography. --Allen (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I added that content because it is of great interest to the public- you wouldn't believe how many stores I have seen in the last weeks about the prophecy of the popes (which by the way has its own very long article so it can't be that marginal. As for the sources- I'd think a book, news stories, blog entries, and material from the catholic encyclopedia should be enough sources for a short section on the prophetic connections. I'll post this properly sourced section again if it is deleted. I will however if given time find more sources as I am certain larger news sites will pic up the scoop. Twarwick666 (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It might be relevant in some other context, but it doesn't have much to do with the subject of this article. Of the sources you cited, only the blog post (which doesn't count as a reliable source in this context anyway) even mentions Francis. --Allen (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I attempted to add other content that got caught by a spam filter- it seems some sites with interest in such subjects try to advertize themselves here. Nonetheless- this is clearly a peripheral subject deserving of at least a small section- someone moved it to the bottom of the article (which in retrospect is appropriate for it) and I will continue to look for other sources tonight- but I have no plans on removing a topic which many people are interested in, and for which there are multiple sources. All I hear right now on sites I am used to is thousands of people talking about apocalypse. Twarwick666 (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Of interest to people" isn't necessarily notable, regardless of how well it is sourced. The prophecy is not really accepted among mainstream Catholics, so I question its relevance. But even if the section as a whole is appropriate, I STRONGLY question the inclusion of several sentences about the Horn book. How is it even remotely relevant to the topic or notable? That book may have predicted that Benedict would step down, but the prophecy of the popes (the actual subject of that section) most certainly did not. (TPS Report (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC))

For that manner, none of the other recent popes (I checked back to Paul VI) has any material about the prophecy on their pages. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. People on message boards chattering about an apocalypse has little relevance for an entry that's supposed to reflect actual information about an actual person. I say scrap the section on this page. The prophecy has its own page for those interested. Adding that information here is like including a section for Lincoln's ghost on his main page. Piecesof8 (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If it's a media phenomenon that's reliably sourced as such then it deserves a section, at least until the furore dies down, but all non-reliable sources should definitely be removed. --xensyria^T 00:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

First from the Americas full stop

"Francis is the first Jesuit and the first Latin American to be elected Pope."

He is the first pope from the Americas full stop. The entire western hemisphere. I don't know why it needs to be narrowed down to Latin America.

Should be: "Francis is the first Jesuit and the first from the Americas to be elected Pope." --86.40.200.32 (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

idk why it was changed. i changed it back. Aunva6 (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Connection to Prophecy

This section should be either removed or severely trimmed.

• "supposedly authored by Saint Malachy although some contend a more recent date of authorship" - it's not "some that contend that" and espouse an alternative view. Those holding to this apocryphal authorship are the fringe.
• "the 266th pope to be elected (and the 112th pope on the list this text gives) will be the final pope" - the "prophecy" doesn't say that at all. It merely lists popes and supposed mottos with "gloria olivae" (supposedly Benedict XVI) being the last. Then, there's a bit about Petrus Romanus attached (not actually part of the prophecy) speaks of "extreme/final persecution" and the "end of the world", not merely something about a last pope.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes is both ignored AND cited as a source - both are no-nos
• Thomas Horn's "Petrus Romanus: The Final Pope is Here." might be relevant to the Prophecy, but how is it relevant to Pope Francis?
• "Multiple news and online sources were quick, in the hours after Francis' election, to seize upon the story (from both skeptical and open viewpoints) pointing to the proliferation of apocalyptic predictions in the wake of the conclave."
  Finally some reference to the conclave, even if not to Pope Francis, who after all is the topic. However, how reliable are the sources? And wordings like "skeptical and open viewpoints" should make anyone cringe who believes in NPOV.

To sum it up, this section has no relevance to the topic of the article at all. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's puzzling why this has appeared. There was prior to his election a lot of coverage on it. But since his election any press references have been a long the lines of "he doesn't fit the prophecy" DeCausa (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The text as it currently stands relies heavily on a bunch of fringe sources, none of which are reliable. DHN (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I keep reverting edits of it is because there are one or two news sources that talked about it. I could personally care less about it, but I think it might be relevant to the article simply because it has been discussed int the news. Perhaps I'm wrong though. As for the sources, it does look like one or two are dubious Countered (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

None of the cited sources mention Pope Francis. The only news source was prior to his election. It got press prior to his election, but since his election any coverage has been "it's a non-event, he doesn't fit the prophecy". this should just be deleted. DeCausa (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that the prophecy stuff should go. A discussion of how Pope Francis doesn't fit the silly prophecy might belong in the article on the prophecy itself, but not here. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I also feel this section did not belong in the article. As a mostly-lurker these days, it read to me like a crank theory. I believe putting it here went against WP:FRINGE. I hope this section stays out of the article. Samboy (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Just "re-deleted" this fringe section. Does not belong in this article. Already has its own article. Hope you guys keep up the good work, keeping fringe material like this out of this article. Scott P. (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I also think we should remove that section. Right now, the new Pope is hot news and basically every piece of information lurking around finds its way into the mass media. We should be a bit more conservative. Once the "new Pope" effect dies down, and he's just the Pope, how often can we expect to read about this fringe theory? Cambalachero (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing much in the way of references to the connection given the sources I've seen so far, it feels to me that mentioning it (or, at least, making more than a bare mention of it) would be UNDUE. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Meh, I hadn't seen this. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I put a warning on twarrwick666's userpage as he's the author of the blog, and of the edit on the the wiki page. He seemingly doesn't care that it keeps getting removed. Countered (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Languages

Can someone please explain why the sentence regarding the languages Pope Francis speaks has been moved to the 'Papacy' section? Surely this has nothing to do with his position as pope and should be in the summary.Tmaynes (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) : I don't know why it was moved to that section, but it was (I presume) moved out of the lead because it doesn't belong in the lead--the lead should summarize the information in the rest of the article. It's not a catch-all for other trivia. See MOS:LEAD. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could rename/refactor "Early life" to "Childhood and education" or some such, and include it there? --j⚛e decker^talk 00:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I support Joe Decker's suggestion. Andrew³²⁷ 00:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi Protected

Please unprotect this page as I believe I could contribute positively to this work. Mfribbs (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Judging by your edit history on your first day as a Wikipedian, you should spend some time getting to know our policies, especially before jumping into one of the most popular pages of the moment. You are highly encouraged to write your suggestions here for consideration. Andrew³²⁷ 00:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify which change do you want to make to the article Cambalachero (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Addition of Source

Under the "Homosexuality" subsection the last sentence reading "He has also stated that adoption by same-sex couples is a form of discrimination against children." This is unsourced currently but the quote he said is "At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God." This can be found here: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal_bergoglio_hits_out_at_same-sex_marriage.

The interpretation of his statement is WP:OR and it should be removed per WP:BLP. Andrew³²⁷ 01:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 13 March 2013 - Homosexuality

I believe the first sentence under the Homosexuality subheading was written out of context with the cited source 40, Catholic Online: "NEW POPE: Who is this man named Bergoglio?" The sentence in the Wikipedia article states, "Bergoglio has affirmed church teaching on homosexuality, including that "men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect and compassion." However, Catholic Online states in the opening sentence of the twelvth paragraph, "Among his teachings and stands, he strongly affirms church teaching on the intrinsic immorality of homosexual practices, though he teaches the importance of respecting homosexual persons." Wikipedia article did not specify that Cardinal Bergoglio strongly affirmed church teaching on the INTRINSIC IMMORALITY of homosexual practices.

Thank you.

Brian Glad

There should be a wikilink to Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism at the first mention of his supporting church policy. That way readers so inclined will have a place to go to learn more about what church policy really means. Andrew³²⁷ 01:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Andrew³²⁷ 01:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

References

I know this goes against the usual way of doing things, but so many editors are adding <ref> tags that it's easier to temporarily add a reflist here than go through each link and try to figure out what it says. This can be removed once the editstorm dies down. Andrew³²⁷ 01:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Updated to {{reflist-talk}}. --xensyria^T 01:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Date of election

Please change the elction date to the 13th of March, not the 14th. It is not yet the 14th in Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.108.94.129 (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Today is the 13th... Even in Europe. :) --91.56.37.184 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Was just about to come and say the same thing. Change the date, please. --91.152.235.120 (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

DoneAbductive (reasoning) 19:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

isn't he pope francis? Not pope francis I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.200.32 (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Francis I as Popes are always given an ordinal number. Kilonum (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No, he's Francis I according to most sources. He's using the oridinal like John Paul I did. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Date fixed to the 13th Pieism (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Not elected on 14th

its still 13th of march, even in iraq time zone 85.26.186.107 (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)  Done by other editors. Andrew³²⁷ 20:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Not elected on 7:06 PM

Francis wasn't elected on 7:06 PM, but 7:06 PM (local time) was the white smoke. This means the votes were already counted, so he was already elected. A native speaker asked to put this in a nice sentence. --Sanderd17 (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Why should this detail even be relevant? Str1977 ^(talk) 21:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the time of election doesn't matter. The date is important, but no need to be that specific. Andrew³²⁷ 20:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Are we sure about which Saint the Pope has his name from?

Francis Solanus (The patron saint of Argentina) makes more sense than Francis of Assisi

He may be playing the "sounds like" game though

"For twenty years Francis worked at evangelizing the vast regions of Tucuman (present day northwestern Argentina) and Paraguay. He had a skill for languages and succeeded at learning many of the regions' native tongues in a fairly short period. It is claimed that he could also address tribes of different tongues in one language yet be understood by them all. Being a musician as well, Francis also played the violin frequently for the natives, which helped them relate better to him. He is often depicted playing this instrument."

Spandox (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

He will announce this --Guerillero | My Talk 19:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Until he announces it, why guess that it was St. Francis of Assisi? Aren't BLPs supposed to have facts? Tied to citations? not guesses? Even good ones? -69.225.10.37 (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

from what I get around (I'm Italian) he's a compromise Pope between the "Roman/Italian" faction and the "global" one, and Francis of Assisi is the Patron of Italy (on top of being an italo-argentine and elder enough to assure a Conclave when the usual Italian/Roman power struggle are sorted out) dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's official that it is Francis of Assisi per http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/13/cardinals-elect-new-pope/ "The new pope took the name Francis in honor of St. Francis of Assisi because he is a lover of the poor, Vatican spokesman the Rev. Tom Rosica told CNN." wxwalsh 21:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Francis of Assisi

Is this actually confirmed? I've heard various reports that it was after Francis Xavier, which would make more sense consider he was the co-founder of the Order of Jesuits. Do we have any confirmation about which man he chose the name for? Morhange (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think this is factual, just speculation, because many people think "of Assisi" when they hear Francis... User:geerlingguy (talk)

Yes, I think, its Francis of Assisi and not Francis Xavier... I just followed the discussions of the specialists and highest member of Catholic Church with live broadcasting on German TV.... and they all referred to the Franciscan Order. One of the speakers was a journalist of Vatikan Radio/TV and she same referred to... User:ElJay_Arem

Both Francis Xavier and Francis of Assisi were great Saints of profound secular importance as well It probably doesn't matter if he ever claims which St. Francis. Both were giants in the eyes of the faithful, with tremendous legacies, including huge contribution to secular learning, as well as to the development of the faithful in difficult times.

Either would be beacons for the 21st century and worthy models for the Bishop of Rome.

From what we have heard of his life, it is likely he knows and prays to both of them, as both seem to have had obvious influence in his character.

DrKC MD (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's official that it is Francis of Assisi per http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/13/cardinals-elect-new-pope/ "The new pope took the name Francis in honor of St. Francis of Assisi because he is a lover of the poor, Vatican spokesman the Rev. Tom Rosica told CNN." wxwalsh 21:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Vatican spokesmen" such as the Rev. Rosica don't actually speak with any particular authority. The Vatican has made no official statement on the inspiration for the choice of name, which is much more likely to be Francis Xavier than Francis of Assisi. Bergoglio's movements over the next day or two may give an indication, and there may be an official announcement. But until then I don't think we should be stating outright that the name is in honour of Francis of Assisi. Nestor.mcnab (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Being the the spokesmen are the source for the information that will end up being quoted in articles like the one linked, I think their statements are far more authority than your personal judgment that another choice is more likely. wxwalsh 22:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It was said during a press conference where it looked quite clear that they were basically reading it from what the pope said to be honest. I think it's fairly clear and was most defiantly an 'official' statement. James of UR (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Assisi or Xavier? Or some other?

Article says he took the name of St. Francis of Assisi. I believe that but need a citation (that I can read). Otherwise, might not St. Francis Xavier, cofounder of Jesuits, seem a reasonable assumption also? --Kbh3^rdtalk 19:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

None of the citations link to anything that says he selected St. Francis after Francis of Assisi. Can this be cited to something that states exactly which St. Francis? Why not the Jesuit St. Francis, after all? Seems like a good guess, Francis of Assisi, but, really are BLPs made of guesses?

If this is confined to registered users, please, to the registered users, stick with facts that you can cite. -69.225.10.37 (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

CBS is currently saying that it's Assisi. CNN's blog originally stated that it was Assisi, before the comment was removed. Xavier has also been brought up, according to some other editors. It looks like no one knows for sure at the moment.--xanchester (t) 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Remember that it's more important to be right than it is to be quick, and it's more important to be verifiable than it is to be right. --Kbh3^rdtalk 19:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

CBS is also spelling Assis, "Assissi." I agree with Kbh3rd, especially with news events where it has been found out that news sources, probably not CBS one hopes, get their information from Wikipedia. If we don't know for fact from somewhere else, let's not include it until we do. Simple, even if Assisi is probably a good guess, we're not here to report our guesses or prove our cleverness, it's just the facts that we can tie to reliable sources. . -69.225.10.37 (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

20:04pm GMT The BBC, EWTN and Vatican Radio are all saying that no announcement has yet been made about WHO he has named himself after. there are many possibilities. The guesses of presenters and journalists from big USA TV News broadcasters like the CNN carries no weight. Can I suggest we delete the guesses about his name and wait.

Anruari (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The media is going to point to Francis of Assisi because he is well known to people outside the church (like the media, in general). Francis Xavier is a co-founder of the pope's own order, so it is very hard to believe that the pope does not have Francis Xavier in mind. The great thing with names is that they can mean many things at the same time. Benedict XVI cited several reasons for choosing his name, and I can say the same about the names I gave my own kids. Let's cut out any speculation, even from the media, until we hear the pope give his own reasons. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the best course of action right now is to wait for something that qualifies as reliable.--xanchester (t) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Its Francis of Assisi and not Francis Xavier... I just followed the discussions of the specialists and highest member of Catholic Church with live broadcasting on German TV.... and they all referred to the Franciscan Order. One of the speakers was a journalist of Vatikan Radio/TV and she same referred to... User:ElJay_Arem

I would be doubly wary of citing CBS's assertion of Assisi. I watched the CBS webcast of the announcement, and the monsignor they had on the air assumed Assisi, with no documentation, as soon as the name was announced.

It's official that it is Francis of Assisi per http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/13/cardinals-elect-new-pope/ "The new pope took the name Francis in honor of St. Francis of Assisi because he is a lover of the poor, Vatican spokesman the Rev. Tom Rosica told CNN." wxwalsh 21:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust anything in the popular press at present, whether it's in Germany, the United States or elsewhere. Much of their so-called reporting on this matter has been a series of rumors and speculation. For all we know, the name "Francis" may be in tribute to both St. Francis of Assisi and St. Francis Xavier. Then again, it might be in tribute to Francis the Talking Mule. Instead of guessing, I recommend waiting for official announcements from the Vatican at their Web site or through the Vatican Information Service. As I write this, the last news release merely states that the Pope-elect has chosen the name "Francis". We'll have the correct answer soon enough. — Quicksilver^{T @} 02:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said above wxwalsh, that is not official confirmation. Official confirmation would come from Bergoglio himself, the Vatican press office, information service or website. For the time being we need to remove the part of the article where it mentions "in honour of St. Francis of Assisi". It is speculation only at this point.Nestor.mcnab (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Being the the spokesmen are the source for the information that will end up being quoted in articles like the one linked, I think their statements are far more authority than your personal judgment that another choice is more likely. That he spoke wrong or without authority is the real speculation being made by you, in an attempt to substitute his ability to speak with authority with your own judgment that you think another answer is more likely. We have several authoritative sources quoting someone who has color of credibility to make official statements, and nothing to back up personal guesses that claim they can't be right. wxwalsh 22:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2013

In the lead paragraph, please expand the following:

Francis is the first pope from outside of Europe in more than a millennium, the first from the Americas, and the first from the Southern Hemisphere.

To this:

Francis is the first pope from outside of Europe in more than a millennium, the first from the Americas, and the first from the Southern Hemisphere or the Western Hemisphere.

Articulant (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems like tautology. The Americas are in the Western Hemisphere. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 20:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, he is the 265th successor to Peter, which means he is the 266th Pope... --151.27.46.185 (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. He's not the first from the Western Hemisphere. My fellow countryman Pope Adrian IV was certainly born in the Western Hemisphere, and may not have been the first either - there have been at least four others, since parts of France and Spain and all of Portugal are in the Western Hemisphere. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Western Hemisphere does not include those parts of Europe west of the Prime Meridian. RNealK (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Follow your own Western Hemisphere link: it explicitly contradicts you in the first paragraph. 86.46.247.124 (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Arguably Pope Adrian IV was from the western hemisphere, since he came from west of the Prime Meridian, and what about Category:Portuguese Popes, technically Portugal is in the Western Hemisphere as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Once the dust settles

Once the flurry of editing dies down, the article should be expanded with biographical details. I suggest:

• More on his family, who his siblings are and what they do, parents alive or dead?
• What high school he attended
• Dates of graduations
• Writings, usually cardinals have written articles, theses, things like that
• More details on his duties in his various positions. Yes, these are linked to articles on those positions, but this is a very important article and people shouldn't have to click through. Additionally, he may have performed those duties with some personal flair.
• Consensus opinion on why he was papabili in 2005 and in 2013.
• Is he a moderate, a conservative, a mix?
• Has he been elected as a caretaker or does he have an agenda?
• Known health issues?

Does anybody have any details they would like added to the article? Abductive (reasoning) 20:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't think of anything outside the obvious, but I would like to remind people of the {{inuse}} tag. use it, respect it, help avoid conflicts on large edits. I had to go through at least six conflicts just to add the conclave to 'see also'. it would be frustrating to make a large edit, then have to redo it because of a conflict. Aunva6 (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Height and weight, perhaps? More of an athlete thing, but this guy is fairly tall. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And a move back to Pope Francis I. Since popes always have ordinals. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Aren't there enough sections about that on this page already? See List of popes for a bunch who don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sandro Magister has a nice article in 2002 that addressed a lot of these questions before the biases of his fame took over http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1335696?eng=y 209.116.238.162 (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hatnote to Vicar of Christ character required or not?

This article needs a hatnote to Vicar of Christ (novel), because that is where Pope Francis I redirected until the present pope's name was announced and trafic stats show that it is consistently used[2]. Because of the page moving I've had to add it three times, so I'll add a note here so whomever moves it can fix it if it moves again. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article title	Hatnote
Pope Francis	{{redirect|Pope Francis I|the fictional pope in the 1979 Walter Murphy novel|Vicar of Christ (novel)}}
Pope Francis I	{{for|the fictional pope in the 1979 Walter Murphy novel|Vicar of Christ (novel)}}

(edit conflict) I've just restored the hatnote again after it was removed for being "non-notable". As noted above, a redirect from Pope Francis I has been used to access the Vicar of Christ (novel) page since 2008, and traffic stats show it was in use for that purpose as recently as yesterday. Breaking long-standing links harms the project. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The statistics page you mention show that it is pretty much never used. 53 views in the past 60 days? And most of those probably weren't really looking for the vicar of christ character or were some kind of automated bot or something. This article, which will now become a top importance topic does not need a hatnote to an article that doesn't even share the same name. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That's just silly. Dab notes are there to help readers getting to the right article. Nobody (0r less than 0.0001%) will be typing in Pope Francis I and be looking for that obscure novel. Having the hat note at the very top of this extremely prominent article, is just stupid and distracting to the readers. I'll remove it again. Shanes (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

53 views in 60 days is a very large amount for a redirect of that nature. Real people (bots are responsible for no more than 2-3 hits/month per just about every RfD where this topic is brought up, so about 4-6 in 60 days) have been using that link to reach the article for almost 5 years, why would they stop now? It would be on a dab page if there were other uses, but there aren't so it goes in a hatenote which does absolutely nothing to detract from the article. Restoring per standard practice. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• The hatnote belongs. If there is any chance of someone wanting a different article, a hatnote is the proper way to handle the situation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Such a weak standard would lead to endless disambiguation pages and useless hatnotes for obscure characters. Standard practice is not to include such worthless hatnotes which are often just advertising in disguise. Now, if the novel had been called "Pope Francis"? Sure, disambig link. But characters are a dime a dozen. SnowFire (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

What you describe as a "weak standard" is the one that exists by consensus, and is no more advertising than any other hatnote on Wikipedia is advertising. If the novel is notable enough for an article (a quick look suggests this has never been discussed) then the name of the central character of the novel is a likely search term. The standard for a redirect that is repeatedly endorsed at RfD is simply that it be a "plausible" search term. Obviously the actual pope is now the primary topic for the search term, which is why it was retargetted here and the non-primary topic gets a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

SnowFire, please remember to assume good faith. No one is trying to "advertise" for anything. The link to the book existed long before the name Francis was even chosen. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

ThaddeusB: That was not meant to be an accusation at you; my apologies if it came off that way. That said, while I do not believe you are advertising here, I've certainly seen it used as such in the past - "For the prize-winning independently published 2003 novel by FirstName LastName, see Link" or the like. I believe that using such character hatnotes too lightly will help self-promoters elsewhere, because they'll think it's an acceptable practice. SnowFire (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And it detracts from the article by being the very first thing the readers sees when they just want to learn about the pope. Your dab link is just a character in an extremely obscure novel. Not worth it and it makes the article look silly. You have added it 6 times now, way passed the 3RR rule. Please stop it. Shanes (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you are arguing more about the use of hatlinks at all, rather than in this particular case. The standard seems to be MORE than met here for the hatlink, if you want the policy to be changed, then advocate that, don't try to implement a policy change in this way. I say put it back. wxwalsh 21:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Shanes: If you want to argue that hatnotes are "silly" or that they "detract from the article" then go and argue the policy at Wikipedia:Hatnote. This is the first occasion in about six years of editing that I've ever heard such a ridiculous assertion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not advocating a change of policy. The fact is that "Pope Francis I" in the context of the novel is entirely nonnotable. If you wrote an article about that character it wuold not survive. The novel itself is possibly not even notable - it has few incoming links and no references.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

notability isn't the issue here. User experience is. And obvious it HAS been being used, and I can speak from my own experience I often search for character names on wikipedia, and am sure I am not alone in that. The stats speak for it being used, consistently. That justifies it. wxwalsh 21:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Redirecting the names of characters to the works of fiction they appear in is encouraged because it discourages the creation of articles about topics that are notable only within the context of a larger subject. If you want to nominate the article for deletion go ahead (I didn't know about it before today), but neither having no references nor having few incoming links are reasons for deletion. As long as the article exists, the name of the central character is a very likely search term for it. If there are other uses of "Pope Francis" (I've not looked) then, depending on their number, they should either be added to the hatnote or a disambiguation page created and linked to from here.

Anyway, the central reason for that hatnote is that without it links have been broken, and that is a Bad Thing. I have asked at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation for additional input into this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hatnote is fine. Added a reference for the novel, a Princeton magazine review, describes it as a "bestseller." LCS check (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, Google search shows other books having fictional Pope Francis. [3], [4], [5], [6] LCS check (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose / Remove hatnote the hatnote directing to a 1976 book featuring a "Pope Francis" and by a minor author. There are lots of world leaders; the top of their articles do not have hatnotes directing readers to minor works of fiction with characters sharing their names. The book being referenced has low and almost negligible traffic to it in its recent history. It need not be promoted by getting placement here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • What happens on other articles is irrelevant - how many of those world leaders share there name with only one fictional character anyway? I haven't found any - Pope John Paul II, David Cameron, François Hollande, John Key, Elizabeth II, Stephen Harper and Akihito, have multiple other uses on linked dab pages; Pope Benedict XVI, Nick Clegg, Julia Gillard and Jacob Zuma are not ambiguous; Barrak Obama links his father and a dab page, George Bush and President Bush are dab pages; Raúl Castro is ambiguous only with another living person. Thryduulf (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Take this a comment, not as an attempt to assert ownership, since there is no such thing here, but as the original author of the article in question (back in my anon IP days) I'd say whatever pattern is used to disambiguate references to other fictional popes sharing names with real popes should be used. The novel was fairly noteworthy when written, tho it is not particularly well known now. (It was a BOMC book back when that really mattered.) When there was no real Pope Francis I, the redirect from the name of its central character was quite reasonable as there were no other works with wiki entries that had that as the name of a fictional pope. Since LCS check has shown there are others for which a wiki entry could be written, if there is a hatnote, it probably should point to the entry at List_of_fictional_clergy_and_religious_figures#Popes rather than the novel itself. Carolina wren (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Thryduulf, re world leaders: A vaguely relevant case might be Michael Bolton, which does not have a hatnote to the Office Space character - nor does it need one. Office Space is a rather decently known movie, and likely comparable if not greater in relevance to a 1970s book. People who are interested in Office Space likely can still find that article just fine.

Also, as a general comment, the 50 hits per day is considerably smaller than it might seem, because of autocompletion. Enough people type "Pope J..." when looking for Pope John XXIII or whatever; there aren't any other Pope F...s, so it'd autocomplete to Pope Francis if someone typed in F for whatever reason (curiosity? accident), then the person would look at the article. I don't think these are "organic" hits. SnowFire (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep hatnote: Wikipedia precedent supports the hatnote in the same way that it discourages even unused redirects from being deleted. They are designed not to be intrusive, and this is much preferable to having a bullet point in a "popular culture" section. --xensyria^T 01:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose / Delete hatnote: The character is the novel is not named Pope Francis. That is the key fact. If some people accidentally search for the novel under the name of a character who isn't in it, it doesn't deserve a hatnote. If ten thousand people each day accidentally type "Obama" instead of "Osama" in their wikipedia searches, it would not justify a hatnote on Barack Obama's page saying "If you are looking for Osama, click here." The pope in the novel is named "Pope Francesco I". Translating that name to "Francis" is original research -- because that's not his name in the novel. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete hatnote the novel in question never refers to the pope in it as Francis I, but as Francesco I, so there should be no confusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete hatnote I suggest instead Francesco I a disambiguation page in which both Pope Francis and this character are mentioned. werldwayd (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete hatnote, based on User:Lawrence King's findings above. If the name "Pope Francis" isn't even used in the novel in question, a hatnote on such a highly trafficked page seems unwarranted. Oren0 (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. If the character were called "Pope Francis", the hatnote would have to remain for navigational purposes. (The alternatives would have been to create Pope Francis (disambiguation) and hatnote that instead, but that's not needed for two meanings with a primary topic, or move this page to something like Pope Francis (person) and put the disambiguation page at the Pope Francis title.) Navigation of the encyclopedia must be maintained; such hatnote do not "promote their targets" but simply serve the readership. However, since "Pope Francis" is not mentioned in the novel article, there is no Wikipedia ambiguity, and Werlwayd's suggestion of a Fransesco I dab page would work. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  (But if there is confusion with the fictional Pope Francesco, replace with a {{distinguish}} hatnote instead.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  The fact that the character isn't actually called Francis is certainly a significant (and perhaps decisive) factor in this debate, but I'd still like to dispute even your assertion that "the hatnote would have to remain for navigational purposes". The fact is that the character in the book is non-notable, and if anyone added an article about him it would probably not survive AfD. Therefore he shouldn't have a hatnote in this article. I understand that there is a convention of redirecting non-notable subjects to some related notable subject, hence the redirect from the character name to the book name; I don't know if this is official policy (can anyone point me to a guideline?) but in a sense it's harmless; the redirect sits there and doesn't affect the rest of the 'pedia. However, a hatnote is a different beast. It sits there atop the article, distracting readers for a non-notable reason. Again, if there's a policy on this I'd like to see it and maybe start a discussion there. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  The other fact, though, is that characters that are mentioned in articles can be navigated to, by redirects (see {{R from character}} or {{CharR to list entry}}), and in this hypothetical case, the navigational assistance would be needed since the redirect would not lead to information about the character but to a different topic, and disambiguation (via hatnotes in this hypothetical case) is needed, even if WP:LOCALCONSENSUS was against the hatnote. The relevant policies and guidelines are MOS:DABMENTION and WP:HATNOTE. "Hatnotes detract/distract" is not the consensus, and such arguments shouldn't be used in the local discussions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Remove it. I'm reluctant to speak in generalities, but I'm confident that no one who types "Pope Francis" into the search box is looking for a fictional character in an obscure novel from the '70s. The hatnote is useless and distracting. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete the hatnote based on WP:TRHAT, on the reasons cited above, and on the MOS guidance that such issues are "best treated with common sense" (WP:HAT). Bede735 (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Reading WP:TRHAT and common sense tells me that it does not apply here at all, and that situations like this were not what was in mind when it was implemented wxwalsh 16:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxwalsh (talk • contribs)

• Request to close discussion: Since we have had exhaustive discussion on this hatnote matter, and all sides have given their opinions, I think it is high time an administrator or a neutral reviewer studies all the opinions here, reaches once and for all, a concensus conclusion and implement it urgently either way -- Keep or remove, we don't mind -- In my opinion, hatnote should not stay there any much longer if it is deemed there is overwhelming concensus for its removal. werldwayd (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

AIDS victims

"In 2001, he visited a hospice to kiss and wash the feet of twelve AIDS patients."

After repeated edit conflicts, I semi-accidentally deleted this from the homosexuality section (Semi- because the editor putting it in also put in the false claim about "gay rights movement" when the actual quote referred specifically to same-sex marriage.) The AIDS patients are probably notable BUT they don't sit well in that section since it is an overlapping but still distinct issue.

Str1977 ^(talk) 21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I recommend discussing the issue here at length before it ends up at ANI. What would you like that section to look like and what sources do you have to support that? Andrew³²⁷ 21:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

We could have a separate section on AIDS, including the quote above and the contraceptives bit. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a sourced story that has no reason not to be included, if not in the homosexuality section then elsewhere. :Rarohla (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't hit straw-men. I said it was notable but not fitting for that section.

More importantly, will you stop blanket reverting and thereby reinserting other things as well. Francis most likely still "opposes" SSM (hence, not opposed) and he "has called" it "demonic". And "gay adoption" is a POV, contentious neologism which has no place here. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Adoption by homosexuals" is inaccurate. Not all in same-sex relationships are homosexuals (there are also bisexuals). Also, many homosexuals are not in same-sex relationships. He was talking about "adoption by same-sex couples". Can we change that?--В и к и T 21:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If bisexuals are the linguistic issue here, then using the complicated "gay and lesbian" will not help. However, this is about the Pope's/former cardinal's views - if he talked about homosexuals, then that's it.

The same goes for "same-sex couples" - was he talking about adoption by such couples or adoption by homo-/bisexual individuals in general (as those might be single or, though in a relationship, might adopt as an individual)

As I said, the deciding factor is: what did the man say? Str1977 ^(talk) 22:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In that case, we go by what reliable sources say. If you have quote from his speech, than use it, but currently the only source we have states "gay adoption".--В и к и T 22:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we should find the actual quotation - which I haven't got - and use it.

But if you say "reliable sources" - a quick google research that you can find many different wordings, so you cannot cite that principle to insist on this or that wording. And "gay adoption" obviously is a neologism. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

He said this (from Spanish via Google translate)

The Argentine people will face in the coming weeks, a situation whose outcome may seriously injure the family. This is the same-sex marriage bill......In that sense, Bergoglio said that "identity is at stake and the survival of the family: father, mother and children." "At stake is the lives of so many children who are discriminated against in advance depriving them of human growth that God would be given to a father and a mother. At stake is a direct rejection of God's law, also engraved in our hearts" said.

So, he meant "adoption by same-sex couples". I will change that if you don't object.--В и к и T 23:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how you get certainty from that quote. But in any case, I will not revert it for the time being but will add a fuller quote. Agree or disagree, you should quote in such a way that people's opinion can be understood. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It is clear from the quote that Francis' view is that adoption should be done by a married couple consisting of a man and a woman. He does not care what the individual sexual orientation is of the couple, only that it provides a father and a mother.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

When did he become a cardinal?

The article says he became a cardinal in 2001. This BBC source says he became a cardinal in 1998. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

News.va says 2001 also. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Official page of the Buenos Aires archbishopric says 2001 also [7] bcartolo (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Furthermore, the BBC source says he "became Cardinal of Buenos Aires in 1998" - since there's no such thing as a Cardinal fo Buenos Aires, they are obviously conflating two things: his episcopacy of that city and his status as a (Roman) cardinal. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

±±×—– — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0C6:30D0:8855:28B5:B5AB:A5E3 (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Book Title Translations

Since it does not seem Pope Francis' writings are translated into English, there seem to be no official English translations of the writings' titles. I'm not sure if others agree, but I was wondering if posting English translations of the titles could be useful. Thus:

• Meditaciones para religiosos [Meditations for Religious] (1982)
• Reflexiones sobre la vida apostólica [Reflections on the Apostolic Life] (1986)
• Reflexiones de esperanza [Reflections on Hope] (1992)
• Diálogos entre Juan Pablo II y Fidel Castro [Dialogues Between John Paul II and Fidel Castro] (1998)
• Educar: exigencia y pasión [Education: Demand and Passion](2003)
• Ponerse la patria al hombro [Placing the Homeland on His Shoulder](2004)
• La nación por construir [The Nation for Construction] (2005)
• Corrupción y pecado [Corruption and Sin] (2006)
• Sobre la acusación de sí mismo [On the Accusation of the Same] (2006)
• El verdadero poder es el servicio [True Power Is Service] (2007)
• Mente abierta, corazón creyente [Mind Open, Heart Believing] (2012)

These translations are just rough attempts using my knowledge of Spanish. ZajoII (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I imagine that teams of linguists are already working on English translations now that he's pope, I wonder how long the translating will take. Andrew³²⁷ 01:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I would certainly hope they are. I went to amazon dot com to look into his works. Amazon did not have many of them, and what they did have was (already!?) sold out. So then I moseyed over to amazon dot es, the Spanish site. They were sold out too, but what was surprising to naive me was that they had fewer titles than the American site did. Thank you ZajoII for providing this list; Amazon does not seem up to the task, yet. Rwflammang (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Prophecy of the Popes

I have removed a line from the lead/summary section that was just added. The line stated that some people believed Pope Francis was the last Pope, as per the Prophecy of the Popes. The line I removed did make it clear that it was not a widely accepted fact, and it had a single citation (which referenced a news article). I was a little hesitant to remove it as it was not entirely bad content, but I do believe that it didn't belong in the lead to the article. I think it may have been appropriate if it was added as a new section to an article, and discussed in more detail, with reference to more sources.

Please revert my change if you feel I was wrong in removing that. Blelbach (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I support your action 100%; please keep it up. Rwflammang (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Damn, you beat me to it. Hot Stop (Talk) 03:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I will re-add the section I originally authored. As I correctly predicted yesterday in a hotly debated talk section entry, several more major news sources online have taken up the story- therefore I feel (and I am sure others will agree unless they are catholic apologists seeking to block such content on this article) that it now has MORE than enough sources to stand as a section. I hope that yesterdays nonsense edit war will not culminate, yet again, with the section being removed with yet another upstart who has probably not been an editor nearly as long as I have been, messaging me telling me that adding a perfectly properly sourced section is a form of "vandalism" when it clearly is not the case. 71.234.180.139 (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not re-add this without a consensus in that direction being reached here on the talk page.--Philpill691 (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Reality is not necessarily consensus driven- it is now properly sourced, properly formatted, and certainly pertains to the issue at hand. Again though, I am obviously used to skeptics removing my content (however well sourced) due to their own bias. Twarwick666 (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

"Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." Wikipedia is consensus driven. And I have no bias, and don't appreciate being accused.--Philpill691 (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of Pope Francis on Prophecy of the Popes talk page

There's been some edit warring relating to Pope Francis on the Prophecy of the Popes talk page (e.g. relating to additions to that page about the theories that Pope Francis is the prophesied last pope). I don't believe there are as many people watching that page as there are watching this one, so I'd appreciate it if some of the editors here could take a look at Prophecy of the Popes and its talk page. My primary concern is that unreliable sources (e.g. online forums, news media) are being cited as sources there in a way that distorts what appears to be a fringe viewpoint. Blelbach (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

I wrote a slightly improved lead section with two paragraphs (based on Pope Benedict XVI) since it is the first thing people see when they come here. It didn't even mention Bergoglio's birthplace or anything, and it didn't make for an easy read. Please check it is OK and swap the current one with this.

Francis (/ˈfrænsɪs/, /ˈfrɑːnsɪs/; Latin: Franciscus [franˈtʃiskus]; born Jorge Mario Bergoglio on 17 December 1936) is current pope of the Catholic Church. He serves as the 266th[ref name="guardian"/] pope, having been elected on 13 March 2013. In that role, he is both the leader of the Catholic Church and sovereign ruler of the Vatican City State.

A native of Buenos Aires, Bergoglio was ordained as a priest in 1969. From 1998 until 2013, he served as the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, and Pope John Paul II made him a cardinal in 2001. Elected as pope in 2013 following his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI's resignation, Bergoglio chose "Francis" as his name. This marked the first time in papal history that this name had been used, and was the first time since Pope Lando's brief 913 reign that a serving pope held a name unused by a predecessor. Francis is both the first Jesuit priest and the first native of the Americas to be elected Pope. He is also the first non-European pope since Syrian-born Pope Gregory III, who died in 741.

Looks good to me, I will apply it. Thanks for your efforts! Blelbach (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

New photo

I suggest changing the photo to this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/catholicism/8555995062/ Danny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.87.126.82 (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Rationale? The one you posted is a (IMHO) a little blurry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blelbach (talk • contribs) 03:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The licensing isn't right anyway—it has the NC endorsement. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

New languages

Could someone with the administrative rights add the following link (the Hindi language site): http://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%AB%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B8 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esprungo (talk • contribs) 03:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This is now handled by editing the wikidata page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography

I would like to request that the following works by Pope Francis be moved from the Writings section to the Book section in the Bibliography. I am providing the ISBN numbers for the,:

• Diálogos entre Juan Pablo II y Fidel Castro [Dialogues Between John Paul II and Fidel Castro] (1998) 9789875070745
• Educar: exigencia y pasión [To Educate: Exactingness and Passion] (2003) 950-512-457-0
• Ponerse la patria al hombro [Putting the Motherland on One's Shoulders] (2004) 950-512-558-5
• La nación por construir [The Nation to Be Built] (2005) 950-512-546-1
• Corrupción y pecado [Corruption and Sin] (2006) 9789505125722
• Sobre la acusación de sí mismo [On Self-Accusation] (2006) 950-512-549-6
• El verdadero poder es el servicio [True Power Is Service] (2007) 978-950-512-628-6
• Mente abierta, corazón creyente [Open Mind, Believing Heart] (2012) 978-950-512-778-8

Additionally, two more books may also be included as follows:

• Nosotros como ciudadanos, nosotros como pueblo : hacia un bicentenario en justicia y solidaridad 2010-2016 (2011) 9505127448 - Educar, elegir la vida. Propuestas para tiempos difíciles. 950-512-541-0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helenab (talk • contribs) 03:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Various firsts

Clearly, he is the first pope who was born in the New World, the Southern Hemisphere, etc. I would be careful about saying he is a "non-European pope" though. Clearly, he is 100% Argentinian, but he is also 100% of Italian descent. Just say he is the "first pope not born in Europe" since the Middle Ages or something to that effect.

Also, I wonder if he could be argued to be the first pope with a formal scientific education? He had some kind of technical education in chemistry, I suppose, that doesn't make him a "scientist" in the narrow sense, but it's probably still uncommon for the higher ranks in the church. --dab (𒁳) 06:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In Argentina everyone is hyphenated, further it isn't like the United States. Latin America in general is very VERY assimilationist, so you are identified by other people as hyphenated only if you are e.g. Asian. He having European parents makes of him a white Argentine, not a European Argentine (I think it is based on the mentality rooted in the culture of criollo ≠ peninsular, in Brazil we have the similar mazombo ≠ reinol). Since he's a conservative and over his life one with strong ties to Italy as an important authority of Roman Catholicism I don't really know if he feels like an Italian, but usually we find very foreign this thing of cultivating longing for a country we haven't been born in, and I think Latin Americans in general are also quite "jealous" of North Americans identifying more with Europeans rather than the other Americans (in all of Spanish and Portuguese it is a single continent). South Americans in general have a sense of belonging to their respective South American countries, can their parents be Russian, French or Greek, Icelander, Irish or Bulgarian, Swedes, Swiss or Syrians, period, you won't see people of British or Anglo-American ancestry being unsupportive of Argentina for the Falkands for example, in regions where people are of German descent you will have both an Oktoberfest and a carnaval. Lguipontes (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

exactly my point. So why make a claim if we do not need to? If we say "the first not born in Europe since 1200 years", we will be both correct and avoid this entire tangent on ethnicity. --dab (𒁳) 14:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

He is also the first native Spanish-speaker since Pope Alexander VI (Borja/Borgia), which oddly hasn't been mentioned in any media coverage I've seen .... Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

We should only mention things that are supported by sources. If no one mentions he is the "first native Spanish speaker" in x years than we should not. However, since his parents were Italian immigrants, are we even sure his mother tongue was Spanish?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Actually the "Dallas Morning News" claimed he was the "first Hispanic Pope", but that is rubbish since Pope Alexander VI was born in Spain. The "Los Angeles Times" claimed he was the first Pope who "Shares the mother tongue of many Latin Americans", but that is not really supported coming or going. It is unclear Spanish is his mother tongue and it is even less likely he is the first Pope to have Spanish as a mother tongue. So I think we would be best off not using this. This is from the media that also claimed that Tim Scott was among the first Republican Afircan-Americans elected to congress from "the south" since "reconstruction". That was clearly not true on the second point, and was only true for a given value of "the South" for the first point. The media likes to hype "first"s even when they really do not hold up under scrutiny. We should not repeat information that is verafiably incorrect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

'Pope' needs to be included in the introduction.

The word Pope needs to be included in the introduction, as this title has now become part of his regnal name.

There have been rulers from the Kingdom of France and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies that used the name 'Francis'. There should be no confusion. - (203.211.70.12 (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC))

Other pope pages (such as Benedict XVI) don't precede the Pope's name, so I think this is fine. Blelbach (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

it's strange because noone is calling him just "francis" but always "pope francis", the absence of the numeral makes the simple "francis" a bit odd --SquallLeonhart_ITA (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

The phrase "first non-European pope since the 8th century" in the lede should link to Pope Gregory III so people don't have to look for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.1.233 (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed and done.--Itemirus (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 March 2013

As Cardinal he arranged for the faithful access to Latin mass:

http://edant.clarin.com/diario/2007/09/17/sociedad/s-03001.htm

Moon48 (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Done Vilĉjo (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Date of lung operation

The article states he had a lung removed as a teenager. Spanish-language sources (such as this) say it was removed shortly after he became a priest in 1969. This needs to be carefully checked.--Ipigott (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

ref here gives detail, unlike original which throws away "as a child" (nothing about teenager). Article amended. Pol098 (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: name

The Pope named himself Franciscus after Francis of Assisi as Cardinal Dolan stated] during a conference; the source is in Italina, but I am sure you can easily found something in English. --Chessstoria (3 s) ^{(All your base are belong to us)} 10:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessstoria (talk • contribs) You're contradicting yourself: First, you say he took the name after Francis of Assisi; then you say it's after Francis Xavier. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjpk6269 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is not clear yet, no official announcement was made. We need a "Quote" to verify this. On the earlier hours Wikipedia said it was because of Francisco Javier http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Javier — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.59.159 (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It has now been stated in numerous reliable sources, including The Guardian, Seattle Times, NBC News, Huffington Post, CNN, LA Times, etc. etc. Andrew³²⁷ 22:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Name conflict

You're contradicting yourself: First, you say he took the name after Francis of Assisi; then you say it's after Francis Xavier. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjpk6269 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

We don't know yet. The names Francis of Assisi and Francis Xavier have been speculatively proposed by various news agencies as the Pope's namesake, but the Vatican Information Service as of late yesterday merely stated the new Pope and been styled "Francis". Any references to either saint in the Wikipedia article is due to editors jumping the gun and not availing themselves of best references. — Quicksilver^{T @} 23:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate Footnote from the Guardian

Footnote 23 (from the guardian) cites the article to prove a claim that the Guardian article subsequently retracted. The text of the wikipedia article should be amended to reflect the Guardian's 2013 retraction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.200.8 (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Another incorect sourcing: "English fluency"

User Scottperry has with intend to defraud introduced "information" that is nowhere to be found in that very clear and easy to read source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/13/new-pope-thirteen-key-facts) regarding an English fluency that is apparenty inexistent. Must be reverted. 217.81.135.124 (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No intent to defraud anyone my friend.... I just was in the middle of an edit. I've since worked further on it, which see below. I'm sure Bergoglio must speak "some" English, he's an educated man in the 21st century. I hope we can have an accurate accounting of it in this article. Scott P. (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect translation of quotations and improper combination of quotations from source

In the discussion of the Pope's positions on poverty and inequality, there is the sentence: During a May 2010 speech in Argentina regarding the poor, he directed his message to the wealthy by saying: "You avoid taking into account the poor. We have no right to duck down, to lower the arms carried by those in despair. . . ." This is an overly literal and incorrect translation of a quote from La Nación. When interpreting or translating, the goal is to accurately convey meaning and ideas, not words, from the source language to the target language. Also, the Wikipedia entry takes from the La Nación article two different quotes and combines them as if they were a single quote. It is inappropriate to treat exact quotations in such a manner. The discussion of the Pope´s comments about the poor should be re-written as follows: During a May 2010 speech in Argentina regarding the poor, he chastised "the comfortable" whom "avoided considering" the poor, saying: "We have no right to look away, to turn down the raised arms of the desperate. . . . " Rodneygriffith (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)rodneygriffith

Views on Traditionalism

This section says nothing about his views, but only cites to an article that says there were no extraordinary form masses in Buenos Aires while he was Bishop. That does not mean he opposes them. This should be moved to the section on his episcopal career, and not in his "views" until we know what his view on Traditionalism is. 209.116.238.162 (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The article claims that Bergoglio is the "sworn enemy" of the Latin Mass. That seems to me to express a certain view of his, no? He clearly is not a "By the Book" traditionalist. I think that this section needs to be expanded rather than moved away from a discussion about his views. Find out more about this, no?Scott P. (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

At the outset there seem to be somewhat conflicting refs on this. Traditionalists are saying that the new pope is against the restoration of Latin Mass, while the most recent ref makes it clear that he at least is not "strict" on this. Perhaps time will tell.Scott P. (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The previously-linked article was long (and loud) on opinions but cited no facts. The underlying information was from the Rorate Cæli website, which even many traditionalist Catholics regard as pretty extreme and borderline sede-vacantist. While I don't think anyone imagines that Pope Francis is wildly enthusiastic on the subject, the facts hardly support the shrill description of him as a "sworn enemy" of the old Mass. (I've taken the word "Views" out of the heading, as being inappropriate unless and until we can find a public statement of his on the matter.) Vilĉjo (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• If something is "secret" and thus not sourced in a public way we should not include it in the article. We need sources not speculation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis isn't a Traditional Mass fan, but he gave it a home in Buenos Aires within 48 hours after Summorum Pontificum. 209.116.238.162 (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC) http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/03/card-bergoglio-in-2007-after-summorum-pontificum/

Agreed, but judging by the way he seems to have squelched the Latin mass in Argentina, killing it softly (see the article's "Cardinal" section"), this guy seems to me that he might have more political savvy than I first thought! Scott P. (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Argentina's pope a modest man focused on the poor

"Bergoglio withdrew his order's protection of the two men after they refused to quit visiting the slums, which ultimately paved the way for their capture."

Reuters should be a reliable source. The article neither confirms nor denies what happened round the priests arrested and tortured by the junta, it merely cites what an author alleges one of the men said before he died. If Horacio Verbitsky is correct Bergoglio's later identification with poverty could be due to guilt over those two who suffered so much because they continued to visit slums after Bergoglio withdrew protection. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A very insightful comment, Proxima Centauri! Maybe, in spite of the official explanation of the unprecedented papal name Franciscus (Francesco, Francisco, Francis, Franz), its choice by Bergoglio could be only in part a reference to St. Francis of Assisi, and his obvious link with the poor. It could have been chosen, instead, mainly in secret reparation towards the fellow Jesuit Franz Jalics, abandoned in 1976 by his then Provincial Superior Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the hands of the dirty squads of the Argentinian Military Junta. Miguel de Servet (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

All this theorizing about "secret reparation" as the motive for the new pope's regnal name is Original Research. Further, please let me remind you both that "this is not a forum for general discussion about Pope Francis. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article." Thanks. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• If something is a "secret reason" that means it is not publicly known. We need sources that are based on publicly known things, not mere speculation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Here [8] is an NPR blog that supports the view that Francis is for St. Francis of Assisi, and an attempt to avoid being a partisan of the Jesuits against the Franciscans. The later still seems a bit unsourced, but the fact that it is for St. Francis of Assis is supported by Vatican Spokesman Federico Lombardi and Catholic University of America Professor Chad Pecknold, and essentially by Rocco Palmo writting at Whispers in the Loggia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Relations with other religious groups

Would a new section on relations with other religious groups be appropriate. For example, there is an article published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) -- http://www.jta.org/news/article/2013/03/13/3121966/new-pope-francis-i-is-argentinian-cardinal-jorge-maria-bergoglio -- describing his strong positive connections with the Jewish community, specifically mentioning that he was a strong voice condemning the 1994 bombing in Buenos Aires that took 85 lives. NearTheZoo (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Do it! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Went ahead and started the section, with info on his relations to the Jewish community. Hope others can help add info regarding other religious communities, as well.NearTheZoo (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC) --Also added small section on relations with Islamic community, and asked a friend of mine knowledgeable about his ties with the Lutherans of Argentina to consider adding a section on that issue, as well. NearTheZoo (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Please improve on my translation

Could somebody please improve on my translation. In a citation in the 'Relations with the Argentine government' section, near the end of the 'As Provincial' subsection, the headline 'Bergoglio declaró por los sacerdotes desaparecidos' was translated by Google as 'Bergoglio declared missing by priests', and this was used in the citation despite being a clear (and highly pejorative) mistranslation ('desaparecidos' is plural and refers to priests (sacerdotes), not Bergoglio, and 'declaró' is present singular verb ('declares', not 'declared')). I've provisionally changed it to 'Bergoglio testifies about the kidnapped priests', which I am sure is a great deal nearer what the headline says, but I'm not sure it's entirely right, as my Spanish is not very good. First, I don't know whether he was on oath (as 'testify' implies - the article mentions something about the legal immunity of top Church and State officials, so it may just have been a voluntary unsworn deposition). Second, 'por' normally means 'for', so 'for' or 'in favor of' could perhaps be better than 'about' , though 'about' seems to make more sense in this context. Third, 'desaparecidos' means 'disappeared' and normally implies 'dead', but these two priests were once kidnapped and later released, and are neither dead nor missing, so I've said 'kidnapped' (and thought about saying 'formerly kidnapped') but I'm not sure that's the best translation either, especially as it could perhaps refer to 'all the disappeared priests' rather than just these two. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Córdoba

RE: "to serve as confessor and spiritual director in Córdoba."

We know the name of the city, but it sounds like he was assigned to a religious institution, no? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I resolved this. He was assigned to the Jesuit community there. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Age

Lead paragraph says he is 79. He's 76 from all other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.102.215 (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 Done It's been changed to 76. Andrew³²⁷ 22:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Format: move HEALTH section down

I would suggest moving the HEALTH section down so it is not the first topic. While important, it hardly seems like it should be the first section, especially since there are no significant health issues to speak of.
 Done Andrew³²⁷ 21:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Quote

In the quote in the section on homosexuality, there's the following sentence "(that's just it's form)" . I'm pretty sure there ought not to be an apostrophe in the word "its". Nothingbutmeat (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Fluency source

A hidden note next to the listing of Italian as one of his languages states that the Wall Street Journal says that he is not fluent in it. However, the source that is used to identify his fluency in French (http://www.news.va/it/news/briefing-di-padre-lombardi) also lists Italian ("Il Papa - ha detto padre Lombardi - parla lo spagnolo, l'italiano, il tedesco, l'inglese e il francese....", "The Pope - said Father Lombardi - speaks Spanish, Italian, German, English, and French...." using my limited Italian). If the WSJ is enough to disprove his Italian fluency, then that source probably shouldn't be used for French, either. I'm leaving it now for both because it appears to be credible, even without overt mention of fluency. Mapsax (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

He is fluent in Italian! He gave his first speech yesterday entirely in Italian. His father was born and raised in Italy. The pope has lived in Italy for years. I'm not sure how you got the idea he isn't fluent in Italian. Or is the issue the word fluent versus the word speaks? I'm confused. Moncrief (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have put this the first time around: In the article code, next where my code for the citation is and formerly next to the citation needed note after the word "Italian" before I replaced it is this: "<!--not fluent per Wall Street Journal-->" No elaboration that I can see. Mapsax (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A bio source

This bio in Spanish seems a bit more detailed than most I've seen: El Litoral

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pope Francis

There is a discussion at CfD about Category:Pope Francis. I figured it would be good to notify people here that it exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, it looks like there's little support for deleting it. Andrew³²⁷ 20:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Tridentine liturgy

I repaired two of the citations related to this, but they go to a blog: HERE. I'll leave it to others to find better sources or make the appropriate edits. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not a reliable source. I'll look for better sourcing. Andrew³²⁷ 21:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I just added one source, but I'm getting way too many edit conflicts to try adding more right now. Andrew³²⁷ 21:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the two bits of information which rely on that blog – and in particular the claim that Bergoglio ordered a priest to stop celebrating the TLM, an order which as I understand it would have been in violation of Summorum Pontificum – need way better referencing. If reliable sources can't be found, they'll have to go. Vilĉjo (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact, given that the information is poorly sourced and contentious, under the terms of WP:BLP it needs to go straight away. (This is of course without prejudging the truth or otherwise of the statements. I suspect that proper references for the first statement may be found; I'm much more doubtful about the second. But as things stand, they both need to be removed.) Vilĉjo (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: Writings, Other

The article described as published in "Humanitas (National Humanities Institute)" http://www.nhinet.org/hum.htm appears to have actually been published in "Humanitas (Pontifical Universidad Catolica de Chile)" http://www.humanitas.cl/web/ 67.208.53.74 (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Terrence Berres

First new name since 10th century

An examination of the List of popes shows that, discounting the special case of John Paul I where he combined the names of his immediate predecessors, Francis is the first brand-new Pope name since Pope Lando took the chair in 913 AD. Might be worth noting somewhere. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Additionally notable in that he was the first Pope to do so since all Popes began using names not their own in the 16th century. Lando was merely the latin version of his given name, Landus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.99.77 (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears as if they actually did away with using their own names later in the 10th Century, but I see your point

• Ignore fiction about Lando being Latin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.247.144.44 (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

John Paul I was a new name too.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, technically, but not really - he named himself after his two predecessors. Angr (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Lando

Think we should mention that he is the first Pope to take a completely new name since Lando in 914, John Paul was originally taken by combining the names of the previous 2 Popes as tribute to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed, that's really interesting. Although I think that can wait until the current massive streak of editing dies down and there are more secondary sources that discuss his name. Editing now is just begging for an edit conflict. Andrew³²⁷ 21:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

John Paul was a new name, it is made of two components but it is a regnal name --Tefalstar (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Lando

Request to add that Pope Francis is the first pope to choose an unused name since Pope Lando in 913. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pope Francis (talk • contribs) 22:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget Pope John Paul I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.205.106.70 (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

But his name was a combination of 2 previous names so not really an "original name" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It could be better to specify that John Paul I is not taken into account because it was stated officially that the name was taken from the two previous popes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.249.68 (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the Pope European or Non-European?

Since his parents are italian it has been discussed if the Pope is European or not. This discussions are gathered here. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

NOT the first non-European

The List of Popes proves that. Anyone who re-submits that false claim should have it autoreverted. Just an FYI. --JohnDBuell (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Correct. The last pope outside of Europe was Gregory III from Syria. --Zimbabweed (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

He's European because he is of 100% Italian descent. He simply wasn't born in Europe. European is more than just a geographical or cultural term, it's also ethno-racial. Christopedia (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

He has the italian citizenship, so he is european. --141.6.11.20 (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• He was born, raised, and lived virtually his entire life in Argentina. He is not European. European means he was born, raised and lived his life in Europe, which he did not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Non-European

He is most definately European, his ancestry is from Italy, and he is born in Argentina (a white country), what difference does it make if he is born outside of Europe he is still European in race, it would be like saying Australians aren't white because they weren't born in Europe.--Collingwood26 (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

His nationality is what matters, and Wikipedia does not make blanket statements about people who are of the "European race". His parents are European, and that is worth mentioning in the article. He is not. Andrew³²⁷ 23:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Some Australians are white, some are not white, as I expect you know. But Australians definitely aren't Europeans. Australia is quite a long ways from Europe; same with Argentina. Pope Francis is an Argentine whose parents moved to Argentina from Italy--what's so complicated about that? -- Narsil (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The German version of the article mentions that he has the Italian nationality, too, which makes sense since as far as I know they have a ius sanguinis, i.e. he's Italian citizen because his parents are, no matter where he was born. Or did he renounce it? (I'm not sure about all this, I just think it needs to be researched at some point. Sorry I can't provide more info/sources at the moment). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.34.23 (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I will write a final period for this thing of "OMG Argentines are ethnically Italian and thus European!11!!1!". I search about some population genetics for quite a time and I have to say that neither Argentina nor Italy are really that non-mixed (what does not equate non-white, I have a grandparent of Afro phenotype but I am perfectly white since in Rio de Janeiro it doesn't matter, like, at all, as a child I was not distinguishable from your average northern Iberian anyway) as people often seem to think. Italians and Greeks aren't really that much whiter than Turks, Syrians and ancient Palestinians as they have twice as much non-European ancestry according to Y-DNA and about as much non-European ancestry according to mt-DNA (the one that matters most, as mitocondria are bacteria and mutation and genetic variation affect them in a very different manner) as Iberians, despite the Paleolithic, Neolithic, Phoenician, Cartaginese, early diasporic Jewish and Moorish contact of the Portuguese and the Spanish with non-European populations, places as far north as Rome have its population descended from lots of slaves from elsewhere in the Mediterraneum that some sources even say to have outnumbered natives once, Italians are the European population that most strongly match Jewish DNA according to the vast majority of studies undertaken.

Further Argentines have about as much Amerindian mix as Brazilians (much like Afrikaners have about as much as African mix as white and caboclo Brazilians), and it is no little since our Northern Amazonian region has an overwhelming majority of caboclos (i.e. mestizo in the English sense). Not that it is bad, non-white admixture is like seasoning, Inuit and Maori blood give Icelanders and New Zealanders respectively unique looks, I am mixed myself and it is no shame whatsoever. I just find people oozing about the legend of places in Latin America being "white countries" (whatever it means) as a huge mischaracterization set in myths of national identity rather than truth, and the running gag of Argentine whiteness is a reason of comic stereotypes about them elsewhere. I probably have more recent European ancestry – including being 6,25% Swiss and 6,25% Pole/Prussian and both my Y-DNA and mt-DNA being only 5 and 6 generations away respectively from northern Portugal (that, as northwestern Spain, matches more closely with inland Western Europe and western Central Europe than with other Iberian populations, just as the Insular Celts and western Englishmen match ancient Iberian populations such as the Gascons, Aragonese, Basques and non-northern Portuguese rathern than the original Celtic populations in the Alps or other Europeans in general; all Englishmen have part of this Paleolithic Iberian blood even if mixed in the greater Jute-Anglo-Saxon/Danish/Norman ancestry because of the founding effect) – than pre-19 century Brazilian one BTW, before people accuse me of mestizo anti-white xenophobia (lol) as lots of North Americans do in the internet.

So a Mexican, Central American, Caribbean Hispanic or northwestern South American close to be crioll@ of Western European-like, in decreasing whiteness, Galician, Asturian, Leonese or Cantabrian origin or the crioll@s and hyphenated Hispanics of Paleolithic Iberian-based, in decreasing whiteness, Basque, Aragonese, Portuguese, Castilian, Extremaduran or Catalan descent is probably way whiter than your average Italian-Argentine mestizo if race is to be taken seriously (of course I believe it shouldn't, I'm just really tired of wannabe Italian Latin American inferiority complex about the Iberians calling them Moors or whatever or pretending to be really many times whiter and thus superior in some way to their neighbors up north, of course Nazis supported European x Middle Eastern miscegenation like that recently found more in southeastern Europeans than in Iberians, they loved so much the similarly mixed European Jewry ~sarcasm~). But hey, are you guys going to call a person of Mexican culture and nationality that for his or her entire life walked by Mexico City (a rather awesome city, with a much more European-style architeture than e.g. São Paulo) European just because he or she is hyphenated and there are lots of hyphenates around him or her? I believe you won't. Neither in my dad's nor in my mom's family we identified kids of European immigrants as also European, and Brazil isn't really that different (actually, I think one would expect such situation be more celebrated as it is not nearly as common). Lguipontes (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd also want to say I don't respect single-purpose IPs. This is necessary. America is ONE, and UNITED. It doesn't, or by historic tradition shouldn't, matter whatsoever from where your parents come from in the New Worlds. That is all. Lguipontes (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• If Carinal Timothy Dolan had been made the Pope he would also be described as non-European. In this case European is being used to designate that the person comes from the continent of Europe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Italian citizenship?

His parents were italian, and so he has the right ( Ius Sanguinis ) to be italian. My question is, is he 1- Considered italian from the time he was born, at least technically, even if he has not requested it. 2- He has the right to be italian, but he must request it. 3- He requested it and holds italian citizenship.

What do you think?

Daniel32708 (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

— This source (http://noticabos.org/2013/03/13/para-los-italianos-el-nuevo-papa-es-italiano/), in spanish, claims that italian law consideres people its citizens from the time they are born if they are born from italian citizens. Daniel32708 (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's wait for specific reliable sources to address this topic, then we can mention it in the article. Andrew³²⁷ 00:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Why Double-Nationality?? Simple, is more easy to travel ;)--186.62.185.205 (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

His mother born in Buenos Aires, only you need watch the footnotes of the article...--186.62.185.205 (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Controversial statements

In the minutes before editing began in earnest on this page, I noticed a great deal more topics under the heading of his views, many of which likely would have been seen as controversial. The majority of those have now disappeared. Please consider checking out older versions of this page, and re-adding those statements or views.

I've noticed the same, it's been shrinking by the minute. This absolutely should be reverted!212.64.14.89 (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur; the article is already having positive stuff removed and negative stuff added. I am not Catholic but I am already noticing some less-than-flattering edits being made. A few minutes ago, the article contained a story about him ministering to 12 AIDS patients and even kissing their feet. Now, that's gone...and the section on homosexuality has been edited to include a quote from Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner claiming that Francis I's views on homosexuality are reminiscent of "medieval times and the Inquisition". Does someone (who's more knowledgeable than I) want to tackle those? I think the story about his ministry to AIDS patients is a lot more relevant to his biography than hyperbolic criticism from an Argentinian politician, but maybe that's just me. NathanDahlin (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agrree there should be more neutrality. People are putting allegations and accusations that have no solid evidence or need more evidence, while eliminating all the positive things the person did. Although some might disagree with his views it is no reason to reduce the wiki page into a polarized criticism (talk)

The section about the Dirty War allegations needs to be looked at. It's sourced to an LA Times article that makes it clear that no specifics were provided as part of the complaint, and that Argentine law has a very low burden of evidence for that stage of the process. I just heard this fact cited on NPR so we should think quickly about whether WP:DUE is being followed here. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Dirty War allegations were made 8 years ago in a lawsuit. There is no evidence that the suit was ever persued and it was not made by any well-known human rights group. It has not been picked up by mainstream media in recent reports. I suggest therefore it be taken out and only put back if it receives media attention. TFD (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm checking to see if I can find any other sources now, but if there are none, I concur. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm, looks like there's more to this story. Take a look here: [9] and [10] Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that many of the things removed lacked any citation. Please find the citations and then re-add the text with citation. See the hospice example above. You'll probably need to search in Spanish.

The statement from Kirchner has NOT just been added, it has been here a long while. It has no less validity than the story of ministering to AIDS patients ( assuming the latter is indeed true). Contaldo80 (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I added a citation for the AIDS story, but it has been deleted. Why? Rarohla (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And the quote from Kirchner has now gone. This is notable as it was made by the argentine head of government, the issue of same sex marriage is notable, and several journalistic sources (including the BBC) hae already referred to the quote. Can I remind over-enthusiastic editors that this is not (yet) a hagiography. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

AGREED. When someone as high-profile as the President of Argentina makes a condemnation of the views of a high-ranking cardinal from her country, regarding a matter as topical as homosexuality, I think it's quite encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion.Iamvered (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Considering Senora Kirchner and her husband, who in the past was president of Argentina, have had a personal vendetta against Bergoglio since 2003, Kirchner making rude, snide and insulting comments about Bergoglio or his actions is not worthy of inclusion in our article. It is part of a general pattern, specific cases are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Congregations/council

now that he is pope, is he still technically a member of the congregations and the council listed in the article? Aunva6 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No, he has gone from being the head of a department to the CEO, as it were. Daniel the Monk (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• However it would seem that having been a member of these congregations and council is still an important part of his biography. Barack Obama may now be president, but we would not drop all reference to his time in the senate from his biography because of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation dispute in section on Abortion, Euthanasia, and Contraception

Under the section "Abortion, Euthanasia, and Contraception," the citation from the Financial Times given in support of the passage "He supports the use of contraception to prevent the spread of disease" does not mention this point at all in the linked article. Uncertain of the provenance of this point, although it is certainly important to include if a different citation can be provided. The current citation is: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d9c465d8-8c08-11e2-b001-00144feabdc0.html ----Scipio82

You should either remove such content or add {{failedverification}} immediately after it to give a statement this flag: . Adding the template is probably a better idea right now because there is so much editing taking place that removing and changing content could lead to edit conflicts or inadvertently choppy sections. Andrew³²⁷ 21:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The section now claims that "rumors suggest that Pope Francis would permit the use of contraceptives to prevent the spread of disease" and cites an article from the Guardian. Like the previous editor, though, I can't find any evidence of this in the cited article. --Aurrell (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This point about him accepting contraception is asserted in various articles, but there is never a source. Many other sources contradict it, such as John Allen, here: "Bergoglio is seen an unwaveringly orthodox on matters of sexual morality, staunchly opposing abortion, same-sex marriage, and contraception." http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/papabile-day-men-who-could-be-pope-13 Allen is more connected than the articles that hold otherwise. His point should at least be noted in the article. 209.116.238.162 (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the language usage is what is confusing this issue. John Allen, who is very knowledgeable in Catholic theology, is probably using "contraception" in the same way a theologian would: an act that is intended to prevent contraception. On the other hand, the phrase "the use of contraception to prevent the spread of disease" doesn't use precise wording -- that author obviously meant "the use of a condom to prevent the spread of disease." To clarify: the Catholic opposition to artificial contraception is completely irrelevant to the question of whether a condom should be used during acts that can't cause conception anyway. (Such acts are immoral in Catholic teaching, but the use of a condom in such acts is not relevant to their morality.) Perhaps if this distinction is kept in mind, you will see that the sources are not actually contradicting each other. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If his views are not at all a deviation for the historic teaching of previous popes, this should be made explicitly clear. The "rumors" line makes it sound like Francis supports things his predecessors have opposed. I also see no reason to include things that we can at best say are "rumors". Rumors are inherently not verified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There are at least two issues in Catholic moral thought here, and I suspect that the Guardian, which seems to be the original source for the rumor, does not have sufficient theological subtlety to disentangle them. First, there is a controversial issue in Catholic moral thought whether it is permissible for a married couple to use condoms, with no contraceptive intention, when one member of the couple has a serious sexually transmittable disease. Since the purpose of the condom use is not contraceptive in those cases, some Catholic theologians/philosophers (e.g., Fr. Rhonheimer) think that the Principle of Double Effect permits the use of condoms in such cases, when the contraceptive effect is not intended. This fits with the generally accepted view that the use of oral "contraceptives" for serious medical non-contraceptive purposes is permissible when the contraceptive effect is not intended and there is no significant danger of an abortifacient effect (note: it could be that the Guardian confused an uncontroversial acceptance of this view with something more controversial). On the other hand, a number of Catholic theologians and philosophers (including myself) believe that even if the purpose of the condom use is not contraceptive, the introduction of a barrier changes the nature of the act into one that is no longer what one might call "natural intercourse" and makes the act no longer be a union as one flesh, and hence the use of a condom is impermissible even in such cases (and then some think that in the case of something as nasty as AIDS, even if the use of condoms were in itself permissible, the risk to the HIV-negative spouse even with a condom would be sufficiently great that anyway abstinence would be called for). This more restrictive view fits particularly well with John Paul II's union-centric view of marital sexuality. The Church has not officially ruled on this question as far as I know, though there are some Vatican statements whose logical consequence seems to be the more restrictive view. Second, there is a question whether it is permissible to advise someone who is going to do something sinful (e.g., have sex with a prostitute or other non-marital partner) to do so in a less harmful manner. There are subtle distinctions here, including between cases where the advice is public and where the advice is private (say, in the confessional), and between cases where the manner introduces a new kind of sinfulness and cases where it does not. As I said, I do not have confidence in the Guardian's theological acumen here, and I would be inclined to remove the rumor until more precision is available.Pruss (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. A lot of what passes for "new information," in the media is old news for most Catholics. It is less sinful to use contraception for sexual contact to avoid disease, than not to use contraception to prevent disease. This was never intended as a Catholic (papal) endorsement of contraceptive devices, but simply an attempt to prioritize what the church considers two "bad choices." Student7 (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Either way, until someone can point to an actual statement (written or oral) by Pope Francis on the matter, I don't think we should report it in the article. News media saying there are "rumors" about what Pope Francis thinks does not rise to verifiable, relevant information.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

His kindness to the people and praise

Although already some were prone to attack Pope Francis, several past deeds, that also tell about his character have been ignored or even deleted from the page.

For example his active role to aid people during and after a fire in Buenos Aires:

The Chatholic Herald Reports:

Large copy-paste removed due to copyright violations. The article can be read in the link below. 88.104.17.92 (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

profile of Cardinal Bergoglio first appeared in The Catholic Herald on October 7 2005(http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/2013/03/13/quiet-thunder-in-argentina/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.62.10.142 (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2013‎

All of that is probably a copyvio. RNealK (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Correct, removed. 88.104.17.92 (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Dissertation (done)

There is some confusion about whether or not he got a doctoral dissertation and from which German university, if any. Lets figure that out:

• Radio Vatican said today, March 13th, in its short biography he "finished" his dissertation in Frankfurt Main in March 1986.

• As a German volunteer on twitter notes Radio Vatican has changed its wording to "(visited Germany) for study purposes in relation to his dissertation" --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Our friends on the German Wikipedia can't find that piece (which is by default required to be published under German law) but then there might be an exception for universities run by the church.

• Perfil.com wrote on 08/07/2012 with "..Terminar la tesis doctoral que dejé inconclusa, .."

and where does the Freiburg im Breisgrau claim come from?, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• SJ Argentina: 1986-88: Hizo el doctorado en Teología, en Alemania --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• SJ Argentina backtracked on the quote above & cut out the point entirely --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Robert Zollitsch: Um seine Dissertation zu beenden, kam er 1985 zu einem längeren Aufenthalt nach Deutschland -> "To finish..., ..1985" --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Found the Freiburg claim linked above: Badische Zeitung (a German regional newspaper in the area) but openly speculative. So, lets rule that option out --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Badische Zeitung confirms today based on a statement by the Freiburg university speaker: not in Freiburg --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Like so many other aspects of this BLP, I'm sure that journalists will arrive at a consensus shortly, and the best option at the moment is to wait and see what they have to say. I recommend not referencing the dissertation at all for now. Andrew³²⁷ 00:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, >:-); said that, the currently most likely theory is that he might have written the piece in Germany but not in the frame of a German Ph.D.-procedure. In any case, given that Ph.D.s are a totemic issue in Germany we can be confident to likely figure it out within a week, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• The talked about German University, Sankt Georgen Graduate School of Philosophy and Theology, says that some of its professors had consultations with him over a dissertation project at the time ("a couple of months") but - see Perfil.com from 2012 above - the project did not result in a Ph.D. received from Sankt Georgen --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• • Deary me: that's the kind of back-flip that demands heads roll. Just whose head is up for grabs. Tony (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed, only last year he seemed to have expressed the desire to complete his unfinished thesis (complete citation from above: "Yo tengo claridad sobre mis intenciones. Terminar la tesis doctoral que dejé inconclusa,(...)" [11]), which back then was responding to the question what his plans for the time after retirement were.

Hello colleagues,

I am a native German (and with >26.000 Edits no beginner in the WP). I have added a German source that imo doesn't let any doubts :

The homepage of "Philosophisch-Theologische Hochschule

Sankt Georgen - Frankfurt am Main" says:

Der frühere Provinzial der argentinischen Jesuitenprovinz ist unserer Hochschule verbunden, weil er anlässlich eines Studienaufenthalts in Deutschland Mitte der 1980er Jahre einige Monate in Sankt Georgen verbrachte, um sich mit einzelnen Professoren über ein Dissertationsprojekt zu beraten. Zu einem Abschluss in Sankt Georgen ist es nicht gekommen.

(... spent some months in Sankt Georgen to discuss about a dissertation project with some profs. There was no graduiation made at Sankt Georgen.)

the last sentence is a bit stelted. It is left open if he started a dissertation and abandoned it some months later. - Feel free to contact me on my german WP user site. regards, --Neun-x (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I expanded the citation a bit and added more of the German text to the note, after consulting German speakers about the meaning of projekt in this context, which resolved to mean something closer to "topic", .e., Francis was exploring what project to take on. Respectfully. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Repeating from the above: <Perfil.com wrote on 08/07/2012 with "..Terminar la tesis doctoral que dejé inconclusa, .."> This is from an interview with Bergoglio published in 2012 on retiring at the statutory age of 75. The exact meaning is important here; Bergoglio is expressing his own wish to "finish the thesis which I left unfinished". A longer quote is "“Yo tengo claridad sobre mis intenciones. Terminar la tesis doctoral que dejé inconclusa, compartir el Hogar con los otros sacerdotes, trabajar en Flores. Claro que uno nunca sabe cuál es el rol que Dios le asignará."—he is listing things he wants to get done, finish the thesis, live at the Home with other priests, work in the Flores district. And presciently: Of course, one never knows the role God will assign to one. Pol098 (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Dissertation II

There is a contradiction to the German version. It says the "Promotionsprojekt" was not completed which means he did NOT complete his dissertation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.205.118.202 (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please see the section above :), thank you & best regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Need to add the anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-atheist attitude of the new pope

His election is obviously a disaster for all gays, women and atheists worldwide. Iyadoz (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol - Can a pope be pro-atheist, wouldnt that be against his jobdescription? :) Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Iyadoz, there is no reason for concern. I believe all of that is already covered by the lead sentence phrase "pope of the Roman Catholic Church". Surtsicna (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

As a gay atheist, I think NPOV is more important than the cause. μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Any of these moves would be unsourced assertions of debatable facts. Anyway, how in the world would the Pope be pro-atheiest? On the other hand what policies has he ever advocated that are opposed to athiests? These assestions make no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Gasp, they elected a theist pope?? This is a sad day, Will somebody please think of the atheists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.176.80 (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what's already been said here. In general, you should provide reliable sources to support claims that you make, even on a talk page. If you look at the history of this talk page, you'll see that reliably sourced edit requests have been rapidly integrated into the article. Andrew³²⁷ 20:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable source for your claim, Andrew :) I think that as a general rule, people with reliable sources put their assertions straight into the article without wasting time on the Talk pages. But then I don't have a reliable source for this claim of mine, just the evidence of my own eyes that reliable sources almost never appear on Talk pages, including this one :) Tlhslobus (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

As it happens his attitude to gays is already well documented and referenced in the article, but there is no mention of his attitude to women or atheists (or many other groups and issues), so any reliably sourced evidence on those subjects would obviously be welcome, if it exists. But if it does exist, it can go straight into the article without any need to go into this Talk page first. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Controversial material should be posted to a BLP's talk page first, but mundane biographical details should be integrated directly. Claims like "His election is obviously a disaster for all gays, women and atheists worldwide" would fall in the former category. A less polite way of saying it would have been, "Please don't try to post that in the article because undoing and rollbacking is hard when there are edit conflicts." To be fair, I have been in discussions where one editor has tried to take ownership by demanding that all posts and sources be discussed and given approval before adding, and it can be infuriating, so I'm no absolutist. Andrew³²⁷ 21:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Claims about "his attitude towards gays" are discussed in the article just shows that this is missing the whole point. The issues discussed in the article relate to specific policies he has advocated about related to specific issues, attempts to translate this to a more general attitude are unsupported by the actual evidence. People's postions should be discussed and covered in the criteria and according to the issues they actually take, not in a way to imply what those positions may say about other issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

@Iyadoz An offensive and untruthful title (I kindly request it be edited), and also nobody asked for your personal opinion on his election - if you have objective suggestions, post them, period. Bringing propaganda into wikipedia is a quick way to be reported. --RCarmine (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Picture and text box

I would like to suggest that someone should put a picture of pope francis as pope. Also for the text box, I would like to suggest that instead of saying that his "papacy began march 13 2013" it should say "elected march 13 2013." His papacy doesn't officially begin until he is officially installed on march 19 2013 (saint Joseph's day." see http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/14/17302175-pope-francis-to-take-over-with-installation-mass-on-st-josephs-day?lite

I agree about the picture, but there aren't many free use images of him as pope yet. Those will come with time. As far as the wording is concerned, it's set by the template and can't be easily changed. Andrew³²⁷ 21:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

His papacy began the moment he accepted his election. The "Mass for the Inauguration of the Petrine Ministry" is a formal event to celebrate the beginning of his papacy, but it is not an inauguration vis-a-vis the inauguration of a president. See the above discussion on "Pope-elect" for more information. NDomer09 (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Aparecida Document

User FT2 is applying personal interpretation/lenses to the Aparecida Document by splitting it into multiple subsections. To you and I child abuse and abortion might seem like two separate topics, but to Francis they are intrinsically the same concept. We shouldn't be taking information and categorizing it with our own labels and distinctions. His 2007 speech on Child Abuse and Abortion are the same speech/document. I also think wikipedia is showing it's bias in the Homosexuality section, but I'll let someone else clean that up. I don't want to try and take ownership of the entire "Positions on social and political issues" section. Since Francis seems to take the stance that homosexuals cannot marry but should be treated with compassion, the more accurate label for the category is "Same Sex Marriage." I am going to make that change along with correcting the Aparecida Document mess. I am not a catholic, homosexual, or an aborted fetus so I think I stand in a position to hopefully judge this objectively without imposing my personal beliefs. You can see my changes here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Francis&diff=544214543&oldid=544213953 Xkcdreader (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

My opinion on above comment retitling the section "Same Sex Marriage" is that would not be correct. It is too narrow. This section calls for his views on both topics "Homosexuality and same sex marriage". Section not about evangelisation of the church or other, but Francis views on both those subjects. Let's call a spade a spade. No relativism: Wikipedia Neutral point of view, facts as they occured. Thank you. — Ludopedia^(Talk) 17:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Buy the way this is not me who has done the edit but I would have done quite the same. — Ludopedia^(Talk) 18:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Continuous and Annoying Edit War of Prophecy Section

consensus is that it should not be added. WP:DEADHORSE

Last night I created a section to this article dealing with the connection Francis has to the prophecy of the popes- it was removed several times due to lack of sources mentioning Francis himself- I have added it twice today- with a much expanded number of sources, about 8 of which mention the pope by name and come from legitimate news organizations, yet it continues to be assaulted by people who I can only suspect may have a religious ax to grind. I see no reason why a completely PROPERLY sourced, well formatted entry on the subject can't at least have a home at the end of the article right above the section for his writings- as it DOES pertain to pope Francis, and thus the article at large- and may have had almost as much press coverage in the last day as anything else having to do with the pope. I even had a user accuse me of vandalism- just because some folks here may be skeptics does not mean the prophecy does not relate to the man about which this article revolves. Twarwick666 (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC) So the press picks up some silly old prophecy, they sensationalize it, and then we should document the misinterpretations and sensationalization? In principle I'm not opposed to it being mentioned because I favor inclusion but this really has nothing to do with him. Look at how much literature was pumped out concerning the Mayan 2012 thing, and nothing resulted. Should wikipedia be in the business of documenting every rambling madmans predictions? Xkcdreader (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Such a section has no place in this article. This is a biography of a living person and should not be burdened with unsubstantiated attempts to link him to supposed prophecies. Just because some news organizations chose to engage in such shoddy reporting does not mean we should follow their lead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC) One could argue the bible is silly and sensationalized yet it still has a wikipedia article. Everything you just stated is judgmental opinion and has nothing to do with the established media notability of the subject. I'd note- the prophecy itself also has a wikipedia article, so as it pertains to the subject at hand it ought to be included, as it is now properly sourced. Twarwick666 (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC) This is a biography of a living person. There are high rules for inclusion of material, and it must be well supported and clearly related to the subject. It is not to be used as a coat-rack to start on unrelated subjects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC) As I have already explained, the subject is notable and related. Check the sources. Twarwick666 (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC) The subject is not related. Just because some off-the-way people start speculation about a livign person does not mean we have to report such in the biography of that living person. Unsupported speculation is slanderous, and we avoid such type material. Material needs to be sourced to real events. The fact that lots of rumor mongers spread a rumor does not make it substantiated and justifiable in a biography of a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Then I suggest you remove the wikipedia entry for the book of mormon, the bible, the quran, and essentially every other spiritual topic. This is not atheistpedia or skepticpedia. Twarwick666 (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC) If someone was trying to state that Thomas S. Monson was the fulfillment of a specific prophesy in the Book of Mormon, and this view was neither supported by Mormon nor by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, nor by any actual emperical evidence, I would likewise remove the section from his article. Your rant would maybe make sense if I had tried to remove the article about the "Prophecy of the Popes", but I have not done that. I have only contended that material on that prophecy has no place in the biography of a living person with no clear or substantiated link to the prophecy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC) It is nearly a guaranteed fact that every world leader of every major organization or nation has had dozens of not hundreds of prophecies uttered about them. That does not mean that our articles about such world leaders are necessarily obligated to report on such prophecies. In fact, it is only when the sheer volume of such prophecies about any one individual might become so "unusually large", that such an "unusually large volume of prophecies" has become a news item in itself, that Wikipedia will may include such a subsection an article. Until it becomes clear that this Pope has had an "unusually large volume of prophecies about him", I do not think that this would make for an appropriate subsection for this article. I have removed the section again. (Sigh) Scott P. (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC) I am sure that you take great pride in removing properly sourced notable information when it "isn't mainstream enough" for inclusion. By that token you might want to remove half of wikipedia for being poorly sourced or unreliable. Twarwick666 (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Please avoid the "and you too" rants. This secton has been discussed befoe, and there was no consensus for it, and there isn't here either. Cambalachero (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Your sources were fine. It was the relevancy of the subject for a typical reader that was lacking. Clearly for you, such prophecies seem quite relevant. Still, for a typical reader, he is not turning to Wikipedia to look up speculative prophecies. He is looking for uncontested facts. Thus, for a typical reader, speculative prophetic material in an article about a pope will most probably not seem relevant., whether or not it may seem so for you. Scott P. (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC) The section I made made no claim of the prophecy being true merely that it was heavily discussed in the media (as it is) and that it is a topic which directly relates to the current pope- which happens to be Francis. Twarwick666 (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Twarwick666 seems to lack a clear understanding of policy and is soliciting a certain imageboard for a "show of force" on this talkpage. (As though a bunch of random IPs saying "PUT THIS IN THE ARTICLE" will change how WP policy is applied.) Audiosmurf ^♪/♫ 00:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You know, forget this- if you folks want to create an article written with skepticism that references a man who supposedly talks to invisible men in the sky, I won't stop you. I'll go edit the prophecy of the popes article instead and add a "see also" entry for it. Hopefully this will prevent you from spamming my user talk area, and hopefully thus there will at least be a cursory mention of this otherwise highly notable content. Twarwick666 (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

There are bible and quran articles because historically they have had a huge impact on the world. When this prophecy turns out to be true, or gains the following of the Mayan 2012 thing, it would be appropriate here. Regardless of if you believe in religion, the belief set that religion propagates has a real world effect. It is largely irrelevant that he talks to god, he also controls one of the largest organizations on the planet. And that is more than notable. If you are trying to argue that Popes do not deserve wikipedia articles, you will lose. There is no need for a see also link, unless the Church itself acknowledges the prophecy. Wikipedia is not in the business of regurgitating the national enquirer. Xkcdreader (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"I'll go edit the prophecy of the popes article instead and add a "see also" entry for it." No you won't. It's fully protected to keep this sort of nonsense out. DeCausa (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

New picture

Hey I just uploaded this:

Card. Jorge Bergoglio SJ, 2008 - nº2.jpg

I like it better than the previous one, also taken by me 5 years ago. :D

--VanKleinen (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Much better. But we should try and get a picture of him as pope. AKA http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/03/13/world/20130314_SOUTH_337-slide-9KQ9/20130314_SOUTH_337-slide-9KQ9-articleLarge.jpg. Does anyone in italy want to call the photographer or have a similar image? Xkcdreader (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

A picture of him as pope is only matter of time XD For now I think it's the best we have (I feel so famous :D) --VanKleinen (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I put your photo in the article Xkcdreader (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --VanKleinen (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add text taken from this AP news story:

I would like to add the text below, taken from the following article:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/argentina-has-very-different-papal-candidates

Like other Jesuit intellectuals, Bergoglio has focused on social outreach. Catholics are still buzzing over his speech last year accusing fellow church officials of hypocrisy for forgetting that Jesus Christ bathed lepers and ate with prostitutes.

"In our ecclesiastical region there are ," Bergoglio told his priests. "These are today's hypocrites. Those who clericalize the Church. Those who separate the people of God from salvation. And this poor girl who, rather than returning the child to sender, had the courage to carry it into the world, must wander from parish to parish so that it's baptized!"

Jhourihan (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be rewritten. I would eliminate the quote entirely. For example ... Focused on social outreach, Bergoglio addressed church officials on hypocrisy of "priests who don't baptize the children" born to out of wedlock to single mothers, in contrast to the teachings that claim Jesus Christ bathed lepers and ate with prostitutes. Xkcdreader (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Health section

I see that Health has been dropped as a separate section. I think it's absolutely crucial for a man with a job normally for life, unlike say, a president with an elected term. It's important that he's in good health, and possible problems need to be stated. It's important now, and I can see this section developing in the future too. It needs to be a section and be in the table of contents. Pol098 (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The information has not been removed. It is three sentences. It is a comment, in passing, concerning his health when he took office. It does not need its own section, nor does it need to be in the table of contents. The information belongs in the article, it does not need its own section. Xkcdreader (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I see there is still a separate Health subsection. If the consensus is that it shouldn't be separate, then maybe somebody should remove the heading (I myself think it should be kept, as first entry here). Maybe more discussion here is warranted. Pol098 (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think the amount of material we current have on his health justifies a seperate section. If there is a major increase in the amount of material on this topic at some point, than a seperate section would be justfied. Thomas S. Monson, who as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has an office for life even more so than the pope, does not have a seperate health section in his article. So just having an office for life does not require it. If there is enough material for a seperate section it is worth having, but that is not the case at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• The previous pope has a health section. I would say remove it for now, and if and when it becomes relevant, it can be added again. There is no reason to create it now in anticipation of future information. Xkcdreader (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK Nomination

Has anyone thought of making a DYK nomination? Its definitely expanded enough. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a rule that articles appearing in WP:ITN or elsewhere on the main page are not eligible for DYK.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I any case, I think it would be redundant. Let's wait for his trip to Brazil for World Youth Day, if it happens.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Or indeed, his assassination, if it happens... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Italian name?

Just a query - should his name be given in the lead in Italian as well, i.e. Francesco? I guess there's no precendent for that with other papal articles, but he is the Bishop of Rome after all, and Vatican business if often conducted in Italian. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it would be much more relevant than the Castilian version of his name (Francisco), and we should not pile up names in the lead. All variants of his name can be found among the interwiki links. Surtsicna (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Post-conclave red mozetta & stall

If anybody has sources, would they put in the article that Francis' disregarded wearing the post-conclave red mozetta? He also didn't wear the stall the whole time throughout his public introduction. GoodDay (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You mean stole? I found no source for that, but I did add content referring to the absence of the mozzetta. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, stole :) GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

These sources (il Giornale Corriere della Sera Repubblica) state what GoodDay said: no mozzetta and stole just during the blessing. The sources are unbiased (they are the three major Italian newspapers) and you can easily translate them with google translate. There are also a number of other small things Pope Francis did thar indicate his humility: he paid by himself the hotel, wears a simple iron cross after the conclave he returned to his residence using the common shuttle and not the official car. --Chessstoria (3 s) ^{(All your base are belong to us)} 12:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessstoria (talk • contribs)

The asking for the people's blessing was an original aswell. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not certain as to which pope began the wearing of the red-ermine mozetta (and wearing the stole continously) throughout a papal introduction. But videos have shown that quite a few of his predecessors have done so. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ouch, hold it right there...:) In conformity with Catholic doctrine, he did not ask the people's blessing, but rather the people's prayer for God's blessing - what we call "invocatory blessing" of the lay faithful. He clearly made the difference between him blessing and them praying the Lord to bless him. Perhaps this is beyond the scope, but I'd rather mention it, given it's a subtle doctrinal issue, albeit very important. --RCarmine (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say, rather, that the red mozzetta is a vestige of the time when popes continued to dress in the red attire of a cardinal, before white became identified with the office, due to Pope Pius V's retention of his Dominican habit out of a spirit of poverty. The ermine trim (lining?) is used only as winter wear, for great warmth. The pope's wearing of it indicates that he is the local bishop, as cardinals were previously allowed to wear only the ferraiuolo in his presence, and had to remove their mozzettas after the election. A stole was part of the formal attire of any cleric, back in the good old days of Vikings and such, which is why clergy are often depicted wearing it, over a surplice, in older images. Daniel the Monk (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Opinion on women and politics

I'm suprised not to find any mention of this thing that's going around quite a bit on the internet:

Buenos Aires, June 4, 2007 (Telam) - Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires, said that "women are naturally helpless to exercise political positions", referring to the presidential candidacy of Senator Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. "The natural order and the facts show us that man is the being for politics by excellence; the Scriptures show us that the woman is always the support of the thoughtful man and and doer, but nothing more than that".

It's actually possible to find in the internet years old references to the original statement, in Spanish. Any plan to add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udippuy (talk • contribs) 14:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If it has attracted significant attention and can be properly sourced, it should most certainly be added. Surtsicna (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the only oldest mention of it I was able to find (dated 5/7/2007) is in this Yahoo question: http://espanol.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070704182350AAKKkk4 . It appears as a statement reported by the argentinian news agency Telam, however I wasn't able to find their archive or anything on their site. Maybe somebody will be able to verify it? Udippuy (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

A Catholic source says categorically "false statements attributed tu Bergoglio in 2007, of which there is only one trace on the Web before the day of his election ... a posting that appeared 6 years ago and has not been echoed until now. ... The [Yahoo posting] published what looked like news from the official Argentine new agency Telam, but without linking the source." I have no opinion of my own, but this would certainly need documenting carefully before inclusion. Pol098 (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've tried the Telam search engine, Google News Archives, Highbeam Research, Questia, and dug through a bunch of other web search listings as well. I see a lot of arguments that the quote is a hoax, perhaps actually started from that Yahoo thread, and nothing in the way of verifying the quote. I've attempted verifying different portions of the quote on each engine in order to account for any typo-based drift, etc., but ... so far, nothing. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

An investigator who describes himself as an "acid critic of the Catholic Church" concludes that these statements were not made by Cardinal Bergoglio, but are rather "a malicious invention." (English translation via Google translate) Thanar (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Why are the languages he speaks relevant enough for the opening paragraph?

I can't think of any other article where this would be relevant enough for an opening graph (maybe if it were more languages and the article were actually about someone famous for speaking lots of languages), and it wasn't up in that paragraph until yesterday. Look, he's a highly educated guy who presumably grew up in a two-language household, so that's two right there. Many to most highly educated people of the world speak a number of languages. It's interesting enough for the article, but why is it important enough for the opener? Moreover, we don't put cites in opening grafs usually, for one reason because opening grafs are meant to be broad, broad introductions to a topic, and IMO the number of languages he speaks doesn't qualify. It's hardly earth-shattering news that someone with enough skills to be elected pope would speak multiple languages. Can we move the language info back down? Moncrief (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone in the several old threads said that English was the main international language, and that lead to including the languages he can speak. I'm afraid that the article will stay a little messy during those days, everybody finds something they want to add; when the "there's a new pope" fever dies down the article may be organized better. Cambalachero (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, I think we should include the languages he speaks. That's fine. My comment is that it does not belong in the introductory paragraph, and it wasn't there until yesterday. It was further down in the article, where I think it belongs. Moncrief (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Also see Talk:Pope_Francis#Languages. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

A good solution, Joe. I do see now that there isn't a good place to put this information. "Personal life" seems a little weird regarding a pope, but that would be another new section possibility to put the language information in. Moncrief (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope we come up with something soon. That language sentence stands out like a sore thumb in the opening paragraph, sounding way too much like a personal ad or a PR description of a model or something. Just really odd placement right now. Moncrief (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Archive?

Archiveing of previous discussions seems to have failed, the discussions are gone. Can someone fix this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

But no discussions have been archived yet since none are more than two days old. What discussions are missing? Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

[Here] is one. Or am I misunderstanding something? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Mizabot are set to archive all discussion more than two days old. But if you look at the timestamp on the discussion you are mentioning, 2 full days have not yet gone. Many things can have happened. Maybe someone would have erased it? That is very unlikely in a wikipedia talkpage, but it does happen. And this is by far the most fragmented and undisciplined talkpage I have ever seen :)

Feel free to reinstate any discussions that have may been lost in one way or another. Thanks for noticing. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for answering! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I should note that several discussions regarding the article name were consolidated and a couple of other threads were collapsed. MiszaBot should harvest several threads tonight, but currently, only one thread has been manually archived. Safiel (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Demonym

I think that the demonym of Genoa is "Genoese", not "Genovese". Moreover, I would put the school name "Hipolyto Yrigoyen"" between quotation marks and/or in italic. Lele giannoni (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Done! --Againme (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Francis and "we would end up a pitiful NGO" if we do not focus on Christ.

This seems to be a line that at least some reporters have picked up from his message. Here is a Fox News report [12] that focuses on it. I am not sure specific lines from speeches are worth including, and will try and see if there is other coverage of this line.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Here [13] is an article from the Christian Science Monitor that discusses the idea that Pope Francis was chosen to continue the New Evangelization. It presents the idea that some think that the Church should move away from proclaiming Christ as the universal savior of all manking. In light of that article I think it might be possible to see Francis' comments reported by Fox as a clear indication that he will allow only a message of Christ as universal Savior. It might be good to find somewhere where people make this connection explicit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I would also say that the author really is missing the religious langscape in Argentina. Argentina has in many ways dealt with secularization at nearly the same rate as Western Europe and Australia. A quick look at Religion in Argentina will show that close to 90% of the population is seen as Catholic, but only about 20% regularly attend mass. These may not fully incorporate the mos recent changes in the population, but it seems the major adversary to Catholic dominance in Argentina, as in Italy or France, is agnosticism and non-religiosity, not movement to other faiths. It is a very different situation than El Salvador or Guatamala.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Here [14] is a Time article that makes the argument that Argentina is seeing the rise of secularism, but their most compelling stats are from Urguay, which of course is Argentina only more so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope not raising arms

Here is an article from Discovery [15] that makes a big deal about the Pope not raising his arms when first presented. I am not really sure this is worth having in the article, but I figured I would mention it here so others could consider possibly including it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Slum priest

Here [16] is an article from the Huffington Post on Bergoglio ministering to people in slums. I am not sure how or to what extent to incorporate its contents into the article, I will leave that determination to others. I would question the claims that Antonio Gil is a "pagan" folkhero though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact our article on Gauchito Gil mentions that one of his symbols is a cross. He is clearly not an authorized Catholic saint, but to use the term "pagan" in relation to him seems to have no basis in fact. The article is unclear, but my best guess is that he was a bpatized Catholic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Amalia Damonte

Well, the gaurdian has churned out this article [17] that presents Prope Francis as a man suffering from unrequitted love. It is long on speaking and short on substance, and I really do not find anything from it worth incorporating. Maybe if some other sources cover it with more focus on real fact and not spin it might be worth putting in, but not know.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Contracieptives

This article [18] from the Jerusalem Post specifically says that Bergoglio attacked President Kirchner for efforts to distribute free contraceiptives. This fact should hopefully quash "rumors" that Pope Francis favors contraceptive use, at least it should be used to balance such claims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Papacy section - Health

In looking at the organization of the Papacy section, it occurs to me that Health doesn't need to be included here, as it is important generally, not just in the context of the papacy. The thing is, I don't know where else it should go...but I do think it's over-emphasized by putting it here. Hires an editor (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd leave it. It's a greater area of interest than most bios and the location is as good as any. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This article's name: Pope Francis or Pope Francis I or Francis or Francis I

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Issue is clearly resolved in favor of plain Francis. Safiel (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

---

The first 10 subsections in this section have been gathered from all over this somewhat fractured talkpage. Happy reading :) When commenting on this subject please do so at section 11 New Comments on March 14 and onward and not in the individuel subsections for a clear debate open to all, also newcomers. Thank You Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Regnal name

Just to nip the inevitable edit war in the bud, why is it "Francis" and not "Francisco"? Localized name thing? Matteric (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

NPR is calling him "Franciscus" so does that localize to "Francis" ala St Francis of Assisi (USA) or San Francisco (Espanol)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.62.34 (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be "Franciscus", then? Not Francis or Francisco. 101090ABC (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

John Paul II was Juan Pablo II in Spanish speaking countries, Giovanni Paolo II in Italian ones, and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimbabweed (talk • contribs) 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Franciscus in the Vatican, his name in Latin. For the spanish speaking it will be Francisco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.136.224.200 (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

We really should clarify that the actual name that he himself chose, as originally reported by the Vatican, was indeed "Francisco" (same in both Spanish and Italian). That English-speaking media outlets all immediately anglicanized it into "Francis" was probably unavoidable, but we are very much incorrect if we tell people that "he chose the name Francis". Austinlwyman4 (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Francis the First, Not a Native American

Where's the ordinal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.136.61 (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2013

First Non-European Pope in History on March 3, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.58.239 (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2013

Francis the First is NOT A NATIVE AMERICAN...He is the First European of Italian Ancestry Born in the Americas/Argentina. Please respect the meaning of the words. There is nothing Native America about Francis the First. Get a grip folks.LostLanguages (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

HE IS NOT THE FIRST NON EUROPEAN POPE. SAINT PETER (FIRST POPE) WAS NOT EUROPEAN EITHER. Fredyrod (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

He's not styled "Francis the First", and being born in the Americas makes him native Americanm, regardless of political boundaries or ethnic origins. By your reasoning, the aboriginal peoples who lived in the Americas when the first Europeans arrived in the middle of the last millennium couldn't have been "native Americans" either, because their ancestors crossed the Bering ice bridge during the Wisconsin Glaciation. — Quicksilver^{T @} 23:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

He is the twelfth non European pope. There have been two Palestinians, three Africans and six Syrians. Wmck (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

None needed. There is no second.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 19:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It was notable that John Paul I chose to be use the ordinal and was the first to Pope to be "XXX the First". Clearly Francis I is following in this tradition. Move. jameslucas (" " / +) 19:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's notable that he is the only Pope Francis, and he will probably be the only Pope Francis for years into the future, and the article can be moved if a future pope becomes the second. His official Vatican title is "Pope Francis". Andrew³²⁷ 19:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is only 1. It can be updated if/when a Francis II is named. Dmarquard (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support, eventually. If the Pope, in his official capacity, refers to himself as Francis the First, Francis I, or whatever, we can do no less. As noted, above, John Paul I chose to do so, and we likely would have followed suit. But it is really really too early to speculate. I'm betting the Vatican will offer a news release or some sort of official announcement (their website is behind) that will clarify things. Give the poor man a few hours to get situated, yes? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if this counts as official but the official Twitter account just tweeted "HABEMUS PAPAM FRANCISCUM" https://twitter.com/Pontifex/status/311922995633455104 Eddyproca (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's perfectly normal to use both "Francis" and "Francis I", like they did with "Benedict" and "Benedict XVI". Oh, and the Pope tweeted he is Francis I [19] so yeah, he decides. Smartyllama (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Pope Frankie ever tweeted in his life. There is no account at Twitter. — O'Dea (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Official announcement did not mention an ordinal, so until he claims the ordinal like John Paul the 1st did, he is just Pope Francis. Anyone using an ordinal is doing it out of ignorance. wxwalsh 19:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Currently the Vatican web page announces him as 'New Pontiff Is Pope Francis of Argentina' No ordinal at this time. That seems, for now, to be as reliable a source as you will find. http://www.vatican.com/ Sarafinadh (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Vatican News website (news.va) uses both "Francis" and "Francis I". Eddyproca (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Support Popes are traditionally given a numeral. Even when they are "the First". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, only John Paul I took an ordinal, and he did it deliberately. No others had an ordinal until after a 2nd was made. Also, the vatican news site typod his name as well, to get a hasty article out, their use of the ordinal should not be taken as official. wxwalsh 20:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This post needs to be fixed in both grammar and facts. In fact it is basically all silly. He is not Native American, as that's a term for something else, deal with it. He's not European either, as he is not from Europe, and his ancestry lying in Europe doesn't change that. None of this is important in this discussion. Neither are you making sense. - the 16. of March 2013

WIKIPEDIANS ARE MAD (see discussion below)!

By the way, what means "non-european"? I guess that you have good reasons to regard Italy no longer as part of Europe. A certain affinity towards torture, human rights violations, rape, euthanasy, intolerance, ignorance, especially against the heart of Christianity, does not fit to European ethics? I am not sure, but all these inconveniences might happen to catholic folks here in Europe... Che vergogna! --151.77.61.139 (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Go to the source: The Vatican Web site says it is "Franciscum" in Latin, or "Francis" in English. It does not use the ordinal "I" after the name. See www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm. — Quicksilver^{T @} 20:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment CNN is currently reporting via Vatican spokesman Tom Rosica that "the new pope should be known as Pope Francis, not Pope Francis I" http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/13/cardinals-elect-new-pope/ Baileypalblue (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Can we get this section closed, since it has been officially settled now by the Vatican itself? And that way stop it from being continually argued by people who have not paid attention to the previous posts? wxwalsh 00:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• (ECX4) Ok, well, I'm totally confused now as to why that happened from Vatican Radio if it wasn't true, but given the statement from the Vatican saying there will be no numeral, I'm going to withdraw this move request for now until/unless something indicates otherwise or Pope Francis II gets elected. Smartyllama (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In the news

The English-language Wikipedia's main page is currently (as of UTC 02:00 on the 16. of March 2013) mentioning the current pope as the first Latin American one. While this is true, it is more logical and informative (and less deceptive and questionable) to mention him as the first pope ever from the Americas, as common, reasonable practice worldwide is to refer to unique things by the largest extent of the differences from the other entities in the group (for example: "To be or not to be." would be referred to as a sentence rather than as not being a verb when contrasting this quote to the word "help"), not a subgroup of that. As it stands it's as silly as writing about two things that happened on Friday the 13. of a particular year while actually only mentioning this in the case of one of them although the whole point is to draw as many connections between the two events as possible.

If a specific Gambian man was the first from his country to walk on the moon, it would be strange to instead mention him as being the first person from the city of Banjul to do so. Likewise, if a bed and a mattress were brought to into outer space and neither type of object had been off the Earth previously, it would be odd to mention only the mattress when writing an article about it. If a celebrity is known both as being an actress and a tennis player, when mentioning her eventful life it would be strange to only mention her having had both television and film roles as examples of that, and leave her sports career and everything else unmentioned.

Pius?

Here it says Pius XIII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.136.61 (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2013‎ (UTC)

It's Francis I

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. The Vatican has explicitly said he is simply "Francis" without an ordinal. There is no reason to name the article otherwise, and there's a strong enough consensus here not to do so that SNOW applies (non-admin close) Hot Stop (Talk) 02:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC). Hot Stop (Talk) 02:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis → Pope Francis I – Sources are giving his name as Francis I. I would have done a simple move but that page redirects here so I can't. Smartyllama (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there proof that the 'Francis' refers to Francis of Assisi, not Francis de Sales? Both are saints - de Sales was a bishop and is a Doctor of the Church. I was unable to hear the official announcement of the regal name, but it would be good to confirm this association, rather than assume it. In an interview Cardinal Dolan said Pope Francis said he chose the name in honour of Francis of Assisi

• Or Francis Xavier for that matter. He was the founder of the Society of Jesus.

No, the founder was St. Ignatius, but St. Francis Xavier was one of the first and best known members. Wmck (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC) 91.83.198.239 (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Madnight

• Opposed for below reason. No ordinal until there's a second Pope Francis.
• Opposed Until/unless there's a source stating that he's called himself "Francis I" as opposed to just Francis. EWTN and MSNBC alone are saying simply "Francis" right now. Also, apparently John Paul I actually specified that he was "the First". umrguy42 19:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Opposed Reiterating - no ordinal until there's a second Pope Francis. erielhonan 19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes a move would be right. John Paul I had an ordinal in his lifetime.

I doubt this. Please cite source. erielhonan 19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Title should include the ordinal I, as Pope John Paul I, but somebody already redirected that here. Grsz 11 19:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The ordinal is only used for the first when there's a second. John Paul I was only John Paul until John Paul II was elected. 86.9.122.202 (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose If a future Pope takes the name, an Ordinal would be appropriate and the article would be moved at that time. Until and unless that happens, the article should stay where it is. Safiel (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Response[20] Gives John Paul I's name with the numeral even though it's from before John Paul II. Also, [21], [22], [23], [24] and numerous other sources include the numeral. Smartyllama (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, MSNBC is now referring to him as Francis I [25] Smartyllama (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - It is clear that he has purposely chosen to use the oridinal, just like John Paul I. BBC cites him as Francis I. 128.148.231.12 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Correct, like John Paul, who specifically chose to add the ordinal. If this one does the same, the rule "no ordinal until there's a second" does not apply. 94.224.96.189 (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Iv'e noticed that the page has already been moved, should it be moved back for the time being since there clearly it not a consensus yet for this move.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Opposed - Keep as "Pope Francis". According to the Pope's official Twitter "HABEMUS PAPAM FRANCISCUM" no use of ordinal [26]. --Zimbabweed (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The official announcement that just finished did not use the ordinal. John Paul I explicitly did include it, all other popes with new names did not. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever is decided, the history from Pope Francis may need to be merged into this article, as both have been edited in parallel after a copy and paste move. For now, I have protected that page from editing to prevent the problem getting worse. WJBscribe (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose No, he's Francis according to his own twitter. He's not using the ordinal like John Paul I did. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's perfectly normal to use both "Francis" and "Francis I", like they did with "Benedict" and "Benedict XVI". Oh, and the Pope tweeted he is Francis I [27] so yeah, he decides. Smartyllama (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Wait We don't know yet whether he's going to reign as "Francis" or "Francis I"; it's very likely he'll clarify that soon (as John Paul I did, and, for that matter, as John XXIII did in a similar situation--it wasn't clear whether he was XXIII or XXIV until he said so). In the meantime, we should combine Pope Francis and Pope Francis I, it's ridiculous to have two pages--but either name is fine for a temporary place, until we know what his official name is. -- Narsil (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Outright oppose per all precedents. Wikipedia has Pope Mark, Pope Miltiades, Pope Constantine, etc. The Catholic News Service says "Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio is Pope Francis." Only the media are using the "I" (maybe to make it more sensational?). --86.40.200.32 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • That was based on a tweet from Catholic News Service, which often shortens names in tweets like all tweeters. Additionally this tweet calls him "Fco 1" presumably because "Francisco I" would put them over the 140 character limit. Smartyllama (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • [28] another tweet from Catholic News Service also uses the numeral. Smartyllama (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
    • CatholicNewsSvc is not an official source wxwalsh 20:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
    • You are choosing to ignore "Pope Mark, Pope Miltiades, Pope Constantine, etc." See also, Queen Victoria, Queen Anne for other examples. There is no "second." --86.40.200.32 (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
      • in those days, there where no ordinals at all, not for kings either. It's a later invention. And the papacy is not the British throne.
        • Those were comparisons. Where is the example of a person with a unique name being called "I"? What does it matter if it is from centuries ago? Suppose he had chosen "Pope Mark"? Then he would be "Pope Mark II" and Pope Mark" (from centuries ago) would be "Pope Mark I". --86.40.200.32 (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
          • John Paul I specifically added the ordinal. Maybe we should wait, time will make it clear. IF he explicitely uses the ordinal, so do we. Else we revert to standard rules. 94.224.96.189 (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Have you actually read the article on monarchical ordinals? There is plenty of precedent both ways. What matters is what official sources are saying now. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Yeah, precedent seems to be to have no numeral. See Papal_name#Frequency where the "1" entries seem to all have no numeral. —Soap— 19:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Not calling this an oppose though because I want to see more info. All of the other 1's are from before 1000 AD I think. —Soap— 19:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
    • So? What does it matter if it is from centuries ago? Suppose he had chosen "Pope Mark"? Then he would be "Pope Mark II" and Pope Mark" (from centuries ago) would be "Pope Mark I". --86.40.200.32 (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, Wikipedia uses reliable soruces, not precedents. So for now, we have to use our reliable sources and say it's Francis I. Smartyllama (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Right, so if a reliable source decides to call him "Pope Donkey I", we move it to "Pope Donkey I"? Every other Pope is named in line with the title "Pope Francis", not "Pope Francis II" until, if any time, at some point in the future. Mark is a fairly common name too but, surprisingly to me, there has only been one and it is Pope Mark. --86.40.200.32 (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Seriously? We follow the preponderance of reliable sources. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Looks like www.news.va/en/ can't make up their mind either to use Francis or Francis I --JohnDBuell (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Their very first article says "Who is Pope Francis?" And the next one mentions a Fracis [sic] I. So I'd say let the Vatican sort it first. :) --JohnDBuell (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Just before I undertook to write the paragraph you are reading, the article said in one place the name "Francis" was in honor of Francis Xavier, and another place in the article said it was in honor of Francis of Assisi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2013

• Procedural Question Since the move has apparently already been carried out, should we close this discussion as procedure and open a new one about moving it back to Pope Francis? Smartyllama (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • [29] AN OFFICIAL VATICAN SOURCE cleary says POPE FRANCIS I. Other pages on that site may give the shortened name, but it's just that, a shortened name. People sometimes called Benedict XVI "Pope Benedict" but it isn't his official name. Smartyllama (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The "Official vatican source" quoted by Smartyllama has contradicted itself, and shown it is thus not a reliable source. wxwalsh 20:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It has not contradicted itself. It just used a shortened name. this article refers to Benedict XVI by just "Pope Benedict" at times. I guess it contradicts itself too? No wait, it doesn't, it's just a shortened name. It's nothingnew. Smartyllama (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The only time your "official source" called him with the ordinal, they misspelled his name. Should we now move this to Pope Fracis I based on your source? wxwalsh 20:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, at [30] the POPE HIMSELF announced on Twitter that he is Francis I. He decides, not you. Smartyllama (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Like Belgian and Spanish monarchs, Popes are traditionally called "the First" even if there is no second yet. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No they are not, only John Paul I took an ordinal as the first, all others only got it in historical context after a 2nd was made wxwalsh 20:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As User:Eddyproca points out (above), news.va uses both with and without the "I." Twitter account does not have the blue "verified" icon on it yet. Defer decision until the Pope himself clarifies. 74.96.191.244 (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact, based on some Google translations of the earlier messages, I have strong doubts that twitter account is official. Even if it was, it was updated while the pope was speaking so it's unclear how much confirmation the person writing had of the name preference. Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

On behalf of user Rtrac3y: Per en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#Popes, correct style is "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one}" [31] Mike V • Talk 20:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• The Vatican News Website now refers to him with the numeral on one of three rotating messages at the top (go to [32] and wait for it to change). If the Vatican isn't a reliable source, and the Pope isn't a reliable source, I don't know who is. Smartyllama (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The only official verified twitter account for the Pope is https://twitter.com/Pontifex and there is no ordinal there. The other you link is unverified and per Wikipedia policy is not considered a reliable source, also the vatican's official website is now up, and not using an ordinal http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm and http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/elezione/index_en.htm wxwalsh 20:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Wait Let's wait and see what develops in RS and what the Pope himself uses. The information we have so far is a bit contradictory and in any case may not reflect what the Pope may use. E.g. the official papal edit:twitter message I'm pretty sure written while the pope was still speaking.Nil Einne (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support move A growing number of sources is using the number, and the pope has used it himself on his Twitter account. Media calling him "Pope Francis" is simply using informal language, just like it is common enough to speak of "John Paul" or "Benedict" while neither using the number nor denying its existence. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Settled for now, the vatican.va website clearly does not call him the 1st. No ordinal number. wxwalsh 20:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Reference for above http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/elezione/index_en.htm wxwalsh 20:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Extra context: The ordinal ("primus") was explicitly used in John Paul I's papal announcement; it was not used in Francis'. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, no ordinal needed, so use none. LCS check (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, just listen at the official announcement, he's just Franciscus. ekerazha (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Go to the source: The Vatican Web site says it is "Franciscum" in Latin, or "Francis" in English. It does not use the ordinal "I" after the name. See www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm. — Quicksilver^{T @} 20:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: John Paul I had the ordinal number, but this is not the case, saying "John Paul I had the number so Francis must also have the number" is a non-sense. ekerazha (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support The pope tweeted in his Jorge M Bergoglio twitter account: @JMBergoglio tweet: 'Inmensamente feliz de ser el nuevo Papa, Francisco I' which translates as 'Immensely happy to be the new Pope, Francis I' -- Marek.69 ^talk 21:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • why participate if you won't read what has already been posted? That twitter account is not verified, and there is evidence from looking at the translated tweets (many containing links to articles critical of the Cardinal, and other things that just seem likely to not have been posted by the man himself) that it is not him. Per Wikipedia policy WP:ELPEREN, that twitter account is not realiable. The official Twitter for the Pope uses no ordinal, the vatican.va's website uses no ordinal. Issue is settled wxwalsh 21:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

STOP THIS NONSENSE ALREADY. There is zero evidence that the Twitter account is authentic. Do you think the Pope would have nothing better to do right now than have his nose in his iPhone sending Tweets? Use your brain, if you have one. — Quicksilver^{T @} 21:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was obviously mistaken. I've now stuck my above comment. Please accept this as a good faith error and nothing else. -- Marek.69 ^talk 22:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Its a shame that one can't make a good faith comment on Wikipedia, without the suggestion being made of being brainless :-( Marek.69 ^talk 23:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Everyone needs to remember to assume good faith. Andrew³²⁷ 23:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarifiedhttp://bigstory.ap.org/article/francis-without-roman-numeralNickm93 (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the ordinal, since there are now multiple news accounts with Vatican spokesmen specifically deprecating it. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose No Francis I until there's a Francis II. We'll reconvene here when that happens and talk about it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per standard practice. John Paul I broke new grounds in multiple ways but there's no sign he changed this. Sources are explicitly against the ordinal. Come back in a year when things have settled down. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above comments, including one that I made in an earlier thread on the same topic. It seems like there is clear consensus on this front. Andrew³²⁷ 23:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose the ordinal; official statements from the Vatican, precedent within the Roman Catholic Church, and standard convention for heads of state all mitigate against using the ordinal. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• A statement at [33] taken from Vatican Radio refers to him as Francis I. Smartyllama (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Can we get this section closed, since it has been officially settled now by the Vatican itself? And that way stop it from being continually argued by people who have not paid attention to the previous posts? wxwalsh 00:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Sure, I'll withdraw it since it's clear you're right at this point. I don't understand why Vatican Radio would indicate otherwise, but nonetheless, you're right and I'll withdraw it. Smartyllama (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Great. I can speculate as to why some sources were doing it. It really is the first Pope with a new name to happen in the instant news era. Most of them weren't aware enough of the historical context, and everyone was rushing to get news out and up on the internet, to feed the hungry masses. So they made mistakes. wxwalsh 01:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - at the end of "Habemus Papam" announcement there was no "primi" (which means "the first" in latin) on pope name: http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUBi2mrWuNuyYy4gbM6fU18Q&feature=player_detailpage&v=GjgCyE78A8I#t=51s BUT! During John Paul I annoucment there was "primi" at the end of the name clearly said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJeo6Mi4LlI&feature=player_detailpage#t=372s So i guess thats depends on how pope names himself at the end of conclave -Shadowriver (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

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.

Francis I?

Shouldn't it just be Francis as there is no Francis II?

Yes, it should, as the official Twitter states "HABEMUS PAPAM FRANCISCUM" with no use of an ordinal. [34]. --Zimbabweed (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Only pope to take an ordinal as part of the first use of their name was John Paul I, to distinguish his as a compound of preceding popes John and Paul. Unless the Vatican (or this Pope) states plainly that the ordinal is to be included, get rid of it. LCS check (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. Fitnr (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Popes are called "the First" even if there is not yet a second. The name of the article should be changed. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

On the Vatican Italian language site it says "Habemus Papam Franciscum" [[35]]--PeregrinusW (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I dont agree... On German TV during the inauguration ceremony they all addressed the new pope as Francis 1st. Logically... Its a clear signal and important to refer as Francis of Assisi (which is the name giver) was a rebel and purist who liberated and reformed the Catholic church peacefully during his time... no other pope before selected this name. User:ElJay_Arem

Popes are always given an ordinal number. Even it they are "the First".Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

BBC News are calling him Francis I, and they're usually fairly accurate on matters of state, etc. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Vatican website is not naming him with an ordinal number. I think they are our most reliable source at the moment. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/elezione/index_en.htm and then http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm wxwalsh 20:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Go to the source: The Vatican Web site says it is "Franciscum" in Latin, or "Francis" in English. It does not use the ordinal "I" after the name. See www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm. — Quicksilver^{T @} 20:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

He won't get a numeral until or if there is a Francis II. Kjrjr (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)kjrjr

• Can we get this section closed, since it has been officially settled now by the Vatican itself? And that way stop it from being continually argued by people who have not paid attention to the previous posts? wxwalsh 00:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Article name

The name of the new pope should be "Francis", not "Francis I". Popes who take names that have not been taken by previous popes do not bear a number. John Paul I was a an exception to this rule. Please refer to list of pope's names provided here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes. Notice that pope Landus, elected in 913, was the last pope--except John Paul I and Francis-- to take a name not previously taken by a pope, and he does not have a number. Also, refer to the announcement of the the cardinal Protodeacon, who gave the name of the new pope without the number.

Thanks. 71.6.42.66 (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. please move the page to 'Pope Francis'. He becomes 'Pope Francis I' only when there is a 'Pope Francis II'. The Discoverer (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree won't be Francis I until there is a Francis II.--KTo288 (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I also think Francis I is incorrect. The only pope having the I in his regnal name was John Paul I, but the number was included in the name as it was announced as Ioannes Paulus Primi. Skortzy (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not correct. Not only is there precedent that Pope John Paul I used a regnal number, but the pope himself has tweeted that he will use the regnal number [36]. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Note, Bergoglio tweeted this on his personal account, not the Vatican account. [37] --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with no number, as per my comment in the above section on the name. LCS check (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

All old examples are from before ordinals were invented, so theygive no clue. The rule is to use an ordinal, but we should read the official statementsfrom theVatican to see if your idea about an unprecedenced use of no ordinal is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.136.61 (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2013

My vote is that the number is wrong regardless what the Pope calls himself. There is only a "I" when there is a "II". All the other popes whose names were not used again have no number. Queen Anne of Great Britain is never called "Anne I". Queen Elizabeth I was just "Queen Elizabeth" until 1952. CasparRH (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought this move would be non-controversial, so I deleted Pope Francis I to allow for moving the article under the proper name. The circumstances were urgent, and the translation was incorrect -- it is Franciscum, not ordinal I. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No. He has referred to himself as Francis I on Twitter. He decides, not you. Grsz 11 20:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not our place to decide. It is the prerogative of the new Pope to decide how he wishes to be known; so we should use the same name that the Roman Catholic Church uses and not try to twist the facts. This article says Pope Francis I. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 5)Just a comment but the Vatican seem to be referring to "Fracis I" [38] --wintonian ^talk 20:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The catholic herald is not the official catholic church, and the news.va site clearly was hasty in their post and even typoed his name, we can't really consider that a reliable source. wxwalsh 20:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but if we can't call the Vatican a reliable source for papal elections then who is? --wintonian ^talk 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No need to rush around, stick with the title as it is for now until it becomes clear what he intends to call himself.--KTo288 (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So we seem to have a bunch of editors who have decided what ought to be (no regnal number) and have zero sources backing them up, and we have several sources using the regnal number, including the pope himself. The pope's tweet clearly falls under WP:SELFSOURCE. Please bow to the sources and use the regnal number. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. No Regnal is the rule until we have a reliable source saying otherwise. The twitter account is non-verified, and not a reliable source, the vatican's news site contradicts itself, and has hastily pushed out news. So we need to wait for the dust to settle and see what the official vatican statement will be on this. Until then, the long standing precedence is the best choice, no regnal number. wxwalsh 20:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, Pope John Paul II was presented on the Basicilca balcony as John Paul in October 1978. Though, it was likely a simple mistake by the protodeacon. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It has been settled anyway, the vatican has provided the correct reference, no ordinal number. http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm wxwalsh 20:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Go to the source: The Vatican Web site says it is "Franciscum" in Latin, or "Francis" in English. It does not use the ordinal "I" after the name. See www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm. — Quicksilver^{T @} 20:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Franciscum is the accusative of Franciscus. Surtsicna (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The most common name, without any doubt, is going to be Pope Francis. That is why the present title is correct and should remain as it is. There is no point in claiming that he is officially "Francis I" because he is not. Officially, he is "Franciscus I". That, however, is not how he is referred to in English. Surtsicna (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. I actually agree with Pope Francis anyways, since the precedent is already set by the list of the earliest popes. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Vatican is most grateful for your approval. — Quicksilver^{T @} 21:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

He is not "Franciscus I" officially either. The church does not use ordinals until they have to, or unless the Pope indicates he wants it. The official vatican website calls him Franciscus, without any "I" - it is time to put this to rest, it has been resolved unless the vatican changes it in the future wxwalsh 20:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, I want to see either an official document signed by "Franciscus Primus" or his being announced as such (as it was done with JPI) or the election of "Franciscus Secundus". Only then would he Francis I be official or necessary. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This just in from AP:

The Vatican says the new pope's official name is Pope Francis, without a Roman numeral.

Spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi sought to clear up any possible confusion, noting that Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, who announced the name to the world, said simply Francis. It is listed that way in the first Vatican bulletin on the new pope.

"It will become Francis I after we have a Francis II," Lombardi quipped.

Source: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/francis-without-roman-numeral Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Popes have traditionally always use an ordinal number. John Paul I was called that during his reign. The way it is announce on the balcony doesn't come into that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No, they have NOT always used an ordinal number. John Paul I was a SPECIAL CASE, and he did it to acknowledge the previous use of the names John and Paul by the predecessors he was honoring by choosing a combined name. Please stop just repeating yourself and ignoring the facts that have been presented by others. wxwalsh 21:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop this nonsense. A few minutes ago ABC Radio News was still spouting "Francis I". Just, please, go to the Vatican Web site. Get the information from the source instead of filtered through the unreliable press. — Quicksilver^{T @} 21:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:Please don't shout and especially not in big red text :)  — Amakuru (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No need to lecture. Just putting the brakes on a runaway train. We have four separate threads going on this page, all about the same topic — namely moving the article — and nobody bothering to check authoritative sources or to scroll to the bottom of the thread before posting. — Quicksilver^{T @} 22:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Can we get this section closed, since it has been officially settled now by the Vatican itself? And that way stop it from being continually argued by people who have not paid attention to the previous posts? wxwalsh 00:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Not to mention there is already a move request above and there is no need to split discussion.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
    • and 4 other sections created to discuss it....time to close them all. wxwalsh 02:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxwalsh (talk • contribs)

"Pope" Francis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why do Pope articles start with "Pope" in the title? The Obama article is not titled "President Barack Obama." If we look at the first line of JPII's article, it reads "John Paul II (Latin: Ioannes Paulus PP. II, Italian: Giovanni Paolo II), sometimes called Blessed John Paul or John Paul the Great, born Karol Józef Wojtyła (Polish: [ˈkarɔl ˈjuzɛf vɔjˈtɨwa]; 18 May 1920 – 2 April 2005), reigned as Pope of the Roman Catholic Church ..." Notice how the article does not begin "Pope John Paul II." Barack Obama's White House page calls him, "President Barack Obama." http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama ---- So, why do some people have their title/position before their name, and others don't? Xkcdreader (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a big inconsistency with the wording used in pope articles. It's been discussed many times. I agree that they should all be consistent. See List of popes for easy access to all the pope articles. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The article about Pope John Paul II is called "Pope John Paul II".Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, the pope is not just a head of state, like Obama. He is also the pope of the RC church. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

it's has to do with some of the popes being in the cannonization process. it's complicated, and it took me 5 minutes of edit conflicts to post this. Aunva6 (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Xkcdreader is not talking about the article title; s/he's talking about the opening sentence. The other long debate is about the way it appears at the top of the infobox, particularly when it doesn't match the article title. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because the other articles are named that way, doesn't make it a good idea. Maybe they should all be changed. Why is Pope in the article title? Is Pope part of his name himself, or a title or position. "General MacArthur" redirects to "Douglas MacArthur." I AM talking about the title. Xkcdreader (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

First, I already said that "I agree that they should all be consistent". And as far as having "Pope" in the article title, that is a Wikipedia policy. Popes have Pope in the title. Simple. ;) --76.189.111.2 (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Being a religious leader is not relevant for this difference. However, U.S. President is an office with a time limit, Pope you are (usually) for live. Popes take a papal name so there is no John Paul II before his being Pope. Also, Popes have no family name so how to distinguish Francis from all the millions of Francises around the world? Kings etc. are distinguished by adding the country, e.g. "Louis XII of France" - it's the same with popes, only that their distinguishing marker comes in front. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

there's already a discussion about that on the convention page. we don't need another one here, this page is busy enough as-is. Aunva6 (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is the naming convention rule that tells us why article titles for popes must begin with "Pope". 76.189.111.2 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That does not say "Why" it just says "do it." I moved my discussion of the issue to that talk page, it doesn't belong here. Xkcdreader (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pope-elect Francis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bergoglio isn't Pope (yet). According to this, U.S. VP Biden is going to be part of his country's delegation for the installation and it suggests the Vatican has said the Pope has not yet been installed.

Bergoglio is an old man. If he dies now he won't have been Pope. For example, Pope-elect Stephen was elected but died a few days later before being consecrated. He is not officially recognised as a Pope by the Vatican. Should he not be referred to as Pope-elect Francis in the title and should his article not reflect this technicality? If Bergoglio dies Wikipedia will have egg all over its face. --86.40.200.32 (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The move was premature. Let's wait until he is pope. --RA (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but he became pope the moment he said yes when asked if he accepted the position. See this page. The bishops on the various network TV coverage said the same thing. Except in rare instances, the person elected pope becomes pope instantly (after accepting). --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes he was pope the moment he accepted his election Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

He became pope, the instant he accpted his papal election. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

But he hasn't been installed. --86.40.200.32 (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Installed" is a formality. Did you read this page to which I referred you? ;) Obama actually became president this year on January 20 (the day before the inauguration ceremony on January 21) when he privately accepted the oath of office. The inauguration ceremony is just that, a ceremony. Francis became the pope the moment he said yes. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Obama was already president to begin with... --86.40.200.32 (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Had he not taken the oath on January 20, 2013, he would not have been president any more. Each U.S. presidential terms is four years. But I understand that you may not be familiar with this since you're in Letterkenny, Ireland. But of course you're missing the point. The "installation" of a pope is purely ceremonial, just as the inauguration of a president. The pope becomes pope when he says yes to accepting his election and a president becomes president when he takes the oath of office (for each term). The fact that you refuse to answer whether you read this page, which clearly explains when a pope becomes pope, indicates that we're done here. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because a person is editing at a particular location doesn't mean they are from there. They could easily be from the other side of the world. But point taken, aside from all that.

I didn't say you are "from" Letterkenny. I only said that you're "in" Letterkenny. ;) In any case, I'm glad that we've settled this issue. Have a great evening. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, 76.189.111.2, but Obama would have still remained President had he for some reason not taken the Oath (or ever taken an oath). The Oath of Office is an important formality, but is now Constitutionally unnecessary in the United States (if he's elected and qualified, he's President from noon on January 20th no matter what). It's the same as the Pope from the moment he agreed. The "Oath of Office" or "Presidential Inauguration" is the equivalent of a Pope's installation, e.g. a traditional formality.--173.161.113.17 (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why not title of "Pope Francis I"?

I realize of course that he's the first Pope Francis, but shouldn't the title of the article be his full title, Pope Francis I? Of course there'd be a redirect from Pope Francis to the article. Thoughts? Moncrief (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It was announced by Vatican officials that he would only be called Francis I in case a Francis II would become pope. See list of popes where are single use names do not have the additional "I" (although Pope Lando is the last of those more than 1000 yrs ago) Arnoutf (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

See discussion above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Somebody should put a "hidden" note (i.e., one of those notes only article editors see) in the article itself, because clearly this will come up again and again. Moncrief (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added an editnotice. —Ruud 21:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be Pope Francis I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchical_ordinal#.22The_first.22

says:

"In some monarchies it is customary not to use an ordinal when there has been only one holder of that name. For example, Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom will not be called Victoria I until there is a Victoria II. This tradition is applied in the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Norway, and in the case of the queens regnant of the Netherlands. It was also applied in most of the German monarchies and in the Hungarian. In Sweden, the practice is not consistent, as Sigismund and Adolf Frederick never have ordinals, whereas Frederick I often does.

Other monarchies assign ordinals to monarchs even if they are the only ones of their name. This is a more recent invention and appears to have been done for the first time when King Francis I of France issued testoons (silver coins) bearing the legend FRANCISCVS I DE. GR. FRANCORV. REX. This currently is the regular practice in Belgium, Spain and Monaco (at least for Prince Albert I, as Princess Louise Hippolyte, who reigned 150 years earlier, does not appear to have used an ordinal). It was also applied in Brazil, Italy, Mexico, Montenegro, Portugal (where, although this is the general rule, Kings Joseph and Luís are usually referred to as "Joseph I" and "Luís I", although there were no Joseph II, nor Luís II) and by the Papacy under Pope John Paul I. The ordinal for King Juan Carlos I of Spain is used in both Spanish and English, but he is sometimes simply called King Juan Carlos of Spain in English. In Russia, use of "The First" ordinal started with Paul I of Russia. Before him, neither Anna of Russia nor Elizabeth of Russia had the "I" ordinal.

In Austria, Emperors Francis, Ferdinand, Francis Joseph and Charles all styled themselves as "the first" despite the fact that only Francis Joseph was the first Austrian ruler of that name (Francis was the second, Ferdinand the fifth, and Charles the fourth). This was due to the elevation of the title of the Austrian ruler from Archduke to Emperor.

The use of "The First" ordinal is also common to self-proclaimed ephemeral "kings" or "emperors", such as Dessalines, Christophe and Soulouque in Haiti, Iturbide in Mexico, Zog in Albania, Bokassa in Central African Republic, or the adventurer Boris Skossyreff in Andorra. In this case it is obvious that they want to emphasize the change of regime they pretend to introduce."

I have made the relevant passage bold. I know we can't use Wikipedia itself as a source, so there should be an outside secondary source. I do think this is a problem however. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

See the discussion above. If there is some documentation from the church that "Francis I" is used, then we can follow suit. JPI was proclaimed "John Paul the First" in 1978, Francis hasn't been. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This has been settled already.....http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/13/cardinals-elect-new-pope/ no roman numeral, straight from the Vatican spokesperson. The official website says not to have one, and the long standing vatican practice says not to include one. Had he requested to be known with the ordinal, that would change things, as it did with John Paul I, but this issue is already LONG settled. wxwalsh 21:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

John Paul II specifically used an ordinal in his name so he wouldn't be mistaken with the previous Popes, either John or Paul. Every other Pope that used a specific name first used no ordinals. And also the Vatican's website states "Habemvs Papam Franciscus", with no ordinal. --Zimbabweed (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, you have been answered on this point many times already, posting factually incorrect info, in other sections addressing this issue, why did you make a whole new section to bring it up again? wxwalsh 21:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

wxwalsh, I do think "long settled" aren't the right words to use here. We will see how this turns out and you may turn out to be on the right side of this when it is decided. John Paul I was the first pope since time immemorial to be a "the First". Precedent may mean something here. What the new pope wants however (and how can we be sure at this point) will probably decide this question. What is said on the balcony may not be all that significant. Zimbabweed, John Paul I used the ordinal during his short reign. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I consider the Vatican spokesman to be a solid enough source to say "long settled" It would be extraordinary for him to elect to have the ordinal, John Paul I did it because his name choice was extraordinary as well, and needed to be made clear he was not the first John or the first Paul. wxwalsh 22:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

CNN Is reporting the Vatican clarified. It's just "Francis" not "Francis I". Gateman1997 (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, turns out that that's the way it is. Break from precedent it is also however. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No, adding the ordinal number would have been a huge break from precedent. Why do you keep trying to claim otherwise in the face of so much hard evidence that shows you were wrong about this in the first place when you spammed all the sections with the claim that this is how it is always done? wxwalsh 23:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not a break from precedent, "John Paul I" was the break from precedent. No other pope had a "I" ordinal during his reign. 74.108.115.166 (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Can we get this section closed, since it has been officially settled now by the Vatican itself? And that way stop it from being continually argued by people who have not paid attention to the previous posts? wxwalsh 01:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm beating a resolved horse, but in case anybody has any doubts that this is "Pope Francis" and not "Pope Francis I", go take a look at the list of popes. There aren't any "Pope <moniker> I" pages for which there's no "Pope <monker> II". John Paul I has been mentioned, but that isn't an informative example, because there was a John Paul II. If Karol Wojtyła had decided to go with, say, "Pope George Ringo", then neither of them would have used an ordinal. TypoBoy (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Vatican clarifies

The Vatican says there is no numeral, it is simply Francis. "It will become Francis I after we have a Francis II," says a spokesman: [39] Pdxuser (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that we can finally put this debate to rest. Andrew³²⁷ 20:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Enough already! There was never a Rocky I or Terminator I or Police Academy I, the numerals only come with the sequels. Ajayvius (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

But there was a Pope John Paul I, with made this whole discussion starts. The question was then: Was the ways of John Paul I a new way of mentioning living popes or was it simply an special case? This is answered now. And I guess it is more important what the last pope that had a first name did than what different american movies does with there names. Before the Vatican clarified it was a very relevant discussion. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

There was not a John Paul I until there was a John Paul II, just as with Francis. He was Pope John Paul.88.167.22.75 (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If Rocky and Police Academy are the comparisons, here's hoping there's never a Francis the II. Andrew³²⁷ 04:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical Latin

Why in the first sentence does it give the papal name according to "Ecclesiastical Latin"? As far as I can tell this is unnecessary and is the only page (besides Pius X - which is not the topic of this change) which makes this distinction. Franciscus is his name in Latin, both ecclesial and classical.NDomer09 (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Name Confusion

Is it "Pope Francis" or "Pope Francis I"?

It's been dealt with (asked about) multiple times. See above discussions. The Vatican is using "Pope Francis" sans I. Moncrief (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

And just in case somebody round here might not speak French, 'sans' means without :) Tlhslobus (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

And the letter "I" is the Roman way of writing the number "1" (one, unity). Pol098 (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

And "See above discussions" means this has been discussed to death. Andrew³²⁷ 22:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

And I simply wanted to ask wether it is "Pope Francis" on "Pope Francis I"? AugustinMa (talk) 07:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• This [40] NPR blog makes it clear that the Vatican has officially said he is just Pope Francis, but also points out the initially there was some confusion on the matter. There are better sources mentioned above, but this source should be enough to end the debate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pronunciation (IPA) of his last name

Hi guys, there is confusion on how to pronounce the "GL" in BergoGLio in Spanish. What you guys have in this article is how the Spaniards would pronounce his name since it is only the Spaniards who use Palatal lateral approximant (λ). In Argentina, and Latin America in General, don't use Palatal lateral approximant. In Argentina, they use Voiceless palato-alveolar sibilant or Voiced palato-alveolar sibilant, while in Latin America, they use Voiced palatal fricative. I've also heard in some newscast in Spanish pronounce the "gl" separately, as in Ber-go-glee-o or ber-gog-lee-o. 99.179.174.131 (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What should the pronunciation say then? I'm not familiar with the aspects of linguistics of which you speak. Andrew³²⁷ 00:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what IP 99 said, but it was very impressive. Haha. In any case, the pronunciation I've heard all day here in the U.S. is "Burr-goal-ee-oh". ;) --76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

C'mon, Andrewman327 and IP no.2!! Piece of cake. IP no. 1's just explaining... or is s/he? Never mind – this is what you need: (Spanish: [ˈxorxe ˈmarjo berˈɣoɣljo]). In a nutshell, the Peninsular Spanish pronunciation of the surname is (somewhat) similar to the Italian one, whereas in Rioplatense Spanish – the variant the Pope speaks – is the one I've written. Cheers, --CocoLacoste talk 02:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

PS, IP no. 1, if you're going to show off, try not to make sweeping generalisations.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is pronounced [ˈxorxe ˈmaɾjo βerˈɣoɣljo] in Standard Spanish (single intervocalic r is realized as /ɾ/, and glio is pronounced according to Spanish spelling and pronunciation rules; i.e. as [gljo] after a pause or /n/, and [-ɣljo] after a continuant). BlueBirdo (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am not a linguistics expert, I thought since "gl" in Italian was pronounced the same as "ll" in Penisular/Spain Spanish, that meant the pronunciation would be different in Latin America because of Yeismo. I listened to some Argentinian newscast, and Coco Lacoste and BlueBirdo are right. The "gl" is pronounced separately, not like in Italian. 99.179.174.131 (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In Latin America we don't respect foreign phonology when pronouncing surnames like, at all. Especially when it is this kind of detail that we don't learn in school and aren't exposed by with media contact. Lguipontes (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Warning: Italian pronunciation is [berˈgɔʎʎo],[41] not [berˈgoʎʎo] as written under note a. --2.232.13.230 (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Could someone make a real sound record of his name's pronunciation? I would be very useful for non-Spainish or non-Italian speaking people.--Tham Gia Cho Vui (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It's easy: "Burr-goal-ee-oh" in Italian, and "Burr-goh-glee-oh" in Rioplatense Spanish. Nothing to do with Yeismo. --Againme (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Issues and statements involving Pope Francis re: the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal

It should be added. And raising many red flags for me, when there are lots of child predators in church, but we can read no words about it in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.136.192 (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

He's been pope for only a few hours and before his election he was obscure in English language press. News stories will come out about all aspects of the pope as time goes on, and it's important for us to respect WP:BLP and WP:RS, which call for us to be cautious about making statements about living people without strong supporting evidence. Andrew³²⁷ 01:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

More specifically, what content would you like to see added to the article that is not already there? I always assume good faith, but it appears that you are looking for anything negative that you can find to add to the BLP. Andrew³²⁷ 02:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This isnt an article about the Catholic church or any abuse they have protected. This is an article about a person. If he has made statements about child abuse, they belong in the article. Generic accusations concerning the church as a whole do not. Your red flags lead me to believe you may have a point of view you are trying to project. Xkcdreader (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I would also argue that there is already full coverage of the pandemic rape of children among Christian clergy, enough so that it's not relevant to the hiring of a new Pope. If this particular man was embroiled in personal child rape incidents, only then would it be significant enough to mention the overall pandemic. Damotclese (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. First off, I edited this topic to focus on issues and statements directly relating to Pope Francis re: sexual abuse, rather than trying to lump it in with LGBT and condom-related issues. There already is a talk section for homosexuality which should encompass much of the other topics.

I absolutely agree with Xkcdreader. Statements or incidents that this Pope have been involved with as regards to the sexual abuse scandal within the Catholic Church *ARE* relevant. People will want to know these things, and should have the right to know what is out there from reliable sources. As Xkcdreader has said, "Generic accusations concerning the church as a whole do not"... however, this is a brand new Pope that nobody knows much about yet other that what official Church and media bios have said.

What we are missing in this article, frankly, are journalistic reports from Argentine news sources that document any Catholic sexual abuse cases there, as well as statements and actions that Pope Francis took as regards the sexual abuse scandal during the bulk of his career, as a Bishop / Archbishop.

It absolutely should not be a matter of "original research". Rather, it requires using Google searches -- ideally ones on Bergoglio limited to the time period before he became pope -- to determine what credible news reports there are of sexual abuse cases involving the Catholic Church in Argentina, and what actions or statements, if any, Pope Francis made in regards to them, or as regards the scandal in general.

It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that this issue is not relevant, as far as the Pope or his biography is concerned, as the Pope is the head of his church, and has the final say as regards how aggressively -- or defensively -- such criminal matters are addressed.Markkraft (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• You assume there has been some level of a scandal in Argentina. That remains to be demonstated. The scandal was created by proactive attempts by certain Church leaders to cover up the existence of problems at the local level. It comes about because there is reporting within the Church of the prblems but failure by the people suffering the problems to report them to civil authorities. Even in the United States it really only reached scandalous proportions in specific areas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The Catholic sex abuse cases in Argentina, who surfaced and written about in the english wikipedia. If anyone finds more, add them first there and if there are relevant to the new pope you can add them here. According to Pope Francis's book reveals a radical progressive in the making an article in The Guardian about his book "On Earth and Heaven" he I quote "preaches zero tolerance of pederast priests" and I quote the rest of the interesting part: "He is critical of those who covered up the paedophile scandal that has done so much damage to the church he now leads. "The idea that celibacy produces paedophiles can be forgotten," he says. "If a priest is a paedophile, he is so before he becomes a priest. But when this happens you must never look away. You cannot be in a position of power and use it to destroy the life of another person." Bergoglio says he has never had to deal with such a case, but when a bishop asked what he should do, he told him the priest should be sacked and tried, that putting the church's reputation first was a mistake."I think that is the solution that was once proposed in the United States; of switching them to other parishes," he says. "That is stupid, because the priest continues to carry the problem in his backpack." The only answer to the problem, he adds, is zero tolerance." Qoute end. I think this is relevant to the article. --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Full Latin name

May I request that the full Latin name of Jorge Bergoglio be given? The Habemus Papam is in Latin and some may want to know how his name was said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.51.190 (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

From here: Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum; habemus Papam: Eminentissimum ac Reverendissimum Dominum, Dominum Georgium Marium Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem Bergoglio qui sibi nomen imposuit Franciscum. Rwflammang (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What's the problem? You would use the name in accusative instead in nominative? --ŠJů (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Bergoglio's English

I've looked all over the place on the web, and haven't been able to find a single quality reference about Bergoglio's English speaking fluency level. English, being the world's lingua-franca these days, I think it would be helpful if the article had something about this. Anyone else have any more luck with this? Scott P. (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

close ideological ranting that doesn't answer the question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We are talking about the Catholic Church here, the lingua franca is Italian (and Latin), not English. -- KTC (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Stop being ethnocentric. The world isn't English. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC) We're also talking about the Jesuit order, known for their high levels of education. I'll "eat my hat" if the man can't speak any English. But all of our wonderful assumptions get us absolutely nowhere. More research is what this needs. Scott P. (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC) And your supremacist head needs a good shaving. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Maybe it would be nice to discuss this subject without racist slander? Being the english wikipedia a man shouldnt be called a racist for talking about the english language. I think your hat is safe Scott. According to this Jesuit formation all jesuits are required to speak english (and if they already speak english then spanish). Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Assuming good faith here, I recommend setting a Google Alert for Pope Francis English and waiting for results. Other than that, if we list his languages spoken, people can assume that he is not fluent in any others. No change is needed. Andrew327 14:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC) (ec) Oh, another one of those supremacists. You know how offensive you guys are when you claim that anyone who doesn't know English is stupid? Maybe you can come down your high horse and treat other people as human beings... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC) What etnocentric culture are you from mr. Seb? Here in Ghana all catholics speaks english and of course there tribal language. Is it black supremacicy to be interested in if the pope speaks english? There is a world outside the Americas you know :) Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC) I'm not the one who's claiming whoever doesn't speak English is stupid. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC) No one in this thread claimed that. Angr (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC) User Seb, You've apparently made the claim that you don't think Bergoglio can speak any English. Now is your chance to prove that we are all racists. Go prove that he can't speak any English, with a legitimate ref, and I will eat my hat!Scott P. (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC) I said no such thing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Look at this from Sun News: [42] "Then, on Saturday, at Francis' own insistence, he'll meet the world's press and take questions in English, French, Spanish, German or Italian - the languages fluently spoken by the new Pope." (It is the last paragraf in the article) I dont know if the Sun is acceptable as an reliable source? If so we could put the languages spoken in the article now? Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the Guardian: [43], live update from a press conference, where an official spokesman (Lombardi) says the pope speaks English. Moncrief (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The Qoute from Guardian: ""Lombardi says Francis speaks Spanish, English, German, French and Italian. He probably speaks some Portuguese, and he will brush up on it before the World Youth Day in Rio later this year." Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Definitely safe to put in the article now that he speaks English fluently, with refs like that. Please do so. I wish I had time to do it but I have to go to work now. Thanks for all of this good hard work!!! Scott P. (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Speaks English

I have read a few articles that claim Pope Francis does NOT speak English, yet it's listed in his article here that he speaks English fluently. Can anyone find a better cite?

There is two good references just above this section. I am being so bold to move this section up to them. Hope that is ok. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I met him several years ago and I can personally confirm that he does not speak English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.17.89 (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Um, well, 1-we do not use primary sources, we rely on secondary sources. 2-Even if your claim he was not fluent in English was true when you met him, the fact that it was "several years ago" suggests that it may not still be the case at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: health

According to Vatican spokesman Lombardi, quoted by CNN, he only had part of a lung removed: CNN [44] --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the link. We now have sources that contradict each other on whether he lacks the full or just part of the lung. I would guess the latter is correct, but we probably have to have both versions in the article, until one version is established as the correct one. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Iselilja, and as more and more articles about Pope Francis are written we'll be able to answer questions like this one. Andrew³²⁷ 20:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

He himself said it was part of a lung. Detailed source (pneumonia, cysts). Amended and cited. Pol098 (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Now I've seen more sources saying that, so it's clear that it's only part of a lung. Andrew³²⁷ 04:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

He should remain in Category:Argentine cardinals

Francis should remain in Category:Argentine cardinals because that is for all people who have been Cardinals and from Argentina. Since technically Popes do not need to be Cardinal before Pope, and historically many were not, Pope categories should be treated as seperate from and not children of the Cardinals cats. People should be in both if they were both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that being a cardinal is notable or mainstream enough to be included on wikipedia- remember that 85% of the world is not catholic, we don't need to report on such silly things. Twarwick666 (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

We have categories for Roman Catholic bishops by nationality as well. We also have categories for Category:Methodist bishops which is one of about 20 sub-cats of the category bishops by denomination. However if you really think that we should not have the Catholic cardinals by nationality category, or if you for some reason feel that the Argentine one is especially offensive while all other Catholic cardinals by nationality categories work, you are free to nominate Category:Argentine cardinals and any or all of the other related cardinals by nationality cats for deletion at CfD. However, as long as the category Category:Argentine cardinals exists, Pope Francis should be in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

How is being a cardinal of the Catholic church not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? Generally speaking, inclusion for bio based on someone's profession is that they have risen to the top of their profession, and that enough reliable sources cover that. Being cardinals for a catholic priest clearly satisfy that. Going by your logic of 85% of the world isn't interested in or related to a particular profession (in this case religion), we can pretty much delete all bios on Wikipedia. And lastly, we're actually talking about categorization here. This section wasn't even talking about notability of any particular article. KTC (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The person you are responding to seems to like to post inflamatory statements and try to start arguments. I am sure he will not get any traction for his crusade and doubt he has the focus to even start it. Oddly enough the real reason for this discussion is that some feel Category:Argentine popes is a sub-section of Category:Argentine cardinals and that being in one means it is duplicate to be in the other. Or people are misinterpreting Category:Argentine cardinals to only cover current Argentine cardinals. It is actually not clear to me because they did not explain removing him from that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no "Argentine Cardinals" category. Cambalachero (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I accidentally capitalized cardinals. I have corrected the links above. Sorry for the confusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

All cardinals are bishops, and bishops apparently pass WP:BIO ex officio, so it would be thoroughly unhelpful not to have a category for Argentine cardinals. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Cardinal_(Catholicism)#Cardinals_who_are_not_bishops Says no Sitethief~_{talk to me}~ 14:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I just saw the "Argentine cardinals" category and it does have Pope Francis, although I'd suggest leaving "Jorge Bergoglio" in there as a cross reference. The FIU cardinals site has a page of "cardinals elected to the papacy" (which by the way includes the popes who had not been cardinals -- I do NOT think it's many). Pope Francis is there, but you can still look him up as Jorge Bergoglio, like you can still look up Pope Benedict XVI as Joseph Ratzinger. Bergoglio has left the cardinalate, not by death or by the rare case of resignation, but by becoming pope. By the way, MOST cardinals are bishops; a 1962 provision by Pope John XXIII requires that cardinals be (or become) bishops, but that is waived occasionally (usually for an elderly priest who's being made cardinal in recognition of what he has done for the church). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

However we have the article at Category:German cardinals as Pope Benedict XVI. Generally we do not categorize redirects from alternate names. We generally only categorize redirects where the subject is actually different than the redirect it points to (for example when the redirect points from one person to the bio of a duo they are mainly connected with, or when we redirect from Joe X to an article named Murder of Joe X, because that is the only notable thing connected with him.)John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

La Razon

I and other English speaking Wikipedians can't check this as the source is in a foreign language, therefore I took it out of the article.

According to La Razon, a newspaper of the Argentine capital city of Buenos Aires, the government has the strategy of discrediting Bergoglio due to his staunch criticism against the President and her spouse, by falsely associating him with the military dictatorship. Giving several examples of the government's attempt, La Razon reported that the government used a photo of another priest to accuse Bergoglio of giving communion to a senior officer of the military dictatorship.

I think it should stay out till someone who speaks the relevant language, (Spannish, Portuguese, probably) can check it. Also is "La Razon" reliable or biased? We need experts on that part of the world. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Argentine media is famous for being like the Brazilian one. Biased to a hugely anti-left, neoliberal, pro-globalist, pro-American (though more sympathetic to Democrats than Republicans) slant, but always trying to make of itself falsely neutral. Clarín for example was appropriatedly censored after giving people a lot of bullshit as it has relationship with Abril and Globo, or as we refer to them in Brazil, PIG (partido da imprensa golpista).

The comments by users seem to give an obviously right-winger POV in nature, but since compared to some Brazilian portals which users would make your average Democrat-voting American blush, it can be a false positive. I need to look more, I don't often watch Spanish-speaking news media, but it doesn't seem to end up being very neutral in my opinion. Lguipontes (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Found obvious bias (photo says it all) and obscene reactionary conservative comments by users there.

http://www.larazon.com.ar/economia/Cristina-hablo-diabetes-polemica_0_441300105.html "paula 15.Mar.13 02:45 Haber señora presidenta que opina de los enfermos de HIV? El HIV es una enfermedad de puts , degenerados y drogones, pero estamos invirtiendo en un importante unguento que usaban los mayas para que no les duela el ocote."

I bet the chance that it can be an acceptable source fell from 75-90% to 10-20%... Lguipontes (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The opinions of readers of press articles are of no concern for wikipedia, only the press article itself. Anyone, from any political line, may comment on any press article of a newspaper of any political line (or lack thereof), if that article is open to reader comments. Cambalachero (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Pfff, please. Of course I know it, but it is usual (at least here) for those sites to have a filter of such potentially offensive comments. Reporter bloggers in some portals' news sites can even take particular responsability for what comment is to be accepted about texts they've written. Further, such site with a right-wing, anti-government POV that attracts this kind of user (and it was not only this comment I've found to be indicative of the typical demographic to which they sell, this was just the most extreme example I found in a 3 min search) is kind of obviously biased. I am not saying let's found sources that accuse the Pope. I'm just saying such site is very biased for it being a source describing poor behavior of the Argentine government – its focus IS critizing the current government at every cost, and its users seem to overwhemingly support such thing. Lguipontes (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"Argentine media is famous for being like the Brazilian one, etc." That is solely your own point of view, and others may have a different point of view. Moreover, if comments by visitors are to be examined when determining the reliability of newspapers, I very much doubt many that are currently used as sources would be considered reliable at all. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

A source which might appeal to people here is the English-language Buenos Aires Herald. During dictatorships it was in some ways the most outspoken (not very, it had to survive), and even some mainly Spanish-speakers read it due to its relative independence; it was tolerated perhaps because it was not read by masses of people who might be influenced, and was read by influential people difficult to suppress. Pol098 (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the Herald were the first to break the story of Esquivel Perez's statements about the unfoundedness of accusations against Bergoglio.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Actually all newspapers, everywhere have some sort of slant. I would say include this material within the government relations section, maybe sumarize it as "There are allegations that the Kirchner's have tried to frame Bergoglio by falsely presenting photographs of others as photographs of him."John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, some of this material may more belong in an article on Kirchner under a section "percieved vindictive actons."John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Protection

I set this page to semi-protection within minutes of the announcement of Bergoglio's election, in a belief that it would be a major vandalism target. As a result, I've received substantial criticism on my talk page from IP users (some of whom mistakenly believed that I was responsible for semi-protecting this talk page as well also asked me to unprotect this talk page, although I'd had nothing to do with protecting it)).

These critics have challenged my judgement and intimated that I should unprotect this article. Since my judgment has been challenged in this respect, I feel that I should not be the one to make the decision either way. If another administrator is in accordance with the article being unprotected until such time as it becomes a repeated target of anonymous vandalism, I would have no objection to their taking the requisite action; as such, I'm posting here to draw further attention to the issue. DS (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As I just explained to DS on his talk page, no one said that he protected the talk page, contrary to his statement, "some of whom mistakenly believed that I was responsible for semi-protecting this talk page as well". That's a total lie totally untrue, so I can guarantee you that DS would not be able to provide proof for his allegation. If I'm wrong and DS can show diffs, I'll be happy to apologize. The fact is that I am an IP, yet I vigorously supported DS's protection of the article itself. I simply asked him to please remove the outrageous protection of this talk page, which I told him from the outset I knew he did not do. I just wasn't certain who actually did protect it. He refused to get involved. Amazingly, he said, "I decline to involve myself further on this issue. Feel free to ask another admin to unprotect the page".[45] I then wrote Jimbo, something I thought I'd never do, and explained to him that someone unbelievably locked the Pope Franics talk page. I discovered a couple minutes later that the talk page protection was removed by a great admin who explained in his edit summary how ridiculous the talk page protection was. For the record, Wikipedia has millions of articles, yet only 78 talk pages are protected. So 99.99% of talk pages are not protected, which tells you that talk pages are never locked except in extreme circumstances. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I should add that DS has essentially admitted to improperly protecting the article itself by this statement: "I set this page to semi-protection within minutes of the announcement of Bergoglio's election, in a belief that it would be a major vandalism target." I'm sorry, but predicting the future is not a valid basis for locking an article. You must wait until persistent problems are already occurring. Jimbo has said this numerous times. However, I actually did not disagree with locking the article mainspace and defended DS when he was being attacked on his talk page because I assumed his intentions were pure and that the article very likely would need protected soon thereafter. But it doesn't change the fact that he violated policy by basing his decision on what he thought would happen instead of what was happening at the time he did it. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"Essentially" any statement can be parsed any way one likes. I also wholly reject the notion that I "lied"; I was incorrect. A mistake is not a lie, because a lie implies deliberate intention to deceive. I politely request that the IP user strike that erroneous statement which is not a lie, but which is wholly incorrect. DS (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Semantics. Nothing I said was erroneous. Just because you infer something from someone doesn't mean they implied it. I said you lied, but I didn't say you did it intentionally. And you've now admitted that what you said was not true. So thank you. Since it apparently will make you feel better, I've struck the word "lie" above. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would say considering the extremely biased statements and rants that have shown up on this tal page, the page itself should remain protected. While not all of them would be likely to occur on the page itself, some seem likely to occur them if the page is unprotected, so I would leave things as they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• well, there are precedents of pages that, upon the sudden increase in notability and fame, are almost immediately subject to vandalism. it is part of the WP:BLP policies, which, I believe, are based upon offical wikimedia foundation interventions.

Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or believe that inappropriate material may be added or restored, may protect or semi-protect pages in accordance with the protection policy.

A misrepresentation of the policy. Read it again! There is no precedent for this article being semi-protected. There was no vandalism to it. And there's even less of a case for permanent semi-protection. 86.29.147.247 (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I didn't object to DS's protection of the article, 86.29.147.247 is actually correct. Per WP:SEMI, "Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users". But that's precisely what DS did. He admitted it when he said, "I set this page to semi-protection within minutes of the announcement of Bergoglio's election, in a belief that it would be a major vandalism target." For the record, although about 80% of all vandalism on Wikipedia is by IPs, only 20% of their edits are vandalism. So it should always be remembered that IPs are human too. ;) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems like IPs such as yourself are merely logged-in editors using their IP account to avoid any negative edits being attributed to their other account. If that's the case, then watch out as you could be blocked for being a single-purpose account or sockpuppeting. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

M0rphzone, what the hell was the purpose of your nonsense comment? Obviously, if someone really wanted to edit this article it would make no sense to use an IP account. And if someone wants to be disruptive and edit protected articles, they could simply create multiple registered accounts and hope they don't get caught. Anyone can obviously look at my edit history and see that I'm far from a single-purpose account, so that allegation makes you look pretty stupid. Btw, accusing someone of inappropriately editing with multiple accounts and not reporting it can get you blocked. So it is in fact you who better be careful before spouting any more of your crap. For the record, "You are an IP too. See here if you don't think so. The only difference between you and an IP contributor is that your IP address is hidden. When you registered for Wikipedia, you hid your IP address behind a user name. Unregistered users are often called anonymous editors. In fact, because your IP address is hidden, it is you who are more anonymous. (Your IP address is still recorded by the software. It is simply not visible to most users.)" Now go try to bully someone else, because it was a major fail with me. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

First non-European pope in 1,282 years?

Clarification

"He is the first non-european pope in 1200 years." - Actually, almost 1300 - 1282 to be precise, last being Gregory III, a Syrian, who was elected in 731 A.D. and was Pontiff for 10 years. I know what the source says, but this says otherwise. Anyone mind if I amend the source and change that? Fish^Barking? 23:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The trouble with dates is that they change, so we should either use a more general time or use a template like Template:Date_difference, except for years. Andrew³²⁷ 23:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Could change the number once a year. Doesn't seem like a big job. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the number we are measuring here is the time from the end of Gregory III being Pope until the time Francis became Pope. That time is fixed, and not changing, well unless we review when Gregory III was Pope. At least if we word the thing correctly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What number would you change? lol :o) --Againme (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Good catch guys, some versions of the article have said "only non-European pope in X years", which would require annual updating. The text as suggested would need no such updating. Andrew³²⁷ 04:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The time between when he became the first non-Europope and when Gregory did isn't going to change. But when he is the first will keep getting further away from when Gregory was. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Gregory born in Syria or not?

The article claims that "Francis is the first pope born outside Europe in 1,282 years, since Syrian St. Gregory III". But what is the evidence that Gregory III was non-European? The Liber pontificalis just says Gregory's father was a Syrian, but nothing about Gregory's own birthplace. If fathers' birthplaces are taken as criterion of Europeanness, Pope Francis is a European since his own father was born in Italy.

A quick google search gave these references to Gregory's birthplace as Syria (the province not the modern day country):

• [46]
• [47]

This just say he is of syrian origin: [48] and have a good article about his life.

Newsorganisations Different newsorganisations have gone with the story:

• Today Online says since Gregory
• CNN says Gregory
• The New Yorker just say first in modern time
• The Telegraph says the first since 741 AD (that is Gregory)
• The Washington Post are trying out a list of non-european popes.

Just a few. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jack, I have found the following ref, which I've inserted into the article (and also Pope Gregory III), which states he was born in Syria:

• Houghton Mifflin Company (2003). The Houghton Mifflin Dictionary of Biography. p. 642. ISBN 9780618252107.

I suppose the only question is whether that book has its facts correct or not (guess it's not a specialist tome on popes, as such). Then again I've not seen any evidence that he wasn't born in Syria which seems likely if that's where his father was from. Thanis  — Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a very interesting reference, thank you. I just got into this because someone are trying to make Gregory either Lebanese or Assyrian.

But actually what seems likely or not would depend on if he was born before or after 640 AD (the year of the Muslim takeover of Syria). We dont know that but it would be logical to say after because if not he would have been a 100 years old when he died and that is old of that ages and would have been mentioned in history. If he indeed was born after the muslim takeover of Syria it would be likely that his father was one of the big crowd of refugees pouring into the eastern roman empire. That a boy of such refugees would find his way to Rome would be more likely than a boy growing up in what would be muslim controlled Syria would become elected pope. In all cases this "Syrian" pope is not like to others coming from a powerfull part of the christian world, but from a conquered province - Born there or not. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It is also interesting that the Syrian Popes cluster together in a lifetime after the fall of Syria. A testimony to the cultural and religiouse influence of the syrian refugees. Not unlike the influence of the greek refuges after the fall of Constantinople in 15th century. An influence that helped start the renaisance. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any other primary source about Gregory III's origin but the Liber pontificalis. If he was (most probably) born in Europe, how can he be "non-European"? If he must be considered as "non-European" just because his father was not born in Europe, although he himself was, how can Pope Francis be "non-European" when his father was born in Italy? The simile between the two pope does not work.

• The big issue is that the one source that gives Gregory III's birth gives it in Syria. No one has argued any other place for his birth. If you can find a published source that lists him as being born elsewhere, you are free to incorproate that into the article on Gregory III. I however see no reason to presume a man referred to as being "Syrian" was not born in Syria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

"Born outside Europe": modification proposal

For the moment, the article claims that "Francis is the first pope born outside Europe in 1,282 years, since Syrian St. Gregory III." As discussed above, there is no primary source about Gregory's birthplace and, as the other "Syrian" pope of the 8th century, he was most probably born in Italy from Syrian refugees. One can claim that he was non-European by origin if not by birthplace, however there is no similarity but rather a clear contrast with the case of Pope Francis who, although non-European by birth, is European by origin since his father was Italian. So the sentence does not make sense. I suggest rather: "Francis is the first pope born outside Europe since John VI (701-705), born in Ephesus (several eighth-century popes were also of Syrian origin, but they were probably born in Italy from Syrian refugees)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.151.114 (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be pure speculation, who say he is born in Italy? What we know from secondary sources is:

• Gregory was born in Syria: [49]

or

• Gregory birthplace is unknown [50]

I just put two sources there, but you can find many that say the same two opposite things :) The newsmedias (that also counts as secondary sources) have gone with the story of Gregory as the until now last non-european pope. Mentioning John VI from Ephesus show how complex the non-european question is when it comes to ancient times. Many would argue that Ephesus was a part of Europe in the same way as the area of modernday Tunesia was in those days.

But whatever we do we cannot have Original Research on the wike, that is for other medias. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right, that is pure speculation: we know of no pape born outside Europe after John VI. The sentence should be simply "Francis is the first pope born outside Europe since John VI (701-705), born in Ephesus". No use to mentionGregory at all since his birthplace is unknown. I would be surprised anybody would claim Ephesus was "part of Europe": why not Syria then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.151.114 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

But the fact that Gregory's birthplace is unknown means that it is equally unknown whether the text you are suggesting is true or not. Hence it is not valid to include it. This is a tricky one and it sounds like there is no answer available to us - the true birthplace is lost to history. It might be best just to put something more vague such as the first non-European for at least nnnn years and then explain the conundrum in a big footnote with appropriate citations.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

But the fact that Gregory's birthplace is unknown means that it is equally unknown whether the present text is true or not. Hence it is no more valid to retain it. I would agree a more vague wording would be preferable, however "at least nnnn years" would not be correct: it should be rather "at most nnnn years". What about: "Francis is the first pope born outside Europe since the eighth century (John VI was born in Ephesus and several other eighth-century popes were of Syrian origin, although their birthplaces are unknown)." 212.198.151.114 (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What are the references on the other Syrian Popes unknown birthplace? Just because one of the is unknown doesnt mean all of them are. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As for the other popes of the eighth century, most of what is known of them comes from the Liber pontificalis: both Sisinnius and Constantine (who might have been brothers) are said "of Syrian race, son of John" (natione Syrus, ex patre Ioanne). Exactly the same as for Gregory III. 212.198.151.114 (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If it says Natione, then that is it. Just stop talking about birthplace and say that Francis is the first of non-european since Gregory, since Natione on latin means what nation/area you are from not what your ancestry are. That would be Ethnos in latin. So it says clearly that Gregory is Syrian by Natione - End of story. Natione, not Ethnos. My Jures Romana may be of classical origin but I guess the words have not change that much to medevial latin Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

But if Gregory's only claim to non-Europeanship is via his father's nationality, then by the same token Francis (whose father is Italian) would not qualify as a non-European, which I think is the point somone made above. Unless it's a question of the nationality a person considers themselves; Francis no doubt sees himself as Argentine, but again we don't really know with regard to Gregory. We only know that his father was Syrian.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not just say that Pope Francis is the first pope born outside europe since medieval times or he is the first in modern time. That is the same thing, but some believes modern time to be later (historical modern time is the time comming after medieval time, but is often misused). Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It is possible to be a bit more specific since the last pope born outside Europe lived in the eighth century, whoever it was. So why not say it? 212.198.151.114 (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get this. Imagine this scenario in the US or Canada or Australia for that matter: someone is born in one of these countries, but his father was from Italy and his mother was born in the US (or Canada or Australia). Would you hesitate for a moment to call that someone "non-European." Of course not. Francis is non-European full stop, just as he would be if he were born in the U.S. of Italian heritage. Here's a perfect corollary: Dean Martin's father was Italian from Italy and his mother was Italian-American. Anyone who referred to Dean Martin as "European" would be rightly laughed out of the room. Moncrief (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to say he's the first pope born outside Europe in X years, instead of just the first pope not from Europe, which is how it read earlier and which makes far more sense, you will have to be absolutely sure that's true, and a quick article from the mainstream media doesn't count. The birthplace of every pope who grew up in Europe will need to be checked, to make sure he wasn't born in, say, Turkey or Morocco or another country, because his parents happened to be traveling there at the time of the future pope's birth or assigned to an embassy or foreign service for their home country. Where someone is born is a lot less important than where they are from or what their nationality is. We do know that Francis is the first non-European pope or the first pope not from Europe since a certain time; we do not know that another pope, of all the 200 or so since the Syrian one, were born in Europe despite their European nationality. Even in an era of much less mobility, people still traveled, and now we've got to prove the European birthplaces of each and every pope because of this wording, even if one of them was born in Libya and four days later was taken back to Italy, where he lived his whole life. I don't count media that say born as proof, because they're just engaging in the sort of lazy shorthand that I thought Wikipedia was better than. Moncrief (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would actually argue that we could say that "Pope Francis is the first Pope not from Europe or the Mediteranean Basin. As it is, with maybe the exception of Gregory III, these "non-European Popes" of the past came from the Roman Empire (whther the Emperor was at Rome or Constantinople), so their "non-Europeaness" is maybe being over stated. On the other hand compared to a man like Charles J. Chaput, Francis is in many ways European, and Chaput is more European than Kateri Tekakwitha.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)