Talk:Pope Francis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This is awkwardly worded, and also not really relevant enough for the opening paragraph

He is also the first pope since Pope Lando, i.e., after a gap of eleven centuries, to adopt a new single-word name. Because "single-word name" is such a clunky phrase, I find that I focus on that and miss the point of the information, which presumably is that he's adopted a name that no other pope has adopted before, at least not since Pope Lando used a name no pope had used before him. Anyone want to take a stab at rewording this? (And maybe moving it down?) The opening paragraph of an article is not meant to be crammed full of information. It should be a concise introduction to the topic. "i.e." is also pretty clunky for an introductory paragraph. Moncrief (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"single-word name" was clear enough for me. Cardinal Luciani took the name "John Paul", as already noted, by taking the names of 2 immediate predecessors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you please sign your post? In other words, as recently as 1978 a pope has taken a name no pope had ever taken before him, just one that happens to have two words in it? If that's the case, this new "new name" fact becomes a lot less remarkable. Moncrief (talk)

The point is that Franciscus is a name that breaks the tradition. John Paul chose a new name, but it was clearly a sign of continuity as it was the combination of his two predecessors. This break was remarkable and was thoroughly stressed by the Italian press. I do not know how to render the concept, but I think is worth citing. Chessstoria (3 s) ^{(All your base are belong to us)} 16:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessstoria (talk • contribs)

It is also worth noting that Pope Lando did not adopt a new name - it was his given name. The practice of adopting a papal name is spotty at best until the 16th century.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 18:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This information is and was in the article already, under 3.1.1 "Choice of Name." I was just questioning the wording in the opening paragraph, which has been removed. Moncrief (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Actually I would argue that John Paul I in taking a two-word name broke tradion a lot more than Francis did in taking a new name. It is not like there was an "approved list of names for Popes" that existed and Francis said "no, I don't want to be Sixtus, I will chose a name not on the list."John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I wouldn't exactly call John Paul II "European". He was Polish, and Poland was part of the Soviet block at the time, so the Poles were cut off from modern Western culture, something that John Paul II repeatedly illustrated by his actions. Having a Polish pope (Poland is part of Eastern Europe, whereas Catholicism is the Christianity of Western Europe) was a much bigger deal than having a pope born and raised in Argentina whose parents had emigrated from Italy. – Herzen (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

John Paul II was very certainly European. Did Eastern Germans suddenly become non-Europeans for the period their region of Germany was a separate country and Soviet puppet state? You seem to be defining "Europe" as "that part of the continent that has always been free-market and western in outlook," which is not its accepted definition. Poland has long been, certainly since the demographic upheaveals during and just after WW II, a regular ol Catholic country. It's not some kind of mystical Eatern Orthodox place. JP II's election was a big deal, but your descriptors aren't quite right. Moncrief (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Europe stops at the Ural, so part of Russia is also europw, and Russia is a part of Europe culture as well as it is a part of Asia. Communism is by all means a european (german) invention, so communist countries of Europe of old are most certainly european. By your logic Western Europe was not really Europe during the cold war because it did not have part in the european (communist) way of life. No one would of course claim that. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're talking to Herzen and not me, even though your post is under mine, because obviously I agree with you 100% Wait, I think. Europe is a place, not a philosophical outlook. Europe was Europe then and now, regardless of political system. I think we're on the same page, but I'm confused by your last sentence, which seems to misunderstand my comment to Herzen, who said he wouldnt call JPII "European." (!) Anyway..... Moncrief (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Bishop section

It says he became auxiliary of Buenos Aires and later its archbishop. Left out is that in between, he was promoted to Coadjutor Archbishop, thus he succeeded to the see immediately when his predecessor left for any reason. There is a catholic-hierarchy web site which has his elevation to coadjutor (which since about 1970 ALWAYS means having right of succession). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Added that information! NDomer09 (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

On homosexuality

While I understand and share resentment of people over some of the new pope's previous statements on the subject of homosexuality, I deplore the abuse of written texts and references.

I deleted the words "demonic in origin" from the paragraph about his statements about homosexuality for the following reasons

• The words were placed in quotation marks, indicating that they were a translation of a direct quote.
• They were referenced to a particular article.
• The words, "demonic in origin" as quoted did not appear in that article either Spanish (or English)
• The words were a journalistic interpretation of a longer statement which referred.
• A translation of the statement appears a just few lines down the page.
• You cannot put into quote marks and reference to an article something that does not appear in that article
• You cannot put into quote marks and credit to a person a statement or part of a statement that has been reworded and interpreted by an editor.
• It is illegal to write that a person said something that they did not say.

The direct quotation of what the then cardinal actually did say is quite sufficient to indicate his stance.

Amandajm (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, he is quoted elsewhere as saying it was demonic in origins, perhaps not in the link you showed. Countered (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Is that on homosexuality itself or on same-sex marriage though? From what I've read so far it seems to be the actual marriage. (I would disagree with it too. But it is important to be accurate.) --86.40.200.32 (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that there will be literally thousands of journalistic references to the pope's attitude towards all manner of gay issues in the coming weeks, so it's safe to hold off on referencing anything as controversial as the "demonic" bit until we know more. Andrew³²⁷ 00:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The particular reference did not include "demonic in origin" or words that were very close to that. If it's going to be stated in quotation marks, then it needs to be very well supported. That is my only concern.

And you are right, it's in the section on his attitude to homosexuality but the statements quoted from the article are on gay marriage.

Removed a comment that was POV, as per request by John Pack Lambert, below. Amandajm (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is not the place to discuss views.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Homosexuality/Same-sex Marriage

I removed the following quote from the article. The Movih, a Chilean gay rights group, described the pope as a "promoter of hate toward social diversity and a model of homophobia and disdain for sexual minorities."

Unless I am mistaken, the "Positions" section isn't really for commentary/analysis on his positions. A gay rights group calling him a model for homophobia pretty much flies in the face of him saying they should be respected. It would also seem a gay rights group has an agenda which is opposite to his. Let's stick to what we know he has said, and not try and introduce an agenda into this section. Someone also keeps rewriting it to try and gloss over any positive things he has said. That should not be acceptable. Stick to the facts. Xkcdreader (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Persistent, unsupported rewrites should lead to notifications against the editors. This is meant to be a section on Pope Francis' teachings and postions, not on what other people thing of his religious teachings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. Furthermore the section does not need to be called "Homosexuality and Same-sex marriage" until someone finds further information pertaining to his viewpoint of homosexuality independent of marriage. It seems his beef is with the sanctity of marriage and raising kids, not homosexual desires themselves. Renaming it to "Homosexuality and Same-sex marriage" is an attempt to try and reframe the paragraph to the authors worldview. I probably shouldn't rever it out of respect, since a second person (who used the exact same language as the first) reverted my change. Somebody else would need to edit the subsection title.

Xkcdreader (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

In line two of this paragraph, the word "to" appears twice - on of them needs to be deleted: "...legislation introduced in 2010 to to grant legal recognition...".
Funkytanki 15:44, 16 March 2013 (GMT+1)

 Done.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A message to the homophobe that keeps on sanitising the Homosexuality paragraph

The source states: "he strongly affirms church teaching on the intrinsic immorality of homosexual practices, though he teaches the importance of respecting homosexual persons."

Yet, you insist on rendering this source as: "yet has stated that "men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect and compassion". The Church has stated that homosexual desires or attractions are not themselves sinful."

Kindly refrain from portraying Pope Francis' begrudging concession that homosexual people are worthy of respect as the pinnacle of progressive thinking. He is a homophobe; not an egalitarian that is the poster child for the liberal cause.

Stop misleadingly synthesizing a vacuous Christian catechism with what the source discussing PF actually says, and comply with the self-evident policy, WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTACHURCH. The paragraph on PF's deplorable views on homosexuality is not an invitation for you to start propagating Catholic dogma. They are an unnecessary elaboration and are wholly unrelated to PF's personal views.

While there is a pack of immature children scampering between the pews of Wikipedia, it is still not a Catholic church, the article is not your pulpit, and its readers should not have to tolerate your abuse. Juddhoward (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Contributors should not have to tolerate your calling them names when they share views different than your own. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Remove the cowl that conceals your face, my anonymous IP friend. The bible shall be my guide on how to treat others. If it can declare that homosexuals are abominations, then I can condemn bigots that are actually deserving of rebuke. Juddhoward (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I am neither concealing my face nor your friend. And I care not what the Bible says as I am an atheist. This is Wikipedia and thus policies such as WP:CIVIL and WP:PERSONAL should be your guidance, not the Bible. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Remember to assume good faith at all times. This thread has to become more civil or it will be closed. Andrew³²⁷ 03:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph should mostly be removed. The views of the church on homosexuality are a matter for another page about that. This page should, if anything at all, mention only the Pope has affirmed the positions of the Catholic Church on that subject, link to the main page on that issue, and then only make note of any differences in what he says compared to that policy. Anything else is not relevant to this, and can only be continuously inserted in an attempt by one side or the other to try to use this page as a soapbox for or against the subject, which does not belong here AT ALL. wxwalsh 11:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxwalsh (talk • contribs)

Juddhoward, your approach to editing Wikipedia, and to "discussing" your edits with other Wikipedians, can probably be optimized. You are less, not more, likely to get your way if you go about calling other people homophobes or other terms of endearment that no doubt you intend as insults.

The pope being a "homophobe" is of no more consequence for our purposes than the pope being an arachnophobe, or a hypobaropath unless it can be shown that it is of sufficient notability. I hate to break it to you, but more than 90% of heterosexuals are "homophobes" by your definition, just as >90% of people are arachnophobes. Still we don't spend our days obsessing over spiders, and therefore we don't go about adding "arachnaphobia sections" to most biographical articles. Now a member of the Catholic clergy, whether they are actual homophobes, closet homosexuals, or both, or neither, have an obligation to at least nominally follow biblical and church teaching about homosexual acts, so taking a doctrinal stance on the matter isn't nearly enough to prove they suffer from any kind of "phobia".

I have seen no source substantiating that the pope suffers from such a "phobia" or "irrational fear of and/or repulsion by" homosexuality, as opposed to a mere doctrinal condemnation, as he would condemn gluttony. If a member of clergy condemns the sin of gluttony, you wouldn't feel compelled to call him anorexic, or as suffering form an food-themed phobia, no? A bishop campaigning against same-sex marriage is just doing his job. You can like or dislike his job, but you certainly cannot act surprised. You can reject religion as a whole, or just all religions which condemn homosexuality (which would basically cover all religions founded before 1960 or so), but you certainly cannot attack individual representatives of such religions for representing the societal ideals of their chosen religion. --dab (𒁳) 12:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

He denies the right of people to get married and other civil rights just because they are homosexual. In Argentina´s left common speach that is called homophobic. Nothing like arachnophobia, you could be a little less literal. But yes, Juddhoward is not going to advance much on his point by taking those ways... --Againme (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Your description of the issue entirely ignores Pope Francis' actual views. It is also using attack words that are meant to denigrate and delegitimize those who dare to take any other postion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm explaining how an "attack word" is commonly used here and why it is probable that it´s going to be used for any Catholic leader. As per his "actual views", what do you mean? He really opposes the right to gay marriage... --Againme (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

He does not frame the issue in respect to rights. Also, his views to not prevent any given individual from entering a marriage, they require certain things of two individuals wishing to enter marriage, but any individual is free to find another individual with whome they can marry, whether they wish to find an individual who meets the existence criteria is a choice they make, they are not presented from doing so by law.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Juddhoward's rant is entirely inappropriate. However, he was right on one thing. There is in the source a contrasting linkage ("though") between the statements on supporting the church's teaching on homoseuality and treating homosexuals with respect. I've therefore added that back in. DeCausa (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

sources on this are a dime a dozen. We cannot therefore honour a randomly picked source by pondering over its use of conjunctions and slavishly emulating them in Wikipedia's voice. Why are we citing this source's opinion and not another's? Why does this article pretend to have to address questions like "is there a contrast between the church's teaching on homoseuality and treating homosexuals with respect"? The church does not have "teachings about homosexuals", it has "teachings about homosexual acts". It does not advocate "treating homosexual acts" with respect, to be sure, but it does teach to treat everyone as human, no matter what their acts may be. We have pages and pages on this topic at Christian views on homosexuality and there is no need to burden poor Francis' article with such academic tangents. --dab (𒁳) 17:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Huh? That made no sense. We have a source cited against a statement in the article. The point I made was that the statement needs to conform to the source. Simple as that. That's basic WP stuff. Your point, if you have one, can only be that you don't like the source. Fine. Find another one, and conform the text to it if you don't like what it does to "poor Francis' article". But on the more general point "Why does this article pretend to have to address questions like "is there a contrast between the church's teaching on homoseuality and treating homosexuals with respect"?" That's ridiculous: the point is being made because of what Francis has said not because of some general poinr about the catholic church. DeCausa (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Kirtchner

Hi! I just noticed that it says "Kirtchner", instead of "Kirchner", in the "Abortion, euthanasia, birth control, and the elderly" section. SergioPFloyd (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out to us. Andrew³²⁷ 06:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Typographical errors.

In the section Early Life, the words "masters' degree" should be changed to "master's degree". In the subsection Relations with the Argentine government, the words "Nobel peace prize" should be changed to "Nobel Peace Prize". --190.19.81.137 (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the correction. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Teaching on the Role of the Church

We should add a section on Pope Francis's teaching on the role of the Church. Comments such as the below help to understand all of his other teachings:

"The Christian sees the Church as the Body of Christ, as the vessel that guards with absolute integrity the deposit of faith, as the faithful Spouse who communicates without addition or subtraction all that Christ entrusted.... The Church as a fully “sanctified” reality and capable of receiving and of comunicating – without error or defect, from its own poverty and even with its own sins –the full sanctity of God, is not a “complement” or an “institutional addition” to Jesus Christ, but a full participation of his Incarnation, of His Life, of His Passion, death and Resurrection.... In defending its purity, its indefectibility, its sanctity as the bride, the Church is defending the “place” through which the gift of the life of God passes on to the world and the gift of the life of the world to God. This gift – the fullest expression of which is the Eucharist –is not another gift among ourselves but the supreme gift of the most intimate life of the Trinity that poured forth for the life of the world and the life of the world assumed by the Son that is offered to the Father." English: http://jmgarciaiii.blogspot.com/search?q=bergoglio Original Spanish: http://www.arzbaires.org.ar/inicio/homilias/homilias2008.htm#49%BACongresoEucar%EDsticoInternacional

This understanding of the Church as indefectible and the guardian of the deposit of faith is a key to understanding all of his teachings because it shows that he will not change--indeed sees it as impossible to change--the defined doctrines of the Church. So these quotations will really help the page. 71.11.216.57 (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Need for more detail on education

On his becoming a Jesuit we mention he "began his studies". We do not say where. Generally we specify locations people were educated. This seems to be a major hole in the coverage of hte article, not detailing the location of his education as a Jesuit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Eccesiastical Action as Archbishop

I came across a source that mention Pope Francis creating new parishes while he was archbishop and some other things. I think this is an area we really lack good coverage of. The internal policy decision he made as archbshop seem to have gotten short coverage in this article, even with my short addition. It would seem logical to make statements about what he did for the last 14 years as Archbishop. This involved more than relations with the government, it involved internal changes. I also wonder if we could find a source that would say more about the nature of the new parishes he created. I would not be surprised to learn such efforts put parishes closer to the slums, based on what some other sources have said, but the one source that actually mentioned it, said nothing substantive about it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Apology

In the Washington Post HERE, we read: "In one of his last acts as head of the Argentinian Catholic bishops’ conference, last year Bergoglio issued a collective apology for the church’s failure to protect its flock."

We need details on this. Date. What the statement said. Francis' role in it and comments upon its release. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

2006 opposition to reform of abortion law

I have added a paragraph on this on the bottom of the secion on government relations while bishop. The only source I have so far is mention in the Jesuit biography here [1]. I did read through the article on Abortion in Argentina and got the impression that those reforms may not have been acted on, although I mainly got the impression the issue was drawn out over a long time frame. Since that article refers to Nestor Kirtchner as if he is alive, and he died in 2010, it is clearly not the most up to date statement on the topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Bergoglio generation

Here is a quote from a Catholic News Service article on Bergoglio's influence in Argentina. "Since becoming archbishop of Buenos Aires in 1998, Cardinal Bergoglio has created new parishes, restructured the administrative offices, taken personal care of the seminary and started new pastoral projects, such as the commission for divorcees. He has mediated in almost all social or political conflicts in the city; the newly ordained priests are described as "the Bergoglio generation"; and no political or social figure misses requesting a private encounter with him. "

It is from this article [2] which pre-dates his election as Pope. I am not sure how to best integrate this information into our article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Not bad, but... There are actions he takes as head of the Buenos Aires diocese that are distinct from what he does as cardinal vis-a-vis Rome. I'd say his institution of the Latin Mass and role as head of the Argentine bishop's conference, both mentioned under "Cardinal", are really things he did in his role as head of the diocese. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The new section "Episcopacy" handles this well. Nice job! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - choosing the name Francis

In the Papacy section, it says:

"He was inspired to take the name Francis by the cardinal sitting next to him at the conclave, who after his election whispered to him: "don't forget the poor".

But there is no source attached to it.

So here's a story from CNN today that fully verifies the content. Please attach it.

Please note, though, that the CNN story indicates that he actually received the advice from the Brazilian cardinal before he was elected, not "after his election" as the article incorrectly states. The CNN story says:

"a fellow cardinal from Brazil had told him "don't forget the poor" as the votes stacked up in his favor. This thought stuck in his mind, Francis said, as it became clear that he had won the two-thirds majority that meant he was the new pontiff."

So for complete accuracy, per the source, here is my suggested new version:

"As it was becoming clear during the conclave voting that he would be elected the new pontiff, he was insprired to take the name Francis - after Saint Francis of Assisi - by a cardinal from Brazil who said "don't forget the poor" to him."[CNN cite]

Thanks. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Partly  Done I added the ref. (there was already another one from BBC), and changed the wording slightly to reflect the timing indicated by CNN. So, now we'll just see if it will stick. Thanks for the link and input. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly splitting article

I was looking at the category Pope John Paul II and noticed we have a seperate article on John Paul II's health. I was wondering though, in part because of the inclusion of mention of the controversy over Biden and Pelosi going to the inagural mass, if maybe we should split the article into two articles. Article 1 would be a bio of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, probably still with the Pope Francis name, but it would be about his life, positions, thought, and pre-Papal career. Article 2 would be about his time as Pope and probably include a brief biographical summary, but since it would be about his administration as Pope, it would allow for discussion of controversies about attendance at his inaguaral mass. I am not sure there is any precedent for doing this with Popes, but we do Presidency of George W. Bush so there is some precedent for such. It might not be justified here, but I think it is worth at least considering.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Francis has no serious issues with his health, so I don't the need for splitting that portion of the article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You missed my entire point. My point in mentioning that is that there is precedent for splitting biographical articles. My main argument is his service as Pope can be seen as an administration that could be covered as a non-biographical topic with its own article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

IIRC, John Paul II's health problems evidenced themselves after he became Pope. I would split the page if (when?) health problems develop in time.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

My point is not about health problems. I am arguing for a split into a biographical article and an article on his administration as Pope. The health issue was only brought up to show there is precedent for splitting articles that arguably are all about the same person, not to say we should so split this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's inevitable that articles will be spun off from this one, but I think any such move right now would be preliminary. Andrew³²⁷ 02:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Role in 2012 conference on New Evangelization

This quote "“Spiritual worldliness … is the church’s worst sin,” he said in an interview with Italian daily La Stampa during the October 2012 Synod on New Evangelization, when he called on the church to “go out from itself towards the outskirts.”" from this [3] Religious News Service article makes me wonder if some mention of Pope Francis' participation in this conference last October might be worth including in the article. There might be other things worth mining from that article as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the conference itself is worth mentioning by name, but I think there's content there that could be used to support other parts of this article. Andrew³²⁷ 02:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

2000 public apology by the Church for the failures of the Church dunring the dictatorship

I added a statement about this with this Feb. 12, 2002 article for Chiesa on Bergoglio 2002 article as a source. I am not really sure if I have either put it in the best place, or captured the essence of what the article says on the matter. I also started an article on Jerónimo José Podestá, although it could benefit a lot from someone finding some more indepth Spanish sources. I am not sure there is much worth saying about Podesta in this article. He is a key figure in the claims of some people who are clearly out of line with the Vatican, but it is unclear that Podesta ever agreed with the actions of some of these other people, and it is even less clear that Bergoglio's kindness to Podesta was meant to in any way endorse his actions. Podesta is at some level a celebrant of people with Fringe views, and I am not sure even the article as I created it gives adequate weight to various understandings of Podesta.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Not the right place. It's not about his relationship with the government decades after the fact, I think. It's about his leadership as a bishop. Thus belongs under Episcopacy, when he headed the Argentine Conference of Bishops.

I find the Podestá events interesting as well. I'll check it out. (I added it to this entry under "See also"). Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Minor mistakes that need to be corrected

• In the section Early life, the name "Escuelas Técnicas N° 27, Hipólito Yrigoyen" should read "Escuelas Técnicas N° 27 Hipólito Yrigoyen" (i.e., without the comma).
• In the subsection Relations with the Argentine government, "member of Permanent Assembly for Human Rights" should read "member of the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights," (i.e., with "the" and a comma added).
• Also, in the same subsection, "I was in APDH" should read "I was in the APDH" (i.e., with "the" added).

Thanks in advance. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)  Done Thanks for the corrections. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have never posted on Wikipedia before and have no real plans to post later.. but i think the sentence "He is another homophobic bastard indeed." should probably be removed. It is in the "Early" section FYI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.142.201.254 (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's been removed. I hope that you decide to stay on Wikipedia, we can always use more editors here! Andrew³²⁷ 02:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Yes, such things are quickly rectified. Even if it's true, it needs to be worded more appropriatly. Damotclese (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Objection! What do you mean, "even if it's true"? First, I think that's too subjective for a Wikipedian. Second, he is not "homophobic". He does not support gay marriage. That is not homophobia. Homophobia is hating homosexual people and hate is completely incompatible with Christian way of thinking. Throwing around charges and labels like "you are homophobic if you don't support gay marriage" is actually very dangerous. --StarOfFlames (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

He denies the right of people to get married and other civil rights just because they are homosexual. In Argentina´s left common speach that is called homophobic. But I can see your point. --Againme (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That is actually a false statement. The issue is not the ability of homosesxuals to marry. They are fully allowed to get married. The issue is whether marriage is between a man and a woman or some other definition of marriage exists. There are no rules stating "such and such people cannot get married", there are only rules about what is and what is not marriage. This is what he argues about. You are framing the discussion in a way that has no relevance to what his actual position is. No government enquires whether people seeking to marry have a given "sexual orientation", and no one has favored such, so no one has favoed "deniying the right of people to get married just because they are homosexual." Legally in places that do not allow same-sex marriage, any cognizant adult is free to marry another cognizant adult of the opposite gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if it was "Argentina´s left common speach", this is Wikipedia, not a website made exclusively by and for the Argentine left. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

We generally avoid describing people with what are pejorative terms. With living people, we a-are even less willing to designate people with terms they do not use to describe themselves, b-avoid using anything not found in reliable, secondary sources. I have yet to see anyone present a reliable source that tags Pope Francis with these pejoratives, not that the presence of such a source alone would force us to engage in such verbal assaults.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Phobia is fear, not hatred.88.167.22.75 (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the Pope White?

There seems to be a discussion about what skincolour the Pope have, it goes on on different sections on this talkpage, so I have gathered this interesting (?) discussion here. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm..."interesting". This appears to be some weird U.S.-centric issue, which, IMHO, means nothing to the rest of us. DeCausa (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Excactly. Living in Ghana, I find it very "interesting" almost entertaining :) :). A new "Is the Pope..." joke. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

First non-white?

How is this the case? This New York Times article reports that he was born to Italian parents who emigrated to Argentina. I have no further info on his parents' races, but that sounds like he is of "white" descent [whatever that means] to me. I should stress that I don't personally care either way, but if we're going to say he's the first "non-white" pope we need some evidence. Frumptydoo (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Per some uses of white, Italians are not white. This was the view of at least some people of Italian descent at my high school. However since the vast majority of Popes in the last 500 years have been Italian, it would not make Pope Francis "the first non-white Pope".John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

John Pack Lambert, the talk page follows the same rules of evidence as the article pages. This is where we thrash out the truth that once purified and distilled gets transferred to the articles. What are your references for stating that “historically in the US Italians were generally considered non-white”? Do you base that on what you attribute to “This was the view of at least some people of Italian descent at my high school”? Please post some solid references, not schoolyard hearsay. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In the book Are Italians White: How Race is Made in America author Jennifer Guglielmo states "What they [a specific organization of Italian Americans mentioned earlier in the paragraph] seem to have missed, however was how this radio host was calling Italians out on their particular whiteness: Italians were not alwasy white, and the loss of this memory is one of the tragedies of racism in America." Race is a social construct, and the limits of race are what society places on it. Race is not a fixed biological characteristic, but a social designation with social meaning, so what people percieve to be the boundaries of a given race are in fact the boundaries of a given race. In my African-American history class at Wayne State University we discussed this issue somewhat, and in my Civil War Era history class at Brigham Young University we discussed in passing that the Irish were not always considered white. Another hisotry professor I had at Eastern Michigan University ponted out that the earliest constuctions of white identity were created in opposition to Irishness. There is a book entitled How the Irish became white. The process of redefinition of terms like "white" has been studied heavily by sociologists, and it is very clear that at times there were people who used "white" in a way to exclude Italians. I could also site some dating sites that in their racial groupings break off "Italian" as a seperate group from "White".John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if he were non-white, he would only be the first non-white in a while, Peter was from Israel and several others were from north Africa. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Which means they, along with Pope Francis, all fit the definition of white used by the United States census. Of course that also calls people from Iran white, so who knows. Even more fun, in the 1960 and 1970 census people from India were classified as white.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Non white??

The first para lists him as non white. Why? His ancestry is Italian. He is from Argentina (a country who's population is overwhelmingly white. I hope this is not simply north american jingoism that everyone from south of Texas is mestizo.66.178.230.34 (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This nonsense has been deleted. Mały koleżka (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yikes! Absolutely needs to be deleted if it reappears. Moncrief (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we would be best off avoiding any discussion of whether or not he is "white". White is a statement about peopel that has little trans-national meaning. If he had immigrated to the US he would not fit as "non-Hispanic white", but that term is meant to reflect the reality of the ethno-political situation in the US. I had professors who would refer to Russian immigrants to the US as non-white, so in reality "white" is sometimes used to mean "American of general European descent with no obvious foriegn cultural antecedents" and thus does not work in describing people who are not American at all. Of course, whiteness also is a historical racial class in Latin America, although in colonial times some bought the right to be considered white. Whiteness is a term with specific meanings at specific times and places, and really has no workable meaning in the hisotry of the Popes. Simon Peter was clearly not an Aryan by Adolf Hitler's definition, while at the same time it is unclear that he or any of his contemporaries would have found any meaing to the question of whether or not he was white. We should stick with clearly defined terms, and that is whether or not a Pope is from the continent of Europe, and clearly Francis is not, but just as clearly several earlier Popes were not either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Non-white?

We should stay away from "vague" words like "white" and "black" and such, because it really doesn't say anything important, and people have varying definitions of what it entails (i.e. is President Barack Obama "black" if his father has East-African roots and his mother has European-American roots?). It would be much more specific and clear to say this man was born in Argentina and is of Italian ancestry. If we have more specific information (i.e. his parents were born in Italy) that can be added as well. Scipio Carthage (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, people can have whatever opinions of race as they wish - this is Wikipedia, and we seek clarity, not political correctness or "what is ethical". Ethics don't matter here, we want to be informative. So the argument for "don't classify because it is discriminatory" is not entirely appropriate. The matter is that the classification terms are not clear and specific enough for Wikipedia in the first place. They have no place in modern globalized encyclopedic information. Scipio Carthage (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he is not, you should care about who he his. Why the need to classify people by their ethnic origin? Why should we care? He si the Pope. Jesus was Jew and non white. Ethnic classification is a tool for discrimination.

His parents were Italian immigrants to Argentina. Italian still counts as white, guys.

Yeah I don't know if whoever wrote that he is non-white has seen the big picture of him at the side of the article, but he's definitely completely white. [unsigned]

Quite. Not sure where that came from. I see another editor removed that bit exactly as I did. David (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And his parents are Italian soo yeah I'd say white --69.146.219.170 (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Argentina being "non-white" is a meme. He's Argentinian. Of course someone's going to say he's not white. 96.48.172.204 (talk)

I agree. I don't see how he's either non-white, non-European, or non-Italian. Heykerriann (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the 19th century: trying to say that someone isn't some particular group of privileged is such a very helpful way to properly stereotype someone and put them in their place.

He is who is he is. Labeling him as non-white, non-brown, non-black, non-blue, or non-purple are all so critical to understand his character, his life, his contribution, and the tremendous role he will play in the history of the world, even if it should be decided that he is totally transparent.

What I want to know is:

• Which chemistry courses did he teach, and where did he study chemistry.
• Did his students enjoy his courses, or was he a dull lecturer.
• Was he available outside of course hours to answer questions and help struggling students.
• From a doctrinal point of view, did he teach
  • Arrhenius definition
  • Brønsted-Lowry modification of Arrhenius
  • Or the radical views of Lewis?
  • Or was he able to reconcile these views into a harmonious view he was able to explain to novices? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKC MD (talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. You just made my day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.205.224 (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Jews, Italians and (prima facie) Argentinians are, altogether, white. Nativeamerican ancestry would, perhaps, be a different thing.--77.4.50.65 (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• By some definitions Italians are non-white. In fact historically in the US Italians were generally considered non-white. However since All except for 2 of the Popes over the last 4 centuries have been Italian, if Pope Francis is non-white than virtually all the Popes have been non-white, and Pope John Paul II was the "first white pope" in hundreds of years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

John Pack Lambert, the talk page follows the same rules of evidence as the article pages. This is where we thrash out the truth that once purified and distilled gets transferred to the articles. What are your references for stating that “historically in the US Italians were generally considered non-white”? Do you base that on what you attribute to “This was the view of at least some people of Italian descent at my high school”? Please post some solid references, not schoolyard hearsay. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a solid reference above. That said, we are discussing "race". Race is a social construct, so the views of actual people on its limits are recognizable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The whole non-white troll was introduced by User:Sgt_Simpson in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Francis&diff=prev&oldid=543914707

I hope it isn't an editor that broke trust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.38.173 (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

See the picture ... not white? that racist!! my god!!--186.62.185.205 (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, this is a trivia, but the Superior General of the Society of Jesus is (unofficially) called the black pope. Francis was not the superior general, anyway he is a jesuit. Some "consiprators", basing on a nostradamus' quatrain, think that francis will be the last pope before the end of the world. Chessstoria (3 s) ^{(All your base are belong to us)} 15:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Is controversy around Biden and Pelosi relevant to this article?

I am wondering if the controversy around Biden and Pelosi going to the inaugural mass relly belongs in a biography of Francis?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not important enough for this BLP. Andrew³²⁷ 19:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Not relevant, just like with the thread above. This is an article for the first American Pope in history (among other firsts). Please center the information included around this.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis is not American as we use the term in categorization. There is no reason to focus the article on his supposed firsts. He does not fit in Category:American cardinals, and we should not create ;Category:American popes. He fits in Category:Argentine popes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This "controversy" does not merit coverage in a biographical entry. File it with "Falklands War". Bmclaughlin9 (talk)

Argentina is located in South America, which is part of America, so the Pope is as American as George W. Bush is.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a common misunderstanding among native Spanish speakers. In English, 99% of the time the word "American" denotes something or someone of, from, or pertaining to the United States. When denoting that something or someone is from the Americas (i.e., the continent that would be called América in Spanish), the term "of the Americas" is used instead (e.g., Summit of the Americas). --190.19.81.137 (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

For the purposes of Category:American cardinals and other categories using "American", American means someone from the United States of America.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that English Wikipedia is not written for ″Americans″ only, but also for ″non-American″ speaking people, care should be taken when assuming this kind of things.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think that for native English speakers around the world, "America" is typically interpreted as "United States of America," and this is the English Wikipedia. Coming from the United States, I don't personally like the fact that we are "American" and not something more specific meaning "United Statesian" but unfortunately it comes down to the word choice that most people use and how they understand it. Falconus^{p t c} 00:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

English Wikipedia does not belong to English-speaking editors only. Please do not bias the project.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the English Wikipedia does not belong only to English-speaking editors only, but I don't think that it is unreasonable to expect that the English that is written would be interpreted correctly by most proficient speakers of English. I would never, for example, recommend that the Spanish Wikipedia use "americano" only for people from the US, even though the Spanish Wikipedia is likewise not just for native Spanish Speakers. In different languages, similar words, even with the same roots, can have different meanings, like the English "embarassed" and Spanish "embarazada". It would seem that the Spanish "americano" means something a little bit different from the English "American", and moreover, in my opinion this difference would be enough to significantly change the intended meaning. Falconus^{p t c} 01:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The clear consensus, supported by multiple discussions of the category at CfD, is that Category:American people refers to people who are nationals of the United States. This is largely a reflection of the fact that the sources we use mean this when they say "American", and refer to people who came to the US from Mexico, Argentina and Chile among other places as "immigrants to America".John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Noted.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Overlap and needless leads

Why do we have a quick mention up to his ordination in the early life section, and then have a much more comprehseive discussion of his education in the pre-Papal career section?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

No good reason. I removed the superfluous sentence from the "early life" section. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Since the announcement of the election results, a very small number (less than 200) of South American priests, as well as some children of Argentinean criminals, including rapists and murderers, have been telling lies to many newspapers throughout Europe and North America about Pope Francis. Most of these people are admitted or suspected Communists. I believe Wikipedia editors have a responsibility to protect this article from editing until further notice.

I lived in Buenos Aires during that time and I can confirm that Archbishop Bergoglio took the bus. [Preceding comment by unknown editor]

No doubt there are lies going around, but the editors on this article have done a pretty good job of separating wheat from chaff so far and sticking to only reliable secondary sources. Andrew³²⁷ 07:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I was scolded on my Talk page for removing some obvious vandalism from the summary of this entry, specifically this sentence from the end of the first paragraph:

His jubilant election was followed by cheers in the media and an online parody of his immediate resignation.

Here what ended up on my Talk page:

Your "rvv" edit summary

Just to let you know, I found your blanket revert and the "rvv" edit summary rude and abusive.[4] Please respect Principles of Wikipedia etiquette next time. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 22:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hah! It was vandalism pure and simple and you know it. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The story is all over the news. I was trying to help those readers who might be concerned about what they learn via tweets and blogs about the latest Onion webcast. However, recognizing a reliable source (such as the one I provided), or reading stuff online might not be your thing and I understand. All I ask is that you respect Wikipedia policy/guidelines. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 23:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You put trivia in the summary portion of an encyclopedic entry and wrote it in such a way as to be extremely POV. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are, but I want you to know that your behavior leaves much to be desired. I've been around much longer than you have, and I know what building the encyclopedia means. Go read for yourself, http://www.theonion.com/video/pope-francis-resigns,31660/ (and skip the commercial). Poeticbent talk 23:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hah! Then why not take this discussion to the entry's Talk page? Never mind, I've done that. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• The fact that some people may mock an individual is normally not worth noting. If we included every documented and reported case of the mocking of some individuals we would have much longer articles on many people. The removal of this material in this case was justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• The first thing I did, when I heard the news about the Pope's "resignation" was to come here. I found nothing while the web gets flooded with messages, tweets and blogs. I provided a reliable source informing that the webcast by the Onion was humorous. Mind you, there might be hundreds if not thousands of people out there who probably did the same thing. The wp:rs material I added was reverted as "vandalism". Get it? I left a courtesy message on his talk, and guess what... he repeats his offensive summary in the opening line of this thread: "removing some obvious vandalism". I don't need this, Poeticbent talk 00:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The onion paroding things is not notable and should not be mentioned in the articles on the people lampooned by the onion. WIkipedia is not a news source, and it is even less a source to summarise parodies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I have been watching this article since he got elected and the addition by Poeticbent was one of the weirdest things I saw here... I could not understand it... only because of that I did not remove it myself... --Againme (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I might have phrased it improperly, but it was important nevertheless. That's why I added a carefully selected inline citation (obviously I was concerned to start with). And why hide anything? Wikipedia is also a news source among other things and you know it. Poeticbent talk 03:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway I think the consensus is that it's not relevant enough... Mostly only Americans read The Onion... Penn and Teller's Bullshit did a scandalous piece on the Church and Benedict XVI and I don't see that in his article... --Againme (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Poeticbent, you apparently meant well, but your edit was ill-advised, and your reaction to its removal too, and enough people have told you as much, please deal with it. It is not the job of the Pope Francis article to inform the public that The Onion is a parody news site. --dab (𒁳) 08:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That isn't vandalism at all. Calling something vandalism that isn't vandalism is bad. Inappropriate information added in good faith isn't vandalism. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 12:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Brightgalrs, but when an experienced editor places trivia in the first paragraph of a WP entry -- material that has not been documented in the body of the entry -- and does so with tendentious language that also matches nothing found in the body ("cheers in the media"), I find it hard to assume good faith. It was a trifecta: location, substance, expression. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you will find that assuming good faith is hard to do. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 16:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting a minor correction.

In the section Early life, the words "Escuelas Técnicas N° 27" should be replaced with "Escuela Nacional de Educación Técnica N° 27" which is the correct name of the institution Pope Francis attended. The corresponding source in the article mentions the initials E.N.E.T, meaning "Escuela Nacional de Educación Técnica", which is a common acronym used for Argentine schools that offer a technical-oriented curriculum. Thank you. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Done! --Againme (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Update Photo

Is it possible to update the photo to one of Pope Francis as pope, rather than as a cardinal? Perhaps one from his election night or his meeting with the media yesterday morning. 149.150.237.56 (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Brian 3/17/13

We're all waiting for some shots to make it to Wikimedia Commons. The problem with most pictures of him as pope is that they're copyrighted, which means we can't use them here. Andrew³²⁷ 07:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

tridentine mass

"In 2007, just two days after Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum, Cardinal Bergoglio was one of the first bishops in the world to respond by instituting a Tridentine mass in Buenos Aires.[30][31] It was celebrated weekly.[32]"

Is it possible to get a bit more explanation here for those of us who don't know anything about the Summorum Pontificum or tridentine masses? Furorimpius (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think your point is well taken. Naming the document without explanation is unfair to those not versed in such things. I've re-written the sentence, while maintaining the link to Summorum Pontificum as new rules. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

A typographical error

In the subsection Episcopacy, the word "breakfast" is spelt as "breakfest". --190.19.88.16 (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears that part of the section has later been deleted (it is the one discussed right below at this talk page). Iselilja (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

And has since been removed. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

House of ill repute

While it is in the source referenced, perhaps we need a better source for the house of ill repute bit? Pol098 (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The refs were bogus. I removed it. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Image

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/540986_361609713955044_1363401099_n.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railie May (talk • contribs) 23:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

where did you find this? Aunva6 (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Is the coat of arms that of the cardinal or of the pope? The second would seem to have been completed very quickly.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The upload date of the image is December 2012, so it was before he became pope. I don't know if the coat of arms will change though.--PiMaster3 ^talk 01:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

it will. papal coats of arm are greatly different than cardinal COA... see Pope Benedict XVI for an example Aunva6 (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The new arms is linked above on this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.136.61 (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

But that one has no official credentials. We have to wait. --Concord (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Remove the coat of arms

The coat of arms in the infobox is just a supposition because the Pope did not create it yet. Most likely it will be similar to his cardinal COA, but it will different for many elements. For istance, you used the tiara on it, but some Popes (e.g. Benedictus XVI) used the mitre instead. So far, that coat of arms is a original research. --Chessstoria (3 s) ^{(All your base are belong to us)} 13:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This CoA is WP:OR. DeCausa (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Having the CoA in the article is fine as long as its captions say that it was the CoA of Cardinal Bergoglio and not of Pope Francis. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 15:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaarmyvet (talk • contribs)

Papal Coat of Arms

Has anyone been able to find a picture of Pope Francis' papal coat of arms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsepe (talk • contribs) 02:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't have one yet, don't you imagine he will be occupied with other concerns over the next few days? The article can just show the coa he used as cardinal for the time being. --dab (𒁳) 12:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The Papal Coat of Arms now appears at the Vatican website. Mix between Benedict's and Bergoglio as cardinal. See http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/index.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.213.246.134 (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Coat of arms in Infobox

The coat of arms currently shown in the infobox is just a conjecture and therefore original research (it's a combination of Cardinal Berdoglios CoA and the external elements of Pope Benedicts XVI CoA). I therefore removed it from the infobox. Gugganij (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It has to be fixed in some elements, but it is official. Chessstoria (3 s) ^{(All your base are belong to us)} 16:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It is correct now. sentausa (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is still a minor problem. The font used in the image is different from the one on the official page in the vatican website. I wrote to the user who created the image, but apparently he/she speaks only polish. Is there any polish speaking person who can drop a line to that user? Chessstoria (3 s) ^{(All your base are belong to us)} 17:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's official. was released this afternoon. I've added the image to the Papacy section with explanation based on this source. DeCausa (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

One point of apparent confusion: the Telegraph article which I linked to (and used as a ref for the captioned explanation) says that St Joseph was represented by the "nardo a grape-like plant" and by a lily - and several other news sources say it is a "lily". But looking at it, it clearly isn't a lily and does look like a bunch of grapes. The Vatican website source (which I've added as a ref) is only in Italian and uses the phrase "fiore di nardo". Anybody know what it is? DeCausa (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

One, and only one, English-language source calls it a Spikenard, and I've seen a web translation of fiore di nardo as spikenard. I think that must be what it is and have changed the caption accordingly (with ref).DeCausa (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I didn't expect the new coat of arms would be released in days. Last time it took I think a month. Sorry again. Gugganij (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Assessment of article - Class C or B

I noticed that the article has again been accessed to Class B. I intend to return it to Class C. It is currently lacking in several aspects, including content. Still a number of citations that need to be made and stylistically it falls short. Premature to assess this as B. This article is obviously going to get a lot of work over the weeks ahead and I have no doubt that it will be ready for B status then, but right now it falls short. Safiel (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I've changed it to C twice only to have it uprated. Andrew³²⁷ 20:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

sorry, my bad... I did it twice; however, I now think your probably right. perhaps I have relatively low standards for articles, although the criteria are fairly subjective.... Aunva6 (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

These are the six criteria for B-class (full details here]:

• The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.
• The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
• The article has a defined structure.
• The article is reasonably well-written.
• Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
• The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.

It looks to me like the article now meets all six criteria, and should be reassessed as "B" class. If there is disagreement on this, please cite the specific criterion or criteria not met, and explain, at least a bit, regarding the deficiency. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I just now quickly scanned the article and noticed several "citation needed" tags. That by itself would disqualify the article for B class. I think content is still short as well. There is absolutely no hurry on assessing for B class. The guy just became Pope and this article is going to be in a highly dynamic state for at least the next several weeks. Lets just leave it as C class and when things calm down in several weeks, then we can do a more measured and reasonable evaluation for B class. Absolutely no hurry to slap a B rating on this. We have plenty of time. Safiel (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I provided a direct link to the B class criteria; I'm a bit disappointed that you don't quote from that directly when you make your points. First, the requirement for citations is this: "... any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited." That's completely different from having no material with a "citation needed" tag (your "automatic disqualification"). Thus the real issue is whether such (tagged) material is important or controversial. Looking at the article, I see only a single "citation needed" tag - as to whether the new pope speaks Latin. I'm fairly comfortable saying that this matter is neither important or controversial, on its face - but if it truly were so important or controversial, it's hard to believe that there would be no news stories about this issue, or that no editor would have fixed it.

Second, you again assert that "content is still short", but provide no specifics. And even if you did, the criteria is "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." [Emphasis added] If in fact there were obvious omissions, I would hope you would have posted about those on this talk page, so your concerns could be addressed. (If you have indeed posted, please add a link - thanks.) But regardless - please, don't just make a general assertion, since others here are not capable of mind-reading.

Third, the six B class criteria do not include anything about how new an article is, or how "dynamic" it is. (I personally would say that "dynamic", here, means "continually improving", but that's off the point.) I think it's best that the discussion focus solely on those six actual criteria.

Finally, a statistic: There are currently more than 86,000 articles rated as "B" class. I doubt many of them have had the number of edits - and almost certainly only a relatively few of them have had the number of different editors - that this article has. If the Wikipedia community can't produce a B class article with all of the time and effort put into this article, then it's hard to believe that most of articles currently rated as "B" deserve such a rating. Or, to put it differently, I'd argue that the consensus about the quality of those other B class articles should demonstrate that this article too has reached that level. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

High numbers of edits and numbers of different editors do not in any way imply high quality. In fact there might even be a tendency for the opposite - with half the Wiki swarming over this article as its subject is in the limelight it is hard to forge consistency or good standards. I was looking at this article right now and quite surprised that it's still in pretty poor condition 2 days after the election. The lead does not even remotely sum up the main points about the guy that it should, and the sections in the body scan more like a collection of dispirate sentences than coherent prose. I don't know the B class articles you refer to but I would hazard a guess that many of them are in much better state than this. Once the matter fades out of the news a bit I would imagine that a core of more dedicated editors will push it up to B class within a week or a month...  — Amakuru (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Out of interest, this is what the previous pope's article looked like two days after his election: [5]. Arguably in a pretty similar state to this one. Now, of course, the Benedict XVI article is pretty solid decent enough B class.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with other editors who have said that the article currently deserves its C rating but that it will likely become B-worthy very soon. Andrew³²⁷ 04:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell no one has really pointed out explicitly any of the B-class criteria this article does not meet, with the possible exception of "The article has a defined structure." However I would argue this article has that, maybe not good flow, but it has a well thought out structure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• I am going to go ahead and push this up to B, although it is certainly at the cusp of B/C. Enough missing citations have been added to overcome my major disagreement, that being the lack of citations. Safiel (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Article rating

I know that this article was downgraded from B class to C class early on because it still needed some missing citations and there were still some disputes going on about basic facts. However, I personally think the article is excellent at this point. Is it possible for someone to review the rating? Additionally, I am a little surprised that some groups are rating the article "Top Importance," some "High Importance," and some "Mid-Importance." I am surprised that an article on the current Pope could be anything less than "Top Importance." I'm curious to know if others agree or disagree.... NearTheZoo (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

There are some citations needed hanging around. They should be fixed before making it a B article. As for the importance, that field is project-specific, each one may had its own rationale. I'm from wikiproject Argentina and I support the top importance, as Bergoglio is arguably the most important Argentine man in history (at least from an international perspective). But I guess that for Wikiproject Rome Francis is just a Pope like all the others, and so less important for them, so they class the article as of mid importance. Cambalachero (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

When he had his lung operation

Currently the article says this happened in 1969, making him 32-33, but sources I'm finding seem to suggest it was earlier. Bloomberg reports 21, which fits in with others which say he was in his youth. Any thoughts? Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

yes it's strange there seems to be alot of differing accounts. This one (from ABC) says "during childhood"! DeCausa (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Several references already included in the article say it occurred when he was 21, and one explicitly states it occurred in 1957, which would indeed have been when he was 21 (current footnote 13: "Jorge Bergoglio, un sacerdote jesuita de carrera [Jorge Bergoglio, a career Jesuit priest]" (in Spanish). La Nación. 13 March 2013. "he graduated from industrial secondary school E.N.E.T. Nº 27 "Hipólito Yrigoyen" with the qualification of chemical technician, then started religious studies at the age of 21, having decided to become a priest"). All of the statements in the article should be corrected to state that it occurred in 1957. I don't think any of the references actually state it occurred in 1969. Tinman44 (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the corrections Tinman44 (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Lung tissue removed in 1969

Nowhere in the two articles provided is said that this tissue was removed in 1969. I had marked this as unsourced but someone deleted the tag. I'm reinstating the {{fact}} tag.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Right now there are contradictory statements regarding when he had his illness that required the removal of part of his lung. In the 'early life' section at the beginning it says it was when he was 21. However under the heading 'Jesuit' under 'Pre-papal career' it indicates that he had the part of his lung removed the same year he became a priest, in 1969, which would have made him 32 or 33 rather than 21. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.148.56.129 (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the same as topic #26 above. It occurred in 1957. See #26 above. Thanks. Tinman44 (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Principal Co-Consecrators of Pope Francis

I added Principal Co-Consecrators of Pope Francis as Bishop Emilio Ogñénovich and Ubaldo Calabresi with reference from catholic-hierarchy.org and news.va but some one changed it to Mario José Serra and es:Eduardo Mirás based on aicaold.com.ar.

What actually happened was, Then-Father Bergoglio was consecrated as a bishop along with Bishop Raúl Omar Rossi on the very same day 27 Jun 1992 by Antonio Quarracino as their principle Consecrator. Both of them were the new Auxiliary Bishops of Buenos Aires.

Now in the same ceremony all four bishops, Emilio Ogñénovich, Ubaldo Calabresi, Mario José Serra and es:Eduardo Mirás participated as Principal Co-Consecrators. As it is the custom all four of them would have placed their hands on both Bergoglio and Omar Rossi. The problem now is that since the law requires to have at-least two Co-Consecrators both Bergoglio and Omar Rossi were given two Co-Consecrators each from the four. So I think that the names in the official records must reflect in the article.

(P.S: Also one more problem with the contradicting source is that Archbishop Mirás was not an archbishop at the time. He was named to Rosario about 1.5 years after the consecration of Pope Francis) --Jayarathina (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I made that change. I might have hesitated but when I made the change the information was unsourced. The web site catholic-hierarchy.org seems amateurish and far from official. Of course we should trust the news.va info, but it seems no more likely to be authoritative than www.aicaold.com.ar/index2.php?pag=obbergoglio, which is, for those who are interested, Agencia Informativa Católica Argentina. None of these are "official records". I think we need an official source or a quality 1992 source.

I've changed the info for Mirás to reflect your point. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

AICA's new site has the information you supplied. You can see it HERE. I will make the change. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks --Jayarathina (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Another reason to choose the name francis

Today during the Angelus pope francis gave more detail why he chose his name: his ties with italy, in fact saint francis is the patron of italy. Here a source for that: The former Buenos Aires archbishop, whose father emigrated from Italy's northwestern Piedmont region, said he chose to name himself after St Francis of Assisi because of his "spiritual ties with this land". This is not a trivia: there was many discussions in the church (and probably during the conclave) if the new pope should be italian or not. So, in a way, the new pope is saying: well, i am not italian, but i pay a tribute to italy choosing that name. To me this fact is worth citing in the choice of name section. --Chessstoria (3 s) ^{(All your base are belong to us)} 14:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessstoria (talk • contribs)

I found the reports of this just a little vague. They all just quoted the single phrase "spiritual ties with this land". Here's what the traanscript has, so far only available in Italian:

Ho scelto il nome del Patrono d’Italia, San Francesco d’Assisi, e ciò rafforza il mio legame spirituale con questa terra, dove – come sapete – sono le origini della mia famiglia.

I translate that as:

I chose the name of the patron of Italy, St. Francis of Assisi, and thus reinforced my spiritual link to this land from where, as you know, my family comes.

It doesn't sound to me like a reason he chose the name exactly. He's describing an effect of his choice, and he has already explained the inspiration for that choice at the moment it was made. Others, I realize, may differ. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Here [6] is a Deseret News article by Matthew Brown, reporting statements by Francis and analysis by others on why he chose his name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleting section on disputed statement to

I deleted a section about relations to "other Christian communities," noting that I would like to bring the issue to the talk page. The section was:

According to Anglican Primate Gregory Venables, Cardinal Bergoglio invited him to breakfest and told him that the personal ordinariates "were quite unnecessary" and told him that "the Church needs them as Anglicans" after Pope Benedict XVI issued Anglicanorum Coetibus.[68] A spokesman from the Ordinariates said that the words were those of Bishop Venables and not the pope.[68] However after his election as Pope, Msgr. Jeffery Steenson, Ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter and Msgr. Keith Newton, Ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham both issued statements regarding the issue.[69][70]

This is a section about a statement that is disputed -- and which here, Primate Venables notes was not written for publication, that "the conversation was in 2009 and did not imply that the Ordinariate was either temporary or an error, merely that the speaker values the Anglican Church as it is".

Seems to me that this one sentence disputed-statement doesn't add anything to the already included statement about positive relations between Bergoglio and the Anglican religious community.

I'll leave the final decision to others, but I think it should remain deleted. It's ultimately insignificant, I think. Thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I moved this from Episcopacy to the "relations with other Christian communities" in the hope that someone would take a good look at it and perhaps reduce it to something suitable/less cryptic. It's mostly relevant to add to the ways in which Bergoglio did not see eye to eye with Benedict, but quite minor. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. After a good look, really think deletion is the way to go. Not clear if Bergoglio or Venables made the statement, but both sides of the conversation (Church and Anglican community) say all that was meant was that there is a positive feeling between Bergoglio and the Anglicans, which is a fact already stated. I'll leave it deleted for now. Thanks again. NearTheZoo (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I do not even think we have proof that Francis disagreed with Benedict's actions in this matter. The words coming from Pope Francis is disputed. This seems to be an attempt to create a disagreement where there is no proof of one. If Francis reforms these ordinaries as pope, we should report that, but what we have here is unsubstantiated claims that really amount to nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Work as Laboratory technician

Today the newspaper Clarin released a speciall issue on Pope Francis, the digital version of it should be here. I do have a phisycall copy of it, and in page 8 there's an interview with Carlos Hickethier, director of the Hickethier-Bachmann Laboratory, where Bergoglio worked. I for one can't access the digital version of it, so here's my rough translation of the relevant section:

The company was founded in 1923. 30 years later, one of their employess was Jorge Bergoglio, who already had his degree as a chemical technician. He worked at the morning shift, from 7 to 13. His superior was Esther Balestrino Careaga, Paraguayan, who'd be abducted by the Navy years later (See page 19) "Jorge dealt with controlling the raw materials for the products. He was at the Foods section. He must have been in the Lab up until the year 1956. He was very religious already [...]" Hickethier comments, who knew him in the 1950s.

There's also a second piece, on the relation of Bergoglio and Esther Balestrino Careaga:

In the 1950s Jorge Bergoglio was a chemical technician and she, Esther Balestrino Careaga, Licenciate in Chemistry, was her superior. They both worked at the Hickethier-Bachmann Laboratory, at Arenales and Azcuenaga, in Buenos Aires. [...] Bergoglio dealt with Foods, doing bromatologic tests on samples sent by companies to check their products.

This article does mention their mutual friendship, and how Bergoglio hid her communist literature during the dictatorship. She was eventually abducted and killed in one of the death flights. In 2005 he authorized her-reburial in the Santa Cruz church, in Buenos Aires. This part's mentioned here: http://www.clarin.com/mundo/Bergoglio-entierro-Madres-Plaza-Mayo_0_884311627.html

The company does have a website under a different name, ELAI S.C.A., http://www.elaisca.com.ar/, but it does list Carlos Hickethier as a member of the board; no mention of the pope there, yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.112.133.83 (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I added the work at the Lab with a ref to Clarin. Not sure about the other bit, unless someone starts a detailed entry for Bergoglio's politics. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Citizenship

The infobox says he is has Vatican citizenship. Is there a source for that? How and when did he acquire it? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

He probably got a Vatican citizenship when he was elected pope. Here is what the Wikipedia article about Vatican citizenship says: "Vatican citizenship now has four categories: (1) the pope". He is also an Italian citizen, according to Der Spiegel: "He holds citizenship in both Argentina and Italy". NBC says: "Pope Francis is technically, if not actually— he carries an European Union passport—both an Argentine and an Italian national." With regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Vatican citizenship is granted to any cardinal living in rome or in the vatican city. Chessstoria (3 s) ^{(All your base are belong to us)} 11:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

here a source. Anyway, it seems foolish to have a source for such a obvious information and afaik policies state we do not need them. We do not have source for his date of birth or something like that. Chessstoria (3 s) ^{(All your base are belong to us)} 11:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It is heading in the direction of Is the Pope Catholic?! DeCausa (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the pope does not exist and everything we see is created by The Matrix, do you take the red or the blue pill? :) Chessstoria (3 s) ^{(All your base are belong to us)} 13:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently it's so "obvious" that some say Italian as well and another refers to cardinals living in Rome, which he has never been. I also love that NBC phrase: "technically, if not actually". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Biography

I have created yesterday an entry for El jesuita, the first biography of Bergoglio by Sergio Rubin, edited in 2010. Considering the circumstances, I guess that it won't be published just in Argentina, and there should be projects around to translate it to English. If you ever find information about that, please add it to the article. I realize that Argentine media may be slanted towards the Argentine perspective of things, and may omit such a detail. Cambalachero (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Not in citation given

Again in "Relations with the Argentine government section", "As bishop" subsection, the reference given for the sentence: "During his time as archbishop, Cristina Fernández rejected 14 requests for meetings by Bergoglio.[65](1)" does not back the purpoted claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.111.219.140 (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Then how would you translate this: "Y este lunes al mediodía, el Pontífice recibió en un almuerzo a la Presidenta argentina, quien le había negado al menos 14 citas pedidas por el entonces Arzobispo de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Which seminary was Francis rector of?

In the article is says "in 1980 he was named the rector of the seminary in San Miguel". However we mention that Francis was educated first at Colegio Maximo San Jose and then later at Facultades de Filosofia y Teologia de San Miguel, both of which if I am understand everything correctly were seminaries in San Miguel. We might want to be more clear in this line so it is clear which Fancis was rector of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Interfaith dialogue

Per the Jerusalem Post article and mentions earlier in this article, the book quoted in the inter-faith dialogue section was not written by Francis. Either he had more of a role in writting it, and the earlier mention needs to be revised to reflect this, this is a quote from a statement and he should not be said to have written it, or he was a co-author, and even then he probably should not be portrayed as the sole author. There seems to be a need for some sort of revision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The book is a dialogue with Abraham Skorka. As long as the quotes come from his pages and not Skorka's. I'll see what needs to be said. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope it's sufficiently clear now. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The book is actually in the form of a transcript of the dialogues between Bergolio and Skorka. This quote is definitely from the statements by Bergoglio. The words are his. NearTheZoo (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis's family left Italy because of fascism

Should this information be added? It seems very interesting. --190.19.100.28 (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Both the fact that their father left Italy because of fascism and she and her brother visited their ancestral village together. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --190.19.100.28 (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Masters degree?

I dont think the cite that says he got a masters degree is accurate. In this newspaper http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1562738-bergoglio-un-sacerdote-jesuita-de-carrera they claim he studied chemistry in high school. Additionally, at that time there were no masters degree in Argentina, the closest you can get is an "engineering" degree. bcartolo (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The detailed reference above supports Bcartolo's comment; it gives details of the school from wich he graduated as chemical technician, and says that he decided to follow the priesthood at 21 (too young for a master's degree). In point of fact I do think that in 1957 there was a degree of "licenciado en ciencias químicas", which is comparable to a master's (at least 4 years), though the reference above implies Bergoglio didn't study for it. There certainly was such a degree a few years later. I suppose that this will be clarified as time goes by. Pol098 (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of reliable sources that say it was a masters and name the university, such as this one and this one. It looks like he decided to become a priest at 21, but that doesn't mean that he had graduated at that point; for all we know he continued his chemistry studies for a time before or while he had entered the Jesuits. He wasn't ordained until he was 32. (Also, do you speak Spanish? I don't, but I'm reticent to trust a machine translation for the Spanish-language source.) Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Also: this source is from 2005, so we can be sure the recent sources weren't just copying the Wikipedia article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Chemistry in Ciencias Exactas was a fairly gruelling full-time 4-year course, preceded by a 1-year evening preparatory course. Conceivably he could have been studying chemical engineering (different building, different location at that time), but that was no easy option either. The references are fairly specific that he graduated from secondary school as a chemical technician. I have been thinking "either-or" with blinkers on (technician or university), but of course it's quite sensible to do chemistry both in school first and at university level afterwards, so it's conceivable he did both. On the one hand it's utterly unimportant anyway; on the other it'll probably come out in the wash eventually. Searching in Spanish finds lots of references to him being a chemical technician, but they probably derive from Wikipedia anyway! So I think I should leave this alone. Chemists (and physicists) have probably been doing too much running things in living memory (Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Francis...) Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget Mohamed Morsi (I reckon materials science is close enough...) Anyway, the official biography refers to "a degree as a chemical technician" which is also somewhat ambiguous. I think since we have sources on both sides we should mention both degrees for now, expressing appropriate caution, and if new sources clarify the matter we can update as needed. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sources may be ambiguous, but WP has to be squeaky clean in its accuracy and balance. Tony (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If that's what the official biography says, I would quote it exactly and drop the rest. If somebody is a licenciado en ciencias químicas, or an ingeniero químico (not sure of wording actually used for engineer, conceivably ingeniero en química), he would not be described as a technician. The Spanish version of the official Web site (Spanish as his language and the language he studied and graduated in) says "Estudió y se diplomó como Técnico Quimico"—"he studied and graduated as a chemical technician" which in my opinion unambiguously does not say he has a university degree, there is no Argentine university degree of "técnico", much less equivalent to a masters degree, and there is such a qualification from an industrial secondary school. The capitals imply the formal name of a qualification. The Italian site uses the same wording as the Spanish, without the capitals. But I probably won't edit further myself unless real rubbish gets written. Pol098 (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I am fluent in Spanish because I am from Argentina. I am pretty sure by now that he is a chemistry technician, a degree awarded by a high school. I also believe the masters degree was made up by the catholic telegraph, catholic herald or catholic news. I will call the university today and request they make a formal statement and post it in the web page today. Wish me luck with that, there is a lot of bureaucracy involved. bcartolo (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the detective work, I'm interested to see the resolution either way. I suppose someone could have mistranslated or misunderstood the Spanish name of the degree and published it in an English-language source, but in that case it would be odd that a specific university was named. Hopefully the matter will be explicitly clarified. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Another (admittedly not all that decisive) piece of evidence: many recent sources such as this one contain the sentence "He became a priest at 32, nearly a decade after losing a lung due to respiratory illness and quitting his chemistry studies." This implies that he quit his chemistry studies no more than nine years before being ordained, at the age of 23 at the youngest, which is reasonable for a masters degree. This means that he would have had to continue his university studies for a few years after deciding to become a preist (at the age of 21) and becoming a member of the Jesuits. Of course, it could also be the sources being imprecise with their language. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser. There are lots of sources mentioning the masters degree, but the only pre-2013 source I can find on the Internet is this 2005 source from Catholic News Service. Meanwhile, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, Reuters, and The Associated Press all just say he studied as or was trained as a chemist without any specifics. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said, bureaucracy can take some time to decide this. We must be patient. Regarding the name of the university, it can be made up, you see UBA is the most important university there so someone could have assumed the pope went there. bcartolo (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, somebody noticed us: [7]. I think the preponderance of the evidence at this point is that the masters degree is probably the result of an error or mistranslation that got repeated by moderately reliable sources. Perhaps it would be a good idea to move the sentence to a footnote for now? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Let's wait for an official response from the University of Buenos Aires. --190.19.67.176 (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The University site makes no such claims, in its History section. It also requires a High School Degree (a term indicating systemic inflation of grades) or certificate that the undergraduate applicant has passed all his subjects. However, the special edition of the Clarin newspaper in the notes section also states that he never completed his schooling, working mornings for a Paragayan Communist, Esther Balestrino Carreaga, doing QC on the raw materials used in the Hickethier-Bachmann Laboratory. As he fell ill aged barely 20, he must have started work when still very young, and so lacked the qualifications needed to enter the University. His later qualifications were consistent with his position in the Seminary, and show no indication that he studied elsewhere. Given the lack of verifiable back-record, I think that reference must be suppressed, as it breaches NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.85.248 (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not an NPOV issue, it's an issue of reliable sources. My main concern is that I don't want more press sources copying the claim from Wikipedia if we're not sure ourselves about its veracity. I raised the option of putting it in a footnote until we get official confirmation because this would preserve the information but make it less visible to readers who aren't interested in parsing the nuances. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I still have not heard back from the university. I am going to call tomorrow and see how far can I go. I have also sent some new emails to different people. Unfortunately, I am not in Argentina so I cant go personally. I will ask the guys of the wikimedia chapter [8], maybe they can go. I am trying to contact both, the Chemical Engineering department ([9]) and the Chemistry department ([10]), since both grant chemistry degrees. Additionally, I have no news from the technical school, I have sent them an email asking for confirmation whether the Pope graduated from there or not, but no response so far. bcartolo (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: He did not attended Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales (UBA). I have received the confirmation from the Board of Directors and Corporate Relations Office. Anyway we can cite an email? I told them to put a formal statement in their webpage, but I am not too optimistic about it. As regard to the chemical engineering degree, the chemical engineering department office has told me they dont have any record of his attendance and that I should contact the students department or the alumni department, which I would do shortly. bcartolo (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Miserando atque eligendo (His Motto)

I haven't been satisfied by either translation of the cardinal's motto I've seen so far on this page, although I readily admit it is tricky to render in English. To put it in context, it alludes to a line from the Venerable Bede, Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum, et quia miserando atque eligendo vidit, ait illi, Sequere me, which means, "And so Jesus saw the publican, and since he saw with pity and love, he said to him, Follow me." The reference is to Christ's calling of Saint Matthew. Here I've translated miserando atque eligendo as "with pity and love", although "love" does not quite do eligendo justice. I could just as easily translated the motto as "with pity and discernment" or "with pity and selection", although these would, I think, lose the original impact of the Latin. The Latin has a definite verbal quality to it. ("He sees by pitying and choosing.") The word eligendum is a Latin gerund; it is cognate with the English word and concept of Election (Christianity). Rwflammang (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

"with pity and discernment" is a good translation. I agree that "with pity and selection" doesn't make any sense in English. --dab (𒁳) 06:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Choosing, although a literal translation of the Latin, isn't natural English syntax at all. With mercy and discerning is the best option available. Doops | talk 06:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've seen it translated as "Lowly (or Unworthy) but Chosen." Any thoughts on that?

Бегемот (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

@PrayingTheMass has a good explanation of that translation 198.160.135.100 (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've seen it translated that way too. I don't think it fits well into its original context. If you abandon context, you can of course translate Latin almost any way you like, for instance, as gerundives, "To someone who should be deplored and should be chosen", but obviously, that is nonsense when applied to Bede's homily, or to the pope's motto.

Thank you 198.160.135.100 for providing a link to an English translation of the homily. Perhaps we should use that, since it is from an official source: He saw the tax collector and, because he saw him through the eyes of mercy and chose him, he said to him: "Follow me." Kind of paraphrastic, but surely better than what we have now. Rwflammang (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In several of the translations I've seen, atque has been translated as "but" or "yet". I am sceptical. In Latin, atque is usually a more emphatic way of saying "and" than the more usual et. It can sometimes have a slight difference in meaning, or at least color, from et; it can mean "and since", in contrast to et which can mean "and so". So it could emply that the eligendo is is some sense prior to the miserando. Rwflammang (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with "lowly but chosen", apart from its grammatical impossibility, is that in Bede's text "miserando atque eligendo" pertains to Christ, not the publican (@PrayingTheMass overlooks this). I agree my translation "With mercy and choosing" is clumsy and I'd love to improve it. What it needs to capture is the sense that Christ elected (chose) Francis, unworthy as he is, and that in the act of choosing Christ took mercy on his failings and supported him. It's a humility formula like "by the grace of God". "Discernment" is unsatisfactory, I think, because it doesn't refer to his election. I've been keeping an eye on the Vatican website hoping for an official translation, but I haven't seen one yet. Helperzoom (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right that it is Christ doing the miserando and eligendo, but I do not think that Bergoglio is merely comparing himself to the publican. Rather, he is saying that we should imitate Christ in his attitude of mercy and love when we too look at "publicans". Rwflammang (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that "Miserando atque eligendo" was his motto as a cardinal. That does not mean it will also be his papal motto. 198.160.135.100 (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That is an important point. Of course, this article is also about his cardinalacy, which, so far, naturally, has been more momentous than his papacy to date. Rwflammang (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I really think discernment is way off. The first word is the insight/sensibility of pity and the second is the ensuing action of choosing to associate with this outcast tax collector.

It's Christ who feels pity and chooses/acts-on-bhalf-of the object of his pity (in some unspecified way). The canny reading is a very elegant way of expressing the "preferential option for the poor" without any of the liberation theology baggage associated with that phase. It's more "feeling pity and acting on that instinct". Not easy. And none of this captures the impact of the gerundive form. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a good point, but I don't think it is so unspecified. Christ said, "Follow me", and the rest is gospel. Rwflammang (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry everyone, but individual editors conjecturing on the intended translation of the pope's episcopal motto the motto is simply WP:Original Research. We have to stick with the English translation that is widely used in verifiable sources such as official church documents and reports in the media, where the motto is translated as "Lowly, yet chosen."[11] 5-HT₈ (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

One clueless and inaccurate news source does not a consensus make. Rwflammang (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

hi everyone! I have no knowledge of Latin whatsoever. Am I still allowed to tell everyone what I think the best translation is? Because I have some thoughts about what I think the sentence I don't understand means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.17.89 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 16 March 2013‎

The Latin grammar is more similar to my Czech language (which has 7 cases similar to the Latin 5-6 cases) than to English, I will try to translate the sentence literally to English, although I'm not very good at English. Btw.,

• Rwflammang confused gerund (gerundium) with gerundive (gerundivum).
• The two gerundives are in ablative, not in dative. "Video" with accusative and ablative can be translated as "I see somebody as ..." ("I see somebody to be ...").
• The conjuction "atque" is generally used as escalating but can also express a contrast ("nevertheless").

"Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum, et quia miserando atque eligendo vidit, ait illi, Sequere me."

"Then Jesus saw a customs officer and because he saw (find) he as somebody who is worthy of commiseration/contempt and (moreover/nevertheless) who is worthy of be chosen (worth beeing chosen), he said to him: follow me."

I would translate the motto as "Regrettable but chosen" or something similar. I believe, the established translation "Lowly, yet chosen." is fitting enough. --ŠJů (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, very sorry. Rwflammang is right. The two words are really rather gerundia than gerundiva. I'm canceling all my explanation. --ŠJů (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a fascinating theory, but I can find no evidence of Latin videre ever using that idiom. The videre + accusative + ablative construction is used in Latin, but not to mean that, but rather to indicate the instrument of seeing: videre occulis, to see with the eyes, videre mente, to see with the mind. So videre miserando could mean "to see by pitying", taking miserando as a gerund, or "to see by means of a pitiable man", taking miserando as a gerundive, which seems to be ruled out in our case by context. Rwflammang (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the news sources don't have consensus yet. The AP renders it as "Having had mercy, he called him"; Catholic News, similarly, "because he saw him through the eyes of mercy and chose him." I don't think we should use the dubious translation "lowly but chosen", when there's disagreement in the press. (Has the Vatican offered an official English translation in any of its sources?

Well, Vatican Radio has this, and I think the best solution is to have both their literal translation and "meaning". DeCausa (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a very sensible suggestion, and I like it very much. I suggest we use the official text from the Liturgy of the Hours for the paraphrase, and make a literal translation of our own. Something like this:

miserando atque eligendo ("by pitying and choosing", i.e. "[Christ] saw him with the eyes of mercy and chose him")

We'll need a reference for the paraphrase part, because it is not obvious that it is right without its context. Any thoughts? Rwflammang (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the Vatican Radio one counts as definitive yet. It's not an official statement by the Vatican, it's reportage by a Vatican news agency--and, as we're seeing, different sources are translating the phrase in different ways. -- Narsil (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No, obviously no news source, not even Vatican Radio could possibly count as authoritative. However, the Liturgy of the Hours, obviously, does. That is the one that should be referenced. The news media sources should not even be mentioned. They do not improve the article. Rwflammang (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

In the infobox, an editor rendered the motto "with pity and with choice". The source seems to be the editor's own translation of a news source in the Italian; I think this falls afoul of WP:OR, since the issue here is how to translate the phrase, and we're relying on an editor's own translation (and worse yet, a translation of a translation, Latin to Italian to English). Also, in the body of the text, someone reverted the translation back to "lowly but chosen", even though the linked source translates it differently. I'm going to remove both of those--reporters have translated the phrase in various ways, there doesn't seem to be consensus yet. -- Narsil (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth--this morning NPR was translating the phrase as "lowly but chosen", but as of this afternoon it changed its translation to "Having had mercy, he called him". I think "lowly but chosen" was a rushed first attempt at the translation, and improvements are on offer now. -- Narsil (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Any translation that suggests opposition between the gerunds misses the point. "atque" is an intensive conjunction. Feeling pity and so choosing. The Latin motto doesn't specify the object of these verbs, which the context supplies. In English we really need to state them. Feeling pity for him and so choosing him. Moved by pity to choose him. There's just no "but" about it. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That's WP:OR. At the moment there is no explanation in the article. How is that of any use to the reader? I think the precise literal meaning is only of relevance to pedantic latinists. There is clearly a variety of translations swimming around none of which appear very satisfactory. We do have a source from Vatican Radio that does give the meaning behind the words, whatever the literal translation. Vatican Radio isn't just reportage it is the official broadcaster of the Vatican. Until the Vatican issues an official statement specifically on this, it's the closest we have to an authoritative statement on the issue. With all this in mind I have put in this edit. DeCausa (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Not bad, but it would be better if it cited the Liturgy of the Hours as a source, and dumped the useless media speculation. Rwflammang (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the important thing is the sense behind the words. What Vatican Radio says about that is notable, not because it is a media outlet but because it is an official voice (one of them) of the Holy See. DeCausa (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The new pic in the infobox?

The copyright declaration says "own work". The pic (added here) is a good quality close-up from the press audience on 16 March. So the photo must have been taken by a professional press photographer in attendance. AGF, but is it normal for a professional press photographer to upload their work on major current news event to Commons for everyone to use for free? I don't know much about Commons and how the copyright declarations are checked, but maybe someone who does could confirm everything is fine. DeCausa (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that too and I am very suspicious about it. It is more than likely going to be deleted soon. Surtsicna (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I have my reservations as well, but I checked with a tool that seeks similar photos in the web and did not find anything. Cambalachero (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately the current image has no question of copyright. Andrew³²⁷ 17:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, just to be clear the image that I referred to above has now been changed to one where there is no copyright question. DeCausa (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Reaction

We now have just this coverage of Argentine rection to his election:

In Argentina, initial opinion following the election was divided; some support Bergoglio and admire his austere lifestyle, while others disapprove of his opposition to the Argentina same-sex marriage law and his behavior during the country's military dictatorship.[38][89][90]

Should we privilege Argentine reaction in this way? Should there be wider coverage of reaction than this or....? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. Non-Argentine reactions should also be included.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Actually I am more the other way around. This seems to privilage comments from ignorance. I do not think this adds substance to the article, and just allows for sneaking in non-contextualized statements about his past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

How about Leonardo Boff? No ignorance there. He's a well qualified observer. 174.254.160.55 (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Why was "non-European" removed?

It's not a fight I want to drag on and on, but why is it controversial that Francis is non-European? If he had been born and grew up in the USA under the exact same set of circumstances (Italian-born father, Italian-American mother), no one would question for a moment that he was non-European. (See my Dean Martin analogy above.) There's something about Argentina that some people seem not to get... the vast majority of people are of non-mestizo European background. That doesn't make them any less Argentine (and therefore non-European), though, then a European-heritage American is an American (and therefore non-European). Moncrief (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not controversial that he's "non-European" by some, arbitrarily chosen definitions strictly focusing on cartography and its modern borders. But it's anachronistic to portray him as somehow having more in common with someone from Syria, than with people from eg. Italy or Germany or Poland. Syria was once part of the Roman Empire and the traditional cultural realm of christianity, and considering it "non-European" (as opposed to eg. Greek or southern Italian) in this context is really ahistorical too, because it was the same mediterranean region and Christianity started in the Middle East. Large parts of modern Tyrkey (in "Asia" as we understand it today) were once core Greek areas where European civilization was born, but describing a Greek person from those areas as "Asian" or "non-European" is just silly. Francis was born to two Italian parents and is 100% European/Italian by other definitions such as ethnicity. Choosing one definition like this only produces a small piece of trivia and a very pointless comparison between an Italian who was born in Argentina in the 20th century, and an Assyrian in the 8th century who was born in what was then the enormous Umayyad Caliphate and what was formerly a Roman area. Mocctur (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, if he were American from the USA, this conversation would not be happening. He is not an Italian. He's an Argentine of Italian heritage. I do get what you're saying about the comparison with the Syrian pope, and you're coming at it from that angle, and that's fine; there's enough description in the article as it is now ("from the Americas"). But I wish people would examine their conceptions about Latin America, and give its heterogeneous population the same descriptors they'd give someone from the USA or Canada. Moncrief (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he is an Italian (note that this refers to the ethnic group, not a particular country). Just as African-Americans are widely considered, well, "African" as far as ethnicity is concerned. He is an Italian (Italian people, not Italy (country)) who was born in the country of Argentina, to a family who just left Italy a few years before he was born[12]. If my parents were English, moved to some African country in 1925 and I was born in 1927 (entirely fictional scenario), I would still be English by ethnicity. In this case, a son born to Italian-born parents has even returned to his parents' country.

As noted below by another editor, the very ambiguous term "European" can, amongst other things, refer to people descended from people from the continent of Europe. For example people who settled in the Americas, and their children, are frequently referred to as Europeans (meaning "people from Europe"/"of European origin"), as opposed to eg. native populations. Mocctur (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No they're not - at least not by English-speakers. That may be the difference. But this is en WP. DeCausa (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mocctur: by saying non-European, we are noy saying "from outside the Western civilization", which could have included the Mediterranean sea area at times in history. We are saying "from outside of the physical continent of Europe". This is a geo criterion precisely because we no longer use those words as racial descriptions because races are a social construct. --Againme (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This is truly ridiculous. "Choosing one definition like this". This isn't the 19th century. There is only one definition. I don't think we need pander to some editors' idiosyncratic hang-ups about the word "non-european". DeCausa (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Everyone except you are aware of multiple definitions of "European." We are not going to pander to your idiosyncratic hang-ups, and this is not the 19th century. Mocctur (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't appear to have read much of the thread then. DeCausa (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. According to our article "European," this term can mean the following in the English language

• "A person of any of the Ethnic groups in Europe" (eg. Italian people)
• "Relating to or characteristic of Europe or its inhabitants"
• "A citizen or attribute of or from the European Union"

While I see that you fanatically insist that only the second definition is valid, I see no sources to back up such an ahistorical claim. The current pope belongs to the Italian people as he was born to two Italian parents who lived in Italy until just shortly before the pope was born. Heck, he is even a resident of Europe and thus European by any definition. Mocctur (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Good grief. Waste of time. So Christina Kirchner, George Bush, Fidel Castro are all "Europeans". Don't worry I'm done here. DeCausa (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

To add how much races are a social construct, a small correction. Argentines are mostly of white phenotype and mestizo ancestry, different from Brazil, Venezuela and Paraguay, where a plurality is of mestizo phenotype and the overwhelmingly majority is of mestizo ancestry. ANY Latin American administrative division, including all of the Southern Cone, is of mestizo ancestry majority. And by the Spanish/Portuguese sense, there are also important mestizo minorities (if not majorities, who would know) among not only non-Hispanic white Americans (some >30%), white South Africans (Afrikaners have ~5-7% of autosomal sub-Saharan DNA in average, the same of white Brazilians), white Australians, white New Zealanders, Central and Northern Asians of Russian descent, etc. etc. as well as many Africans (e.g. about the totality in Cape Verde, the majority in São Tomé and Príncipe) and Asian (e.g. Japanese are a mix of Jomon natives and Yayoi settlers of Korean origin) peoples, if we don't take the view that the whole of humanity is somehow mestizo (i.e. of mixed ancestry). Europeans are at least a couple thousand times more genetically diverse than Amerindians (descended from only 68 persons about 12000-15000 years ago), as far as my knowledge of human population genetics goes, so a 90% Aztec Mexican is less of a mestizo in the adequate sense than most to the other side of the Atlantic. Lguipontes (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No, "European" is ambiguous. It can be used to mean someone who is descended from people from Europe. The wording could be something like "the first Pope from outside of Europe" (in x number of years).

Yes, the world was different in Roman times, but to imply the Empire was a homogenuous whole is false. The Eastern Empire was Greek-speaking, with a cosmopolitan Hellenic culture which had strong Eastern influences. Christianity itself was quite foreign to Roman (and Greek) civilisation when it emerged. It is very hard to talk of "Western civilisation" when taking the historical long view. To some extent this is trivial, and it is not very meaningful to make comparisons over such a wide arc of history. However, it is relevant to say that the Popes in ancient and medieval times were more representative of the "national" background of church membership than in modern times, where they have largely been Italian. The change to choosing a Polish Pope, then a German, then an Argentine, is certainly significant. I don't think the article as it stands captures that.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It can be used to mean someone who is descended from people from Europe.

Except that, without some sort of qualifier, it doesn't mean that. I have seen "European-American" (though very few people would call themselves that), but no one (other than maybe hardcore white supremacists?) would ever talk about born-and-bred New Worlders as "Europeans." At any rate, I'm satisfied with the article as it is now, but, no, "European" is not ambiguous. Moncrief (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think by saying he is "from the Americas" we are saying he is not "European". However I think there is a point that there is no reason to say he is the first "non-European in x years", because how European some of his predecessors were, and how logical defining them in that way is controversial. He is clearly the first Pope from the Americas, I think that is enough on that subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Photos in the article

Now maybe a good time to talk about the photos in the article. In all good articles there should not be to many or to little. But what kind of photos do we need? I have put a photo of the pope as cardinal in, and I think it would be nice to have some of him as Provincal and even as a young man. But right now there is no one at Wiki Commons.

On the other hand I personally cant see how photos of jewish and muslim holy places have any need to be in this article. The two that are in the article no has no special connection to the Pope, they are simply holy places for Jews and Muslims in Argentina. Are they really needed?

If the article lacks pictures I would think that a painting of Saint Francis was more relevant, I have put one in the article to show what that could be. It has great connection to the Pope and his what he want to do in office.

But what do you think, what would be a good photo policy for this article? Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Pope Francis in March 2013 (cropped).jpg is a tighter crop that may work better for the infobox. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the media coverage of his vestments, I think it's appropriate to keep the current image that shows him from the waist up. I completely agree with OP that the Jewish and Muslim photographs are unnecessary. Andrew³²⁷ 17:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I also think that we should keep the current photo in the infobox. He is not wearing the iron cross by chance, he is making a clear statement by his way of dressing, much more than any popes coming before him the last century have done. That is significant. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that the photo of the Islamic site was appropriately removed, so I just removed the photo of the AMIA site from the Jewish section. Here is a video of Cardinal Bergoglio visiting and speaking at the AMIA site, and I could capture one frame of that visit, which would be more relevant to the article...but it wouldn't pass the copyrigh test.... Maybe a copyright-free photo of that talk will show up down the line. NearTheZoo (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Homosexuality and same-gender marriage

The current title of this section does not match its contents. It is all related to his postion on same-gender marriage. Either we should include statements about his positons more broadly, or we should retitle the section to reflect its actual content.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Although Wikipedia articles tend to refer to "same sex marriage" as opposed to gender, including articles that are linked in this BLP. Andrew³²⁷ 17:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I believe that this sentence needs to be changed or removed per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE: "Observers believe that the church's opposition and Bergoglio's language, which was criticized by rights groups and politicians, including the President of Argentina,[154] worked in favor of the law's passage and that Catholic officials learned from their failed campaign against the same-sex marriage law to adopt a different tone in later debates on social issues such as parental surrogacy.[155][156]" Andrew³²⁷ 17:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but only in part. The point is relevant to Francis' approach to this and other issues. That people have noticed a change of tone doesn't doesn't strike me as a very opinionated statement. I think some of the language does tend to "hammer home" that point, so I'll remove the unnecessary "which was criticized by rights groups and politicians, including the President of Argentina,[154]", which, as they say, goes without saying, and isn't the point. Hope this helps. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC) And then I edited it still more: "learned from their failed campaign" was also unnecessary underlining. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead

The lead doesn't remotely comply with WP:LEAD (and is anyway too short per WP:LEADLENGTH). Topics that need to be covered (since they are covered in the article) are:- relations with Argentine government; relations with other religious communities; and teachings. Less clear structurally, but probably also need to be covered is something about what, so far, is known about his his style of papacy: the reasons for his adopting "Francis", less pomp, etc DeCausa (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Girlfriend - Is it relevant

I noticed that someone did a live edit removing the information about having a teenage girlfriend. I think it is relevant enough to merit one sentence and a reference of 2. edit differences. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It's trivial. The vast majority of teenage boys have a girlfriend at some point. Even ones that go on to become the pope. Haha. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This might be relevant, but right now it seems just too unclear. Was he really trying to get married at 12? Did his relationship only exist when he was 12? Was he, the girl, or both 12? The article in the gaurdian seemed to suggest she was, and he may have been a little older, though it was not detailed enough to say either way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who removed that stuff. It's completely irrelevant to the life of a Pope that he had a girlfriend before becoming a priest. As stated above, is more than usual for teenage people to have boyfriends/girlfriends.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think if there is significant coverage of this is sources than we should include it. However, at least what I have read does not rise to significant coverage. The Gaurdian seemed to be trying to say that his relationship with Amalia Damonte lead to his entering the priesthood. However I am not convinced that there was really any substance to that article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• Well here [13] is an article that mentions it, but I would not use it. The relationship with Damonte actually does not neccesarily even reach the level of "girlfriend", whatever that may be, since it mainly seems to be a 12-year-old crush. They were not even yet teenagers. Then there is the claim that he "admitted" he had a "girlfriend" before becoming a priest. This almost seems to me to be a case of bait and switch. They are trying to make it sound scandalous, especially by using a term like "girlfriend" that has different meanings in different contexts, and even more so with "admitted" which makes it sound like he did something frowned upon, which makes no sense at all. To make it even less based in fact they do not even know that Bergoglio was speaking in 2010 of his relationship with Damonte, he may have been speaking of someone from a time when he was older. Considering he does not start to study to be a priest until he is 21, it seems a bit much to try to claim it is an outgrowth of what happened to him when he was 12. There may be some worthwhile material there, but we do not have truly reliable sources that would raise it to the level of being included. Do we for example have any discussion on people Barack Obama may have had a crush on when 12?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• This lead "Pope Francis may have been a Latin Lover first, it emerged, on Thursday night, after a childhood sweetheart claimed she may have driven him into the church, Daily Mail of London reported on Frida" tells me there is no substance here yet. Having to use "may have" twice in a paragraph just tells me this is idel speculation. I would exclude it for now since wikipedia is not news. Maybe if someone comes out with something that actually builds on substance. I also thing we need to avoid implying more than the sources say. To some "girlfriend", and "Latin lover" imply a more physical relationship than is even really hinted at in the sources. The claims that Bergoglio's actions even as a 21-year-old were really created by incidents that happened to him a decade earlier needs more than the 20-minutes-of-fame seeking of a women latched onto by a media desperate for stories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• Here [14] is the source for the above quote. I would actually be hesitant to include it in the article unless a-Bergoglio says he actually wrote the claimed letter, or b-some other person, independent of Damonte supports the claim. Even then I would think that there are much more important things, like where Francis recived his education as a Jesuit, that we should address first.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Quoting from John Paul II: "Wojtyła's first, and possibly only, love affair was with a Jewish girl, Ginka Beer, who was described as "slender", "a superb actress" and "having stupendous dark eyes and jet black hair"." I think the criteria would be the same, if we include it for one Pope, we do for another. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 08:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• • I don't object that there are other items that are more important but this is an easy edit since it was added then removed. Unless someone responds to why this is different from John Paul II, I'm putting this back in the article tomorrow. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 08:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
• This is different because the statement about John Paul II is from a more solid source. The statement about Pope Francis comes from an interview and has never been confirmed, denied or textualized by anyone but this one person. I would suggest that you find solid sources that do not engage in unjustified calls of "Latin lover" while making the report. If you can find a more solid, reliable reference than it might be includable, but right now it comes from extremely shaky evidence. I also think we should have a confirmation or denial of the letter before inclusion. Ideally someone would read Rubin's biography of Francis, and at least be able to tell us if Rubin says anything on the matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that the latin lover connotation is not needed. I have seen this reported on reliable sources such as the Guardian and the Globe and Mail. They seem to copy the same interview and the claim of this lady which neither the Pope nor childhood friends have confirmed. I will try to find a solidly reliable on (we may need to wait a few weeks for the dust to settle). >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 10:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Dununciations of the government in Argentina

This article [15] contains this quote "In last year's address, Bergoglio said Argentina was being harmed by demagoguery, totalitarianism, corruption and efforts to secure unlimited power: a strong message in a country whose president has ruled by decree and left scandals unpunished." That would seem to be relevant to the relationship with the government section.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, most part of your quote is impossible to find in the article. It only says: "Francis and Fernandez are longtime rivals: As leader of Argentina's Catholics, he had accused her populist government of demagoguery, while she called his position on gay adoptions reminiscent of the Middle Ages and the Inquisition." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.111.219.140 (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The quote I provide is in the article, it is in teh second page. you would not see if from reading only the first page, which appears to be what you did.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe you can find the original Spanish text of this address. Wasn't it the national holiday May 25? Here's 2012

The whole site is worth exploring: http://www.aica.org/d Go to Documentation, Bishops, etc. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

In the May 25th 2012 "Tedeum" you just linked ([16]) there is not a single mention (even indirect) of the Argentine government. The paragraph Johnpacklambert quoted at first seems to be the usual rant from the opposition politicians here in Argentina, not the speech of the head of the Argentine Catholic Church. I'd like to know which is the original source. 190.111.219.140 (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph I quoted is from an AP article by Nicole Whitfield as printed in the Deseret News. It is on page 2 of the article I linked to, but the link starts you at page 1. Look at it specifically "In last year's address, Bergoglio said Argentina was being harmed by demagoguery, totalitarianism, corruption and efforts to secure unlimited power: a strong message in a country whose president has ruled by decree and left scandals unpunished." It actually is only a quote from the article, as you can tell by the start "in last year's address, Bergoglio said". It should be noted that Whitfield does not provide quotes, and since what Bergoglio said was most likely in Spanish, any quote would be subjected to alternate translations. It appears from the article this is a reference to the 2012 "Te Deum" address by Bergoglio. What Whitfield's sources are for interpreting the statements by Bergoglio in the way she suggests I do not know. However calling statements from the AP "the usual rant from opposition politicians here in Argentina" seems far too dismissive of the article. This is clearly a source telling us that Bergoglio is at least seen to have made these statements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right I didn't check the second page, but I still would like to know whether Bergoglio said those words aout the Argentine government ("totalitarian", wanting "unlimited power", etc.) or is it just someone's "interpretation". However, given that the journalist cites Kirchner's government as "governing by decree", it seems to me he is just passing (someone's/his own) pov, which left the entire sentence as biased. I'd like a more straightforward actual quote from the former Archbishop to take this seriously. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.111.219.140 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I linked to the source. Are you saying you have a problem with that, 190.111.219.140? Excuse me for trying to help. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

John Pack Lambert: The lack of such language or anything remotely like in the document I linked to is perplexing, no? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary. Thanks for linking a database with all of Bergoglio's speeches as Head of the Argentine Catholic Church ([17]). It is just that the comments referred by the first poster are not there. 190.111.219.140 (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

As pointed in the article, it was the speech of 2004 the one that caused the childish reaction of the government. Still, it's a bit exaggerated to say that they were "rivals", actually, the Kirchner saw him as a rival, which is not quite the same thing. That's just their own paranoia: they see rivals and enemies everywhere. Other heads of state, politicians of other parties, politicians of other lines within their own party, justice, congress, union leaders, press, NGOs, even artists... anyone who is not a mindless zombie bowing to the will of the perfect president, is deemed as a traitor of the nation and attacked with all the resources of the state, including the network of propaganda outlets. Bergoglio was simply just another one who said something that Kirchner did not like. But he was not a rival, for the same reason that it is not correct to think that the Kirchners are innocent victims of an evil world turned against them. Cambalachero (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A few days ago we had this:

When Bergoglio celebrated mass in 2004 at the Buenos Aires Metropolitan Cathedral to mark Argentina's National Government holiday, President Néstor Kirchner attended and heard Bergoglio request more political dialogue, reject intolerance, and criticize the exhibitionism and strident announcements.[56] Kirchner celebrated the national day elsewhere the following year and the mass in the Cathedral was suspended.[57] Kirchner has viewed Bergoglio as a political rival ever since.[58] Bergoglio's relations with Kirchner's widow and successor, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, have been similarly tense. In 2008, Bergoglio called for national reconciliation during disturbances in the country's agricultural regions, which the government interpreted as a support for anti-government demonstrators.[58] The campaign to enact same-sex marriage legislation was a particularly tense period in their relations.[58]

Citations:

• Jorge Bergoglio y los Kirchner: años de una relación tensa
• Suspendió la Iglesia el tedeum en la Capital
• El mensaje de la Iglesia era para Kirchner

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"Regime"

In "Relations with the Argentine government" section, "As bishop" subsection, it reads "The Kirchnerist regime", which is a biased wording, implying some kind of dictatoresque illegitimate government. Instead, the President was reelected on 2011 with mora than 55% of the voting on the first round. Please, change this wording to "The Argentine government" or "Kirchner's government" or something of the like. Thanks.

Considering quotes in the article on his relationship to the government I mention below, I think this would be the view on many people in Argentina, considering how much the current president rules by dictate. Also, in my experiece this is the general way to refer to Argentine governments and does not actually imply what you claim it does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not the usual way. It is a biased way that is mostly used when talking eufemistically about a dictatorship. BTW, the government does not rule by decree. That is a gross exageration. Argentina is a functioning democratic republic (with a lot of problems, yes). It is not a dictatorship nor anything of the like. Saludos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.111.219.140 (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is pointless anyway, the paragraph was removed for other reasons Cambalachero (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was one "dictatorial regime" that Bergoglio had no trouble standing up to.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Such baseless claims ignore that his postion was different at various times, and also ignore the fact that no one has claimed the current government disappears people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

What was baseless about the claim?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Why was his inauguration mass removed

I had placed that his inauguration (or installation) mass would be on the 19th. It happened as scheduled. I am wondering why this was removed since this is the ceremonial start of the papacy and the mass itself is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page? John Paul II and Benedict XVI both mention this event as part of their papacy for comparison. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 10:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Since Pope Francis inauguration has been created, I edited the first line for the main article. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 13:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Name in Italian irrelevant

The name in Italian (Francesco) is irrelevant, particularly in the first sentence. If anything, the name in Latin is primary; the rendering in English is relevant in an English-language encyclopaedia, though English first makes sense. I make this comment for consideration, and won't edit. Conceivably it might be relevant to include a list of renderings in different languages somewhere in the text. According to languages of Vatican City the Holy See's language is Latin; Vatican City publishes laws and regulations in Italian. Pol098 (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"Bishop of Rome" DeCausa (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see how it is more relevant than the name in the pope's native language (Castilian). Having his name in four languages (English, Castilian, Italian and Latin) in the lead would be just ridiculous. The guideline is to mention the variants that a reader is likely to encounter while reading English language texts about the subject. Anything more is excessive and detrimental to the quality of the lead sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think your edit was premature and have reverted. The articles on his two non-italian predecessors both have the name in Italian, even though they were not Italian. The Pope is also a bishop of an Italian diocese, as well as the business language of the Vatican being Italian. DeCausa (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the insertion was premature. The articles on his 260 predecessors don't have the name in Italian and most did live in Italy. The Pope was also archbishop of an Argentine archdiocese for fifteen years. Surtsicna (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The material should definitely be in the article, given Italian is the working language of the church, that his announcement was met with a chamt of "francesco", the precedent of Benedict and JPII's articles, and plain old encyclopedic comprehenisivity. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

In the article - perhaps, but in the lead sentence - certainly not. It just does not make sense to list his name in several languages before saying who he is. There is enough room in Titles and styles section for his name in Italian and any other language, should the necessity somehow arise. Surtsicna (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we get this straight and consistent regarding Popes. Here we have IPA, Benedict XVI lacks IPA. Benedict has Italian and Latin, and had German (being his native tongue, so Spanish for Francis) but now lacks it. Either way is fine for me but let's be consistent. Maybe even we could list Papal names in 10 languages further down on their page since they are some of the few names in this world that are translated. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 19:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Native, Italian & Latin for the church, and English because this is the English WP, make perfect sense. These don't count as titles or styles, and there is no need to pick some arbitrary number like ten languages. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Relations with the Argentine Junta I

More should be added about his involvement in hiding Argentina's Dirty War from the international community.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jan/04/argenitina-videla-bergoglio-repentance/print — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.142.161.9 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The accusations stem only from ONE SOURCE, Horacio Verbitsky's (with a past history as a leftist guerrilla, hence probably also a biased source) books "El Silencio", upon which the media draw conclusions of their own. Before attacking the person more inforamation needs to be obained, instead of basing it on one source and (parhaps biased) jounalists that draw upon it.

Remember that millions of people might read this article, so make sure that you have plenty of reliable sources to back up anything you add. I'm sure that there will be countless biographical articles written about him in the coming weeks and months, so I recommend not adding anything more about it until there are more sources. Andrew³²⁷ 23:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Two articles from The Guardian: 2011 and today, including a comment by Argentinian Father Eduardo de la Serna. Certainly not just one source. --CocoLacoste talk 02:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it is still one source. The whole thing is still built around Verbitsky's allegations, and should be clearly identified as based on Verbitsky's claims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, not really sure how this wikipedia thing works but I wanted to point out that down at the bottom of The Guardian's article is what amounts to a retraction.

Why do we need such a section. In its first subsection it basically covers the "military dicatorship" issue. This could be a section of its own.

Meanwhile, the second subsection puts together two separate issues which could be better covered in already existing subsections (under "Views") that deal with the underlying issues. If we moved them there, we wouldn't have to included circumstantial pointers to these sections.

What do other people think? Str1977 ^(talk) 18:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

As provincial

Currently it states he dismissed the two Jesuits "just prior to their disappearance." This is not true. Both were Jesuits at the time of their arrest. One, Jalics, still is a Jesuit. The other left after he was released. If they were professed Jesuits, the provincial could not dismiss them, it would take the Jesuit general. See http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/francis-jesuits-and-dirty-war RCSJ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

For proof that Jalics is still a Jesuit, see his statement that is headed "Stellungnahme von P. Franz Jalics SJ." The "SJ" after his name means he is a Jesuit. RCSJ (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

AP says "Both men were freed after Bergoglio took extraordinary, behind-the-scenes action to save them — including persuading dictator Jorge Videla's family priest to call in sick so that he could say Mass in the junta leader's home, where he privately appealed for mercy." See http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/pope-francis-biography-key-facts-life-in-latin-america-and-background-88818_Page3.html RCSJ (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/pope-francis-biography-key-facts-life-in-latin-america-and-background-88818_Page3.html#ixzz2Nq6oQu6E

The bio states incorrectly that Jalics lives in German a monastery. Jesuits do not live in monasteries. It should be Jesuit community or Jesuit retreat house. For proof that Jalics is a Jesuit, see his statement that is headed "Stellungnahme von P. Franz Jalics SJ." The "SJ" after his name means he is a Jesuit. RCSJ (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Footnote 49 lacks a reference to its source: "Trotskystfraction Fourth International" or "PTS Partido de los Trabajadores Socialistas." RCSJ (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The comment, "There appears to be no outside confirmation for this," seems rather gratuitous since no other assertions are so qualified. RCSJ (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Relation to military dictatorship 1976-83

Both the Spanish and German articles contain a paragraph concerning the pope's relation to the Proceso de Reorganización Nacional; including aftermath clashes with human rights lawyer in 2005 in the German case. We might look into that issue and English sources for it, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Journalist Horacio Vervitsky has written several articles about this matter. They are all reunited on this link:

http://www.taringa.net/posts/noticias/5189962/Bergoglio-Dictadura-e-Iglesia---Por-Verbitsky.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.85.35 (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Vervitsky has a clear bias in this whole debate and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. There are other sources who say that Vervitsky lacks any credibility on these matters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Section: Relations with the Argentine government

The Section Relations with the Argentine government content doesn't reflect its source [18] fairly, what Bergoglio also did, according to the source, was lobbying so that the priests Yorio and Jalics were released. Bergoglio was also harshly criticised by the human-rights activists for not giving information, while Bergoglio himself claimed that he all the time pinpointed moral responsibility to involved parts. Circa so. Fair shall be fair. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Already fixed! Sorry, I forgot Ctrl-R! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

involvement with argentinian dictatorship

The following sentence "Verbitsky also writes that the Argentine Navy with the help of Cardinal Bergoglio hid the dictatorship's political prisoners in Bergoglio's holiday home from a visiting delegation of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission" should be removed as it is not true. The note links to the source which is an article on "The Guardian", but the article itself has been amended on this regard with an apologising note stating this is not actually true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.243.165 (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Good catch, I verified the change to the cited source and removed the incorrect content. Andrew³²⁷ 14:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request: Criticism/Actions during the Argentinian dictatorship

This article in the Guardian makes the point that Bergoglio was accused of aiding the military dictatorship by hiding political prisoners from a foreign human rights commission. The article is from 2011 but it says the following:

The extent of the church's complicity in the dark deeds was excellently set out by Horacio Verbitsky, one of Argentina's most notable journalists, in his book El Silencio (Silence). He recounts how the Argentinian navy with the connivance of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, now the Jesuit archbishop of Buenos Aires, hid from a visiting delegation of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission the dictatorship's political prisoners. Bergoglio was hiding them in nothing less than his holiday home in an island called El Silencio in the River Plate. The most shaming thing for the church is that in such circumstances Bergoglio's name was allowed to go forward in the ballot to chose the successor of John Paul II. What scandal would not have ensued if the first pope ever to be elected from the continent of America had been revealed as an accessory to murder and false imprisonment.

As a supposed moral guardian and leader Catholic christians around the world this should be included in the article. --Antabeta (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That info is already included in the article Cambalachero (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• The whole above seems to come from pushing a very particular POV. Horacio Verbitsky is not an unbiased observer on this issue, he is a former leftist gurilla, and this part of his background should not be obscured. Balance means considering multiple views. I would say the article already holds too close to Verbitsky, but we definately do not need such POV-pushing attacks on the Pope as the above put in the article. "As a supposed moral guardian and leader" is not neutral language in any sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Yet Verbitsky's "Silence" is a thorough examination of Bergoglio's case during the dictatorship. It relates than one of the two Jesuit abducted and tortured priests, Orlando Yorio, noted that one of the interrogators had externally knowings about theological questions that led him to think that their own provincial, Bergoglio, had been involved in his interrogatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clivejb (talk • contribs) 00:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

If you go to your linked article, you will find a footnote added, which states that the Guardian retracted this part of the story, saying that this accusation can not be found in Verbitsky's book. Gugganij (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Jewish communist terrorist leader, a reliable source?

This sentence is contained within the article "Horacio Verbitsky, an Argentine investigative journalist and former montonero guerilla." Investigative journalist? Really. That sounds, slightly how shall we say, vague. Verbitsky is a Jewish communist who was personally involved in a campaign of violence with the Montoneros, a communist terrorist organisation during the Cold War involved in the kidnappings and murders of Argentine government personnel (according to Wikipedia's own article). Would for example, the claims of a member of Al-Qaeda be used as a source on the article of a high profile rabbi or somebody prominent in American society? The Vatican itself has claimed it was a defamatory campaign. If this sentence is to stay, I'd like to see after Verbitsky's name "Jewish communist terrorist", or any one of those three words to give some balance to what we're dealing with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.88.83 (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Montoneros was left-wing Peronist, not communist. --Againme (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Are one sites terrorist not many times the other sites freedomfighters? Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's write "Jewish" afterwards because stating his religion will thereby show this journalist's malevolent and deceitful proclivities and provide "balance" to his claims. In fact, we could even write "Zionist propagandist". That way, even those still unfamiliar with the wily ways of the Jew will recognize this journalist's innate mendacity. The Al-Qaeda and Rabbi analogy is quite sublime. Dare I suggest though that seeing as we all know that Jewish communist terrorists committed the 9/11 atrocities, you unfairly traduce the spiritual peace-loving members of Al-Qaeda? Juddhoward (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I raised a similar concern at the "Horacio Verbitsky" thread. Let's clarify that for this discussion it's unimportant if Verbitsky is jew or not, he was a terrorist during the Dirty War of Argentina, which was not a "judaism vs. antisemitism" conflict, but a "far left vs. far right" cold war conflict. Cambalachero (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's only address the fact that 176.24.88.83 mentioned that Verbitsky is Jewish and completely ignore his valid points, so that he or she looks like an anti-Semite and his argument is (fallaciously) discredited. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is anti-Semitic, and it shows a lot about how the controversy is viewed in Argentina.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

So because a completely random person mentions that Verbitsky is Jewish, you assume that a) he or she is an anti-Semite, and b) that says something on how the controversy is viewed in Argentina? Excuse me, but that sounds extremely illogical and narrow-minded. --190.19.88.16 (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless we have proof that the person who started this section lives in Argentina, there is no reason to thing this tells us anything about how this is viewed in Argentina. After having read material on Pope Francis' relations with the Jews, I think it even less likely that we can assume any special insight on the part of the editor who started this section. For what it is worth, President Kirchner and her late husband are both baptized Roman Catholics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

‘Bergoglio had no links with the dictatorship,’ Peace Nobel Prize winner

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/126367/%E2%80%98bergoglio-had-no-links-with-the-dictatorship%E2%80%99-peace-nobel-prize-winner

Thursday, March 14, 2013 ‘Bergoglio had no links with the dictatorship,’ Peace Nobel Prize winner

Peace Nobel Prize winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, assured today that elected pope Jorge Bergoglio "had no links with the dictatorship” that ruled Argentina between the years 1976-1983 as he’s been accused for many years. Speaking to BBC News, Perez Esquivel said that “there were bishops who were accomplices of the dictatorship, but it was not the case of Bergoglio.” “Bergoglio was questioned because it is said he did not do enough to get out of jail two priests, as he was the Superior of the Jesuits. But I know personally that many bishops called on the military junta for the release of prisoners and priests and these requests were not granted”, said Perez Esquivel.

---

Safku8 (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a useful article. How do you suggest we integrate it into the article? Andrew³²⁷ 21:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Something around "... while others ... are uneasy about his supposed ties to the country's oppressive military dictatorship in the 1970s." I'm not really comfortable with that current phrasing, especially if the ties are really just supposed and not substantiated. Moncrief (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a false appeal to authority to me. Twarwick666 (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you even know what a fallacius argumentum ad verecundiam is? Either the authority is not a subject-matter expert, or there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter (or both). Adolfo Perez Esquivel was a direct protagonist of the events, he suffered much at the hands of the dictatorship, and he received the Nobel Price for Peace for his efforts in the defense of human rights. So indeed an appeal to authority, but a very legitimate appeal. --RCarmine (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a complicated issue, but the relevant Wikipedia policies are WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Briefly referencing a Nobel Prize winner's statement would satisfy both rules and there's no reason not to include it in the article. Andrew³²⁷ 16:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The statement is rather contradictory. If he obtained the priests' release he obviously had influence with the junta.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You are assuming that you had to have a certain degree of influence to obtain the release of the priests. In reality, the priests (as it was the case with many other prisoners) could have been released due to other reasons and without such influence. --190.19.88.16 (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Being an obnoxious pleader for the release of prisoners whose words are listened to by an unjust ruler who wants some peace and quite does not make someone a collaborator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ties with military dictatorship -documents-

Can be denied much, but not images and military government's own documents, i can't upload them to wikipedia, but I think a link to can see them.

Picture Bergoglio with Videla in a private mass (ultra-Catholic, Videla made "disappeared" his own son!)

http://arainfo.org/2013/03/papabilidades/

Foreign Ministry document during military rule:

http://i1297.photobucket.com/albums/ag32/Documents2/Bergoglio_zps9abb4408.jpg

This is the translation of the document:

"Father Francisco (Francis!) Calics

Solvent activity in female religious congregations (Conflicts of obedience)

Arrested in Mechanics School of the Naval (ESMA) (05/24/76). XI/76 (6 months) accused with the Father Yorio. Suspected guerrillas contact.

Live in a small community in the Jesuit Superior, dissolved in June 1976 and refused to obey requesting the exit of the company (of Jesus) on 19/3, received 2 expulsion, Father Jalics not, because have solemn vows. Any Bishop of Greater Buenos Aires want receive it.

NB: These data were supplied to the Mr. Orcoyen by the own Father Bergoglio, who signed this note, with special recommendation that don't give place to the are requesting."

Literally he released his hands, one of them was killed, the other had to flee the country. At other times the Church called this "relaxation to the secular arm"...Were not the only religious killed. And the guerrillas or the word that begins with the letter T, is too relative, was used as an excuse to murder political dissidents ... just by teach reading to the poor people, become you in a guerrillero.

Ashamed to read comments that do not know anything about my country history.

You knew for example that burning and banning books, ie A technical book as "La Cuba Hidroeléctrica" (the hydroelectric barrel) by the word Cuba, or even worst, forbidding teach more of 6 characters per school year, a child only could learn the whole alphabet at the five years of being in school!!!!

This not is politics, is the true...the more nobel value186.62.185.205 (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The first picture proves precisely nothing, not even that it was a private Mass. Anyone and everyone can consume the eucharistic bread at Mass. How exactly does that link Pope Francis to the dictatorship? That's quite a big leap in logic. As for the second picture, the text merely states that Pope Francis gave some information to the authorities about Father Francisco Jalics when asked to do so. It doesn't prove any relationship at all. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course every Father can give a private mass to the Dictators...and any religious has a meeting with the secret services and says: "who signed this note, with special recommendation that don't give place to the are requesting."

Request of who? Father Calics, at that time literally signed a death sentence.186.62.185.205 (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Where is the proof that he gave a private mass to Videla? Where is the proof that Videla was at the time a dictator? Where is the proof that Pope Francis had a meeting with Argentina's secret service? How exactly does the phrase "with special recommendation that what is requested not be granted" proves a link between Pope Francis and the dictatorship? Your whole hypothesis is based entirely on assumptions. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Bergoglio has written that he said mass for Videla's family. And yes, he was a dictator... just read some... --Againme (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I cannot help but notice that you are not providing a single shred of evidence backing up your claim. Besides, as I have stated before in this very thread, anyone and everyone can attend Mass. That doesn't prove anything. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Alternative translation of the above document, without additional comment, except that "actividad disolvente", literally "dissolving activity", seems to mean a disruptive activity, might be a technical religious term. The document, on plain paper, is referring to an application ("the note") actually presented by Bergoglio. I have not myself added this to the article, just supplied an alternative translation.

"Father Francisco Jalics

- Disruptive activity in female religious congregations (conflict of obedience).

- The accused and Fr Yorio held in the ESMA 24/5/76 XI/76 (6 months). Suspected guerrilla contact.

- They lived in a small community that the Jesuit Superior dissolved in February 1976, and they refused to obey requesting release from the Company [of Jesus] on 19/3, two were expelled, not Fr Jalics because he is under solemn vows. No bishop within Greater Buenps Aires wanted to receive him.

NB: these data were supplied to Mr Orcoyen by Fr Pedro Bergoglio himself, who signed the note, with special recommendation that what is requested not be granted.

Signed: (apparently) Orcoyen"

Pol098 (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The photo not only does not prove anything, it isn't even Bergoglio at all. There is a report here detailing the circumstances of the photo. The priest (whose face, notice the detail, is not visible from the angle of the photo) is Carlos Berón de Astrada, and the photo was taken at the chapel "Pequeña Obra de la Divina Providencia Don Orione". Note as well that the priest of the photo is an old man, not a man in his fifties, as Bergoglio was back in the 1990s.

As for terrorism, right, teaching things to poor people does not turn you into a terrorist. Commiting terrorist attacks does. Horacio Verbisky, the man that seems so concerned about human rights now, took part in a terrorist attack against the Argentine police on July 2, 1976, that left 24 deaths and 60 injuries. Cambalachero (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Actually I think the first picture proves negative. This may be the picture that another Argentine newspaper has stated was falsely claimed to be of Bergoglio, and is not of him. It really rememds me of the cover of Goldhagen's book on Pius XII which was claimed to be of Pius exchanging salutes with Nazi troops after Hitler's election, but was really of Pius exchanging salutes with troops of the Weimar Republic on the occasion of Hindenburg's election. The picture proves nothing because there is no proof that it is even actually of Bergoglio.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

"I have no data linking Bergoglio with the dictatorship", says former member of CONADEP

I believe this information is both useful and important. The words come from Graciela Fernández Meijide, a former member of the CONADEP (Comisión Nacional sobre la Desaparición de Personas, National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons), an Argentine body created after the fall of the dictatorship to investigate the fate of the victims of the Dirty War. The sources are the following:

• Meijide: "No tengo ningún dato que vincule a Bergoglio con la dictadura"
• Bergoglio, nuevo Papa: "No tengo ningún dato que lo relacione con la dictadura", dijo Graciela Fernández Meijide
• “Jamás nadie mencionó a Bergoglio” en la dictadura, dijo Fernández Meijide
• Niegan que tuviera vínculos con la dictadura, which also includes Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Nobel Peace Prize winner, denying Bergoglio's alleged links with the dictatorship
• Militantes de derechos humanos refutan críticas sobre Bergoglio, which, again, includes Adolfo Pérez Esquivel's words

Thank you. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• To what extent do we need to include this, as opposed to just exclude the baseless accusations of a connection that seem to mainly stem from the Kircheners personal dislike and animosity towards Bergoglio and have no basis in fact. Sometimes reporting a negative gives the impression there is really something there, if not done properly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether it's true or not, the fact that the allegations are out there, and there are reliable sources that the allegations exist, means that Wikipedia should cover them, although not passing judgement on whether or not the allegations are true. Same with reliably sourced claims such as this, which says that they are not true. RNealK (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Dirty War

The section about his role in the Dirty War seems to have "disappeared". The section seemed appropriate and didn't try to confirm such rumours but doubts have been expressed and this should be mentioned especially now that the Vatican itself has spoken about them. Wikipedia should not give in to the demands of the Vatican. This section needs to be restored.--ЗAНИA ^talk WB (ctrl-click)">WB (ctrl-click)">WB (ctrl-click)">^{WB talk}] 18:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Babies taken from their families

Human rights attorney Myriam Bregma claims Bergoglio endorsed the dictators when he knew they were torturing and killing Argentinians and claims “this key support” enabled the junta to operate that way. It is claimed Bergoglio knew at least one case when a woman five months pregnant in the De la Cuadra family was kidnapped, she gave birth in captivity, the baby was stolen and given to another family. A monsignor allegedly brought Bergoglio a written note saying the baby was with a family too important for the adoption to be reversed. In 2010 Bergoglio claimed not to have known about stolen babies during the dictatorship despite his alleged personal knowledge of this case.

"Bergoglio has a very cowardly attitude when it comes to something so terrible as the theft of babies. He says he didn't know anything about it until 1985," said the baby's aunt, Estela de la Cuadra, whose mother Alicia co-founded the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo in 1977 in hopes of identifying these babies. "He doesn't face this reality and it doesn't bother him. The question is how to save his name, save himself. But he can't keep these allegations from reaching the public. The people know how he is."

Estela de la Cuadra feels Borgoglio's denial that he knew about babies born in concentration camps being adopted amounts to "lies and hypocrisy". Estela de la Cuadra wants the Vatican to release documents which could shed light on what really happened but this is unlikely.

The above is a serious allegation and should stay in the article. What the defenders of Pope Francis say about his supposed heroic actions sheltering dissidents has remained in the article and accusations should stay too. Otherwise the article is unbalanced. Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to disagree. That would be a violation of WP:FRINGE as it would make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is. Moreover, "the defenders of Pope Francis" you are referring to are no less than a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and a former member of the CONADEP; in other words, notable and well known. Who exactly is Myriam Bregma? This is the first time I have read anything related to her. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. NPOV =/= balancing every "good" with a "bad", especially in a BLP where such allegations had better have solid evidence backing them up.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've shortened this. It just carries on and repeats itself and the use of the blockquote made no sense at all. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Here we have another case similar to the saga with Horacio Verbitsky, the famous Cold War terrorist. According to the Spanish Wikipedia, Myriam Bregman, the person who is cited as a mere "human rights attorney" and given a platform to make outlandish claims that the Pope is involved in facilitating the "kidnapping of children" is actually a member of the Socialist Workers' Party (Argentina) which is a Trotskyist organisation. Like Verbitsky, she also appears to be Jewish if the surname Bregman and the spelling of Maria as "Myriam" is any indication to go by. If there are some criticisms of the Pope, then by all means find some reliable/non-partisan people, but lets not try to sneak in rabid anti-Catholic Trotskyists under their favourite little mask of "human rights activists" and people with an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.88.83 (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Response to: "Moreover, "the defenders of Pope Francis" you are referring to are no less than a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and a former member of the CONADEP; in other words, notable and well known"

if you want can looking for the same statements nobel prize (Pérez Esquivel) in 2005 accusing Bergoglio to know about the theft of babies and do nothing even religious deliver the military (Yesterday all Argentines could see on TV that note showing the contradiction in his speech).

Sorry precisely that person is not who has fought for human rights, is a comet that changes speech at their convenience. Soon i give you the link (I hope you understand spanish)186.62.185.205 (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I do understand Spanish. I will be waiting for your link, then. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a book: "Iglesia y Dictadura: El Papel de la Iglesia a la Luz de Sus Relaciones con el Régimen Militar" (Church and Dictatorship: The Role of the Church in the light of its relations with the military regime)...Author...Emilio Fermín Mignone

http://books.google.com.ar/books/about/Iglesia_y_Dictadura.html?id=Bs9aAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

Mignone? Mignone? the person who accused Bergoglio, is the founder of CELS in the '80s, when the investigation began, now Verbitsky, is director of CELS, as it could have been someone else, only keeps alive such research. Who wrote the foreword to the English version ... Adolfo Perez Esquivel, the Nobel Peace Prize...still searching the TV note186.62.185.205 (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a link that shows Adolfo Pérez Esquivel accusing Bergoglio of knowing about the theft of babies and doing nothing in response. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Even at their basic substance the claims of these allegations do not add up. The military dictatorship existed because it had the military power to exist, not because of any endorsement from religious leaders. Some Catholic leaders did work with the dictatorship, but there is no evidence that Bergoglio was among them. However neither Musolin, nor Franco nor the dictatorship in Argentina existed because they were backed by religious leaders, they existed because they had orchestrated the military situation to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Borgolio's claim that he heroically sheltered dissidents in church property and more is also suspect. We rely solely on Borgolio's personal testimony for that. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't think there is strong evidence that Borgoglio connived in abduction of babies. Still there is evidence he knew abut it during the dictatorship and lied when he claimed he found out only after the dictatorship. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• The claims of one unrelated biased commentator have no value. The claims of the subject himself, as reported by his biographer's are logical to include. They are clearly shown to be based on his own statements, but they clearly belong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a whitewash. These claims have been carried by reputable media sources and should be included in some form.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

A former terrorist working at a propaganda outlet of a Chávez-styled government, a reliable source? Don't make me laugh. Holocaust denier Luis D'Elía says that the Pope is an agent of imperialism sent to destroy the socialist revolution (or some crap like that), should we mention that merely because some newspaper gave him room to talk? Cambalachero (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Horacio Verbitsky

Should we include at all the claims of Horacio Verbitsky at the "As provincial" section? As pointed, he is not a neutral observer, he was a guerilla soldier back in that time (for not saying the "T" word). And now he's a journalist, right... a journalist of a government-sponsored newspaper, always ready to provide slander and defamation to the perceived "enemies" of the Chávez-styled government of Argentina. I would hardly consider him a reliable source. Cambalachero (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Considering how much the Kirchner's expressed dislike of Bergoglio, and how much they apparently saw him as a rival to their power, this may be a good point to keep in mind. I would not mind removing all material coming from Verbitsky, but I doubt that will happen. I think it is good we have moved from a quote from Senora Kirchner that makes it look like her issues with Bergoglio are recent to an explanation that the Kirchner's have been angry at Bergoglio since about 2003. At a minimum we should probably made it fully clear what Verbitsky's connection to the current government of Argentina is, so that his reasons to dislike Bergoglio are clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me guys, but the investigation start in the 80's, by the CELS, not by Verbitsky, who now is the Director of the CELS, not in the 80's also you can see the Bertoglio papers of the Militars in the web.--186.62.185.205 (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

While it is true that Emilio Fermín Mignone, founder of the CELS (Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales, a left-wing think tank), was the person who originally promoted the idea, he is not a neutral actor either, as his own wife was Angélica Sosa, one of the founding members of the Madres de Plaza de Mayo (Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo), an association of Argentine mothers whose children disappeared during the Dirty War and which includes the mothers of former left-wing terrorists among its members as well. I think it goes without saying that Mignone never managed to demonstrate a connection between Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the military regime. It is also false that you can see any papers linking Bergoglio with the junta on the Internet; if that were true, the alleged relationship between him and the dictatorship would have been already proven a long time ago. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Context is also important. Bergoglio said something that the Kirchners did not like, and the Kirchners reacted by linking him to the National Reorganization Process. With very weak evidences, unable to actually prove anything at a court of law, but repeating the slander all over the government-financed media as an already proved fact. A system they have used with journalists, politicians, union leaders, celebrities, anyone who doesn't bow to the Kirchners. If someone was not a guerrilla or a dissapeared, he's labeled as an accomplice of the dictatorship in all the government-financed media. And this is precisely what happened with Bergoglio. It all comes down to Kirchner don't liking the comments of Bergoglio during a mass, and his childish reaction to it. Cambalachero (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

We should not editorialize on material

I removed the unsourced claim of no independent confirmation of Pope Francis' statements about helping people avoid capture by the government during the dictatorship. If someone published an article we could cite that stated "there is no independent confirmation of this", it would be worth including. However just infering this from the sources that exist here is not justified, it is editorializing and assumptions that are not justified. Information needs to be sourced, and that includes the claim of a lack of information.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

final(?) docs published online today on snitching

this was posted online last night.

please add the info+link to main article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294580/Special-report-The-damning-documents-new-Pope-DID-betray-tortured-priests-junta.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.117.2.51 (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The article opens with "Damning evidence that Pope Francis may have betrayed two priests" the fact that they use the conditional "may" shows that the title is intentionally inflamatory and that the material itself does not support the claims made. What really remains unclear is why the head of the Jesuits should tolerate preists who are not in line with vows of obeidience, and how what happens to them later is his fault. The article notes that Jalics traces his arrest to information provided by an anti-government guerrila after that guerrila was arrested. The Daily Mail is clearly involved in sensationalization we should avoid. It also is reflecting an anti-Catholic bias.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Falklands Islands position

"Pope Francis’s election may cause controversy in Britain over comments he made at a Mass last year for Argentine veterans of the Falklands War to mark 30th anniversary of the 1982 conflict. He reportedly said at the time: “We come to pray for those who have fallen, sons of the country who went out to defend their mother country, to reclaim that which is theirs and was usurped from them. Addressing relatives of fallen veterans before a visit to the Argentine military cemetery in Darwin in the Falklands in 2009, he said: “Go and kiss this land which is ours, and seems to us far away.” He said they would not go alone, adding: “There are angels who will accompany you, who are sons, husbands and fathers of yours, who fell there, in an almost religious movement, of kissing with their blood the native soil.” "The new Pope has also described the war as “a sad history, a dark part of our Argentinian history which is only given light by the courage and valour of those who fought there, as much as those who rest in the lands and waters as those who came back”.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9928688/From-Father-Jorge-to-Pope-Francis-I-the-monk-like-priest-who-now-leads-1.2bn-Catholics.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciao 90 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Notable? That would be like the Brit's taking issue with a Pope from American who expressed support for the revolutionary army and their sacrifice. It's his home country, and his support of them is rather...well...non-notable. wxwalsh 22:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that the majority of the Falkland Islands' residents reject Argentina's territorial claims, right? 144.92.249.238 (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do, but I also realize there was a strong sense, even among some in the Continental Congress, that reconciling with Britain was right for America. And at the very least, Argentina's claim to the Falklands has some historical merit. That the population wants to stay British, after being British since the 1833 occupation (legal or illegal), is not surprising, nor relevant to whether this man supported his home military members for their part in a war to fight for territory they have long considered theirs. I just really don't see this as very relevant at all to an article about the man. wxwalsh 22:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If a majority of residents of Manchester voted to become part of India I doubt the British government would respect that. The Argentines do not see the Malvinas as a seperate territory, so they do not acknowledge a right to seperate in them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that a sentence or two in the "Relations with the Argentine government" subsection wouldn't be out of place; this is reliably sourced, notable enough for a small mention, and was one of things I expected to be able to find out about there. It would certainly illustrate his relations with the current Argentine government quite deftly. --xensyria^T 00:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see your point on that, and accept it. I'm just leary of a lot of changes being made in the short term, and think care should be made, as we're going to see a lot of people with axes to grind ideologically coming in and trying to create controversy here in support of their various POVs. wxwalsh 01:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; it's not urgent. --xensyria^T 01:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

As an Argentinian, he was entitled to make somewhat nationalistic statements like that. If he continued to make such statements about the Falklands as the Pope, that would be notable. Scott P. (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A much more concise and on point way to say what I was trying to say, well said wxwalsh 02:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxwalsh (talk • contribs)

Guardian reference

Well, the Guardian has here [19] run another article about Pope Francis and the Falkland Dispute. I am not really sure it is worth including anything from it in this article though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Did Bergoglio said anything about the dispute now, as a Pope? If at some point he offers to mediate in the dispute (an actual intervention as a pope), we shall see, if it's all about things he once said, it should be ignored Cambalachero (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Should we have this?

Should we even have this secion. It seems to not really be related to actual religious teaching on his part. His statements seem to have been more about general Argentine patriotism than taking any considered postion on the question. I do not think it isreally a notable postion on his part and think we should remove that section from the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Falklands

Should we have a section about the Falklands dispute? Bergoglio has not said anything about that topic as a Pope, only a year ago, and we shouldn't be detailing his position on every topic that he has ever talk about. Poverty, abortion, homosexuality, etc; are usual religious concerns, so it is justified to detail his ideas and actions in relation to those topics. The Falklands dispute is not a religious controversy but a geopolitical one. As an achbishop (what he was when he said those things) his opinion was inconsequential for the international arena, as a Pope, his opinion has more weight... and so his responsability is higher. Perhaps he will try to promote somehow the Argentine claim (for example, proposing a mediation), or perhaps he will stay neutral towards it. I think that we should remove the section, and recreate it in the case he actually takes action as Pope in the topic. Cambalachero (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the only things we really know about him are from before he was pope. As he does official things as pope, his biography will change. In time, I'm sure that section will be either updated or removed. Andrew³²⁷ 03:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This is still the biography article of Bergoglio, not just the "Pope Francis" article. So anything of note he said before he was pope can stay in the article, as long as it is put into proper biographical context. If he takes a more conciliatory approach to the Falklands as pope (as no doubt he will, at least rhetorically), this can still be put into context of what he had said before he became pope.

The anti-gay-marriage stuff was very much of note within Argentinian politics. No, it isn't notable that a pope is "anti gay", this is part of his job description. You cannot be an orthodox Catholic and at the same time take a "pro-gay" stance. THis is simply mutually exclusive. WHat you can do, and what is being done by the less conservative clergy, is argue that nobody is without sin, and that you should hate the sin, not the sinner. Unlike the discussion on abortion, the New Testament is very clear about male homosexuality at least, and as pope, you are not at liberty to just selectively throw out some of the less convenient Pauline statements. So this isn't news. What can and should be treated is the actual political activism (on top of purely doctrinal rejection) on the part of Bergoglio in Argentinian politics. --dab (𒁳) 12:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we cover enough of his pre-Papal actions to argue that in context there is clear evidence his statements on the Falkland Islands were notable. Was this his only involvement in commenorating the hisotry of Argentina? Was he the only Argentine Catholic leader to make such comments, or did others? To just pick the Falkland issue seems to be to give the article a British slant with no consideration for how this incident fits with other postions and statements by Bergoglio. This is especially the impression because his statements only seem to be connected with a notable anniversary, there is no evidence he has consistently or even on multiple occasions made comments about such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

you are right, the statements were uncontroversial because they were not reported outside of Argentinia, and not controversial in Argentinia. All we can say is that they were thrown around by UK newspapers after his elections, so in a certain sense, yes, the statements date to before the election, but evidence of their notability only arises after the election. That doesn't change the fact that they are notable now. --dab (𒁳) 17:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Who and why removed the Section about MALVINAS?... There a section about it, and someone removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastian2013 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed it because it really seems to be trying to make into an issue his participation in the general nation-wide observation of a major anniversary. I am not convinced there is anything unique in his role there. Also, I wonder if we were showing truly unacceptable biases by not refering to them as the Malvinas in an article on an Argentine. Also, it feels like drawing us into what is essentially a news story, people trying to make some British angle in the new Pope, and not of permanent encyclopedic value.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If you removed the Malvinas thing, you need remove ie the Kirchner part & many other...follow your arguments...pre-papal issues...him say "The Malvinas are ours"...with this 4 words...him say: I am Argentine (this is for other stupid doubts in the article), in the article say...many first from there...never say first of Argentina, first form South America (I prefer this this and not "Americas", because most of 45 countries in this fuc...ing continent call him America and not Americas -only 2 countries-, and is more, not call in this form call him South America, Central America, now is...The Americas, hahaha. If the pope come from USA certainly you say...The firts of America and nothing more.

Malvinas was not an isolated act of Bergoglio, but that "spiritual" helps veterans was continuous, on the other hand this is a common point (among many others) with Kirchner, who have been the visibilizaron to former combatants , and among other things gave them a decent pension and constant recognition and always making clear the stupidity the war.

Article visibly flawed subjectivity is everywhere, as many others, such as the opposition of Kirchner, there are many things that corcuerdan, but always clearly more "news" those in which you disagree.

Can track and see the many opportunities that have come together.

Maybe in other countries is different but in Argentina which are responsible for governing the politicians, not the Church, which incidentally always tried to interfere in the policies of all governments that have existed, and that is the only real conflict.186.62.153.250 (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• In light of Kirchner's call upon Pope Francis to intervene in the Malvinas dispute as recorded in this [20] version of Nicole Winfield's AP article on the issue, I would say this has moved to being a notable enough thing to include in Francis' biography, moved beyond just being a 30-year-commemoration by Francis and the British Prime Minister grandstanding on the issue, and we should put the reference to the Malvinas back in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is just a British issue. You can say Bergoglio is just a patriotic Argentine, but the fact is (like many patriotic Argentines) he thinks that the wishes of Falkland Islanders should be trampled on. And he is now the head of an international church. That is significant.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You are showing your biases. You are ignoring that to Argentines that Malvinas have no indepdent right to exist, and have as much right to break away as a section of Manchester would have to unilaterally declare themselves part of India.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

So East Timor has no right to be independent of Indonesia, the Ukraine has no right to be independent of Russia, and Ireland has no right to have independence of Britain???--Jack Upland (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually if you brought up Northern Ireland you might be closer to an at all equivalent issue. Or maybe if you brought up South Ossetia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

so, you're implying, by that logic, that the US should still be a British colony? Aunva6 (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any logic in Lambert's argument at all. The Falkland Islands have been a British colony for almost 200 years. They have no history as part of Argentina. There is no Argentine, or Hispanic, community on the island. The islanders are of British origin and almost unanimously want to stay a British colony. Sure, the colony is a creation of British imperialism, but Argentina is a creation of Spanish imperialism. Sure, nationalistic Argentines think they have a right to the islands, but that shows their bias, not mine.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Falklands/Malvinas revisited

I think this issue has become more than just an Argentine archbishop expressng national feelings as seen from this article [21] that mentions that Kirchner has called on Pope Francis to mediate the dispute.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm. What is happening here? Kirchner, knowing full well that there is nothing Francis can do, asks him to do the impossible. How did she manage to keep a straight face? And he knew exactly what she was doing, tossing him a hot potato. He probably thought: Well played. By which I mean to say: all of this is posturing. There's no substance here at all. Bmclaughlin9 (talk)

You are assuming she did keep a straight face. After your explanation this sounds like a continuation of Kirchner doing all she can do to undermine Francis. Also, the reference to Pope John Paul II negotiating between Chile and Argentina seems to indicate she is setting Frnacis up to fail. The British government has historically rejected any power or authority being held by the Vatican, making it a very different situation than when Chile and Argentina were both lead by governments that claimed to be in some way Catholic. Also, Kirtchner is ignoring the fact the British see no problems with the current situation in the Malvinas, and lack the insentive to go to heavy negotiation to avoid war that Chile and Argentina have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"full well that there is nothing Francis can do," :Hmmmm. This is what many thought about Pope John Paul II on Soviet Communism. The Soviet Union was not very catholic or even close to Christian. In the end, he had a hand in it's downfall.

For starters, events could sour quite easily in Northern Ireland if he voices his oposition tocolonialism. This Pope will work quietly in his own way to end colonialism, in all of its forms. He is an Argentine who stands against injustice, his anti colonial feelings are well known. He has been quite open about it. He knows his nations history and the fact that Britain usurped part of his nation’s territory, hard won in its independence from Spain, and evicted the Argentine population. A British usurpation that Argentina has never accepted, and whose lawful claim is protected by the United Nations charter. Spain and then Argentina have exercised sovereignty over the Malvinas/Falkland Islands and Argentina did have a settlement exercising sovereignty after its independence until they were usurped through an act of piracy. The Vatican does have the moral authority to intervene in such matters, particularly when Peace is threatened, as in this case by Britain’s unilateral militarization of the South Atlantic. Making threats of missile attack, nuclear annihilation, an act of fear to cover up its inability to deal with international norms and abide by United Nations resolutions. Pope John Paul II took quite action to undermine Soviet Communism and contribute to its downfall. Papal Intervention in politics to affect political outcomes has happened before and there is no reason to believe that this Pope will not do the same. For starters, events could sour quite easily in Northern Ireland if he voices his oposition with colonialism. I am quite sure that London has thought about this. A reformation of the Vatican diplomatic corp is under way. This Pope willl not allow any party to duc its responsibilities to the International Community where peace is at risk. Your Holiness, greetings from the United States. God bless you. We pray for a successful Papacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.132.70 (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Are we sure we want The Falkland Islands to have a whole section for itself? Personally I dont see how it is significant enough to even be in the article. But if it is going into the articles then it must as a subsection under relations with the argentine goverment. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, that section should be removed. The things he said were trivial when he said them (he was not pope, and there was no political controversy), and nothing noteworthy has actually happened in those days. Cameron's reaction to things said years ago is a bit of an overreaction (not everything about Argentina revolves around the dispute), and so far I'm not aware of Francis reacting in any way to Kirchner's proposal. If he silently dropped the whole issue (as he was the archbishop of the Argentines back then, but now he's the Pope of both the Argentines and the British, as well as everybody else) and does not take any political position, we should do so as well. Cambalachero (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Partially agree. I don't think what he said as Cardinal is noteworthy enough, and a whole section is definitely not warranted. However, the Head of State of the Pope's home country asking him to intervene politically in an international territorial dispute in that country's favour is worth a sentence somewhere in the article (even if he doesn't respond). DeCausa (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think the current tacking it on to the end of the "relationship with the governmetn" section works. I think it is important enough to keep in the article, but would agree that it does not merit a seperate heading. If he does try to negotiate we could move it to the Papacy section, but for now I think it works best where it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Falklands revisited

Just a suggestion. If someone finds that Bergoglio's pre-papal comments ("usurped") and Cameron's wisecrack ("white smoke") and Kirchner's request for papal mediation belong somewhere on WP, then the material should be added there and a simple entry under "See also" in this entry would suffice. As far as I can tell that hasn't happened yet. Perhaps Argentina–United Kingdom relations. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would support such a revision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Jalics

Statement of Franz Jalics

Father Franz Jalics, one of the priest captured and tortured and now living in Germany, issued a statment today (for now, it seems to be issued just in German):

Erklärung von Pater Franz Jalics SJ

Gugganij (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Very relevant, have added a bit to article. Pol098 (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Father Jalics has publicly reconciled with Bergoglio and considers the matter closed???

Jalics say: "Ich bin mit den Geschehnissen versöhnt und betrachte sie meinerseits als abgeschlossen" (I have been reconciled to the events and from my side consider them closed)...not is the same true???

Jalics write the book "Szemlélődő lelkigyakorlat" (hungarian)(Meditation or maybe Contemplation Exercises)(1994):

"Many people who held far-right political beliefs frowned on our presence in the slums. They interpreted the fact that we lived there as a support for the guerrillas and proposed denounce us as terrorists. We knew where the wind was blowing and who was responsible for these slanders. So I went to talk to the person in question and explained that I was playing with our lives. He promised that the military would know that we were not terrorists. For subsequent statements of an officer and thirty documents that could be accessed later we saw that this man had kept his promise but, on the contrary, had filed a false complaint with the military...that person made ​​credible slander using his authority...him testified to the officier that kidnapped us who us worked on the terrorist scene. Earlier I told to this person who was playing with our lives. He must be aware that him sent us to their deaths with their statements."

Gives no names, just said person.

Letter to Father Moura, Assistant General of the Company of Jesus, Roma, 1977...Orlando Yorio describes the same circumstances but change "person" by Jorge Mario Bergoglio...186.62.153.250 (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, "reconciled" implies there was a problem in the first place.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it only implies that at one point Jalics felt there was a problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Another statement by Pater Jalics

Pater Jalics issued another statement. In a nutshell:

• Since some commentaries on his first statement reversed the meaning what he wanted to say, he feels obliged to complement his original statement from March 15
• Two or three days after the arrest of the lay woman (who was a member of the guerrilla), he and Pater Yorio were detained as well. The officer interrogating him thought he was Russian spy, since he was born in Budapest
• He thinks the reason why they were not released immediately laid in the fact that already in the years before false information were spread within church circles. It was rumored that they moved into the slums, because they were members of the guerrilla.
• Originally he tended to think, that they were reported by someone to the authorities. At the end of the 1990s, after numerous talks, he came to the conclusion that this assumption was not correct
• Therefore, he says, it is wrong to state that their arrest came about after an initiative of Pater Bergoglio

Gugganij (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Father Francisco Jalics: "It is wrong to say that our capture occurred because of [Pope] Francis."

This information should be added to the article. I believe a sentence or two would suffice. --190.19.77.29 (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Bergoglio had not removed Jalics from being a Jesuit

Here [22] is an article by Thomas Reese, in which he explains that Bergoglio had not in any way removed Jalics and Yorico from being Jesuits. I tried to incorproate that notion into the article, but have to say I wonder if we should not go further. It seems the preponderance of evidence is making Verbitsky's claims more an more the subject of 2005 than the 1970s. The whole thing needs to be re-examined with the realization there is no grounds for the claims that Bergoglio had removed these men from the ministry, and that Jalics has on multiple occasions explictly stated that his capture was not prompted by Bergoglio, and that any though that it was on his or anyone else's part was incorrect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This paragraph "The Jesuit historian Fr. Jeff Klaiber interviewed Jesuit Fr. Juan Luis Moyano, who had also been imprisoned and deported by the military. Moyano told Klaiber that Bergoglio did go to bat for imprisoned Jesuits. There are disagreements over whether he did as much as he should have for them, but such debates always occur in these circumstances." from the Reese article might be worth incorporating in some way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That article is an opinion piece rather than a piece of investigative journalism, and it is from an apologetic Catholic perspective. Reese's comments on liberation theology suggests he is unable or unwilling to grasp the issues at stake and the period in question. (Liberation theology is not merely a Christian concern for the poor.) Bergoglio as the head of the Jesuits was in the centre of a severe conflict in Argentine society. That article addresses details in some specific allegations against Bergoglio but skirts around the broader question of what he did in this period with vague assurances and insubstantial appeals to authority.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Your assesment of Reese really does not work. He is normally looked to as the source par excellence by the mainstream journalists. To call him a "Catholic apologist" really does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to comments such as "We are family"...--Jack Upland (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

PS. Something did happen with their status, as noted in the Counterpunch article cited above (under "Bias").--Jack Upland (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Languages

Are the languages he is fluent in notable? We had a referenced list that was removed with the argument it is not notable to him. Being "known for it" seems to high a bar. It would seem to me that the leader of a multi-national organization could benefit from being fluent in multiple languages and such fluency would be worth mentioning in an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I believe that a list of his fluent languages is notable for inclusion. Andrew³²⁷ 03:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

These have disappeared once again. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• They have been now tacked onto the end of the early life section. I am not sure that is the best place to put them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I moved them to the introduction (where I think they belong), but this was objected to; I have now moved them out of early life and into papacy. I've distinguished Latin and Italian, job qualifications as Vatican languages, from English etc., nice to have. (+native Spanish). Pol098 (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested compromise on same-gender marriage issue

This article [23] suggests that Bergoglio initially sought a different course in response to the proposal for same-gender marriage by the Argentine government. I am not sure how best to integrate this information into the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Impossible to find that in the article. I wonder what were you reading?

This paragraph from the second page of the article is what I was referring to. "According to Francis' authorized biographer, Sergio Rubin, the former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was politically wise enough to know the church couldn't win a straight-on fight against gay marriage, so he urged his bishops to lobby for gay civil unions instead. It wasn't until his proposal was shot down by the bishops' conference that he declared what gay activists called a "war of God" on the measure — and the church lost the issue altogether."John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This has been added. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

New York Times has more detailed article about this http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/world/americas/pope-francis-old-colleagues-recall-pragmatic-streak.html?hp&pagewanted=all&_r=1& --В и к и T 21:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This has been denied by other sources. See http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fnoticias.universogay.com%2Fcontinua-la-polemica-por-el-nuevo-papa-y-las-uniones-gays__22032013.html 209.116.238.162 (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have removed the claim. I think we need a clear indication of what specifically Bergoglio porposed if we are to include it. For now there is really no strong evidence of what he may have proposed, and we are best off limiting our coverage to the clear and public statements he made.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Adoption approval for same-sex couple

According to Leonardo Boff, Francis approved the adoption of a child by a same-sex couple not long ago:[24]

"Hace un par de meses por ejemplo aprobó expresamente que una pareja de homosexuales adoptara un niño."

The story appears to be based on an interview Boff gave to Der Spiegel. Confirmation? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus for "See Also"

Right now See Also has Jerónimo Podestá & Jesuit formation. That seems like an odd choice. I think there are better options: Jesuits to begin with. What pages should be there >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

See also is for bits not linked above. The emphasis is on also. Someone else objected to Jerónimo Podestá so I added him in the body. (He was doing no harm in "see also" but some people like to be the decider.) Try thinking of other things not incorporated above but related. No reason to expect many, really. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I edit less active pages for the most part and I thought it was just for the few most relevant links EVEN IF INCLUDED in the article. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 16:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Bouncer?

The statement that he was a bouncer has re-surfaced (previous discussion has presumably been archived). It is so stated in some references, but they seem dubious. Given the amount of unfounded nonsense that is published, we need better sources to say this. Pol098 (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I see nobody's picking this up. The most detailed reference I can find says: "to support himself during his studies he worked for a time as a bouncer in a dive of very bad repute in Cordoba" (my translation). I haven't found any references in Spanish (which doesn't mean they don't exist), which I'd expect if this were true. I would say that this point is only credible if more detail and witnesses are found - at least the name of the place, dates, maybe someone who knew him at the time. Search terms I've tried: buttafuori, cordoba, combinations of sacaborrachos, boliche, local. Gorila isn't very useful, too common in Argentina. Pol098 (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Another quote from the Telegraph article given as source for the bouncer bit: "He ... has a master's degree in Chemistry from the University of Buenos Aires". Which doesn't say much for the credibility of the article as a source. Pol098 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. - quote by Albert Einstein--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

that's a good one... I'd say that source is about as reliable as 4chan... Aunva6 (talk) 04:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I removed the bouncer claim. The Telegraph article does not seem to be well grounded enough that we should use it. Also, that article really did not say when during his studies he worked as a bouncer. Thus by putting it in any specific place in his life we were going beyond the source. If people can find a solid source saying when he worked as a bouncer that will work, but the telegraph article did not even give any specific dates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Did Francis study at Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina

Did Francis study at Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina as maybe suggested by this [25] telegraph article, or should we write it off as unsourced claims like the claim he has a masters in chemistry, which also appears in that article, but seems unlikely based on what we have. In fact, we lack any proof he was ever a student at the University of Buenos Aires.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

University of Buenos Aires? Really?

Hi guys, as an alumni of the most prestigious university in Argentina (University of Buenos Aires), I was amazed to read in here that Pope Francis studied there too. In fact, that's not true. Where do you get that information?? First of all, the University of Buenos Aires didn't say a word about his designation, each time an alumni or professor get something (an award, or something like that), the university use to communicate that. This was not the case. The University of Buenos Aires is a centre-left or leftist academy, it's impossible this guy has ever put a foot at the doors of any of its faculty. Sorry, but no. Whoever put that information has a way to show or support that falacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeroPsycho22 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't see this now. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Washing feet

This article [26] in the Gaurdian reports plans for Pope Francis to wash the feet of inmates. I will leave it up to others to see what, if anything, to include in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's avoid predicting the future and reporting plans. There will be time enough to report the facts as they occur. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, the fact that he has often done the Holy Thursday washing of feet in non-traditional locations is worth adding:

Reuters: "When he was archbishop of Buenos Aires, the former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio often celebrated the Holy Thursday service in a jail, a hospital, a home for the elderly or with poor people."

Added under Episcopacy.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually I'm always a little suspicious of general statements like this, written in 2013 about pre-papal practices in Argentina, so I found and added a good Argentine source (unfortunately no date that I could find on the URL -- about Holy Week during the year of the child, which I believe was 2009). Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was closed by Aunva6 below. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Pope Francis → Francis (pope) – New naming convention for Popes agreed upon by concensus at WP:Naming conventions (clergy)#Popes. Primary article should be Francis (pope) with a redirect from from Pope Francis to Francis (pope) ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

it's easy enough to put a g6 csd on the redirect. I've already done it. admins complete the move as soon as they delete the conflicting page, so there isn't a need for a move req, just post in the tasks completed, or put a section in the talk explaining it. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of the Pope articles are protected, so even if they delete the redirect, I cannot move them myself. ReformedArsenal (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G6 they complete the move for you. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I have declined the speedy move request. I see there is a bulk requested move discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)#Article Move due to updated convention. I think there needs to be consensus generated there rather than just one admin unilaterally doing it. --B (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

'kay, guess we need consensus to conform to consensus... although further discussion may be fruitful. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, when it affects what is probably one of our most visible articles right now, yes. --B (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

good point. although, for this page, perhaps the discussion should take place here, where it is most visible. same with benedict xvi. I'll start an RfC on it here. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My personal preference/suggestion would be to see one unified RM that lists all of the articles to be moved and their proposed new names, rather than litigating this in fragmented discussions all over creation. It's easy to say "we don't use honorifics in article titles" but when you're actually confronted with the practical question of "does that mean Mother Teresa is now Teresa (mother)", it's a harder sell IMO. Francis (pope) seems like a very confused title for an article, as would renaming Prince Harry of Wales to Harry (prince). --B (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

it's just because Francis is a disambig. pope benedict xvi would become Benedict xvi. all it is is lining it up with the conventions regarding royalty. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand that ... but just understanding the reasoning behind it doesn't make it not sound odd. --B (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

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

RfC- rename to Francis (pope)

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.

---

should the article be renamed to Francis (Pope)?

consensus recently changed at WP:naming conventions (clergy), however, due to the visibility of the article, extra consensus is required.-- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing has changed, and your claims to the contrary are not going to make that statement any more true. There are two ongoing discussions at that WT page. Come back when and if there is consensus. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is a bizarre way to introduce the RfC. Having just looked at it, (a) the RfC at WP:naming conventions (clergy) is not closed (b) anyway, shows no emerging consensus in favour of the change, (c) if anything shows the most popular view is "oppose". The OP's statement above is weird and misleading. DeCausa (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

discussion

No, oppose. Consensus on this page is that we do not move this article anywhere. Francis (pope) is a hopeless, clumsy title, worse than all other previous proposals. I don't see any changed consensus, article titles of Popes in Wikipedia have been well established for 10 years or so and I see no reason to change that. Mocctur (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• see Wikipedia talk:naming conventions (clergy)-- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• • There is no consensus to change the title of this article on this talk page (the only place where its title is determined), and there is no consensus to change anything on the other page you are referring to either, only your proposal which is rejected by others. Mocctur (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    • umm, so you are saying that the naming conventions have no import on this article's naming? besides, your the only one rejecting it so far, I think it's a little premature to say it's rejected. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose rename, there is absolutely no compelling reason whatsoever to arbitrarily rename our articles on hundreds of popes when we are served just fine by our current approach. Further, the discussion you linked to seems to be developing a consensus for the status quo. Harej (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Would this mean that you want to change 266 wikipedia articles from Pope X to X (pope)? That is not realistic and goes against a pretty established 266 article precedence. What would be the reason to do so? Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as per above. Nothing to be gained but confusion. LCS check (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. It would make the title of this article clumsy and counter-intuitive for casual readers of Wikipedia. The new naming convention for popes is a silly idea anyway: whatever is done with more strictly secular monarchs, popes are a unique case. There are 266 of them: there's no reason they can't have their own aptly customized article-naming convention, instead of being clumsily assimilated to the convention for a broader category. Wikipedia should aim for clarity and ease of use as an *encyclopedia* for those seeking information, not at being an outlet for a "blessed rage for order" among us frequent editors. How many encyclopedia readers instinctively type "Francis (pope)" for information on this guy? I imagine very few. The proposed change is obfuscatory. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Ridiculous. See WP:NATURAL. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Move to close The pope naming issue has been taken up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)#Article Move due to updated convention. While it looks unlikely to succeed, if it does, it should apply to all popes where there are no disambiguation problems. There's no point in changing this article alone, so I call for a close. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree. DeCausa (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Close- see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)#Article Move due to updated convention for the discussion

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.

Edit request on 22 March 2013

After the sentence that reads "Following the resignation ofhis predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, on 28 February, the conclave elected Bergoglio, who chose the papal name Francis in honour of Saint Francis of Assisi." please add this sentence: "There is speculation that he may have had two other individuals in mind when he chose the name Francis, namely (1) St. Francis Xaviar, the Jesuit who was very humble and helped the poor, and (2) Francis Sisco, the popular transgender New York comedian, who is usually known as Fran Sisco."

FrankSisco (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

source? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

also, I highly doubt that francis sisco is even notably likely speculation. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

"Speculation" by definition should not be included in Wikipedia articles per WP:SPECULATION.

That's what I thought... wasn't sure tho. it also looks like (s)he has a COI, judging by the name, and how (s)he went ahead and edited the article anyways -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clearer. Rather than say "speculation". This has been contradicted by eyewitness accounts of what Francis said at the very moment he took the name. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Er, I think the OP is engaging in "humour" (I mean "humor"). DeCausa (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference Bartholomew in "Inauguration"?

I am not experienced enough to know the best way to do this. The presence of Bartholomew I at the Papal inauguration is already mentioned in the section on relations with the Orthodox Church but I think his presence is noteworthy enough to mention at the part on the inauguration. Could I write "As seen above, the Patriarch of Constantinople was present at a papal inauguration for the first time since the great schism of 1054."? Or is there a better way to do this? I presume many will not read the article from start to finish but jump to what they want. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 17:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is his presence so notable as to be the only named attendee in the Inauguration section? DeCausa (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Answer is, because no Patriarch has attended such an event in a millenium. It's a bigger deal than the usual government leaders. LCS check (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree it's a big deal. But once is enough, and there is a separate WP entry for the Papal inauguration of Pope Francis, where it has been properly included, I'd say. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It needs to go in the article. But it's importance is in Orthodox-Catholic relations. I don't see it as being significant enough to be mentioned twice or to be the only attendee to be mentioned in that section. DeCausa (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Didn't notice it was already above. Agree one mention's enough. LCS check (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Added reference for 2003 English-language book chapter by J. M. Bergoglio

I've added into the Other section under Writings one of the few previous English-language publications by Jorge M. Bergoglio, a book chapter in: Buzzi, Elisa. 2003. A generative thought; an introduction to the works of Luigi Giussani. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10132858. Giussani founded the Catholic movement Communion and Liberation. This book is of note since two other Cardinals considered for the papacy, Angelo Scola and Marc Ouellet, also contributed chapters. A more experienced editor can probably properly finish fine-tuning this addition to the references.Ajschorschiii (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Bias

So content is to be censored based on the fact that the sources are Jewish?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please specify. Bias and censorship are based on questionable opinions, especially negative ones about living persons. If Jewish sources attack him in ways that are not substantiated elsewhere, they would be considered biased. Jewish sources would be valuable for the section on relations with other religions. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 10:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If you talk about Verbitsky, no, he's not rejected because of being Jewish. We are treating him the same way we would treat any former terrorist who had killed 24 police and injured 60 others in a far-left terrorist attack during the cold war, and now hypocritically talks about human rights. His religion is of no concern. Cambalachero (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Not every person of far-left tendencies using violence is terrorist. P.S. even though I identify with highly leftist and libertarian tendencies, the biggest animal I intentionally harmed was a dragonfly, trying to attack me. While Verbitsky perhaps indeed was a terrorist, Dilma Rousseff, for example, was certainly not. Terrorists, if we are supposed to use loaded words here, were those helping those regimes, torturing people, and they are those that should be shamed until they stop being so nostalgic (a recent attack by people formerly involved with the dictatorship happened in Brazil), as in other people's viewpoint, that is as valid as yours.

Oppression is still there to make their point, in Latin America you still get beaten up for manifesting for your rights, this happens a lot with education professionals' manifestations in Rio de Janeiro. The government can even support much more indecent manifestations i.e. midday full grown adults' public promiscuity, with citizens' tax money, if it promotes sheeple behavior as it does not relate to actual issues. Some people make dumb things as rebels, but rebels most certainly are always necessary. And sincerely, I think that what people did 40 years ago don't count to whom they are now if they don't promote such views anymore. Further, it was very tiresome to be an atheist and people using this similar approach to the former Pope Benedict XVI, when he was conscripted. This is prejudice at its best. ;) Lguipontes (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No one is stating that "every person of far-left tendencies using violence is [a] terrorist". Your statement is fallacious (specifically a straw man) as it misrepresents a position. --190.19.88.16 (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition to what others have said, I should also mention that Verbitsky's allegations are in the article (they can be found in the subsection Relations with the Argentine government). The reason why he is not explicitly mentioned is because he was not the original source of said accusations; he merely relaunched them. --190.19.88.16 (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

See comments above. The supposed fact that certain people are "Jewish" is repeatedly stated as a reason to disregard allegations against the Pope.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't know what you're reading, but not a single person has stated that the reason for exclusion as a source is that a person is Jewish.Farsight001 (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Jack, I think you misread those comments. No one has said that the reason why certain allegations should be ignored is because they were made by Jewish people. --190.19.67.176 (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Really??? What about this?

Jewish communist terrorist leader, a reliable source? If this sentence is to stay, I'd like to see after Verbitsky's name "Jewish communist terrorist", or any one of those three words to give some balance to what we're dealing with

Myriam Bregman ... appears to be Jewish if the surname Bregman and the spelling of Maria as "Myriam" is any indication to go by. If there are some criticisms of the Pope, then by all means find some reliable/non-partisan people

Jews are therefore "unreliable"???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I see. But that's a single example, in a highly populated talk page. Do you have more, or is that all? If you have a problem with the comments of a single user, then report him and get on with it. Cambalachero (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Jack, don't be intentionally dense. Jews unreliable? No. Communists and terrorists are though. But you knew this already.Farsight001 (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The wish has been granted: Verbitsky is back in the article. The government sent a secret report to the conclave, based on Verbitsky's rants, to try to prevent the election of Francis. That's more grave than mere rants in a newspaper, that's actual politics. Still, the entry points who is this man, to make it very clear that, endorsed by government or not, his claims have no credibility (and indeed they had not) Cambalachero (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the way the whole issue is made out to be the rants of one disreputable man (and perhaps some equally disreputable associates) is highly biased. Bergoglio was head of the Jesuits under the military junta which was responsible for thousands of murders, disappearances, and incidents of torture. This was a very difficult situation. As he is now a major world figure it is valid to ask how he handled such a difficult situation. I don't see how he has fully answered that.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the National Catholic Reporter gets it right: he probably could have done more, but he was not a collaborator.

In the face of tyranny, there are those who take a prophetic stance and die martyrs. There are those who collaborate with the regime. And there are others who do what they can while keeping their heads low. When admirers tried to claim that John Paul worked in the underground against Nazism, he set them straight and said he was no hero.

Those who have not lived under a dictatorship should not be quick to judge those who have, whether the dictatorship was in ancient Rome, Latin America, Africa, Nazi Germany, Communist Eastern Europe, or today's China. We should revere martyrs, but not demand every Christian be one.

With all the scandals that the RC church has had recently, and given that the cardinals who got to vote wanted a reformer, I think that it's highly unlikely that they would have selected Francis if there was much substance to these allegations. (Note: I am not a Catholic, and would never say anything positive about John Paul II, for example.) – Herzen (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, John Paul II did stand up to the Communists in Poland. And how could the cardinals in the conclave know whether there was substance to this? What is obscured in this discussion is that the only person who knows the truth is the Pope himself. Only he knows what he knew and when he knew it, what secret meetings he had, and what covert and illegal activities he might have undertaken to help victims.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually some of these things might be known by others. Whther they are still alive or willing to state such is another question. However by definition a meeting has at least two people, so someone else must know of a secret meeting. Also, in theory those he may have helped escape Argentina knew he was doing so, although there may be cases where they did not. However the reality is that many of the people involved have died in the intervening 30 years, so we have to go with what we have. The key to any information is finding it in secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The whole truth is only known by the Pope. And he alone can know his motives. If someone has access to Rubin's book, The Jesuit, it would be worthwhile to include something of the Pope's own account of himself during this difficult period, rather than an exercise in accusing the accuser.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There's an extended piece in Counterpunch that has parts of transcripts of Bergoglio answering questions about what he knew about the disappearing of people. The main way in which he comes off badly (other than being repeatedly vague in his answers at times) is that he appears to have terminated the Jesuit status of two priests, apparently for their liberation theology activities, and this demonstration of lack of support for them made it easier for the junta to kidnap those two priests (who were released half a year later, possibly partly through Bergoglio's intervention).

One overarching problem here is that even if he did not collaborate, he and the junta had similar views on liberation theology. (But the same can be said for the Polish nationalist known as John Paul II.) – Herzen (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not a great source - a lot of personal commentary in there. Bergoglio's testimony is not just vague: it's evasive. The issue of the priests' status seems unresolved. Wikipedia currently says they weren't dismissed, but the transcripts indicate they were in some "transition". I don't know what this means. However, terminating their status doesn't make the Pope complicit in what happened next. The junta clearly had no problem with attacking priests, nuns etc. It would be good to know if the archives were, in fact, released. Other sources say he refused to release them. Wikipedia currently doesn't make it clear that it was Yorio who initiated the 2005 case. According to this article, he even suggested that Bergoglio was present at the interrogation. However, the two priests had only limited awareness of what was going on, and have never been in a strong position to accuse or absolve Bergoglio. Being against liberation theology doesn't make him a supporter of the junta. However, he only seems to have come out an opponent of the junta in recent times.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

More sources on the Popes past

Well here [27] is a Wall Street Journal article. The main thing I used it for was adding Olievera's statement Bergoglio helping people flee the country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That seems a very biased article, implying that anyone who criticises the Pope is trying to turn Argentina into a totalitarian state. The claims he helped people seem rather nebulous: who was he helping and why? He was not a martyr, but was he not courting martyrdom if he did indeed illegally help fugitives to escape?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal article from Mary O'Grady might be biased in some parts, but is she right about the popes past and is this importent enough to get in the article? I think so... --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Being an Argentine myself, I wholeheartedly agree with Cyrus. The article nails it on so many fronts. --`` DL ( t | c ) 14:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

While the WSJ editorial pages are purely political, its news pages are considered absolutely solid. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have restored the use of the article as a source for Oleivera stating Bergoglio helped people flee the military regime. This is an important and significant claim, especially since previously we had statements that made it seem like no one else has ever stated that Bergoglio helped people leave Argentina. It is clearly a useable source for this information.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You should not have restored the use of this opinion piece. As I said before, the WSJ editorial and opinion pages are notoriously biased and unreliable, and it just makes Wikipedia look bad and edited by uninformed people if pieces from there are used as sources. Bmclaughlin9 said the same thing, but you just ignored him. (He was under the misconception that the piece in question was from the news pages, which it was not, something that you knew.)

I have kept the claim but used the original source that the WSJ opinion writer is apparently referring to, with these edits. – Herzen (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Here [28] is a Gaurdian aritcle that also mentions "various witnesses have started coming forward to paint a formerly unseen picture of Bergoglio moving secretly behind the scenes to rescue a number of priests whose lives were in danger from the military death squads that began roaming Argentina."John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess you didn't follow the link. This is not an article, but something from the WSJ Opinion page. Hence, it is purely political, as you say. – Herzen (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Falklands/Beagle Island dispute

I am regretting I ever put the Falklands section back in there. Now we have the Beagle Island dispute section tacked on with a-no sources cited, b-an attempt to connect Auxiliary Bishop Bergoglio with it, even though it was resolved in 1984 and he was not made auxiliary bishop until 1992. If he was involved in some later negotiations they should be dated and sourced. I really wonder if we should not scrap the whole section.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I think the Falkland Islands dispute should be mentioned, because (1) Bergoglio has taken the clear position that Britain "usurped" them (so not mentioning the dispute would be like not mentioning that John Paul II was critical of Communism); (2) as soon as he became Pope, Kirchener approached him to mediate, apparently mending their relations in the process (the previous section of the article goes on about how their relations were strained); (3) Britain rebuffed the idea of Papal mediation, thus putting the British government on the record as hostile to the new Papacy in its earliest days.

But the subsection "Vatican mediation in Beagle Island dispute" should be deleted, for the reasons you gave. – Herzen (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The only thing he has ever done in relation with either dispute was to mention it during a natonal commemoration. Everything else is "X thing happend and, oh yes, Bergoglio / Francis was in that corner over there". No regular mentions of the topic, no particular importance for his former or actual office (he's not an ambassador to the United Kingdom, or a minister of foreign affairs), no known response to Kirchner's request for mediation (in fact, we only have her word about such a request, she may even have made it up as a childish prank). Cambalachero (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• I am going to remove both sections. Statements at commemorations of historic events do not merit inclusion. He was the leading Argentine Catholic at the time, so of course he is going to take the public Argentine position on the matter. His statements on the matter are the general view of most Argentines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Here is a quote from our article on the Falkland Islands on the matter "Contemporary Argentine policy also maintains its position that modern Falkland Islanders do not have a right to self-determination. Argentina claims that, in 1833, the UK expelled Argentine authorities and settlers from the Falklands with a threat of "greater force" and that the UK afterwards barred Argentines from resettling the islands.[60][73] Argentina reiterated its position towards the Falklanders in 2012, after a meeting of the UN Decolonization Committee, when its representatives refused to accept a letter from the Falkland Islands offering the opening of direct talks between both governments.[74] Moreover, in 2013, Argentina dismissed the Falkland Islands' sovereignty referendum. Argentina only recognises the UK government as a legitimate partner in negotiations;[75][76] and considers the islands, along with South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, as part of the Tierra del Fuego province.[77]" Then there are the signs along the border with Brazil that proclaim the islands to be Argentine. In the place in question for Bergoglio to have said anything less than he did would have been noteworthy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Then I think a sentence should be added to the "Relationship with Kirchners" sections noting that soon after he became Pope, he had lunch with Kirchener, and, to quote the AP article cited in the Falklands section, that "They also seemed to have patched up their relationship." If that is not done, the Kircheners section would give an exaggerated impression of the degree to which his relationship with Kirchener was/is strained. – Herzen (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless we are going to have discussion on every meeting he had with every head of state, there is no reason to include information on Pope Francis having met with the President of Argentina. He has not in any way publicly ackwledged her supposed request, it is not worth having in the article. The only thing that the Pope did was speak at the commemoration, which is duly noted. How Kirchner reacts to the Pope has no bearing on how she reacted to the Archbishop. To treat on relationship as the continuation of the other is just incorrect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• There might be something to be gained from the article, but read as a whole, it does not neccesarily support a "patched up their relationship" view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Why, do you know of any differences that they have, other than the obvious differences that would emerge between any liberal democratic government and the RCC church hierarchy, given the hardline positions that the latter still has on birth control, abortion, and homosexuality? – Herzen (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The article in question suggests that there are other issues that divide Francis and Kirchner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have moved the whole material on this matter we used to have here to the article Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute where people can consider how truly notable the stuff is from their own perspective.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I see your point of view, and I think we can wait to see if the issue crops up again to see if it is notable. However, I think your argument is flawed. It's not notable that he took the extremely nationalistic Argentine line on the Falklands because most Argentines did. By extension, it's not notable if he collaborated with the military junta because most Argentines did. Etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

He did not take an extreme nationalistic postion. He took the mainstream position of the people in Argentina. He was making statements that are the common speech in Argentina. To say less than he did is to think outside the standard narrative. Nothing he said is from the Argentine perspective "extreme".John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Remember that we are not here to discuss the claim itself, but if it is noteworthy for this biography. We do not report every idea that someone stands for, only those that had an actual significance for his career. Cambalachero (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is what the Spanish article has to say about this (translated by Google):

On March 18, Francis received the first foreign authority since he is head of the Vatican State. Specifically, he was visited by fellow Argentina, President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. The meeting lasted about 20 minutes and was followed by lunch. At the meeting, the president asked the pope to get their brokering dialogue with the UK regarding the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. They also exchanged gifts with each other.

Isn't it notable that Kirchner was the first head of state he met with after becoming Pope, especially given how the article goes on about how their relations are strained? I think not mentioning this meeting and Kirchner's request for mediation violates both WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:POV. If Barack Obama were the first head of state Francis met with, you can be sure that English Wikipedia would mention that. Also, English Wikipedia is edited mostly by Americans and Brits; the Brits having control over the Falklands is a legacy of English colonialism, so editors prefer to ignore that Francis takes this issue seriously, violating WP:POV. Does Wikipedia ignore that John Paul II believed the communist government of Poland to be illegitimate? No. How are the two cases different? The USSR was an enemy of the U.S.; Britain is America's closest ally. – Herzen (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it customary that the first head of state meeting a new Pope would be the head of state of the Pope's country? Cambalachero (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of that, or is it just pure speculation on your part? Somehow, I doubt that Edward Gierek was the first head of state that John Paul II met with. Also, from what I can tell by googling, the first time Benedict met Horst Köhler, who was the German president when Benedict became pope, was in 2009, which suggests that it is unusual for a pope to meet with the head of state of the country he's a citizen of at the Vatican at the time of his coronation.

Furthermore, note that although the U.S. vice president, the German chancellor, and the German president came to Rome for the inauguration, Francis didn't meet with any of them. So, not only was Kirchner the first head of state Francis met with: aparrently she is the only head of state he has met with to date. – Herzen (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Francis met with Brazil's president on March 20. Other than that, he just met with a bunch of ambassadors yesterday. – Herzen (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• The more I read, the more I think we should not expand the mention of the Falkland Islands unless Pope Francis makes a statement related to them while he is serving as Pope.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Miguel La Civita

Should we include information on Miguel La Civita in this article. This [29] Gaurdian aritcle states I was the exact prototype of what used to be called "third world" priests," says Miguel La Civita, who in 1976 was a close collaborator of Bishop Enrique Angelelli, murdered by the dictatorship for his work organising the poor into labour unions and manufacturing cooperatives in the northern province of La Rioja. "After Angelelli's murder, Bergoglio put us under his protection," La Civita says. He claims Bergoglio was secretly active "helping people who were persecuted by the military", hiding them at the school he headed in Buenos Aires.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth the Gaurdian seems biased against postions that Bergoglio has taken.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If by biased, you mean as a left/liberal paper The Guardian's editorial position wouldn't be supportive of Catholic positions on homosexuality, birth control, divorce etc, then yes. But it's a highly reputable newspaper and its news coverage would, I would have thought, be considered WP:RS. The piece was written by Uki Goñi who is a freelance Argentinian writer who seems to be reputable and well-known. DeCausa (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, mainly by bias I mean the in this article argument that the government recognizing more relationships someone equates to freedom. In reality it can be just as easily equated to more government regulation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be, but it's not worth getting into. DeCausa (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The government recognizing it means the government can regulate it, which is the antithesis of freedom from some perspectives.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction needs to summarise the body to a reasonable degree, without becoming huge. Points that needed to be included: attitudes regarding abortion, contraception, homosexuality; attitude (non-pompous); emphasis on the poor. Actions during the dictatorship. Rather than starting with a discussion, I've added a couple of suggested paragraphs. I'm sure they'll be much edited, so I'll give my original text here. While I'm not wedded to my text, these points need to be there.

Before being elected Pope Francis expressed views strongly against abortion, contraception, and homosexuality; in the early days of his papacy no actions regarding these issues have arisen. He continued to maintain his simple style on being elected, eschewing pomp and formality. He spoke about support for the poor, saying "How I would like a poor Church, and for the poor".

Immediately after he was elected Pope there was criticism suggesting that he had acted in support of illegal acts of the Argentine dictatorship in the 1970s; but no evidence was found, and victims said that they did not deem him culpable.

Pol098 (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Other points need to be added with minimal detail, e.g., relations with other religions. Pol098 (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree. Important modifications (such those you made in the incipit) needs to be discussed in advance. To me there is no consensus, so I removed them. --Chessstoria (3 s) ^{(All your base are belong to us)} 16:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(this comment edited a few minutes later) WP:LEAD: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

Also remember WP:BOLD, WP:BRD. Pol098 (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's take in mind that the pope is the "spiritual guide" of the catholics, a religious person, so its most important statements are those related to the faith, not to "temporal" issues. Rgearding the controversies, so far we have just one (and probably biased) source (verbitsky) stating he collaborated in some way with the junta. Finally he is being pope for ten days, as pope he did make very few statements, so we did not know his opinion (of course speaking as pope, especially ex cathedra is different to speaking as cardinal). Chessstoria (3 s) ^{(All your base are belong to us)} 20:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose both sections. His not having specifically said anything about the mentioned issues is not notable. The mention of what he did in relations with the regime is troubled by a-3 people emphatically denying he did anything and b-this was the government regime, the acts it did were not "illegal", they may have been "immoral", "unethical", "inhumane", "wrong", "sinful", and a lot of other things, but they were not per se illegal. Also, the criticism was not "immediately after he was elected", it connects to allegations made public by Verbitsky in 2005. In fact if anything follows his election, it is public statements in support of his actions and stating that he worked to protect people from the regime in some ways. The matter does not need to be included in the lead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Governments can do illegal acts, and the "disappearances" in Argentina were quite deliberately outside the law.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It should read...

The article says: "Murias Carlos of God". It should read: "Carlos de Dios Murias". (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_de_Dios_Murias) Thank you, --201.231.134.189 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Gone now. Irrelevant detail. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

As you wish. But the name in this sentence ("...noted the cause for beatification and named the murdered religious, Murias Carlos of God,...") is not accurate. 201.231.141.187 (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)