Talk:Pope Francis/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Guardian Accusation of bias

Guardian critique of this page

Just passing on the reference- which makes negative comments about our neutrality.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I also came across that article. It's by Paul Vallely, who authored the book Pope Francis: Untying the Knots. He states

“ A glance at his Wikipedia page reveals one side of the battleline. It has clearly been written primarily by religious conservatives. Its entries seek predominantly to accentuate the religious orthodoxy of the man who was born Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Throughout his papacy, it insists, Pope Francis has been a vocal opponent of abortion. ”

--Երևանցի ^talk 02:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, the lamestream media is upset that the liberal darling Francis is actually orthodox and this article lacks the usual liberal spin on the things he's said. I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you. Elizium23 (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that article has a flaw: it begins with the wrong questions. To decide if someone is a full liberal or a full conservative can easily become a false dilemma, as we can usually find points where the man does or say things that go against either doctrine. Francis, like everybody else, simply does what his own concience tells him it is the correct thing, and his set of moral codes does fit exactly into any specific tag. Only a fundamentalist's moral codes do. Francis is partially conservative in some things, and partially liberal in others; our task is to try to describe the whole picture.

And yes, this article details mainly "one side of the battleline", as they say it: the side of Francis. This is his biography, and we must describe what does he think about abortion. The correct article to describe the multiples views on abortion is abortion, not this one, and the article would go off-topic if we begin doing that. Cambalachero (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, what the Guardian piece is saying is something similar to what you are saying (and Elizium123 has oversimplified it). The Guardian piece is saying that Francis's position is full of ambiguities and cannot yet be categorised in terms of a liberal v. conservative polarity. His criticism of this article is that it has oversimplified that ambiguous and complex position too much in favour of presenting him on the conservative side of the polarity. He then makes the leap to attribute that to the article being edited by conservatives, which I think is unlikely. But as to the main point, the question is: has the article oversimplified Francis and doesn't properly reflect the balance of views in the sources (possible) or has the mainstream media and comentators over simplified Francis (more likely). As we all know, the article's purpose is to reflect the so-called "reliable sources" and not to present a novel analysis: "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead". DeCausa (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian does have one good point in the critique of the excuse given about Bergoglio's lung. None of the sources link this to his lack of Gregorian chant in the Mass. I have removed it. The Guardian's point about abortion is baseless. Francis speaks consistently against abortion and has never wavered. This is well-documented. One off-the-cuff remark about "obsession" with it does not make for a policy shift, no matter how public and widely disseminated (and misinterpreted) it was. I think we are done with this critique. It really holds no other valid suggestions for improving the article. Very little has ever been discussed on this talk page regarding bias or NPOV violations, so unless someone else has a substantive claim to make here, I think we are done. Elizium23 (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not up to you to say when we are "done". There is a difference between editors saying this article is not NPOV, and the Guardian (or at least a writer in the Guardian) saying that this article is not NPOV. An editor's post is not a WP:RS; the Guardian is. This requires further comment from other editors. DeCausa (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

So you are up for placing the assertion in the article, "This Wikipedia article was written by conservative editors." with a citation pointing to the Guardian, since it is obviously so reliable for statements about Wikipedia? No, actually you have it backwards. The Guardian article has no merit here. Wikipedia is run by editors, by consensus of those who edit the pages; Wikipedia is not run by liberal newspapers spouting trite criticisms about random articles the editors find to be problematic. If an editor had brought concerns about NPOV and/or tagged this article with legitimate criticisms left on this talk page, then there would be merit to the claims and an earnest effort to right the course could be undertaken. But no editor has brought this claim. The OP in this thread made no claim of support or denial of the article's accusations, he was merely reproducing the link here. Once again I say, unless some editor brings substantial criticisms to this talk page, we have nothing to act on. You have not, the Guardian has not, nobody has. So until that happens, we are done. I would also like to point out that Wikipedia has a policy against the off-wiki coordination of editing articles. The Guardian's criticism seems to be a thinly-veiled call for liberals to attack and edit the article to "correct" its "conservative" bias. If this is the case then we should be watching closely for single-purpose IPs and accounts coming specially to Wikipedia at the beck and call of the Guardian article, rather than of their own volition. Elizium23 (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That's just nonsense that isn't worth a reply. In any case, it's done when everyone thinks it's done, not you.And there's nothing you can do about that. So just calm down. DeCausa (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

At the end of the introduction is the line "In addition, various media outlets persist with notions that the Pontiff would officially change Catholic doctrine as part of the reform on the Roman Curia.[32]"

The phrase 'persist with notions' is essentially reporting a dissenting opinion as foolish instead of simply reporting both opinions. I think this line should indicate first the sources that cite the Pontiff as going to change the church, and then cite the article saying he won't. Instead it looks more like a strawman argument and less like a meaningful addition to the article (which already have this information in the preceeding lines). The article cites for that isn't clear on it's own sources so I am not sure how to repair that and wonder if perhaps that line isn't neccessary. Zkbt (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Although I didn't add both points of view, I made it implicit in the wording that I changed below Changed text to create NPOV. "various media outlets persist with notions" changed to "various media outlets indicate, perhaps without basis,'. Zkbt (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Made 2 changes more regarding NPOV. "Changed text again to maintain accurate depiction of source from 'reportedly' to 'supposedly' in sentence 'the Pope has changed the tone on Catholic doctrines and supposedly initiated ecclesiastical reform in the Vatican')"

For more NPOV removed 'seemingly' from 2 sentences 'portray Pope Francis either as a progressive papal reformer or with seemingly liberal, moderate values' and 'seemingly changed tone' added 'reportedly' to the second sentence to maintain connotation Zkbt (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Priest removed from public ministry

The sources say that Jerry Zawada was removed from public ministry. They do not say "defrocked" and they do not say "laicized". Please follow the reliable secondary sources when reporting what happened. Elizium23 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I will also add that the whole Zawada incident is not mentioned in the body of the article, which is a violation of the guidelines on WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarize the body. Elizium23 (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The references that have been added, while interesting, are about different priest, Bill Brennan, and themselves do not say either Zawada, or Brennan has been defrocked. Elizium23 (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

LimosaCorel (talk · contribs), you seem to be a little confused about what the issue is. You are attempting to apply a term, defrocking that is not used in the sources, which are all reporting that the priest(s) were "removed from public ministry". Furthermore, defrocking is not a term used by the Catholic Church, which you would know by now since you have read and edited that article today. Please remove the word "defrocked" from the article because it is this with which I have an issue. Elizium23 (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

ishtaku, cus ammak bin zuna harim. LimosaCorel (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

As I have been checking, it seems that he has already been stripped of duties in 2012, still during the reign of Benedict XVI; the only thing thing that has happened now is that the review confirmed the original sentence and added some further things, such as the life of prayer and penance. Seems very little to add to the article, and certainly too much to be in the lead. Cambalachero (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on April 9th 2014

In the section 4.2 Non-believers, first paragraph:

"[W]e also sense our closeness to all those men and women who, although not identifying themselves as followers of any religious tradition, are nonetheless searching for truth, goodness and beauty, the truth, goodness and beauty of God. They are our valued allies in the commitment to defending human dignity, in building a peaceful coexistence between peoples and in safeguarding and caring for creation."

The expression "truth, goodness and beauty" is repeated. The reference number [171] should probably be at the end of the sentence and not the beginning of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.64.38.113 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done I moved the references to the end of the quotation. However, quotations must be written exactly as they were formulated, even if they include "mistakes" such as redundancies. --Cambalachero (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Although it doesn't read anything like a mistake to my eyes. Elizium23 (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

When I said "mistakes", within quotations marks, I meant "small flaws of a text that is not in publishing-style". In article text a redundancy like that should be fixed, but not if it's part of a quotation Cambalachero (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Long introduction, bias towards orthodox acts of Pope Francis

The introduction to the article focuses too much on his orthodox beliefs. While these may be true, this belongs in another section, as opposed to the introduction, as there are at least three paragraphs in the introduction about this subject alone. These either need to be shortened to a few sentences or moved to another section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100B:B11A:43A7:6DB8:B2A:A146:7239 (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC) — 2600:100B:B11A:43A7:6DB8:B2A:A146:7239 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2600:100B:B11A:43A7:6DB8:B2A:A146:7239 (UTC).

There's a problem with the last two paragraphs of the lead (which have been added in recent weeks) but I think the rest of the lead is fine. The penultimate paragraph contains too much detail for the lead and should be combined with the paragraph preceding it. The final paragraph is very strange. I don't see how it passes WP:LEAD since it is not a summary of the body of the article. Some of the sources are dubious. But overall it comes across as very much an NPOV diatribe against "Western media". I think it should be removed - or at the very least it should be transferred to the main body of the article and re-written. then it would warrant a line or two in the lead. DeCausa (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the NPOV of that last paragraph a bit, but I think you're right. It should be in it's own portion of the article. Maybe one marked 'Media Portrayal'? Zkbt (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I decided to move the notes on media portrayel to 'public image' and removed the word 'officially' from the phrase 'officially change' as it seemed an unneccessary word for the statement. Zkbt (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That works much better. thanks. DeCausa (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Good people

The capitalism section ends with this paragraph: "Pope Francis' views were called Marxist by Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives as a result of his critique of capitalism with absolute market autonomy. Pope Francis responded that he considers the Marxist ideology to be wrong, and that his opinions are based on the social doctrine of the church. He said that he has met many Marxists 'who are good people.'" The two first sentences are fine: an attributed political view of Francis' ideas, and his political clarification about it. But do we need the third one? It sounds like something completely trivial, which may be said about just any political idea in the world. Cambalachero (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that's actually what he said I see no reason to omit it; he's not talking about "just any political idea in the world." He's demonstrating to the likes of Rush Limbaugh that being called a Marxist is not necessarily an insult because there are good Marxists in the world. That makes it relevant. I propose the actual quote be added to put this issue to rest for good:

“ Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended ... there is nothing in the exhortation that cannot be found in the social doctrine of the church ”

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2014

Pope Francis leaving after La Messa del Crisma

Emiliovillegas24 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Where would you add this photo? Cambalachero (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Intro. paragraph 6

Currently reads:

maintained that divorced and re-married Catholics may not receive Holy Communion,[19][20]

I contest that the following reports from a cross section of the UK & US media invalidates the above statement:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/05/pope-francis-catholic-church-divorce-change http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/pope-francis-divorced-remarried-communion_n_5204888.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2612242/Pictured-The-divorced-woman-Pope-Francis-told-OK-communion-going-against-centuries-Catholic-teaching.html

The critical word is obviously 'maintained' as this implies a continuation of an established Church doctrine. A better fragment might read:

has called for discussion within the vatican on whether divorced and re-married Catholics may indeed receive Holy Communion.

i am sure there are those with greater skill than I in the phrasing.

much love to the Wikipedia community and I hope that this is of some small value to the cause of sharing information and enlightenment.

Fri 4.02 am UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.245.134 (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems that there is a huge misunderstanding about that call to Jaqueline Lisbona. There was no change in the doctrine of the Church. Jaqueline is married to a divorced man, but she's not divorced herself. It is for that reason that the Pope allows her to receive the Communion, because she has not commited any action that deserves that punishment, and it would be over-zealous to extend the guilts of her husband to her (thus the "more papist than the pope" bit). All this got twisted in the media, some newspapers confused the "married with a divorced husband" with "divorced" and magnified the significance of the call (which was not aimed to all people in the world that met a certain condition but to the specific case of the woman in the phone). Cambalachero (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

On Heaven and Earth

Does anyone have the book "On Heaven and Earth", translated to English? This article's section "Interfaith dialogue" has a quotation from that book, but the reference was written when Bergoglio was first appointed Pope, and the translation was made by the author of that reference from the still untranslated book in Spanish. It may be better if someone could confirm that the book translated that part exactly the same way (or change it to the translated book's version if not), and make a reference to the book itself. Cambalachero (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

teachings

This article is very big, more than it should be. One of the sections that may be contributing to the size is the "Teachings" one, which is growing into a "What does Francis thinks of..." section. I propose to move most of it to Theology of Pope Francis, and leave here only the topics that the Church may usually be concerned about: Morality, Evangelization, Poverty, Abortion, Women and clericalism, Divorce and Homosexuality. The content of the other sections may be condensed in some of those as needed (for example, some points of "Capitalism" and his clarification that he's not marxist may fit in "Poverty"). Cambalachero (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Add PopeVisit.jo ?

Add www.popevisit.jo for Jordan, Palestine, and Israel here? Includes wide range, such as 50th Anniversary with Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, Muslim, Jewish, various locations, etc... 99.119.130.240 (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

See Portal:Current events/2014 May 24. 108.73.114.51 (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Have added a line with ref in "Interfaith dialogue" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The Pope is travelling with a rabbi and an imam, Omar Abboud, from his native Buenos Aires

• Pope, in Mideast, Stresses Urgency of Solving Crises 25th
• Seeking Balance on Mideast Visit, Pope Pleases Few 22nd
• Pope To Travel To Holy Land With Rabbi And Muslim Leader 20th

There is whole article in Spanish: es:Viaje del papa Francisco a Tierra Santa

99.119.128.167 (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The Rabbi is Abraham Skorka. 99.112.213.145 (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Article has been scrubbed of Actions Vs. Conservative American Cardinal Burke

Previously, this article mentioned the historical fact that Cardinal Francis removed Conservative American Cardinal Raymond Burke from the Congregation of Bishops, the committee that chooses new Catholic Bishops. The Wikipedia article on Raymond Burke also omits this fact. This strongly suggests politically motivated suppression of unfavorable information, and should be corrected by some one with access to this page. See the NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/world/europe/pope-replaces-conservative-us-cardinal-on-influential-vatican-committee.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.88.244 (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If this article covered every Curia appointment the Pope made, it would be huge and unreadable. We cover important facts about his biography, not trivia like this. If you have a larger point to make, then it will have significant coverage in several reliable secondary sources and we will be able to write about it here. And Burke's removal is covered in his biography. Elizium23 (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The use of the word "clericized"

In (what is presently) the fifth paragraph of the Wikipedia article on Pope Francis, the word "clericized" is used ("women be valued, not clericized.") Being an English-user I'm able to figure out the meaning using the surrounding the text. However, for one whose primary language is not English, deciphering the word might be problematic.

Clericized isn't recognized as an English word. You also cannot find it in Wiktionary.

The article referencing it is in German ("Meisner bestreitet Reformbedarf". Deutschlandfunk. December 24, 2013. Retrieved January 5, 2014), and I scanned the (German) article and did not see the use of the word "clericized" in its body. According to Wiktionary, the word "cleric" has Latin and Greek roots, not Germanic, so I feel this word is being used as an English word -- and there is no such recognized English word.

Should the word be recognized, and added to Wiktionary? Should another word be used? Is the meaning so patent as to render the point moot?

P13w26paul (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)P13w26paul

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have modified the article. First of all, the German source does not appear to directly support that quote at all, so I have swapped it out for the actual interview with La Stampa where Francis did make the statement. Secondly, while there is no word such as "clericized" the word is actually "clericalized" and so I have made that substitution. Elizium23 (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Citation issue

I have added a "not in citation given" template in the end of the "Nonbelievers" subsection of "Relations with religious communities and others", as that is the closest Wiki has to what I am aiming for-specifically, the interpretation of a Scriptural verse, as this statement, "According to Christianity, including Roman Catholicism, no human being can avoid doing wrong," is reffed by Rom. 3:23, "since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," and that is contested in interpretation even within Catholicism.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Mafia

He's after excommunicating the Mafia. Can somebody add this? 86.40.20.163 (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit trivial. We are not supposed to report everything he says or does. Cambalachero (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

We certainly shouldn't report everything he says or does and I wasn't saying we should but I would have thought that that was a big thing. An entire organisation excommunicated (I'm surprised they weren't excomunicated far sooner but anyway). 86.40.139.31 (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If you read the sources, you will see that he didn't formally/canonically excommunicate them, he was merely using hyperbole to illustrate a point about their spiritual situation. So I would say, no, not really interesting enough to document here per WP:NOTNEWS, if the story grows in the coming weeks, then maybe a sentence of mention. Elizium23 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Foot Washing Issue

Old Text Under Heading "Early Issues," 3rd paragraph:

On the first Holy Thursday following his election, Francis washed and kissed the feet of 12 juvenile offenders, ages 14–21, at Rome's Casal del Marmo detention facility, telling them the ritual of foot washing is a sign that he is at their service.[185] He told them to "Help one another. This is what Jesus teaches us".[185] According to church experts, this was the first time that a pope has included women in this ritual (there were 2 women and 10 men).[185] Canon lawyer Edward Peters noted that this was a break with canon law, although not with any "divine directive".[185] The twelve included two Muslims,[186] including one of the two women.[187] Before leaving, the pope told the detainees, "Do not let yourselves be robbed of hope".[186]

Suggested Insertion after "Canon lawyer Edward Peters noted that this was a break with canon law, although not with any "divine directive".[185]":

It is arguable, under canon law provisions on customs, that the Pope's action constituted approval for including women in the ritual.[186]

Source to be cited as Footnote 186: Sobrino, Oswald. "Pope & Foot Washing of Females". Logos Blog. Retrieved 25 April 2013. ˜˜˜˜

Which is exactly the concern here? Cambalachero (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Pope Francis opposes Liberation Theology

I think that part needs some improvement. From all accounts, Pope Francis really fought Liberation Theology. Leonardo Boff can pretend otherwise, because of his vision of a political church, but this is whats true: "As the article points out, Pope Francis was all too familiar with liberation theology when he was the Jesuit provincial in Argentina, and opposed it “even when this stand left him isolated among the Jesuits.” Significantly, he dismissed it in a preface he wrote for a book on the future of Latin America by his friend, the Uruguayan Guzman Carriquiry Lecour, when he wrote, “After the collapse of “real socialism” (that is, Marxism), these currents of thought (liberation theology) were plunged into confusion. Incapable of either radical reformulation or new creativity, they survived by inertia, even if there are still some today who, anachronistically, would like to propose it again.”" [1].Mistico (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

There are many sources that can be used for Pope Francis opposition to Liberation Theology. This one for example: "Jesuit Archbishop recounts "strong stand" of Pope Francis against Liberation Theology and Marxism", published on LifeSiteNews, on 18 March 2013: [2]Mistico (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Info-box image

It seems we now have two good quality images of Pope Francis from his trip to Korea available to us. The one currently being used is Francis sticking his thumbs up to the crowd. Its a nice picture but I feel the second picture of him smiling and waving to the crowd would be more suitable for the info-box. Tomh903 (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

FYI, don't 'not change it' simply out of a desire to not 'step on my toes'. I was of the opinion that the photo I added was 'better' in terms of portraying him as someone who is intentionally less 'distant' and more 'accessible' than his predecessors, but I would not specifically object to it being changed to a more formal photo. I do think, though, that a crop of the 'waving to the crowd' photo to a headshot would be better for the infobox, though his thumb is little close to his face. There are some other photos from the flickr feed that these came from you might want to look at, such as [3], that would work well cropped to a headshot. Revent^talk 01:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The second photo is acceptable. The first one is not. Elizium23 (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The second is better. I hope Russavia will succeed to collect a not watermarked version of it soon. Jee 04:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC) See third. Jee 16:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I motion for the second as well. The first picture is obviously an example of being 'caught' while moving or doing something, which doesn't accurately depict the appearance of His Holiness. I would say the second picture should replace the first. Spartan7W § 15:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hint at possible future abdication or near death

Hi I don't know about other countries but here, in Poland, some media have picked up the Pope's remark made to the journalists during a flight a short while ago in which the Pope hinted that he would in a few years be no longer alive or that he may resign. I haven't investigated the matter any further so I can't give any specifics. Has any of you heard something more about that?79.186.31.29 (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Piotrek

No, and this isn't the place to discuss such speculative stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Number

Why isn't there any information in the article about the pope's lack of regnal number?Cold as Gray (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would there be? If there's no regnal number, its because you're the first and only. Its a matter of common sense.Farsight001 (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Not always: Juan Carlos I of Spain. I'm pretty sure - although I couldn't find it when I looked just now - that there were news reports shortly after his election where the Vatican announced he wouldn't use the regnal number. I remember the reports also saying this was in contrast with John Paul I who did use the number when he was alive I.e. it's a decision for the pope. They're somewhere in the talk page archive. DeCausa (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The best-known examples of NOT using "I" (i.e., "the first") are from the British monarchy. John, Anne, and Victoria have no numbers because no other British monarchs have used those names. The first Elizabeth was also in that situation until retroactively being given the "I" when another Elizabeth came to the throne in 1952.

Ukrainian

This article claims that Pope Francis understands Ukrainian. According to the two sources given: there is no mention of this in the BBC article, and while the Euronews article (cached version) claims that Francis "speaks the language", the only evidence seems to be that he once said "Glory to our Lord Jesus Christ" in Ukrainian. Is this sufficient to say that he understands Ukrainian? Jinjibïar (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2014

OK on the following except for the order of the remarks:

>Bergoglio was named Auxiliary Bishop of Buenos Aires in 1992 and ordained on 27 June 1992 as Titular Bishop of Auca,[75] with Cardinal Antonio Quarracino, >Archbishop of Buenos Aires, serving as principal consecrator.[56] On 3 June 1997, Bergoglio was appointed Coadjutor Archbishop of Buenos Aires with right of >automatic succession.[57] He chose as his episcopal motto Miserando atque eligendo.[76] It is drawn from Saint Bede's homily on Matthew 9:9–13: "because he >saw him through the eyes of mercy and chose him".[77]

Assuming he chose his episcopal motto when he initially became a bishop (the appointment as auxiliary bishop of Buenos Aires), could you take the "On June 3, 1997, ..." sentence and put it at start of next paragraph? The next paragraph currently starts with Bergoglio succeeding to the see of Buenos Aires.

128.63.16.20 (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam ^Sing! 14:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Catholics who re-marry following divorce

I still maintain that the proper terminology here should be "Divorced Catholics who have attempted remarriage", because according to the Catholic Church, it is impossible to "remarry" when there is a prior bond. Unfortunately, many so-called WP:RS use the problematic phrasing "Catholics who re-marry following divorce" or worse, "Divorced and remarried Catholics". So until we get some more-reliable sources, those that don't misreport matters of internal Church Law, I suppose we will have to labor under the inaccurate wordings. Elizium23 (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Extraordinary Criticism of the Curia

• http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/22/pope-francis-scathing-critique-vatican-officials-curia-speech
• http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/pope-francis-s-broadside-leaves-roman-curia-shocked-and-awed-1.2047943
• http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2014/10/03/is-pope-francis-purging-the-curia-of-conservatives/
• http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30577368
• http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-pope-francis-vatican-critique-20141222-story.html
• http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303730804579435332182153914
• http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/world/europe/pope-francis-in-christmas-speech-has-stern-rebuke-for-vatican-bureaucracy.html?_r=0
• http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/12/pope-makes-scathing-attack-vatican-ills-20141222224747628326.html

--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2015

Emilio F. Mignone, Argentina's most well known human rights leader at the time of his death accused Pope francis's of giving the military dictatorship the green light to kidnap to Jesuit priests in his book Witness to the Truth: The complicity of Church and Dictatorship in Argentina. This was the first book published investigating Jorge Bergoglio's complicity in crimes against humanity committed by the last military dictatorship. Argentinaeditor2 (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I don't have access to that book. Can you provide a scan or a link to prove the text of the book supports your proposed addition? Cannolis (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Freedom of expression

Should these quotes be added to the article? ClaeszXIV (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Q:"Ma se il dottor Gasbarri che è un mio grande amico dice una parolaccia contro la mia mamma gli aspetta un pugno è normale."
• Translation:However if the doctor, Gasbarri who is a my great friend, says one f-word against Her, my Mother; a punch awaits him ofcourse.
• Q:"Ho preso questo esempio del limite per dire che nella libertà di espressione ci sono limiti come quello della mia mamma."
• Translation:I have taken this example of the limit, to say that in freedom of expression, we ourselves are limited about my Mother.

In which section or context? Neither of those phrases seem related to the usual limits to the freedom of speech Cambalachero (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This quotes are taken out of context. 1. In the first one about Punching doctor Gasbarri Pope was talking about how people often react, now how they should. 2. It was a joke, not a serous point. 3. "Mother" wasn't a refrence to Virgin Marry but to mother in general. Feeling for God = Feelings for mother. See the entire actual interview, don't read random quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.169.120 (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a good practice removing references.

No matter if they are used or not, references are to back up text and is a way of finding new material as well. References should only be removed if are unreliable. I don't want to edit war in this one, but I highly disagre on removing valid references. This has now been removed twice with no valid reason, so I put it here. <ref>The precise number of popes has been a matter for scholarly debate for centuries. John A. Hardon's ''Modern Catholic Dictionary'' (1980) lists [[Pope John Paul II|John Paul II]] (1978–2005) as the 264th pope, making Francis the 266th.</ref> Hafspajen (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• One should never remove any references that are valid, any time. And it is allowed to writes several comments in different lines. Hafspajen (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Tikkun

I don't think that this article can be considered a relieable reference. The article Tikkun (magazine) mentions that it has been criticized for its anti-semitic comments, and the article itself commits many inacuracies and falacies. For example, it takes as true the urban myth of the photos of Bergoglio and Videla. It criticizes the links of Bergoglio with some neo-fascist movement, links that only exist in their minds. It criticizes that Bergoglio had handed Jalics and Yorio to the death squads, a claim that has long been refuted. It criticizes that Bergoglio had not risked his life by "standing up" against the military junta and suggests that means he supported them; an opinion, yes, but a weird and unreasonable opinion (and an opinion that lacks information: unlike Oscar Romero, Bergoglio was no archbishop back then, and had no noteworthy political or religious autorithy, so his resistance would have been futile and unnoticed). I think we should remove it. Cambalachero (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I got a bit off topic. The main problem is the portion quoted here: it says that Bergoglio "fought liberation theology tooth and nail as head of the bishops' conference and he was an effective instigator of papal attitudes in this regard (the CIA under Reagan linked up with Pope John Paul II to kill liberation theology...)". A nice conspiracy theory. Basically, it says that the liberation theology ceased to exist because Reagan and John Paul II conspired for that; the collapse of communism had nothing to do with it, and it is not a discredited theology at all. Oh, and to describe Bergoglio as an "instigator of papal attitudes" undermines the significance of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and subtly makes it seem as if he was the one trying to push a rejected agenda, when it was actually quite the contrary. Cambalachero (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yrigoyen

A part of the section on personal life says "He attended the technical secondary school Escuela Nacional de Educación Técnica N° 27 Hipólito Yrigoyen[48] and graduated with a chemical technician's diploma", with a link to Hipólito Yrigoyen. That's not the purpose of links. Hipólito Yrigoyen was a president of Argentina, but that sentence is not talking about him. It talks about a school named after him. The correct link would be "Hipólito Yrigoyen (school)", but the school is not noteworthy to have a specific article. So, "Hipólito Yrigoyen" should remain unlinked in that sentence. Cambalachero (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This is too idiotically petty, and I really have better things to do. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I have added the link in an explanatory phrase coming after the name of the school. I hope this satisfies everyone. Elizium23 (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I know that this may be petty, but people in GAN and FAC always check all those details, big and petty alike. From context, it is clear that "Hipólito Yrigoyen" is the name of the school, and the origin of the name goes off-topic without need. Cambalachero (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Insufficient Citation in Environment & Climate Change section

A sentence in the

This project is opposed by Vatican conservatives and the US evangelical movement, who think that the Pope has no scientific expertise to get involved, and that the history of the relationship between religion and science would advise against it.

The article cited at #278 does not lend support for the statement that either Vatican conservatives or US evangelicals have brought up "the history of the relationship between religion and science." While an evangelical spokesperson does say that "The Catholic church ... has been misled on the science," that refers only to being misled at the present time about climate change. It does not say "the church has been misled on the science again" nor "the church has been historically misled on science."

Furthermore, it would make no sense for opponents of climate change to cite the presumably "troubled" history of Christianity and science as one of their reasons. This charge is usually made by secular critics of religion who believe that religion's meddling in science is bad for science. In other words, people who value science don't want the Church discouraging scientific process. The argument by climate change deniers is that the science is bad and would mislead the Catholic church.

So either a source for this specific point needs to be included in the citation, or the sentence should be revised to read:

This project is opposed by Vatican conservatives and the US evangelical movement, who think that the Pope has no scientific expertise to get involved and that he is being misled by scientists.

If a reference to the relationship between religion and science is important, it should be included elsewhere in the article. Ileanadu (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Titles

The commonly used abbreviation PP actually stands for "Pastor pastorum" (shepherd of shepherds) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.171.120 (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Timeline

Timeline of Pope Francis's papacy? --Lapilluminati (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a big pain to keep updated. Obama is Obama, surely there are lots of editors to do that, but I'm not sure Francis would have that many editors as well (specially now, that the "new pope" effect is a bit down). And another pain would be to create it from scratch; unless there is some source around that has already made a similar timeline. Cambalachero (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It could start as just a *2015* timeline, and be expanded gradually.

Hap sec elec anniv, PP. Fran!!! --Lapilluminati (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The pope hints at possible future resignation

Pope Francis lauds his predecessor's decision of resignation as courageous and says that if needed he will do the same if he feels he is no longer equal to the job. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-31875507 Noteworthy? 79.186.26.75 (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)PIotrek

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2015

50.29.149.222 (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Pope Francis is a "public figure" NOT a "politician"! Specifically he is the Head of the Roman Catholic Church. Please edit his "category" on Facebook and Wikipedia ASAP. Thank you.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Where is he described as a politician? Also, Wikipedia has nothing to do with Facebook. Cannolis (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Kirchners

There is a paragraph in the "Kirchners" section that mentions Bergoglio opposing abortion, and the answers of "the government". I tried to make it more precise, and find who said that. The article cited is equaly vague, and also cites just the "Kirchner administration", but at least they provide a quote, and say that they accused him of "ideological malfeasance". So, I searched for those words. I found [www.lanacion.com.ar/949614-acusan-de-malversacion-ideologica-a-bergoglio here] that it was Guillermo Guerin, a politician of the Buenos Aires city, ruled by an opposing party. So, as it is not the relation of Bergoglio with the Kirchners, and his opinion about abortion is already detailed elsewhere, I will delete the paragraph. Cambalachero (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"The Pope agrees with me"

That seems to be the implicit message in much of the disconnected political trivia in the lead paragraphs of this article. The information about Francis' positions on church authority, homosexuality, abortion, sexual abuse, etc., etc. belong under the Teachings section, and in fact the information is already there.

Remember, the lead should summarize the whole article, not serve as cover for launching debating points at readers. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 18:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Masters degree?

Does Pope Francis has a Masters degree? The wiki bio doesn't seem to say that. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• [4]When Jorge Mario Bergoglio was a young man, he graduated from technical school as a Chemical Technician. He then earned his Masters Degree in chemistry from the University of Buenos Aires.
• [5] He studied and received a master's degree in chemistry at the University of Buenos Aires, but later decided to become a Jesuit priest and studied at the Jesuit seminary of Villa Devoto.

According to snopes, It appears that many sources have repeated this incorrect statement. http://snopes.com/politics/religion/popechemistry.asp -Verdatum (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits went back and forth on that issue, eventually settling on the view that Bergoglio had a a chemical technician's diploma from the technical secondary school Escuela Técnica Industrial N° 27. As the Jesuit priest/journalist Thomas Reese points out, this is roughly equivalent to "a certificate from a community college in the U.S."

• Reese, Thomas (June 3, 2015), Does Pope Francis have a MA in chemistry?, National Catholic Reporter, retrieved June 3, 2015.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

First biography

Sergio Rubin wrote the biography "El jesuita" (Spanish: The jesuit), and it was the only biography of Bergoglio written before he became pope. For obvious reasons, I'm sure that it wasn't published outside of Argentina at the time (as a mere archbishop, hardly anyone abroad even knew about him). But, what about later? Are there editions in English of that book? Should the article about the book be renamed? Cambalachero (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The book has been translated as Francesca Ambrogetti, Sergio Rubin. Pope Francis: Conversations with Jorge Bergoglio: His Life in His Own Words. Penguin, 2013. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The father of Pope Francis born in ALESSANDRIA

Acording to this trustful source (http://www.cemla.com/busqueda.php#)

BERGOGLIO, MARIO 21 S CONTADOR CATOLICA ITALIANA GIULIO CESARE GENOVA 01/02/1929 - BUENOS AIRES Born in ALESSANDRIA Pope Francis is listed as the "third consecutive non-Italian pope to hold the office". Technically Pope Francis is Italian. He is the son of Italian immigrants and therefore racially and ethnically Italian. In truth he is the first Italian-American pope. Thank you. Tom Serino, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.231.181 (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Done I have removed the line. He is not Italian-American because that refers to Italians in the USA. Elizium23 (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead

I have written a new lead at User:Cambalachero/Francis, trying to make a summary of details from most sections, and removing some stuff that was not detailed elsewhere, or unneeded puffery. Do you think it is a good replacement, or do you think we should fix something from it? Cambalachero (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"served Mass for Czmil"

"Bergoglio often rose hours before his classmates to serve Mass for Czmil", a Ukrainian priest. The linked source says "Today’s Pope ... awoke many hours before his classmates to concelebrate at our Divine Liturgy with Fr. Stepan." I realize it was rewritten so as not to be a simple quotation, and to correct "concelebrate" (as he was a schoolboy and not yet a priest) but the change from "Divine Liturgy" to "Mass" is questionable. Does this mean that the person who changed the source knows that Fr Czmil did not celebrate the Ukrainian Divine Liturgy and did indeed celebrate the Roman Mass? In which case the Patriarch is wrong in his statement. If Fr Czmil did in fact celebrate the Divine Liturgy then the word "Mass" should be changed. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC) not notable at all. I've never heard of Fr. Czmil and this piece of information, though maybe interesting to a few, is absolutely irrelevant and not notable at all to Pope Francis. Remove it. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2015

There is a serious error in the first paragraph of this article. The final statement in the first paragraph states that Pope Francis holds his office "ex officio," as the Bishop of Rome, and that the title of pope is simply ancient, and implies it is outdated. There is no reference for what is clearly a brash and anti-Catholic claim here. Please remove the term "ex-officio," and "ancient," as these implications are tantamount to graffiti. 70.196.76.34 (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Ancient just means old, and it is indisputable that this title is old. I am not entire sure what your complaint is regarding "ex-officio" is, from what I can tell, the title "pope" comes with being the Bishop of Rome, as do the other titles listed here. I get no connotations of "outdated" from ancient. I have no idea why you consider these terms anti-catholic. Cannolis (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything anti-Catholic about the term ex officio, but I do find it odd here. I say "The President of France is ex officio a Co-Prince of Andorra" to myself and that sounds right, but this sounds slightly odd. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps "historical" or "traditional" might be better than "ancient"? I don't see ancient as any sort of anti-catholic attack, but it does come off a bit awkward when what seems to be meant is that the title derives from a long line of tradition.12.11.127.253 (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Section "Honours and Awards"

"As pope, Francis was Grand Master of the following orders:" - - surely this should be in the present tense.92.90.26.121 (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Foreign language skills

I know it is not well perceived - or to some simply not imaginable (is Kwawikagami editing here, too?) - over here when somebody speaks various (foreign) languages fluently and English isn't one of them. Still, for veritae sake: He does not only "understand some" German, but he wrote his PhD thesis in it, in Germany. So please, even if it gives you a hard time, put "understands some" together with English in the last place. At the end of the day when you've overcame your fear, you'll feel fine. 84.184.114.230 (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I have rearranged the languages list as it clearly misrepresented the sources cited. Elizium23 (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Obrigado, Elizium 2.243.50.198 (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Capitalism and Inequality

His book deserves mention in this article, if not its own article.SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Question -- I am not sure what "unbridled capitalism" means in the context of this piece (in my view that term would not apply to any politico-economic system that has existed in any developed economy within at least the last seventy-five years); from what I read in the media, which is generally quite friendly to socialism where I live, Francis' views are considerably left of that; I would be grateful for advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:2924:A2F0:17E:B946:C1ED:8734 (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

One more question; what, exactly, is "social debt"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.44.193.104 (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Title of the Pope

One small correction should be made at the outset of the article. He is the Sovereign of the Vatican City STATE, not "Vatican City." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.246.107 (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Meeting with Kim Davis

Would the recent controversy about his meeting with Kim Davis be important enough for inclusion in this article? It has enough sources and has seen excessive coverage. Supertanno (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

With the leader of a billion people who meets new people every day, I feel like it'd be a little undue weight. Definitely recentism. But I won't really fight a little blurb about it if the consensus is against me.Farsight001 (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Recentism is a bit harsh, since the term of Francis begun in the 2010s. There simply is not enough historical material to include. Dimadick (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2015

Please consider adding Pope Francis' (native) Spanish papal name - i.e. Francisco

Aneditorthathelps (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I have checked the articles of the two previous popes, and they do that as well. Cambalachero (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pope Francis/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jfhutson (talk · contribs) 04:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Dead links

Comments on the first few sections

Lead

• The first paragraph is still very short.
• I think the ex officio thing is distracting, but its up to you. I would briefly state what a pope is.
• add "death squads" or something after National Reorganization Process so I know why this is important.
• "He chose Francis as his papal name..." the prior sentence does not have bergoglio as its subject
• "Syrian Gregory III" add a Pope in there
• Lead is a little long winded on the humility theme. You don't need to produce supporting evidence here, you should do that within the article. Then you can summarize other important aspects of his papacy.

Personal life

• Usually public figures start with an early life section and personal life goes after public biography.
• You could edit the picture of his college class so it's easier to find him. Not a requirement of course. I don't thick this caption gets a period though.
• Five citations for a basic fact is too many.
• "He was the eldest..." long sentence hard to read

Pre-papal career

• briefly explain the Society of Jesus when you bring it up
• "crush" too informal?
• "He was removed as rector" long difficult sentence. I would first tell us what he did and then say why he was removed for it.
• The source of his conflict with Jesuits is unclear. More background would help
• "Miserando atque eligendo" translate
• "papabile" explain this term
• "In the National Catholic Reporter" is there any doubt he was a frontrunner? If not, eliminate the attribution
• In the dirty war stuff, the 2005 case makes this confusing. You start talking about the original events, then the case, then you go back to the events.
• Focus on telling what reliable sources say happened in the dirty war rather than narrating everyone's opinion, while also mentioning anything that might be uncertain. Move this part into the correct part of the article chronologically.
• I think the whole thing on Jorge Rafael Videla might be undue. The Pope is inevitably going to have many of these mini-scandals, and we shouldn't include something that doesn't turn out to tell us anything about him.
• The whole Fernando de la Rúa section is too detailed. Include a few sentences in the appropriate areas chronologically about his relations with these figures. As someone with no understanding of Argentine politics, I have no idea what's going on here.

Ecumenism with other Christians

• Why is this before the Papacy section? I need to know what happened before you can give me analysis.
• There is a one sentence paragraph.
• The opening paragraph is heavy with Francis quotes. A third party should be used to talk about this.
• Short sections on Lutheranism and Anglicanism.
• The Anglicanism section is difficult to understand for someone unfamiliar with this issue.

Interfaith dialogue

• More Francis quotes that put him in a very nice light.
• Another one-sentence paragraph.

Pause to assess overall

I can see that much has been done to address the issues from the last review. I'm afraid, however, that there are also things that were not addressed, such as short paragraphs, dead links, and sources which the last reviewer did not see as reliable. I'm also seeing some neutrality issues, which were not brought up at the last review. Also, the article is very long, but I can't say it's very focused. For example, the Fernando de la Rúa section tells me very little about Francis, and gives a confusing, detailed account.

This is only my second review, so I'm going to give it some time before I decide. Please feel free to discuss, and I'm happy to request a second opinion if you disagree with my comments. --JFH (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of November 27, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Sometimes good, but sometimes gets confusing. Organization makes it difficult to read.

2. Verifiable?: Last reviewer found some non-reliable sources which are still there. Examples include thefreedictionary, Toronto Sun.

3. Broad in coverage?: Gets unfocused. Too much detail on some issues, while not actually giving the reader the context to understand.

4. Neutral point of view?: Some parts seem to give too much weight to Francis's own statements.

5. Stable?: Pass

6. Images?: based on prior review

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— JFH (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is an one sided view

For a better insight into this man's soul, read http://www.globalresearch.ca/washingtons-pope-who-is-francis-i-cardinal-jorge-mario-bergoglio-and-argentinas-dirty-war/5326675

Excerpt from the link above:

The Secret Memorandum
The military government acknowledged in a Secret Memo (see below) that Father Bergoglio had accused the two priests of having established contacts with the guerilleros, and for having disobeyed the orders of the Church hierarchy (Conflictos de obedecencia). It also stated that the Jesuit order had demanded the dissolution of their group and that they had refused to abide by Bergoglio’s instructions.

The document acknowledges that the “arrest” of the two priests, who were taken to the torture and detention center at the Naval School of Mechanics, ESMA, was based on information transmitted by Father Bergoglio to the military authorities. (signed by Mr. Orcoyen)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.12.17 (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I am unsure why you think the article is one-sided as the subject is extensively covered in the Dirty War section. Also the article you link to contains many inaccuracies; for instance, it reproduces Myriam Bregman's allegations, which have been dismissed in court. --OneEuropeanHeart (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Consecration of Russia?

Consecration of Russia says:

• In response, Pope Pius XII (1942), Pope John Paul II (1984) and Pope Francis (2013) consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart, with Pius XII also specifically consecrating "the peoples of Russia" in 1952, sometimes worded as "acts of entrustment.".

This would have been pretty big deal if Francis did this, but there's no mention of it here. Is it true? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Referendum in Slovenia

Francis told Slovenian crowds to 'defend family values', meaning curbing families of same-sex couples--146.198.189.144 (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Link: http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/breaking_pope_s_plea_to_ban_same_sex_marriage_convinces_catholics_in_Slovenia --146.198.189.144 (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pope Francis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130318045918/http://viewonline.fromdoppler.com:80/pfie/eqaehB/c/a/a to http://viewonline.fromdoppler.com/pfie/eqaehB/c/a/a

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Elizium23 (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Unchristian wall-building responses

Pope_Francis#Public_image mentions what Francis said and Donald's response. While I agree that Trump's rebuttal is the most notable and should be mentioned first, I wonder if perhaps we should mention some other ones from notable people who opt to comment on this? While the other politicians appear to be staying out of it, some notable people have weighed in a bit. For example Lew Rockwell draws a comparison to the papal saint named Pope Leo IV here:

Rockwell, Llewellyn (19 February 2016). "Why Pope St. Leo IV Built the Vatican's Walls". LewRockwell.Com. I guess the saint was not only against open borders, he was a racist, a xenophobe, an Islamophobe, a discriminator, and an opponent of diversity. {{cite web}}: Check |archive-url= value (help); Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I'm not sure how citeable this is, is anyone going to dispute that this is about Francis+Trump even though it doesn't specifically say so, considering the timing?

Also wondering if we should point to earlier in the article to where Francis is shown praying at the Western Wall, perhaps by inserting an anchor to that part. Not sure how to phrase it though. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to cover in-depth every off-the-cuff comment someone makes. See WP:RECENT. I would oppose all of your proposals, for that and other reasons. Elizium23 (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent music album

On 27 November, Francis released the album Wake Up!. I'm not quite sure where to fit this into the rest of the article, and how much significance we should give it. For now, I figured creating a discography section was better than nothing. It isn't referred to anywhere else in the article, however, so if anyone could tell me how things like this are typically handled and help incorporate it in a meaningful way, it would be very nice. Kranix (talk | contribs) 01:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Francis has not "released" that album in the sense that music artists do. It's just an album that mixes his regular speeches with music. Unless there is evidence that Francis actually took part in the production, or that the Vatican endorses the album, it's just trivia. Cambalachero (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Several major sources ([6] [7] [8] have mentioned the album, and while I can't find direct evidence that the album is endorsed by the Pope, the Rolling Stone article does mention it as "The Vatican-approved LP", and surely the label wouldn't be able to use his name like that if it wasn't. Also, all three sources mentioned it only because of its relation to the Pope, so I do not think it makes sense for it not to be mentioned here when it has an independent article. Kranix (talk | contribs) 17:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I support the idea that this album should be included in the article, but also do not know quite where. Several major sources talk in terms of the album being Pope Francis's, and that the Vatican has approved it.

• This is a vatican announcement: http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-album-to-be-released-in-november .
• The Time link in the previous entry did not work for me, but this one does: http://time.com/4094353/pope-francis-single-album/ .
• Other major news sources: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34863904/pope-francis-has-released-a-rock-album , http://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/what-to-listen-to/pope-francis-wake-up-review/ , http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2015/09/28/Pope-Francis-to-release-Vatican-approved-album-Wake-Up/3521443438683/ (United Press International), http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/10/18/wake-up-pope-francis-has-a-new-album-coming1.html .
• Other music press (I do not know how major these are): http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/21235-wake-up/ , http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/11/album-review-pope-francis-wake-up/ .
• Yet more: http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/pope-francis-releasing-pop-rock-prayer-album-titled-wake-up-2015259 , http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-06/pope-francis-to-release-13-track-pop-rock-album/6918176 , http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/pope-francis-rock-album-wake-up-827235 , http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jpshimek/wake-up-papal-pop-rock-album-hits-italian-record-stores (National Catholic Register) .
• WP article: Wake Up! (Pope Francis album) .

Many of the references talk of the significance of this album release. FrankSier (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

About how to treat music album releases by a pope: the article Pope John Paul II does not mention them (as far as I have noticed) but their is a category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pope_John_Paul_II_albums. FYI http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/10/18/wake-up-pope-francis-has-a-new-album-coming1.html mentions 3 albums by Pope John Paul II "There have been other papal albums: ...". I have found one of these with a WP article: Abbà Pater . I still think that their should be a mention in the main article in the present case (ie "Wake Up!" should be mentioned in the Pope Francis article). FrankSier (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This album NEEDS to be mentioned in his article. It's as important as it's books, texts, etc.--MisterSanderson (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I have added a mention of the album to the article. FrankSier (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I have restored a paragraph which mentions the album, which is clearly notable (Wikipedia article, plenty of sources) and relevant to Pope Francis. Elizium23 (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2016

We would like to add the following copy to the Pope Francis page. Sacred Heart University has named a building in his honor. The copy is

"Sacred Heart University has names its sophomore residence hall in honor of Pope Francis. Opening in Fall 2016, it will be called Jorge Bergoglio Hall.

Here is the link to the source: http://www.sacredheart.edu/campuslife/lifeonoffcampus/housingandresidentiallife/residentialhalls/jorgebergogliohall/

Here is the link to the Sacred Heart University Wikipedia Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Heart_University

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by SacredwikiHeart (talk • contribs)

Not done: This currently appears to be trivia and it's unclear whether the addition adds to the comprehension of the subject. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

I think the "Falkland Islands" section is pointless and should be removed. So far, the Pope has stayed apart from the sovereignty conflict, and everything else is just about people trying, in vain, to involve him with that issue. The only thing to report is that there is nothing to report. The hierarchy of the religious organizations of the Falkland Islands belongs in the respective article.

As for the quoted comment, it is also trivial for the topic at hand. First, that comment was made when he was archbishop, and wasn't still required to stay neutral on those conflicts. And, even taking that in consideration, his comment is only tangentially adressing the sovereignty disputed. He did not say that from out of the blue, he said it during a mass for the anniversay of the war (so, it was basically mandatory to talk about it), and he did not focus on the political dispute, but on the deceased soldiers. Note as well that this passed as completely trivial and unnoticed on its day. It was only mentioned once he was appointed Pope, and the British digged into the archives to find any case when he had made reference to the dispute; this was the best they could find. And it proved to be a pointless discovery: no matter what does Francis the man think about the dispute, Francis the pope stayed neutral and did not do anything in relation to it. Cambalachero (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the section is pretty pointless. WCM_email 22:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I would merge some of the information in the "Relations with the Argentine government" section, as some material is worth saving. Having a section on the Falklands in the Papacy section is a needless emphasis.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Pope says Christians should apologize to gay people

See it here - [9]. This info should be added in the Homosexuality section. M.Karelin (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Prcc27 PLZ pay attention. 46.70.161.232 (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding it would seem too much like we're making this a news outlet. This is an encyclopedia. We report the important bits, not every bit.Farsight001 (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

New image of his holiness in the year 2016

The proposed image. Francis in Mexico in February 2016

Is this image of His Holiness Pope Francis, pictured in Mexico (February 2016), a good image to replace the current one since the current is 2015 and this proposal image is in 2016. Just wondering. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the existing 2015 image is more flattering, more in focus, and has a higher resolution, so I see no reason to update it. There's no policy to keep the most recent image of someone as their infobox picture. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 03:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Catholic v Roman Catholic

I think that the intro to Pope Francis might be more accurate if it said he was the head of the Catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church, or Latin Rite, is only one (though its the largest) part the the universal Catholic Church which even the Wikipedia page that the hyperlink redirects to states: The Latin Church, the Eastern Catholic Churches and institutes such as the Jesuits, mendicant orders and enclosed monastic orders, reflect a variety of theological emphases in the Church"

Thoughts? Keefete (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2016

Hello, may I edit this biography about Pope Francis, like the biblical aspect of it. I mean no harm. Thanks.

Christ Knight 777

Christ Knight 777 (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Papal name

Did the pontiff really chose his papal name after St. Francis of Assisi? There are three saints venerated in Catholicism by the name of Francis, the other two namely St. Francis Xavier and St. Francis de Sales. This is definitely a gray area. Jebbiex (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

"Pope Francis chose his name in honor of St. Francis of Assisi because he is a lover of the poor, said Vatican deputy spokesman Thomas Rosica." CNN Vatican analyst: Pope Francis' name choice 'precedent shattering' Fishlandia (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2016

I would like to request the removal of the following sentence under the Lutheran (ecumenical relations) subheader:

Cardinal Bergoglio frequently recommended his personal friend Manuel Acuña, a Lutheran pastor, to perform exorcisms on individuals in whom there were signs of demonic possession.[136]

Reason: The source for this statement, see 136, is from a non-credible source featuring sensationalist news such as alien encounters. Please kindly remove this sentence unless a proper scientific/non-fiction source can be found.

2601:246:A01:7D0:E42A:15A6:11A3:61B0 (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: But the source provided sure is a weird one... Though there are plenty of reliable sources that I found backing up this statement, so I replaced these sources with that wacky one... Regards. MeowMoon (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Deleted passage; none of the three "reliable sources" added mention Cardinal Bergoglio or Pope Francis. Since they don't mention him there's no need to address their questionable sensationalist tone. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

"Francis maintains the traditional views of the church regarding abortion, euthanasia, contraception, homosexuality, ordination of women, and priestly celibacy"

That's totally wrong. In all of the above Francis holds liberal views. So please change or delete that phrase! I can't for the page is semi-protected. --212.186.14.29 (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

According to the article, Francis has not broken with Church tradition on any of these points:

• Abortion: "Throughout his papacy, Pope Francis has been a vocal opponent of both the practice and legality of abortion."
• Euthanasia: covered at Theology of Pope Francis#Euthanasia
• Contraception: "Francis has affirmed Catholic doctrine on artificial contraception [...]"
• Homosexuality: "As bishop and Pope, Francis restated the Church's principle: that homosexual practice is intrinsically immoral, but that every homosexual person should be treated with respect and love."
• Ordination of women: "Francis was noncommittal about whether women should lead more in administration and pastoral activities, but has ruled out the possibility of female priests."
• Priestly celibacy: "He says that celibacy is a matter of discipline rather than faith, and that tradition and experience would advise to keep it." and "He emphasized that, in the meantime, the rule must be strictly adhered to, and any priest who cannot obey it should leave the ministry."

All of these statements are supported by reliable sources. clpo13_(talk) 21:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I know, but those informations are outdated. For sources, you can search "Francis abortion", "Francis homosexuality" or "Francis celibacy" aso and you will learn Francis has liberal stances, but anyway, doesn't everybody know how liberal he is? Btw, the quote "but that every homosexual person should be treated with respect and love" is already liberal. But the article anyway writes more on his views on homosexuality while not mentioning his liberal views on other social issues. For his abortion stance, see here. He can say whatever he wants, but his actions prove he's a liberal. One should also mention his leftist views on immigration in the intro section. --212.186.14.29 (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the information is not outdated. He has not changed a single view. And "that every homosexual person should be treated with respect and love" is not liberal. Its human. There's a saying among Catholics - that they look neither left nor right, but rather up. Point being, the guy is not a liberal or a conservative.Farsight001 (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

No, that's a heresy. The holy catholic Church has to be what you call "conservative", well but Francis anyway isn't the head of the holy Church but of the sect of Vatican II. Nevertheless Francis is the most liberal "pope" than any of his predecessors in the sect. The quote about homosexuality is liberal, because he's saying "with respect" which is anti-christian because righteous people must not respect such a perversion of society. Francis is a radical liberal, please delete or change the quote in the intro section, thanks. --212.186.14.29 (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

His belief in man-made climate change also proves he's a liberal. --212.186.14.29 (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

If it is heresy that the Catholic Church not take political stance, then provide the source. If it is truth that the Catholic Church must be conservative, then provide the source. If Francis isn't the head of the Catholic Church, then provide the source. What you have here is a glaring lack of proper, scholarly citations, which are necessary for any change to the article - especially ones of this nature that would overturn and shatter much of the current article and scholarly consensus on the issue.Farsight001 (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no source for the claims that Francis would hold "traditional views" regarding abortion, euthanasia, celibacy etc.. --212.186.14.29 (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

They're in the article, genius.Farsight001 (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for calling me genius, but as I said, those sources are outdated. One more currenct source on his stance on abortion I've already presented above: this one for example. --212.186.14.29 (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

IP, this is not Facebook or your front yard. Just provide reliable sources that back up your claims. Don't forget to quote the Pope where he reveals his new stance on abortion. Fishlandia (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I would also add that there is no rule on wikipedia regarding how recent a source needs to be. The Old Testament is cited in some articles, and it is over 2000 years old. Your objections are without merit and your claims are without sources. And again, until you actually provide credible sources, like the ones already in use in the article, you will find that your desired changes will not be made. Complaining just wastes our time and yours. Sources are what accomplish change.Farsight001 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The Old Testament hasn't changed, but Francis' stances seem to have changed throughout his "pontificate". Thus your sources aren't current anymore. I already provided one source about abortion. People can say whatever they wanna. I could say I am the Emperor of China without being the Emperor. Francis says he's pro-life and acts anti-life which shows he in fact is a liberal. 212.186.14.29 (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

And once again, if you believe that his stances have changed, then provide a credible, reliable source that we can actually use here which enumerates and explains these changes. You have not provided that. And no, lifesite news does not qualify. Nor does the article say what you seem to think it says.Farsight001 (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Francis may be considered "liberal" because he is less strict over the protocols, and because he give more priority to the issues related with poverty than to those listed (he talks about it more often). But that doesn't mean he changed the views, just that he has other priorities. It is a common misunderstanding to think that he has different views over those issues, and Wikipedia must report accurate information. Cambalachero (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

What Cambalachero said. Pope Francis has undeniably given greater emphasis to certain social issue or points of doctrine than his predecessors. But that is his role. He is not a bookkeeper of dead laws. He is a living shepherd of a developing tradition. Thus, he is free, and in fact he is required, to emphasize whatever issues he sees as most pressing during his pontificate. But just because he emphasizes issues that might, in some countries, be associated with a "liberal" political platform, it does not follow that he has broken from tradition in any way. Nor does this mean that he is trying to make a "conservative" church into a "liberal" one. At any rate, if you believe he has gone further and has actually contradicted specific parts of tradition, then it should be very easy to provide credible sources to show how and when he did this. Lordfarquaad (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I've given you a source above that he decided to decriminalize abortion for a certain time period. He is less pro-Life than his predecessors. But in all of the above he is different than WP states. Here you have another source stating his anti-Family views. I don't claim he wants to transform the church into a liberal one but he himself is much more liberal than any of his predecessors since Vatican II. --212.186.14.29 (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Introduction

The last paragraph of the introduction cites no sources and is pretty pro-Francis e.g. "Throughout his public life, Pope Francis has been noted for his humility", "He is credited with having a humble, less formal approach to the papacy than his predecessors" and other relatively insignificant details such as how he wears silver instead of gold. I think the whole paragraph is unsuitable; we don't want a summary written with the purpose of presenting Francis as a good guy. Frexit (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Not as a statement of opinion about him, no. But these are personal characteristics that make him stand out and that have figured accordingly in the reception of him and are therefore relevant.83.248.231.116 (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The lead section does not need to cite sources, as long as it a summary of information explained and referenced in detail later in the article. Cambalachero (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2016

Please change "title Holy Land: Vandal tries to set fire to Dormition Abbey" to "title=Holy Land: Vandal tries to set fire to Dormition Abbey" because this citation lacks a recognized title and title paremeter, which this seems to be.

47.148.79.80 (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done! Thankyou for pointing that. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC).

Where is the criticism

The article reads like a hagiography. Sure we can do better then that and it should be easy to find sources for substantial criticism given the controversial history of Mario Bergoglio. --41.247.242.39 (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Since his 2016 document Amoris Laetitia, this pope is seen as bordering on heresy by many conservative Catholics. 206.167.216.8 (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Provide credible sources and then add that information into the article then. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Willthacheerleader18. The lack of criticism in this article is indeed very surprising. The credible sources are easy to provide (just a sample):

• Damian Thomson, "Why more and more priests can’t stand Pope Francis", The Spectator, January 14 2017 here
• TP O'Mahony, "Mutiny at the Vatican as Pope Francis faces dissent", Irish Examiner, January 13, 2017, article
• Carl E. Olson, "A Malta Laetitia", The Catholic World Report, January 14, 2017, article
• Ross Douthat, "Amoris Laetitia and Everything After", The New York Times, December 19, 2016 article

Look also all the sources given in Amoris Laetitia. Thucyd (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Well then, feel free to add it in the article. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Malta

I added under the international diplomacy section that Pope Francis demanded the resignation of Matthew Festing, the Prince and Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Feel free to add any more information. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2017

Chiara200 (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This sentence is false: "as well as current de facto Prince and Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta," because: https://www.orderofmalta.int/government/grand-commander/ From 28 January 2017, following the resignation of Fra’ Matthew Festing from the office of Grand Master, the Sovereign Order of Malta is governed by a Lieutenant ad interim in the person of H.E. Fra’ Ludwig Hoffmann von Rumerstein. He will stay in office until the election of a new Grand Master. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiara200 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent comment

Does this headline warrants its own place in the page? Bluesphere 04:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Pro-choice and pro-euthanasia politicians ineligibility to communion

This is important to be in the entry because it shows that Pope Francis reaffirms the Catholic Church doctrine on this issue: "Francis reaffirmed the Catholic doctrine that politicians who support legal abortion and euthanasia shouldn't take communion, in the Aparecida Document, in March 2013: "We hope that legislators [and] heads of government... will defend and protect [the dignity of human life] from the abominable crimes of abortion and euthanasia; that is their responsibility... We must adhere to "eucharistic coherence", that is, be conscious that they cannot receive Holy Communion and at the same time act with deeds or words against the commandments, particularly when abortion, euthanasia, and other grave crimes against life and family are encouraged. This responsibility weighs particularly over legislators, heads of governments, and health professionals."Mistico (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I found out the Aparecida Document direct source. There is no reason to delete this reference again: [10]Mistico (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Using the Aparecida Document is still problematic, as it leads us to the Policy that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." We're back to the situation where Crisis's interpretation of the Aparecida Document does not meet this requirement of a reliable source and thus leads us into Original Research. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Isn't this article ready for Class B?

I was surprised to find this article listed as a class C article and propose it be raised to class B status. It seems to meet the general criteria that "The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards."

A bit of history:

• In March 2013, after a discussion as to whether it should be Class C or B, it was raised to Class B.
• In March 2015 it was demoted to Class C because of unsourced content, with the note that it could be returned to class B "once all content is sourced".
• In June 2015 it was subject to Peer Review, with the intent of raising it to Good Article status.
• It has been considered three times for Good article status, in February 2015, September 2015, and November 2015, which has never been granted.

Since it is now extensively sourced and has been repeatedly considered for, but not granted, Good Article status, it seems that it meets class B status as defined above. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:Criticism the section on criticism needs to be broken up and put in context of the other things, otherwise it remains a major problem especially for a BLP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Under the heading "Role in international diplomacy", it states that he gave 13 speeches in Israel but the source states the speeches were split across Israel, Jordan, and Palestine. Please correct this error. Thanks, 2001:1970:5DE1:6A00:9031:4303:45A:33B9 (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pope Francis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios-b.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130611191146/http://www.abuelas.org.ar/material/documentos/BERGOGLIO2.pdf to http://www.abuelas.org.ar/material/documentos/BERGOGLIO2.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-vatican-pope-francis-name-20130313%2C0%2C1309501.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pope Francis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130321065400/http://el-nacional.com/mundo/Francisco-verdadero-poder-servicio_0_156584605.html to http://www.el-nacional.com/mundo/Francisco-verdadero-poder-servicio_0_156584605.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131206134335/http://wedvickofjarlsby.org/webvick-gallery/displayimage.php?album=7&pos=24 to http://wedvickofjarlsby.org/webvick-gallery/displayimage.php?album=7&pos=24

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2017

Francis's openings to "modernity on sexual morality, communion for remarried Catholics and friendly relations with other religions have opened a gulf between progressives and traditionalists." to They claim that Francis is open "modernity on sexual morality, communion for remarried Catholics and friendly relations with other religions have opened a gulf between progressives and traditionalists."

Because Pope Francis is not open to modernity on Sexual Morality 123.231.124.180 (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment. Your requested change isn't grammatical. (Try reading it aloud.) Could you rephrase it? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done re-worded sentence to better reflect claims in the source article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2017

In the criticism section it says "opennings to sexual modernity and communion for divorced and remarried" I think this should be gotten rid of because Amoris Laetita hasnt been clarified yet and Francis isnt open to "sexual modernity" Ilikerabbits! (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

 Already done see above edit request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Critics of Islamophobia and removal of this category by User: Cpt.a.haddock

This article is in the category "Critics of Islamophobia", but it seems it is sourced only to an Arabian newspaper.

I am trying to understand if a source is needed to categorize it also for this and all other articles.

There are many articles where the article is categorized and it is sourced to a published article.

User:Cpt.a.haddock is removing this category from several pages even though it is sourced to published article. He says it is not enough for categorization.

See his contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cpt.a.haddock

For example, at Vinay Lal the categorization is sourced to this article: Vinay Lal: Implications of American Islamophobia, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 50, Issue No. 51, 19 Dec, 2015. But even then, the category was removed by User Cpt.a.Haddock.

The question is, is this enough for categorization? If this source is not good enough, I do not understand how this article is categorized in the category without adequate sources. --Sebastianmaali (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Catholics for Choice quote

Why was Jon O'Brien's quote of Francis's decision to forgive post-abortive women disappeared from the Abortion section? We musn't be selecting only the information favourable to an editor's point of view, as per WP:CHERRYPICK. SLIGHTLY^mad 06:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Presbytariate - wrong word?

Where did the word "presbytariate" come from (section heading for pre-papal years 1958–2013)? Should this be "presbyterate"? Wiktionary has an entry for the word "presbyterate" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/presbyterate) but not "presbyteriate". The new word appears to have been introduced quite recently, and similarly the article on Pope John Paul II has a section headed "Presbyteriate", which has replaced the word "Priesthood". - BobKilcoyne (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I've amended this word in both articles - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Pope Francis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130404231908/http://www.catholic-sf.org/ns.php?newsid=30&id=61136 to http://www.catholic-sf.org/ns.php?newsid=30&id=61136
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515055321/http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/vaticano/dettaglio-articolo/articolo/conclave-22761/ to http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/vaticano/dettaglio-articolo/articolo/conclave-22761/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130526015515/http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/news/detail/articolo/francedco-francis-francisco-23329/ to http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/news/detail/articolo/francedco-francis-francisco-23329/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130701131917/http://www.zoomnews.es/34129/actualidad/mundo/bergoglio-historia-papa-francisco-dictadura-argentina-videla to http://www.zoomnews.es/34129/actualidad/mundo/bergoglio-historia-papa-francisco-dictadura-argentina-videla
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1301486.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150528200640/http://www.prolife.ie/personal-update-issue-description/pope-francis-pope-surprises to http://www.prolife.ie/personal-update-issue-description/pope-francis-pope-surprises
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130317025209/http://www.catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=50111 to http://www.catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=50111
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1404377.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160203183522/http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pope-asks-protestants-for-forgiveness-for-persecution/ar-BBoGlPv?ocid=spartanntp to http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pope-asks-protestants-for-forgiveness-for-persecution/ar-BBoGlPv?ocid=spartanntp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017165755/http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/news/index.php/tag/rabbi-abraham-skorka/ to http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/news/index.php/tag/rabbi-abraham-skorka/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003020927/http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20130325158320 to http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20130325158320
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140331010527/http://money.cnn.com/gallery/leadership/2014/03/20/worlds-best-leaders.fortune to http://money.cnn.com/gallery/leadership/2014/03/20/worlds-best-leaders.fortune/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/briefs/cns/20140829.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140411184409/http://blogs.canoe.ca/parker/news/a-few-things-you-might-not-know-about-pope-francis/ to http://blogs.canoe.ca/parker/news/a-few-things-you-might-not-know-about-pope-francis/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-vatican-pope-francis-name-20130313,0,1309501.story
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1403476.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Which Pope Francis?

There has been people named pope francis since 1752(Mohamed Naufan (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC))

Who? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2017

At the very beginning, you can add "French: François" That's all, thanks! Shaaay (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: per WP:NOR. Please provide a reliable source that verifies this. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

That is not the reason this will not be added. We do not add all kinds of unrelated translations to the name of Popes. We include only the directly relevant ones. 2600:8800:1880:C359:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pope Francis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170204115127/http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_REL_VATICAN_KNIGHTS_OF_MALTA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_REL_VATICAN_KNIGHTS_OF_MALTA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170212000334/https://reginamag.com/wp-content/cache/all/rome-in-eye-of-storm//index.html to https://reginamag.com/wp-content/cache/all/rome-in-eye-of-storm//index.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pope Francis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301012319/http://www.romereports.com/pg155838-lombardi-no-cardinal-believes-in-changing-church-doctrine-en to http://www.romereports.com/pg155838-lombardi-no-cardinal-believes-in-changing-church-doctrine-en
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/03/13/pope-francis-makes-history-and-canonizes-jacinta-and-francisco-two-child-saints
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150507172037/http://www.rtcc.org/2014/05/08/un-to-back-pope-francis-statement-on-human-ecology/ to http://www.rtcc.org/2014/05/08/un-to-back-pope-francis-statement-on-human-ecology/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161101111227/http://www.romereports.com/2015/06/24/pope-francis-meets-with-buddhist-leaders-oethese-small-gestures-are-seeds-of-peace to http://www.romereports.com/2015/06/24/pope-francis-meets-with-buddhist-leaders-oethese-small-gestures-are-seeds-of-peace
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130621220805/http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-20/national/37864118_1_atheists-and-believers-spiritual-leader-muslim-leaders to https://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-20/national/37864118_1_atheists-and-believers-spiritual-leader-muslim-leaders

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2018

change "Catholic Church" to "Roman Catholic Church" Researchatbriancraigmcdaniel (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC) Had intended to change "Catholic Church" to "Roman Catholic Church" to be more precise and for continuity with articles on earlier Roman Catholic Popes (their are other Popes in the Christian world)

Not done: The name "Catholic Church" for the whole church is used in the 1990 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the documents of the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council, and numerous other official documents.

References

Spintendo ᔦᔭ 12:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Aren't Popes bishops?

Therefore his episcopate didn't end in 2013 187.3.146.118 (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's why the article already notes this was his pre-papal episcopate. --Jayron32 16:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

First couple to get canonized?

From the article: "The pope canonized Joseph Vaz on his visit to Sri Lanka on 14 January 2015 and canonized a further four saints on the following 17 May; he canonized Junípero Serra on 23 September while visiting the United States and then canonized four saints on 18 October including the first married couple to be named as saints."

Seems incorrect as a result of bad wording, and may mislead readers. Louis Martin and Marie-Azélie Guérin were not the first married couple to be canonized, but were the first married couple to be canonized as a couple. There are many other of married couples that were declared saints before them, pre-congregational and officially- Mary and Joseph spring to mind. Should be "including the first couple to be named as saints together" or similar, to avoid confusion and for the sake of accuracy.

222.155.167.180 (talk) 07:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Pope's comment on Hell

@Hydrargyrum Regards this edit; the Vatican most certainly did not categorically deny the story. They issued one of their famous non-denial denials. Nowhere did they say the Pope did not say what he is alleged to have said. Rather they are saying there was no "official" interview and the quote may not be entirely accurate. If the Pope had been misquoted on something like this the Holy See would have come right out and said so in no uncertain terms. This story is being widely reported in both the Catholic and mainstream press. It is certainly fair to note the Holy See's milquetoast response as a qualifier. But as far as I am aware we go with what reliable sources are saying and neither the Pope nor Sr. Scalfari have issued any denials or retractions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I think there's at least sufficient doubt about the veracity of the claim to withhold it from the article until the matter is better understood. If the sole source is an atheist journalist with an ax to grind against religion in general and Christianity in particular, I don't consider that a "reliable source", and for all we know, the journalist may be suffering from early stages of dementia. The article I linked in the comment just happened to be the first that I encountered. More articles can be found that strongly indicate that the Vatican doesn't agree with Eugenio Scalfari at all, e.g., the following from Reuters, https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-pope-hell/vatican-rebukes-journalist-who-quoted-pope-as-denying-hell-idUKKBN1H52HI In other words, the article that appeared in the radical leftist La Repubblica paper is utter bullshit. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 22:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed this discussion before I mentioned the non-revelation revelation in "Mercy". I think I did a fair job of not giving one side of the story too much focus, and believe readers will comprehend the dubiousness clearly enough. Then again, I'm biased toward thinking I'm a good writer; feel free to disagree. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That seems fair. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Unbridled Wikipedia arrogance

If we're going to protect a page against editing--clearly a politically motivated decision--let us at least ensure that the page reads as if written by an adult possessing adequate mastery of English. Consider this sentence:

"He opposes consumerism, overdevelopment, and supports taking action on . . ."

CLEARLY, he opposes "consumerism AND [in place of comma] overdevelopment [no following comma] and supports taking action on . . ."

If we can't understand the very rudiments of English grammar and properly place commas, we have no business edit-protecting anything. This arrogance on the part of such junior practitioners is appalling.

2601:589:4B00:7AB:5494:E0A5:18B8:9EEE (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Serial commas while controversial are often used. Ruslik_Zero 20:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not really a question of a serial comma because it's a separate thought: he opposes two things and supports another. The sentence literally didn't make sense, as written. I've inserted and in place of the first comma, as the OP suggested, but left the second comma in place because it doesn't bother me. I'd also like to note, for the record, that pages are semi-protected because of persistent policy violations, not political motivations. If you know of any politically-motivated actions of page protection, please report them at WP:AN; be prepared to provide hard evidence. Otherwise, please assume good faith on the part of the community that curates this article. Aspersions are unwelcome here. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 22:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

To the IP editor, this is far more likely a case of incompetence rather than any arrogance. A simple request to correct the wording would have been nicer. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

World Day of the Poor

Added: Updated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis#Year_of_Mercy. Pope Francis established the World Day of the Poor in his Apostolic Letter, Misericordia et Misera, issued on 20 November 2016 to celebrate the end of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy. FullfillC21 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Name

I've noticed at the page's start someone edited the pope's birth name to include his mother's maiden name. I don't think that part counts as the pope's birth name and I wanted to check if that was the case or if this needs to be reverted. 14.202.222.175 (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Pontifical medal to pro abortion activist

Reliable sources were cited, it is controversial, it is about Francis. Why was my edition undone?DizzinessOfFreedom (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart is not a reliable source. Your addition also added false information and presented bias and not fact (that the award, which was a Pontifical Knighthood in the Order of St. Gregory just to clarify, was presented to someone because of their activism regarding women's reproductive rights, which is not true). I already explained this as a response to your inquiry on my talk page. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This is never what was claimed in the article in the first place. But that a pontifical medal was given to a pro abortion activist, not that it was given to her by this very fact. As I already said, I cited another source, namely, Catholic News Agency.DizzinessOfFreedom (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to have this same conversation on my talk page and here. So let's move it here. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Below is the text from this conversation which took place on my talk page regarding these edits:

         I want to know the reason why you removed my edit. DizzinessOfFreedom (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
         :As I said, Breitbart is not recognized as a credible source. It also gave incorrect information. She was awarded a Pontifical Knighthood, being made a Dame Commander of the Order of St. Gregory and the award was not given to her in connection to her work for women's reproductive rights, but for her work as a government official. She happens to support abortion, which may have caused controversy, but that is not the same claim. If there is/was controversy regarding her award, this needs to be cited with credible references that are not from a political opinion and commentary website. As far as categories such as "Liberal theologians" and "Anti-Modernism" goes, those are orphaned categories. They are not connected to any other categories on Wikipedia. Furthermore, they are too vague. What is "liberal"? It has different definitions depending on the context, and who decides what a "liberal" theologian is? "Anti-Modernism" has the same issue. It's too vague. Is it Anti-Modernism in the Catholic Church? In Christianity? In visual art? In architecture? It's not specific and does not improve the quality of the article. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

        It did not say in the article that the medal was given to her because she was an a pro abortion activist, but that it was given to a pro abortion activist. I cited another source. DizzinessOfFreedom (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
        :Lilianne Ploumen is a Dutch politician who has done activism work regarding women's reproductive health. She is not notable because of her activism. There was no mention as to why the award was given or who she is, other than a "abortion rights activist". This implies bias. Catholic News Agency is a reliable source, but you didn't use the article ([11]) to explain the backstory or the reason for the award, which would clarify the incident's supposed controversy: 
       "Responding to requests of clarification, Paloma Garcia-Ovejero, deputy director of the Holy See Press Office, said that “the honorific of the St. Gregory the Great Pontifical Order that Liliane Ploumen, then Minister for Development received in June 2017, during the visit of the Dutch Royals to the Holy Father, is part of the diplomatic praxis of the exchange of decorations among delegations during official visits between heads of state and government to the Vatican.” 

        It explains why/how such honours are given and that they are not endorsements and have no connection to any activism or pro-abortion policies Ploumen was behind. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

        The source of Bishop Fellay calling him a modernist is in the article. It wasnt in the edition summary. You need to look first before making such claims. DizzinessOfFreedom (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
        :See above comment. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

-- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

CNSNews [12], according to the website she is very noted for her activism, and has launched a pro abortion fund called She Decides, in which it was raised 300 million us dollars. She is noted for her activism, and this is exactly the reason for the controversy. Your personal opinion does not count for anything. DizzinessOfFreedom (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, CNS News, a politically right-leaning news and commentary site. The article claims that she believes the award was given to her because of her activism, not that it actually was given for that reason. I did not say she was not "noted" for her activism. I said it is not why she is notable. She is a Dutch government official who served as Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation. This is not my "personal opinion". Research and factual information do account for something. I am not against adding this event into the article, but it must be done in a credible, non-biased way. Which is not what has happened here.-- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Apology for abuse of children in the US?

Is this covered in the article? I wrote the content below for Curial response to Catholic sexual abuse cases. Is Francis' position on the abuse of children by clergy - and the cover-ups - included in this article about the Pope? If so, I did not find it.

In August 2018, Pope Francis apologized in a 2,000 word letter after the release of a grand jury report confirming that over 1,000 children were sexually abused by "predator priests" in Pennsylvania for decades, often covered up by the Church. "Pope apologizes for priest sex abuse scandal with 'sorrow and shame'". NBC News. New York. 2018-08-20. Retrieved 2018-08-21.

"With shame and repentance, we acknowledge as an ecclesial community that we were not where we should have been, that we did not act in a timely manner, realizing the magnitude and the gravity of the damage done to so many lives ... We showed no care for the little ones; we abandoned them ... The heart-wrenching pain of these victims, which cries out to heaven, was long ignored, kept quiet or silenced."

The Pope said the church was developing a "zero tolerance" policy on abuse (which he called "crimes") and cover-ups. Vatican spokesman Greg Burke emphasized that the letter was not about incidents in a specific geographic area. "Pope Francis has written to the people of God and that means everyone." "Pope apologizes for priest sex abuse scandal with 'sorrow and shame'". CNN. Atlanta. 2018-08-20. Retrieved 2018-08-21. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Peter, it is not yet in the article, but it would follow on from the existing content in the section headed 'Clergy' - do you want to go ahead and add it? - BobKilcoyne (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This reads like a piece of US-Centrism. It seems to me that the Pope's apology was a global one, and not just a response to something that happened in the USA. In case Americans aren't aware, priests have been naughty in other places too. See Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse for another example of an enquiry that uncovered some pretty nasty stuff in Australia. That enquiry's report was made public in December 2017. Similar things have happened in many countries. So, whatever gets added to the article about this "apology" from the Pope, it must not be connected with incidents and an enquiry only in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The letter was prompted by US events: "In recent days, a report was made public ..." but as the remark from Greg Burke makes clear, the scope is not limited to the USA. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Where are those words from - "In recent days, a report was made public ..."? HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

See http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/20/180820a.html, at the start of the first paragraph after the heading "1. If one member suffers …" - BobKilcoyne (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The next sentence emphasises that the response is based on a lot more than that report. HiLo48 (talk) 09:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Aliens?

Hi, though it is at present unknown if Pope Francis has any official opinion on alien life the generally accepted position of the Catholic Church does not discount the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the visible Universe. In the event of "First Contact" or an alien signal being verified experimentally as non terrestrial intelligence (NTI) rather than something natural like a pulsar cluster or other effect the outcome may be some sort of official address by the Pope to accompany or contribute to ones by the President of the United States, Russia and other world powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.190.163.168 (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's wait for that to happen, and then we may add info about that. Cambalachero (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Participation in Argentina's "dirty war"

The participation of Jorge Mario Bergloglio in Argentina's "dirty war" and Condor Operation should be more detailed. I'll leave the link to an article by Michel Chossudovski about it: "Who is Pope Francis?" https://www.globalresearch.ca/washingtons-pope-who-is-francis-i-cardinal-jorge-mario-bergoglio-and-argentinas-dirty-war/5326675/amp I'm using a mobile and can't find the signature and other editions button. I'll come back later from a PC. Justana. Justana (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

There is already a section talking about that. Your source does not seem very reliable, and contains lots of mistakes and misinformations (if not actual lies). For starters, that photo that says "Image Left: Jorge Mario Bergoglio and General Jorge Videla". Bergoglio is not the man in the photo, and has never personally met Videla. "And the media through “omission” has remained silent": wrong. There are several examples of the media discussing this, used in the references. But they don't do it every day because that happened 40 years ago, and the media talk about today's news. Should I continue? Cambalachero (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Length

This article is WP:TOOBIG. I think spinning off a couple of daughter articles might make sense here. I've only taken a quick look, but perhaps we could WP:SPINOFF the the biography portion prior to becoming pope (sections 1, 2, and 3) into an "Early life of Pope Francis" article. The ecumenism section isn't quite as long, but also seems like a good candidate to spin out. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced category

• Per WP:CATV, please remove Category:Theistic evolutionists, as the topic of evolution is not discussed (or sourced by WP:RS) anywhere in this BLP.
• It is also probably worth taking a look at Category:Christian humanists, because I cannot honestly find any support for this one, either. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: the second one may need a discussion. --B dash (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

For support on Francis' humanism, I would suggest the article here: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-conservatism-and-fundamentalism-are-useless-in-seeking-solutions-to-ev 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

 Already done--B dash (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Are the Holy See or the Vatican City State a MONARCHY?

The first sentence affirms "...is the head of the Catholic Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State."

This statement isn't part of the divine and apostolic tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, nor of the depositum fidei (Greek paratheke) transferred across generations. On the contrary, till the end of the papal temporal power monarchy's concernings in the internal and foreign policies of the Vatican State lost completely their role and appeal.

After the Second Vatican Council it has been enforced the action and the power of the National Episcopal Conferences in order to have a decisional process more collegial and than anytime before.

The amendment to the Roman Catholic legislation, that can change across the time, must be sourced in the body of the article. It can't be nor become part of the definition of an authority whose power comes only from God and can't proceed by humans, nor by previous popes. Apostles, including St Peter (the first Pope), worshipped God as their unique God and King, as stated in the Apostle's Creed: Jesus as the Lord, seat at the right of God the Father.

Papacy wasn't an inherited charge, reserved to nobles, nor an absolute monarchy. Conversely, it hasn't any constitutional right as intended in the modern democracies. Its different and specified mechanism can't be qualified as a monarchic or republican institution systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.38.234.68 (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The nature of the Vatican City State may not be part of the apostolic tradition, after all it has a long and convoluted history, but Pope Francis's role as sovereign of the Vatican City State is a legitimate part of any description of his roles. FWIW, I've found a ref to confirm his role as Sovereign. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Dirty War — needs rewrite

This section could not be understood by anyone who doesn't already know the story, and should be totally rewritten. The "Dirty War" is never defined in the article. The section also talks about a "dictatorship", a "junta", and "death squads" but gives very little detail. A reader shouldn't have to go to another page to get a basic description. The section begins: "Bergoglio was the subject of allegations regarding the kidnapping of two Jesuit priests during Argentina's Dirty War." This is very vague and ambiguous. He was the subject of allegations during the Dirty War? The word "kidnapping" is later interchanged with "arrest" and "imprisonment", which is confusing. The names of the priests are only mentioned several sentences later. Why? It is briefly suggested that the Navy kidnapped the priests, but no motive or context are given. Then: "He feared for the priests' safety and had tried to change their work prior to their arrest; however, contrary to reports, he never tried to throw them out of the Jesuit order." This sentence does not follow on from the previous one. What are the allegations? (In fact we never find out.) His position at this point, and his relationship to the priests, are not explained. When did he fear for the priests' safety? What does "change their work" mean? What was wrong with their work, in his eyes? Why would he have thrown them out of the Jesuit order? It goes on from there with mangled syntax and elliptical allusions. Then we have a whole list of testimonials which don't seem directly related to the kidnapping.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2019

"On February 2019" = "In February 2019" 2605:E000:9149:8300:34C3:8045:C670:82A9 (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Commodore 64 side effects

Off Topic Matierial. Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject.

Pope Francis: Better to be an atheist than a hypocrite. Better to be an atheist than a non-atheist. Better to be an atheist. Atheist. Personhood is more fundamental than the Universe. Personhood pre-existed the Universe. We mortals don't have infinite power, but a fellow person named god, pre-existed the Universe. Don't study metalogic. Be a mereological simpleton. God being a misconception, doesn't have more fundamental components as memories, moving chunks of information and informational interactions. Be a hypocrite. Be Hindu. Mimic the religion of your parents. Don't be a Catholic because it opens the door to philosophy, science and atheism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4118:9000:7D4A:1441:CDA4:6D52 (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Criticism in a Biography of a Living Person must be sourced to a Secondary Source.

Per WP:BLPSTYLE, criticism may only be included in a biography of a living person if it is sourced to a reliable secondary source. All of the sources given in the "Controversies" section of this article are to news reports and columns, which are primary sources by official Wikipedia policy per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. As such, the entire section on "Controversies" in this article needs to be deleted, as does the section on Archbishop Vigano and statements to the effect that Amoris Laetitia is "controversial".PluniaZ (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Since no one is discussing this on the Talk Page but is instead edit warring on the article page, I will be reporting this violation of WP:BLP to the BLP notice board.PluniaZ (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2019

"Bergoglio has said that, as a young seminarian, he had a crush on a girl he met and briefly doubted about continuing the religious career" Citation 26 no longer exists/is a working link. 174.102.80.172 (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done The URL for the source has been updated to a working link.  Spintendo  00:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Open letter

The open letter signed by 19 theologians is in the news. Perhaps there should be an article. ApexUnderground (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)