Talk:Pope Francis/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Deleted "clarification needed" tag in relationship with Orthodox Church section

I just deleted a "clarification needed tag." I almost never delete what other editors post, but I think this is a situation where "this may have been" is a true description of scholarly judgment about an issue, not a waffling in the article that demands we do some more homework and figure out if it is or isn't. This is the note I wrote to the editor who put in the clarification needed tag. Perhaps others can help with the decision. "I just deleted your "clarification needed" note after a comment "this may have been." I wanted to let you know that I think this is the best phrase to use based on the scholarly reference. The fact that it "may" have been the first time the Orthodox Ecumenical Bishop attended a papal installation -- but definitely was the first time since the split between Western and Eastern Catholicism -- is the scholarly judgment of the history. Readers who want to learn more about the reasons it "may" have been, and that's as close as we can get to a scholarly judgment, can read more in the ref. I don't think this is an open and shut case, but really a good statement of scholarly opinion. I hope you agree.... Anyway, I'll reprint this on the talk page, but wanted to explain to you directly as well, since I hardly ever delete what others have added. However, saying clarification needed normally means there is a time limit to get an answer -- and this is an historic fact that may never be answered." (End of my post to him.)NearTheZoo (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

PS - Just added the words "according to religious historians" before "this may be" -- in an attempt to show that it is an historical fact that may be impossible to prove one way or another, rather than simply a fact that must be clarified. Is this enough of an improvement so that there is no need for the "clarification needed" tag? NearTheZoo (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Which religious historians, where, have said this? If we are going to say it is according to "religious historians" we have to have specific ones to cite.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

NearTheZoo - In general, the article is OK if it says "According to X, 'It may be that ...' " (assuming X is a suitable soure). Ie Wikipedia should not say "it may be that", but we can report that someone else said that. So in principle I agree with your change, and removal of the tag.

However:

1. As John Pack Lambert points out above, we need to be more specific about who is saying it. In fact when you look at the reference, it's one person (Demacopoulos) saying it, not several, so I've updated the article accordingly.
2. Also Demacopoulos does not say that this is "certainly the first time since the 11th century" - he actually says the opposite (with my emphasis added): "The occasion is being presented in the media as something that has not happened since the ecclesiastical schism that separated Christian East and Christian West in the eleventh century. But that characterization is almost certainly wrong..."
   So I've removed (in the same edit) "the first time since the 11th century" from the article.

Mitch Ames (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Good change -- thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Pallottine murders

Relevant Information Deleted. Why???

Regret to see "Edit lock" placed at midnight, so I cannot continue developing segment on Pallottine martyrs with a link to radio interview of on-the-ground-witness of 1976 events, Irish Bishop Seamus Freeman in a radio interview broadcast on RTE1, March 14 2013. Disagree with the "edit move" to Cardinal, since the 6 disappearances were first an unsolved crime before they became a form of faithful religious witness as martyrs when the murders were revealed. Pls advise.MrsKrishan (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Have expanded segment with forensic photo of the murders and hotlink to the St Patrick Church massacre page. Left newer sentence fragment under "Cardinal" linking to the original 3-level heading segmentMrsKrishan (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I've just seen this, and deleted it. There's barely any mention of Francis. At most it's worth one sentence. And that sentence is already in the article in the "Cardinal" sub-section. DeCausa (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Three decades of faithful pastoral concern is worth at most more than you give it credit (events happened way before he became Cardinal or Pope). Pope_Francis&oldid=546324476 is "stet." (undo) I have appended topical quotes on tyranny and truth and hearts of stone and hands with stones from comments to world diplomats and homily to garbage collectors.Pls adviseMrsKrishan (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Your post is incoherent and I can't tell what point you are making. Your edit adds a lot of information about these murders, but there is no connection with Francis other than he discussed them with Freeman on two occasions. That's no reason to put in a large chunk of text about events with which he was not involved. DeCausa (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You betray your non-neutral POV with your hectoring tone, "events with which he was not involved" is your opinion only on the political nature and worth of his involvement, my point (if I could complete my edits which i am being prevented from doing by your strident arrogance) is that the SPIRITUAL value of the martyrdom is vast and Pope Francis is in a unique position to give it credit: he was there when it happened and hes now presides over the keys that judge their eternal spiritual (not historical secular) merit, quite an uncontroversial and necessarily valid point to be included in an article on a religious figure IMHO.MrsKrishan (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

what? Wikipedia is not the place to write a religious meditation. Has Francis written on this subject? No (or at least it's not in your edit). Has Francis spoken on this subject? No (or at least it's not in your edit). Was Francis in some way involved in the events surrounding the murders. No (or at least it's not in your edit). What you are trying to do is add a lot of text about the murders themselves. This article is not the place for that.

The only thing we do have in connection with the murders is his support of the beatification - which is already in the article. DeCausa (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I support the removal of this material by DeCausa. The only point that relates to Francis is his support of the beatification process, which I rescued from this. I have advised MrsKrishan in a discussion on our Talk pages to consider adding to San Patricio Church massacre and Pallottines, which are far more appropriate for some of her factual material. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Added more historical-spiritual material at 3.level subhead under Falklands Dispute to support relevance of "religious-mindedness" (fruit of this POV: an abiding political outcome that still stands almost three decades later) MrsKrishan (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Bergoglio wasn't involved in that. It's irrelevant to this article. You call it "historical-spiritual material", but it's a connection not only unsupported by reliable sources but purely in your own mind. Please stop this. DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think we should remove most of the information we currently have in the article on the subject. Either we need to tie it more closely to Francis, or put the information elsewhere. I still see no link between the murders and Francis' relations with the government.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. But, in fact, there is no connection with Francis other than in MrsKrishnan's mind. He has supported the victims' beatification and that is already noted in the "Cardinal" section. Other than that there is no link. I've made a report to AN3 as MrsKrishan has crossed the EW brightline. DeCausa (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the link to the right Seamus Freeman

I am not sure if the link is to the right Seamus Freeman, but it seems he is probably the right person. If it is so, his article should probably mention something about his connection with Francis. I am a bit unclear what Freeman's link to the whole matter is. I am also not 100% sure how the St. Patrick's massacre links to Francis either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Seamus Freeman was a Pallotine (or however you spell that), but if he was ever in Argentina his article makes no mention of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The St Patrick's massacre doesn't link to Francis. See "Relevant Information Deleted. Why???" thread above. it's been deleted (for moment). DeCausa (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Bishop Freeman spoke on the radio interview I linked to in the segment deleted -- he's no longer a regular priest (of the rule) in the Pallottines (he's a secular Bishop ie in charge of a diocese). He was "in country" at the time with Jorge Bergoglio and then was in Rome later also (he didn't give dates on the air, and I have no paper trail to verify). What I do have is the link on the Pallottines Cause page that links one of the FIVE (I was incorrect in my first edit - assumed the spanish news article naming the 6 martyrs, that they were all regulars not seculars) martyr Fr. Alfie Kelly DIRECTLY to Fr. Bergoglio: he was his spiritual director (the priest he went to receive the sacrament of reconciliation) see "He was spiritual director to the man who was to become the Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Bergoglio." This is a very significant fact in the case - the forensic photo of the corpses of the victims can be personally linked to the Pope: one of them could be his closest spiritual "brother" (relationship of spiritual direction is the height of respect in clerical orders, it is one priest giving authority for his state of soul to another). A right-wing militia, the montaneros, was suspected but the case has never been solved. I cannot dedicate time right now to this (I have to go teach class) but I intend to follow suggested course of action to create a Pallottine martyrs page to link to, with the arguements on tyranny of relativism and the relevant "peace/truth" quotes from the diplomatic corps to substantiate the great spiritual value of these facts (that I'm willing to concede secular-minded wiki editors aren't able to grasp -- yet -- since they think in other categories of "wordly power" such as politics or economics). In the mean time its in the hands of wiki-arbitrators to conciliate, I trust the processMrsKrishan (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC) So sorry, Montoneros are tagged "left-wing" apparently (these categories are malleable, absent a natural law standard or baseline to gauge their comparative evils. These guerilla movements all exhibit reductive-protofascist (anti-free will) tendencies, exactly the point re: "dictatorship of relativism" that the Pope has gone on record as denouncing.

San Patricio massacre

We need to specificy when Cardinal Bergoglio opened the cause of the San Patricio victims. Dating such events is important, it is currently a very weak mention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It was 2005. I've added it to the article - from a Chicago Tribune article. The article says he also ordered an investigation into the murders but I can't find anything about the results of the investigation. DeCausa (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It is possible the investigation is still on going. Investigations begun 30 years after the fact do not often conclude in an expeditious manner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Holy See

I think the Holy See (separate, of course, from The Vatican City State) should be mentioned in the lede. Perhaps replace "As such, he is both head of the Church and Sovereign of the Vatican City State" -- with "As such, he is head of the world-wide Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome with ecclesiastical authority over the Holy See, and Sovereign of the Vatican City State. Not sure that wording is perfect, but better? What do others think? NearTheZoo (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't that apply for all popes? Cambalachero (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes -- definitely applies to all popes, but what is already written in the lede (Sovereign of the Vatican City State) does, as well. I don't think it makes sense to mention the Vatican City State (political) without Holy See (ecclesiastical). I think both are important, especially for "average readers" who don't understand the distinctions.... NearTheZoo (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• How is this described in the article on his predecessor? Also, for what it is worth this is a much different political role than that held by the last "Hispanic" Pope Alexander VI, who had political power over a much larger territory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The description in this article is the same as in the article about his predecessor, Benedict XVI -- but I like to think we improve as we go along! :) The basic info that I am recommending as an addition does appear in the wiki article Pope. It is not a *crucial* addition, but i think that if we are going to include a sentence that begins "as such," then adding a few extra words to make that sentence as accurate as possible is (in my opinion) worthwhile. My recommended sentence deals with the pope's threefold responsibility: (1) head of the world-wide Catholic church; (2) specific ecclesiastical responsibility for the area designated as "the Holy See"; and (3) specific political responsibility for the area designated as the "Vatican City State." Again, I think the few extra words are not crucial...but certainly would be an improvement. Plus, having both the Holy See and the Vatican City State in the same sentence in the lede enhances (again, in my mind) the entire article -- because readers can hit those links to the two articles and learn the difference between the two. NearTheZoo (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if Holy See is really the best term here. Maybe we should include "as such he is the bishop of Rome, with specific oversight of that diocese".John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The Holy See is such a specific and unique term that I still think it is important to mention. As the article on the Holy See points out, Ambassadors are actually accredited to the Holy See as opposed to the Vatican City State. So it is not just a matter of the Pope's responsibility to oversee a specific diocese. Still think mentioning head of the church and sovereign of the Vatican City State leaves out this third extraordinarily important responsibility. Saying that "as Bishop of Rome, he has eccleiastical responsibility for "the Holy See" still seems to me to add something significant.... NearTheZoo (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone just changed the line in the lead from "sovereign of the Vatican City State" to "sovereign of the Holy See." This is definitely incorrect, so I changed it back -- but I do think it raises once again the question of adding a correct reference to the Holy See. Based on the wikipedia article for Pope, I'd like to change the sentence to: "As such, he is head of the Catholic Church; sovereign of the Vatican City State; and as Bishop of Rome, the ecclesiastical authority for the Holy See. After the discussion here, would anyone object? NearTheZoo (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

After ready up on this, I have to say that I agree that the Holy See should be included, but I too am struggling with the language. Your suggestion, NearTheZoo, has 3 parts: head, sovereign, ecclesiastical authority. How different are the first and third of those? How is Francis "head of the Church" if not as an "ecclesiastical authority"? The words "head of the Catholic Church" just hang out there as if unrelated to his role as Bishop of Rome and head of the Holy See. Isn't the distinction we need to make just dual: (1) head of the Catholic Church by virtue of being Bishop of Rome with authority over the Holy See and (2) the sovereign of a territorial state.

And using the term "ecclesiastical authority" only makes sense if it's used in opposition to something like "secular authority" (or "political" or the rather antique "temporal") over the Vatican State. Easier to drop the adjective. I also find "sovereign" a bit orotund. Thus:

head of the Catholic Church as Bishop of Rome with authority over the Holy See and ruler of the Vatican City State.

or

head of the Catholic Church, Bishop of Rome with authority over the Holy See, and ruler of the Vatican City State.

Apologies for being long winded. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still struggling with language, too. He is leader of the worldwide Catholic church, but works through cardinals and bishops almost everywhere in the world...but the Holy See is different. Also, the Holy See is different because (as mentioned above, and in the wiki article on Holy See) it is recognized in international relations differently, since ambassadors are appointed by it (and not by the Vatican City State). I think that perhaps "leadership" is the term for the entire Catholic Church, and ecclesiastical authority is the term for the Holy See (and political authority for the Vatican City State) might be the way to go...but not sure. Anyway, perhaps we can all keep struggling to see if we can come up with the right nuance (and sophistication) in terms of words. But I appreciate the fact that this discussion is continuing....

NearTheZoo (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the lack of reference to "Bishop of Rome" is a bigger omission than a reference to the Holy See. Bishop of Rome is the start point for the other areas of authority, especially his authority in relation to the Holy See. I would suggest: "As such, he is Bishop of Rome (with authority over the Holy See), head of the Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State." DeCausa (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I like that...except perhaps adding the word "ecclesiastic" that is used in the wiki article on Pope. Perhaps:

"As such, he is Bishop of Rome (with ecclesiastical authority over the Holy See); head of the worldwide Catholic Church; and sovereign of the Vatican City State." Does this hit all the bases? NearTheZoo (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks right to me. DeCausa (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I've put it into the article - see if it takes. DeCausa (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be the misunderstanding that the Holy See somehow refers to the local role of the Pope as Bishop of Rome, that it refers to the diocesis of Rome. But that's not the case! The term is synonymous with the Pope and encompasses all his roles. Hence, I'm afraid, I have to take it out again. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a strong view about keeping it, because as I said above, the main omission was a reference to "Bishop of Rome". But strictly you're incorrect. There's a difference between the de facto and de jure position. De facto, you are correct: the Holy See is the central authority for the whole Church. But De jure the Holy See is the Bishopric of Rome. I think the correct description is probably a long the lines as the Bishopric of Rome in its capacity as central authority for the Church. I don't think the wording you changed was incorrect, but as I say, I don't have a strong opinion on it. DeCausa (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the link to "Diocesis of Rome", which I have now provided.

However, I cannot following your de facto/de jure distinction (most of the time, these terms are misused anyway) - the Holy See, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome are simply one and the same institution/person, which has a number of different functions. Sure, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome - that's the core from which everything else flows. But the Bishop of Rome has the primacy among all Bishops in the Catholic Church. "Pope of the Catholic Church" is already a misnomer, "Roman Pope" or "Pope of Rome" would be accurate.

I must insist that, strictly speaking, what I wrote is correct. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The point is the "Holy See" is the Bishopric of Rome in cannon law (hence de jure). However, for many centuries now the "Holy See is used to refer to the Pope's administration of the church as a whole (hence de facto). DeCausa (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Chanted in Greek

The article states that the Gospel was sung in Greek because of +Bartholomew's attendance. However, the Gospel was also sung in Greek at Pope Benedict XVI's installation Mass, as it traditionally has been done at all solemn papal masses. The difference this time was that the Gospel was sung only in Greek, and not also in Latin (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-inauguration-brings-world-to-rome/). Since the claim, as usually stated, doesn't get the facts quite right, I'm skeptical also that it was "because" of +Bartholomew's attendance. 02:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.56.249 (talk)

Agreed. See http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_canto-vangelo_en.html on the longstanding tradition

Lots of descriptions, apparently using Vatican language, possibly using Lombardi's words, say: "The Gospel will be proclaimed in Greek, as at the highest solemnities." See http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=124729

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I've made a change, putting the claim that the Gospel was chanted in Greek to honor Bartholomew in a note, contrasted with what the Vatican News Service says to the contrary. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"Creative transformation in evangelization"

What's the general view of this section under Teachings. I've read it through and it means little to me and seems a series of platitudes. I guess that doesn't matter, that's probably just my persoanl reaction. However, when I look at the sources there are only three of them and they are all primary (i.e. Francis's own words). There are no secondary sources that identifies this as a topic in itself. How did this section come about? How has it been identified as a notable topic? I am suspicious that it amounts to WP:OR - not the statements themselves, but its identification as a noteworthy topic deserving of its own section. Views please. DeCausa (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I dont known anything about this subject. But a mans own word proberly published in his own books or by saying it to a media. That have to be a good enough source. EX. The pope just say in at TV he likes green. OR? The reporter ends the show after the Pope have left by saying tonight the we learned that the Pope like green. Good reliable second source? Please tell me that this is not how you grade OR. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I may not have been clear. Per WP:PRIMARY, there's obviously nothing wrong with using the sources to say Pope Francis said A and B and C. But here A, B and C are strung together under a particular heading as though this was a particular strain of thought of his, and more notable than other things he's talked about. In fact, it's one of only 7 groupings within our heading of "Teaching". But there's no secondary source to say this is a notable "teaching" of his. That's where WP:OR may come in and where WP:PRIMARY reaches its boundary. In other words, without a secondary source discussing the "creative transformation in evangelization" we've only got editors' WP:OR that (a) A, B and C link together as a theme under that description and (b) it has some notability amongst all the issues Francis may have discussed during his career. Hope that clarifies my point. DeCausa (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Firsts

The lead now says he is "the first to come from the Americas, the first to come from the New World and the first to come from the Southern Hemisphere".

It seems unncessary to have such a long list of all firsts imaginable, especially as all these essentially cover the same topic (in this context, the New World and the Americas refer to the same thing). First from the Americas would suffice. Mocctur (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Americas are not solely located in the Southern Hemisphere. If that sentence absolutely must be shortened (it really doesn't look that long, IMHO), the fact that he is the first Pope from the Southern Hemisphere should be kept too. --190.19.77.29 (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

"First Pope from the Western and Southern hemispheres"? LCS check (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Stating that Francis is the first Pope from the Western Hemisphere would not be factually correct as at least five Popes were born in the Iberian Peninsula: Callixtus I, Damasus I, John XXI, Callixtus III, and Alexander VI. --190.19.104.138 (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Plus Adrian IV was from the part of England beyond the Prime Meridian and thus the Western Hemisphere as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Although 20th meridian west is probably the more commonly used boundary for the Western hemisphere. DeCausa (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

As discussed ad nauseum perhaps, Francis's country of origin does break new ground. There has never before been a Pope from outside of Europe or the Mediterranean. I don't think the wording really captures this.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

First Pope to chose the name Francis?

Do we need to say this in the lead? I mean, of course he is the first Pope to chose the name Francis, otherwise he would be Pope Francis II, Pope Francis III or something else. That seems a needless additional first to just have more. I think we should cut back to from the southern Hemisphere and from the Americas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I just read the lead. It sounds very precise and tight, except for the "also the first to choose the name Francis" part. Anyone who is not an idiot should be able to tell that just from the article name not having a number in it. (This is not to say that his being the first Francis cannot be mentioned later on in the article.) – Herzen (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I would not argue to put the statement back, I do want to note that it might not be as obvious as we are making out. For example, if there had been a Pope John Francis in the past, this pope would still be Francis (without a numeral), although he would not be the first pope to choose the name Francis. Am I right? Daniel Moynihan used to say that "the world doesn't need more simplifiers; it needs more complexifiers" -- so this comment is made to help complexify the situation a bit. :) NearTheZoo (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

First Pope to choose the name Francis is trivia, not intro-worthy. LCS check (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That's how it strikes me too. DeCausa (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but since he is not using an ordinal it can be nice to point it out anyway. Since he is not called Francis I, it is hard to know if he really is the first pope of that name without pointing it out. The Horn Blower (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The mentioning of this "first" is now not as awkward as it was before. – Herzen (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

this thing is getting too long

The article needs to start getting split up as per John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I know it's still early, but it's already somewhat unwhieldley.Ericl (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Currently the biggest section, as well as the section likely to increase in size the most, seems to be Teachings. Perhaps creating an article called Teachings of Pope Francis would help. --190.19.104.138 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I still think it's too early to split the article, but I think Teachings of Pope Francis would be a good split to make once his papacy is better established. Andrew³²⁷ 15:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Islam

"Buenos Aires Islamic leaders praise Bergoglio's close ties with the Islamic community by citing his reactions to a 2005 incident when Pope Benedict XVI quoted a medieval document that described Muhammad as "evil and inhuman".[100]"

The year should be changed to 2006 (September 12, 2006 actually). It was at the Regensburg Lecture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regensburg_lecture

74.71.97.118 (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Dan Sheffield74.71.97.118 (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done The cited source referred to it as happening in 2005, so I just removed the date altogether to avoid confusion. Andrew³²⁷ 15:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Society of Jesus (SJ) or not?

Everyone knows that the pope use to be a jesuit, but is he still so. And if not when did he stop being? Discussions about this that was all over this talkpage are gathered here. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Post-Nominals

Does he keep the "SJ" post-nominals after his name, as a Jesuit? Pylon (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a trophy to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.77.61.139 (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

All of that goes away. The only thing that matter is the fact he is now the Bishop of Rome. Jorge Mario Brogoglio, SJ for all intents and purposes does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.204.221.78 (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• SJ

What's the basis for adding "SJ" to the name of the Pope. Sure, he was "SJ" as a bishop and cardinal but I see no precedence for adding a religious order to a pope - see Pope Pius V, who is never called Pius V SJ. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• How likely is it that Pope Francis will retain the SJ suffix? I would imagine not, but can't cite anything yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Of course he wasn't called Pius V SJ. He was a Dominican, not a Jesuit.--Vidkun (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Pius V O.P.?--KTo288 (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• He is almost certainly no longer a Jesuit. By the rules of their order, Jesuits are not allowed to hold official dignities such as bishop, pope, etc. unless they get a special permission, which is almost never granted. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_formation for some info on this.) So the s.j. is not justified.Michaelmke (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

"Almost certainly?" Says who? And besides, who's he gonna ask permission of? He's the POPE. I'm not lobbying for the inclusion of the SJ, that's dumb, but let's use logical reasoning when making our arguments. Iamvered (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Not Technically a Jesuit

It's true that Bergoglio was a Jesuit for 32 years. But once he became a bishop, he is technically no longer a Jesuit. Jesuits make a promise not to accept higher offices in the Church. When they are asked to take on those jobs, they are dispensed from that promise as well as their vows of obedience to their religious superior and poverty. They literally have to leave the Society in order to become bishops.

So, the comment that he is the first Jesuit pope is actually a misnomer. A Jesuit cannot be pope and still be a Jesuit.

I'm new to this forum, but some sort of note to that effect should be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jas2013 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If you can dig up some suitable sources, you should go ahead and edit it yourself (or if you're not autoconfirmed, post an edit request.Blelbach (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

While it is true that a member of a religious institute who is raised to the episcopacy is released from his vow of obedience to the superiors of that institute, by custom he is still considered a member of the institute, and is listed as such in the directories of the institute to which he has belonged, and he will continue to use the postnominal initials of the institute. So, yes, he is still a Jesuit in some form. Daniel the Monk (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Especially in a case like this, where he was also the Jesuit provincial for Argentina for 6 years (The superior of all Jesuits in the country), and was a Rector in a Jesuit seminary for 6 years. No other Pope has a Jesuit history like this. wxwalsh 05:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxwalsh (talk • contribs)

This is why we rely on reliable sources and forbid original research. It appears that there are several people active on this talk page with a really deep understanding of the Roman Catholic church, but we should wait for more articles to come out about the pope before deciding most of these questions. Andrew³²⁷ 05:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

New York Times article on time as head of Jesuits in Argentina

Here [1] is a New York Times article on Francis' time as head of the Jesuits in Argentina. Considering that the New York Times' forming managing editor basically stated that it is ok for journalists to be biased on social issues, and the clear bias of the NYT on social issues is against the moral positions taken by Pope Francis and the Roman Catholic Church more generally, it could very well be plagued by biases, and should be balenced by other sources, but it is worth at least considering in the formation of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Jesuit provincial election process

Some sources say he was elected rather than named Provincial. The Jesuits don't elect someone to that office. He is named by the order's Father General. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure of the exact process in the Jesuits but in my congregation and most others, Provincials are both elected and named. The members of the province are consulted for who they think would be a good provincial (by secret ballot) then the general names someone - most of the time, the one with most votes but sometimes #2 or #3 in votes if the #1 has some other responsibility he can't give up, or the general sees something strongly objectionable about him. Since the vote is only consultative, I think named is more accurate if we want to summarize it in one or two lines. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 08:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The Jesuits think Francis is (still) a Jesuit

From Jesuits, the National Jesuit News, a blog post includes comments from Gerald Blaszczak SJ, of the New York Province, who is now director of the Secretariat of the General Curia for the Promotion of Faith: "The Jesuits promise not to seek high offices in the church, which explains in part why there has never been a Jesuit pope before. However, Father Blaszczak said, that Jesuit promise is secondary to their promise to always be available for whatever mission the church needs them to take on." --- OtherDave (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that his Coat of Arms really tells the whole story, with the insignia of the order right in the middle. But is still remains the question: "Is it Pope Francis or Pope Francis SJ" in the infobox? Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

(That was me, earlier; I forgot the signature line.) The Vatican's web site has "The Holy Father, Pope Francis." I don't think there's any need for an SJ in the infobox. The article makes clear he's a Jesuit, as does this account of a visit to the pope on Sunday by the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, who said that Francis "insisted that I treat him like any other Jesuit." --- OtherDave (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting account. I was thinking it could even be used in the lead of the papecy section instead of the hospital visit to show the popes differet leadership style (different from his predecessors). I will try to see when I get the time and energy for it :) But really interesting in anycase Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh Yeah. Just one question. Does anyone know what the TU LEVEL is? I tried googling it, but the web is just flooded with the same report about the pope wanting the Jesuit leader to treat him as a fellow jesuit at the tu level, and not with the normal ceremonials of the Pope. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Jack, I'm sure it refers to the two forms for "you" in languages like Spanish, French, and Latin. Second person singular is tú / tu / tu in those languages; this is the form you use when speaking to a child or to someone close to you, like a friend; the plural forms ( usted / vous / vos ) are for addressing more than one person or for showing respect. Ordinarily the Superior General would use usted in Spanish, vous in French, or vos in Latin when speaking to the Pope. The point of the story is that Francis was saying, in essence, "we are brother Jesuits; there's no need for formality." --- OtherDave (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about Spanish, by the way, but in French there are two verbs, tutoyer and vouvoyer. They mean "to address someone with tu" (meaning, more informally or intimately) and "to address someone with vous" (more formally). --- OtherDave (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I was thinking it was some special level in the jesuit order, but I should just have used my rusty latin. (et tu brutus ) So the Tu level simply means to be informal? Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The Spanish version says "llamándole de tú," which means that he did not want to be called by the formal, respectful "Usted", which puts the addressee on a higher level and at a distance. Instead he wanted to be called "tu" which implies equality and closeness as well as informality. OtherDave, you're right that it's the same as "tutoyer"; in Spanish it's "tutear" Ddeman (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The last 2 previous popes from religious orders were Benedictines who were elected in 1800 and 1846. I don't think postnomial initials were used for them when referring to them as pope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Relations with the Argentine Junta II

More on dispute with Kirchner

Here is an article [2] that suggests that at least one of the reasons Pope Francis nad the Kirchner's have had such deep disagreements is because he felt it was wrong to undo already applied amnesties. I would argue the article is biased for the Kirchner's and fails to analize the reason why amnesty is a worthwhile thing, and why undoing it particularly is a bad idea. I think the quotes from Sergio Rubin get somewhat at the reasons that trying to make everyone into a "collaborator" does not work, but I think there needs to be more analysis of the issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that article is that it is not specific, it is a big Non sequitur. The government of the Kirchners did that, yes, and did several other things. The article does not actually point something specific about Bergoglio opposing those policies, only a vague "The Kirchners had this political idea, Bergoglio is against the Kirchners, then he is against that political idea". Nonsense. It's as if we say "Bush was against Al-Qaeda, Obama was against Bush, then Obama supports Al-Qaeda". Cambalachero (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the "Relationship with the Kirschner's" section overly plays up the extent of bad relations between Francis and Mrs. Kirchner. Argentina has a Catholic majority and the present government is liberal, so of course there is going to be tension between the government and the RCC hierarchy, on account of the hierarchy's positions against abortion and same-sex marriage.

This AP story says the Pope had lunch with Kirchner last Monday and that "They also seemed to have patched up their relationship." Isn't that worth a mention in this section? If any Western government has poor relations with Francis, it is the UK government—on account of its hardline position on the Falklands—not the Argentine government. – Herzen (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Judgement says the accusations were false

• One of the judges who led the judgement said that accusations against Bergoglio were false. In Spanish: [3][4][5] --Robert Laymont (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• The president of the Court of Justice of Argentina said that "Bergoglio is completely innocent" (in Spanish from the italian newspaper La Stampa) --Robert Laymont (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately there is another version in English: [6] --Robert Laymont (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have tried to incorporate some of this in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Graciela Fernández Meijide - Dirty War

Graciela Fernández Meijide, member of the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights, also said that there was no proof linking Bergoglio with the dictatorship. She told Clarín: "There is no information and Justice couldn't prove it. I was in the APDH during all the dictatorship years and I received hundreds of testimonies. Bergoglio was never mentioned. It was the same in the CONADEP. Nobody mentioned him as instigator or as anything."

Is this notable? She isn't really making a positive statement about him. It's just she doesn't know anything.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say that it's notable. She's not saying that she doesn't know anything. She's saying that as a member of the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights and CONADEP, she reviewed hundreds and hundreds of cases, over a number of years. She's saying that because of that experience she does know who the guilty clergy are, and she knows that Bergoglio was not one of them.

Would it help to add more from the original source?

This is the paragraph (in Spanish) that comes right before the section quoted:

Graciela Fernández Meijide es atea, defiende el matrimonio igualitario y promueve la despenalización del aborto. Ninguno de estos principios, dice, le impiden tomar posición a favor de Jorge Bergoglio, a quien frecuentó como ministra de Desarrollo Social de la Alianza. “No me consta en absoluto que haya sido cómplice de la dictadura”, asegura la ex integrante de la CONADEP.

¿Por qué está tan convencida?

My translation (I lived 8 years in Latin America including 5 years in Argentina)

Graciela Fernandez Meijide is an atheist, defends marriage equality and promotes the decriminalization of abortion. None of these principles, she says, prevent her from taking a stand in favor of Jorge Bergoglio, whom she knew when she was Minister of Social Development. "I know absolutely that he was not an accomplice of the dictatorship", assures the former member of the CONADEP.

Why are you so sure? [interviewer's question] Ddeman (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The words of a member of the APDH and the CONADEP certainly are notable. Besides, stating that she "doesn't know anything" severely misrepresents what she declared. She has said:

• That, as a member of the APDH and the CONADEP, she has no information on the matter (which is very important, as both organizations usually could/can tell whether or not a person was involved in the Dirty War).
• That the judiciary could not establish a link between Pope Francis and the junta.
• That no one ever mentioned him in any of the hundreds of testimonies she has heard throughout her career as a human rights activist.

--190.19.104.138 (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal article.

Several days ago The Wall Street Journal released an article exposing the reasons why Pope Francis was the subject of allegations regarding the kidnapping of two priests by the military. I believe a sentence or two explaining the situation would help readers to understand why he was unfairly accused of crimes he never committed. Thoughts? --190.19.77.29 (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

See above under "More sources..."--Jack Upland (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

And to state it in brief, the "article" is question is not a work of journalism and does not pretend to be. It's an editor's opinion piece. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Dirty War - Again --> Gonzalo Mosca + José Caravias + Horacio Verbitsky accusations

URUGUAY-VATICAN-POPE FRANCIS-MOSCA or EXCLUSIF AFP: un Uruguayen dit avoir fui la dictature argentine grâce au pape François. Relevant? --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems relevant, as it confirms what Pope Francis said in his book. I think a sentence in the article would suffice. --190.19.75.148 (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Two newspapers of record, El Pais in Spain and La Nacion in Buenos Aires, are now carrying Mosca's story; additionally, the El Pais story cites another witness, José Caravias, who affirms that Bergoglio also saved him from an Argentine paramilitary group

[7]

[8]

Ddeman (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thx. Here is an interesting article Francis, the Jesuits and the Dirty War by Thomas Reese in the National Catholic Reporter about the accusations from Horacio Verbitsky. Relevant? --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I tried to incorporate these issues into the article. Someone with a better grasp of French and Spanish, or able to find some mention in English language sources might want to try to improve its inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to improve it but here's an English language source, a translation of an Agence France Presse article on Caravias--from a newspaper in South Africa http://www.thenewage.co.za/88771-1020-53-Priest_says_saved_by_Pope_during_Argentina_dirty_war Ddeman (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Medias in open war against Kirchnerism, are NON-NEUTRAL sources

I am not suggesting that Clarín, La Nación, Perfil and other media in open war against Kirchnerism should not be used as sources: what I'm saying is that IF they are used as sources, they should be explicitly mentioned in the text, as a sort of warning.

It is clear (for everyone, I hope) that Wikipedia is a great place to look for information on Fibonacci numbers or the Gregorian Calendar, but it is also an awful place to look for information on the freedom of the press in Venezuela during the Chávez administration: everyone knows that the contents of articles dealing with controversial issues are modeled according to the editing power of fire of either side. My point is: when you contaminate Wikipedia articles on contemporary politics with non-neutral content, you don't harm your political adversaries, but you harm the quality of the articles instead. For in any case, perhaps no one is as silly as to form his/her opinions on contemporary politics by reading Wikipedia articles.

Sorry if I went a bit off-topic in the previous paragraph, but sooner or later Wikipedia should decide how to deal with articles on Latin American politics which use furious anti-leftist media as overwhelmingly dominant sources.

In this particular article, I read the following sentence, with a reference to Clarín newspaper of Buenos Aires:

"During his time as archbishop, Cristina Fernández rejected 14 requests for meetings by Bergoglio"

And I changed it to:

"According to an article by Clarín newspaper of Buenos Aires, during his time as archbishop... etcetera

Since Clarín newspaper is obviously non-neutral, it is evident for me that the second version is better.

Should I use a NPOV tag instead? Sebasbronzini (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

One more statement: by my own experience, I came to the opinion that NPOV tags and NPOV boxes are insufficient tools to deal with this problem, because the same editors who use to contaminate controversial articles with information taken from non-neutral sources, typically also engage in deleting NPOV warnings and/or reverting editions when another editor dares to question the reliability of their sources. Sebasbronzini (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The sources might be used, but giving due weight to the section they are placed in. Nevertheless, this is an article regarding a Pope, not one dealing with Kirchnerism. One more thing: persistently deleting a maintenance template, such as {{NPOV}} is, is vandalism.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No it's not - or not necessarily at least. It could be a lot of other things (tendentious, edit-warring etc) but it's not vandalism when it's one of those "other things" and the editor thinks what he's doing is "right" (even if "wrong"). Vandalism is per WP:VANDAL only. DeCausa (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarín and La Nación are not in "open war" with anyone. On the contrary, it is always a trait of totalitarian governments to see the freedom of the press as a "threat", or to find bias and secret agendas at every thing that does not praise them as the saviors of the nation. As for what this article is concerned, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is only for points of view, not for facts. That Kirchner rejected 14 requests for meetings is a fact, not an opinion. WP:YESPOV is clear on that: "Avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion". We shouldn't include an "according to Clarín..." here, same as we don't say "according to the NASA, Earth is the third planet of the solar system". Cambalachero (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

But is it an 'uncontested factual assertion'? Sebasbronzini at least gives the impression that he may well think otherwise, though so far he hasn't said so explicitly. I know almost nothing about Argentine politics, so I don't much care either way (except that I'm mildly interested in how Wikipedans should handle such matters, plus I am usually biased against the Church, though I think my only edit of this article was correcting a misleadingly anti-Francis mistranslated headline from La Nacion to a more accurate neutral one). But it would not surprise me in the least if the Kirschner version was something like 'we only received 6, rejected 2 for reasons X, Y, and Z, ignored 2 for reasons A, B, and C, and were still considering the last 2 when the Cardinal's departure for the Conclave made them irrelevant'. And, given Sebasbronzini's objections, it would at least mildly surprise me if the Kirschner version was 'we entirely agree with the Clarin version', which is what an 'uncontested factual assertion' would seemingly require. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Kirchnerists propaganda outlets simply skip that information. That is not really to "contest" it. If there is an article saying that, that Kirchner had frequent meeting with Bergoglio and that their emnity with him never existed, then we shall see. Problem is, false information may be refuted by other media, skipped information simply goes unnoticed. Cambalachero (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted "According to an article by Clarín newspaper of Buenos Aires" twice, because I think it is silly to mention that in the text when the same information is given in the footnote. The point I made in my edit summary is that either the source is reliable, or it isn't. I think the relevant policy here is exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I would say the claim that Fernández refused 14 times to meet with Bergoglio is exceptional. (Does this mean that she simply stopped meeting with him at some point? That's unclear.) The WP guideline clearly states that in cases such as this, "multiple high-quality sources" are required. Since this issue has been debated for some time without a second source backing up this strange allegation ever being found, the allegation should be removed completely. (Hence, no need for the redundant "According to an article by Clarín newspaper of Buenos Aires".) – Herzen (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Allegations that Clarín and La Nación are in "open war" against Argentina's current government are only made by Kirchnerists in order to damage their reputation, as they are not controlled by Kirchnerist businesspeople and publish independent reports on poverty, crime, and unemployment. A similar tactic has been used by the government of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. The consensus among Argentines and the international press is that they are reliable and trustworthy. I should mention that La Nación is even considered a newspaper of record. --190.19.77.29 (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the allegation in question not because I consider Clarín to be an unreliable source (not being Argentinian and not reading Spanish, I have no opinion on the matter), but because the claim is exceptional, and WP guidelines require multiple high quality sources in such cases. One source, even if it is reliable, is not sufficient in this case. – Herzen (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition to Clarín, I have found five newspapers (two of them from outside Argentina) that have reported the same information. Please consider adding it again.

• Perfil (Buenos Aires, Argentina): Al menos catorce audiencias le pidió el ahora pontífice a Ella. Nunca lo recibió. Lo que viene.
• El Diario Noticias (San Miguel de Tucumán, Argentina): Bergoglio le pidió 14 audiencias a Cristina Kirchner, y Ella no lo recibió.
• La Voz del Chaco (Resistencia, Argentina): Se dice –aunque no hay confirmación por parte del Gobierno Nacional- que la Casa Rosada habría postergado 14 veces audiencias solicitadas por monseñor Jorge Bergoglio cuando era arzobispo de Buenos Aires y planteaba desde ese rol cuestiones urticantes como la necesaria justicia para los muertos de la tragedia de Cromañón o una revisión en los mecanismos de distribución de la asistencia social ante las sospechas que recaían sobre organizaciones vinculadas al Gobierno, como por ejemplo la Fundación Sueños Compartidos.
• El País (Spain): En lo más remoto de la historia parecían quedar las 14 veces que, según varios medios argentinos, Bergoglio llamó formalmente a las puertas de la Casa Rosada para ser recibido por la presidenta y nadie le abrió.
• El Universo (Ecuador): Con total aplomo, medios locales cuentan 14 veces que el entonces cardenal de Buenos Aires pidió ser recibido por la presidenta Cristina; 14 veces que fue rechazado el pedido; 14 veces que el actual papa fue desairado por la presidenta. 14 veces que la soberbia abofeteó a la piedad, a la sencillez y a la humildad.

Thank you. --190.19.77.29 (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly what was needed. Thank you. El País is certainly a reliable source. Unfortunately, I don't read Spanish. Hopefully someone whose Spanish is good will look at those articles, confirm that the allegation is not coming just from one single source and then being repeated in other places (as sometimes happens), and then restore this claim to the article, this time making it well sourced, by citing at least two sources, one being preferably El País, since it the most well known internationally. And it will not be necessary to cite any source in the body of the article, which is what Sebasbronzini proposed when he started this talk section. – Herzen (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have restored the information and mentioned that multuple sources are listed here. I do not feel confiudent enough in my Spanish to seamlessly integrate these additional sources into the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, since you did that, I've removed the explicit reference to Clarín in the article body and added El País as a second reference. My position here all along has been that we should decide whether there are good sources supporting this claim or not. If we decide there are, there is no reason to mention them in the main text; if we decide there are not, the article shouldn't mention this at all.

Hopefully, Spanish speakers will check the sources at some point to verify that they say what the article claims, but I see no reason to mistrust the person who came up with the additional sources. – Herzen (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

My Spanish isn't great either, but it's good enough to notice that it seems pretty clear that some of these sources, including El Pais, have reservations (to put it mildly) about the claim and are NOT presenting it as 'uncontested fact'.

• El País (Spain): En lo más remoto de la historia parecían quedar las 14 veces que, según varios medios argentinos, Bergoglio llamó formalmente a las puertas de la Casa Rosada para ser recibido por la presidenta y nadie le abrió.

which basically means "In the most remote part of history, there appears to remain the 14 times when, according to various Argentine media, Bergoglio officially called to the gates of the Pink House to be received by the president, and nobody opened them." In other words, it is NOT a confirmation by a newspaper of record. And it was supplied to us by a user with no name and red ink for a talk page and who did not offer us a translation, all of which should arguably itself have been grounds for skepticism (except for the problem that we're seemingly expected to live in Cloud Cuckoo Land, and are thus supposed to comply with WP:AGF and Assume Good Faith).

• La Voz del Chaco (Resistencia, Argentina): Se dice –aunque no hay confirmación por parte del Gobierno Nacional- que la Casa Rosada habría postergado 14 veces audiencias solicitadas por monseñor Jorge Bergoglio cuando era arzobispo de Buenos Aires ...

This translates as 'It is said - though there is no confirmation from the National Government - that the Pink House 14 times postponed requested audiences by monsignor (or My Lord?) Jorge Bergoglio when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires....". Again this is clearly NOT asserting that this happened.

• El Universo (Ecuador): Con total aplomo, medios locales cuentan 14 veces que el entonces cardenal de Buenos Aires pidió ser recibido por la presidenta Cristina; 14 veces que fue rechazado el pedido; 14 veces que el actual papa fue desairado por la presidenta. 14 veces que la soberbia abofeteó a la piedad, a la sencillez y a la humildad.

Translation: "With total aplomb, local media tell of 14 times when the former cardinal of Buenos Aires asked to be received by president Cristina, 14 times that the requester was refused, 14 times when the current pope was snubbed by the president, 14 times when pride gave a slap in the face to piety, simplicty and humility." Again seemingly NOT claiming to be factual reporting, but an opinion piece based on claims by unspecified local media.

• Perfil (Buenos Aires, Argentina): Al menos catorce audiencias le pidió el ahora pontífice a Ella. Nunca lo recibió. Lo que viene.

I know nothing about the reliability of Perfil, but Wikipedia describes it as a tabloid newspaper which is strongly critical of the government. (The word 'tabloid' tends to have pejorative connotations with regard to reliabilty, which may well be undeserved in this case). It seems to more than accept the story (14 has become 'at least 14'). It says 'The now pope requested at least 14 audiences from Her. She never received him. He who is now coming.' I'm not 100% sure that 'He who is now coming' is a correct translation. The capital E in Ella seems ironic (perhaps meaning something like She who must be obeyed, or She who thinks She is God) though I can't be sure it isn't just politeness or a friendly nickname. At any rate this sounds like an opinion piece, not factual reporting, and in any case not from any clearly reliable source.

• El Diario Noticias (San Miguel de Tucumán, Argentina): Bergoglio le pidió 14 audiencias a Cristina Kirchner, y Ella no lo recibió. Bergoglio asked Cristina Kirchner for 14 audiences, and She did not receive him. Again I don't know whether the capital E is ironic or polite, and I don't know how reliable this paper is, but it is has no article about it in Englsih Wikipedia, and it seems to be a relatively small provincial paper (San Miguel de Tucumán is a remote provincial capital), rather as if somebody has had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find supporting quotes.

In conclusion, I think we should at least temporarily revert to the position before these highly questionable citations became available. And we may also need to decide on what if anything needs to be done to try to prevent this happening again. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Tlhslobus, your interpretation is accurate. "Ella" with a capital "E" is ironic in the opposition press of Argentina, which takes Perfil (a political sensasionalist tabloid) and the newspaper from Tucumán apart. The other media (incluiding the reliable El País) explicitly include some reservations ("some local media says"). In sum, I would not trust the Clarín counting until some reliable source is found. Saludos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.111.219.140 (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have now removed the claim as insufficiently supported to satisfy the requirements of WP:EXCEPTIONAL, as earlier in this discussion Herzen has already explained why this is what should be done. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Despite (or perhaps because of) being the one who has now deleted the claim, I'm not sure that this is quite the right thing to do, despite WP:EXCEPTIONAL (which can always be overridden by WP:IAR if that improves the encyclopedia). We have a claim which in two months has made it from Argentina to Uruguay and Spain, and will quite possibly soon be all over the world, but which nobody can learn anything about on Wikipedia even though that is arguably precisely where people should be able to go to learn the status of such a claim. So arguably it should be mentioned while pointing out its lack of reliable support, something along the lines of:

'In January 2013, the Argentine newspaper Clarin, which is frequently in conflict with the Kirchner government (citation), claimed that President Christina Fernandez de Kirchner had refused 14 requests to meet Bergoglio while he was Archbishop of the Argentine capital of Buenos Aires (citation). The claim was soon reported in places as far apart as Ecuador (citation) and Spain (citation) , though the more reliable sources usually added qualifiers attributing the claim to elements in the Argentine media (repeat Ecuador and Spain citations).'

I may eventually add this to the article myself, but I'd prefer to give people some time to comment here first. Tlhslobus (talk)

Thanks for clearing that up and for deleting the claim again. I don't see why John Pack Lambert was in such a hurry to restore the claim without waiting for people with some knowledge of Spanish to look over the new references.

This whole affair seems silly to me, and I don't see why the article should mention it, unless the allegation gets picked up by the mainstream English-language press. But if we do include it, I support the proposal you have written. Another possibility is to mention this apparent smear/hoax in the article Conflict between Fernández de Kirchner government and the media. I think it better belongs there, since it is more about Kirchner than about the Pope. – Herzen (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

As a sidenote, I would add that Uruguay is not faraway from Argentina, but it is its closest neighbor in any aspect. Its media is always picking up Argentine issues precisely because its bigger neighbour is important politically and economically to them. As for the El País, the Spanish media has been paying very much attention to Latin American affairs since a few years ago, specially focusing on Venezuela, Argentina, México and Brazil. El País, in particular, has recently opened an alternative First Page, aside for the usual editions, under the name "America edition", referring to Latin America (much like the NYT's "Global Edition"). This is because many readers in the hispanosphere use this newspaper as a node for information of all around the hispanic world. In fact, Spain aims to act as a hub for the hispanosphere as much as its companies and (formerly) their governments use to meddle in Latin American political and economical affairs.

So, in other words, these news do not "make their way" to faraway places. This kind of news for hispanosphere online readers are in no time in every place, as long as national newspapers also replicate the news from here and there. So it is usual that a comment from Clarín makes its way to El País and then to any newspaper in the Hispanic world. Specially given that El País has also a (somewhat more moderate) bias against Kirchner's government in Argentina. 190.111.219.140 (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

My apologies - I mistakenly wrote Uruguay when I should have written Ecuador, and I've now corrected that in my earlier post (I actually knew that Uruguay is a small neighbour of Argentina (as well as arguably the most remarkable small country in world football, etc), which is why I wrote 'places as far apart as Uruguay and Spain' which says Uruguay is far from Spain but carefully avoids saying it's far from Argentina) Tlhslobus (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for both your comments. Having read them, I think I'll leave my suggestion on hold, to be looked at again if and when the story starts appearing in the media of the English-speaking world. Meanwhile, if anybody else wants to transfer it to Conflict between Fernández de Kirchner government and the media, a possible alternative pointed out above by Herzen, then please feel free to do so, though I won't be doing so myself (I'm currently mildly interested in the papacy, but I have no current interest in Argentine domestic politics). Tlhslobus (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid Tlhslobus's proposal suffers from a severe lack of accuracy. As has been stated before, Clarín is, along with La Nación, one of the most reliable newspapers in the country. The allegation that it is against Argentina's current government is not only inaccurate, but a downright lie put forth by those who support the government of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner with the aim to discredit it, as it often publishes independent reports on crime, poverty, and unemployment which conflict with official statistics made by the INDEC (which have been widely discredited as fallacious). It is also worth noting that Argentina's government has been putting a tremendous amount of pressure on the aforesaid and other independent newspapers (not my words, but rather those of the Inter American Press Association). It is interesting to notice as well that currently there is no solid reason for considering Perfil as an unreliable publication other than 190.111.219.140's opinion and Nico89abc's unsupported claim on the corresponding article, as the only "source" that the latter provided for such accusation is simply an opinion piece criticizing the Argentine government. `` DL ( t | c ) 22:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I find it very hard to believe that Clarín is a reliable source, given that the Clarín Group's main owner had close ties to the military junta that ruled Argentina during the period of dictatorship. – Herzen (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

According to whom? And even if they did, how does that prove that Clarín is an unreliable source? You ought to note also that their supposed enemies, the Kirchners, had ties with the dictatorship too; Alicia Kirchner, for instance, worked for the junta. `` DL ( t | c ) 01:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this matters any longer since the claim probably isn't going to go into the article unless and until we get the story occurring in the English media, in which case my suggested wording will probably change. But for the record, my suggested wording does NOT say Clarin is not a reliable source, nor even that it is 'against the government'. All my suggested wording said was that it has frequently been in conflict with the government, which is clearly the case as even stated by DL himself in his own post (I quote him: "It is also worth noting that Argentina's government has been putting a tremendous amount of pressure on the aforesaid and other independent newspapers"). But even if it is generally reliable (and I neither know nor care whether it is), nobody has so far come up with two clearly reliable sources to support the claim, as would normally be required by WP:EXCEPTIONAL (a mere assertion by DL does not of itself make either Clarin or Perfil reliable in the sense required by WP:RS). And this is despite somebody seemingly scraping the bottom of the barrel in search of supporting quotes (and causing incorrect info to temporarily get into the article, and wasting quite a lot of the time of other editors) - and I note that the said barrel-bottom-scraper did not even come up with a supporting quote from La Nacion, which in itself probably tells us quite a bit about the supposed reliability of this particular claim. I think I've wasted more than enough of my time on this already, so I'm now hopefully bowing out of the conversation. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The wording "which is frequently in conflict with the Kirchner government" is ambiguous and could lead a reader to think that the newspaper started the conflict, when in fact it was the opposite. Moreover, my comment neither states nor implies that Clarín has been in conflict with the government. That is your own interpretation. Rather, the fact that Argentina's government has been exerting said pressure strongly suggests that it has not been a conflict, but a series of one-sided attacks. `` DL ( t | c ) 23:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I really shouldn't be wasting more of my time by replying to you. 'A series of one-sided attacks' (if that is what they were) would still be a series of conflicts. Any neutral statement, which simply tells the reader that conflicts exist without blaming either side, as my suggestion did, is necessarily 'ambiguous', and necessarily leaves open the possibility that some reader may decide to blame such conflicts on the wrong party (regardless of whether the wrong party is Clarin or the Government or a bit of both or not really either), but that is not a reason for ignoring WP:NPOV and getting rid of such neutral statements (especially when it would be extremely difficult to find out reliably who really is to blame, when all we have to go on here is assertions by people who come across as supporters of one side or the other). Tlhslobus (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but what you just wrote made absolutely no sense. A one-sided attack is, pretty much by definition, not a conflict. As I am now unsure whether or not you are aware of the meaning of the word "conflict", allow me to cite the Collins Concise English Dictionary:

conflict

n /ˈkɒnflɪkt/

1. a struggle or clash between opposing forces; battle

2. a state of opposition between ideas, interests, etc; disagreement or controversy

3. opposition between two simultaneous but incompatible wishes or drives, sometimes leading to a state of emotional tension and thought to be responsible for neuroses

I hope you realize by now that, since this particular situation does not fit into any of the aforesaid cases, the wording you suggested is, at the very least, ill advised. WP:NPOV states that "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." It does not say that you should fabricate circumstances in order to give the appearance of balance, which is what you basically proposed (albeit with, presumably, good faith). Calling this a conflict would be akin to stating that a fight occurred, when in fact only one side threw punches at the other. `` DL ( t | c ) 01:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

a) If Clarin wishes to publish the truth as it sees it, and the government takes action to try to prevent it, that is 'a struggle or clash between opposing forces' as per your chosen definition 1 of 'conflict', even though this could also be described by many reasonable people as a one-sided attack by the government on Clarin.
b1) If Clarin thinks it a good idea to publish the truth as it sees it, and the government thinks it a good idea to take action to try to prevent it, that is 'a state of opposition between ideas' as per your chosen definition 2 of 'conflict', even though this could also be described by many reasonable people as a one-sided attack by the government on Clarin.
b2) If Clarin thinks it is in the interest of the Argentine people to publish the truth as it sees it, and the government thinks it is in its interest to takes action to try to prevent it, that is 'a state of opposition between interests', again as per your chosen definition 2 of 'conflict', even though this could also be described by many reasonable people as a one-sided attack by the government on Clarin.
b3) If Clarin thinks it is in the interest of the Argentine people to publish the truth as it sees it, and the government disagrees and takes action to try to prevent it, that is a 'disagreement', again as per your chosen definition 2 of 'conflict', even though this could also be described by many reasonable people as a one-sided attack by the government on Clarin.
C) If Clarin wishes to publish the truth as it sees it, and the government wishes to prevent it and takes action to try to prevent it, that is 'opposition between two simultaneous but incompatible wishes' as per your chosen definition 3 of 'conflict', even though this could also be described by many reasonable people as a one-sided attack by the government on Clarin.

But since there is probably literally an infinite number of similar dubious or false arguments that you can find to throw at me as you have been doing for the past week, we could carry on with this absurd debate until Doomsday. And I happen to have better things to do with my time. So I hereby announce that I surrender. I agree that everything I have written here, to use your wise and objective words 'makes absolutely no sense', while everything you have written are the self-evidently wise and objective words of a dispassionate and neutral observer. You win. Congratulations. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You can call everything pretty much whatever you want if you force it to fit a definition, even any contest a war, but that would imply twisting facts and severely sacrificing accuracy, which, as I think I have explained before, is what you are doing. I can't help but find it rather disappointing that you only see this as a "dubious or false argument". Using your reasoning, many articles that are currently titled attacks such as Attack on Pearl Harbor could be also titled conflicts, but would that be accurate? No, not at all; in fact, quite the opposite. By the way, I would like to thank you very much for your civility and respect. I am genuinely glad you can carry on a conversation without throwing personal insults or doubting the neutrality of others. I suppose that is inevitable when someone attempts to debate on a subject they know so much about, as it conspicuously is your case. `` DL ( t | c ) 14:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

MS 13

Doesn't Argentina have massive criminal gang problems, like MS 13 or something? Does the new Pope have trouble there? That would be terrible if he did and no doubt cause a schism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.146.74 (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That one really have to be explained more. What is the thought behind. Crime - Problems - Schism ???????? Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not indicate any such problems, so we don't have to worry about including anything like that in the article. Andrew³²⁷ 05:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe 76.212.146.74 has seen City of God, and was confusing Argentina with Brazil? In any case, it seems he was making some kind of joke. – Herzen (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense, I'd say. LCS check (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I can kind of see what he's getting at. Maybe the Mayan Calendar predicted this; hopefully they won't find any "reliable sources" to warrant inclusion in the article. We'll just have to wait and see.--76.212.151.53 (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodox Church

This new section under relations with other religious communities includes a lot of non-referenced statements, so I added some "citation needed" tags, plus I deleted some sentences which really had nothing to do with Pope Francis (only background information on church history, both at the beginning and at the end, where a sentence categorized a theological difference as a great heresy). There is a statement that I left that says this exchange is a "step forward" in terms of the split that occurred in 451, but I think this should be included only if someone recognizable in the religious world said so. Otherwise it's an "original research" conclusion, I think. Anyway, hope the section is slightly improved, but it definitely needs more work. By the way, I added a good number of wikilinks which can provide background rather than including the background in the section or page. NearTheZoo (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well done. I agree with what you posted here and I'll try to find more sources and pare it where needed later today. Andrew³²⁷ 15:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! By the way, after the statement about the significance of this exchange I wanted to add a tag that reads "citation needed - who said this?" -- but admit I don't know how to do that. If you or another editor could add that, I'd appreciate it, and then I'd learn how to do it in the future! NearTheZoo (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC) NearTheZoo (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Replaced "citation needed" with "this quote needs a source". That should do it. NearTheZoo (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Good work. However, I'm afraid the section now looks too much like a quotefarm, dominated by two blockquotes. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Hope it looks better now. NearTheZoo (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Insulting edit summaries

User:Juddhoward has engaged in some very insulting edit summaries. I went and posted comments on his talk page asking him to cease doing so. However I also noticed that he had responded to my previous comment on his talk page in a very insulting and rude way. After I made the comments I noticed he told me not to comment on his page again. I find his behavior to be very disruptive, especially his insistence on insulting and calling a liar anyone who disagrees with what he thinks should be in the article. I am seriously considering reverting another one of his recent edits merely because his rude way of justifying it made no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I really would suggest people go look at what he has said about me at User talk:Juddhoward. Such rude and insulting attacks upon other people, especially when all they did was ask him to not be rude and insulting, are quite disturbing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What I would say in the defence of User:Juddhoward though (I admit he has a certain "style" and approach to his/her edits - I am not to say that I condemn them, in any way as they are quite challenging, and this is what makes this page move forward... and at times he/she was right). But this message is more for John Pack Lambert that comments. I am rather getting tired of, seeing the number of comments everywhere. (and the attacks on User:Juddhoward talk page). It is as if he knows better, this page is starting to be his views more than Pope Francis. I counted 41 of his comments on this page alone. As if the monopoly over this page is ever increasing too. Perhaps he would not be so sensitive to changes, if he was to let go a bit. Why not have a little "holiday" from this article for a bit John? (and let others carry the page a bit). That is my sentiment. So yes sometimes Juddhoward was a bit strong, but he constructively edited especially in the days Pope Francis was elected. As for the number of reading Johnpacklambert, this is becoming sickening to read them… . (and they are very fierce on Juddoward). Voila my modest thoughs. Feel better it is out of my system — Ludopedia^(Talk) 06:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? Juddhoward's account is only 12 days old, and if you look at his Talk page, you'll find that he got blocked from editing for abusive editing practically as soon as his account was created. As far as I can tell, he created his account solely for the purpose of vandalizing the Pope Francis article. – Herzen (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually it looks like it was created on 30 December 2012. But yes, the Juddhoward account is clearly being used disruptively (juvenile, but not sure "vandalizing" is correct) with plenty of WP:NPA. Probably the user will end up being blocked again if their ways don't change. But WP:ANI is the place (if anyone has the stomach for it), or the previous blocking admins, and not here. I suggest WP:DENY and just ignore it. DeCausa (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Celibacy can change

Once had a 'crush' on a girl, (citation) causing him to reconsider preisthood (and whether celibacy should be required). Interesting. Includable? LCS check (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite what he's saying. I think it's more something along the lines of "he's open to discussion about changes in celibacy requirements" Aunva6 (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Key to this, though, is his personal experience of having had romantic feelings. Significant, I think, that he couldn't pray for a week, overwhelmed by thought of this dynamic woman, and had to reflect on his theologically directed life choice. Encounter seems to have had a lifelong impact on his views.LCS check (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibility of opening a discussion on celibacy of priests is already included in section under his views. NearTheZoo (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Celibacy

The section on celibacy seems to make the same point a few times, explicating words which don't require much explication. Francis doesn't talk this. It's just because snippets are being taken from a variety of accounts. A block quote of his actual words would do the job, IMHO, far better, with perhaps a little expert commentary to finish it off. Like this:

He said:

For now the discipline of celibacy remains firm. Some say, with a certain pragmatism, we're losing manpower. If, hypothetically, Western Catholicism revises the issue of celibacy, I think it would for cultural reasons (as in the East), not as a universal option. For the moment, I am in favor of maintaining celibacy, with the pros and cons it has, because there are 10 centuries of good experiences rather than failures.... It is a matter of discipline, not of faith. It can change.

Per Manseau, Peter (21 March 2013). "In Praise of Priestly Marriage". New York Times. Retrieved 21 March 2013.

And this one:

In the Western Church to which I belong, priests cannot be married as in the Byzantine, Ukrainian, Russian or Greek Catholic Churches. In those Churches, the priests can be married, but the bishops have to be celibate. They are very good priests. In Western Catholicism, some organizations are pushing for more discussion about the issue. For now, the discipline of celibacy stands firm. Some say, with a certain pragmatism, that we are losing manpower. If, hypothetically, Western Catholicism were to review the issue of celibacy, I think it would do so for cultural reasons (as in the East), not so much as a universal option.

Source: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Pope-Francis-said-celibacy-among-priests-can-change-and-admits-to-being-tempted-by-a-woman-199328231.html#ixzz2OBpcC2yW

OK, so he does repeat himself. These are conversations after all. We can still do better than the goulash we have now, no?

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Did a little rewriting and hope it flows better now. Also used some more direct quotes because another editor wanted to limit his statements as Cardinal to allowing the ordination of married men, but quoting him directly shows that he is considering (hypothetically) the possibility that the Church might look into the entire issue of "celibacy of priests". Using the same phrase he uses keeps us from reading his mind. NearTheZoo (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Celibacy of priests (in Pope Francis)

Dear Str1977, Please see the section in Pope Francis re celibacy of priests. I did some rewriting based on your comments, and hope you think this is a good compromise. I don't think we can know that the comments Francis made as Cardinal really were restricted to the possibility of ordaining married men, especially since the Catholic Church has already ordained a number of married men who had been Lutheran and Episcopal priests. The reaction that his words were "remarkable" wouldn't have fit his comments if that were the case -- and he is discussing a hypothetical conversation about "the celibacy of priests". I think we should stick to his comments. Do you agree? In terms of the correct fact that in the East, the tradition is to ordain married men as priests but not to allow priests to marry is, of course, true, but I can't find a quote from Bergoglio that makes this distinction. So instead of leaving the words changed as you wrote them I simply used direct quotes from him. I think this is the preferred way to go until he makes additional comments or perhaps someone makes that distinction in a response to these comments by him. Anyway, my hope is that when you look at the section again you'll agree the rewritten version is good enough at this point. Best, NearTheZoo (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear NearTheZoo,

thanks for informing me of your reversion. While I agree about sticking to his comments and that we shouldn't go beyond them, I am afraid that you are doing exactly that.

You are basing too much on your impression that his words must be "remarkable". You say "that wouldn't have fit is comments if" the Pope would have been merely talking about ordaining married man. That might be your view but I don't think it's convincing:

There are different rules in the Western and the Eastern Church: the East - and this includes churches in union with Rome and those not in union - does ordain married and unmarried men to the priesthood, while the West does ordain only unmarried men. While your observation that "the Catholic Church has already ordained a number of married men who had been Lutheran and Episcopal priests" is correct, this refers to only a minute number of men compared with the number of priests in the Western Rite. More importantly, they are the exception to the rule. The rule in the West is clear: no married men will be ordained. It was this rule the Pope was talking about. I think that's remarkable enough.

While a more extensive change - letting priests marry - might seem more "remarkable", this also works both ways: this would mean that the new Pope advocates a complete break with all of church tradition on this matter, both West and East, as neither hemisphere has ever allowed priests to marry after their ordination. We cannot even create the impression that the Pope meant that if we don't have clear evidence for it in the Pope's words.

Which brings us back to what he said: I realize that some of his words might be ambiguous but I don't see where he clearly goes beyond the "ordain married men" option. Unfortunately, the former version which I corrected twisted his words as to imply just that. Here's the example:

• "He notes that the rule of celibacy is part of the Western Church, but that priests in Byzantine, Ukranian, Russian, and Greek Catholic Churches can marry, although bishops are still required to be celibate." (previous version)
• "He notes that the rule of celibacy is part of the Western Church, but that in the Byzantine, Ukranian, Russian, and Greek Catholic rites, married men can be ordained priests, though not bishops." (my version)

What does the reference in this case say?

"In those Churches, the priests can be married, but the bishops have to be celibate."

I understand how these words can be misunderstood, at least given this English wording (don't know what the original language was) but we should not interpret the ambiguity in a way that goes against facts.

Another item: the Pope's "we have ten centuries of good experiences rather than failures" suddenly becomes "celibacy among priests in Western Catholicism has endured for almost 1000 years" (not in the referenced source), which goes beyond the Pope's words and makes him say something factually incorrect. Clerical celibacy in the Western church is in fact much older than a thousand years. The Pope's actual words do not contradict this, the article's words do. (And in another passage, he referred to some clerics following the rule, while others did not. This - not the rule - was what his almost 1000 years refers to.

Finally, I don't see a quote that the rule must be adhered to "for the time being" - so let's not make it one in the article.

Str1977 ^(talk) 19:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I would still prefer we quote Francis at length as I suggested above at Talk:Pope_Francis#Celibacy_can_change. That way we do not need to characterize or underline. Why do we say without quotation marks "it is a matter of discipline, not faith" when what Bergoglio said was "It is a matter of discipline, not of faith." That's pretending to paraphrase when actually quoting. The words he said are straightforward enough to stand on their own. It's like we're constantly interrupting him to no purpose. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Your link leads to nowhere, so I cannot tell what you mean.

Re the paraphrase/quote: it needs to be correct. "it is a matter of discipline, not faith" is not a quote, as he said "it is a matter of discipline, not of faith" Str1977 ^(talk) 23:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the link. Hope that helps you.--Auric talk 00:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

In the case of "it is a matter of discipline, not of faith" we should quote him correctly. Except, was he speaking in English or some other langauge? If he is speaking originally in some other langauge, than it is possible such differences may be alternate possible translations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

In any case, we have to go by the source and use the quotes that the source gives us. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Celibacy is his views

I removed this paragraph "In March 2013, 21 Catholic parliamentarians from the United Kingdom wrote a letter to Francis, asking him to allow married men in Great Britain to be ordained as priests, keeping celibacy as the rule for bishops, as a sign of the "high regard we have for those who are able to live a genuinely celibate life.” The letter cited the fact that married Angligan priests have been ordained by the Catholic Church and allowed to serve as Catholic priests, noting that "These men and their families have proved to be a great blessing to our parishes." "Based on that very positive experience," the letter continued, "we would request that, in the same spirit, you permit the ordination of married Catholic men to the priesthood in Great Britain."" from the Celibacy section.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

We are reporting on Pope Francis' views. There might be some mention of this worthwhile in the Papacy section, but really I think maybe if there is soemthing worthwhile it belongs in some other article. If Pope Francis responds and institutes the suggested change in Britain it might have a place, but for now I do not think it does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

why isn't it includable? perhaps part of the papacy section, but it for sure deserves mention, regardless if the changes are implemented. I believe that there is other stuff saying that he is open to the idea of married priests, similar to the eastern Catholics. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• The main issue is it is not about his teachings, and so does not merit inclusion in the section on his teachings. On the same thought patter, do we really want to cover every request sent to him while Pope in the article?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who put the information about the letter in, but admit I was unsure whether it would "survive" -- because, as John Pack Lambert has stated, that section really is about the views of Pope Francis. For now, I've added it to the separate article Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church) -- and also added a section there on the views of Pope Francis that he expressed during his time in Buenos Aires. I considered re-entering it in this article under the Papacy section (possibly adding a subsection about "Issues" that were being discussed early in his papacy, especially because Cardinal O'Brien has also come out in favor of ordaining married men)...but for now that move seems to make the article a bit unwieldy. If there is more discussion and it is pointed out that this letter was a direct response to news of Francis's views as a cardinal, maybe it can go back in. For now, I think John Pack Lambert is right. NearTheZoo (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

well, I see your point, however, this is a fairly... unusual request...I agree that we can't cover everything, and that it doesn't belong in teachings. nearthezoo has the right idea. if something more becomes of it, add it in. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and started two new sections under the papacy section: Early issues, and Early actions. I reentered a few sentences about the petition from the 21 British MKs regarding priestly celibacy under "early issues," and info about his first Maundy Thursday foot washing ritual (which included two women, evidently a first for a pope) under "early actions." I have a feeling that there will be additional material to add after his Easter mass and sermon. NearTheZoo (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Abortion, birth control, euthanasia...

There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on regarding the section about views on issues including abortion, birth control, euthanasia, and the elderly--in terms of what order should be used to list these issues. Can I suggest we change the sub-section tile to "Dignity of Life," which seems to be the term used in the Bergoglio quote to encompass the issues addressed here? (Another term used by many theologians to categorize such topics is "the edges of life" -- but I think using a phrase taken directly from Bergoglio's words is preferable.) Of course, he also uses "culture of death" -- but I would still vote for "Dignity of Life." What do others think? NearTheZoo (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to comment on this. Here's what I wrote:

We have a sub-section titled "Abortion, euthanasia, birth control and the elderly". While the sequence of items might not seem a big matter, there is no reason to change it from its original version, which makes sense for two reasons:

1. This is the sequence these items are mentioned in the article text.
2. Abortion and euthanasia are linked issues according to the view of the article's subject, the then-Cardinal Bergoglio, and the Aparecida Document, which the section discusses.

However, there is another editor who insists on changing this sequence, not once but three times now.

1. Abortion and birth control should be listed next to each other
2. Placing "euthanasia" between "abortion" and "birth control" makes no sense at all and is jarring.
3. Revert POV edit. The prevailing opinion is that abortion is NOT the taking of a human life. That is why it is legal. You are violating WP:IMPARTIAL.

His edit summaries suggest that these reverts are happening for POV reasons, namely to equate abortion and birth control.

I don't think this behaviour is acceptable. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Now responding to NearTheZoo's suggestion. Since the current title is cumbersome, it would applaud a shorter, alternative title. But I'm not sure what others think about this.

I may be missing something obvious here, but why is birth control in this section at all? As far as I can see, the two sources used to mention it don't say it's in the Aparacida document. What's the linkage? DeCausa (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't equate abortion and birth control. What the two have in common are that both are elements of women's reproductive health.

I think NearTheZoo's suggestion to change the title to "Dignity of Life" is excellent. I'm sorry, but there's no way of getting around the fact that placing "abortion" and "euthanasia" together in a section title is very non-neutral POV (it is the point of view of the RCC hierarchy). Wikipedia should distance itself from this particular POV by using impartial section titles, even if the article is about the Pope. – Herzen (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Herzen,

"I don't equate abortion and birth control. What the two have in common are that both are elements of women's reproductive health."

So you are indeed lumping the two together. If you want to do that, that's fine, but it is clearly your POV. I myself don't see actual health affected at all.

"I'm sorry, but there's no way of getting around the fact that placing "abortion" and "euthanasia" together in a section title is very non-neutral POV (it is the point of view of the RCC hierarchy)."

If that is so, then placing "abortion" and birth control" is "very non-neutral POV" too. And that a POV is the POV of the Church is no legitimate grounds to push the opposing view points (rather the opposite, as we are supposed to report on Bergoglio's view), as you seem to think judging from the following:

"Wikipedia should distance itself from this particular POV by using impartial section titles, even if the article is about the Pope."

WP adheres to a "neutral point of view", not to one of distancing the article from the view you don't like.

"I think NearTheZoo's suggestion to change the title to "Dignity of Life" is excellent."

Works for me too, though I am surprised that you think this title neutral.

Str1977 ^(talk) 17:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• We are covering Bergoglio's views here, so if he thinks issues relate, it makes sense to put them in the same category. This is a report of his views, so we should subdivide them in the way he does. We definately should not subdivide them in a way that is different than his views, just to be different than his views. That is the anti-thesis of being neutral in reporting his views.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem has already been solved with consensus. – Herzen (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

But that consensus hasn't been implemented yet. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In this change, Eeng wrote: "no need for level-4 heads here, anyway". I agree: the "Aparecida Document" subsection is about the same size as other subsection in that section, and level-4 heads are used nowhere else in the article. Since no one reverted Eeng's edit, I assumed there was a consensus in favor of it. – Herzen (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I can live with either version. However, one might say that "Aparecida Document" is quite an obscure title given the other section titles in the views section. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I am the one that named it "Aparecida Document". Previously it was "Child abuse, trafficking, prostitution, abortion, birth control, euthanasia, and the elderly" or something crazy like that. Even if it is a little obscure, I think it the best name until someone can think of a title that accurately describes it. Whoever keeps adding the level-4 heads, needs to stop. They are completely unnecessary and being used to twist the perspective of the quotes. Let the words speak for themselves. Xkcdreader (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Do we need more explication of Pope Francis' views on same-gender marriage

My general answer is "no". I think the two-paragraph quote is a complrehensive statement of his views. I removed this part of the article "]], and in 2011 referred to it as "the devil's work"." I have 3 issues with it. 1-most precessingly the way it was justified to be included involved a needless insulting of editors. 2-although this article comes from 2011, it seems to just be commenting on our quote from 2010. 3-everything in this quote is included in the actual quote from Bergoglio himself we have a little further down. This article seems to be trying to emphasize one of Bergoglio's points without considering the context in which he said it. "Father of lies" may be the same as "devil" in reality, but the connotation of the two terms is not the same. Also the "he calls it the work of the devil", seems to be trying to say he has not applied analysis to the issue, while the quote we have gives a better sense of his actual thought process on the issue. I think we are best off leaving out this quote, especially since it appears to be just a rehashing of the other quote we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not a Spanish speaker, but I know French and have spent a lot of time with Spanish people and watched lots of Spanish films, so can make some sense out of Spanish texts. Looking over the article that was cited in support of "the Devil's work" quote, it seems to me that that article sensationally glossed in its title "del Padre de la Mentira" ("Father of Lies", which is what Bergoglio actually wrote) as "del Diablo". So for Wikipedia to actually mention "the Devil's work" quote would be to repeat a smear by a tabloid publication (having a story about Tom Cruise on the home page is not a good sign), as far as I can tell. – Herzen (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

John Pack Lambert, there's a reason why there is an established term "same-sex marriage" but no such term as "same-gender marriage". Do we really need to make up stuff as we go along? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

So, since we have a Talk section about this, does anyone object to it being changed to "same-sex marriage"? – Herzen (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What, you want to change how I have titled the section in the talk? Or do you want to change the mention in the article, which uses "same-sex marriage", which means that there is really nothing to change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, there's nothing to change. I just took JackofOz's comment to mean that you used "same-gender marriage" in the actual article, without checking. – Herzen (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it was a comment on the header. Even on talk pages - perhaps especially on talk pages - we need to be clear in our writing, so that others can understand what the heck we're trying to say in our posts. Simple language is best. Common expressions that everyone can understand are best. I wouldn't know where to begin in trying to come to grips with whatever "same-gender marriage" might conceivably mean. But same-sex marriage, that's something we can all understand. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The terms are equivalent and synonymous, and it is only trying to force others to conform to your use of language that would make them otherwise. A very quick shows up such articles as "America's Changing Attitudes toward Homosexuality, Civil Unions, and Same-Gender Marriage: 1977–2004" in Social Work: A Journal of the National Association of Social Workers, this [9] article using "same-gender marriage" from the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. It is true that "same-sex marriage" is the preferred term, but both are used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think consensus throughout the wiki is that same-sex should be used. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"Devil's work"

I am indifferent on the header. But including the "devil" quote in addition to the full actual quote is redundancy and reflects a POV. It is also using a translation that isn't supported by two different reliable sources. Both Time magazine (which was the original RS before both paragraphs of the full quote was put into the article) and the current RS used for the 2 paragraph quote used "father of lies" as the translation. Marauder40 (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the last comment. The source used to support the "devil" quote is simply a sensationalist headline, which from reading the source is a paraphrase of what he actually said ("'movida' del Padre de la Mentira"). So, not only do we have the same statement covered twice in the paragraph as though they were two separate statements, but we used a sensationalist headline which isn't what he said anyway and put it in the article as a direct quote. Not good. (But it seems to have gone now) DeCausa (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see it was taken out then put back by this edit (the thread above on User:Juddhoward's edit summaries refers) then was taken out again this morning. DeCausa (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What he thought then, he might not now. My impression of the evolution of his views is, he's progressing towards acceptance of it. LCS check (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a WP:RS that supports that? i.e. is that something for the article? DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Does WP:RS support any assertion of what this Pope, as Pope, thinks on the matter? Far as I know, he's not addressed same-sex marriage since ascending to the papacy, so we've only a record of what views were as Cardinal, not what views *are* as Pope. LCS check (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I was just checking to see if we can provide any indication of his view changing (as you suggested above). Sounds like we can't. DeCausa (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

There have been a number of news reports about his "behind closed doors" support of civil unions in Argentina, even as he spoke out against gay marriage. I just added some comments about those reports to the article. NearTheZoo (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I edited this to show that a-the claims primarily come from Rubin. b-that they have been flatly denied as incorrect by official reports. I really have grave reservations about claims about what someone said "behind closed doors". This really does not seem to be appropriate material to put in a section about "teachings" which by their very definition are public and open.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you did a good job of editing, showing the dispute. However, you bring up another good point. Perhaps the section should be relabeled "Views and teachings"? I think information about his views, if there are reliable sources, would be important...even if they were not "public pronouncements". What do you think? NearTheZoo (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Or, on second thought, just change the section to "Views"? That would be more in line with other pages, I think. NearTheZoo (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage should be mentioned in the section lead

Pope Francis' statements in oppostion to same-sex marriage were in opposition to same-sex marriage. We should not try to interpret them in some other way by removing that term from the section heading. Realistically that is the main thing discussed in the section, and we definately should use that term in the title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. Making the section title just "Homosexuality" gives a very wrong impression of what the section is about. – Herzen (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible for any other than homosexual persons to have a same same sex marriage? Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, totally possible. Where same-sex marriage is legal, no law requires spouses actually be homosexual (or engage in sex). See I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry. Nor need opposite-sex marrieds be heterosexual, for that matter. LCS check (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I am going to go a step further. We need to take homosexuality out of the title until somebody can find better sources of him talking about homosexuality outside of the context of same sex marriage. People have been repeteadly turning that section into a place to forward their agenda, instead of keeping it to what he teaches. I am going to remove homosexuality from the title, and try and make the first sentence more neutral. I have done this before, only to have those pushing an agenda revert it. Xkcdreader (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok I have rewritten the lead sentence. It currently reads "Bergoglio affirms the Church's teaching that homosexual practice is intrinsically immoral but homosexuals should be treated with respect and love because temptations are not in and of themselves sinful." If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism#Compassion_for_those_with_homosexual_attractions you should easily be able to tell that I am accurately representing the church's position. They are extremely anti-same-sex marriage, but see homosexual tendencies as some disease to be pitied. Framing him as antihomosexual is deceptive. It needs to stop unless evidence comes to light beyond what we have. Xkcdreader (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not think "disease" is the right word. It is not the word they use. I would try to explicate it more, but I am much more familiar with Mormon teachings on the matter, and would be afraid I would confuse the two, although I am not sure how they differ exactly. I am confident that Pope Francis would avoid using the term "disease" and would chose other words to describe the issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep. By the simplest interpretation of the Bible, homosexual acts are the exact same sin of masturbation, pornography and non-coital heterosexual acts (AFAIK the Pauline part supposedly on "sodomites" and/or "effeminates" has lots of different translations as nobody speaks Ancient Aramaic (?) anymore), which I believe is what the RCAC proposes. The Church really should be more vocal on this as Latin cultures often encourage male sexual prowess to the earliest age possible (when the father/parents really believed it was just an uncommon phase rather than dishonor or the likes, "curing" homosexuality of boys as young as 12 with prostitutes was very common in Brazil until recently) and female chastity to the latest age possible, so it could be stressed to everyone that the homophobia problem some countries suffer is conected with machismo rather than religion (pretty much everybody got a pre-marital or extra-marital experience, this anti-gay feeling is deep hypocrisy) as the rule on chastity applies to both sexes and all sexual orientations, but anyway, being quiet on this ignorance don't make them homophobes (though if Benedict spoke about it in 2009 or before, we would have a lot more of pacific coexistence today here, hopeless disastrous individuals such as Jair Bolsonaro, Silas Malafaia and Marco Feliciano would receive a much greater backlash, Catholic Brazilians don't like prejudice, but RCAC's policy under Benedict was just irritating activists and left-wingers and making them anti-Catholic and creating an increasing hostility between everybody while the Evangelicals do their ridiculous silent jihad, for example recusing to do homework related to African culture, expulsing those who don't pray in Congress and trying to make Brazil non-secular and foolish conservatives are more or less supportive because atheists and gays supposedly want to make an anti-religious dictatorship, I hope a lot for Francis to be vocal and faster, I also already believe he is more reasonable on the subject). 187.122.157.196 (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Web traffic heat map

This is an interesting video that uses a heat map to show how online activity reacted to Pope Francis being announced (based on log data from Patheos.com) . I think it would be an interesting link to add to the external video/media section? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GydeAMI21I0

Jeff Smith 76.185.4.125 (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added, generally, youtube vids are never linked in wikipedia. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be included as an external link. You could email Patheos and see if they wish to upload it with a free licence after removing all the spam. It would go well in an article on internet traffic with a possible link to this article. Make sure you give them links to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_types and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS .--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

perhaps if it does get added, add it to a section on publicity or media coverage on the election. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the link should be added as is. Far too much spam in it. If the three companies involved want it here then it should be donated. Patheos, http://www.avalonconsult.com/home and http://acavideo.com/ are the three. ACA Video made the actual video. They would know who the rights holders are to release it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

that's what I meant. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't look remotely interesting. Abductive (reasoning) 14:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC

Agree with above assessments. No use to add. LCS check (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding to the lead

I know the subject of expanding the lead has come up before and the concensus seems to be to keep it as it is. However, because it is supposed to be a concise summary of the article, I would like to recommend that we add at least one more sentence, noting that he has always been known for his humility, his care for the poor, and his commitment to interfaith dialogue and the healing of divisions among people of different beliefs. (I suggest "different beliefs" because he not only believes it is part of the mission of the Catholic Church to heal divisions between those of different faiths, but also between those of faith and so-called "nonbelievers." I think just saying "people of different beliefs" would include these different categories.) Again, I know we want to keep the lead short, but right now it does not mention anything about him as a human being or the impression he has made throughout his life on those who have worked with him--despite the fact that the article certainly includes these subjects. What do others think? NearTheZoo (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead fails to comply with WP:LEAD. There should be summaries of each of the sections of the article in the lead. Article tal page consensus can't override policy. DeCausa (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

LEAD is a guideline not a policy. Do what is reasonable, I think the proposal is fine as long as it's not overly verbose. Xkcdreader (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to add: at minimum, there needs to be a sentence (or so) on relations with the Argentine government and on relations with other religious communities. Teachings is a difficult one, but to comply with WP:LEAD it needs to be in there: I think a paragraph on that is needed. DeCausa (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Added one sentence, including comment about interfaith relations. Could you add something about relations with government? NearTheZoo (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 March 2013

Please make the revision indicated in bold to the following sentence under the Cardinal section

At the same time, Begoglio ordered an investigation into the murders themselves, which had been widely blamed on the military regime that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983.[65]

At the same time, Bergoglio ordered an investigation into the murders themselves, which had been widely blamed on the military regime that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983.[65] 147.108.253.254 (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Slum Priests

Here [10] is the Atlantic article that serves as a source for the doubling of the number of priests assigned to the slums of Buenos Aires while he was Archbishop. There might be other things worth extrating from the article as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 March 2013

Under "Pre-papal career", I find the heading "Jesuit", which includes this:

"before becoming a bishop[when?] Bergoglio was mentored"

Try moving "[when?]" to just after "mentored"; in its PRESENT location, it seems to be asking when he became a bishop, and we do know when he became a bishop.

128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll just remove the template. it doesn't belong there -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Bishops' Conference of Argentina

In teh section " Homosexuality and same-sex marriage" we mention the "Bishops' Conference of Argentina". Is this the same as the Argentine Episcopal Conference used elsewhere in the entry, which also has its own modest entry of WP? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell yes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

New Page on Teachings

We need a new page on his teachings. I understand that only the hot button issued addressed here are provocative enough to go on the main page. But his more strictly theological views have been discussed on this talk page and never added to the page, and subsequently deleted from the talk page. These would be appropriate for a separate page on his teachings alone. We should start such a page with the information about his teachings currently on the page and then let it grow to include the less prominent subjects. 209.116.238.162 (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think essentially we already have an article on his teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church article.Farsight001 (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe its just me, but I like to see it in his own words, with his own emphases, and interpretations. This was done for Benedict, no? Theology of Pope Benedict XVI 209.116.238.162 (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you even look at that article? The first sentence states: "The theology of Pope Benedict XVI, as promulgated during his pontificate, consists mainly of three encyclical letters..." Has Francis issued any encyclical letters yet? – Herzen (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Had Benedict when the page was created 10 days after his election--29 April 2005? I think there is enough to talk about on a Francis teachings page. 209.116.238.162 (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis have already made shown that he will take the church in a different direction (the old feetwashing rewieved as an example), so 209... why not be bold and make the page. I dont know if you have to be a registered editors to do that, but it is really easy to make an account in any case. If such an article really is so meaningless it will be nominated for deletion, but considering the presedence with Benedicts teaching article created 10 days after his election I think that would be very unlikely to happen. Happy work Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have made a new article: Theology of Pope Francis by copying the subsection on teaching from this article, this should of course just a be a start of the new article. So those editors interested and capable please have a look at the new article. :I have also made a talkpage where the discussions can go on: Talk:Theology of Pope Francis

Happy work Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#RFC on Papal article consistency

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#RFC on Papal article consistency. Elizium23 (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

4 books of Francis' work

Here is a press release [11] about four volumes in Spanish and later English translations of Pope Francis' teachings, specifically addresses given in 2005, that is planned. I am not sure if these are new works, or if any have been previously published. My initial supposition is that the works are previously unpublished.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Fluent in English?

Under the papacy section, we include English as one of the languages spoken by the pope. However, in the March 31, 2013 news analysis by BBC analyst David Willey here, he notes that "Pope Francis was, however, almost incomprehensible when he tried out a few words in English to the crowds in St Peter's Square last week." NearTheZoo (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Name

Wasn't the last pope to choose a name not used by his predecessors John Paul I (1912–1978)? —Torontonian1 (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

See footnote g. NearTheZoo (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The right Pronunciation

His name should be pronunced like [franˈtsiskus] not [franˈtʃiskus]! 79.163.147.147 (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Using the Classical Latin reconstructed pronunciation it would actually give us [fra(ː)nˈkiːskʊs] AFAIK. What happens is that Vulgar Latin /k/ palatalized to /ts/, before /i/ (still [iː ~ ɪ] I think, similar to English and German), that was further palatalized as /tʃ/ in standard Italian and lenited to /s/ in France and Iberia, except for Castillian Spanish, some Andalusian dialects and Spanish-influenced Galician and Astur-Leonese where it became /θ/ (I don't know about the other languages).

To prove I know what I am talking about, if we want to go deep into details, Portuguese coda /ts/, as coda /s/, became /S/, the single phoneme representing all coda sibilant that can be alveolar, retracted alveolar, alternating betweem them, palatalized to various articulations (the sole possibility in >99% of Portugal), alternating betweem it and alveolar, debuccalized or deleted, while the alveolar descendant of /ts/ merged with the retracted alveolar descendant of /s/, fronting syllable onset and retracting syllable coda. 187.122.157.196 (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Main Picture of Pope Francis

I would like to suggest putting the previous picture of Pope Francis back up. He wears glasses most of the time, so the previous picture of him as pope that was on the page before would be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsepe (talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

What we should do is email the Vatican for an official portrait image. Does anyone know a Catholic priest that knows the correct way to contact them or do they respond to email, twitter, facebook, etc?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Pope's twitter page may help with that. Also, the director of the Holy See Press Office is Father Federico Lombardi. Maybe he can help as well.

I emailed the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops media dept. to contact the Vatican. I suggested they can respond on this talk page or to me directly.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Images from the Vatican

I am making this section in case the Vatican wishes to provide images and other material. Most of the information they will need is at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates If the copyright holders themselves follow the steps then that would be easiest. We can upload the images from a website or email but the rights holders would need to specify a licence through OTRS for them. Just click the edit button at the top right of this section and post comments at the bottom.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

will this photo work? http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/elezione/index_en.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsepe (talk • contribs) 04:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Can you contact the copyright holder to licence it? Higher resolution if they have it as well. It is only 313 x 400.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

While we're at it. Why not try to get the official photos from every pope since Pius IX for the main photo. I think we have it for John XXIII and no one else. We need one for John Paul I badly.Ericl (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Older images may be hard to find the copyright holders. We do have some of John Paul I as Pope in commons:Category:Ioannes Paulus I. I also found an email for the Vatican and added the request for other papal images.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Argumentative?

This: "However Miguel Woites, the director of the Catholic News Agency of Argentina, who works directly for the Bishops' Conference of Argentina and as such worked closely with Bergoglio when he was head of the conference, denied that Bergoglio ever made such a proposal."

The fact that he's "director of the Catholic News Agency of Argentina" isn't sufficient to identify him? I'm also not sure he claims anything about "worked closely in the source. The source makes the point without belaboring it. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"and as such worked closely with Bergoglio" is editorializing/WP:OR by a Wikipedia editor, is unsupported by the source and should be deleted. "works directly for the Bishops' Conference of Argentina" comes from the source but, IMO, should be deleted as it is trying to make a point impliedly. The source does the same thing: but that's the business of newspapers. I don't think an encyclopedia entry should be that sly. Either we have a source that overtly says "Miguel Woites's view should be believed because he held A, B, and C positions" or we don't. DeCausa (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Student photo

Does the photo File:Student, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, circled, studied chemistry before joining the priesthood.jpg have an acceptable copyright? According to Argentine copyright law, it is not enough that the photo was produced more than 20 years ago, it must have been published as well. A personal photo kept in a family album or similar, has not been "published". If the value increased (for example, because a man in the photo became pope), the 20 years after publication begin to count after a media made for the general public publishes the photo.

But should this photo be nominated for deletion, or can a non-free use rationale be justified? As this is a very visible article, I don't want to rush things. Cambalachero (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You could try uploading a version to commons and then having a deletion review over there. I think that they AGF that class photos such as this are considered as published soon after creation because they are used in yearbooks and sold to the families. Fair use wouldn't wash because the picture itself isn't all that notable. Otherwise we could upload fair use images every time someone recieves an award or graduates, type thing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request - April 2nd, 2013

Reference 171 is cited as written by "Heller, Jim". Should read "Heller, Jill".

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.66.114.182 (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Good catch and I have fixed it, thanks for pointing that out. Safiel (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Aparecida Document

"Aparecida Document" is a terrible heading. It's part of a series of subjects on which Francis has expressed himself. It stands out in the table of contents as an example of "which of these things is not like the others".

I know this has been discussed before, but..... Instead of trying to find a label to put on the material we now have in place, shouldn't we decide on one or more headings and then place the appropriate matter under each heading? One might be "child abuse". Another would be "abortion and euthanasia" (because as far as I can see Francis discusses them as two sides of one coin and we should use the categories on which he has expressed himself, not pre-existing categories or categories that we devise. I'm sure people have opinions. And I'd like to see more of what he has said over the years, less focus on Aparecida as if it was all we had to work with. Perhaps separate headings?)

There are also 2 stray sentences that either need to be expanded or dropped, one about contraceptives and another about "seniors". These may or may not deserve their own headings. The first seems more like opposition to government policy that could be placed elsewhere.

The underlying point is that we should be covering subjects Francis has addressed, not summarizing a document, and not summarizing a document written on behalf of a group and subject to papal approval. We should be able to find his won words. At most, coverage of the Aparecida document should be used to support our best summary of Francis' thinking/rhetoric on these issues. By using the heading Aparecida, we limit the sources we can bring to bear on the subject and exclude other statements he has made as an individual, and that does our readers a disservice. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the Aparecida heading -- it's a document of the Latin America hierarchy, not Francis' words or even necessarily his thoughts. I used the source material to add to the section on relations with the Kirchner government -- a very public dispute over a retarded woman's abortion -- and to add small sections on prostitution, where Francis is particularly eloquent, and a bit inconclusive on contraception. Some other stuff is already addressed under "Poverty and economic inequality". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

In hindsight, I agree that the Aparecida heading was awkward. I think you've done a good job of reworking the section headings. When it comes to the linking of abortion with euthanasia that is made in the Aparcedia document with this phrase—"the abominable crimes of abortion and euthanasia"—you've removed that from the "Teachings" section (because those are not necessarily his words?) and now only mention that identification as a rebuke from Kirchner. This is an elegant solution in my view, assuming that it corresponds to the weight that Francis gives these matters. – Herzen (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)