Talk:Prophecy of the Popes/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Mistranslation, leading to misleading commentary, etc

Oh dear, I'm getting dragged in to this nonsense again. It seems that a few paragraphs ago I've almost been unfair to the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning popes between Glory of the Olive and Petrus Romanus - for it's a model of reliability compared to your other 'reliable' source (Sieczkowski, Cavan (14 February 2013). "St. Malachy Last Pope Prophecy: What Theologians Think About 12th-Century Prediction". Huffington Post Canada. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/st-malachy-last-pope-prophecy-theologians-prediction-_n_2679662.html. Retrieved 17 February 2013.) which I hadn't originally noticed. It tells us:

"It reads, 'In the extreme persecution in the Holy Roman Church there will sit...' It's an incomplete sentence," Weiss said. "Apparently a lot of scholars believe that line is an incomplete sentence indicating that there will be unidentified popes between the ["glory of olives"] and Peter the Roman."

That is just plain nonsense (the usual entirely predictable reassuring falsehoods to be expected from 'reliable' sources) to which the Catholic Encyclopedia has not (or at least not fully) stooped, presumably out of justified concern for its academic reputation. 'In the extreme persecution in the Holy Roman Church there will sit...' is simply a mistranslation of "In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit." (which, as you can see, has no '...' in it). It is a mistranslation that is also found in your table, and in the text (where it's even worse: 'In the extreme persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit [i.e., as bishop].').

As is quite clear from the picture of the text, the text is a complete sentence ending in a 'full stop' (or 'period', if you speak American), and thus the translation given makes no sense, whereas there is a simple and obvious translation whith does make sense, one variant of which would be

'In the last persecution, the Holy Roman Church will remain.' In Latin that's 'In persecutione extrema Sancta Romana Ecclesia sedebit.', which the text abbreviates to 'In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit.'

This link shows that the adjective extremus can mean outermost, utmost, extreme, farthest, last.
This link shows that 'extrema' is, among other things, the singular feminine ablative form of the adjective extremus (once again translated as outermost, utmost, extreme, farthest, last), which is the form that goes with 'In persecutione'. (A theoretically possible but unlikely alternative is that it's the nominative rather than the ablative and goes with Ecclesia, giving the much less satisfactory alternative 'In the persecution, the last Holy Roman Church will remain.')
Note: In theory extrema could also be the accusative plural of Extremum, which would give 'In the persecution, the Holy Roman Church will settle the ends (or limits or outsides).'; but this makes little sense, and I haven't found any evidence that the verb sedeo can be transitive and thus take an accusative direct object.

This link shows that the verb sedeo (sedeo, sedere, sedi, sessus) can mean 1.encamp 2.settle 3.sit, remain.

This link shows that the verb sedebit is the future indicative singular of the verb sedeo.

Quite likely Father Weiss is an innocent (but inexpert, unreliable, and non-RS) victim of this mistranslation. I have not the slightest reason to suspect that such an obvious mistranslation is an accident, though I expect any persons who may or may not have knowingly created and spread the mistranslation probably regarded it as a commendable white lie (and I guess it's not impossible that they were right). I also note that the 'reliable' Catholic Encyclopedia spreads the same conclusion while carefully avoiding mentioning the false premise on which that conclusion seems to be largely based. Are we expected to accept that such apparent sleight of hand is the hallmark of 'reliability'?

I don't dare try to fix any of this for fear of being reverted for Original Research, but somebody ought to try to fix it.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Correction: After discovering the Article in 'A Possible Fix?' below, I now have to admit that some of my above criticism of the Catholic Encyclopdia turns out to be unfair since the worst that could be said about them was that they didn't present their case clearly enough to convince somebody as hostile as me, which is hardly a serious charge :) Tlhslobus (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A possible Fix?

However, the following seemingly 'unreliable' seemingly self-published article on Free Republic points out that the translation reads "In extreme persecution, the Holy Roman Church will sit.", and that this can indeed mean any number of intermediate Popes.

I've had to insert ***** into its web address because Wikipedia ?Spamfoil? (if I remember the program name right) has blacklisted the website, so if we ever wanted to use it, we'd have to go through the procedure Wikipedia's program offers for unblacklisting the specific article.

It's at http://www.free*****republic.com/focus/f-religion/2861676/posts and I'm copying it here in full (apart from the numerous comments that go with it. Can we use it, despite being 'unreliable' (and now on a blacklisted website, I've just learnt)? Despite being officially unreliable (and blacklisted, it's by far the most reliable thing I've found anywhere on the subject, and the only thing I've yet found with a broadly correct translation? Can anybody find anything better?

Still, at least it means our 'reliable' sources have the right conclusion, albeit while giving the wrong reason. It also suggests, at least to me, that the next pope is probably not Peter the Roman, even supposing the Prophecies are not rubbish, and is also pretty strong further evidence that the prophecies are rubbish, as there seems not the slightest evidence that the Church is about to face extreme (or for that matter final) persecution.

---

St. Malachy's prophecy, misread? Vanity | 2012-03-20 | dangus

Posted on 21 March 2012 03:01:26 by dangus

I hate to encourage any silliness about the prophecy of St. Malachy, which supposedly list every pope from Pope Celestine II (AD 1143). But I just found out that everyone who's been going around citing how Benedict XVI is the last Pope before Petrus Romanus has been following the same wrong translation.

There is no numbering of the popes. Each phrase is simply interpreted as referring to a separate pope. The last several popes are listed as such:

De medietate lunæ.

De labore ſolis.

Gloria oliuæ.

In Psecutione extrema S.R.E. ſedebit.

Petrus Romanus, qui paſcet oues in multis tribulationibus: quibus tranſactis ciuitas ſepticollis diruetur, & Iudex tremẽdus iudicabit populum ſuum.

Finis.

That's 5 popes before "Finis," right?

No, that's 3 or 4 popes, because Petrus Romanus, qui pascet... is an explanation of "In persecutione...", a so-called adiectum by Ciacconius, as indicated at the end of the prophecy. An further, In persecutione... could be an addition to Gloria oivae if Benedict XVI. were elected Pope again, so that a new motto is necessary but not a new byname. --Bachmai (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Except all the end-times nuts count it as 4, conflating "In Psecutione extrema S.R.E. ſedebit." with "Petrus Romanus." Yet, they are listed separately with a period in between.

Nonetheless, despite the indicated sentence break, these two lines are typicall translated without break: "In the extreme [or final] persecution of the SRE [Holy Roman Church], will sit Peter the Roman, who will nourish the sheep in many tribulations; when they are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The end."

Nonsense. It should be read: "In extreme persecution, the Holy Roman Church will sit." Then the phrase about Peter the Roman. By referring the the Holy Roman Church, it could mean a period without a pope (sede vacante), but then "sit" sorta betrays that notion. It could mean that a long line of popes will extend throughout persistent persecution. Most likely, a Pope, as an embodiment of the Holy Roman Church sits through a persecution. In any event, it does not refer to the reign of Peter the Roman.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlhslobus (talk • contribs) 12:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to sign that Tlhslobus (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A Peter the Roman is not part of the prophecy, but only an adiectum by Ciacconius. Maybe you are right concerning the use of S. R. E. in a nominative, and perhaps extrema could also be related to S. R. E, meaning an extern church without a pope. However, usually S. R. E. is used in a genitive form, e.g. in S. R. E. cardinalis, which means: a cardinal of the Holy Roman Church. Therefore, I deem it more likely that In persecutione extrema S. R. E. sedebit is really related to the result of a conclave, and the fact that it is a predictive sentence and not an actual byname could be explained if Benedict XVI. were elected Pope again, so that an additional byname is no longer necessary (he already has one: Gloria olivae), and the motto would tell us that indeed he is the one who will be sitting at the last persecution of the church, he, the one who had already abdicated. But we shall see, and prophecies are often fulfilled in a way that nobody considered before. --Bachmai (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Trystan modifications

1) The last sentence cannot be called a motto. Even though this name is used by some usually reliable source, still it is an obvious misuse of the language. So my version was correct. 2) There is no "er" in the printed text of Wion, where the word is abbreviated (see page 311, which is our first figure). Some experts have suggested that maybe Wion meant "prosecutione" rather than "persecutione", so that "in prosecutione extrema" would mean approximately at the end of times. I think we should not imply that Wion choose any of the two words.

Finally a question: why is he called "de Wyion" while in the front page of his book he calls himself "Wion"? Does anybody know any source which explains this change of name? Maybe Wyion is a birthplace?

Pinea (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A p with a line through the stem is per and nothing but. Pro would be a p with a downcurving loop extending from the left side of the stem. And prosecutio doesn't make any contextual sense.09:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

1. I agree we shouldn't refer to it as a motto. Let me know what you think of the updated wording I have added to the article.
2. I am not able to find any reliable sources which transcribe this as anything other than "persecutione." My understanding is that a p with a straight line through the descender is shorthand for per, par, and por, but not pro.
3. I haven't really looked at how we spell Wion. "Arnold Wion" is used in his own Latin work, as well as our major English sources, Bander and O'Brien, so I would support switching to that throughout. The Catholic Encyclopedia says "Arnold de Wyon", possibly copying Cucherat.--Trystan (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the city of seven hills Rome?

• 112. Peter the Roman, who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations, and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills [i.e. Rome] will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The End.

The city of seven hills is not Rome. This is a wrong estimate. Bible says different. --Piramitdünya (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bible may call another city (Jerusalem, I assume) "the city of seven hills", but it does not say to which "city of seven hills" this particular prophecy refers. Quite a few secondary sources say the one in this prophecy means Rome. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

As we are in the frame of an apocalyptic narration, the only appropriate interpretation is the one provided by chapter 17 of Apocalypse, where the town on seven hills is called Babylon. Which is the meaning of it, is strongly debated; many say that it is not even a town. So it is improper to affirm as sure ("i.e.") something far from certain, even though backed by "a few secondary sources". Pinea (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

As with elsewhere on Wikipedia, the only appropriate interpretations are those given by secondary sources. And like elsewhere, nobody is saying anything is true or sure. Just that the cited source says so. By my reading, a judge (even a terrible one) judging his people doesn't say "apocalypse" (especially for those who aren't "his people"). Maybe he'll acquit them all? And, as a Canadian, the destruction of Rome (or any of the seven-hilled cities) won't affect me anymore than the destruction of Iraq or Yugoslavia did. But the sources say it means the end of the world, and they say the seven-hilled city is Rome. If you have some source saying otherwise, feel free to add it. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I would like to explain, but when the time comes. I hope soon, before the "many tribulations" start. (Peter the Roman, who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations) Ecclesiastes 3:1,7: "There is a time for everything, ...a time to be silent and a time to speak."

• Revelation 7:9 After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. ... 13 Then one of the elders asked me, “These in white robes—who are they, and where did they come from?” 14 I answered, “Sir, you know.” And he said, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. --Piramitdünya (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Petrus Romanus connection?

Pope Francis is of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Buenos Aires. The first ordinary of this archdiocese was Pedro Carranza Salinas. That could be one connection to Peter, although I don't really buy into prophecies and I'm REALLY reaching on this one.TheLastAmigo (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Pretty convincing! Nah. But I look forward to seeing the edit requests going forward here. Everybody try to remember the verifiability thing. And not to slander anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis is a Jesuit, the Society of Jesus are colloquially know as "God's Marines". Petrus - Saint PeterSaint Peter was a fischerman, thus being the patron saint for the fisherman. Pope Francis thus being born in Argentina is descent by both parents of italian blood lines thus Romanus.

Pope Francis I

Pope Francis I is the first Jesuit Pope, and the Jesuits first met at the Church of Saint Pierre de Montmartre in 1534.

Petrus Romanus? FurryAminal (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR. Unless and until a reliable source makes connections betwen that particular part of the prophecy and Pope Francis there is no interpretation or information about Pope Francis that can go in. DeCausa (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup, its just a coincidence that he's the first Jesuit Pope, who has named himself after one of the co-founders of the Jesuit order, who met and took their oaths in St Peters in Montmartre. ;o) But, yes I understand the caution (although I know my stuff wellish, being an Religious Studies graduate. I suspect this point will fly once people get ahold of it. FurryAminal (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Coincidence with what? There's no connection. DeCausa (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Whoever had been chosen, and whatever name he took, somebody somewhere would have dug up an obscure Peter connection. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you know that Marc Ouellet, if elected, would have been a successor to St. Peter and would reside within Rome? Scary stuff. Glad they picked the safe bet instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, Timothy Dolan has publicly stated that Pope Francis told him that he (Francis) chose his name after St. Francis of Assisi, so there is no connection with the founding of the Jesuits in his name at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, though, what about quoting sources which call him a shepherd or pastor? Without adding our own meaning, would those be appropriate notes, given what the prophecy says about pasturing his people? Archbishop Welby has some words here. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No!! Apart from the fact it's pure WP:OR with no source to back it up, what Pope hasn't been called "shepherd"!!! DeCausa (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That blue "here" at the end is a source, backing it up. They've probably all been called shepherd, but it wasn't at all relevant to the other prophecies. Might be some synthesis issues, if we're listing everything to start with "Proponents of the prophecies have...", but as a pure note, I don't see a problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

How's this? The last sentence doesn't give much detail, but it clearly attributes a theory to proponents. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As has been discussed a lot on this page, a source that would support inclusion here needs to specifically link a fact about the Pope to these Prophecies. So no, your first link is not a source. It's pure WP:OR to make the linkage ourselves. All Justin Welby said was ""As he begins his new Apostolic ministry, as the Bishop of Rome and Shepherd of the universal Church". that's a standard informal titles that's used for every Pope. In fact, every bishop is referred to as a shepherd. As far as your 2nd link is concerned, I don't know whether it is an WP:RS or not - I've never heard of it before. If it is an RS it would be a source for something like "Since Pope Francis' election internet forums have been attempting to make tenuous connections with the prophecy"DeCausa (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the "pastor of great stature who served the poor" part of the BBC story, but I hear your point. As for the second one, what would be wrong with the standard "Proponents of the prophecies have linked Francis to Francis of Assisi, whose father's name was Peter."? I see no reason to doubt this site's reliability; it's a local news site, so it's not going to be well-known. But at least it's easily checkable, unlike the source we have for most (maybe all) the others. Not knocking that source, but it's offline. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that actually represents what that source was saying. Surely, the point that piece is making is (paraphrasing): the internet is coming up with spurious theories, the best of a tenuous bunch is the Francis of Assisi one. DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It says the internet (AKA proponents) have come up with a theory (attempted to link) regarding Francis of Assisi's father and the new pope. I've added it to the article in a way that is totally backed up and consistent in style with the rest. But now I wonder if I can note that the father's name was actually Pietro without a source saying that means Peter in Italian. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't want to make one link sound like that is a significant, widespread interpretation, when it is simply the best interpretation a single local reporter had heard in the first few hours after the new pope was announced. There's no rush to fill the spot with whatever the forums churn out; it may well be, as it is for some other popes in the list, they don't produce anything that reliable sources give much traction to.--Trystan (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this O'Brien book really full of widespread interpretations? We're relying on it almost exclusively. Now that the Internet exists, these things gain traction quicker than they did. If other sources offer other explanations, which become more popular, we should add them too. But for now, this is what we have to work with. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

O'Brien (which is available on-line in full-text; it's linked in the reference list) reports and offers critical commentary on what previous authors (I believe all cited are Catholic historians, both for and against the prophecy) put forth in their published works. Bander, the other source we cite for most prophecies, is similar, though much more credulous of the prophecy (and clearly working from O'Brien's text). Provided the sources are reliable, more are always welcome.--Trystan (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed the link, thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've amended the edit to make it closer to what I think that piece is actually saying. I don't think the bit about Francis of assisi has value (though I left it in) but I think it is worth noting bthat there's a lot of tenuous speculation on the internet. DeCausa (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Your edit is basically fine by me, but I changed "internet forums" to "proponents". This is consistent with how we do it for the others. We don't mention where they discussed their bullshit. I'd be OK with "proponents in internet forums" (since we know where, in this case), but the forums themselves don't speak. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it back but would be ok with "proponents in internet forums". The fact that it's in "internet forums" as stated in the source is relevant because it is one level down from the other "proponents". DeCausa (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Already got it. For what it's worth, though, an extremely educated and intelligent person can use a forum as easily as a complete moron can publish a book. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Chances are less: with a book you need a chain of morons - author, editor, publisher, etc. On the internet you just need one moron + computer. DeCausa (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The publisher doesn't have to be a moron to exploit a moron with popular views, and hopefully the editor is a shade smarter the the author. One genius plus one computer works the same way. But I'm no statistician. You can have this argument. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I would strike the bit about Francis of Assisi's father. If the point is to exemplify tenuous theories, then equal weight should be given to less tenuous theories. For example... from the same source..."He suggests that the name Peter the Roman may be Malachy's way of naming the 112th Pope as the Antichrist because of the negative connotations Rome had with the first Pope." This is more in-line with the rest of the wiki article. Yourliver (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The prophecy uses the word Sheperd only to do with the idea of the church in general that will strike upon her sheeps as in every apocalypsi while the believers will be saved. I was very stuned to discover that not only the pope was argentinian and an active member of the Peron administration but also that he covered the massacres of priests as the Church did in general: San Patricio Church massacre and the Dirty War, in the name of war against communism. Than Nostradamus prophecies that the last pope will change territory. TRGUY (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

User:TRGUY, could you provide some better sources for this? Some citations from mainstream academic literature would be great (instead of news articles). Blelbach (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This pope is "The Olive Branch"

This pope is "The Olive Branch" I think the one whom posted otherwise is a little too eager, we're almost there but not quite there yet. The return to Rome which is represented by the olive branch returning is the sign. The predicessor resigned willingly in admission that he could not perform his duty to God thus may be still honored by the Catholic Church, but not by the list held by The Church Triumphant from which this prophecy originates (St Malachy). To suggest that the judgment is happening when it is not (look outside) and wether a continued list will present itself in the future still must be weighed. Remember the Great Judge does not have a number and is forever in Judgment of his people (Revelations) I highly suggest placing this pope in the proper placement and refrain from updating Peter the Roman with a number. Kronah (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE leads me to agree with you here. Blelbach (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No way... Celestine V also abdicated and he is in the list. But believers in the paranormal will always find a way to delay the final eye-opener... --Againme (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis

I'm not going to revert TRGUY's change to the lead again, because I do not want to engage in an edit war. I've placed a warning on his talk page and I'm going to now ask him to come here and talk about this change. I don't believe it's appropriate to put this statement into the lead: "The man who would be the final pope according to the document is Pope Francis, who was elected on 13 March 2013.". I haven't seen anything that isn't WP:FRINGE that supports the statement that Pope Francis is the last pope according to this document. The only sources I've seen cited for this are a few news stories and forums which I believe are of questionable repute. I am going to additionally post on the Pope Francis talk page and ask people there to chime in on this discussion, as I don't know how many people are actively on this talk page. Blelbach (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Fully protected....

...ok, people here are edit-warring, some have passed WP:3RR. I have fully protected the page for 6 days. Use the talk page to hash things out, and find consensus. I have no opinion on the matter, and of course I protected the wrong version. Lectonar (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's pretty much the right version. For the record, as far as I can see there was only one editor that breached 3RR and I'd already reported them to AN3. But I think fully protecting this version for 6 days is a good move - allowing the dust to settle after the papal election. Otherwise, there was bound to be a tide of WP:OR and blog-based nonsense coming this article's way. DeCausa (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you put that up somewhere? I would be the first admin to protect a right version. And I was a bit unprecise: of course you are right, only one user passed 3RR. Anyway, I will be watching this page, and an unprotection is quickly made....Lectonar (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to unprotect the section on 'The Prophecies in Art, Literature, and culture'? There's probably quite a bit of useful uncontroversial work that could be done there on giving citations/references for the various books listed there, etc, though I don't know whether it's physically possible to unprotect a single section. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry, that is not possible. Lectonar (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 March 2013

"Though Pope Innocent initially had his doubts, following a dream in which he saw Francis holding up the Basilica of St. John Lateran" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_of_Assisi

"The Lateran Basilica, is the cathedral church of the Diocese of Rome and the official ecclesiastical seat of the Bishop of Rome, who is the Pope." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_St._John_Lateran

175.156.244.31 (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Second pope from outside Europe

Please do not add this information. Francis is indeed the second pope from outside Europe, if you don't count Evaristus (Israel), Anicetus (Syria), Victor I (Libya), Theodore (Israel), John V, Sissinus, Constantine, and Gregory III (all Syria). There is no verifiable evidence that Francis is the first outside Europe (and, as pointed out, is blatantly wrong, as there have been other Asian (and one African) pope already). Wikipedia is to be a repository of *factual* information, which is what peopel are coming here for.--Canuckguy (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There have been three Africans already. --Againme (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but they all came from the Roman Province of Africa, so if we creatively redefine Europe to include the entire Mediteranean Basin as well, we can claim that Francis is the first Pope from outside Europe. OK, that would lead to us speaking in ways that just confuse, but it would be more valid than that Francis is the second Pope from outside Europe, since it would be true for a given definition of Europe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, well, nice, but this is not the place to invent new definitions... --Againme (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

My point is the claim that Francis is "the second Pope from outside Euopre" is total rubbish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. =o) --Againme (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Francis' connection to Peter the Roman

The intriguing connection of the newly elected Pope Francis I to the 112th Prophecy of Malachy who describes him as Peter the Roman is also in the fact that Pope Francis was born in the Argentinian city of Buenos Aires, which was founded by Pedro de Mendoza. Pedro = Peter. Edit1107 (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm: Confirmation bias, anyone? If you look hard enough, you can find almost infinite coincidences.... Lectonar (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

And not as intriguing as his middle name being Mario, as in Super Mario Bros. (film), which starred Dennis Hopper, who appeared in Easy Rider with Peter Fonda, whose ancestors were Italian, and may well probably possibly visited Rome once...spooky eh? 195.147.116.22 (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely terrifying. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't even aware of those connections, so good of you to point this out....but I'll stop commenting on this, because it might make me involved. Lectonar (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Some relate Fracis and "Peter the Roman" to the date of his election. Blessed Peter II died on March 13th of 1208. Zodiamaster

What are you talking about? There was no Pope Peter II! (only in the Palmarian Church) --Againme (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the user might be referring to Peter II, abbot of Cava see La Trinità della Cava who died in 1208. DeCausa (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There was also Pope Peter II of Alexandria but he died about the end of February (his death is actually listed based on the Coptic Calendar), so I don't think one can make a link to him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Better make it clear that was way back around 380AD - otherwise the theory that Pope Peter II has just died could quickly be all over the Internet :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlhslobus (talk • contribs) 07:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm really sorry but I'm new to this and so I don't know how to add this, or if I should even add it at all, but I read an article from the New York Times that mentions how the pope mentioned in his first mass that they should "build faith the way the apostle Peter built the church on the foundations of the Gospels." And then he said that the church should be buit on a foundation of stone, which reminded me of how St. Peter is supposed to be the rock upon which the church is built. Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/world/europe/pope-francis.html?hp&_r=0 And then I remember reading something else about how he's something of a shepard of the people in how he's humble, though I don't remember where I read that. Anlasbry (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am also not sure out how to add this or raise this. Pope Francis took the name supposedly, from St. Francis of Assisi. St Francis of Assisi's name before being venerated was Francesco di Pietro di Bernardone, a tenuous link to the name Peter. Edengmcc (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Neither should be added. User:Anlasbry's source does not link the reference to Peter to the Prophecy. To use it to make the link ourselves would therefore be WP:OR. Equally, User:Edengmcc's suggestion is also WP:OR (as well as being tenuous!). DeCausa (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• An even more tenuous link to the name Peter comes by way of something I stumbled on by complete chance just now. Francis is the first pope to take a name unused by a predecessor since Pope Lando in 913. There is also a Pietro Lando who was Doge of Venice in the 16th Century. With all these links, it looks like we're all doomed then. But seriously, if we don't include it here already, this article is worth sourcing, or at least a quick read, as it attempts to debunk the myth. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST

I hate full protection from those of us who only take grammar issues, but Francis's election should be Francis' election Thanks! --Againme (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Done, sorry about the FP. Lectonar (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, "Francis's" isn't incorrect. See this. DeCausa (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker, so can not decide; Francis' seemed correct to me, though. Lectonar (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a fluent English reader and writer, and Francis' also seems correct to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's the point of the piece I linked to: both are correct - there was no need to change it. DeCausa (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Both technically correct (depending who you ask), but one is slightly more concise. It's not a huge point, but with everything else tied, it's the game winner. I think, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Popes and corresponding mottos

This section is one of the worst instances of blatant original research I have ever seen on Wikipedia. The whole section should be deleted. Mvaldemar (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't get your point. Most of it is(was) referenced. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 12:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, references to support original research. The explanations themselves were not referenced. For example, the JPII section claims that he was born on the day of a solar eclipse, which is then referenced by a NASA source! What we need are reliable sources for the explanations, not data to support them. Mvaldemar (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I question the good faith of a wholesale deletion of a section which is drawn directly from the original edition of the original text. This is absolutely not original research. You do not delete an entire section because you are unhappy with some detail in it. The connection between the titles in the first half of the list and the names and arms of the Popes is well-established and referenced. The speculations in the second half of the list are part of the history of the way the list has been interpreted. Though they don't have the same validity, they are still important facts about the popular reception of the "prophecy". RandomCritic (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that Plarem has tried to finesse the point by substituting for the table a bare list of the mottos with translation. This is unacceptable, for many reasons, the most obvious of which is that it falsifies the appearance of the original text -- which included the names of all Popes up to time of its printing, and explanations. These are part of the history of the "prophecies" from the beginning, not a deletable excrescence. Those parts of the original text are in the table. Let's emend errors where necessary, but let's not emend things to make the article worse. RandomCritic (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the table should be deleted. There is no need to replicate the full original text and analyze it in this detail. We don't do line by line breakdowns even for significant literary works. I would suggest that this go to an RFC, as I think a wider input would be helpful.

The novel interpretation of prophecy is a particularly embarrassing sort of OR, but the sourcing in both parts of the table is extremely problematic, as it goes to primary sources attempting to "prove" the connection, rather than secondary sources which critically analyze the material (and point out mistakes, inconsistencies, bad Latin grammar, etc.)--Trystan (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The details are important. I don't see anything in the first half of the list that needs to be changed. The only thing problematic about the second half of the list is some of the "explanations". They can be edited without removing the list as a whole.

And why would you jump to an RFC when the question hasn't even been discussed in Talk?

RandomCritic (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been proposed on talk several times. This is the most discussion it has received, and you began by accusing the editor who wants to delete the section of bad faith just on those grounds. Do you think we are likely to reach a consensus, or would broader input be helpful?--Trystan (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

When I looked at the article this morning the "section" -- which is really the core of the article -- had been deleted without any discussion. Do I think we can reach a consensus? Yes, if we talk about facts, and don't rush into things. There are a lot of contributors to this article, some of whom probably haven't even turned their computers on yet. Let's give some of them a chance to discuss it.

As far as "it [deleting the table] has been proposed on talk several times" -- it has been proposed once -- by you -- yesterday! Your proposal and MValdemar's amount to "several times"? Do you think there's been time to discuss this very significant change? I certainly don't.

But to get back to the facts: this is a text of historical importance. It is important, not because it is an actual foretelling of the future, but because various people over its history have thought that it was or might be, and have tried to apply it to various things that happened in their own time. As they have done so with each new Pope, it's worth mentioning what they said, as long as we can show that their speculations were somewhat widely disseminated -- e.g., they're found in a book. Since the speculations have occasionally depended on misquotations of the original text, it's important that we have that text as a point of comparison.RandomCritic (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"it's worth mentioning what they said, as long as we can show that their speculations were somewhat widely disseminated -- e.g., they're found in a book" Isn't that the problem? - the lack of citation. The explanations seem to fall into three categories:

(a) those that have no citation

(b) they have a citation for certain facts but the citation doesn't link those facts to the prophecy - an editor appears to have used WP:OR to make that linkage and

(c) there is a citation and the source expressly gives the explanation of the prophecy.

Of course, an inline citation isn't normally obligatory but because of the high likelihood of drive-by WP:OR here, I think that an explanation should only appear unless there is a citation. So, explanations in categories (a) and (b) should be deleted. Furthermore, any explanation for which a citation can be found should begin "According to..." and refer to the source. If that's done, then I think there's a case for perhaps not being quite as stringent on whether the source is WP:RS or not as might otherwise be the case. DeCausa (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Mvaldemar appears to have deleted all the post 1595 popes with this edit and the edit summary that the published list didn't include those popes. Leaving aside the lack of consensus to do this, some of those later explanations had cited WP:RS and were in category (c), as I described it above. To base that deletion on examination of a primary source when reliable secondary sources refer to the post-1595 list is incorrect. DeCausa (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously there are no reliable sources for interpreting prophecy. Mvaldemar (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are at least 4 citations (put there by me) of type (c) in the list (even if some rewording would be appropriate for the one about Benedict XV) which Mvaldemar has now deleted for the 3rd time (though in fairness one of the deletions may well have been a response to a restoration by a possible sock puppet). Or at least I was given their source as RS by somebody demanding RS sources - it's the Tony Allan source, and was left there in the Petrus Romanus section even when everything else got deleted. I know other citations (at least online ones) can be found for the John Paul II eclipses though I don't know whether any count as WP:RS (which is why I didn't put them in when adding the citation for the second eclipse and requesting a citation for the first, which quickly arrived); I didn't put in the original claim, but I expect that whoever did was not doing OR but was quoting a probably nonRS source. It would not surprise me if an RS source could be found if somebody bothered to look (though I wouln't be confident of knowing whether it was RS or not, especially RS to the satisfaction of those who want the whole thing deleted). I put in the Olivetan bit for the current Pope because it's given incorrectly at several places online, so I thought it would be a good idea for readers to be able to see the correct version (justificarion: WP:IAR + Wikipedia is supposed to be about spreading knowledge, not keeping people in ignorance); I also added [citation needed] to the dubious claim which was already there. It may well be that there is an RS source for the Olivetan stuff (though once again if I found it I wouldn't be sure if it was RS especially not to the satifaction of the deleters). But even if there isn't, I think there's a need to have it there pointing out how weak the Olive claim actually is. Incidentally, is it acceptable behaviour or vandalism to unilaterally delete over 60,000 words by many editors with little or no discussion - and then when seemingly forced to admit that 45,000 of them should not have been deleted to simply unilaterally delete the other 20,000 (I'm not making an accusation, I genuinely would like to know the answer)? Tlhslobus (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't admitted anything, but merely trying to approach a compromise. I still hold that the whole section should be deleted. The reader can consult the original material of the prophecy if he wants to know the details. There's no need to list it all here. Mvaldemar (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

And if a reader is looking for a confirmation, refutation, or more accurate version of the details of some scary Doomsday online claim (of which there will presumably be many from now on, at least until a successor to 'Petrus Romanus' is in place in maybe 5 to 30 years' time), perhaps to stop him/her or or one of his/her loved ones from having a mental breakdown or commiting suicide, why shouldn't he/she be able to find that potentially mind-or-life-saving information/knowledge in Wikipedia? Tlhslobus (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, don't mean to cause a fuss or anything, but I feel that this article (I first came across it a couple of days ago) has been made considerably worse by the removal of a third of the text (consisting of the list of mottos and the popes to which they are purported to apply, with the possible interpretations thereof). I don't really take part in this stuff very often, but it seems a bit odd to me that in the space of 24 hours an article could be redacted à la CIA and then edit protected to stop others reverting the changes (much like some form of gag order). I don't think that's a fair way to behave towards other users, especially as it seems to have been on the whim of one user, Mvaldemar, alone, and solely due to his/her disagreement regarding the possible interpretations themselves. I feel that the mottos and the Popes to which they (subsequently) apply are certainly of interest (and were perfectly well presented), and that the possible interpretations don't do any harm to the encyclopedicity (or whatever it's called) of the article. As mentioned, I don't want to cause a fuss or anything, but it does seem a shame to unilaterally wipe away that amount of work on a whim, especially when the consensus (3:1, 4:1 including my dubious non-registered self) does not seem to support it. Mvaldemar, I would be grateful if you could reconsider, as I found it a very interesting and informative list worthy of inclusion, although of course understand if you will not, and hope you can find a solution to everyone's satisfaction. I also don't think it's overly appropriate to start blaming people for causing suicides because of missing text on wikipedia articles; Mvaldemar isn't evil (probably). All the best!

Sorry, me again, didn't see Trystan's post. 3:2/4:2, depending on how seriously you take random people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.109.47.75 (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Unsigned, I didn't say Mvaldemar was evil or to blame, nor am I trying to assign personal blame to anybody (except perhaps myself) for anything. I doubt if anybody is ever truly to blame for anything, because that would seem to require Free Will, which appears to be a logical contradiction. However since I can't absolutely prove it is, I think I have to work on the assumption that I am responsible for what I appear to do, meaning I have to work on the assumption that I have Free Will, even though I probably don't. So if somebody ends up having a breakdown or committing suicide because I haven't warned of the potential risk, then I may be partly to blame for that breakdown or suicide, or at least I think I'm morally obliged to work on the assumption that I may be, and to try to act accordingly, and hence to write what I wrote. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

We should examine the Nostradamus article for inspiration. His prophecies are presented in an encyclopedic manner, which is missing from this article. Mvaldemar (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but 2012 Mayan Doomsday Prophecy seems likely to be at least as relevant, and perhaps more so. After all, the only reason the Pope Prophecies are suddenly interesting is because they've just become one great big Doomsday prophecy.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Though still better might be 2012 Mayan Doomsday Prophecy as the article was quite some time (certainly a few days, ideally a few months or years) before December 21, 2012. After all, we don't yet know for certain that the Pope Doomsday will be a flop, but neither is Doomsday being prophesied for tomorrow morning. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Neither Nostradamus nor 2012 Mayan Doomsday Prophecy have huge amounts of source text analyzed line by line. That seems like the central problem to me; the OR analysis is equally serious, but goes away if we move the source to WikiSource and link to it.--Trystan (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection of the 2012 Mayan Doomsday Prophecy article, all relevant text was included, translated, and analysed, the main differences being there was very little text, and plenty of sources had analysed it (hence no OR accusations). Tlhslobus (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@RandomCritic: By "several" was referring to the suggestion of Mvaldemar here, mine from yesterday, Contaldo's proposal to get rid of the interpretations, and NOR Dominick's to move the lengthy source text to WikiSource (a much better home for it). Moving the text to WikiSource was also raised several years ago ("Copyvio?" In the archive) and has never really been addressed. We still have a ton of source text, translations of uncertain provenance that may be a copyright violation, and OR efforts throughout.--Trystan (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The 'ton' of source text doesn't seem particularly heavy WP:NOTPAPER?). It should not be difficult to get together a backup translation starting from Google translate just in case any copyright owner complains (which I think pretty unlikely). And the OR can be fixed on a case by case basis (though I actually think that some of it should arguably be kept due WP:IAR but I'm perfectly happy to be outvoted on that, as I wish somebody would delete most of it, which might then have the additional advantage of letting us see for ourselves how few genuine 'lucky hits' there actually are after 1590 or 1595 - though this would be more convincing if OR was kept where its relevance was clear and its facts were reliably sourced - instead of having to rely on 100% predictable and consequently not-particularly-credible (to put it rather mildly) assertions by so-called authorities that it's almost all rubbish.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That said, I see no point in keeping the ones before 1595 unless we keep the ones after 1595. I'd prefer to keep both sets; failing that I'd prefer to keep the ones after 1595. But if we're not going to have those, I vote for deleting the ones before 1595 (the only point in having them is to show the contrast before and after 1595). Tlhslobus (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not a repository of original documents, a publisher of original thought, or a collection of unverifiable speculation. Regarding the potential copyright violation of the translations, the approach of the project is most definitely not to wait and see if a copyright owner complain.--Trystan (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This snide suggestion of "copyright violation" is a huge red herring and offensive to the combined work of the editors on this article. There is no copyright violation. I do not know whether there was any basis for the claim that some of the translations back in 2005 were derived from some copyrighted text, but it is completely irrelevant today, because since that time, the entire section about the prophecy was overhauled, the Latin citations were all doublechecked against a facsimile of the original text from Google Books and corrected, and the English translations were all checked against the original Latin and revised. I don't say that some of the former translations haven't remained -- there are an extremely limited number of possible ways of translating a two-word Latin phrase like "Gloria Olivae" -- but the table as it stands is not directly derived, in translation or base text, from anything other than Arnold de Wyon's Lignum Vitae. And, quite frankly, the idea that someone can make a claim of copyright violation without the slightest proof and then demand deletion on that basis because "we can't wait and see if a copyright owner complains" is absurd and totally destructive of the work of building Wikipedia. Any vandal could come in, start slashing, and say it was because the text he was deleting was a "copyright violation", and that he didn't need to prove it because, who knows, it just might be! RandomCritic (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, RandomCritic. Meanwhile, how can we progress this towards some kind of resolution, because at the moment we seem to have some kind of stalemate. They can't delete the table because as DeCausa has pointed out WP:BRD means it stays while it's being discussed, or the deleter risks being banned for edit warring. On the other hand anybody working to improve the thing (and it certainly needs improving, IMHO) is risking wasting his or her effort until the dispute is resolved (I certainly won't be attempting to fix any of its present flaws until I know my efforts won't be wasted). Do we need to notify those working on the table (and those who have worked on it in the past) that their work is in danger of deletion (I suspect many are probably unaware of this), and is there a procedure for notifying them? And does anybody know what the recommended procedure is regarding stalemates like this? Tlhslobus (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, RandomCritic, are you saying that this table has been here since 2005? Because if it's being here for 7 to 8 years, and has been worked on by many editors over those 7 or 8 years, that seems yet another argument for not deleting it ('has stood the test of time', etc). Tlhslobus (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The standard process for moving forward from this point would be to do a Request for Comment from other editors. This involves phrasing a short, neutral question (i.e. "Should the article include the original Latin text of the prophecy, the English translation, and/or interpretations of how it applies to historical popes?"). The RFC gets posted on relevant RFC notice boards (I would suggest history and religion), as well as posted to any other relevant boards like the two WikiProjects that monitor this article, or perhaps the Original Research Notice Board, if OR is a key issue regarding the proposed section deletion. An RFC usually stays open for thirty days.

One can notify past editors as you wish, keeping in mind they don't WP:OWN the article. One also needs to be careful not to WP:CANVASS by notifying groups likely to support one side or the other, so it would be a good idea to notify, e.g. all previous editors from a certain time period, rather than just ones that added to the table. I usually assume that anyone interested in monitoring the article has it in their watch list.

While I think the RFC would be a good idea to proceed with at some point in the near future, I don't think it's the best next step in this case. Looking at this article's usage, it's received, on average, 500 views per day. In the last four days, it has received 760,000 views, which is the equivalent of nearly four years worth of its regular traffic. That included a huge spike and dropoff, but we can expect continued high use and more spikes over the next couple of months. So while I agree that it's normally undesirable to spend time cleaning up a section that may get deleted in a month or so, I think it's worth it in this case. I'd like to get it cleaned up ASAP, rather than letting a month-long RFC run its course.

I'm going to go through the table now and begin improving citations, comparing the translations to uncopyrighted sources, and removing unsourced material based on DeCausa's proposed 'c' sourcing standard above. This should resolve concerns about the table other than whether we should include source material of this length at this level of analysis, which will make an RFC more straightforward.--Trystan (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A few comments on the above recent posts:

(1) If there is a copyvio issue with the translations then, of course, they must be deleted without delay. However, I can't see in this thread from where it is claimed the text has been lifted. Anyone who claims copyvio needs to post a link to the text in question so it can be assessed. Without that, there's no issue to be considered.

(2) Usually an RFC follows fairly extensive debate on the article talk page. There's not actually been that much discussion here - particularly as there are a lot of non-issues or unrelated issues kicking around on this thread. I don't think the discussion has been sufficiently distilled to question(s) suitable for an RfC yet.

(3) On the issue of deleting explanations that are not in "category (c)", I would just say that, IMHO, anyone who does that needs to make a reasonable good faith check to find a source before doing so. WP:V doesn't make inline citation obligatory. (Btw, I think Tlhslobus and others have been doing a very good job on improving the sourcing in this article.)

DeCausa (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I raised the copyright issue because a previous note on the talk page indicated it he translations had been copied directly from another source, and the text of the article itself seemed to indicate the list was taken from Bander. (It doesn't bear any particular resemblance to Bander at present that I can see; even the idiosyncratic numbering which we credited to him isn't found in my edition.) With something like translations from Latin, I think it's reasonable to ask where the text came from. As I noted above, I think the best approach at this point is to work through each pope and make sure they are cited to reliable sources, which will include being able to compare and cite the translations to reliable sources, one of which is no longer under copyright, which should alleviate any vestigial copyright or OR concerns.

My approach for moving through the table can be seen in the first four popes. It's not a wholesale deletion by any means, but a fairly careful checking of sources and updating text to match.--Trystan (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, as far as the copyvio point is concerned, unless and until a specific text is put forward as having been copied in breach of copyright I think that issue can be dropped. DeCausa (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Btw, editors' translations of the original Latin are not WP:OR and are permissable per WP:NOENG. DeCausa (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful.--Trystan (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this the consensus on this thread?

Based on the course of the discussion (and as a tool for establishing what, if any, are the outstanding issues), is it fair to say the consensus is, or could be:

• 1. The list of popes and the translation should stay because (a) there is currently no evidence of copyvio and (b) the list itself is sufficiently sourced both pre- and post- 1595 (c) there is an agreed approach to erradicating WP:OR in the "explanations" per 2, 3 and 4 below.
• 2. The objective is for each "explanation" to have an inline citation to an RS which expressly supports the explanation (not just the facts that are used in the explanation).
• 3. If an explanation has no citation per 2 above, the explanation should be deleted (provided the editor doing so first makes a reasonable good faith check that there are no sources - eg at least through Google and Google Books searches.)
• 4. No new explanation should be added without a citation to an RS expressly supporting the explanation.

DeCausa (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

A good summary, DeCausa, thanks. Since your text is liable to end up as Holy Writ at least for the next few weeks, I suggest that you add in some guidance about also including appropriate criticisms of claims where possible (there may be a problem with finding sources that criticise a claim, even when it contains serious factual errors, as with R.D.Bruno's Benedict claim - while there seems to be a problem omitting Bruno when everything else he says seems to deserve inclusion, IMHO, so I've included him while mentioning the errors and linking to the relevant Wiki articles, and I'm pleading WP:IAR as justification - but I'm not sure that's ideal (and I will be looking for sources that criticise the Olivetan claim in particular, as it's all over the Internet (though usually in a slightly different version from Bruno's) - it's already criticised in the Olivetan article, but without sources).

Apart from that, IMHO, I think that your summary seems to be the approximate consensus at least until some time after the election of the new Pope, mainly because User:Trystan still wants it deleted (and is presumably not alone in that) but doesn't want work on cleaning it up to stop for the 30 days or so needed by the next stage of dispute resolution while we are getting peaks of interest of the order of 760,000 hits instead of the normal weekly 500, as seems likely to continue on-and-off until some time after the Conclave elects the new Pope (in mid-March at the earliest), after which much or all of our cleanup work may end up in the bin. But this far-from-ideal state of affairs seems to be the best we can hope for at present. Meanwhile I fear the argument may well move into a series of disputes over what counts as an RS source, but presumably we'll have to cross those bridges if and when we come to them. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good approach for the time being. I still feel that the core problem is the replication of the full original text, but as I noted above, the focus now should be on cleanup of all the other issues, and the guidelines you suggest will be very helpful for that process.

Funny you should mention reliable sources, Tlslobus. :) I'm certainly hoping it's not an argument, but I was planning on creating a section below where we look at the sources we have and how they are used, making sure we follow WP:RS and WP:UNDUE.--Trystan (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, Trystan, particularly WP:UNDUE which leads on to WP:FRINGE, which seems to suggest the probably correct approach, which is that the article should be split in two. One article would give the 'majority' (presumably skeptical) view ('majority' meaning majority in RS sources), with a very brief summary of, and link to, an article about the 'minority' view (or views), 'minority' meaning minority in RS sources ('the fringe view in a nutshell' to use the expression used in WP:FRINGE). This would make it very clear that it was fringe view (or they were frige views) (and probably briefly explaining what 'fringe' means in a Wikipedia context, to try to avoid too many rows from anybody offended by having their pet theory designated as fringe). The fringe article seems justified on the indicated grounds of 'notability' (760,000 hits in a few days, and over 400 years of people being interested, possibly including at least one Pope, plus loads of mentions on the Internet, all makes it seem notable enough to me, but maybe more research needs to be done on what Wikipedia means by notability). In that case, the entire table can then be shifted to the fringe article, hopefully without too much dissent. Hopefully such an approach would also keep most people happy, as well as giving editors some sort of assurance that all their hard work won't shortly be consigned to the bin. And quite likely the entire conversion could be done in less than a day, provided there was some indication of agreement beforehand. I'm going to try to make a start towards heading in that direction by subdividing the 'interpretation' section into 'majority' and 'minority or fringe views' and dumping Bruno into the latter. Anybody got any thoughts on this? Tlhslobus (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of table completed; OR Banner

I've completed a thorough review of the table, adding citations to reliable sources that discuss the prophecy for every entry. While I am still of the opinion that the tables are excessive detail for the article, I am (unsurprisingly) not able to bring myself to pursue their deletion now that I've spent 20 hours fixing their OR problems. I've also removed the OR templates from that section. There remains a single OR banner at the top of the article. I didn't remove this because I feel the final paragraph of the lead is unsupported by the sources given, as discussed above at #Position of the Roman Catholic Church. Everything else in the article is very well sourced now, in my opinion.--Trystan (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Congatulations: you and others have done some really good work on this. You've turned the article from a long-standing embarrassment to actually something pretty good and useful. On the final paragraph of the lead I can't see what the problem is apart from the last sentence: "The topic continues to be a part of papal hysteria and conspiracy theories, oftentimes fueled by Anti-Catholic sentiments." There's no sourcing for this and seems to be a wildly exceptional claim that isn't even covered in the article. So even without being properly sourced, it doesn't conform to WP:LEAD. The language is also, IMO, unencyclopedic. I've therefore deleted the sentence and removed the OR tag. DeCausa (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

hang on! You might be right: what's all this "shoehorning and manipulated postdiction, noting the Biblical passage from the Parable of the Ten Virgins that no human nor angelic being knows the hour or time of the apocalypse". That's not mentioned in any of the sources. except a direct reference to the Bible! I've deleted it. DeCausa (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks.--Trystan (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

John Paul I

Newbie here but I noticed the entry fro JP1 is blank and it is a historical fact that he became pope on the half moon and lasted till the next half moon. http://kalender-365.de/lunar-calendar.php?yy=1978 --96.57.151.178 (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to include something about how proponents of the prophecy connect JP1 with the motto, but we would need a reliable source describing how they do so.

As the calendar you linked to indicates (and other sources confirm), neither the date that he became pope nor the date that he died were the dates of quarter moons. There was a last quarter moon the day before he became pope, and he died several days after the next last quarter moon. This raises several possibilities. Do proponents of the prophecy connect it to his becoming pope and dying within a few days of a quarter moon (which would cover half the month)? Or do they mistakenly claim he became pope and died on the exact days of a quarter moon? Or a mix of the two? How widespread are such claims? It all descends very quickly into orignal research without a reliable to source to verify what the case is and provide some analysis.--Trystan (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There's this Discovery Channel piece maybe? But then based on what you say, the analysis looks wrong! DeCausa (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The wording in that article, "from one half moon to the next" is particularly odd, as surely that would be understood by many as meaning from a last quarter moon to a first quarter moon. Maybe we just say this, leaving off any citations?:

Proponents of the prophecy have attempted to link this motto to John Paul I by interpreting it as a reference to his reign starting when the moon was half full and lasting approximately one lunar cycle. There was a third quarter moon on 25 August 1978; John Paul I became pope on 26 August 1978. He was pope for 33 days; a lunar cycle is 29.5 days.

That involves more synthesis than I am completely comfortable with, but is (arguably) slightly better than nothing. On the other hand, OR tends to attract more OR, and without a reliable source to guide us, the above is likely to be challenged by someone who wants to add a more "correct" interpretation. I'm just not sure what to do with this one.--Trystan (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say don't go down that route. You've put so much effort in to putting in decent sourcing, it would be a shame to risk opening the WP:OR floodgates! DeCausa (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, for the sake of consistency in the article, can a consensus be reached about this particular issue and so fill the blank area? Txs. Lozion (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The greater inconsistency would be adding something that isn't supported by reliable sources. I don't think we can say something that is unverified just for the sake of filling a blank.--Trystan (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

ok, I see. Just that the page looks odd and incomplete. Lozion (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

John Paul II

"From the labour of the sun" may have also two additional explainations. Prior to his election, JPII was the priest of the industrial part of Cracow. Other idea is that he was the pope who traveled the most; moving quite often between time zones; thus "moving" the time at which he would meet the sunrise and sunset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.246.146 (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)