Talk:Pope Francis/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Relation to Jewish community in Brazil Argentina

Herzen deleted the following sentence (as a good faith edit) from the article, under the section about relations with the Jewish community: "An article in Israel's The Jerusalem Post notes that "Unlike John Paul II, who as a child had positive memories of the Jews of his native Poland but due to the Holocaust had no Jewish community to interact with in Poland as an adult, Pope Francis has maintained a sustained and very positive relationship with a living, breathing [Jewish] community in Buenos Aires." He made two points: first, he said that the article "falsely" stated that the quote was from a "news article," but it was really from an editorial. I prefer to think a better word would be "mistakenly" (and I do make my share of mistakes!) -- :) -- so I just changed "article" (not "news article") to "editorial". However, the other reason |Herzen gave for the deletion is that this pope had nothing to do with the Holocaust, so why bring it up? (His words.) I'm not sure I understand that objection. This quote makes a very positive point that while John Paul II was known for his strong positive feelings with Jews (probably the strongest of any prior Pope), that relationship took place while John Paul II was relatively young, because the Holocaust destroyed so much of the Jewish community in Poland. This quote says nothing negative about either John Paul II or Francis, but only uses the comparison to make a very positive point about the fact that Francis had a long and rich relationship with a "living, breathing community" of Jews up until the point he became pope. I would welcome comments from other editors before this is deleted. I think it's positive and interesting. On the other hand, if other editors agree it's not a worthwhile quote, and there is a consensus for its deletion, then that's what should happen. Please share your comments. NearTheZoo (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the "Jewish community in Brazil"? Francis is from Argentina (in the same way that Buenos Aires is the capital of Argentina), and the editorial in question represented a point of view of the Jewish community in Israel, not Brazil. – Herzen (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm still a little mystified by these questions, although I'm positive they are being asked in good faith -- but the fact is that the section on relations with other religious communities includes quotes and opinions from people around the world. So, for example, the section on relations with Evangelicals includes quotes from American Evangelical leaders, like the head of Wheaton Colleges Billy Graham Center, who says that the fact that there is a large Protestant community in Buenos Aires and that families there sometimes include both Protestant and Catholics, helps Francis understand the human side of the Protestant-Catholic divide. The section on relations with Islam includes a quote from an Imam in Egypt, among other places. Again, this is a very positive quote from an extremely respected newspaper in one of the largest Jewish communities in the world (Israel), giving an opinion of hope about the pope's understanding of the Jewish community based on the fact that he lived in a country and a city with a large Jewish community. Again, I'm a little mystified why a well-resourced quote representing a good chunk of world Jewish opinion, is not appropriate? NearTheZoo (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Why did you title this Talk section "Relation to Jewish community in Brazil", given that you don't mention Brazilian Jews in what follows, and that Francis is from Argentina? The only way I can make sense of this is to conclude that when you wrote "Brazil", you meant "Argentina". – Herzen (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You are 100% right -- and I am getting old!!! :) Sorry! Don't know how I made that mistake!! Thanks for catching it. I've changed the heading. NearTheZoo (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that there's any question that this sentence, along with the reference, should be deleted. This is for two reasons.

1. The quote is a clear snub of Benedict, and hence defamatory. Wikipedia should not regurgitate the defamation of individuals made on random editorial pages. Why does this editorial bring up John Paul, instead of the last pope, Benedict? The subtext of the editorial is obvious. Benedict is German, hence he was a Nazi, so why even consider the possibility that he might have had "positive memories of the Jews of his native Poland Germany"?
2. Quoting the point the editorial makes that John Paul "had no Jewish community to interact with in Poland" violates WP:WORLDVIEW: that remark, made by an editorial in an Israeli newspaper, would probably strike Arabs as highly hypocritical, given that Israel is what the American president Jimmy Carter has called an apartheid state, so that Israeli Jews have minimal "interaction" with the "Palestinian community", the size of which was reduced by at least a half by ethnic cleansing after the U.N. declared a plan for partitioning Palestine.

Thus, this quote is both an implicit condemnation of Benedict and a provocation to Arabs and other Muslims, so there is no place for it in Wikipedia, especially given that it contributes nothing to the article that has anything to do with Francis himself. As I compromize, I would not object to your keeping the second part of the sentence saying "Pope Francis has maintained a sustained and very positive relationship with a living, breathing [Jewish] community in Buenos Aires", but the first part of that sentence is highly inflammatory and an intentional snub, so it has to go, in my opinion. (Given that the section of the article in question is about religion, however, I still don't see why the political views expressed on the editorial page of a secular Israeli newspaper are relevant at all.) – Herzen (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Can some other editor weigh in? I absolutely do not understand these criticisms. The quote says NOTHING about Pope Benedict XVI, let alone anything critical. It takes John Paul II, the pope recognized as the one with the strongest connections to the Jewish community -- and then says that Pope Francis, because of the fact that he lived in Buenos Aires, has had a strong relationship with a Jewish community that was even stronger than that of Pope John Paul II. I don't even want to touch the comments that Herzen is making about Israel, which are entirely inappropriate on this talk page, betraying a POV that is certainly not relevant for this discussion. NearTheZoo (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The quote is relevant to the pope's relationship with the Jewish community and is reliably sourced to a respectable newspaper. I see nothing in the least defamatory or provocative about it. I agree that the arguments cited by Herzen in support of its removal are offensive and a reflection of personal views that have no business here.--Geewhiz (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the quote is fine as is. Herzen's objections seem to miss the editorial's focus. Benedict isn't snubbed -- he's not relevant to the point of comparison. John Paul II only had contacts in his youth for a limited period of his life, while Francis has had them continuously throughout his life. The whole point of the sentence is to underscore that continuity, thus JP II as the point of comparison, with the editorial's implication that Francis will be JP II squared in terms of relations with the Jewish community. It's a good point of contrast, I'd say, while Benedict is, quite literally, beside the point here. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

So, to point out that there is a WP:WORLDVIEW ("the English Wikipedia is dominated by native English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries"; "The average Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia is ... from a majority-Christian country) problem here is "inappropriate". I "betray" a POV that is "not relevant for this discussion", even though most Muslims would see it as very relevant.

Evidently, WP:WORLDVIEW is such a deep problem that many editors can't recognize instances of it even when they are pointed out to them. Thus, there is no point in my continuing this discussion. – Herzen (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

i think that the quote is fine and should stay.Upper lima 65 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC) sock puppet of banned editor Beta Jones Mercury (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it's going to stay then, since I'm the only one who's expressed reservations about it. – Herzen (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No editorials! This article is already too full of opinion, I'll have to do something. Abductive (reasoning) 21:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I just wrote a note to User:Abductive on his talk page, asking that we discuss his deletion of this quote on this talk page. I do not think it violates Wikipedia:BLP, mainly because it is very positive about the subject of the article, not negative. (Even User:Herzen never said it was negative about Francis, only that it was negative about Benedict XVI because it did not mention him.) I think that User:Abductive may be right when he says the Francis page is more like a newspaper article than an encyclopedia article, and needs less direct quotes and less "according to" phrases...and saw that he did take a sentence in the bishop section and wordsmithed it so that it is more "encyclopedic". My hope is that we might do something similar with the sentence we've been discussing in this section, rather than having anyone unilaterally remove it while the discussion continues. (PS-I see User:Abductive started a new section on this talk page, below: "too many quotes". Perhaps we can continue the discussion there? NearTheZoo (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether the quote is "very positive" about Francis has nothing to do with it. WP:BLP states:

Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. (Emphasis in original)

The material is clearly contentious. Anytime the Holocaust is brought up when it is not directly relevant, contention will likely arise. An editorial is poorly sourced by definition. Also, I don't see how people can deny that when the popes directly preceding and following a given pope are compared, attention isn't implicitly drawn to the pope in the middle, who was pope until a month ago, and who happens to have been in the Hitler Youth. Some people finding a statement not to be contentious doesn't stop the statement from being contentious, if there are some people who find it contentious.

I have undone NearTheZoo's reversion of Abductive's edit, as required by WP:BLP. – Herzen (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Herzen - PLEASE leave the quote alone based on this discussion until it is resolved. No editor has agreed with you that the very mention of the word "Holocaust" introduces any contentiousness -- and it is not contentious regarding the subject of the article, which is the concern of BLP. Let the discussion continue, or let's let WP:ANI look at your actions. NearTheZoo (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

To quote WP:BLP again:

This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages...

I honestly don't see how anyone can deny that mentioning John Paul II, Francis, and the Holocaust in the same sentence is likely to make one think of Benedict, who happens to have been in the Hitler Youth. This is an editorial, and the writing used in opinion pieces often uses what is called innuendo. Since Benedict is still very much alive and was Pope a month ago, the editorial not mentioning him at all in connection with the Jews, while John Paul is so mentioned, implicitly says: unlike John Paul and Francis, Benedict was not a friend of the Jews. It doesn't matter how many people say on this Talk page that they don't think that that was the intended meaning of the editorial writer. The fact remains that the sentence in question can very easily be read that way, and that possibility alone makes the sentence contentious. It is because of situations like these that editorials should not be quoted in encyclopedia articles. (Yes, by all means, let's let Abductive speak for himself, but what he wrote on his Talk page is: "It's not just a BLP issue, it is also problematic because it comes from an Op-Ed.")

By the way, I don't understand why you believe it is so essential to keep this sentence in the article while this dispute is resolved that you saw fit to break WP:3RR – Herzen (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

To all editors of this page, including Herzen, I want to notify you that I have posted a request on ANI for this discussion to be reviewed--here. It is my feeling that the statements by Herzen that somehow the quote implies that Benedict XVI was a Nazi(!); that mentioning the Holocaust is automatically contentious, especially because of the point of view of "Muslims and Arabs"; and that The Jerusalem Post represents an "apartheid state" -- are all hard for me to understand, and have crossed the line of appropriateness (and even reasonableness). I have never brought an issue to ANI before, but it is clear to me that this ongoing issue will not be resolved without help. I have also asked that my statements be reviewed for appropriateness as well. NearTheZoo (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be on a vendetta against me. After attacking me on ANI (a page and mechanism I didn't know about until now), you went to a user's talk page to try to get support for your cause. There you say that I said "that (according to Jimmy Carter) Israeli [sic] is an apartheid state". You apparently find this idea objectionable. I have two responses to that. (1) If this idea is expressed by a former American president, is it not mainstream virtually by definition? So why do you say that pointing this out (in the context of WP:WORLDVIEW) is "hard for me to understand, and [has] crossed the line of appropriateness (and even reasonableness)" (to quote from ANI)? Jimmy Carter is unreasonable, according to you? Why are you dragging your personal political views into an article about a religious figure? (2) Israelis themselves consider Israel to be an apartheid state. That kind of makes an Israeli paper editorializing about how regretful it was that John Paul "had no Jewish community to interact with" hypocritical, don't you think? That was my point, and I think I expressed it clearly enough.

Please stop your personal attacks on me. Let's look at the contested passage objectively (which means not denying its obvious subtext), using Wikipedia's rules, at least two of which you have violated with your edit war. – Herzen (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Herzen, I will let ANI and dispute resolution take a look at this issue, rather than continuing the conversation with you, because you don't seem willing to reconsider any of your opinions, despite the fact that the other editors who weighed in here disagreed with you, both about the propriety of using a quote from The Jerusalem Post, about the fact that somehow NOT mentioning Benedict is an attack on him (and a claim he's a Nazi?????), or the claim that this quote's mentioning the Holocaust is contentious, rather than a statement of fact that is a way of emphasizing something positive about Francis. Anyway, I'll see what others at ANI and dispute resolution have to say. Best, NearTheZoo (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI suggested a better place for this issue is the dispute resolution page, so I have posted a request for help on that board hereherehere. I am embarrassed that this issue has continued for so long on this talk page, and hope the dispute resolution page will help settle the issue. I invite any of you who want to add an opinion to that page to do so. Thanks, everyone -- NearTheZoo (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ANI was the wrong place. Although tempers seem a little frayed here (and probably some comments shouldn't have been made) it's not an ANI matter; it's a content dispute. It seems to me, having read the thread, the consensus is clearly (I think) to keep the quote, and it would be for Herzen to take it to, say, DRN if he wishes to pursue removing it. (Although I see you've now done so.) Having said that, I think Herzen is probably correct about the Jerusalem Post's motivation behind the non-reference to Benedict. Benedict grew up "with Jews" as much as JPII did, so I think the newspaper is making a somewhat sly point. But I don't see on what WP policy grounds we would exclude it here because of that. Reliable sources are not required to be neutral (only editors). In a section about relationship with the Jewish community, it's notable what the Jerusalem Post, probably the most notable Jewish media resource in English, has to say about it. It's a quote without comment, making it clear it's from an editorial. I fail to see the relevance of Muslim reaction to it (if any). DeCausa (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, DeCausa. It was a little hard for me to figure out how to get the question to dispute resolution, even after I moved it from ANI, but it's there now. (I'm still learning!) The only disagreement I would have with you is that I think JP II had a very unusual (unusually close) relationship with the Jewish community in his youth, because of his relations to the theater community, and because of that (and some of his actions as pope) he is thought of as "the" pope closest to the Jewish community in the past. I don't see the slur against Benedict XVI, and simply read the quote as praise of Francis when I first read it. Anyway, I think you are right that about tempers being frayed and comments made that probably should not have been. At this point, my main request to the dispute resolution page is that they decide whether a consensus on this talk page should be followed regarding the quote, or whether it's somehow "contentious" enough not to be allowed, regardless of opinions on this page. Going to dispute resolution is new to me, so I'll see what happens. Again, thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Quick note. At one point I had mistakenly labeled this section with the word "Brazil," rather than "Argentina." When Herzen pointed out my mistake, I changed it. I am changing it now so that "Brazil" appears with a strike-out line, followed by "Argentina" -- just so that when someone from the dispute resolution page looks at this thread, he or she will understand what some of Herzen's early comments were referring to. Should have originally used the strike-out when Herzen pointed it out, but it was such an obvious mistake I just went ahead and made the switch instead. My mistake! NearTheZoo (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to mention an article that might be of interest to editors involved in this discussion: here. It is an example of an article that includes a statement by one of the rabbis most involved in interfaith affairs (David Rosen, International Director of Interreligious Affairs for the American Jewish Committee), which praises three popes in different ways: John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis (most for the relationships Francis had as cardinal, since it is early in his papacy). I mention it because it mentions again that John Paul II had a special relationship that included close personal friendships with Jews "as a boy," and that relationship always meant something to the Jewish community -- especially because of his actions as a pope well aware of the Shoah (Holocaust). (Again, a reference to the Holocaust that is not at all contentious, I don't think.) Then Rosen points out how important the relationship of Benedict was: the fact that he visited more synagogues than John Paul, the fact that he visited Israel -- and the point Rosen makes is that in a way the impact of Benedict XVI's actions were even more powerful than those of John Paul II, because he did these things without the childhood experiences of John Paul, therefore doing them in a way that represented the office/position of pope, embedding those actions in church imagery and history. The quote from the Jerusalem Post is shorter, and didn't devote a large part to comparisons of popes -- but I reference this David Rosen quote here just to say (again, in my opinion) that the experience of John Paul II as a child, with personal friendships to Jews, really is something special in the eyes of the Jewish community. And, to show again that a reference to the Holocaust is not a put-down when it is used as a back-up for an historical fact, like the fact that there was no strong Jewish community in the post-WWII Poland in which John Paul II lived as an adult...but there was one in Buenos Aires. So, to me, the JP quote is showing one more reason why Francis as the first non-European pope brings a wealth of different experiences to his papacy, which is (in the mind of the worldwide Jewish community) all to the good. I won't make any more comments about this issue until the resolution process is over, but when I saw this quote I thought it was important enough to share, at least as background information to the way I have always understood the Jerusalem Post quote. Thanks, NearTheZoo (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The attempts to overread the comment about Francis' interaction with Jews seems to be driven by an attempt to advance a particular point of view. The comment was not made to defame anyone, but to give context to a particular person's situation. Attempts to read inflamatory and derogatory intent into it make no sense. The fact of the matter is that virtually all of Poland's Jewish community was killed in World War II, and the vast majority of what little remained chose to leave. The Post is not passing judgement of those events, it is stating the facts to give context to different experiences with Jewish communities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

  I was asked to repeat here what I wrote at WP:DRN, namely Jerusalem Post should not be conflated with the state of Israel. "Pope Benedict is a Nazi because he is not mentioned there" is an argument from silence. It cannot be used inside Wikipedia to establish that Benedict was a Nazi and it cannot be interpreted as affirming such fact.

  What would further explain the above: the BBC is state-sponsored (financially), but it should not be conflated with the UK state/government. And I happened to have no Jewish friends, but that does not make me antisemitic. That's simply because I don't know many Jews and I never had the chance to befriend them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE ON THIS ISSUE FOR EVERYONE (and a special note to Herzen):

• I brought this issue to ANI, which was a mistake. (It was pointed out to me that this was a content-dispute, so should have gone to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) instead. (I had never used either before, so I made mistakes.)
• I brought it to the DRN, but evidently the ANI discussion wasn't officially closed -- so the DRN section was closed and it's back to ANI (temporarily, I hope) with a note to me on the DRN to start over there once the ANI discussion is closed.
• At this point, once the ANI does close, I am willing NOT to reopen a case on DNR if all of us (including Herzen) can just agree to go by this talk page consensus. If I boil down all of Herzen's objections, I think the fact that made me turn to ANI/DNR was that he felt (in good faith, I'm sure) that the implicit insult to Benedict XVI was so "contentious" that it could be deleted based on BLP rules, regardless of the talk page consensus. (One additional note: in fairness to Herzen, I should not that he was following the action of Abductive, who deleted the quote based on that rationale. However, without putting words into Abductive's mouth, I think he has reconsidered that position, because in the DNR discussion he simply said that his problem with the quotes is that he just doesn't like quotes. He no longer mentioned that his position was that it was contentious or made any attacks.) In any case, now that more editors are involved, plus the post that explains that wikipedia will not allow an "argument from silence" to be used as proof of an attack, my hope is that we will all be happy to go by the talk page consensus. (By the way, DeCausa has also pointed out on the ANI page that Herzen always has the option to open a DNR issue to make a case for the quote not to be used, regardless of the talk page consensus.)
• So, my hope is that we can lay the claim to rest that the quote qualifies for automatic deletion, and just go by he talk page consensus -- unless Herzen wants to open another DRN question. I would be happy with that outcome.
• In addition to everything I have written just now, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO HERZEN for anything I have written that crossed any lines of appropriateness, or good faith. (My first couple of comments about the quote attributed his reverts to good faith, but then -- as I think DeCausa has appropriate categorized the situation -- "tempers got frayed.") I want to apologize for anything I wrote as a result of my temper. In the past, I have always taken pride in the fact that I tried to be "the voice of reason" in discussions. Here I lost that claim (although I think it is a good description of DeCausa and other editors who have participated in this discussion).

Best (again, with my apologies), NearTheZoo (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Too much quoting

This article has accumulated far too many quotes, and far too much "according to..." language. Wikipedia is written in encyclopedic language, and does not have to mimic newspaper reporters, who always attribute material inline ("According to..."). If a statement is by a lone editorial writer, or by another non-notable figure, then by WP:UNDUE it doesn't belong here (also, it is WP:OR to claim an opinion is important enough to go in this article--instead, it would take a reputable secondary source re-reporting the opinion to back up that sort of claim). Only consensus opinion should be given, and since it is the consensus, there is no need to attribute it inline to anyone in particular. This article needs to be kept pruned of such language since it is heavily read and is in danger of becoming overlong. Abductive (reasoning) 21:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see my comment in the section above about the pope's relationship with the Jewish community of Argentina, where I say that I think this position of User:Abductive is probably right: the article probably does need some wordsmithing to make it more "encyclopedic" and less "journalistic". My hope is that we might label sections that need to be improved rather than make too many deletions. For example, I applaud User:Abductive's rewriting of one sentence in the bishop sentence as a beginning. The only point about which I disagree with User:Abductive is when he says "no quotes," "no editorials," or "no 'according to' phrases". I think we need to cut them down, but they are not completely forbidden. (At least, I don't think so.) NearTheZoo (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but...

The case in point is this: According to the Washington Post, "In one of his last acts as head of the Argentine Catholic bishops' conference, ... Bergoglio issued a collective apology for the church's failure to protect its flock" from Argentina's military dictatorship during the Dirty War.

I wrote that. Why? As far as I have been able to discern, only the Washington Post has said this. I've struggled without success to find a source closer to the event described. I can't find any such statement, not even in the Spanish-language sources. I used "according to" as an inelegant way of saying "One and only one source says..." Handle it as you will, but I think just stripping the "According to" doesn't quite serve. Perhaps inasmuch as no other source says this. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• In to context of the fact that other sources seem to mention a very similar thing in 2000, I have to wonder if the author of the post article just got the dates wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Banking

Haven't not looked at this entry closely since first doing a lot of work on it just before and after the election, I'm rather surprised to find this sort of speculation. I'd strike it all as anti-encyclopedic:

News sources are quoting "senior Vatican officials" as saying that one test that Francis will face is what he will do to reform the Vatican bank, known as the Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR).[169] According to them, the bank has "regularly damaged the Vatican's image" and there are "growing calls for reform".[169] Because Francis has said that he wants the Catholic Church "to be a model of austerity and honesty", some church officials are predicting that the pope will either restructure the bank or—a less likely alternative, but within the realm of possibilities—close it altogether.[169] Two senior Vatican officials who spoke to Reuters on the condition of anonymity said that it is possible that, as a first step, the pope might establish an advisory committee on "possible changes to the Vatican's financial structure".[169]

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this breathless crystal ball stuff is what needs to go:

The pope's two immediate predecessors both visited the Great Synagogue of Rome, and news sources expect that Pope Francis will visit the synagogue, as well.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's another bit that says "I dunno. Lets wait and see.":

According to news reports "a senior Vatican official" could "neither confirm nor deny" reports of Bergoglio's behind the scenes views as cardinal, but that whatever views he might have expressed at that time, "he should be given time to develop his policy position as pontiff".

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

All three passages should be removed. The first two are purely speculative and hence non-encyclopedic, while the third is just platitudinous and vapid. – Herzen (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• In light of where it is in the article, if we take out the last, we should take out the rest of that paragraph about basically secretiive reports about Pope Frnacis' views. If we have the secretive reports, we need the Vatican response. I am neutral on the senion Vatic offifcials nad the bank, thought leaning for striking it. I am 100% for striking the mention of the Pope visting the "Great Synagogue of Rome" until he actually does. If there was a formal invitation for him to go there, that might be worth reporting, but just speculation that he will go there is not worth having.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, (talk), that's not quite right. They are not "secretive reports" at all. They are public statements by two public figures about private conversations. If we asserted these as Francis' views, that would be unfair. We state them as Francis' views as represented by two people with strong views on these questions. We can trust the reader to evaluate their statements. They may have heard what they wanted to hear or have other motives. That's why we have identified them. Note that I also removed an inappropriate use of the term "progress" from the characterization of the content of the conversation. I also think this would all be clearer if we quoted what the two actually said, which, as I recall, related to inheritance rights for gay couples (yes) and adoption rights (no). Such positions are hardly the stuff of controversy IMHO. The bishops of France recently proposed strengthening civil unions there to provide far broader rights for gay and lesbian couples as part of the Church's anti-same-sex marriage strategy, and no one thought much of it. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Biased media in Argentina

Some data brought by Clarín and replicated in El País and other international media, that was cast into doubt initiating an interesting discussion archived on this talk page proved to be just... well, a bunch of lies.

At least, El País has the decency to recognise its mistake: Argentine Church denies that Cristina Kirchner refused any interview that Archbishop Begoglio had asked for. In fact, she accepted every time he asked for. We have to be careful with biased media on Latin American issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.111.219.140 (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hahahahahahaha, I told it so but no one believed me. Fox News is nothing compared to what we have here down south. Lguipontes (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I smelled a rat: the whole story made no sense and sounded like a smear from the start. I'm glad that El Pais has settled the matter for good: it had originally picked up the rumor, although the story mentioning it presented it sceptically (as one can see from the earlier discussion). – Herzen (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I was in this userpage and discussed the bias in Argentine media before you came and the topic in which you were present. I am referring to the two Argentines (a user and an IP, both apparently very anti-Communistic) that doubted the fact that an Argentine source is blatantly right-wing (in the case of the time, with its reader base having sociopathic views over some social issues), wasn't sufficient to discredit it as insufficiently good for the accuracy needed for this article, as they try to smear Cristina's government, policies and views as an "inheritance from the Argentine equivalent to fascism" all the time, much like do their Brazilian equivalents when they mention Argentina. I am also glad that El País, even though slanted to the right from an Ibero-American POV, described it skeptically and dismissed this asap~ Lguipontes (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Clarín made a mistake neither implies that it is biased nor that it is unreliable. Newspapers are written by humans and therefore not inerrant. Using your reasoning, virtually every single news outlet on Earth could be considered biased. To give just one example, a couple of months ago El País published a false photograph of Hugo Chávez but no one doubts that it is still a newspaper of record. --190.19.69.254 (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

Por cierto, todos somos tendenciosos en nuestros puntos de vista, luego podemos llegar a la conclusión de que no hace mal distribuir mentiras y desinformación para propósitos políticos obvios. En el malvado comunismo hay la indoctrinación totalitaria, en el capitalismo esto es apenas la libertad mismo que las consequencias sean la falta con la verdad y realidades igualmente desagradables para el pueblo. Por cierto ellos son liberales (en el sentido europeo), no conservadores, pero un conglomerado de midia medios de comunicación nunca aceptaría gob[i]ernos de izquierda de verdad (no la escoria que tenemos en Brasil), ¡por Diós, mi gente, eso es la Globo de Argentina en un país gobernado por un equivalente al Lula de lo inicio de los 90! ¿En cual universo paralelo creen que tal grupo puede ser una fuente confiable para denuncias cuanto a el gobierno? ¡¿Aún piensan que somos monos ingénuos?! Puff y más puff. Lguipontes (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Raw Google translation of above comment [Oh] certainly, we are all [more or less] biased in our [own personal] views, then we can conclude that it does not hurt to spread lies and misinformation for obvious political purposes. In evil communism there is [this] totalitarian indoctrination [system], [nevertheless] in capitalism [the abuse of power by media corporations] is just freedom [and the Kirchners are really just communists/peronists/fascists/whatchamacallists to question our major deity, the God-market], even if the consequences are the failure to bring truth, and realities (life conditions) equally unpleasant for the masses. Indeed they are liberal (in the European sense) rather than conservative, but a mass media conglomerate would never accept truly left-leaning governments (not the [sold] [political] scum we have in Brazil)... Gosh, folks, that is Argentina's Rede Globo in a country ruled by an equivalent of what Lula was in the early 90s (a very scary commie)! In what parallel universe do you guys believe that such group would [EVER] be a reliable source for denounces about the government? Perhaps some folks still think we [South Americans] are naïve monkeys [to be fed their bias and bullshit for decades and not weak up]?! *snorting with your unbelievable insistence* Lguipontes (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC) I went ahead and provided a raw translation of the above user's comment, as well as issuing the standard communicate in English notice on his user page. Safiel (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC) I provided a better translation (Google Translate is horrible at texts because it has no sense of grammar differences sometimes), though some of it won't make sense in English anyway. Since the only users who object to the idea of Argentine major news sources being biased against the Kirchners and/or in favor of right-wing POVs are Argentine users and South American IPs, and doubting the obvious and proven seems to be an inconvenience of again only him/her/them, and people from outside of our region won't understand this context anyway exactly because they speak neither Spanish nor Portuguese (media constantly trying to manipulate people's opinions of the government, especially if an enemy or someone interpreted as an enemy to liberalism and globalization, is something taken very seriously in here), I didn't felt the need to write not in Spanish. Sorry if I offended anyone's sensibilities. Lguipontes (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC) WP:SPEAKENGLISH. It's not a question of giving offence: it's to ensure that all users here are able to follow the discussion and comment if they want. Now that you've edited the translation, wouldn't it make more sense to delete this sub-section (including this post) and simply replace the Spanish version with the English version you are happy with? DeCausa (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Er, on second thoughts having read it a bit more closely, probably both language versions should be deleted per WP:NOTFORUM. DeCausa (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC) 1. I would find nice that both would remain here, in any case someone takes my English translation out of context and bilingual editors can more easily see what I really meant. 2. If someone does it, I will not insert it again, but I think that my comment is as valid as others. Will it hurt someone? This place looks like those schools full of rules of not running, playing with physical contact, having to hear everyday speeches or sing an anthem while standing in a row before climbing stairs or having to cut your hair with regularity that made me feel caged, bored and tired as a child sometimes, seriously. And if I get punished or lectured somehow for saying this I will get a confirmation. Lguipontes (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Communion and Liberation

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is only jesuit. He is not part of any association or movement, like Communion and Liberation, Charismatical Renewal, Neocatecumenal Way, Opus Dei. Please delete such false information. Bergoglio never was in Rimini at the annual Meeting of Communion and Liberation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosimo.cosimo (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've checked our sources for what we say about this, and they look solid. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's false..the sources you cited (http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/papabile-day-men-who-could-be-pope-13 AND http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/one-pope-francis-allegiances-might-tell-us-something-about-churchs-future) do not say Bergoglio is in Communion and Liberation. Bergoglio never was in Rimini at the Meeting. It's false. --Cosimo.cosimo (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Here you can find the archive of the speeches at the Meeting of CL in Rimini and if you try to search Bergoglio...none! http://www.meetingrimini.org/default.asp?id=992--Cosimo.cosimo (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Bergoglio just presented a book of Fr Giussani, CL founder, like he just celebrated mass in memory of San Josemaria Escrivà founder of Opus Dei and took part at some Charismatic Renewal meetings..--Cosimo.cosimo (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

John Allen in National Catholic Reporter says:

Over the years, Bergoglio became close to the Comunione e Liberazione movement founded by Italian Fr. Luigi Giussani, sometimes speaking at its massive annual gathering in Rimini...

What we say in the entry reflects that.

We use quality secondary sources, not your original research. Sorry. 174.226.1.104 (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Evil and inhuman

Pope Benedict XVI did not say that Muhammad was "evil and inhuman" at his Regensburg lecture. The medieval source he quoted said that the things Islam introduced to the world, such as conversion by the sword, were "evil and inhuman." This is a basic and seemingly tendentious error that needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.185.112.162 (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done You are correct. I've rewritten the passage to remove the misquote, which I find is made rather often. I've also written the passage to include a link to the WP entry for Bendeict's Regensburg lecture, which tells the story in full for those interested and includes the disputed passage. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note the link to the Regensburg lecture in the article needs another bracket, as its not currently functioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alric28 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed.! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Pope Upholds Reprimand of American Nuns’ Group

Hello. I've noticed a mention of the American Nuns' Group or Leadership Conference of Women Religious in the "Early Issues" section of the article, but it wasn't substantiated. Referencing the New York Times, I've included more specific details to the situation involving the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.Scifilover386 (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Canceling bank cardinals stipend

Here [Vatican: 'Francis cancels salaries of cardinals overseeing bank'] is the article I used on that. Also it shows up here [1] from Vatican Insider. I have not processed that article enough to figure out what it says. This is clearly an actual policy change that has happened. More sources that give more context would be helpful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it's hardly a bank reform. I put it under Curia. It's a more general administrative action to bring all Curia cardinals' salaries into line. Bmclaughlin9 (talk)

Francis and atheists

I just noticed that there is a new section on Francis and his overtures towards atheists. I had seen a report about that, and thought of incorporating it into the article, but didn't, because even though I am an atheist, I relate to the Catholic Church as a Lutheran. But given how many "New Atheists" there are nowadays, who think there is something here worth taking a stand about (as opposed to me; I am perfectly comfortable seeing myself as a nonbelieving Christian), it was nice to see Francis make a friendly gesture towards atheists.

Given that, I have two reservations about the article as it currently stands. First, I think the section title "Relations with religious communities and others" is awkward. "Others" is a weasel word here; clearly, what is meant by "others" is atheists. (I don't think there's any point in going into the atheist/agnostic distinction here.) So I would prefer the section to be titled "Relations with religious communities and with nonbelievers". I believe "nonbeliever" to be a more friendly term than "atheist".

Comment on your terminology of atheist - nonbeliever:

The terminology of " Free Thinkers " would rather be appropriate instead of 'non-believers'; reason being that all of humanity is born without a religion, the inherent birthright of Free Thinking with a universal language to understand. Religion is an insult to true intelligence and promotes ignorance, incompetence and irresponsible behavior. Religions are ideologies of power to abuse and oppress where the few thrive on the back of poverty and ignorance.LostLanguages (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Second, I think the statement, "Some atheists are favourable towards the new pope despite his uncomplimentary attitude to them" is unnecessarily divisive. Any Christian is going to have an "uncomplimentary attitude" towards atheists to a certain extent, just as he is going to have it towards anyone who rejects Christ as our lord an savior. It is utterly redundant to mention that Francis has an "uncomplimentary attitude" towards atheists. What matters is that he wants to find a common ground, and appears to respect atheists' freedom of conscience not to believe in God. – Herzen (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You made some good points so I did a re-write. The Atheists section also had some bits (Francis feels atheists can find common ground with him in areas like environmental protection, in encouraging peace and humanitarian goals) that just restate what Francis says to no purpose. It was vague about when some statements were made and it turned out they came from the same address that was cited later. It also italicized quoted words without justification -- a practice that drives me nuts. It's longer now, mostly due to better citations and fewer editorial comments.

I'm going to track down his first press conference where he didn't publicly bless the crowd because, he said, he respected the fact that some were not believers. I think that belongs here, though it was reported more in terms of respect for freedom of conscience, and it certainly is indicative of that too.

I'm still not sure about the heading though. I do think people have generally misread Francis here, which it makes it hard to edit this. I think Francis dismisses atheists with the violence remark and then turns to the unaffiliated, those "not identifying themselves as followers of any religious tradition". It's not that they don't believe, it's that they haven't aligned themselves. "Others" actually covers atheists/nonbelievers as well as those not in a "religious community". I know my reading may be idiosyncratic but it makes more sense than "you cause violence and I feel close to you". BTW, "violence" is a code word for abortion and allowing a same-sex couple to raise a child. The people he feels close to, on the other hand, "defend human dignity". Read the full quote again. Atheists/nonbelievers can't possibly be "searching for truth, goodness and beauty, the truth, goodness and beauty of God." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

To reply just to your last sentence, I think it is completely possible for an atheist to search "for truth, goodness and beauty, the truth, goodness and beauty of God." The atheist just has to be familiar with Hegelian philosophy, according to which Christian theology is simply a symbolic representation of the truth of (Hegelian) philosophy. From this point of view, one can make a charitable reading of Francis' remark that atheists are searching for the "goodness and beauty of God". As for "violence", yes, that is code for abortion, but coming to terms with the reality of women's reproductive health is an internal Catholic church problem, and atheists should help the church to solve that problem by positively engaging the church on other issues as much as possible. – Herzen (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No bonus for Vatican employees

This article [2] from USA today is probably the most upfront about the issue. Is Pope Francis cancelling the employee bonus worth mentioning in the article?John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Yes. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Postion on women

I removed idel speculation on what others think he might do. That really is not worth having. We are reporting his teachings and statements not uninformed speculation. I also removed unsourced statements of "disapointment" about his continuing the reform of the LCWR as somehow not "reformist".John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed other speculations, especially those of what people hope will happen. Now someone needs to rework the little section on Liberation theology, which is embarrassing. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 April 2013

In the third paragraph, after "his concern for the poor," it should also read, "his insistence that people take time for leisure and recreation" (see NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/us/pope-francis-has-a-few-words-in-support-of-leisure.html?smid=fb-share)

Also, there needs to be a separate section on Pope Francis's Personal Life, shown here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9931413/Pope-Francis-20-things-you-didnt-know.html. In particular, it should be told that his favorite film is "Babette's Feast." Chevybattaglia (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That is just trivia. We do not have to report everything that Francis says, or that the newspapers say about him. Cambalachero (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

 Not done There is a fine line between biographical information and trivia, but things like his favorite movie fall into the latter category. Andrew³²⁷ 16:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

More appointments of women to Vatican positions?

This article [3] leads with that claim, but it is not really from any actual statement or action by Francis, so for now I would call it too soon to say anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, at least the speculation around Pope Francis is slowly starting to be replaced with actual coverage of what he is doing. Hopefully there will be more sources soon. Andrew³²⁷ 06:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Leonardo Boff

I don't know if Leonardo Boff's view Liberation Theology Supporters Say Pope Francis Can Fix Church 'In Ruins' is accurate or is wishful thinking by an old man previously forced into silence. Later Boff was forced to leave the Franciscan Order where he spent most of his adult life to avoid being forced into silence yet again. Still I put it into the article and added a quote for the sake of objectivity. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment on Savar building collapse

There an editor that is adding mention of the Bangladesh building collapse in Savar to a bunch of articles, including this one since Pope Francis commented on the low wages being paid to workers as Slave labour. Now I'm sure that Pope Francis comments on lots of things all the time. I don't believe that comments such as these belong in this article (and they rightly belong in the 2013 Savar building collapse article). Do other editors have an opinion? --HighKing (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right in 'on lots of things all the time'. You forget to mention that he is the one who first speaks out against about workers' bad conditions and links that with 'goes against God!' His full statement should be quoted in full. New worl (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Proxima Centauri, please give your comment. Thanks, New worl (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with HighKing, the comment of Pope Francis belongs in the article about the collapse, to mention his comment in this biography article, would give the comment undue weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi RightCowLeftCoast, please state in simple words what do you mean by undue weight] which has many long paragraphs. New worl (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

New worl, I appreciate your enthusiasm. In this situation, UNDUE basically says that we do not have room to cover every statement that the pope makes, so we need to be selective. If there is additional coverage of statements made about workers rights, it might warrant a subsection that summarizes many things that the pope has said and how reliable sources have covered them. As it stands, it would be giving a single statement too much attention to cover it as you suggest. I hope that you stick with this article, and the Wiki rules and bureaucracy become easier to understand over time. Cheers. Andrew³²⁷ 20:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Andrewman327 for your nice encouragement. I agree with you about benefits of using wiki terms. In my opinion, under certain situations, using terms such as 'undue weight' without no elaboration at all is not effective for the whole group (including long time editors as well). Please give us your valuable comments. Cheers, New worl (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, New worl, and many of the rules pages need better plan-English introductions. Has the pope made other comments about this topic that have not been covered in the article already? If so, we can work together to figure out how to add new content.

Andrewman327, thanks for your prudent listening. I read this article and found this notable point that the optimistic part of liberation theology section might miss: His words were his toughest yet on workers' rights since his election on March 13. Obviously this is strongest point for the current section.

I also think the section will improve if we add that point and/or these two additional points:

a) On the same day of condemning Bangladesh working conditions as "slave labor", later, at his public general audience in St. Peter's Square, the pope returned to the subject of workers' rights: "Work is fundamental to the dignity of a person. I think of how many, and not just young people, are unemployed, many times due to a purely economic conception of society, which seeks selfish profit, beyond the parameters of social justice," he said before tens of thousands of people. In that address, he called on governments to tackle high unemployment and eliminate slave labor associated with human trafficking.

b) Previously, in his native Argentina, he said: "Dignity is not bestowed by power, by money, by culture - no! Dignity is bestowed by work. Social, political and economic systems have made a choice that signifies exploiting the individual." Thank you again, New worl (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone asked me to comment, I see from the page history there's been quite an edit war over my edit. Sometimes the best way of dealing with an edit war is to compromise so I shortened the edit and put it into the section on Poverty. I think the Pope's reaction to Savar is at least as notable as his reaction to a strike in Buenos Aires which is already in the article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Cooks his own food?

In the biography El Jesuita, published in 2010, the pope was asked point blank whether he cooks his own food, and he says no. At the end of chapter 1, he is asked "cocina actualmente?" And he responds, "No tengo tiempo." "Do you cook these days?" "I don't have the time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.17.29 (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Bishop of Rome is the primary title

Hello. The article currently begins with the following: "Francis ... is the current Pope of the Catholic Church, elected on 13 March 2013. As such, he is the Bishop of Rome, and sovereign of the Vatican City State." I think that we should mention first that he is the Bishop of Rome, since that is his primary title. He is Pope and sovereign of the Vatican City State by virtue of his being the Bishop of Rome. What do you all think? (Here are my edit and the reversion) Edge3 (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What should come first is what is the most significant thing about him: the most significant thing is that he is the Pope, not that he is Bishop of Rome. The fact that he is Pope because he is the bishop of Rome doesn't change that. DeCausa (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Another problem with the current phrasing is that it uses "as such", which means "therefore". It is not valid to say that Francis is the Pope, so therefore he is the Bishop of Rome. It would be correct to say that he is the Bishop of Rome, and therefore the Pope. Edge3 (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Subjective - POV sentences in the opening without any citations

"Throughout his life, both as an individual and a religious leader, he has been known for his humility, his concern for the poor, and his commitment to dialogue as a way to build bridges between people of all backgrounds, beliefs, and faiths."

This is POV as it's a very subjective sentence, unworthy of an encyclopedia, and lacks any kind of citation. While we all do appreciate the humility he brought with himself, these sentences need to be removed. -ezikleyici — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezikleyici (talk • contribs) 17:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDE, the opening is ideally free of citation and is just a summary of the rest of the article, where the supporting citations should be found. Can you explain how you think this statement is not part of a summary of the article?Farsight001 (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you not think the sentence which I quoted sounds very subjective? I understand the point with opening citations (thanks for clarifying that, it makes sense), but that above sentence is unverifiable and reads like PR. There should be a way of re-writing it so that it sounds more factual, and more like it's in an encyclopedia. I agree that Francis is generally seen as someone with a genuine concern for the poor, but the way the second part's written (bridges between all backgrounds, faiths etc.) is far from being the consensus about Pope Francis, e.g. he has a conservative stance against homosexuals. It might not be as conservative for a Pope but that still doesn't justify the second part of that sentence. I'm not an experienced Wiki editor by any means, but I'm a very solid reader, and I must say this type of praise on Wikipedia exists only on rarely visited/edited pages about more obscure people. Of course, if experienced editors say this is fair, I won't have anything more to say, but I just wanted to make a point. Ezikleyici (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What would the above editor suggest?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

American English

Early versions of this article were written in American English, and therefore editing should be consistently in American English. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Record number of saints

I think it is meaningful that the May 2013 elevation of saints was a record number. Never before has the Catholic Church elevated that many saints at one time.[4]01:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.92.199.90 (talk)

I don't really think that is the best way to understand this canonization. The Martyrs of Otranto are not even all known by name, so calling them a "record number of Saints" seems a bit much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Erroneous reversion

This edit told us not to change titles of cited works. Why shouldn't we CORRECT the titles, when the titles appear INCORRECTLY in the article? Two headlines were reported in the article to have hyphens, but if you follow the links, you see that they were actually en-dashes. I changed them. Then they had the correct titles. That same edit also introduced punctuation errors, changing things like pp.&nsbp;18–19 to pp. 18-19. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I was not able to see what you and he are referring to in that diff. Your changes look OK to me, except I added spaces around en dashes in date ranges, per MOS:ENDASH. Dicklyon (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Relevant comment (I haven't seen the titles referred to, just a general comment): MOS:QUOTE: Trivial spelling or typographical errors should be silently corrected unless the slip is textually important. Pol098 (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Pope says something, the establishment retracts it

An interesting point, though I don't know in what way it can be included in the article: in at least two cases Francis has said something radical about non-Catholics being OK, and the establishment has promptly "clarified" that actually you can start out any way, but you have to join the Catholic communion to get the perks.

Francis: the Anglican Ordinariate was "quite unnecessary", the Catholic Church needed Anglicans as Anglicans. The Establishment: a spokesman for the Ordinariate said the words were those of Venables, not the Pope.The Telegraph newspaper: Pope Francis 'dismissed Anglican branch as quite unnecessary', 31 May 2013

Francis: God “has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! (…) Even the atheists,” Everyone!” Pope Francis: God redeemed everyone, ‘not just Catholics’ Pope Francis Says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Not Just CatholicsPope Francis says atheists can be good Later the Vatican clarified non-Catholics who know the Roman Catholic Church can only get to Heaven by converting to Catholicism.

Is there a systematic point of friction here, a hidden battle, a pointer of things to come? Pol098 (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The media is constantly getting the pope's words wrong. B16 never actually said that condoms cause aids, not called Islam evil or any number of other things the media claims he said. What's really surprising is that the media has now decided to start correcting themselves.Farsight001 (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a case of the "establishment" retracting what the pope says, but simply clarifying it. The latter comments are totally in-line with established Catholic teachings. He wasn't promoting something like universalism, as some in the media took his comments to mean. More to the point, there is no need for this to be included in the article. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 00:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The section "Nonbelievers" is unbelievably misleading. This sentence needs to be changed as soon as possible: "Later the Vatican clarified stating non-Catholics who know the Roman Catholic Church can only get to Heaven by converting to Catholicism." Vatican did not officially clarify anything, as you can see for yourselves: http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/explanatory-note-on-the-meaning-of-salvation-in-francis-daily-homily-of-may-22. Father Rosica is not a Vatican's spokesman (although he was one two months ago) and he has not used any official Vatican channel (ZENIT is an independent agency: http://www.zenit.org/en/about/2001). Moreover, he actually seems to agree with Pope Francis instead of disagreeing with him: "We can never say with ultimate certainty whether a non-Christian who has rejected Christianity [...] is still following the temporary path mapped out for his own salvation which is leading him to an encounter with God, or whether he has now entered upon the way of perdition." The mistake apparently stems froms a CNN's blogger's misinformation: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/23/heaven-for-atheists-pope-sparks-debate/ (note that there are no sources given for Dan Merica's mistaken claims). It is very unfortunate that this falsehood has found its way into Wikipedia, too. I cannot edit the article myself so I'm asking somebody who can to do this instead. Thank you in advance! – Scobin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.87.13.77 (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Vatican City State

Please read the article, Vatican City, which says that "Vatican City State" is another name for Vatican City. If you don't believe Wikipedia, then here is a link to Vatican City State's home page in English. Once again, you have introduced a grammatical error by deleting text. Please correct the sentence to read either: "...Sovereign of Vatican City" or "...Sovereign of the Vatican City State". I am using the talk page because I do not desire to be drawn into an edit war. Elizium23 (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

My preferred text was the version used until someone else changed it yesterday. Saying he is sovereign of the Vatican City is no less grammatically correct than saying "Elizabeth II is queen of the United Kingdom" or "Obama is president of the United States." Hot Stop 01:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion of correct grammar notwithstanding, "(no article) Vatican City" is the consistent usage in the article, Vatican City, so I propose that we adopt consistent usage in other articles as well. Elizium23 (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hot Stop 02:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Rename to Francis (Pope)?

I think we should rename this article to Francis (Pope) as "Pope" is a honorific title. The only reason why we need the title "Pope" in the title is to disambiguate. We could also use Francis I but I think that may be OR. This isn't a formal request - just intended to create an informal discussion as all former Pope's seemingly have this title. For the same reason the title of the article on Queen Elizabeth is Elizabeth II without the "Queen" title. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This was recently discussed here (see archive no. 2 "Requested move") and more generally at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy). No consensus to change, at both.DeCausa (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I created a redirect page, I think that's a reasonable compromise. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a start I suppose. I'll take it to the suggested page. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 11:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What suggested page? It's already been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy) with consensus for no change. DeCausa (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is just about the worst place to start if you want to change the naming conventions. Pius XII would be a perfectly reasonable article title, because the "Pope" is completely superfluous; there is only one significant person who has ever been called "Pius XII." But in this case we need "Pope" anyway, so I'm not sure why we should prefer the awkward title to the natural one. john k (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, this is not an article where any such proposal is going to gain traction. Andrew³²⁷ 06:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Why exactly are Popes treated differently? Popes should be handled like monarchs. Pope Francis is an awkward title. Just look at Francis! Per the convention on that page this article would be better if it were something like Francis of the Vatican. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Let it go, it has been discussed in lenght and the consensus havent changed, to continue it to beat a death horse. 41.66.207.149 (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Please provide edit summary

According to Wikipedia:Edit_summary, please provide edit summary. Thanks, New worl (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The Teaching section

Something have to be done about the teaching section. Right now it is nothing other than a loose collection of statements, issues that are contraversial to the catholic church or just in general and what seems to be different editors pet issues. It has little connection to its main article (of witch it should be a resume I guess) Theology of Pope Francis. I think some of the issues in the teaching section should be relegated to that article while there might be important information on in the main article that should be written in a short form in this article. But I do not myself have the knowledge about the teaching of Francis to make the decision what is important and what is not. So please if anyone have the time and the knowledge have a look at the teaching section. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Argentina's dirty war?????

Why is Argentina's dirty war the first heading after the Pope's early life? Why isn't it mentioned that the "human rights lawyer" who sued Pope Francis was an active member of a Marxist terrorist organization? Ef2ribosylation (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)ef2ribosylation

If you have a reliable source for that, you should be bold and change it yourself. But be mindful of the many points of view represented by editors watching the page. Andrew³²⁷ 13:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 June 2013

In the "Bishop" section, I have found this:

Early in his time as Archbishop Francis sold off the Archdiocese's shares in multiple banks and transferred its accounts to those of a normal customer in international banks.

Try this instead (changes explained just after the revised version of the above; I have omitted the footnote reference, but that is not part of the change and should stay in):

Early in his time as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Bergoglio sold off the Archdiocese's shares in multiple banks and transferred its accounts to those of a normal customer in international banks.

I added "of Buenos Aires" to make it clear that he was bishop of the diocese, because when he was Coadjutor he already had the rank of archbishop. Comma has been placed just after "Buenos Aires". I changed "Francis" to "Bergoglio" because the "Francis" name didn't come into use until he became Pope.

128.63.16.20 (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks, it certainly reads better that way. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Pectoral cross

I have found this, and am wondering how long he had that pectoral cross:

He also wore the same iron pectoral cross that he had worn as Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires, rather than the gold one worn by his predecessors.

I prefer not to use "Cardinal Archbishop of ___", because being Cardinal is a separate appointment from being (arch)bishop of a diocese. Anyway, his time as Archbishop of Buenos Aires is not his entire pre-papal time as a bishop, because he was previously auxiliary bishop and then coadjutor archbishop in Buenos Aires archdiocese. I don't have enough information to make this an edit request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

New encyclical "Lumen fidei" (The Light of Faith)

New encyclical "Lumen fidei" (The Light of Faith) to be published July 5 (Friday). --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Institute for Religious Works

Here [5] is a Vatican announcement about Francis appointing a commission to investigate the Institute for Religious Works. I think we need something on this in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, especially now that it is being covered by secondary sources. Andrew³²⁷ 18:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis not a chemist

He's got a "técnico quìmico" degree in an "esquela secundaria industrial" ([sort of hight school]). He's not a chemist with master OR bachelor.

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1562738-bergoglio-un-sacerdote-jesuita-de-carrera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.111.45 (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

http://shroudstory.com/2013/03/16/the-making-of-a-meme-pope-francis-scientist-not-or/

NOT A CHEMIST!

--87.10.111.45 (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

They didn't have anything called a master's degree when and where he was in school, but it is still the equivalent of one.Farsight001 (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

View of his papacy?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23494353#TWEET838343

What section do we file well reffed regional views of his work under? Hcobb (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

maybe create a section 5.9? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I would call that article a view of how the trip went, not a view of his papacy. I think a "View of his papacy" is a little premature.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely right, Gaarmyvet, and besides we dont need the BBC to tell us what Latin America media thought of his first papal visit abroad, we can source the media directly if it is appropriate, which I dont think it is (lack of notability). Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking in terms of "his visit was received favorably", rather than saying "Newspaper X said Y". Hcobb (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd question the notability of this statement for inclusion, especially as the emdia in Latin America likely views any papal visit as favourable, indeed if they didnt that would be notable. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Views on sexual morality in article intro?

Currently, the introduction to this article contains four paragraphs: one explaining Francis' title, one summarizing his life, one describing his character, and one stating his views on sexual morality. While those views definitely belong in the article, it's incongruous to put them in the introduction when none of his other specific positions are stated there. It implies that sexual morality has been the centerpiece of Francis' papacy, and that's not accurate. 182.247.145.76 (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it reflects the central issue of sexual morality in the RC church, of which he is head, and therefore is appropriate. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation for the centrality of sexual morality in the RC church? It might be the issue wherein the greatest discrepancy lies between the church and broader society, but the church, to my knowledge, has never formally prioritized sexual morality over any other part of Catholic social teaching (i.e., its stances on capital punishment, war versus peace, tithing, support for Catholic Charities, rights of immigrants and the imprisoned, etc). 182.247.145.76 (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let me re-frame what I said, it reflects the central issue of sexual morality as perceived in the RC church, whether it is celibacy, the child abuse scandals or the RC line on abortion and condoms (and gays till this week). The issue is certainly notable enough to have its own article Catholicism and sexuality, and the importance of sexual morality is endlessly emphasized by the RC church, eg this or there is this from the BBC mentioning the allegedly outspoken nature of RC approach to sexual morality. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Those sources suggest that the Catholic Church takes a strong position on sexual morality. They do not state that this particular issue is more important than any other on which the Church has an official position, e.g., the central and centrally Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. If other specific questions aren't broached in the introduction, consistency dictates that sexuality shouldn't be addressed specifically there either. 42.114.3.31 (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Question on Intro

I see the need to keep the intro short, but my fellow editor Pol098 keeps making an edit that I think distorts the meaning of the "who am I to judge?" quote.

Pol's preferred wording seems to be (I don't see the word 'condemned' used in the source as its used here):

On abortion, contraception and homosexuality, he has taken the orthodox Catholic view. Discussing homosexuals (people in general and clergy), he said that "If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge them?"; he condemned homosexual acts but not orientation.

I've used the following instead:

On abortion and matters of sexual morality, he has taken the orthodox Catholic view. Discussing homosexuals (people in general and clergy), he said "If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge them?" — reminding people to seek and encourage obedience to God, echoing the sentiments of Saint Peter in Acts 10:34b-35, "In very deed I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons. But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him."

I know the version I've suggested is longer, but it seems that Pope Francis is trying to be both kind and welcoming in his declaration, without overturning clear doctrine regarding homosexual behavior. As such, I think the sourced reference to another scripture seems to help provide guidance to the reader without misleading them into thinking Pope Francis said homosexuality is ok, or that he was explicitly condemning homosexual acts (in that press conference). -- Avanu (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the longer version. I think using the recent quote in the lead is excessive, since the rest paragraph is a summary of the appropriate sections below. Including an entire quote is undue weight (I think focusing too much on the topic of homosexuality is also undue weight).
I don't think there's any problem including the quote further down in the article, but I also think there needs to be a source for your interpretation of it. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There should be a source referenced in the actual article. -- Avanu (talk)

This issue can be resolved if Francis' positions on sexuality specifically are omitted from the intro, as suggested above. The nuance of his specific positions on sexuality can be discussed alongside his teachings on other central issues in the "Teachings" section. 42.114.3.31 (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Homosexuality

I'd like to solicit other editors views please on some potential changes. Firstly, there is a section called "same-sex marriage" but I think we should re-title it simply "Homosexuality" and capture a wider snap shot of the issues (civil unions are not the same as same sex marriage for example)? But I'd like also to add a reference to Pope Francis' recent comments on gay people made when returning from Brazil - as this has attracted a lot of interest (and I don't think it's been covered elsewhere in the article?) I'd like to add something about Francis reaching out to gay people - by washing the feet of gay men with HIV/AIDS at a maundy thursday ceremony. I'm also wondering to what extent we might use some material from Paul Vallely's new book on Francis, Untying the Knots? Most controversially he makes the claim that Bergoglio in Argentina confirmed in private meetings the need to acknowledge some legal rights for gay people, and then advocated civil unions to fellow bishops. Vallely also says that the letter sent to the enclosed order of nuns was tactical - some bishops were whispering about his stance and so he wanted to forward a copy of the letter to the Vatican to show he had taken the standard line. But the letter was leaked (something he had not expected). Any thoughts please?Contaldo80 (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Do not add those comments. They have been taken out of context. They were in response to questions about the "gay mafia" at the Vatican. Pope Francis made no pronouncement on policy. They have been blown way out of proportion and to try to claim they contrast to any other comment is just too much analysis. We need to hold back from rushing into things that no one understands.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Eh? I didn't say it was a changein policy did I? But the above are significant developments and of general interest. Th interview was the first time a pope has used the word "gay" in public. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

 Partly done. I agree that it is too early to try to interpret the "Who am I to judge?" comment, but the content of the previously named "Same sex marriage" section has more to do with homosexuality than just gay marriage. Andrew³²⁷ 15:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Paul Vallely

Paul Vallely has published a book about Francis during the dictatorship in Argentina, Pope Francis: Untying the Knots. Vallely is a good journalist and we should look out for what's in that book. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"against the ordination of women"

I think it is a simplification and a mischaracterization of Catholic teaching on ordination to say that Francis is personally "against" it. It actually doesn't matter what his own position is, or anyone else's. The Church has spoken infallibly that she has no authority to ordain women. Just like the Church cannot create the Eucharist out of rice cakes and beer, it is impossible to ordain women, no matter how much anyone wants it, even the Pope. Naturally a sitting Pope will want to profess his own opposition to it, but to claim here in our voice that he is "against" it is to imply that a simple policy change by a future pope can open the door, when it is shut, locked, and key melted down for the next fisherman's ring. Nobody can reverse Church teaching and this is doctrinal, not disciplinary. Elizium23 (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

but what about papal infallibility? anyhow, that is all a matter of perspective anyways. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 02:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's talk about infallibility. Pope John Paul II infallibly answered the question with "no authority", so any subsequent answer will be to expand and clarify that doctrine in the same direction. It is impossible to repudiate it since doctrinal infallibility has already been invoked. Hope that helps. Elizium23 (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I was more referring to the second portion than the first. the second portion is merely one possible interpretation, and so, to say that Pope Francis does not support it is more NPOV. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

As a general comment, this article should differentiate between the official position of the Catholic Church and the actions and activism of Pope Francis. Phrases like "against the ordination of women" make it sound like he is the originator of the policy. Andrew³²⁷ 18:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the slick replacement of a single word in the sentence under discussion, but it introduced a factual error. The ordination of women is not "impermissible". If it were impermissible then the Church could simply change her mind later and allow it, or by special dispensation. It is in fact impossible; the Church has no authority to do it at all. The Church cannot ordain a women any more than she can baptize a cat. Elizium23 (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

A cat??!! It might help the discussion if one could point out where and when this was formally proclaimed as dogma by the Blessed John Paul ex cathedra. Daniel the Monk (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994): Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful. Elizium23 (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That does not answer my specific question, as This language comes very close to that of a solemn definition, but we are assured by Cardinal Ratzinger that it was not the intention of John Paul II to speak ex cathedra. - Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., in Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting the Documents of the Magisterium, page 22. Though I am aware of the later declarations of the CD that it has been done so in the capacity of the ordinary universal magisterium, that is not the same. Daniel the Monk (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The idea that it is an infallible teaching does not depend on the encyclical, which the Church views as an expression of an already infallible teaching. A reliable source (as defined by Wikipedia rules) shows that the Catholic Church holds that "the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women" "has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium". Another reliable source also says that the Church holds that this teaching is infallible. While others may of course deny that it is an infallible teaching, the Catholic Church demonstrably holds that it is. Esoglou (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. My point is that there is sufficient and legitimate dispute within the Church. Given that, apart from Wikipedia rules, I would hope that one applies humility when approaching the mystery of Holy Mother Church, which should be expressed in charity when talking about other human beings. Your simile does not seem to have been expressed in that spirit. Daniel the Monk (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Legitimate dispute? About an eternal infallible teaching? Francis has spoken clearly as have his predecessors: that door is closed. I don't know what kind of legitimate discussion can be had after the door is closed. Elizium23 (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The article simply reports what the Church teaches. It also simply reports views of some who dispute the teaching. Am I missing some proposal to change the text? If this discussion has become a forum rather than a consideration of how to improve the article, we should close it. Esoglou (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-English names

Is it appropriate to list in the English Wikipedia the Spanish and Italian forms of the name "Francis". Even including the Latin form of popes' names is questionable, although it can perhaps be defended in the case of the popes of antiquity and of the Middle Ages, and could be continued into more modern times for the sake of uniformity with earlier popes. The Latin form is also that used in the proclamation of the election of a pope: "Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum ..." But why include the Italian form of the name of Pope Francis? And is the fact that he was born in a Spanish-speaking country sufficient reason for including in the English Wikipedia the form "Francisco", by which he was never known while he lived in his homeland? If "Francisco" is defended, "Pancho" can also. "Papa Pancho" is quite widely used in Spanish-language media, as here and here and here and here. Esoglou (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the Spanish version of his name should not be used. As you pointed out, he was never known as "Francisco" when he lived in Argentina and served as a priest/bishop in that Spanish-speaking country. We have his Spanish name: Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
I think the Italian name can be defended because he is the Bishop of Rome, an Italian diocese which uses Italian as its language. He is also sovereign of the Vatican City which uses Italian as its official language. I say we keep the Latin and Italian and ditch the Spanish. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 17:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is best not to add even the Italian name in the English Wikipedia. In a non-Italian encyclopedia we can't call the popes who lived before the Italian language was formed by anachronistic modern Italian names, and there is no need and it is arguably out of place to start calling (from what date?) the later popes (whether they were Italians or French or Germans or Spaniards or Dutch or ... Argentines) by Italian papal names. Esoglou (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. The English and Latin names are sufficient for identifying the subject of the article. Andrew³²⁷ 19:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Following one's conscience

In answer to this edit, which speaks of Francis' admonition to follow our consciences, even among unbelievers, I suggest this article from Zenit, quoting Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman on the nature of conscience, the effects of conscience, and the requirement to form one's conscience well. The article was written in 2011. I will continue looking for articles which specifically respond to Francis' words. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-pope-francis-say-atheists-dont-need-to-believe-in-god-to-be-saved-9-thi/ http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/06/03/pope-francis-is-under-attack-for-saying-that-outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation-its-a-poke-in-the-eye-says-one-presbyterian-why-hes-wrong/ Elizium23 (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Quote from Saudi Gazette

Is it really necessary to include such a long and opinionated quote from one newspaper about his efforts to discuss with Muslims? From imams yes, but a state-censored newspaper? What does it add to our understanding of the Pope? Indiasummer95 (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Article length/'Teachings' section: A proposal

The article has been tagged as being too long and it seems the reason for this is the ever-growing section on teachings. I propose that the section be reduced to a few paragraphs or just a couple of subsections and that the majority of content be spun off to another article. As well as Theology of Pope Francis, I suggest another article be created (called something like Social teachings of Pope Francis), where the subsections on sexuality, abortion, organised crime, capitalism etc. could be moved (this includes the same sections duplicated on the theology article). Let's just use this article's 'teachings' section to briefly summarise the theme of Pope Francis' teachings in this article; e.g. he is generally thought to be compassionate and 'progressive'. --Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 15:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

New Article

Council of Cardinal Advisers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I read about them in the New York Times and couldn't find their names on Wikipedia easily, though I see now they are listed in this article. If y'all want to redirect that article back to here, that might be okay, but I just wanted to let those writers who are active here know about this so they can decide what to do.

jps (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Papal Career

There are two small, but important, errors in the Pre-Papal Career section.

The text reads... "At the conclusion of his novitiate in the Society of Jesus, Bergoglio officially became a Jesuit on 12 March 1960, when he made the religious profession of the initial, temporary vows of a member of the order.[34]"

1. We Jesuits generally measure our date for "becoming a Jesuit" from the day that we begin the novitiate...not from the day we take vows. Bergoglio, therefore, became a Jesuit in March 1958, not in March 1960.

2. Jesuits do not make a "religious profession of initial, temporary vows." Some other religious congregations do that, but Jesuits take perpetual vows. We do this twice: simple perpetual vows at the conclusion of the novitiate and solemn perpetual vows several years later (after additional study and training).

Wikipedia has this correct in the article on "Religious Vows." "Depending on the order, temporary vows may be renewed a number of times before permission to take final vows is given. There are exceptions: the Jesuits' first vows are perpetual, for instance, and the Sisters of Charity take only temporary but renewable vows." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_vows

Wikipedia also has an accurate, detailed description of Jesuit Formation (the training of young Jesuits) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_formation "At this point, the novice pronounces his First Vows (perpetual Simple vows of poverty, chastity and obedience and a vow to persevere to final profession and ordination)..." "Formation for Priesthood normally takes between 8 and 14 years, depending on the man's background and previous education, and final vows are taken several years after that..."

The most accurate citations would come from the Jesuit Constitutions, but I cannot find a public domain copy online. A recent print edition is... Padberg, John, ed. (1996), The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus and their Complimentary Norms: A Complete English Translation of the Official Latin Texts, St. Louis: The Institute of Jesuit Sources

~~Rev. Gerard E. Menard, SJ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gem1540 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

A reliable, secondary source would be greatly preferred so that we do not have to interpret the Constitutions on our own. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-neutral summary of teachings

The Pope is widely quoted in the press as saying that "his church must shake off an obsession with the issues of abortion, contraception and homosexuality and become more merciful." But while the need to become more merciful is clear from the full text of the English translation of the interview, in it he never actually says the church is too obsessed with abortion. A summary should reflect the gist of a person's entire message rather than providing undue weight to some part of it. Perhaps somebody who can read the original Italian transcript can clarify whether the press coverage accurately reflects what the Pope really said. Bwrs (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Besides, the sources for this interpretation come from three definitively left-liberal media outlets - The New Statesman, BBC, and NYTimes. Couldn't a more balanced summary of his perspective in the interview be found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.39.34.1 (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Changing Church doctrine

This edit makes no sense for many reasons. Firstly, it is impossible to "change Church doctrine". Second, it is redundant to the beginning of the paragraph which has Francis already affirming Church teachings on these things. Third, there is nothing in the cited source about changing Church doctrine--certainly because this Catholic magazine, as dissent-filled as it is, realizes doctrine cannot change--so it is WP:OR to read out a conclusion from his quoted statement, "I am a son of the Church." Elizium23 (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Article lead section

Is it just me or does anyone else find the articles lead very sloppy? There is a lot of unimportant information in there and some statements are unnecessarily supported by up to five references. Would any one else support a full rewrite of the lead?Tomh903 (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Trivia

There is an edit war going on about those sentences:

He was named the most popular person on the Internet on 18 November 2013 according to a survey carried out by the Global Language Monitor, which tracks internet activity in English. A proposal to create a commemorative coin as a tribute to Pope Francis was made in Argentina's lower house on 28 November 2013. On the coins it would read, "Tribute from the Argentine People to Pope Francis." beneath his face

First, it was included at a "Trivia" section, and then moved to the "Papacy" section. Should we keep this info (and if so, where?), or should we remove it? Cambalachero (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

An internet poll is definitely trivial. The coin, if it gets made, seems relevant, but until then it's not really important enough to include, I don't think. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Remove Both are trivial and non-notable - particularly as this article is already very long. If there is some broader significance to the coin (identified by sources, not editors) it might be relevant to the Relations with argentinian Government section. Otherwise, no. (Btw, I see that Time Man of the Year has just been added. Floodgates. DeCausa (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we can create an article "Public image of Pope Francis"? Cambalachero (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> Gay magazine names pope as person of the year (the advocate and 'Pope Francis effect' - a boost in church attendance ).> Pope names 19 new cardinals (Lihaas (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)).

Some weirdness going on in the lead

I noticed that there was a space between the end of the second paragraph and the [4] source, so I went to edit it out. What I found in the source code, however, was

<!--This para summarizes text in the body, sources are cited there--> <!--<br clear=all>< ! ---This break is to aid formatting on wide screens.--->

There are three issues with this. First of all, I've never seen anything like it, and on my 1600x900 screen I don't see any issues at all with the formatting. Second, ther message that "This para summarizes text in the body, sources are cited there" isn't true; as far as I can tell the lead is the only section that mentions Francis being the first Pope from the Southern Hemisphere or Latin America, that's not in the body text, and not cited. Third, if it were correct, and that content was in the body, properly cited, as it should be, than there's no reason for the [4] citation to be in the lead in the first place.

I've removed the hidden messages, but I'd like for someone that's actually worked on the article to see if they can figure out the content and sourcing issue. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

As a general rule, the opening paragraphs should summarize information that appears in the body of the entry. Citations are normally avoided, except for a quotation or something that is particularly controversial. Most citations in the opening paragraphs on Wikipedia are the work of overenthusiastic and/or inexperienced editors who rush to add something they think is important without stopping to consider its proper placement in the entry as a whole or how much attention it merits in the summary. One of the messages you saw was an attempt to alert people to this, but was phrased badly. It should have said: These opening paragraphs should summarize material in the body of the entry. New info should be added at the appropriate location below first with proper citations and then summarized here if especially significant. Bmclaughlin9 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2013

72.37.171.132 (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Request for addition under "other writings" of Evangelii Guadium, Apostolic Exhortation of the Holy Father Francis, 2013.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html

As this is his first major document written as Pope, it should definitely be listed and linked to the Evangelii Gaudium page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelii_Gaudium

I don't think that the Writings/Other section is meant to be a listing of all documents he writes as Pope, and I don't know what exactly you define as a "major" document in this context. Evangelii Gaudium is mentioned and linked in the Capitalism section under Teachings, and also in the navigation template at the bottom of the page. If an editor who is more familiar with this topic area or this specific article disagrees I'm not opposed to a more prominent mention; I just don't think that's it. --ElHef (Meep?) 03:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2013

Please change the line that says: "Pope Francis, while affirming the present Church teachings, has stated that Catholics have concentrated officiously on condemning abortion, contraception, and homosexual acts, while neglecting the greater need for tenderness, mercy and compassion." To: "Pope Francis has said: We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time. He has also asked Catholics to treat people with mercy and compassion." Here are the reasons for this change: The current statement is tendentious, making the pope appear to reprimand Catholics for their emphasis on these essential issues. His statement indicates only, as the paragraph following the quote say more explicitly, that these need to be stated with context of the full thinking of the Church. Furthermore, there is no reference in the article to extend his remarks to homosexuality. Also, he does not mention mercy in the context of this quote. This is being read into the statement about abortion and contraception. It is more accurate to state the pope himself and to state his general stance of remembering mercy. Again, saying it the way it is now makes it appear that the pope is calling out Catholics who try to advance the rights of the unborn, for example, of not being merciful.

98.181.3.126 (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: If you read only from the America Magazine article, yes. However, keep reading through the rest of the sources - I think you would be better off leveling your accusations of tendentiousness at such groups as the BBC or the New York Times. Those are the organizations drawing the conclusions, not Wikipedia editors. --ElHef (Meep?) 03:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

...between the first section and early life section . They do not follow the entry format of other Wikipedia articles(Popes), redundancy, and ambiguity about the Pope Francis nationality ==

Contradiction:

1.Born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, as the son of Italian parents, Bergoglio worked briefly as a chemical technician and nightclub bouncer before entering the seminary.[3]

But in the Early Life section:

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was born in Flores,[15] a barrio of Buenos Aires. He was the eldest[16] of five children of Mario José Bergoglio, an Italian immigrant accountant[17] born in Portacomaro (Province of Asti) in Italy's Piedmont region, and his wife Regina María Sívori,[18] a housewife born in Buenos Aires to a family of northern Italian (Piedmontese-Genoese).

Pope Francis's mother was not a immigrant.She was born in Buenos Aires http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/blog/biography-the-life-of-pope-francis/

I agree that it should be:as a son of an italian immigrant and an argentine of italian descent. Or it could also be that the laws in Argentina are different than in America. If you are born in Argentina you are still consider an immigrant unless you apply for citizenship.So his mother was still consider an immigrant--Discussionme (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)— Discussionme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

2.Redundancy and wrong section: Following sentence :Born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, as the son of Italian parents, Bergoglio worked briefly as a chemical technician and nightclub bouncer before entering the seminary.''''This sentences should be in the early life section and also you repeat the same thing.

Just move the the sentence to the right section.It does not make sense to have that sentence in another section. I agree the sentence is the wrong place.--Discussionme (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)— Discussionme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

3.We only use the latin name.The italian name is not necessary. If not we should change all the other Popes articles to include the italians names.

examples of entries in Wikipedia (Popes):

Pope Benedict XVI:(Latin: Benedictus XVI; born Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger on 16 April 1927)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI

Pope Paul:Pope John Paul II (Latin: Ioannes Paulus II)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II

Wikipedia only use the latin name.Just follow the rules Why did they put the Italian name? It does not make sense.

4.Ambiguity about Pope Francis nationality: In Personal details: They did not mention his nationality only the place he was born. Pope Francis is from Argentina or he was just was born in Argentina? After reading the article it seems he was just born in Argentina and work in Argentina but his nationality is Italian.Just because you were born in a country does not mean you have the nationality of that country. For example, you can be born in France but you do not adquire french nationality. On the contrary, if you are born in United States you adquire the american nationality.Most people do not know the laws in Argentina. Does the Pope have an Argentina nationality or not? Remember that this article is read by people who made not have any knowledge about the laws in Argentina. Also you put that he was born to italian immigrants(although her mother was from Argentine) and when people search Pope Francis nationality this what you read from Wikipedia:Francis (Latin: Franciscus; Italian: Francesco; born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 17 December 1936) is the 266th and current Pope of the Catholic Church, having ... although others pages(not Wikipedia) they put Argentinean. Is very confusing. --Wendyone (talk) 01:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Wikipedia. Pope Francis is Italian. He was born to Italian immigrants. His mother might be consider an italian american if she was born in the USA but she was born in Argentina.The laws may be different in Argentina than in the USA. Maybe the laws are more similar to China.He was born there and work there but we do not know if he ever became an Argentinean. Other media may assume he is from Argentina(they believe they have the same laws as the US). It is unclear what country he is from. But in my opinion and Wikipedia opinion, Papa Francesco is italian.He was just born in Argentina as Senator Mc.Cain was born in Panama. Until it is not clear they cannot put a nationality like they did in the other Popes' articles. I am assuming that is the law in Argentina. I do not know what is the law in Argentina.--Discussionme (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)— Discussionme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Have you bothered reading the article on Italian Argentines? 24-25 million Argentines are part of this ethnic group. Argentine is estimated to have 1,500,000 Italian speakers, making Italian "the second most spoken language in the nation". Dimadick (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Relations with Faith Communities and Others Section

There's a big problem with this section, in particular, the part that deals with atheists. "Redemption" is very different from "salvation" in Catholic (and, I believe, Protestant) soteriology. The Church affirms that Christ died to redeem everyone -- but it doesn't follow that all are saved. Atheists' (and journalists') ignorance about such things has made Pope Francis appear as if he contradicted Church teaching when, in fact, he did not.

There is also much confusion in this section about the dogma "Outside the Church There is No Salvation." Catholic belief is not that one must consciously and formally be a member of the Church to be saved (though they believe that is the ideal, the goal, what God desires), but that anyone who is, in fact, saved (by the "grace of Christ alone" -- not by works, nor by faith alone) is, in fact, a part of "the soul of the Church" whether or not that person consciously has faith in Jesus Christ. Someone who seeks God but, being "invincibly ignorant," never comes to faith in Christ can, by the mercy of God, be saved if he obeys the natural law, is contrite for sins he knows are sins, etc. "EENS," as this dogma is often "short-handed," is a much more nuanced belief than most people think (including many Catholics). Even the Society of St. Pius X (the "SSPX"), who broke away from Rome in order to adhere to traditional teaching and to preserve the traditional forms of the sacramental rites, was headed by a man -- Archbishop Lefebvre -- who wrote in his "Open Letter to Confused Catholics":

""We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, "Outside the Church there is no salvation"--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.'

'Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.'

'Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.'

'Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”'

'The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.'

'The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth."

I think this section needs to have added clarification so as to not allow journalists and atheists set the tone in ascertaining whether or not Pope Francis is changing teaching or is acting as a progressive, etc. It's to the Catholic Church to form and state its beliefs and to, then, decide when they're being changed or not. At the very least, people who haven't studied Catholic soteriology shouldn't be allowed, in an encyclopedia, to make Pope Francis out to be denying the doctrine of his own Church when he, in fact, isn't. Schoemann (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. We need reliable secondary sources to make this analysis for us, and then we can cite them in the article. Lefebvre's letter, in particular, is a primary source and especially since he is not commenting on Francis directly, there is no connection that we can make in the article without synthesis or original research, which are prohibited here. Elizium23 (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Unrealistic expectations

Expectations have been raised that could be disappointed later. Certainly many people have unrealistic about the new pope and unrealistic expectations have become credible. At least one priest feels it necessary to warn against expecting too much, for example Women priests.

I added the above here. One of my sources consists of fabrications as I pointed out. I started this section so people can discuss what to do with the section. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever people expects or not from Francis is speculation. We work on what's real, that is, the things he has actually done. As for his future actions, we may only know them as they happen. Nobody can say "he will do more than this", "he won't do any more than this" or "he will undo the things he did", nobody can see the future. Cambalachero (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's very unencyclopedic as it is. The source for the fiirst sentence is referring to a comment made by Cardinal Walter Kasper - it shouldn'r be a statement in Wikipedia's own voice. It certainly shouldn't go into its own section If it goes in anywhere it could go in as the following sentence under the "early issues" subsection e.g.: "Francis's biographer, Cardinal Walter Kasper has commented that..." The second sentence doesn't make sense in English. The third sentence...well, who cares what "one priest feels"! DeCausa (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As originally written, it failed WP:CRYSTAL. As currently written, it fails WP:NPOV. I suggest to take it out entirely. Elizium23 (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur with User:Elizium23 on this. The wise thing to do is to remove the section. Finnegas (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Bethlehem

The section headed "Sartorial taste and aesthetics" refers to "Bethlehem, Israel". As the entry on Bethlehem makes clear, Bethlehem is in Palestine, not in Israel. Richard Linsert (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The entire section, including the part about Bethlehem, was unsourced, so I have removed the section. Hope that helps. Elizium23 (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Position of women

This section seems to be a debate over what the position of women in the church should be, as opposed to what the Pope thinks of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.158.116.39 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

National Bishops Conferences or Collegiality

We could use a small section (after "Vatican Bank" perhaps?) on Francis' stated plan to make more use of the national bishops conferences and the collegiality that implies. A specific detail would be his approach to his own role in the Italian Bishops Conference, where he has already acted by (1) removing Mariano Crociata as its Secretary-General and (unlike his two predecessors as Pope) sending him to a diocese that does not put him in line to become cardinal and (2) appointing someone very much like himself to serve in that post on an interim basis, Galantino. He has signaled that he's interested in having the Italian bishops elect their own leaders, giving up his own right to pretty much control the selection. There are some sources that discuss how this shows he is not going to use the Italian Episcopal Conference in the political way his two predecessors did. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Advocacy of centralized government control of the economy

This section needs to be removed. It appears to be based on a particular editorial and does not seem to warrant the bandwidth. 70.165.51.18 (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. As pointed here, Pope Francis clarified that he's not a marxist. In fact, when I read the first reference (the things he actually said in the first place), he's basically saying that getting money should not be our guiding principle in life, and that we should help the poor people. That's not marxism, that's simply christianism. Cambalachero (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that it should be removed. It is just opinions and it should not be in this article.--Discussionme (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)— Discussionme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Where did this section reference Marxism, Cambalachero? Whatever "ism" you want to put it, the Pope's views about government deserve to be expressed here, as they they truly are in Evangelii Gaudium. By deleting it, you have muted an effort to understand and share the Pope's message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manogor (talk • contribs) 20:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a general article on the Pope, so a summary of his views on economics and government in one or two sentences will suffice, or it is undue coverage. Also, we need to stay away from anything that appears to interpret the document without relying on reliable secondary sources for analysis. Our own opinions are considered original research and not permitted in Wikipedia articles. Elizium23 (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The mentions to marxism where located at the pages used as references of the section Cambalachero (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

Pope Francis took the name Francis after Francis Xavier, not Francis of Asisi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.159.237 (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Photo

Whoever changed the photo of Pope Francis, into the cropped closer Facial shot from the previous version, thank you. This face picture is truly a better photo more direct and classier than the previous half-body installed a few weeks ago. LimosaCorel (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

"America" in this sense means Latin America, not the US

There is a quote talking about Francis's parents not making it in America, which means Latin America. But, right above the quote, someone wrote the United States, which is NOT what the quote is refering to, since his parents obviously raised him in South America, not the United States of America. This needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.128.10 (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I respect what the english-speaking people think, but you need to understand that in spanish (and in many other languages) "America" it's not your country. Instead that, the Americas are a continent (continental model used also in the UN) called "América", that's what "America" means in the text, not South America. You can edit it, obviously, but you need to know that your country it's not the only entity who is called "America". So many people hate that use of the term "America" and "American" (it's not my case, but is really annoying).--JuliánDelRusso (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and in English the term "Anglo people" refers to people of English ancestry rather than English-speaking people. Semantics are fun! Mtminchi08 (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

See? I didn't know that in english and he didn't know that in spanish. They are very helpful but not funny (for me). Corrected. JuliánDelRusso (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I've taken out the reference to the United States. However, in English, "America" does mean the USA (I'm not from the US, by the way). The equivalent in English of "América" in Spanish is "the Americas". There is a slight problem now in that the quote uses the word "America" which is taken directly from the Huff Post. It's a sloppy translation by them - maybe a footnote should clarify it. DeCausa (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The multiple interpretations of the word "American" are explained in the article American (word). Still, quotations must stay exactly as first formulated. And, if translated, it must be a textual translation: we can not "fix it in the translation" for the same reasons than we can't "fix" a quotation in English that uses confusing words. By the way, "make it in América" must have been a translation of the Spanish-language expression "hacerse la América", which means emigrating from one place to another and having a great success in the new location. It is named that way in reference to the huge European immigration to the Americas during and after both World Wars; but may be used for any emigration in the colloquial usage (for example, someone may leave a small village in Argentina and "hacerse la América" moving to Buenos Aires). Cambalachero (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"América" and "America" are false friends per "embarrassed" and "embarazada". Huff post just mistranslated. Obviously, it would be wrong to alter the quote, but an explanatory footnote would be worthwhile. DeCausa (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2014

In the "Name" section, I find

"Pope Clement XIV who had suppressed the Jesuit order"

Please insert a comma just after "Clement XIV", because "who had suppressed the Jesuit order" does not narrow down "Pope Clement XIV" any further.

I could also compose a remark about the non-use of the regnal number "I", although Pope John Paul I (elected and died in 1978) did use it. I recall seeing or hearing "Francis I" at least once in the news media, and then hearing a statement that no number would be used for this Pope Francis. (So, like the Queen Elizabeth I/II situation in England, this Pope Francis would only get the "I" retroactively if a later incumbent also took the name "Francis".)

128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done the comma. As for the "I", it has been discussed a lot when he became Pope, and there was consensus to call him just Francis. Cambalachero (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I have just gone into Pope John Paul I's entry and found that he explicitly used "the first". I added a remark that Pope Francis also took a previously-unused papal name but did NOT use "the first". It would, however, be interesting to find out how "the first" got into the news media regarding Francis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> Pope Francis tells Italian mafia to repent (Lihaas (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)).

Semi-Protected Change Request 3/21/2014

"Liberals are unwise if they expect significant change in doctrine though the Church will seek a "realistic application of doctrine, the church must never judge as though it had a guillotine in its hands." [262]"

This line (see above) appears to be a direct communication to liberals and doesn't fit the encyclopedic tone of the article. Perhaps it should say

"Although many understand him to be liberalizing the papacy [30][31], others point to the fact that no major progressive changes have occurred to the church during the first year of his service [262]"

Agreed, the above is POV(Lihaas (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)).

Agreed, as well. DeCausa (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Done I have implemented the change based on the consensus above. Best, Mz7 (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)