Jump to content

Talk:Pope Francis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Railie May (talk | contribs) at 22:39, 13 March 2013 (→Wikipedia servers use). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Edit Request 13 March 2013 - Class Equality section

During a May 2010 speech in Argentina regarding the poor, he directed his message to the wealthy by saying "You avoid taking into account the poor. We have no right to duck-down, to lower the arms carried by those in despair. We must reclaim the memory of our country who has a mother, recover the memory of our Mother"

[1] Raphistorian (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ref goes to: [1]

please don't use refs in talk pages, talk pages don't have reflists, so refs won't be visible...


does los sufficientes refer to the rich? google translate just says says sufficient, and makes zero sense..


"sufficient", he warned, "do not take into account the poor"


is what google says it means. I speak german and english, my knowledge of spanish is almost nonexistent, so if anyone here knows spanish, the original is:


El obispo primado argentino, cardenal Jorge Bergoglio, volvió hoy a criticar a "los suficientes" que, advirtió, "no tienen en cuenta a los más pobres" y exhortó a pedirle a la Virgen de Luján que "cuide a nuestra patria, en particular a aquellos que son los más olvidados". Jorge Bergoglio, volvió hoy a criticar a "los suficientes" que, advirtió, "no tienen en cuenta a los más pobres" y exhortó a pedirle a la Virgen de Luján que "cuide a nuestra patria, en particular a aquellos que son los más olvidados".


I can't say yes or no to the request if I don't know what it is saying. Aunva6 (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Here los suficientes refers to those who have sufficient material means of living (the rich and the upper middle class), or could also mean the arrogant ones. --Againme (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-white?

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

Yeah I don't know if whoever wrote that he is non-white has seen the big picture of him at the side of the article, but he's definitely completely white. [unsigned]
Quite. Not sure where that came from. I see another editor removed that bit exactly as I did. David (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And his parents are Italian soo yeah I'd say white --69.146.219.170 (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Argentina being "non-white" is a meme. He's Argentinian. Of course someone's going to say he's not white. 96.48.172.204 (talk)
That's a retarded meme from reddit, probably some random guy trying to vandalize wikipedia.

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

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

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

What I want to know is:

  • Which chemistry courses did he teach, and where did he study chemistry.
  • Did his students enjoy his courses, or was he a dull lecturer.
  • Was he available outside of course hours to answer questions and help struggling students.
  • From a doctrinal point of view, did he teach
    • Arrhenius definition
    • Brønsted-Lowry modification of Arrhenius
    • Or the radical views of Lewis?
    • Or was he able to reconcile these views into a harmonious view he was able to explain to novices?

Comment

There is a quite lengthy article on no: about Bergoglio that can be translated, instead of mendeling with the copyright article. no:Jorge Beroglio Profoss 22:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

Congratulations! Now our work begins

I expect lots of edit warring here, so this is a request to editors to take issues to the talk page before making controversial edits to the article. Andrew327 19:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regnal name

Just to nip the inevitable edit war in the bud, why is it "Francis" and not "Francisco"? Localized name thing? Matteric (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • NPR is calling him "Franciscus" so does that localize to "Francis" ala St Francis of Assisi (USA) or "Francisco" ala San Francisco de Asis (Español)
  • John Paul II was Juan Pablo II in Spanish speaking countries, Giovanni Paolo II in Italian ones, and so on. ~~----
  • Franciscus in the Vatican, his name in Latin. For the spanish speaking it will be Francisco.

Francis the First

Where's the ordinal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.136.61 (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2013

First Non-European Pope in History on March 3, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.58.239 (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2013

HE IS NOT THE FIRST NON EUROPEAN POPE. SAINT PETER (FIRST POPE) WAS NOT EUROPEAN EITHER. Fredyrod (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were also three African (i.e. North African) popes in the early church.

None needed. There is no second.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 19:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was notable that John Paul I chose to be use the ordinal and was the first to Pope to be "XXX the First". Clearly Francis I is following in this tradition. Move. jameslucas (" " / +) 19:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's notable that he is the only Pope Francis, and he will probably be the only Pope Francis for years into the future, and the article can be moved if a future pope becomes the second. His official Vatican title is "Pope Francis". Andrew327 19:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is only 1. It can be updated if/when a Francis II is named. Dmarquard (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, eventually. If the Pope, in his official capacity, refers to himself as Francis the First, Francis I, or whatever, we can do no less. As noted, above, John Paul I chose to do so, and we likely would have followed suit. But it is really really too early to speculate. I'm betting the Vatican will offer a news release or some sort of official announcement (their website is behind) that will clarify things. Give the poor man a few hours to get situated, yes? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this counts as official but the official Twitter account just tweeted "HABEMUS PAPAM FRANCISCUM" https://twitter.com/Pontifex/status/311922995633455104 Eddyproca (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's perfectly normal to use both "Francis" and "Francis I", like they did with "Benedict" and "Benedict XVI". Oh, and the Pope tweeted he is Francis I [2] so yeah, he decides. Smartyllama (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Official announcement did not mention an ordinal, so until he claims the ordinal like John Paul the 1st did, he is just Pope Francis. Anyone using an ordinal is doing it out of ignorance. wxwalsh 19:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Currently the Vatican web page announces him as 'New Pontiff Is Pope Francis of Argentina' No ordinal at this time. That seems, for now, to be as reliable a source as you will find. http://www.vatican.com/ Sarafinadh (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Vatican News website (news.va) uses both "Francis" and "Francis I". Eddyproca (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Popes are traditionally given a numeral. Even when they are "the First". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, only John Paul I took an ordinal, and he did it deliberately. No others had an ordinal until after a 2nd was made. Also, the vatican news site typod his name as well, to get a hasty article out, their use of the ordinal should not be taken as official. wxwalsh 20:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIANS ARE MAD (see discussion below)!
By the way, what means "non-european"? I guess that you have good reasons to regard Italy no longer as part of Europe. A certain affinity towards torture, human rights violations, rape, euthanasy, intolerance, ignorance, especially against the heart of Christianity, does not fit to European ethics? I am not sure, but all these inconveniences might happen to catholic folks here in Europe... Che vergogna! --151.77.61.139 (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go to the source: The Vatican Web site says it is "Franciscum" in Latin, or "Francis" in English. It does not use the ordinal "I" after the name. See www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm. — QuicksilverT @ 20:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Nominals

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

Looks like a trophy to me.

All of that goes away. The only thing that matter is the fact he is now the Bishop of Rome. Jorge Mario Brogoglio, SJ for all intents and purposes does not exist.

Pius?

Here it says Pius XIII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.136.61 (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

It's Francis I – A New Pope

Pope Francis → Pope Francis I – Sources are giving his name as Francis I. I would have done a simple move but that page redirects here so I can't. Smartyllama (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Is there proof that the 'Francis' refers to Francis of Assisi, not Francis de Sales? Both are saints - de Sales was a bishop and is a Doctor of the Church. I was unable to hear the official announcement of the regal name, but it would be good to confirm this association, rather than assume it.

  • Or Francis Xavier for that matter. He was the founder of the Society of Jesus.

No, the founder was St. Ignatius, but St. Francis Xavier was one of the first and best known members. Wmck (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC) 91.83.198.239 (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Madnight[reply]

  • Opposed for below reason. No ordinal until there's a second Pope Francis.
  • Opposed Until/unless there's a source stating that he's called himself "Francis I" as opposed to just Francis. EWTN and MSNBC alone are saying simply "Francis" right now. Also, apparently John Paul I actually specified that he was "the First". umrguy42 19:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed Reiterating - no ordinal until there's a second Pope Francis. erielhonan 19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a move would be right. John Paul I had an ordinal in his lifetime.

I doubt this. Please cite source. erielhonan 19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title should include the ordinal I, as Pope John Paul I, but somebody already redirected that here. Grsz 11 19:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ordinal is only used for the first when there's a second. John Paul I was only John Paul until John Paul II was elected. 86.9.122.202 (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, like John Paul, who specifically chose to add the ordinal. If this one does the same, the rule "no ordinal until there's a second" does not apply. 94.224.96.189 (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iv'e noticed that the page has already been moved, should it be moved back for the time being since there clearly it not a consensus yet for this move.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is decided, the history from Pope Francis may need to be merged into this article, as both have been edited in parallel after a copy and paste move. For now, I have protected that page from editing to prevent the problem getting worse. WJBscribe (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's perfectly normal to use both "Francis" and "Francis I", like they did with "Benedict" and "Benedict XVI". Oh, and the Pope tweeted he is Francis I [10] so yeah, he decides. Smartyllama (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait We don't know yet whether he's going to reign as "Francis" or "Francis I"; it's very likely he'll clarify that soon (as John Paul I did, and, for that matter, as John XXIII did in a similar situation--it wasn't clear whether he was XXIII or XXIV until he said so). In the meantime, we should combine Pope Francis and Pope Francis I, it's ridiculous to have two pages--but either name is fine for a temporary place, until we know what his official name is. -- Narsil (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Their very first article says "Who is Pope Francis?" And the next one mentions a Fracis [sic] I. So I'd say let the Vatican sort it first. :) --JohnDBuell (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just before I undertook to write the paragraph you are reading, the article said in one place the name "Francis" was in honor of Francis Xavier, and another place in the article said it was in honor of Francis of Assisi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2013

  • Procedural Question Since the move has apparently already been carried out, should we close this discussion as procedure and open a new one about moving it back to Pope Francis? Smartyllama (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • [12] AN OFFICIAL VATICAN SOURCE cleary says POPE FRANCIS I. Other pages on that site may give the shortened name, but it's just that, a shortened name. People sometimes called Benedict XVI "Pope Benedict" but it isn't his official name. Smartyllama (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Official vatican source" quoted by Smartyllama has contradicted itself, and shown it is thus not a reliable source. wxwalsh 20:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It has not contradicted itself. It just used a shortened name. this article refers to Benedict XVI by just "Pope Benedict" at times. I guess it contradicts itself too? No wait, it doesn't, it's just a shortened name. It's nothingnew. Smartyllama (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only time your "official source" called him with the ordinal, they misspelled his name. Should we now move this to Pope Fracis I based on your source? wxwalsh 20:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, at [13] the POPE HIMSELF announced on Twitter that he is Francis I. He decides, not you. Smartyllama (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like Belgian and Spanish monarchs, Popes are traditionally called "the First" even if there is no second yet. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not, only John Paul I took an ordinal as the first, all others only got it in historical context after a 2nd was made wxwalsh 20:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
As User:Eddyproca points out (above), news.va uses both with and without the "I." Twitter account does not have the blue "verified" icon on it yet. Defer decision until the Pope himself clarifies. 74.96.191.244 (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, based on some Google translations of the earlier messages, I have strong doubts that twitter account is official. Even if it was, it was updated while the pope was speaking so it's unclear how much confirmation the person writing had of the name preference. Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of user Rtrac3y: Per en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#Popes, correct style is "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one}" [14] Mike V • Talk 20:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move A growing number of sources is using the number, and the pope has used it himself on his Twitter account. Media calling him "Pope Francis" is simply using informal language, just like it is common enough to speak of "John Paul" or "Benedict" while neither using the number nor denying its existence. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Settled for now, the vatican.va website clearly does not call him the 1st. No ordinal number. wxwalsh 20:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Reference for above http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/elezione/index_en.htm wxwalsh 20:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Go to the source: The Vatican Web site says it is "Franciscum" in Latin, or "Francis" in English. It does not use the ordinal "I" after the name. See www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm. — QuicksilverT @ 20:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The pope tweeted in his Jorge M Bergoglio twitter account: @JMBergoglio tweet: 'Inmensamente feliz de ser el nuevo Papa, Francisco I' which translates as 'Immensely happy to be the new Pope, Francis I' -- Marek.69 talk 21:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • why participate if you won't read what has already been posted? That twitter account is not verified, and there is evidence from looking at the translated tweets (many containing links to articles critical of the Cardinal, and other things that just seem likely to not have been posted by the man himself) that it is not him. Per Wikipedia policy WP:ELPEREN, that twitter account is not realiable. The official Twitter for the Pope uses no ordinal, the vatican.va's website uses no ordinal. Issue is settled wxwalsh 21:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
STOP THIS NONSENSE ALREADY. There is zero evidence that the Twitter account is authentic. Do you think the Pope would have nothing better to do right now than have his nose in his iPhone sending Tweets? Use your brain, if you have one. — QuicksilverT @ 21:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I was obviously mistaken. I've now stuck my above comment. Please accept this as a good faith error and nothing else. -- Marek.69 talk 22:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifiedhttp://bigstory.ap.org/article/francis-without-roman-numeralNickm93 (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 13 March 2013

He was transferred in 1980 to become the rector of the seminary in San Miguel where he had studied. Tonylatt (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source? Andrew327 19:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date of election

Please change the elction date to the 13th of March, not the 14th. It is not yet the 14th in Italy. Today is the 13th... Even in Europe. :) --91.56.37.184 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was just about to come and say the same thing. Change the date, please. --91.152.235.120 (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DoneAbductive (reasoning) 19:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
isn't he pope francis? Not pope francis I.
Francis I as Popes are always given an ordinal number. Kilonum (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's Francis I according to most sources. He's using the oridinal like John Paul I did. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date fixed to the 13th Pieism (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First new name since 10th century

An examination of the List of popes shows that, discounting the special case of John Paul I where he combined the names of his immediate predecessors, Francis is the first brand-new Pope name since Pope Lando took the chair in 913 AD. Might be worth noting somewhere. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally notable in that he was the first Pope to do so since all Popes began using names not their own in the 16th century. Lando was merely the latin version of his given name, Landus.

  • Ignore fiction about Lando being Latin.
John Paul I was a new name too.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically, but not really - he named himself after his two predecessors. Angr (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Place of Birth

It reads he is the first Pope born in the Americas but then says he was born in India. Can we clarify / correct that?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.232.4 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

He was not born in India - FIX THAT

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.84.197 (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure about which Saint?

Francis Solanus (The patron saint of Argentina) makes more sense than Francis of Assisi

He may be playing the "sounds like" game though

"For twenty years Francis worked at evangelizing the vast regions of Tucuman (present day northwestern Argentina) and Paraguay. He had a skill for languages and succeeded at learning many of the regions' native tongues in a fairly short period. It is claimed that he could also address tribes of different tongues in one language yet be understood by them all. Being a musician as well, Francis also played the violin frequently for the natives, which helped them relate better to him. He is often depicted playing this instrument."

Spandox (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He will announce this --Guerillero | My Talk 19:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Until he announces it, why guess that it was St. Francis of Assisi? Aren't BLPs supposed to have facts? Tied to citations? not guesses? Even good ones? -69.225.10.37 (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
from what I get around (I'm Italian) he's a compromise Pope between the "Roman/Italian" faction and the "global" one, and Francis of Assisi is the Patron of Italy (on top of being an italo-argentine and elder enough to assure a Conclave when the usual Italian/Roman power struggle are sorted out) dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's official that it is Francis of Assisi per http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/13/cardinals-elect-new-pope/ "The new pope took the name Francis in honor of St. Francis of Assisi because he is a lover of the poor, Vatican spokesman the Rev. Tom Rosica told CNN." wxwalsh 21:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Francis I?

Shouldn't it just be Francis as there is no Francis II?

Yes, it should, as the official Twitter states "HABEMUS PAPAM FRANCISCUM" with no use of an ordinal. [16]. --Zimbabweed (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Only pope to take an ordinal as part of the first use of their name was John Paul I, to distinguish his as a compound of preceding popes John and Paul. Unless the Vatican (or this Pope) states plainly that the ordinal is to be included, get rid of it. LCS check (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of the above. Fitnr (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Popes are called "the First" even if there is not yet a second. The name of the article should be changed. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the Vatican Italian language site it says "Habemus Papam Franciscum" [[17]]--PeregrinusW (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont agree... On German TV during the inauguration ceremony they all addressed the new pope as Francis 1st. Logically... Its a clear signal and important to refer as Francis of Assisi (which is the name giver) was a rebel and purist who liberated and reformed the Catholic church peacefully during his time... no other pope before selected this name. User:ElJay_Arem
Popes are always given an ordinal number. Even it they are "the First".Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BBC News are calling him Francis I, and they're usually fairly accurate on matters of state, etc. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Vatican website is not naming him with an ordinal number. I think they are our most reliable source at the moment. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/elezione/index_en.htm and then http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm wxwalsh 20:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Go to the source: The Vatican Web site says it is "Franciscum" in Latin, or "Francis" in English. It does not use the ordinal "I" after the name. See www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm. — QuicksilverT @ 20:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francis of Assisi

Is this actually confirmed? I've heard various reports that it was after Francis Xavier, which would make more sense consider he was the co-founder of the Order of Jesuits. Do we have any confirmation about which man he chose the name for? Morhange (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't think this is factual, just speculation, because many people think "of Assisi" when they hear Francis... User:geerlingguy (talk)

Yes, I think, its Francis of Assisi and not Francis Xavier... I just followed the discussions of the specialists and highest member of Catholic Church with live broadcasting on German TV.... and they all referred to the Franciscan Order. One of the speakers was a journalist of Vatikan Radio/TV and she same referred to... User:ElJay_Arem

Both Francis Xavier and Francis of Assisi were great Saints of profound secular importance as well

It probably doesn't matter if he ever claims which St. Francis. Both were giants in the eyes of the faithful, with tremendous legacies, including huge contribution to secular learning, as well as to the development of the faithful in difficult times.

Either would be beacons for the 21st century and worthy models for the Bishop of Rome.

From what we have heard of his life, it is likely he knows and prays to both of them, as both seem to have had obvious influence in his character.

DrKC MD (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's official that it is Francis of Assisi per http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/13/cardinals-elect-new-pope/ "The new pope took the name Francis in honor of St. Francis of Assisi because he is a lover of the poor, Vatican spokesman the Rev. Tom Rosica told CNN." wxwalsh 21:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2013

Liberation theology Bergoglio is an accomplished theologian who distanced himself from liberation theology early in his career. He is thought to be close to Comunione e Liberazione, a conservative lay movement. [edit]Abortion and euthanasia Cardinal Bergoglio has invited his clergy and laity to oppose both abortion and euthanasia.[3] [edit]Homosexuality He has affirmed church teaching on homosexuality, though he teaches the importance of respecting individuals who are gay. He strongly opposed legislation introduced in 2010 by the Argentine Government to allow same-sex marriage. In a letter to the monasteries of Buenos Aires, he wrote: "Let's not be naive, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God." He has also insisted that adoption by gays and lesbians is a form of discrimination against children. This position received a rebuke from Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who said the church's tone was reminiscent of "medieval times and the Inquisition".[4] [edit]Church and AIDS Main article: Roman Catholic Church and AIDS His doctrinal orthodoxy emphasizes Christ's mandate to love: he is well remembered for his 2001 visit to a hospice, in which he washed and kissed the feet of twelve AIDS patients. [edit]Social justice He consistently preaches a message of compassion towards the poor, but somewho? observers would like him to place a greater emphasis on issues of social justice. Rather than articulating positions on matters of political economy, Bergoglio prefers to emphasize spirituality and holiness, believing that this will naturally lead to greater concern for the suffering of the poor. He has, however, voiced support for social programs, and publicly challenged free-market policies. [edit]Relations with the Argentine government See also: Dirty War On April 15, 2005, a human rights lawyer filed a criminal complaint against Bergoglio, accusing him of conspiring with the junta in 1976 to kidnap two Jesuit priests, whom he, as superior of the Society of Jesus of Argentina in 1976, had asked to leave their pastoral work following conflict within the Society over how to respond to the new military dictatorship, with some priests advocating a violent overthrow. Bergoglio's spokesman has flatly denied the allegations. No evidence was presented linking the cardinal to this crime.[5] [edit] Mmhmbop (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Little early for this, isn't it? In any event, your proposed edits are non neutral and unsourced, and are unlikely to be included. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request includes information that is potentially monumental. I strongly encourage you, Mmhmbop, or other editors interested in adding content on the Dirty War to please seek out good references if these claims are indeed verifiable! That would mean the world to me and my family. Eekiv 19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was initially surprised to see this much material summarily deleted (it was present since 2005), but it makes sense to remove it from the main article given the lack of citation. However, it does make sense to leave them on the Talk page for re-inclusion once people provide supporting citations. Given his location, I would expect most useful citations to be in Spanish or Italian. For example, here's a citation for the foot-washing event: <http://www.zenit.org/es/articles/cardenal-argentino-lava-los-pies-a-enfermos-de-sida>. English-language searches turned up nothing earlier than 2005, when the unsourced material was added.

Not elected on 14th

its still 13th of march, even in iraq time zone 85.26.186.107 (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assisi or Xavier? Or some other?

Article says he took the name of St. Francis of Assisi. I believe that but need a citation (that I can read). Otherwise, might not St. Francis Xavier, cofounder of Jesuits, seem a reasonable assumption also? --Kbh3rdtalk 19:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the citations link to anything that says he selected St. Francis after Francis of Assisi. Can this be cited to something that states exactly which St. Francis? Why not the Jesuit St. Francis, after all? Seems like a good guess, Francis of Assisi, but, really are BLPs made of guesses?

If this is confined to registered users, please, to the registered users, stick with facts that you can cite. -69.225.10.37 (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CBS is currently saying that it's Assisi. CNN's blog originally stated that it was Assisi, before the comment was removed. Xavier has also been brought up, according to some other editors. It looks like no one knows for sure at the moment.--xanchester (t) 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that it's more important to be right than it is to be quick, and it's more important to be verifiable than it is to be right. --Kbh3rdtalk 19:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CBS is also spelling Assis, "Assissi." I agree with Kbh3rd, especially with news events where it has been found out that news sources, probably not CBS one hopes, get their information from Wikipedia. If we don't know for fact from somewhere else, let's not include it until we do. Simple, even if Assisi is probably a good guess, we're not here to report our guesses or prove our cleverness, it's just the facts that we can tie to reliable sources. . -69.225.10.37 (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

20:04pm GMT The BBC, EWTN and Vatican Radio are all saying that no announcement has yet been made about WHO he has named himself after. there are many possibilities. The guesses of presenters and journalists from big USA TV News broadcasters like the CNN carries no weight. Can I suggest we delete the guesses about his name and wait.

Anruari (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The media is going to point to Francis of Assisi because he is well known to people outside the church (like the media, in general). Francis Xavier is a co-founder of the pope's own order, so it is very hard to believe that the pope does not have Francis Xavier in mind. The great thing with names is that they can mean many things at the same time. Benedict XVI cited several reasons for choosing his name, and I can say the same about the names I gave my own kids. Let's cut out any speculation, even from the media, until we hear the pope give his own reasons. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the best course of action right now is to wait for something that qualifies as reliable.--xanchester (t) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its Francis of Assisi and not Francis Xavier... I just followed the discussions of the specialists and highest member of Catholic Church with live broadcasting on German TV.... and they all referred to the Franciscan Order. One of the speakers was a journalist of Vatikan Radio/TV and she same referred to... User:ElJay_Arem

I would be doubly wary of citing CBS's assertion of Assisi. I watched the CBS webcast of the announcement, and the monsignor they had on the air assumed Assisi, with no documentation, as soon as the name was announced.
It's official that it is Francis of Assisi per http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/13/cardinals-elect-new-pope/ "The new pope took the name Francis in honor of St. Francis of Assisi because he is a lover of the poor, Vatican spokesman the Rev. Tom Rosica told CNN." wxwalsh 21:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

NOT the first non-European

The List of Popes proves that. Anyone who re-submits that false claim should have it autoreverted. Just an FYI. --JohnDBuell (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The last pope outside of Europe was Gregory III from Syria. --Zimbabweed (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

The following edit should be made: "conformation" should be "confirmation" and "Papem" should be "Papam" in the cite for the reason for "Francis". Collect (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference ^ Habemus Papam! Cardinal Bergolio Elected Pope - Fracis I (Archived at WebCite) needs "Fracis" edited to "Francis". (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

The references section is doubled! Teemeah 편지 (letter) 19:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial statements

In the minutes before editing began in earnest on this page, I noticed a great deal more topics under the heading of his views, many of which likely would have been seen as controversial. The majority of those have now disappeared. Please consider checking out older versions of this page, and re-adding those statements or views.

I've noticed the same, it's been shrinking by the minute. This absolutely should be reverted!212.64.14.89 (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; the article is already having positive stuff removed and negative stuff added. I am not Catholic but I am already noticing some less-than-flattering edits being made. A few minutes ago, the article contained a story about him ministering to 12 AIDS patients and even kissing their feet. Now, that's gone...and the section on homosexuality has been edited to include a quote from Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner claiming that Francis I's views on homosexuality are reminiscent of "medieval times and the Inquisition". Does someone (who's more knowledgeable than I) want to tackle those? I think the story about his ministry to AIDS patients is a lot more relevant to his biography than hyperbolic criticism from an Argentinian politician, but maybe that's just me. NathanDahlin (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just you. Saying that the marriage of some people and the laws of a democratic republic are the work of the Devil is certainly more important than kissing some guys' feet. --Againme (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section about the Dirty War allegations needs to be looked at. It's sourced to an LA Times article that makes it clear that no specifics were provided as part of the complaint, and that Argentine law has a very low burden of evidence for that stage of the process. I just heard this fact cited on NPR so we should think quickly about whether WP:DUE is being followed here. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Dirty War allegations were made 8 years ago in a lawsuit. There is no evidence that the suit was ever persued and it was not made by any well-known human rights group. It has not been picked up by mainstream media in recent reports. I suggest therefore it be taken out and only put back if it receives media attention. TFD (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm checking to see if I can find any other sources now, but if there are none, I concur. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, looks like there's more to this story. Take a look here: [18] and [19] Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that many of the things removed lacked any citation. Please find the citations and then re-add the text with citation. See the hospice example above. You'll probably need to search in Spanish.
The statement from Kirchner has NOT just been added, it has been here a long while. It has no less validity than the story of ministering to AIDS patients ( assuming the latter is indeed true). Contaldo80 (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a citation for the AIDS story, but it has been deleted. Why? Rarohla (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

The name of the new pope should be "Francis", not "Francis I". Popes who take names that have not been taken by previous popes do not bear a number. John Paul I was a an exception to this rule. Please refer to list of pope's names provided here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes. Notice that pope Landus, elected in 913, was the last pope--except John Paul I and Francis-- to take a name not previously taken by a pope, and he does not have a number. Also, refer to the announcement of the the cardinal Protodeacon, who gave the name of the new pope without the number.

Thanks. 71.6.42.66 (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. please move the page to 'Pope Francis'. He becomes 'Pope Francis I' only when there is a 'Pope Francis II'. The Discoverer (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I agree won't be Francis I until there is a Francis II.--KTo288 (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also think Francis I is incorrect. The only pope having the I in his regnal name was John Paul I, but the number was included in the name as it was announced as Ioannes Paulus Primi. Skortzy (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not correct. Not only is there precedent that Pope John Paul I used a regnal number, but the pope himself has tweeted that he will use the regnal number [20]. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note, Bergoglio tweeted this on his personal account, not the Vatican account. [21] --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with no number, as per my comment in the above section on the name. LCS check (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All old examples are from before ordinals were invented, so theygive no clue. The rule is to use an ordinal, but we should read the official statementsfrom theVatican to see if your idea about an unprecedenced use of no ordinal is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.136.61 (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2013
My vote is that the number is wrong regardless what the Pope calls himself. There is only a "I" when there is a "II". All the other popes whose names were not used again have no number. Queen Anne of Great Britain is never called "Anne I". Queen Elizabeth I was just "Queen Elizabeth" until 1952. CasparRH (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this move would be non-controversial, so I deleted Pope Francis I to allow for moving the article under the proper name. The circumstances were urgent, and the translation was incorrect -- it is Franciscum, not ordinal I. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. He has referred to himself as Francis I on Twitter. He decides, not you. Grsz 11 20:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not our place to decide. It is the prerogative of the new Pope to decide how he wishes to be known; so we should use the same name that the Roman Catholic Church uses and not try to twist the facts. This article says Pope Francis I. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 5)Just a comment but the Vatican seem to be referring to "Fracis I" [22] --wintonian talk 20:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The catholic herald is not the official catholic church, and the news.va site clearly was hasty in their post and even typoed his name, we can't really consider that a reliable source. wxwalsh 20:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, but if we can't call the Vatican a reliable source for papal elections then who is? --wintonian talk 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to rush around, stick with the title as it is for now until it becomes clear what he intends to call himself.--KTo288 (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So we seem to have a bunch of editors who have decided what ought to be (no regnal number) and have zero sources backing them up, and we have several sources using the regnal number, including the pope himself. The pope's tweet clearly falls under WP:SELFSOURCE. Please bow to the sources and use the regnal number. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. No Regnal is the rule until we have a reliable source saying otherwise. The twitter account is non-verified, and not a reliable source, the vatican's news site contradicts itself, and has hastily pushed out news. So we need to wait for the dust to settle and see what the official vatican statement will be on this. Until then, the long standing precedence is the best choice, no regnal number. wxwalsh 20:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, Pope John Paul II was presented on the Basicilca balcony as John Paul in October 1978. Though, it was likely a simple mistake by the protodeacon. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been settled anyway, the vatican has provided the correct reference, no ordinal number. http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm wxwalsh 20:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Go to the source: The Vatican Web site says it is "Franciscum" in Latin, or "Francis" in English. It does not use the ordinal "I" after the name. See www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm. — QuicksilverT @ 20:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Franciscum is the accusative of Franciscus. Surtsicna (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most common name, without any doubt, is going to be Pope Francis. That is why the present title is correct and should remain as it is. There is no point in claiming that he is officially "Francis I" because he is not. Officially, he is "Franciscus I". That, however, is not how he is referred to in English. Surtsicna (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. I actually agree with Pope Francis anyways, since the precedent is already set by the list of the earliest popes. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Vatican is most grateful for your approval. — QuicksilverT @ 21:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is not "Franciscus I" officially either. The church does not use ordinals until they have to, or unless the Pope indicates he wants it. The official vatican website calls him Franciscus, without any "I" - it is time to put this to rest, it has been resolved unless the vatican changes it in the future wxwalsh 20:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, I want to see either an official document signed by "Franciscus Primus" or his being announced as such (as it was done with JPI) or the election of "Franciscus Secundus". Only then would he Francis I be official or necessary. Str1977 (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This just in from AP:

The Vatican says the new pope's official name is Pope Francis, without a Roman numeral.

Spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi sought to clear up any possible confusion, noting that Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, who announced the name to the world, said simply Francis. It is listed that way in the first Vatican bulletin on the new pope.

"It will become Francis I after we have a Francis II," Lombardi quipped.

Source: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/francis-without-roman-numeral Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Popes have traditionally always use an ordinal number. John Paul I was called that during his reign. The way it is announce on the balcony doesn't come into that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, they have NOT always used an ordinal number. John Paul I was a SPECIAL CASE, and he did it to acknowledge the previous use of the names John and Paul by the predecessors he was honoring by choosing a combined name. Please stop just repeating yourself and ignoring the facts that have been presented by others. wxwalsh 21:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
STOP THIS NONSENSE. A few minutes ago ABC Radio News was still spouting "Francis I". Just, please, go to the Vatican Web site. Get the information from the source instead of filtered through the unreliable press. — QuicksilverT @ 21:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Please don't shout and especially not in big red text :)  — Amakuru (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to lecture. Just putting the brakes on a runaway train. We have four separate threads going on this page, all about the same topic — namely moving the article — and nobody bothering to check authoritative sources or to scroll to the bottom of the thread before posting. — QuicksilverT @ 22:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SJ

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

Edit request on 13 March 2013

In the lead paragraph, please expand the following:

Francis is the first pope from outside of Europe in more than a millennium, the first from the Americas, and the first from the Southern Hemisphere.

To this:

Francis is the first pope from outside of Europe in more than a millennium, the first from the Americas, and the first from the Southern Hemisphere or the Western Hemisphere.

Articulant (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like tautology. The Americas are in the Western Hemisphere. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 20:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, he is the 265th successor to Peter, which means he is the 266th Pope... --151.27.46.185 (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. He's not the first from the Western Hemisphere. My fellow countryman Pope Adrian IV was certainly born in the Western Hemisphere, and may not have been the first either - there have been at least four others, since parts of France and Spain and all of Portugal are in the Western Hemisphere. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticity of twitter account

Have you verified that the account @JMBergoglio truly belongs to him? There are several twits in that account that would lead to believe it's a fake, and it's been used as the first reference in the article. forgot to sign EOZyo (мѕğ) 20:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the @Pontifex account is the more reliable source. It is the verified Twitter account of the Pope afterall. Xeltran (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I'm pointing it out because the above it's currently being used as first reference EOZyo (мѕğ) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do bear in mind if people haven't already WP:ELPEREN --wintonian talk 20:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the JMBergoglio twitter account should definitely not be linked in the article in any way until it's been confirmed as official (or perhaps it becomes notable enough to be mentioned here even if it's not official, which is unlikely). Even from a Google translation of some of the twitter messages I came to a similar conclusion to you. Nil Einne (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost certain it's fake: It contains outrageous statements and links to articles critical of himself with the hashtag #NoLoLean (Don't read it). Particularly amusing to this community: "Quiero que eliminen esto de Wikipedia" MarcusGraly (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lando

Think we should mention that he is the first Pope to take a completely new name since Lando in 914, John Paul was originally taken by combining the names of the previous 2 Popes as tribute to them.

(edit conflict) Agreed, that's really interesting. Although I think that can wait until the current massive streak of editing dies down and there are more secondary sources that discuss his name. Editing now is just begging for an edit conflict. Andrew327 21:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First non-white?

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

Non white??

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

This nonsense has been deleted. Mały koleżka (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! Absolutely needs to be deleted if it reappears. Moncrief (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congregations/council

now that he is pope, is he still technically a member of the congregations and the council listed in the article? Aunva6 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to military dictatorship 1976-83

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

Once the dust settles

Once the flurry of editing dies down, the article should be expanded with biographical details. I suggest:

  • More on his family, who his siblings are and what they do, parents alive or dead?
  • What high school he attended
  • Dates of graduations
  • Writings, usually cardinals have written articles, theses, things like that
  • More details on his duties in his various positions. Yes, these are linked to articles on those positions, but this is a very important article and people shouldn't have to click through. Additionally, he may have performed those duties with some personal flair.
  • Consensus opinion on why he was papabili in 2005 and in 2013.
  • Is he a moderate, a conservative, a mix?
  • Has he been elected as a caretaker or does he have an agenda?
  • Known health issues?

Does anybody have any details they would like added to the article? Abductive (reasoning) 20:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of anything outside the obvious, but I would like to remind people of the {{inuse}} tag. use it, respect it, help avoid conflicts on large edits. I had to go through at least six conflicts just to add the conclave to 'see also'. it would be frustrating to make a large edit, then have to redo it because of a conflict. Aunva6 (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Height and weight, perhaps? More of an athlete thing, but this guy is fairly tall. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
And a move back to Pope Francis I. Since popes always have ordinals. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't there enough sections about that on this page already? See List of popes for a bunch who don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Not elected on 7:06 PM

Francis wasn't elected on 7:06 PM, but 7:06 PM (local time) was the white smoke. This means the votes were already counted, so he was already elected. A native speaker asked to put this in a nice sentence. --Sanderd17 (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this detail even be relevant? Str1977 (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lede sentence re: languages

It really doesn't belong in the lead...., but where? --j⚛e deckertalk 21:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote required

This article needs a hatnote to Vicar of Christ (novel), because that is where Pope Francis I redirected until the present pope's name was announced and trafic stats show that it is consistently used[23]. Because of the page moving I've had to add it three times, so I'll add a note here so whomever moves it can fix it if it moves again. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article title Hatnote
Pope Francis {{redirect|Pope Francis I|the fictional pope in the 1979 Walter Murphy novel|Vicar of Christ (novel)}}
Pope Francis I {{for|the fictional pope in the 1979 Walter Murphy novel|Vicar of Christ (novel)}}
(edit conflict) I've just restored the hatnote again after it was removed for being "non-notable". As noted above, a redirect from Pope Francis I has been used to access the Vicar of Christ (novel) page since 2008, and traffic stats show it was in use for that purpose as recently as yesterday. Breaking long-standing links harms the project. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The statistics page you mention show that it is pretty much never used. 53 views in the past 60 days? And most of those probably weren't really looking for the vicar of christ character or were some kind of automated bot or something. This article, which will now become a top importance topic does not need a hatnote to an article that doesn't even share the same name. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's just silly. Dab notes are there to help readers getting to the right article. Nobody (0r less than 0.0001%) will be typing in Pope Francis I and be looking for that obscure novel. Having the hat note at the very top of this extremely prominent article, is just stupid and distracting to the readers. I'll remove it again. Shanes (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
53 views in 60 days is a very large amount for a redirect of that nature. Real people (bots are responsible for no more than 2-3 hits/month per just about every RfD where this topic is brought up, so about 4-6 in 60 days) have been using that link to reach the article for almost 5 years, why would they stop now? It would be on a dab page if there were other uses, but there aren't so it goes in a hatenote which does absolutely nothing to detract from the article. Restoring per standard practice. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such a weak standard would lead to endless disambiguation pages and useless hatnotes for obscure characters. Standard practice is not to include such worthless hatnotes which are often just advertising in disguise. Now, if the novel had been called "Pope Francis"? Sure, disambig link. But characters are a dime a dozen. SnowFire (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you describe as a "weak standard" is the one that exists by consensus, and is no more advertising than any other hatnote on Wikipedia is advertising. If the novel is notable enough for an article (a quick look suggests this has never been discussed) then the name of the central character of the novel is a likely search term. The standard for a redirect that is repeatedly endorsed at RfD is simply that it be a "plausible" search term. Obviously the actual pope is now the primary topic for the search term, which is why it was retargetted here and the non-primary topic gets a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SnowFire, please remember to assume good faith. No one is trying to "advertise" for anything. The link to the book existed long before the name Francis was even chosen. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And it detracts from the article by being the very first thing the readers sees when they just want to learn about the pope. Your dab link is just a character in an extremely obscure novel. Not worth it and it makes the article look silly. You have added it 6 times now, way passed the 3RR rule. Please stop it. Shanes (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds to me like you are arguing more about the use of hatlinks at all, rather than in this particular case. The standard seems to be MORE than met here for the hatlink, if you want the policy to be changed, then advocate that, don't try to implement a policy change in this way. I say put it back. wxwalsh 21:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Shanes: If you want to argue that hatnotes are "silly" or that they "detract from the article" then go and argue the policy at Wikipedia:Hatnote. This is the first occasion in about six years of editing that I've ever heard such a ridiculous assertion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not advocating a change of policy. The fact is that "Pope Francis I" in the context of the novel is entirely nonnotable. If you wrote an article about that character it wuold not survive. The novel itself is possibly not even notable - it has few incoming links and no references.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
notability isn't the issue here. User experience is. And obvious it HAS been being used, and I can speak from my own experience I often search for character names on wikipedia, and am sure I am not alone in that. The stats speak for it being used, consistently. That justifies it. wxwalsh 21:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Redirecting the names of characters to the works of fiction they appear in is encouraged because it discourages the creation of articles about topics that are notable only within the context of a larger subject. If you want to nominate the article for deletion go ahead (I didn't know about it before today), but neither having no references nor having few incoming links are reasons for deletion. As long as the article exists, the name of the central character is a very likely search term for it. If there are other uses of "Pope Francis" (I've not looked) then, depending on their number, they should either be added to the hatnote or a disambiguation page created and linked to from here.
Anyway, the central reason for that hatnote is that without it links have been broken, and that is a Bad Thing. I have asked at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation for additional input into this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hatnote is fine. Added a reference for the novel, a Princeton magazine review, describes it as a "bestseller." LCS check (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Google search shows other books having fictional Pope Francis. [24], [25], [26], [27] LCS check (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation dispute in section on Abortion, Euthanasia, and Contraception

Under the section "Abortion, Euthanasia, and Contraception," the citation from the Financial Times given in support of the passage "He supports the use of contraception to prevent the spread of disease" does not mention this point at all in the linked article. Uncertain of the provenance of this point, although it is certainly important to include if a different citation can be provided. The current citation is: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d9c465d8-8c08-11e2-b001-00144feabdc0.html

You should either remove such content or add {{failedverification}} immediately after it to give a statement this flag: [failed verification]. Adding the template is probably a better idea right now because there is so much editing taking place that removing and changing content could lead to edit conflicts or inadvertently choppy sections. Andrew327 21:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section now claims that "rumors suggest that Pope Francis would permit the use of contraceptives to prevent the spread of disease" and cites an article from the Guardian. Like the previous editor, though, I can't find any evidence of this in the cited article. --Aurrell (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section blanked on 8 March 2013

You can see it in the most recent edits of the offending user here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.180.76.19 S/he seems to have a history of various vandalism/blanking. Not sure what the protocol is for something like this as I stopped editing for a few years during university, but I thought I should bring it to attention. Davidmhaley (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted a level 2 warning on the user's talk page. There have only been two acts of vandalism in the past month, so no further action is needed. Andrew327 21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I guess I should have been more clear, I wasn't so much concerned with the user as the large chunk of (good?) information (section titled episcopacy) that was deleted and doesn't appear to have been re-added. I was going to undo the changes but it appears that is no longer an option after today's events.Davidmhaley (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS victims

"In 2001, he visited a hospice to kiss and wash the feet of twelve AIDS patients.[2]"

After repeated edit conflicts, I semi-accidentally deleted this from the homosexuality section (Semi- because the editor putting it in also put in the false claim about "gay rights movement" when the actual quote referred specifically to same-sex marriage.) The AIDS patients are probably notable BUT they don't sit well in that section since it is an overlapping but still distinct issue.

Str1977 (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend discussing the issue here at length before it ends up at ANI. What would you like that section to look like and what sources do you have to support that? Andrew327 21:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could have a separate section on AIDS, including the quote above and the contraceptives bit. Str1977 (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a sourced story that has no reason not to be included, if not in the homosexuality section then elsewhere. :Rarohla (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't hit straw-men. I said it was notable but not fitting for that section.
More importantly, will you stop blanket reverting and thereby reinserting other things as well. Francis most likely still "opposes" SSM (hence, not opposed) and he "has called" it "demonic". And "gay adoption" is a POV, contentious neologism which has no place here. Str1977 (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Adoption by homosexuals" is inaccurate. Not all in same-sex relationships are homosexuals (there are also bisexuals). Also, many homosexuals are not in same-sex relationships. He was talking about "adoption by same-sex couples". Can we change that?--В и к и T 21:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not title of "Pope Francis I"?

I realize of course that he's the first Pope Francis, but shouldn't the title of the article be his full title, Pope Francis I? Of course there'd be a redirect from Pope Francis to the article. Thoughts? Moncrief (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was announced by Vatican officials that he would only be called Francis I in case a Francis II would become pope. See list of popes where are single use names do not have the additional "I" (although Pope Lando is the last of those more than 1000 yrs ago) Arnoutf (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Somebody should put a "hidden" note (i.e., one of those notes only article editors see) in the article itself, because clearly this will come up again and again. Moncrief (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an editnotice. —Ruud 21:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When did he become a cardinal?

The article says he became a cardinal in 2001. This BBC source says he became a cardinal in 1998. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

News.va says 2001 also. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Official page of the Buenos Aires archbishopric says 2001 also [28] bcartolo (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masters degree?

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

I think it should be Pope Francis I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchical_ordinal#.22The_first.22

says:

"In some monarchies it is customary not to use an ordinal when there has been only one holder of that name. For example, Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom will not be called Victoria I until there is a Victoria II. This tradition is applied in the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Norway, and in the case of the queens regnant of the Netherlands. It was also applied in most of the German monarchies and in the Hungarian. In Sweden, the practice is not consistent, as Sigismund and Adolf Frederick never have ordinals, whereas Frederick I often does.

Other monarchies assign ordinals to monarchs even if they are the only ones of their name. This is a more recent invention and appears to have been done for the first time when King Francis I of France issued testoons (silver coins) bearing the legend FRANCISCVS I DE. GR. FRANCORV. REX. This currently is the regular practice in Belgium, Spain and Monaco (at least for Prince Albert I, as Princess Louise Hippolyte, who reigned 150 years earlier, does not appear to have used an ordinal). It was also applied in Brazil, Italy, Mexico, Montenegro, Portugal (where, although this is the general rule, Kings Joseph and Luís are usually referred to as "Joseph I" and "Luís I", although there were no Joseph II, nor Luís II) and by the Papacy under Pope John Paul I. The ordinal for King Juan Carlos I of Spain is used in both Spanish and English, but he is sometimes simply called King Juan Carlos of Spain in English. In Russia, use of "The First" ordinal started with Paul I of Russia. Before him, neither Anna of Russia nor Elizabeth of Russia had the "I" ordinal.

In Austria, Emperors Francis, Ferdinand, Francis Joseph and Charles all styled themselves as "the first" despite the fact that only Francis Joseph was the first Austrian ruler of that name (Francis was the second, Ferdinand the fifth, and Charles the fourth). This was due to the elevation of the title of the Austrian ruler from Archduke to Emperor.

The use of "The First" ordinal is also common to self-proclaimed ephemeral "kings" or "emperors", such as Dessalines, Christophe and Soulouque in Haiti, Iturbide in Mexico, Zog in Albania, Bokassa in Central African Republic, or the adventurer Boris Skossyreff in Andorra. In this case it is obvious that they want to emphasize the change of regime they pretend to introduce."

I have made the relevant passage bold. I know we can't use Wikipedia itself as a source, so there should be an outside secondary source. I do think this is a problem however. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion above. If there is some documentation from the church that "Francis I" is used, then we can follow suit. JPI was proclaimed "John Paul the First" in 1978, Francis hasn't been. Str1977 (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been settled already.....http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/13/cardinals-elect-new-pope/ no roman numeral, straight from the Vatican spokesperson. The official website says not to have one, and the long standing vatican practice says not to include one. Had he requested to be known with the ordinal, that would change things, as it did with John Paul I, but this issue is already LONG settled. wxwalsh 21:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
John Paul II specifically used an ordinal in his name so he wouldn't be mistaken with the previous Popes, either John or Paul. Every other Pope that used a specific name first used no ordinals. And also the Vatican's website states "Habemvs Papam Franciscus", with no ordinal. --Zimbabweed (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you have been answered on this point many times already, posting factually incorrect info, in other sections addressing this issue, why did you make a whole new section to bring it up again? wxwalsh 21:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
wxwalsh, I do think "long settled" aren't the right words to use here. We will see how this turns out and you may turn out to be on the right side of this when it is decided. John Paul I was the first pope since time immemorial to be a "the First". Precedent may mean something here. What the new pope wants however (and how can we be sure at this point) will probably decide this question. What is said on the balcony may not be all that significant. Zimbabweed, John Paul I used the ordinal during his short reign. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the Vatican spokesman to be a solid enough source to say "long settled" It would be extraordinary for him to elect to have the ordinal, John Paul I did it because his name choice was extraordinary as well, and needed to be made clear he was not the first John or the first Paul. wxwalsh 22:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
CNN Is reporting the Vatican clarified. It's just "Francis" not "Francis I". Gateman1997 (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first pope with children

Is he the first pope who has children? Railie May (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source? wxwalsh 22:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, he would be far from the first for that, even if it was true he has children wxwalsh 22:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Pretty sure not. Borgias etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is just an attempt to start or spread a rumour, but the answer is no in any case. See Category:Illegitimate children of popes. Hans Adler 22:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was reported on TV in Sweden that he has children. Railie May (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Falklands Islands position

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

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

Notable? That would be like the Brit's taking issue with a Pope from American who expressed support for the revolutionary army and their sacrifice. It's his home country, and his support of them is rather...well...non-notable. wxwalsh 22:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
You do realize that the majority of the Falkland Islands' residents reject Argentina's territorial claims, right? 144.92.249.238 (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relations with the Argentine government

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

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

Wikipedia servers use

The peak on the right.

Wikipedia servers use between yesterday and today. From 50,000 to 70,000 requests per second with habemus papam. emijrp (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics can be fun. The dips during the nights are much bigger than this peak, in spite of English Wikipedia likely being used all over the world. Railie May (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pope-elect Francis

Bergoglio isn't Pope (yet). According to this, U.S. VP Biden is going to be part of his country's delegation for the installation and it suggests the Vatican has said the Pope has not yet been installed.

Bergoglio is an old man. If he dies now he won't have been Pope. For example, Pope-elect Stephen was elected but died a few days later before being consecrated. He is not officially recognised as a Pope by the Vatican. Should he not be referred to as Pope-elect Francis in the title and should his article not reflect this technicality? If Bergoglio dies Wikipedia will have egg all over its face. --86.40.200.32 (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The move was premature. Let's wait until he is pope. --79.97.37.11 (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but he became pope the moment he said yes when asked if he accepted the position. See [this page. The bishops on the various network TV coverage said the same thing. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Lando

Request to add that Pope Francis is the first pope to choose an unused name since Pope Lando in 913.

dissertation

There is some confusion about whether or not he got a doctoral dissertation and from which German university, if any. Lets figure that out:

  • Radio Vatican said today in its [29] he "finished" his dissertation in Frankfurt Main in March 1986.
  • our friends on the German Wikipedia can't find that piece (which is by default required to be published under German law) but then there might be an exception for universities run by the chruch.
  • Perfil.com quotes him on 08/07/2012 with "..Terminar la tesis doctoral que dejé inconclusa, .."

and where does the Freiburg im Breisgrau claim come from?, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1262602-bergoglio-critico-a-los-que-no-tienen-en-cuenta-a-los-mas-pobres
  2. ^ Allen, Jr., John L. (March 3, 2013). "Papabile of the Day: The Men Who Could Be Pope". National Catholic Reporter. Retrieved March 13, 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Francis&oldid=543944272"