This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
He is also the first pope since Pope Lando, i.e., after a gap of eleven centuries, to adopt a new single-word name. Because "single-word name" is such a clunky phrase, I find that I focus on that and miss the point of the information, which presumably is that he's adopted a name that no other pope has adopted before, at least not since Pope Lando used a name no pope had used before him. Anyone want to take a stab at rewording this? (And maybe moving it down?) The opening paragraph of an article is not meant to be crammed full of information. It should be a concise introduction to the topic. "i.e." is also pretty clunky for an introductory paragraph. Moncrief ( talk) 15:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
"single-word name" was clear enough for me. Cardinal Luciani took the name "John Paul", as already noted, by taking the names of 2 immediate predecessors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 15:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This information is and was in the article already, under 3.1.1 "Choice of Name." I was just questioning the wording in the opening paragraph, which has been removed. Moncrief ( talk) 19:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It says he became auxiliary of Buenos Aires and later its archbishop. Left out is that in between, he was promoted to Coadjutor Archbishop, thus he succeeded to the see immediately when his predecessor left for any reason. There is a catholic-hierarchy web site which has his elevation to coadjutor (which since about 1970 ALWAYS means having right of succession). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 15:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Added that information! NDomer09 ( talk) 03:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
While I understand and share resentment of people over some of the new pope's previous statements on the subject of homosexuality, I deplore the abuse of written texts and references.
I deleted the words "demonic in origin" from the paragraph about his statements about homosexuality for the following reasons
The direct quotation of what the then cardinal actually did say is quite sufficient to indicate his stance.
Amandajm ( talk) 23:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I removed the following quote from the article. The Movih, a Chilean gay rights group, described the pope as a "promoter of hate toward social diversity and a model of homophobia and disdain for sexual minorities." [1]
Unless I am mistaken, the "Positions" section isn't really for commentary/analysis on his positions. A gay rights group calling him a model for homophobia pretty much flies in the face of him saying they should be respected. It would also seem a gay rights group has an agenda which is opposite to his. Let's stick to what we know he has said, and not try and introduce an agenda into this section. Someone also keeps rewriting it to try and gloss over any positive things he has said. That should not be acceptable. Stick to the facts. Xkcdreader ( talk) 18:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Xkcdreader ( talk) 19:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In line two of this paragraph, the word "to" appears twice - on of them needs to be deleted: "...legislation introduced in 2010 to to grant legal recognition...".
Funkytanki 15:44, 16 March 2013 (GMT+1)
The source states: "he strongly affirms church teaching on the intrinsic immorality of homosexual practices, though he teaches the importance of respecting homosexual persons."
Yet, you insist on rendering this source as: "yet has stated that "men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect and compassion". The Church has stated that homosexual desires or attractions are not themselves sinful."
Kindly refrain from portraying Pope Francis' begrudging concession that homosexual people are worthy of respect as the pinnacle of progressive thinking. He is a homophobe; not an egalitarian that is the poster child for the liberal cause.
Stop misleadingly synthesizing a vacuous Christian catechism with what the source discussing PF actually says, and comply with the self-evident policy, WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTACHURCH. The paragraph on PF's deplorable views on homosexuality is not an invitation for you to start propagating Catholic dogma. They are an unnecessary elaboration and are wholly unrelated to PF's personal views.
While there is a pack of immature children scampering between the pews of Wikipedia, it is still not a Catholic church, the article is not your pulpit, and its readers should not have to tolerate your abuse. Juddhoward ( talk) 00:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Juddhoward, your approach to editing Wikipedia, and to "discussing" your edits with other Wikipedians, can probably be optimized. You are less, not more, likely to get your way if you go about calling other people homophobes or other terms of endearment that no doubt you intend as insults.
The pope being a "homophobe" is of no more consequence for our purposes than the pope being an arachnophobe, or a hypobaropath unless it can be shown that it is of sufficient notability. I hate to break it to you, but more than 90% of heterosexuals are "homophobes" by your definition, just as >90% of people are arachnophobes. Still we don't spend our days obsessing over spiders, and therefore we don't go about adding "arachnaphobia sections" to most biographical articles. Now a member of the Catholic clergy, whether they are actual homophobes, closet homosexuals, or both, or neither, have an obligation to at least nominally follow biblical and church teaching about homosexual acts, so taking a doctrinal stance on the matter isn't nearly enough to prove they suffer from any kind of "phobia".
I have seen no source substantiating that the pope suffers from such a "phobia" or "irrational fear of and/or repulsion by" homosexuality, as opposed to a mere doctrinal condemnation, as he would condemn gluttony. If a member of clergy condemns the sin of gluttony, you wouldn't feel compelled to call him anorexic, or as suffering form an food-themed phobia, no? A bishop campaigning against same-sex marriage is just doing his job. You can like or dislike his job, but you certainly cannot act surprised. You can reject religion as a whole, or just all religions which condemn homosexuality (which would basically cover all religions founded before 1960 or so), but you certainly cannot attack individual representatives of such religions for representing the societal ideals of their chosen religion. -- dab (𒁳) 12:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I just noticed that it says "Kirtchner", instead of "Kirchner", in the "Abortion, euthanasia, birth control, and the elderly" section. SergioPFloyd ( talk) 02:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
In the section Early Life, the words "masters' degree" should be changed to "master's degree". In the subsection Relations with the Argentine government, the words "Nobel peace prize" should be changed to "Nobel Peace Prize". -- 190.19.81.137 ( talk) 06:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
We should add a section on Pope Francis's teaching on the role of the Church. Comments such as the below help to understand all of his other teachings:
"The Christian sees the Church as the Body of Christ, as the vessel that guards with absolute integrity the deposit of faith, as the faithful Spouse who communicates without addition or subtraction all that Christ entrusted.... The Church as a fully “sanctified” reality and capable of receiving and of comunicating – without error or defect, from its own poverty and even with its own sins –the full sanctity of God, is not a “complement” or an “institutional addition” to Jesus Christ, but a full participation of his Incarnation, of His Life, of His Passion, death and Resurrection.... In defending its purity, its indefectibility, its sanctity as the bride, the Church is defending the “place” through which the gift of the life of God passes on to the world and the gift of the life of the world to God. This gift – the fullest expression of which is the Eucharist –is not another gift among ourselves but the supreme gift of the most intimate life of the Trinity that poured forth for the life of the world and the life of the world assumed by the Son that is offered to the Father." English: http://jmgarciaiii.blogspot.com/search?q=bergoglio Original Spanish: http://www.arzbaires.org.ar/inicio/homilias/homilias2008.htm#49%BACongresoEucar%EDsticoInternacional
This understanding of the Church as indefectible and the guardian of the deposit of faith is a key to understanding all of his teachings because it shows that he will not change--indeed sees it as impossible to change--the defined doctrines of the Church. So these quotations will really help the page. 71.11.216.57 ( talk) 15:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
On his becoming a Jesuit we mention he "began his studies". We do not say where. Generally we specify locations people were educated. This seems to be a major hole in the coverage of hte article, not detailing the location of his education as a Jesuit. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I came across a source that mention Pope Francis creating new parishes while he was archbishop and some other things. I think this is an area we really lack good coverage of. The internal policy decision he made as archbshop seem to have gotten short coverage in this article, even with my short addition. It would seem logical to make statements about what he did for the last 14 years as Archbishop. This involved more than relations with the government, it involved internal changes. I also wonder if we could find a source that would say more about the nature of the new parishes he created. I would not be surprised to learn such efforts put parishes closer to the slums, based on what some other sources have said, but the one source that actually mentioned it, said nothing substantive about it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
In the Washington Post HERE, we read: "In one of his last acts as head of the Argentinian Catholic bishops’ conference, last year Bergoglio issued a collective apology for the church’s failure to protect its flock."
We need details on this. Date. What the statement said. Francis' role in it and comments upon its release. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 16:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph on this on the bottom of the secion on government relations while bishop. The only source I have so far is mention in the Jesuit biography here [1]. I did read through the article on Abortion in Argentina and got the impression that those reforms may not have been acted on, although I mainly got the impression the issue was drawn out over a long time frame. Since that article refers to Nestor Kirtchner as if he is alive, and he died in 2010, it is clearly not the most up to date statement on the topic. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is a quote from a Catholic News Service article on Bergoglio's influence in Argentina. "Since becoming archbishop of Buenos Aires in 1998, Cardinal Bergoglio has created new parishes, restructured the administrative offices, taken personal care of the seminary and started new pastoral projects, such as the commission for divorcees. He has mediated in almost all social or political conflicts in the city; the newly ordained priests are described as "the Bergoglio generation"; and no political or social figure misses requesting a private encounter with him. "
It is from this article [2] which pre-dates his election as Pope. I am not sure how to best integrate this information into our article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The new section "Episcopacy" handles this well. Nice job! Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Papacy section, it says:
"He was inspired to take the name Francis by the cardinal sitting next to him at the conclave, who after his election whispered to him: "don't forget the poor".
But there is no source attached to it.
So here's a story from CNN today that fully verifies the content. Please attach it.
Please note, though, that the CNN story indicates that he actually received the advice from the Brazilian cardinal before he was elected, not "after his election" as the article incorrectly states. The CNN story says:
"a fellow cardinal from Brazil had told him "don't forget the poor" as the votes stacked up in his favor. This thought stuck in his mind, Francis said, as it became clear that he had won the two-thirds majority that meant he was the new pontiff."
So for complete accuracy, per the source, here is my suggested new version:
"As it was becoming clear during the conclave voting that he would be elected the new pontiff, he was insprired to take the name Francis - after Saint Francis of Assisi - by a cardinal from Brazil who said "don't forget the poor" to him."[CNN cite]
Thanks. -- 76.189.111.2 ( talk) 17:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I was looking at the category Pope John Paul II and noticed we have a seperate article on John Paul II's health. I was wondering though, in part because of the inclusion of mention of the controversy over Biden and Pelosi going to the inagural mass, if maybe we should split the article into two articles. Article 1 would be a bio of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, probably still with the Pope Francis name, but it would be about his life, positions, thought, and pre-Papal career. Article 2 would be about his time as Pope and probably include a brief biographical summary, but since it would be about his administration as Pope, it would allow for discussion of controversies about attendance at his inaguaral mass. I am not sure there is any precedent for doing this with Popes, but we do Presidency of George W. Bush so there is some precedent for such. It might not be justified here, but I think it is worth at least considering. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
This quote "“Spiritual worldliness … is the church’s worst sin,” he said in an interview with Italian daily La Stampa during the October 2012 Synod on New Evangelization, when he called on the church to “go out from itself towards the outskirts.”" from this [3] Religious News Service article makes me wonder if some mention of Pope Francis' participation in this conference last October might be worth including in the article. There might be other things worth mining from that article as well. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I added a statement about this with this Feb. 12, 2002 article for Chiesa on Bergoglio 2002 article as a source. I am not really sure if I have either put it in the best place, or captured the essence of what the article says on the matter. I also started an article on Jerónimo José Podestá, although it could benefit a lot from someone finding some more indepth Spanish sources. I am not sure there is much worth saying about Podesta in this article. He is a key figure in the claims of some people who are clearly out of line with the Vatican, but it is unclear that Podesta ever agreed with the actions of some of these other people, and it is even less clear that Bergoglio's kindness to Podesta was meant to in any way endorse his actions. Podesta is at some level a celebrant of people with Fringe views, and I am not sure even the article as I created it gives adequate weight to various understandings of Podesta. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks in advance. -- 190.19.81.137 ( talk) 22:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Done Thanks for the corrections. With regards, Iselilja ( talk) 22:50, 16 March 2013 (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)
There seems to be a discussion about what skincolour the Pope have, it goes on on different sections on this talkpage, so I have gathered this interesting (?) discussion here. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 17:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
We should stay away from "vague" words like "white" and "black" and such, because it really doesn't say anything important, and people have varying definitions of what it entails (i.e. is President Barack Obama "black" if his father has East-African roots and his mother has European-American roots?). It would be much more specific and clear to say this man was born in Argentina and is of Italian ancestry. If we have more specific information (i.e. his parents were born in Italy) that can be added as well. Scipio Carthage ( talk) 02:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what he is not, you should care about who he his. Why the need to classify people by their ethnic origin? Why should we care? He si the Pope. Jesus was Jew and non white. Ethnic classification is a tool for discrimination.
His parents were Italian immigrants to Argentina. Italian still counts as white, guys.
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)
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:
I hope it isn't an editor that broke trust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.38.173 ( talk) 05:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
See the picture ... not white? that racist!! my god!!-- 186.62.185.205 ( talk) 03:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I am wondering if the controversy around Biden and Pelosi going to the inaugural mass relly belongs in a biography of Francis? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
This "controversy" does not merit coverage in a biographical entry. File it with "Falklands War". Bmclaughlin9 ( talk)
Given that English Wikipedia is not written for ″ Americans″ only, but also for ″non-American″ speaking people, care should be taken when assuming this kind of things.-- Jetstreamer Talk 22:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Why do we have a quick mention up to his ordination in the early life section, and then have a much more comprehseive discussion of his education in the pre-Papal career section? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Since the announcement of the election results, a very small number (less than 200) of South American priests, as well as some children of Argentinean criminals, including rapists and murderers, have been telling lies to many newspapers throughout Europe and North America about Pope Francis. Most of these people are admitted or suspected Communists. I believe Wikipedia editors have a responsibility to protect this article from editing until further notice.
I lived in Buenos Aires during that time and I can confirm that Archbishop Bergoglio took the bus. [Preceding comment by unknown editor]
I was scolded on my Talk page for removing some obvious vandalism from the summary of this entry, specifically this sentence from the end of the first paragraph:
Here what ended up on my Talk page:
Your "rvv" edit summary
Just to let you know, I found your blanket revert and the "rvv" edit summary rude and abusive. [4] Please respect Principles of Wikipedia etiquette next time. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 22:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hah! It was vandalism pure and simple and you know it. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 22:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- The story is all over the news. I was trying to help those readers who might be concerned about what they learn via tweets and blogs about the latest Onion webcast. However, recognizing a reliable source (such as the one I provided), or reading stuff online might not be your thing and I understand. All I ask is that you respect Wikipedia policy/guidelines. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 23:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- You put trivia in the summary portion of an encyclopedic entry and wrote it in such a way as to be extremely POV. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 23:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have no idea who you are, but I want you to know that your behavior leaves much to be desired. I've been around much longer than you have, and I know what building the encyclopedia means. Go read for yourself, http://www.theonion.com/video/pope-francis-resigns,31660/ (and skip the commercial). Poeticbent talk 23:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hah! Then why not take this discussion to the entry's Talk page? Never mind, I've done that. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 23:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 23:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Poeticbent, you apparently meant well, but your edit was ill-advised, and your reaction to its removal too, and enough people have told you as much, please deal with it. It is not the job of the Pope Francis article to inform the public that The Onion is a parody news site. -- dab (𒁳) 08:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
That isn't vandalism at all. Calling something vandalism that isn't vandalism is bad. Inappropriate information added in good faith isn't vandalism. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) [1] 12:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
In the section Early life, the words "Escuelas Técnicas N° 27" should be replaced with "Escuela Nacional de Educación Técnica N° 27" which is the correct name of the institution Pope Francis attended. The corresponding source in the article mentions the initials E.N.E.T, meaning "Escuela Nacional de Educación Técnica", which is a common acronym used for Argentine schools that offer a technical-oriented curriculum. Thank you. -- 190.19.81.137 ( talk) 05:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to update the photo to one of Pope Francis as pope, rather than as a cardinal? Perhaps one from his election night or his meeting with the media yesterday morning. 149.150.237.56 ( talk) 07:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Brian 3/17/13
"In 2007, just two days after Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum, Cardinal Bergoglio was one of the first bishops in the world to respond by instituting a Tridentine mass in Buenos Aires.[30][31] It was celebrated weekly.[32]"
In the subsection Episcopacy, the word "breakfast" is spelt as "breakfest". -- 190.19.88.16 ( talk) 16:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
And has since been removed. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
While it is in the source referenced, perhaps we need a better source for the house of ill repute bit? Pol098 ( talk) 20:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/540986_361609713955044_1363401099_n.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railie May ( talk • contribs) 23:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Is the coat of arms that of the cardinal or of the pope? The second would seem to have been completed very quickly.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The coat of arms in the infobox is just a supposition because the Pope did not create it yet. Most likely it will be similar to his cardinal COA, but it will different for many elements. For istance, you used the tiara on it, but some Popes (e.g. Benedictus XVI) used the mitre instead. So far, that coat of arms is a original research. -- Chessstoria (3 s) (All your base are belong to us) 13:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone been able to find a picture of Pope Francis' papal coat of arms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsepe ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
He doesn't have one yet, don't you imagine he will be occupied with other concerns over the next few days? The article can just show the coa he used as cardinal for the time being. -- dab (𒁳) 12:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The Papal Coat of Arms now appears at the Vatican website. Mix between Benedict's and Bergoglio as cardinal. See http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/index.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.213.246.134 ( talk) 13:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The coat of arms currently shown in the infobox is just a conjecture and therefore original research (it's a combination of Cardinal Berdoglios CoA and the external elements of Pope Benedicts XVI CoA). I therefore removed it from the infobox. Gugganij ( talk) 16:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that the article has again been accessed to Class B. I intend to return it to Class C. It is currently lacking in several aspects, including content. Still a number of citations that need to be made and stylistically it falls short. Premature to assess this as B. This article is obviously going to get a lot of work over the weeks ahead and I have no doubt that it will be ready for B status then, but right now it falls short. Safiel ( talk) 18:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
These are the six criteria for B-class (full details here]:
It looks to me like the article now meets all six criteria, and should be reassessed as "B" class. If there is disagreement on this, please cite the specific criterion or criteria not met, and explain, at least a bit, regarding the deficiency. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I know that this article was downgraded from B class to C class early on because it still needed some missing citations and there were still some disputes going on about basic facts. However, I personally think the article is excellent at this point. Is it possible for someone to review the rating? Additionally, I am a little surprised that some groups are rating the article "Top Importance," some "High Importance," and some "Mid-Importance." I am surprised that an article on the current Pope could be anything less than "Top Importance." I'm curious to know if others agree or disagree.... NearTheZoo ( talk) 13:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Currently the article says this happened in 1969, making him 32-33, but sources I'm finding seem to suggest it was earlier. Bloomberg reports 21, which fits in with others which say he was in his youth. Any thoughts? Paul MacDermott ( talk) 15:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Several references already included in the article say it occurred when he was 21, and one explicitly states it occurred in 1957, which would indeed have been when he was 21 (current footnote 13: "Jorge Bergoglio, un sacerdote jesuita de carrera [Jorge Bergoglio, a career Jesuit priest]" (in Spanish). La Nación. 13 March 2013. "he graduated from industrial secondary school E.N.E.T. Nº 27 "Hipólito Yrigoyen" with the qualification of chemical technician, then started religious studies at the age of 21, having decided to become a priest"). All of the statements in the article should be corrected to state that it occurred in 1957. I don't think any of the references actually state it occurred in 1969. Tinman44 ( talk) 17:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the corrections Tinman44 ( talk) 19:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Nowhere in the two articles provided is said that this tissue was removed in 1969. I had marked this as unsourced but someone deleted the tag. I'm reinstating the {{ fact}} tag.-- Jetstreamer Talk 22:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
This is the same as topic #26 above. It occurred in 1957. See #26 above. Thanks. Tinman44 ( talk) 17:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I added Principal Co-Consecrators of Pope Francis as Bishop Emilio Ogñénovich and Ubaldo Calabresi with reference from catholic-hierarchy.org and news.va but some one changed it to Mario José Serra and es:Eduardo Mirás based on aicaold.com.ar.
What actually happened was, Then-Father Bergoglio was consecrated as a bishop along with Bishop Raúl Omar Rossi on the very same day 27 Jun 1992 by Antonio Quarracino as their principle Consecrator. Both of them were the new Auxiliary Bishops of Buenos Aires.
Now in the same ceremony all four bishops, Emilio Ogñénovich, Ubaldo Calabresi, Mario José Serra and es:Eduardo Mirás participated as Principal Co-Consecrators. As it is the custom all four of them would have placed their hands on both Bergoglio and Omar Rossi. The problem now is that since the law requires to have at-least two Co-Consecrators both Bergoglio and Omar Rossi were given two Co-Consecrators each from the four. So I think that the names in the official records must reflect in the article.
(P.S: Also one more problem with the contradicting source is that Archbishop Mirás was not an archbishop at the time. He was named to Rosario about 1.5 years after the consecration of Pope Francis) -- Jayarathina ( talk) 17:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
AICA's new site has the information you supplied. You can see it HERE. I will make the change. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 18:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Today during the Angelus pope francis gave more detail why he chose his name: his ties with italy, in fact saint francis is the patron of italy. Here a source for that: The former Buenos Aires archbishop, whose father emigrated from Italy's northwestern Piedmont region, said he chose to name himself after St Francis of Assisi because of his "spiritual ties with this land". This is not a trivia: there was many discussions in the church (and probably during the conclave) if the new pope should be italian or not. So, in a way, the new pope is saying: well, i am not italian, but i pay a tribute to italy choosing that name. To me this fact is worth citing in the choice of name section. -- Chessstoria (3 s) (All your base are belong to us) 14:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessstoria ( talk • contribs)
It doesn't sound to me like a reason he chose the name exactly. He's describing an effect of his choice, and he has already explained the inspiration for that choice at the moment it was made. Others, I realize, may differ. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 16:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Here [6] is a Deseret News article by Matthew Brown, reporting statements by Francis and analysis by others on why he chose his name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I deleted a section about relations to "other Christian communities," noting that I would like to bring the issue to the talk page. The section was:
This is a section about a statement that is disputed -- and which here, Primate Venables notes was not written for publication, that "the conversation was in 2009 and did not imply that the Ordinariate was either temporary or an error, merely that the speaker values the Anglican Church as it is".
Seems to me that this one sentence disputed-statement doesn't add anything to the already included statement about positive relations between Bergoglio and the Anglican religious community.
I'll leave the final decision to others, but I think it should remain deleted. It's ultimately insignificant, I think. Thanks! NearTheZoo ( talk) 17:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Today the newspaper Clarin released a speciall issue on Pope Francis, the digital version of it should be here. I do have a phisycall copy of it, and in page 8 there's an interview with Carlos Hickethier, director of the Hickethier-Bachmann Laboratory, where Bergoglio worked. I for one can't access the digital version of it, so here's my rough translation of the relevant section:
The company was founded in 1923. 30 years later, one of their employess was Jorge Bergoglio, who already had his degree as a chemical technician. He worked at the morning shift, from 7 to 13. His superior was Esther Balestrino Careaga, Paraguayan, who'd be abducted by the Navy years later (See page 19) "Jorge dealt with controlling the raw materials for the products. He was at the Foods section. He must have been in the Lab up until the year 1956. He was very religious already [...]" Hickethier comments, who knew him in the 1950s.
There's also a second piece, on the relation of Bergoglio and Esther Balestrino Careaga:
In the 1950s Jorge Bergoglio was a chemical technician and she, Esther Balestrino Careaga, Licenciate in Chemistry, was her superior. They both worked at the Hickethier-Bachmann Laboratory, at Arenales and Azcuenaga, in Buenos Aires. [...] Bergoglio dealt with Foods, doing bromatologic tests on samples sent by companies to check their products.
This article does mention their mutual friendship, and how Bergoglio hid her communist literature during the dictatorship. She was eventually abducted and killed in one of the death flights. In 2005 he authorized her-reburial in the Santa Cruz church, in Buenos Aires. This part's mentioned here: http://www.clarin.com/mundo/Bergoglio-entierro-Madres-Plaza-Mayo_0_884311627.html
The company does have a website under a different name, ELAI S.C.A., http://www.elaisca.com.ar/, but it does list Carlos Hickethier as a member of the board; no mention of the pope there, yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.112.133.83 ( talk) 19:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The infobox says he is has Vatican citizenship. Is there a source for that? How and when did he acquire it? Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 11:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Apparently it's so "obvious" that some say Italian as well and another refers to cardinals living in Rome, which he has never been. I also love that NBC phrase: "technically, if not actually". Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 13:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I have created yesterday an entry for El jesuita, the first biography of Bergoglio by Sergio Rubin, edited in 2010. Considering the circumstances, I guess that it won't be published just in Argentina, and there should be projects around to translate it to English. If you ever find information about that, please add it to the article. I realize that Argentine media may be slanted towards the Argentine perspective of things, and may omit such a detail. Cambalachero ( talk) 12:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Again in "Relations with the Argentine government section", "As bishop" subsection, the reference given for the sentence: "During his time as archbishop, Cristina Fernández rejected 14 requests for meetings by Bergoglio.[65]( 1)" does not back the purpoted claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.111.219.140 ( talk) 17:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
In the article is says "in 1980 he was named the rector of the seminary in San Miguel". However we mention that Francis was educated first at Colegio Maximo San Jose and then later at Facultades de Filosofia y Teologia de San Miguel, both of which if I am understand everything correctly were seminaries in San Miguel. We might want to be more clear in this line so it is clear which Fancis was rector of. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Per the Jerusalem Post article and mentions earlier in this article, the book quoted in the inter-faith dialogue section was not written by Francis. Either he had more of a role in writting it, and the earlier mention needs to be revised to reflect this, this is a quote from a statement and he should not be said to have written it, or he was a co-author, and even then he probably should not be portrayed as the sole author. There seems to be a need for some sort of revision. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Should this information be added? It seems very interesting. -- 190.19.100.28 ( talk) 21:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
Hey, somebody noticed us: [7]. I think the preponderance of the evidence at this point is that the masters degree is probably the result of an error or mistranslation that got repeated by moderately reliable sources. Perhaps it would be a good idea to move the sentence to a footnote for now? Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 20:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I haven't been satisfied by either translation of the cardinal's motto I've seen so far on this page, although I readily admit it is tricky to render in English. To put it in context, it alludes to a line from the Venerable Bede, Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum, et quia miserando atque eligendo vidit, ait illi, Sequere me, which means, "And so Jesus saw the publican, and since he saw with pity and love, he said to him, Follow me." The reference is to Christ's calling of Saint Matthew. Here I've translated miserando atque eligendo as "with pity and love", although "love" does not quite do eligendo justice. I could just as easily translated the motto as "with pity and discernment" or "with pity and selection", although these would, I think, lose the original impact of the Latin. The Latin has a definite verbal quality to it. ("He sees by pitying and choosing.") The word eligendum is a Latin gerund; it is cognate with the English word and concept of Election (Christianity). Rwflammang ( talk) 02:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I've seen it translated as "Lowly (or Unworthy) but Chosen." Any thoughts on that? [1]
Бегемот ( talk) 13:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
It should be noted that "Miserando atque eligendo" was his motto as a cardinal. That does not mean it will also be his papal motto. 198.160.135.100 ( talk) 21:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry everyone, but individual editors conjecturing on the intended translation of the pope's episcopal motto the motto is simply WP:Original Research. We have to stick with the English translation that is widely used in verifiable sources such as official church documents and reports in the media, where the motto is translated as "Lowly, yet chosen." [11] 5-HT8 ( talk) 00:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
hi everyone! I have no knowledge of Latin whatsoever. Am I still allowed to tell everyone what I think the best translation is? Because I have some thoughts about what I think the sentence I don't understand means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.17.89 ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 16 March 2013
For what it's worth, the news sources don't have consensus yet. The AP renders it as "Having had mercy, he called him"; Catholic News, similarly, "because he saw him through the eyes of mercy and chose him." I don't think we should use the dubious translation "lowly but chosen", when there's disagreement in the press. (Has the Vatican offered an official English translation in any of its sources?
In the infobox, an editor rendered the motto "with pity and with choice". The source seems to be the editor's own translation of a news source in the Italian; I think this falls afoul of WP:OR, since the issue here is how to translate the phrase, and we're relying on an editor's own translation (and worse yet, a translation of a translation, Latin to Italian to English). Also, in the body of the text, someone reverted the translation back to "lowly but chosen", even though the linked source translates it differently. I'm going to remove both of those--reporters have translated the phrase in various ways, there doesn't seem to be consensus yet. -- Narsil ( talk) 01:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The copyright declaration says "own work". The pic ( added here) is a good quality close-up from the press audience on 16 March. So the photo must have been taken by a professional press photographer in attendance. AGF, but is it normal for a professional press photographer to upload their work on major current news event to Commons for everyone to use for free? I don't know much about Commons and how the copyright declarations are checked, but maybe someone who does could confirm everything is fine. DeCausa ( talk) 20:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
We now have just this coverage of Argentine rection to his election:
Should we privilege Argentine reaction in this way? Should there be wider coverage of reaction than this or....? Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not a fight I want to drag on and on, but why is it controversial that Francis is non-European? If he had been born and grew up in the USA under the exact same set of circumstances (Italian-born father, Italian-American mother), no one would question for a moment that he was non-European. (See my Dean Martin analogy above.) There's something about Argentina that some people seem not to get... the vast majority of people are of non-mestizo European background. That doesn't make them any less Argentine (and therefore non-European), though, then a European-heritage American is an American (and therefore non-European). Moncrief ( talk) 23:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not controversial that he's "non-European" by some, arbitrarily chosen definitions strictly focusing on cartography and its modern borders. But it's anachronistic to portray him as somehow having more in common with someone from Syria, than with people from eg. Italy or Germany or Poland. Syria was once part of the Roman Empire and the traditional cultural realm of christianity, and considering it "non-European" (as opposed to eg. Greek or southern Italian) in this context is really ahistorical too, because it was the same mediterranean region and Christianity started in the Middle East. Large parts of modern Tyrkey (in "Asia" as we understand it today) were once core Greek areas where European civilization was born, but describing a Greek person from those areas as "Asian" or "non-European" is just silly. Francis was born to two Italian parents and is 100% European/Italian by other definitions such as ethnicity. Choosing one definition like this only produces a small piece of trivia and a very pointless comparison between an Italian who was born in Argentina in the 20th century, and an Assyrian in the 8th century who was born in what was then the enormous Umayyad Caliphate and what was formerly a Roman area. Mocctur ( talk) 01:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
No, "European" is ambiguous. It can be used to mean someone who is descended from people from Europe. The wording could be something like "the first Pope from outside of Europe" (in x number of years).
Yes, the world was different in Roman times, but to imply the Empire was a homogenuous whole is false. The Eastern Empire was Greek-speaking, with a cosmopolitan Hellenic culture which had strong Eastern influences. Christianity itself was quite foreign to Roman (and Greek) civilisation when it emerged. It is very hard to talk of "Western civilisation" when taking the historical long view. To some extent this is trivial, and it is not very meaningful to make comparisons over such a wide arc of history. However, it is relevant to say that the Popes in ancient and medieval times were more representative of the "national" background of church membership than in modern times, where they have largely been Italian. The change to choosing a Polish Pope, then a German, then an Argentine, is certainly significant. I don't think the article as it stands captures that.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Now maybe a good time to talk about the photos in the article. In all good articles there should not be to many or to little. But what kind of photos do we need? I have put a photo of the pope as cardinal in, and I think it would be nice to have some of him as Provincal and even as a young man. But right now there is no one at Wiki Commons.
On the other hand I personally cant see how photos of jewish and muslim holy places have any need to be in this article. The two that are in the article no has no special connection to the Pope, they are simply holy places for Jews and Muslims in Argentina. Are they really needed?
If the article lacks pictures I would think that a painting of Saint Francis was more relevant, I have put one in the article to show what that could be. It has great connection to the Pope and his what he want to do in office.
But what do you think, what would be a good photo policy for this article? Jack Bornholm ( talk) 14:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The current title of this section does not match its contents. It is all related to his postion on same-gender marriage. Either we should include statements about his positons more broadly, or we should retitle the section to reflect its actual content. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree, but only in part. The point is relevant to Francis' approach to this and other issues. That people have noticed a change of tone doesn't doesn't strike me as a very opinionated statement. I think some of the language does tend to "hammer home" that point, so I'll remove the unnecessary "which was criticized by rights groups and politicians, including the President of Argentina,[154]", which, as they say, goes without saying, and isn't the point. Hope this helps. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 21:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC) And then I edited it still more: "learned from their failed campaign" was also unnecessary underlining. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 21:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The lead doesn't remotely comply with WP:LEAD (and is anyway too short per WP:LEADLENGTH). Topics that need to be covered (since they are covered in the article) are:- relations with Argentine government; relations with other religious communities; and teachings. Less clear structurally, but probably also need to be covered is something about what, so far, is known about his his style of papacy: the reasons for his adopting "Francis", less pomp, etc DeCausa ( talk) 21:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that someone did a live edit removing the information about having a teenage girlfriend. I think it is relevant enough to merit one sentence and a reference of 2. edit differences. >> M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 18:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
This article [15] contains this quote "In last year's address, Bergoglio said Argentina was being harmed by demagoguery, totalitarianism, corruption and efforts to secure unlimited power: a strong message in a country whose president has ruled by decree and left scandals unpunished." That would seem to be relevant to the relationship with the government section. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe you can find the original Spanish text of this address. Wasn't it the national holiday May 25? Here's 2012
The whole site is worth exploring: http://www.aica.org/d Go to Documentation, Bishops, etc. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 19:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I linked to the source. Are you saying you have a problem with that, 190.111.219.140? Excuse me for trying to help. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
John Pack Lambert: The lack of such language or anything remotely like in the document I linked to is perplexing, no? Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
As pointed in the article, it was the speech of 2004 the one that caused the childish reaction of the government. Still, it's a bit exaggerated to say that they were "rivals", actually, the Kirchner saw him as a rival, which is not quite the same thing. That's just their own paranoia: they see rivals and enemies everywhere. Other heads of state, politicians of other parties, politicians of other lines within their own party, justice, congress, union leaders, press, NGOs, even artists... anyone who is not a mindless zombie bowing to the will of the perfect president, is deemed as a traitor of the nation and attacked with all the resources of the state, including the network of propaganda outlets. Bergoglio was simply just another one who said something that Kirchner did not like. But he was not a rival, for the same reason that it is not correct to think that the Kirchners are innocent victims of an evil world turned against them. Cambalachero ( talk) 21:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
In "Relations with the Argentine government" section, "As bishop" subsection, it reads "The Kirchnerist regime", which is a biased wording, implying some kind of dictatoresque illegitimate government. Instead, the President was reelected on 2011 with mora than 55% of the voting on the first round. Please, change this wording to "The Argentine government" or "Kirchner's government" or something of the like. Thanks.
Well, it was one "dictatorial regime" that Bergoglio had no trouble standing up to.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 05:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
What was baseless about the claim?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 11:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I had placed that his inauguration (or installation) mass would be on the 19th. It happened as scheduled. I am wondering why this was removed since this is the ceremonial start of the papacy and the mass itself is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page? John Paul II and Benedict XVI both mention this event as part of their papacy for comparison. >> M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 10:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The name in Italian (Francesco) is irrelevant, particularly in the first sentence. If anything, the name in Latin is primary; the rendering in English is relevant in an English-language encyclopaedia, though English first makes sense. I make this comment for consideration, and won't edit. Conceivably it might be relevant to include a list of renderings in different languages somewhere in the text. According to languages of Vatican City the Holy See's language is Latin; Vatican City publishes laws and regulations in Italian. Pol098 ( talk) 15:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
The accusations stem only from ONE SOURCE, Horacio Verbitsky's (with a past history as a leftist guerrilla, hence probably also a biased source) books "El Silencio", upon which the media draw conclusions of their own. Before attacking the person more inforamation needs to be obained, instead of basing it on one source and (parhaps biased) jounalists that draw upon it.
Hey, not really sure how this wikipedia thing works but I wanted to point out that down at the bottom of The Guardian's article is what amounts to a retraction.
Currently it states he dismissed the two Jesuits "just prior to their disappearance." This is not true. Both were Jesuits at the time of their arrest. One, Jalics, still is a Jesuit. The other left after he was released. If they were professed Jesuits, the provincial could not dismiss them, it would take the Jesuit general. See http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/francis-jesuits-and-dirty-war RCSJ ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
For proof that Jalics is still a Jesuit, see his statement that is headed "Stellungnahme von P. Franz Jalics SJ." The "SJ" after his name means he is a Jesuit. RCSJ ( talk) 23:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
AP says "Both men were freed after Bergoglio took extraordinary, behind-the-scenes action to save them — including persuading dictator Jorge Videla's family priest to call in sick so that he could say Mass in the junta leader's home, where he privately appealed for mercy." See http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/pope-francis-biography-key-facts-life-in-latin-america-and-background-88818_Page3.html RCSJ ( talk) 22:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The bio states incorrectly that Jalics lives in German a monastery. Jesuits do not live in monasteries. It should be Jesuit community or Jesuit retreat house. For proof that Jalics is a Jesuit, see his statement that is headed "Stellungnahme von P. Franz Jalics SJ." The "SJ" after his name means he is a Jesuit. RCSJ ( talk) 23:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Footnote 49 lacks a reference to its source: "Trotskystfraction Fourth International" or "PTS Partido de los Trabajadores Socialistas." RCSJ ( talk) 23:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The comment, "There appears to be no outside confirmation for this," seems rather gratuitous since no other assertions are so qualified. RCSJ ( talk) 23:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
The Journalist Horacio Vervitsky has written several articles about this matter. They are all reunited on this link:
http://www.taringa.net/posts/noticias/5189962/Bergoglio-Dictadura-e-Iglesia---Por-Verbitsky.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.85.35 ( talk) 21:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Vervitsky has a clear bias in this whole debate and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. There are other sources who say that Vervitsky lacks any credibility on these matters. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The Section Relations with the Argentine government content doesn't reflect its source [18] fairly, what Bergoglio also did, according to the source, was lobbying so that the priests Yorio and Jalics were released. Bergoglio was also harshly criticised by the human-rights activists for not giving information, while Bergoglio himself claimed that he all the time pinpointed moral responsibility to involved parts. Circa so. Fair shall be fair. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 08:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The following sentence "Verbitsky also writes that the Argentine Navy with the help of Cardinal Bergoglio hid the dictatorship's political prisoners in Bergoglio's holiday home from a visiting delegation of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission" should be removed as it is not true. The note links to the source which is an article on "The Guardian", but the article itself has been amended on this regard with an apologising note stating this is not actually true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.243.165 ( talk) 13:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Done. Good catch, I verified the change to the cited source and removed the incorrect content. Andrew 327 14:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
This article in the Guardian makes the point that Bergoglio was accused of aiding the military dictatorship by hiding political prisoners from a foreign human rights commission. The article is from 2011 but it says the following:
As a supposed moral guardian and leader Catholic christians around the world this should be included in the article. -- Antabeta ( talk) 10:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
This sentence is contained within the article " Horacio Verbitsky, an Argentine investigative journalist and former montonero guerilla." Investigative journalist? Really. That sounds, slightly how shall we say, vague. Verbitsky is a Jewish communist who was personally involved in a campaign of violence with the Montoneros, a communist terrorist organisation during the Cold War involved in the kidnappings and murders of Argentine government personnel (according to Wikipedia's own article). Would for example, the claims of a member of Al-Qaeda be used as a source on the article of a high profile rabbi or somebody prominent in American society? The Vatican itself has claimed it was a defamatory campaign. If this sentence is to stay, I'd like to see after Verbitsky's name "Jewish communist terrorist", or any one of those three words to give some balance to what we're dealing with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.88.83 ( talk) 15:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thursday, March 14, 2013 ‘Bergoglio had no links with the dictatorship,’ Peace Nobel Prize winner
Peace Nobel Prize winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, assured today that elected pope Jorge Bergoglio "had no links with the dictatorship” that ruled Argentina between the years 1976-1983 as he’s been accused for many years. Speaking to BBC News, Perez Esquivel said that “there were bishops who were accomplices of the dictatorship, but it was not the case of Bergoglio.” “Bergoglio was questioned because it is said he did not do enough to get out of jail two priests, as he was the Superior of the Jesuits. But I know personally that many bishops called on the military junta for the release of prisoners and priests and these requests were not granted”, said Perez Esquivel.
Safku8 ( talk) 21:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The statement is rather contradictory. If he obtained the priests' release he obviously had influence with the junta.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 02:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Can be denied much, but not images and military government's own documents, i can't upload them to wikipedia, but I think a link to can see them.
Picture Bergoglio with Videla in a private mass (ultra-Catholic, Videla made "disappeared" his own son!)
http://arainfo.org/2013/03/papabilidades/
Foreign Ministry document during military rule:
http://i1297.photobucket.com/albums/ag32/Documents2/Bergoglio_zps9abb4408.jpg
This is the translation of the document:
"Father Francisco (Francis!) Calics
Solvent activity in female religious congregations (Conflicts of obedience)
Arrested in Mechanics School of the Naval (ESMA) (05/24/76). XI/76 (6 months) accused with the Father Yorio. Suspected guerrillas contact.
Live in a small community in the Jesuit Superior, dissolved in June 1976 and refused to obey requesting the exit of the company (of Jesus) on 19/3, received 2 expulsion, Father Jalics not, because have solemn vows. Any Bishop of Greater Buenos Aires want receive it.
NB: These data were supplied to the Mr. Orcoyen by the own Father Bergoglio, who signed this note, with special recommendation that don't give place to the are requesting."
Literally he released his hands, one of them was killed, the other had to flee the country. At other times the Church called this "relaxation to the secular arm"...Were not the only religious killed. And the guerrillas or the word that begins with the letter T, is too relative, was used as an excuse to murder political dissidents ... just by teach reading to the poor people, become you in a guerrillero.
Ashamed to read comments that do not know anything about my country history.
You knew for example that burning and banning books, ie A technical book as "La Cuba Hidroeléctrica" (the hydroelectric barrel) by the word Cuba, or even worst, forbidding teach more of 6 characters per school year, a child only could learn the whole alphabet at the five years of being in school!!!!
This not is politics, is the true...the more nobel value 186.62.185.205 ( talk) 00:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Alternative translation of the above document, without additional comment, except that "actividad disolvente", literally "dissolving activity", seems to mean a disruptive activity, might be a technical religious term. The document, on plain paper, is referring to an application ("the note") actually presented by Bergoglio. I have not myself added this to the article, just supplied an alternative translation.
"Father Francisco Jalics
- Disruptive activity in female religious congregations (conflict of obedience).
- The accused and Fr Yorio held in the ESMA 24/5/76 XI/76 (6 months). Suspected guerrilla contact.
- They lived in a small community that the Jesuit Superior dissolved in February 1976, and they refused to obey requesting release from the Company [of Jesus] on 19/3, two were expelled, not Fr Jalics because he is under solemn vows. No bishop within Greater Buenps Aires wanted to receive him.
NB: these data were supplied to Mr Orcoyen by Fr Pedro Bergoglio himself, who signed the note, with special recommendation that what is requested not be granted.
Signed: (apparently) Orcoyen"
Pol098 ( talk) 01:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe this information is both useful and important. The words come from Graciela Fernández Meijide, a former member of the CONADEP (Comisión Nacional sobre la Desaparición de Personas, National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons), an Argentine body created after the fall of the dictatorship to investigate the fate of the victims of the Dirty War. The sources are the following:
Thank you. -- 190.19.81.137 ( talk) 05:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The section about his role in the Dirty War seems to have "disappeared". The section seemed appropriate and didn't try to confirm such rumours but doubts have been expressed and this should be mentioned especially now that the Vatican itself has spoken about them. Wikipedia should not give in to the demands of the Vatican. This section needs to be restored.-- ЗAНИA talk WB (ctrl-click)">WB (ctrl-click)">WB (ctrl-click)"> WB talk] 18:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Human rights attorney Myriam Bregma claims Bergoglio endorsed the dictators when he knew they were torturing and killing Argentinians and claims “this key support” enabled the junta to operate that way. It is claimed Bergoglio knew at least one case when a woman five months pregnant in the De la Cuadra family was kidnapped, she gave birth in captivity, the baby was stolen and given to another family. A monsignor allegedly brought Bergoglio a written note saying the baby was with a family too important for the adoption to be reversed. In 2010 Bergoglio claimed not to have known about stolen babies during the dictatorship despite his alleged personal knowledge of this case. [1]
"Bergoglio has a very cowardly attitude when it comes to something so terrible as the theft of babies. He says he didn't know anything about it until 1985," said the baby's aunt, Estela de la Cuadra, whose mother Alicia co-founded the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo in 1977 in hopes of identifying these babies. "He doesn't face this reality and it doesn't bother him. The question is how to save his name, save himself. But he can't keep these allegations from reaching the public. The people know how he is." [1]
Estela de la Cuadra feels Borgoglio's denial that he knew about babies born in concentration camps being adopted amounts to "lies and hypocrisy". Estela de la Cuadra wants the Vatican to release documents which could shed light on what really happened but this is unlikely.
The above is a serious allegation and should stay in the article. What the defenders of Pope Francis say about his supposed heroic actions sheltering dissidents has remained in the article and accusations should stay too. Otherwise the article is unbalanced. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 20:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I've shortened this. It just carries on and repeats itself and the use of the blockquote made no sense at all. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 22:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Here we have another case similar to the saga with Horacio Verbitsky, the famous Cold War terrorist. According to the Spanish Wikipedia, Myriam Bregman, the person who is cited as a mere "human rights attorney" and given a platform to make outlandish claims that the Pope is involved in facilitating the "kidnapping of children" is actually a member of the Socialist Workers' Party (Argentina) which is a Trotskyist organisation. Like Verbitsky, she also appears to be Jewish if the surname Bregman and the spelling of Maria as "Myriam" is any indication to go by. If there are some criticisms of the Pope, then by all means find some reliable/non-partisan people, but lets not try to sneak in rabid anti-Catholic Trotskyists under their favourite little mask of "human rights activists" and people with an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.88.83 ( talk) 22:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Borgolio's claim that he heroically sheltered dissidents in church property and more is also suspect. We rely solely on Borgolio's personal testimony for that. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 09:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I personally don't think there is strong evidence that Borgoglio connived in abduction of babies. Still there is evidence he knew abut it during the dictatorship and lied when he claimed he found out only after the dictatorship. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 09:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Should we include at all the claims of Horacio Verbitsky at the "As provincial" section? As pointed, he is not a neutral observer, he was a guerilla soldier back in that time (for not saying the "T" word). And now he's a journalist, right... a journalist of a government-sponsored newspaper, always ready to provide slander and defamation to the perceived "enemies" of the Chávez-styled government of Argentina. I would hardly consider him a reliable source. Cambalachero ( talk) 02:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I removed the unsourced claim of no independent confirmation of Pope Francis' statements about helping people avoid capture by the government during the dictatorship. If someone published an article we could cite that stated "there is no independent confirmation of this", it would be worth including. However just infering this from the sources that exist here is not justified, it is editorializing and assumptions that are not justified. Information needs to be sourced, and that includes the claim of a lack of information. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
this was posted online last night.
please add the info+link to main article
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294580/Special-report-The-damning-documents-new-Pope-DID-betray-tortured-priests-junta.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.117.2.51 ( talk) 14:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The article opens with "Damning evidence that Pope Francis may have betrayed two priests" the fact that they use the conditional "may" shows that the title is intentionally inflamatory and that the material itself does not support the claims made. What really remains unclear is why the head of the Jesuits should tolerate preists who are not in line with vows of obeidience, and how what happens to them later is his fault. The article notes that Jalics traces his arrest to information provided by an anti-government guerrila after that guerrila was arrested. The Daily Mail is clearly involved in sensationalization we should avoid. It also is reflecting an anti-Catholic bias. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
"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”.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciao 90 ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
As an Argentinian, he was entitled to make somewhat nationalistic statements like that. If he continued to make such statements about the Falklands as the Pope, that would be notable. Scott P. ( talk) 01:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, the Guardian has here [19] run another article about Pope Francis and the Falkland Dispute. I am not really sure it is worth including anything from it in this article though. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Should we even have this secion. It seems to not really be related to actual religious teaching on his part. His statements seem to have been more about general Argentine patriotism than taking any considered postion on the question. I do not think it isreally a notable postion on his part and think we should remove that section from the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Should we have a section about the Falklands dispute? Bergoglio has not said anything about that topic as a Pope, only a year ago, and we shouldn't be detailing his position on every topic that he has ever talk about. Poverty, abortion, homosexuality, etc; are usual religious concerns, so it is justified to detail his ideas and actions in relation to those topics. The Falklands dispute is not a religious controversy but a geopolitical one. As an achbishop (what he was when he said those things) his opinion was inconsequential for the international arena, as a Pope, his opinion has more weight... and so his responsability is higher. Perhaps he will try to promote somehow the Argentine claim (for example, proposing a mediation), or perhaps he will stay neutral towards it. I think that we should remove the section, and recreate it in the case he actually takes action as Pope in the topic. Cambalachero ( talk) 01:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
This is still the biography article of Bergoglio, not just the "Pope Francis" article. So anything of note he said before he was pope can stay in the article, as long as it is put into proper biographical context. If he takes a more conciliatory approach to the Falklands as pope (as no doubt he will, at least rhetorically), this can still be put into context of what he had said before he became pope.
The anti-gay-marriage stuff was very much of note within Argentinian politics. No, it isn't notable that a pope is "anti gay", this is part of his job description. You cannot be an orthodox Catholic and at the same time take a "pro-gay" stance. THis is simply mutually exclusive. WHat you can do, and what is being done by the less conservative clergy, is argue that nobody is without sin, and that you should hate the sin, not the sinner. Unlike the discussion on abortion, the New Testament is very clear about male homosexuality at least, and as pope, you are not at liberty to just selectively throw out some of the less convenient Pauline statements. So this isn't news. What can and should be treated is the actual political activism (on top of purely doctrinal rejection) on the part of Bergoglio in Argentinian politics. -- dab (𒁳) 12:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Who and why removed the Section about MALVINAS?... There a section about it, and someone removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastian2013 ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
If you removed the Malvinas thing, you need remove ie the Kirchner part & many other...follow your arguments...pre-papal issues...him say "The Malvinas are ours"...with this 4 words...him say: I am Argentine (this is for other stupid doubts in the article), in the article say...many first from there...never say first of Argentina, first form South America (I prefer this this and not "Americas", because most of 45 countries in this fuc...ing continent call him America and not Americas -only 2 countries-, and is more, not call in this form call him South America, Central America, now is...The Americas, hahaha. If the pope come from USA certainly you say...The firts of America and nothing more.
Malvinas was not an isolated act of Bergoglio, but that "spiritual" helps veterans was continuous, on the other hand this is a common point (among many others) with Kirchner, who have been the visibilizaron to former combatants , and among other things gave them a decent pension and constant recognition and always making clear the stupidity the war.
Article visibly flawed subjectivity is everywhere, as many others, such as the opposition of Kirchner, there are many things that corcuerdan, but always clearly more "news" those in which you disagree.
Can track and see the many opportunities that have come together.
Maybe in other countries is different but in Argentina which are responsible for governing the politicians, not the Church, which incidentally always tried to interfere in the policies of all governments that have existed, and that is the only real conflict. 186.62.153.250 ( talk) 07:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this is just a British issue. You can say Bergoglio is just a patriotic Argentine, but the fact is (like many patriotic Argentines) he thinks that the wishes of Falkland Islanders should be trampled on. And he is now the head of an international church. That is significant.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not see any logic in Lambert's argument at all. The Falkland Islands have been a British colony for almost 200 years. They have no history as part of Argentina. There is no Argentine, or Hispanic, community on the island. The islanders are of British origin and almost unanimously want to stay a British colony. Sure, the colony is a creation of British imperialism, but Argentina is a creation of Spanish imperialism. Sure, nationalistic Argentines think they have a right to the islands, but that shows their bias, not mine.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I think this issue has become more than just an Argentine archbishop expressng national feelings as seen from this article [21] that mentions that Kirchner has called on Pope Francis to mediate the dispute. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
"full well that there is nothing Francis can do," :Hmmmm. This is what many thought about Pope John Paul II on Soviet Communism. The Soviet Union was not very catholic or even close to Christian. In the end, he had a hand in it's downfall.
For starters, events could sour quite easily in Northern Ireland if he voices his oposition tocolonialism. This Pope will work quietly in his own way to end colonialism, in all of its forms. He is an Argentine who stands against injustice, his anti colonial feelings are well known. He has been quite open about it. He knows his nations history and the fact that Britain usurped part of his nation’s territory, hard won in its independence from Spain, and evicted the Argentine population. A British usurpation that Argentina has never accepted, and whose lawful claim is protected by the United Nations charter. Spain and then Argentina have exercised sovereignty over the Malvinas/Falkland Islands and Argentina did have a settlement exercising sovereignty after its independence until they were usurped through an act of piracy. The Vatican does have the moral authority to intervene in such matters, particularly when Peace is threatened, as in this case by Britain’s unilateral militarization of the South Atlantic. Making threats of missile attack, nuclear annihilation, an act of fear to cover up its inability to deal with international norms and abide by United Nations resolutions. Pope John Paul II took quite action to undermine Soviet Communism and contribute to its downfall. Papal Intervention in politics to affect political outcomes has happened before and there is no reason to believe that this Pope will not do the same. For starters, events could sour quite easily in Northern Ireland if he voices his oposition with colonialism. I am quite sure that London has thought about this. A reformation of the Vatican diplomatic corp is under way. This Pope willl not allow any party to duc its responsibilities to the International Community where peace is at risk. Your Holiness, greetings from the United States. God bless you. We pray for a successful Papacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.132.70 ( talk) 16:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Are we sure we want The Falkland Islands to have a whole section for itself? Personally I dont see how it is significant enough to even be in the article. But if it is going into the articles then it must as a subsection under relations with the argentine goverment.
Jack Bornholm (
talk)
14:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Just a suggestion. If someone finds that Bergoglio's pre-papal comments ("usurped") and Cameron's wisecrack ("white smoke") and Kirchner's request for papal mediation belong somewhere on WP, then the material should be added there and a simple entry under "See also" in this entry would suffice. As far as I can tell that hasn't happened yet. Perhaps Argentina–United Kingdom relations. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 21:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Father Franz Jalics, one of the priest captured and tortured and now living in Germany, issued a statment today (for now, it seems to be issued just in German):
Erklärung von Pater Franz Jalics SJ
Gugganij ( talk) 13:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Jalics say: "Ich bin mit den Geschehnissen versöhnt und betrachte sie meinerseits als abgeschlossen" (I have been reconciled to the events and from my side consider them closed)...not is the same true???
Jalics write the book "Szemlélődő lelkigyakorlat" (hungarian)(Meditation or maybe Contemplation Exercises)(1994):
"Many people who held far-right political beliefs frowned on our presence in the slums. They interpreted the fact that we lived there as a support for the guerrillas and proposed denounce us as terrorists. We knew where the wind was blowing and who was responsible for these slanders. So I went to talk to the person in question and explained that I was playing with our lives. He promised that the military would know that we were not terrorists. For subsequent statements of an officer and thirty documents that could be accessed later we saw that this man had kept his promise but, on the contrary, had filed a false complaint with the military...that person made credible slander using his authority...him testified to the officier that kidnapped us who us worked on the terrorist scene. Earlier I told to this person who was playing with our lives. He must be aware that him sent us to their deaths with their statements."
Gives no names, just said person.
Letter to Father Moura, Assistant General of the Company of Jesus, Roma, 1977...Orlando Yorio describes the same circumstances but change "person" by Jorge Mario Bergoglio... 186.62.153.250 ( talk) 08:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Pater Jalics issued another statement. In a nutshell:
Gugganij ( talk) 21:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
This information should be added to the article. I believe a sentence or two would suffice. -- 190.19.77.29 ( talk) 21:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Here [22] is an article by Thomas Reese, in which he explains that Bergoglio had not in any way removed Jalics and Yorico from being Jesuits. I tried to incorproate that notion into the article, but have to say I wonder if we should not go further. It seems the preponderance of evidence is making Verbitsky's claims more an more the subject of 2005 than the 1970s. The whole thing needs to be re-examined with the realization there is no grounds for the claims that Bergoglio had removed these men from the ministry, and that Jalics has on multiple occasions explictly stated that his capture was not prompted by Bergoglio, and that any though that it was on his or anyone else's part was incorrect. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
This paragraph "The Jesuit historian Fr. Jeff Klaiber interviewed Jesuit Fr. Juan Luis Moyano, who had also been imprisoned and deported by the military. Moyano told Klaiber that Bergoglio did go to bat for imprisoned Jesuits. There are disagreements over whether he did as much as he should have for them, but such debates always occur in these circumstances." from the Reese article might be worth incorporating in some way. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I was referring to comments such as "We are family"...-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Are the languages he is fluent in notable? We had a referenced list that was removed with the argument it is not notable to him. Being "known for it" seems to high a bar. It would seem to me that the leader of a multi-national organization could benefit from being fluent in multiple languages and such fluency would be worth mentioning in an article on him. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
These have disappeared once again. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 19:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
This article [23] suggests that Bergoglio initially sought a different course in response to the proposal for same-gender marriage by the Argentine government. I am not sure how best to integrate this information into the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
This has been added. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 21:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
This has been denied by other sources. See http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fnoticias.universogay.com%2Fcontinua-la-polemica-por-el-nuevo-papa-y-las-uniones-gays__22032013.html 209.116.238.162 ( talk) 15:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
According to Leonardo Boff, Francis approved the adoption of a child by a same-sex couple not long ago: [24]
"Hace un par de meses por ejemplo aprobó expresamente que una pareja de homosexuales adoptara un niño."
The story appears to be based on an interview Boff gave to Der Spiegel. Confirmation? Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 18:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Right now See Also has Jerónimo Podestá & Jesuit formation. That seems like an odd choice. I think there are better options: Jesuits to begin with. What pages should be there >> M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 14:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The statement that he was a bouncer has re-surfaced (previous discussion has presumably been archived). It is so stated in some references, but they seem dubious. Given the amount of unfounded nonsense that is published, we need better sources to say this. Pol098 ( talk) 16:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I see nobody's picking this up. The most detailed reference I can find says: "to support himself during his studies he worked for a time as a bouncer in a dive of very bad repute in Cordoba" (my translation). I haven't found any references in Spanish (which doesn't mean they don't exist), which I'd expect if this were true. I would say that this point is only credible if more detail and witnesses are found - at least the name of the place, dates, maybe someone who knew him at the time. Search terms I've tried: buttafuori, cordoba, combinations of sacaborrachos, boliche, local. Gorila isn't very useful, too common in Argentina. Pol098 ( talk) 19:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Did Francis study at Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina as maybe suggested by this [25] telegraph article, or should we write it off as unsourced claims like the claim he has a masters in chemistry, which also appears in that article, but seems unlikely based on what we have. In fact, we lack any proof he was ever a student at the University of Buenos Aires. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys, as an alumni of the most prestigious university in Argentina (University of Buenos Aires), I was amazed to read in here that Pope Francis studied there too. In fact, that's not true. Where do you get that information?? First of all, the University of Buenos Aires didn't say a word about his designation, each time an alumni or professor get something (an award, or something like that), the university use to communicate that. This was not the case. The University of Buenos Aires is a centre-left or leftist academy, it's impossible this guy has ever put a foot at the doors of any of its faculty. Sorry, but no. Whoever put that information has a way to show or support that falacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeroPsycho22 ( talk • contribs) 08:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
This article [26] in the Gaurdian reports plans for Pope Francis to wash the feet of inmates. I will leave it up to others to see what, if anything, to include in the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was closed by Aunva6 below. -- BDD ( talk) 20:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
Pope Francis → Francis (pope) – New naming convention for Popes agreed upon by concensus at WP:Naming conventions (clergy)#Popes. Primary article should be Francis (pope) with a redirect from from Pope Francis to Francis (pope) ReformedArsenal ( talk) 01:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
should the article be renamed to Francis (Pope)?
consensus recently changed at WP:naming conventions (clergy), however, due to the visibility of the article, extra consensus is required.-- Aunva6 talk - contribs 05:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
No, oppose. Consensus on this page is that we do not move this article anywhere. Francis (pope) is a hopeless, clumsy title, worse than all other previous proposals. I don't see any changed consensus, article titles of Popes in Wikipedia have been well established for 10 years or so and I see no reason to change that. Mocctur ( talk) 04:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose rename, there is absolutely no compelling reason whatsoever to arbitrarily rename our articles on hundreds of popes when we are served just fine by our current approach. Further, the discussion you linked to seems to be developing a consensus for the status quo. Harej ( talk) 08:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Would this mean that you want to change 266 wikipedia articles from Pope X to X (pope)? That is not realistic and goes against a pretty established 266 article precedence. What would be the reason to do so? Jack Bornholm ( talk) 15:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. It would make the title of this article clumsy and counter-intuitive for casual readers of Wikipedia. The new naming convention for popes is a silly idea anyway: whatever is done with more strictly secular monarchs, popes are a unique case. There are 266 of them: there's no reason they can't have their own aptly customized article-naming convention, instead of being clumsily assimilated to the convention for a broader category. Wikipedia should aim for clarity and ease of use as an *encyclopedia* for those seeking information, not at being an outlet for a "blessed rage for order" among us frequent editors. How many encyclopedia readers instinctively type "Francis (pope)" for information on this guy? I imagine very few. The proposed change is obfuscatory. Rinne na dTrosc ( talk) 16:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
After the sentence that reads "Following the resignation ofhis predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, on 28 February, the conclave elected Bergoglio, who chose the papal name Francis in honour of Saint Francis of Assisi." please add this sentence: "There is speculation that he may have had two other individuals in mind when he chose the name Francis, namely (1) St. Francis Xaviar, the Jesuit who was very humble and helped the poor, and (2) Francis Sisco, the popular transgender New York comedian, who is usually known as Fran Sisco."
FrankSisco ( talk) 03:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Let's be clearer. Rather than say "speculation". This has been contradicted by eyewitness accounts of what Francis said at the very moment he took the name. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 17:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not experienced enough to know the best way to do this. The presence of Bartholomew I at the Papal inauguration is already mentioned in the section on relations with the Orthodox Church but I think his presence is noteworthy enough to mention at the part on the inauguration. Could I write "As seen above, the Patriarch of Constantinople was present at a papal inauguration for the first time since the great schism of 1054."? Or is there a better way to do this? I presume many will not read the article from start to finish but jump to what they want. >> M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 17:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I've added into the Other section under Writings one of the few previous English-language publications by Jorge M. Bergoglio, a book chapter in: Buzzi, Elisa. 2003. A generative thought; an introduction to the works of Luigi Giussani. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10132858. Giussani founded the Catholic movement Communion and Liberation. This book is of note since two other Cardinals considered for the papacy, Angelo Scola and Marc Ouellet, also contributed chapters. A more experienced editor can probably properly finish fine-tuning this addition to the references. Ajschorschiii ( talk) 18:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
So content is to be censored based on the fact that the sources are Jewish?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
See comments above. The supposed fact that certain people are "Jewish" is repeatedly stated as a reason to disregard allegations against the Pope.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Really??? What about this?
Jews are therefore "unreliable"???-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The wish has been granted: Verbitsky is back in the article. The government sent a secret report to the conclave, based on Verbitsky's rants, to try to prevent the election of Francis. That's more grave than mere rants in a newspaper, that's actual politics. Still, the entry points who is this man, to make it very clear that, endorsed by government or not, his claims have no credibility (and indeed they had not) Cambalachero ( talk) 15:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, John Paul II did stand up to the Communists in Poland. And how could the cardinals in the conclave know whether there was substance to this? What is obscured in this discussion is that the only person who knows the truth is the Pope himself. Only he knows what he knew and when he knew it, what secret meetings he had, and what covert and illegal activities he might have undertaken to help victims.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 04:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The whole truth is only known by the Pope. And he alone can know his motives. If someone has access to Rubin's book, The Jesuit, it would be worthwhile to include something of the Pope's own account of himself during this difficult period, rather than an exercise in accusing the accuser.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 11:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not a great source - a lot of personal commentary in there. Bergoglio's testimony is not just vague: it's evasive. The issue of the priests' status seems unresolved. Wikipedia currently says they weren't dismissed, but the transcripts indicate they were in some "transition". I don't know what this means. However, terminating their status doesn't make the Pope complicit in what happened next. The junta clearly had no problem with attacking priests, nuns etc. It would be good to know if the archives were, in fact, released. Other sources say he refused to release them. Wikipedia currently doesn't make it clear that it was Yorio who initiated the 2005 case. According to this article, he even suggested that Bergoglio was present at the interrogation. However, the two priests had only limited awareness of what was going on, and have never been in a strong position to accuse or absolve Bergoglio. Being against liberation theology doesn't make him a supporter of the junta. However, he only seems to have come out an opponent of the junta in recent times.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Well here [27] is a Wall Street Journal article. The main thing I used it for was adding Olievera's statement Bergoglio helping people flee the country. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
While the WSJ editorial pages are purely political, its news pages are considered absolutely solid. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 16:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I am regretting I ever put the Falklands section back in there. Now we have the Beagle Island dispute section tacked on with a-no sources cited, b-an attempt to connect Auxiliary Bishop Bergoglio with it, even though it was resolved in 1984 and he was not made auxiliary bishop until 1992. If he was involved in some later negotiations they should be dated and sourced. I really wonder if we should not scrap the whole section. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is what the Spanish article has to say about this (translated by Google):
Isn't it notable that Kirchner was the first head of state he met with after becoming Pope, especially given how the article goes on about how their relations are strained? I think not mentioning this meeting and Kirchner's request for mediation violates both WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:POV. If Barack Obama were the first head of state Francis met with, you can be sure that English Wikipedia would mention that. Also, English Wikipedia is edited mostly by Americans and Brits; the Brits having control over the Falklands is a legacy of English colonialism, so editors prefer to ignore that Francis takes this issue seriously, violating WP:POV. Does Wikipedia ignore that John Paul II believed the communist government of Poland to be illegitimate? No. How are the two cases different? The USSR was an enemy of the U.S.; Britain is America's closest ally. – Herzen ( talk) 19:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Should we include information on Miguel La Civita in this article. This [29] Gaurdian aritcle states I was the exact prototype of what used to be called "third world" priests," says Miguel La Civita, who in 1976 was a close collaborator of Bishop Enrique Angelelli, murdered by the dictatorship for his work organising the poor into labour unions and manufacturing cooperatives in the northern province of La Rioja. "After Angelelli's murder, Bergoglio put us under his protection," La Civita says. He claims Bergoglio was secretly active "helping people who were persecuted by the military", hiding them at the school he headed in Buenos Aires. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The introduction needs to summarise the body to a reasonable degree, without becoming huge. Points that needed to be included: attitudes regarding abortion, contraception, homosexuality; attitude (non-pompous); emphasis on the poor. Actions during the dictatorship. Rather than starting with a discussion, I've added a couple of suggested paragraphs. I'm sure they'll be much edited, so I'll give my original text here. While I'm not wedded to my text, these points need to be there.
Pol098 ( talk) 15:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Other points need to be added with minimal detail, e.g., relations with other religions. Pol098 ( talk) 15:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not agree. Important modifications (such those you made in the incipit) needs to be discussed in advance. To me there is no consensus, so I removed them. -- Chessstoria (3 s) (All your base are belong to us) 16:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The article says: "Murias Carlos of God". It should read: "Carlos de Dios Murias". ( http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_de_Dios_Murias) Thank you, -- 201.231.134.189 ( talk) 19:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
He is also the first pope since Pope Lando, i.e., after a gap of eleven centuries, to adopt a new single-word name. Because "single-word name" is such a clunky phrase, I find that I focus on that and miss the point of the information, which presumably is that he's adopted a name that no other pope has adopted before, at least not since Pope Lando used a name no pope had used before him. Anyone want to take a stab at rewording this? (And maybe moving it down?) The opening paragraph of an article is not meant to be crammed full of information. It should be a concise introduction to the topic. "i.e." is also pretty clunky for an introductory paragraph. Moncrief ( talk) 15:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
"single-word name" was clear enough for me. Cardinal Luciani took the name "John Paul", as already noted, by taking the names of 2 immediate predecessors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 15:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This information is and was in the article already, under 3.1.1 "Choice of Name." I was just questioning the wording in the opening paragraph, which has been removed. Moncrief ( talk) 19:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It says he became auxiliary of Buenos Aires and later its archbishop. Left out is that in between, he was promoted to Coadjutor Archbishop, thus he succeeded to the see immediately when his predecessor left for any reason. There is a catholic-hierarchy web site which has his elevation to coadjutor (which since about 1970 ALWAYS means having right of succession). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 15:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Added that information! NDomer09 ( talk) 03:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
While I understand and share resentment of people over some of the new pope's previous statements on the subject of homosexuality, I deplore the abuse of written texts and references.
I deleted the words "demonic in origin" from the paragraph about his statements about homosexuality for the following reasons
The direct quotation of what the then cardinal actually did say is quite sufficient to indicate his stance.
Amandajm ( talk) 23:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I removed the following quote from the article. The Movih, a Chilean gay rights group, described the pope as a "promoter of hate toward social diversity and a model of homophobia and disdain for sexual minorities." [1]
Unless I am mistaken, the "Positions" section isn't really for commentary/analysis on his positions. A gay rights group calling him a model for homophobia pretty much flies in the face of him saying they should be respected. It would also seem a gay rights group has an agenda which is opposite to his. Let's stick to what we know he has said, and not try and introduce an agenda into this section. Someone also keeps rewriting it to try and gloss over any positive things he has said. That should not be acceptable. Stick to the facts. Xkcdreader ( talk) 18:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Xkcdreader ( talk) 19:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In line two of this paragraph, the word "to" appears twice - on of them needs to be deleted: "...legislation introduced in 2010 to to grant legal recognition...".
Funkytanki 15:44, 16 March 2013 (GMT+1)
The source states: "he strongly affirms church teaching on the intrinsic immorality of homosexual practices, though he teaches the importance of respecting homosexual persons."
Yet, you insist on rendering this source as: "yet has stated that "men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect and compassion". The Church has stated that homosexual desires or attractions are not themselves sinful."
Kindly refrain from portraying Pope Francis' begrudging concession that homosexual people are worthy of respect as the pinnacle of progressive thinking. He is a homophobe; not an egalitarian that is the poster child for the liberal cause.
Stop misleadingly synthesizing a vacuous Christian catechism with what the source discussing PF actually says, and comply with the self-evident policy, WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTACHURCH. The paragraph on PF's deplorable views on homosexuality is not an invitation for you to start propagating Catholic dogma. They are an unnecessary elaboration and are wholly unrelated to PF's personal views.
While there is a pack of immature children scampering between the pews of Wikipedia, it is still not a Catholic church, the article is not your pulpit, and its readers should not have to tolerate your abuse. Juddhoward ( talk) 00:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Juddhoward, your approach to editing Wikipedia, and to "discussing" your edits with other Wikipedians, can probably be optimized. You are less, not more, likely to get your way if you go about calling other people homophobes or other terms of endearment that no doubt you intend as insults.
The pope being a "homophobe" is of no more consequence for our purposes than the pope being an arachnophobe, or a hypobaropath unless it can be shown that it is of sufficient notability. I hate to break it to you, but more than 90% of heterosexuals are "homophobes" by your definition, just as >90% of people are arachnophobes. Still we don't spend our days obsessing over spiders, and therefore we don't go about adding "arachnaphobia sections" to most biographical articles. Now a member of the Catholic clergy, whether they are actual homophobes, closet homosexuals, or both, or neither, have an obligation to at least nominally follow biblical and church teaching about homosexual acts, so taking a doctrinal stance on the matter isn't nearly enough to prove they suffer from any kind of "phobia".
I have seen no source substantiating that the pope suffers from such a "phobia" or "irrational fear of and/or repulsion by" homosexuality, as opposed to a mere doctrinal condemnation, as he would condemn gluttony. If a member of clergy condemns the sin of gluttony, you wouldn't feel compelled to call him anorexic, or as suffering form an food-themed phobia, no? A bishop campaigning against same-sex marriage is just doing his job. You can like or dislike his job, but you certainly cannot act surprised. You can reject religion as a whole, or just all religions which condemn homosexuality (which would basically cover all religions founded before 1960 or so), but you certainly cannot attack individual representatives of such religions for representing the societal ideals of their chosen religion. -- dab (𒁳) 12:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I just noticed that it says "Kirtchner", instead of "Kirchner", in the "Abortion, euthanasia, birth control, and the elderly" section. SergioPFloyd ( talk) 02:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
In the section Early Life, the words "masters' degree" should be changed to "master's degree". In the subsection Relations with the Argentine government, the words "Nobel peace prize" should be changed to "Nobel Peace Prize". -- 190.19.81.137 ( talk) 06:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
We should add a section on Pope Francis's teaching on the role of the Church. Comments such as the below help to understand all of his other teachings:
"The Christian sees the Church as the Body of Christ, as the vessel that guards with absolute integrity the deposit of faith, as the faithful Spouse who communicates without addition or subtraction all that Christ entrusted.... The Church as a fully “sanctified” reality and capable of receiving and of comunicating – without error or defect, from its own poverty and even with its own sins –the full sanctity of God, is not a “complement” or an “institutional addition” to Jesus Christ, but a full participation of his Incarnation, of His Life, of His Passion, death and Resurrection.... In defending its purity, its indefectibility, its sanctity as the bride, the Church is defending the “place” through which the gift of the life of God passes on to the world and the gift of the life of the world to God. This gift – the fullest expression of which is the Eucharist –is not another gift among ourselves but the supreme gift of the most intimate life of the Trinity that poured forth for the life of the world and the life of the world assumed by the Son that is offered to the Father." English: http://jmgarciaiii.blogspot.com/search?q=bergoglio Original Spanish: http://www.arzbaires.org.ar/inicio/homilias/homilias2008.htm#49%BACongresoEucar%EDsticoInternacional
This understanding of the Church as indefectible and the guardian of the deposit of faith is a key to understanding all of his teachings because it shows that he will not change--indeed sees it as impossible to change--the defined doctrines of the Church. So these quotations will really help the page. 71.11.216.57 ( talk) 15:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
On his becoming a Jesuit we mention he "began his studies". We do not say where. Generally we specify locations people were educated. This seems to be a major hole in the coverage of hte article, not detailing the location of his education as a Jesuit. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I came across a source that mention Pope Francis creating new parishes while he was archbishop and some other things. I think this is an area we really lack good coverage of. The internal policy decision he made as archbshop seem to have gotten short coverage in this article, even with my short addition. It would seem logical to make statements about what he did for the last 14 years as Archbishop. This involved more than relations with the government, it involved internal changes. I also wonder if we could find a source that would say more about the nature of the new parishes he created. I would not be surprised to learn such efforts put parishes closer to the slums, based on what some other sources have said, but the one source that actually mentioned it, said nothing substantive about it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
In the Washington Post HERE, we read: "In one of his last acts as head of the Argentinian Catholic bishops’ conference, last year Bergoglio issued a collective apology for the church’s failure to protect its flock."
We need details on this. Date. What the statement said. Francis' role in it and comments upon its release. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 16:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph on this on the bottom of the secion on government relations while bishop. The only source I have so far is mention in the Jesuit biography here [1]. I did read through the article on Abortion in Argentina and got the impression that those reforms may not have been acted on, although I mainly got the impression the issue was drawn out over a long time frame. Since that article refers to Nestor Kirtchner as if he is alive, and he died in 2010, it is clearly not the most up to date statement on the topic. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is a quote from a Catholic News Service article on Bergoglio's influence in Argentina. "Since becoming archbishop of Buenos Aires in 1998, Cardinal Bergoglio has created new parishes, restructured the administrative offices, taken personal care of the seminary and started new pastoral projects, such as the commission for divorcees. He has mediated in almost all social or political conflicts in the city; the newly ordained priests are described as "the Bergoglio generation"; and no political or social figure misses requesting a private encounter with him. "
It is from this article [2] which pre-dates his election as Pope. I am not sure how to best integrate this information into our article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The new section "Episcopacy" handles this well. Nice job! Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Papacy section, it says:
"He was inspired to take the name Francis by the cardinal sitting next to him at the conclave, who after his election whispered to him: "don't forget the poor".
But there is no source attached to it.
So here's a story from CNN today that fully verifies the content. Please attach it.
Please note, though, that the CNN story indicates that he actually received the advice from the Brazilian cardinal before he was elected, not "after his election" as the article incorrectly states. The CNN story says:
"a fellow cardinal from Brazil had told him "don't forget the poor" as the votes stacked up in his favor. This thought stuck in his mind, Francis said, as it became clear that he had won the two-thirds majority that meant he was the new pontiff."
So for complete accuracy, per the source, here is my suggested new version:
"As it was becoming clear during the conclave voting that he would be elected the new pontiff, he was insprired to take the name Francis - after Saint Francis of Assisi - by a cardinal from Brazil who said "don't forget the poor" to him."[CNN cite]
Thanks. -- 76.189.111.2 ( talk) 17:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I was looking at the category Pope John Paul II and noticed we have a seperate article on John Paul II's health. I was wondering though, in part because of the inclusion of mention of the controversy over Biden and Pelosi going to the inagural mass, if maybe we should split the article into two articles. Article 1 would be a bio of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, probably still with the Pope Francis name, but it would be about his life, positions, thought, and pre-Papal career. Article 2 would be about his time as Pope and probably include a brief biographical summary, but since it would be about his administration as Pope, it would allow for discussion of controversies about attendance at his inaguaral mass. I am not sure there is any precedent for doing this with Popes, but we do Presidency of George W. Bush so there is some precedent for such. It might not be justified here, but I think it is worth at least considering. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
This quote "“Spiritual worldliness … is the church’s worst sin,” he said in an interview with Italian daily La Stampa during the October 2012 Synod on New Evangelization, when he called on the church to “go out from itself towards the outskirts.”" from this [3] Religious News Service article makes me wonder if some mention of Pope Francis' participation in this conference last October might be worth including in the article. There might be other things worth mining from that article as well. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I added a statement about this with this Feb. 12, 2002 article for Chiesa on Bergoglio 2002 article as a source. I am not really sure if I have either put it in the best place, or captured the essence of what the article says on the matter. I also started an article on Jerónimo José Podestá, although it could benefit a lot from someone finding some more indepth Spanish sources. I am not sure there is much worth saying about Podesta in this article. He is a key figure in the claims of some people who are clearly out of line with the Vatican, but it is unclear that Podesta ever agreed with the actions of some of these other people, and it is even less clear that Bergoglio's kindness to Podesta was meant to in any way endorse his actions. Podesta is at some level a celebrant of people with Fringe views, and I am not sure even the article as I created it gives adequate weight to various understandings of Podesta. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks in advance. -- 190.19.81.137 ( talk) 22:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Done Thanks for the corrections. With regards, Iselilja ( talk) 22:50, 16 March 2013 (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)
There seems to be a discussion about what skincolour the Pope have, it goes on on different sections on this talkpage, so I have gathered this interesting (?) discussion here. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 17:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
We should stay away from "vague" words like "white" and "black" and such, because it really doesn't say anything important, and people have varying definitions of what it entails (i.e. is President Barack Obama "black" if his father has East-African roots and his mother has European-American roots?). It would be much more specific and clear to say this man was born in Argentina and is of Italian ancestry. If we have more specific information (i.e. his parents were born in Italy) that can be added as well. Scipio Carthage ( talk) 02:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what he is not, you should care about who he his. Why the need to classify people by their ethnic origin? Why should we care? He si the Pope. Jesus was Jew and non white. Ethnic classification is a tool for discrimination.
His parents were Italian immigrants to Argentina. Italian still counts as white, guys.
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)
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:
I hope it isn't an editor that broke trust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.38.173 ( talk) 05:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
See the picture ... not white? that racist!! my god!!-- 186.62.185.205 ( talk) 03:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I am wondering if the controversy around Biden and Pelosi going to the inaugural mass relly belongs in a biography of Francis? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
This "controversy" does not merit coverage in a biographical entry. File it with "Falklands War". Bmclaughlin9 ( talk)
Given that English Wikipedia is not written for ″ Americans″ only, but also for ″non-American″ speaking people, care should be taken when assuming this kind of things.-- Jetstreamer Talk 22:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Why do we have a quick mention up to his ordination in the early life section, and then have a much more comprehseive discussion of his education in the pre-Papal career section? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Since the announcement of the election results, a very small number (less than 200) of South American priests, as well as some children of Argentinean criminals, including rapists and murderers, have been telling lies to many newspapers throughout Europe and North America about Pope Francis. Most of these people are admitted or suspected Communists. I believe Wikipedia editors have a responsibility to protect this article from editing until further notice.
I lived in Buenos Aires during that time and I can confirm that Archbishop Bergoglio took the bus. [Preceding comment by unknown editor]
I was scolded on my Talk page for removing some obvious vandalism from the summary of this entry, specifically this sentence from the end of the first paragraph:
Here what ended up on my Talk page:
Your "rvv" edit summary
Just to let you know, I found your blanket revert and the "rvv" edit summary rude and abusive. [4] Please respect Principles of Wikipedia etiquette next time. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 22:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hah! It was vandalism pure and simple and you know it. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 22:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- The story is all over the news. I was trying to help those readers who might be concerned about what they learn via tweets and blogs about the latest Onion webcast. However, recognizing a reliable source (such as the one I provided), or reading stuff online might not be your thing and I understand. All I ask is that you respect Wikipedia policy/guidelines. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 23:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- You put trivia in the summary portion of an encyclopedic entry and wrote it in such a way as to be extremely POV. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 23:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have no idea who you are, but I want you to know that your behavior leaves much to be desired. I've been around much longer than you have, and I know what building the encyclopedia means. Go read for yourself, http://www.theonion.com/video/pope-francis-resigns,31660/ (and skip the commercial). Poeticbent talk 23:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hah! Then why not take this discussion to the entry's Talk page? Never mind, I've done that. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 23:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 23:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Poeticbent, you apparently meant well, but your edit was ill-advised, and your reaction to its removal too, and enough people have told you as much, please deal with it. It is not the job of the Pope Francis article to inform the public that The Onion is a parody news site. -- dab (𒁳) 08:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
That isn't vandalism at all. Calling something vandalism that isn't vandalism is bad. Inappropriate information added in good faith isn't vandalism. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) [1] 12:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
In the section Early life, the words "Escuelas Técnicas N° 27" should be replaced with "Escuela Nacional de Educación Técnica N° 27" which is the correct name of the institution Pope Francis attended. The corresponding source in the article mentions the initials E.N.E.T, meaning "Escuela Nacional de Educación Técnica", which is a common acronym used for Argentine schools that offer a technical-oriented curriculum. Thank you. -- 190.19.81.137 ( talk) 05:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to update the photo to one of Pope Francis as pope, rather than as a cardinal? Perhaps one from his election night or his meeting with the media yesterday morning. 149.150.237.56 ( talk) 07:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Brian 3/17/13
"In 2007, just two days after Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum, Cardinal Bergoglio was one of the first bishops in the world to respond by instituting a Tridentine mass in Buenos Aires.[30][31] It was celebrated weekly.[32]"
In the subsection Episcopacy, the word "breakfast" is spelt as "breakfest". -- 190.19.88.16 ( talk) 16:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
And has since been removed. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
While it is in the source referenced, perhaps we need a better source for the house of ill repute bit? Pol098 ( talk) 20:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/540986_361609713955044_1363401099_n.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railie May ( talk • contribs) 23:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Is the coat of arms that of the cardinal or of the pope? The second would seem to have been completed very quickly.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The coat of arms in the infobox is just a supposition because the Pope did not create it yet. Most likely it will be similar to his cardinal COA, but it will different for many elements. For istance, you used the tiara on it, but some Popes (e.g. Benedictus XVI) used the mitre instead. So far, that coat of arms is a original research. -- Chessstoria (3 s) (All your base are belong to us) 13:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone been able to find a picture of Pope Francis' papal coat of arms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsepe ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
He doesn't have one yet, don't you imagine he will be occupied with other concerns over the next few days? The article can just show the coa he used as cardinal for the time being. -- dab (𒁳) 12:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The Papal Coat of Arms now appears at the Vatican website. Mix between Benedict's and Bergoglio as cardinal. See http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/index.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.213.246.134 ( talk) 13:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The coat of arms currently shown in the infobox is just a conjecture and therefore original research (it's a combination of Cardinal Berdoglios CoA and the external elements of Pope Benedicts XVI CoA). I therefore removed it from the infobox. Gugganij ( talk) 16:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that the article has again been accessed to Class B. I intend to return it to Class C. It is currently lacking in several aspects, including content. Still a number of citations that need to be made and stylistically it falls short. Premature to assess this as B. This article is obviously going to get a lot of work over the weeks ahead and I have no doubt that it will be ready for B status then, but right now it falls short. Safiel ( talk) 18:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
These are the six criteria for B-class (full details here]:
It looks to me like the article now meets all six criteria, and should be reassessed as "B" class. If there is disagreement on this, please cite the specific criterion or criteria not met, and explain, at least a bit, regarding the deficiency. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I know that this article was downgraded from B class to C class early on because it still needed some missing citations and there were still some disputes going on about basic facts. However, I personally think the article is excellent at this point. Is it possible for someone to review the rating? Additionally, I am a little surprised that some groups are rating the article "Top Importance," some "High Importance," and some "Mid-Importance." I am surprised that an article on the current Pope could be anything less than "Top Importance." I'm curious to know if others agree or disagree.... NearTheZoo ( talk) 13:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Currently the article says this happened in 1969, making him 32-33, but sources I'm finding seem to suggest it was earlier. Bloomberg reports 21, which fits in with others which say he was in his youth. Any thoughts? Paul MacDermott ( talk) 15:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Several references already included in the article say it occurred when he was 21, and one explicitly states it occurred in 1957, which would indeed have been when he was 21 (current footnote 13: "Jorge Bergoglio, un sacerdote jesuita de carrera [Jorge Bergoglio, a career Jesuit priest]" (in Spanish). La Nación. 13 March 2013. "he graduated from industrial secondary school E.N.E.T. Nº 27 "Hipólito Yrigoyen" with the qualification of chemical technician, then started religious studies at the age of 21, having decided to become a priest"). All of the statements in the article should be corrected to state that it occurred in 1957. I don't think any of the references actually state it occurred in 1969. Tinman44 ( talk) 17:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the corrections Tinman44 ( talk) 19:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Nowhere in the two articles provided is said that this tissue was removed in 1969. I had marked this as unsourced but someone deleted the tag. I'm reinstating the {{ fact}} tag.-- Jetstreamer Talk 22:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
This is the same as topic #26 above. It occurred in 1957. See #26 above. Thanks. Tinman44 ( talk) 17:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I added Principal Co-Consecrators of Pope Francis as Bishop Emilio Ogñénovich and Ubaldo Calabresi with reference from catholic-hierarchy.org and news.va but some one changed it to Mario José Serra and es:Eduardo Mirás based on aicaold.com.ar.
What actually happened was, Then-Father Bergoglio was consecrated as a bishop along with Bishop Raúl Omar Rossi on the very same day 27 Jun 1992 by Antonio Quarracino as their principle Consecrator. Both of them were the new Auxiliary Bishops of Buenos Aires.
Now in the same ceremony all four bishops, Emilio Ogñénovich, Ubaldo Calabresi, Mario José Serra and es:Eduardo Mirás participated as Principal Co-Consecrators. As it is the custom all four of them would have placed their hands on both Bergoglio and Omar Rossi. The problem now is that since the law requires to have at-least two Co-Consecrators both Bergoglio and Omar Rossi were given two Co-Consecrators each from the four. So I think that the names in the official records must reflect in the article.
(P.S: Also one more problem with the contradicting source is that Archbishop Mirás was not an archbishop at the time. He was named to Rosario about 1.5 years after the consecration of Pope Francis) -- Jayarathina ( talk) 17:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
AICA's new site has the information you supplied. You can see it HERE. I will make the change. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 18:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Today during the Angelus pope francis gave more detail why he chose his name: his ties with italy, in fact saint francis is the patron of italy. Here a source for that: The former Buenos Aires archbishop, whose father emigrated from Italy's northwestern Piedmont region, said he chose to name himself after St Francis of Assisi because of his "spiritual ties with this land". This is not a trivia: there was many discussions in the church (and probably during the conclave) if the new pope should be italian or not. So, in a way, the new pope is saying: well, i am not italian, but i pay a tribute to italy choosing that name. To me this fact is worth citing in the choice of name section. -- Chessstoria (3 s) (All your base are belong to us) 14:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessstoria ( talk • contribs)
It doesn't sound to me like a reason he chose the name exactly. He's describing an effect of his choice, and he has already explained the inspiration for that choice at the moment it was made. Others, I realize, may differ. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 16:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Here [6] is a Deseret News article by Matthew Brown, reporting statements by Francis and analysis by others on why he chose his name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I deleted a section about relations to "other Christian communities," noting that I would like to bring the issue to the talk page. The section was:
This is a section about a statement that is disputed -- and which here, Primate Venables notes was not written for publication, that "the conversation was in 2009 and did not imply that the Ordinariate was either temporary or an error, merely that the speaker values the Anglican Church as it is".
Seems to me that this one sentence disputed-statement doesn't add anything to the already included statement about positive relations between Bergoglio and the Anglican religious community.
I'll leave the final decision to others, but I think it should remain deleted. It's ultimately insignificant, I think. Thanks! NearTheZoo ( talk) 17:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Today the newspaper Clarin released a speciall issue on Pope Francis, the digital version of it should be here. I do have a phisycall copy of it, and in page 8 there's an interview with Carlos Hickethier, director of the Hickethier-Bachmann Laboratory, where Bergoglio worked. I for one can't access the digital version of it, so here's my rough translation of the relevant section:
The company was founded in 1923. 30 years later, one of their employess was Jorge Bergoglio, who already had his degree as a chemical technician. He worked at the morning shift, from 7 to 13. His superior was Esther Balestrino Careaga, Paraguayan, who'd be abducted by the Navy years later (See page 19) "Jorge dealt with controlling the raw materials for the products. He was at the Foods section. He must have been in the Lab up until the year 1956. He was very religious already [...]" Hickethier comments, who knew him in the 1950s.
There's also a second piece, on the relation of Bergoglio and Esther Balestrino Careaga:
In the 1950s Jorge Bergoglio was a chemical technician and she, Esther Balestrino Careaga, Licenciate in Chemistry, was her superior. They both worked at the Hickethier-Bachmann Laboratory, at Arenales and Azcuenaga, in Buenos Aires. [...] Bergoglio dealt with Foods, doing bromatologic tests on samples sent by companies to check their products.
This article does mention their mutual friendship, and how Bergoglio hid her communist literature during the dictatorship. She was eventually abducted and killed in one of the death flights. In 2005 he authorized her-reburial in the Santa Cruz church, in Buenos Aires. This part's mentioned here: http://www.clarin.com/mundo/Bergoglio-entierro-Madres-Plaza-Mayo_0_884311627.html
The company does have a website under a different name, ELAI S.C.A., http://www.elaisca.com.ar/, but it does list Carlos Hickethier as a member of the board; no mention of the pope there, yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.112.133.83 ( talk) 19:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The infobox says he is has Vatican citizenship. Is there a source for that? How and when did he acquire it? Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 11:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Apparently it's so "obvious" that some say Italian as well and another refers to cardinals living in Rome, which he has never been. I also love that NBC phrase: "technically, if not actually". Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 13:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I have created yesterday an entry for El jesuita, the first biography of Bergoglio by Sergio Rubin, edited in 2010. Considering the circumstances, I guess that it won't be published just in Argentina, and there should be projects around to translate it to English. If you ever find information about that, please add it to the article. I realize that Argentine media may be slanted towards the Argentine perspective of things, and may omit such a detail. Cambalachero ( talk) 12:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Again in "Relations with the Argentine government section", "As bishop" subsection, the reference given for the sentence: "During his time as archbishop, Cristina Fernández rejected 14 requests for meetings by Bergoglio.[65]( 1)" does not back the purpoted claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.111.219.140 ( talk) 17:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
In the article is says "in 1980 he was named the rector of the seminary in San Miguel". However we mention that Francis was educated first at Colegio Maximo San Jose and then later at Facultades de Filosofia y Teologia de San Miguel, both of which if I am understand everything correctly were seminaries in San Miguel. We might want to be more clear in this line so it is clear which Fancis was rector of. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Per the Jerusalem Post article and mentions earlier in this article, the book quoted in the inter-faith dialogue section was not written by Francis. Either he had more of a role in writting it, and the earlier mention needs to be revised to reflect this, this is a quote from a statement and he should not be said to have written it, or he was a co-author, and even then he probably should not be portrayed as the sole author. There seems to be a need for some sort of revision. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Should this information be added? It seems very interesting. -- 190.19.100.28 ( talk) 21:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
Hey, somebody noticed us: [7]. I think the preponderance of the evidence at this point is that the masters degree is probably the result of an error or mistranslation that got repeated by moderately reliable sources. Perhaps it would be a good idea to move the sentence to a footnote for now? Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 20:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I haven't been satisfied by either translation of the cardinal's motto I've seen so far on this page, although I readily admit it is tricky to render in English. To put it in context, it alludes to a line from the Venerable Bede, Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum, et quia miserando atque eligendo vidit, ait illi, Sequere me, which means, "And so Jesus saw the publican, and since he saw with pity and love, he said to him, Follow me." The reference is to Christ's calling of Saint Matthew. Here I've translated miserando atque eligendo as "with pity and love", although "love" does not quite do eligendo justice. I could just as easily translated the motto as "with pity and discernment" or "with pity and selection", although these would, I think, lose the original impact of the Latin. The Latin has a definite verbal quality to it. ("He sees by pitying and choosing.") The word eligendum is a Latin gerund; it is cognate with the English word and concept of Election (Christianity). Rwflammang ( talk) 02:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I've seen it translated as "Lowly (or Unworthy) but Chosen." Any thoughts on that? [1]
Бегемот ( talk) 13:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
It should be noted that "Miserando atque eligendo" was his motto as a cardinal. That does not mean it will also be his papal motto. 198.160.135.100 ( talk) 21:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry everyone, but individual editors conjecturing on the intended translation of the pope's episcopal motto the motto is simply WP:Original Research. We have to stick with the English translation that is widely used in verifiable sources such as official church documents and reports in the media, where the motto is translated as "Lowly, yet chosen." [11] 5-HT8 ( talk) 00:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
hi everyone! I have no knowledge of Latin whatsoever. Am I still allowed to tell everyone what I think the best translation is? Because I have some thoughts about what I think the sentence I don't understand means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.17.89 ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 16 March 2013
For what it's worth, the news sources don't have consensus yet. The AP renders it as "Having had mercy, he called him"; Catholic News, similarly, "because he saw him through the eyes of mercy and chose him." I don't think we should use the dubious translation "lowly but chosen", when there's disagreement in the press. (Has the Vatican offered an official English translation in any of its sources?
In the infobox, an editor rendered the motto "with pity and with choice". The source seems to be the editor's own translation of a news source in the Italian; I think this falls afoul of WP:OR, since the issue here is how to translate the phrase, and we're relying on an editor's own translation (and worse yet, a translation of a translation, Latin to Italian to English). Also, in the body of the text, someone reverted the translation back to "lowly but chosen", even though the linked source translates it differently. I'm going to remove both of those--reporters have translated the phrase in various ways, there doesn't seem to be consensus yet. -- Narsil ( talk) 01:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The copyright declaration says "own work". The pic ( added here) is a good quality close-up from the press audience on 16 March. So the photo must have been taken by a professional press photographer in attendance. AGF, but is it normal for a professional press photographer to upload their work on major current news event to Commons for everyone to use for free? I don't know much about Commons and how the copyright declarations are checked, but maybe someone who does could confirm everything is fine. DeCausa ( talk) 20:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
We now have just this coverage of Argentine rection to his election:
Should we privilege Argentine reaction in this way? Should there be wider coverage of reaction than this or....? Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not a fight I want to drag on and on, but why is it controversial that Francis is non-European? If he had been born and grew up in the USA under the exact same set of circumstances (Italian-born father, Italian-American mother), no one would question for a moment that he was non-European. (See my Dean Martin analogy above.) There's something about Argentina that some people seem not to get... the vast majority of people are of non-mestizo European background. That doesn't make them any less Argentine (and therefore non-European), though, then a European-heritage American is an American (and therefore non-European). Moncrief ( talk) 23:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not controversial that he's "non-European" by some, arbitrarily chosen definitions strictly focusing on cartography and its modern borders. But it's anachronistic to portray him as somehow having more in common with someone from Syria, than with people from eg. Italy or Germany or Poland. Syria was once part of the Roman Empire and the traditional cultural realm of christianity, and considering it "non-European" (as opposed to eg. Greek or southern Italian) in this context is really ahistorical too, because it was the same mediterranean region and Christianity started in the Middle East. Large parts of modern Tyrkey (in "Asia" as we understand it today) were once core Greek areas where European civilization was born, but describing a Greek person from those areas as "Asian" or "non-European" is just silly. Francis was born to two Italian parents and is 100% European/Italian by other definitions such as ethnicity. Choosing one definition like this only produces a small piece of trivia and a very pointless comparison between an Italian who was born in Argentina in the 20th century, and an Assyrian in the 8th century who was born in what was then the enormous Umayyad Caliphate and what was formerly a Roman area. Mocctur ( talk) 01:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
No, "European" is ambiguous. It can be used to mean someone who is descended from people from Europe. The wording could be something like "the first Pope from outside of Europe" (in x number of years).
Yes, the world was different in Roman times, but to imply the Empire was a homogenuous whole is false. The Eastern Empire was Greek-speaking, with a cosmopolitan Hellenic culture which had strong Eastern influences. Christianity itself was quite foreign to Roman (and Greek) civilisation when it emerged. It is very hard to talk of "Western civilisation" when taking the historical long view. To some extent this is trivial, and it is not very meaningful to make comparisons over such a wide arc of history. However, it is relevant to say that the Popes in ancient and medieval times were more representative of the "national" background of church membership than in modern times, where they have largely been Italian. The change to choosing a Polish Pope, then a German, then an Argentine, is certainly significant. I don't think the article as it stands captures that.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Now maybe a good time to talk about the photos in the article. In all good articles there should not be to many or to little. But what kind of photos do we need? I have put a photo of the pope as cardinal in, and I think it would be nice to have some of him as Provincal and even as a young man. But right now there is no one at Wiki Commons.
On the other hand I personally cant see how photos of jewish and muslim holy places have any need to be in this article. The two that are in the article no has no special connection to the Pope, they are simply holy places for Jews and Muslims in Argentina. Are they really needed?
If the article lacks pictures I would think that a painting of Saint Francis was more relevant, I have put one in the article to show what that could be. It has great connection to the Pope and his what he want to do in office.
But what do you think, what would be a good photo policy for this article? Jack Bornholm ( talk) 14:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The current title of this section does not match its contents. It is all related to his postion on same-gender marriage. Either we should include statements about his positons more broadly, or we should retitle the section to reflect its actual content. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree, but only in part. The point is relevant to Francis' approach to this and other issues. That people have noticed a change of tone doesn't doesn't strike me as a very opinionated statement. I think some of the language does tend to "hammer home" that point, so I'll remove the unnecessary "which was criticized by rights groups and politicians, including the President of Argentina,[154]", which, as they say, goes without saying, and isn't the point. Hope this helps. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 21:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC) And then I edited it still more: "learned from their failed campaign" was also unnecessary underlining. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 21:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The lead doesn't remotely comply with WP:LEAD (and is anyway too short per WP:LEADLENGTH). Topics that need to be covered (since they are covered in the article) are:- relations with Argentine government; relations with other religious communities; and teachings. Less clear structurally, but probably also need to be covered is something about what, so far, is known about his his style of papacy: the reasons for his adopting "Francis", less pomp, etc DeCausa ( talk) 21:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that someone did a live edit removing the information about having a teenage girlfriend. I think it is relevant enough to merit one sentence and a reference of 2. edit differences. >> M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 18:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
This article [15] contains this quote "In last year's address, Bergoglio said Argentina was being harmed by demagoguery, totalitarianism, corruption and efforts to secure unlimited power: a strong message in a country whose president has ruled by decree and left scandals unpunished." That would seem to be relevant to the relationship with the government section. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe you can find the original Spanish text of this address. Wasn't it the national holiday May 25? Here's 2012
The whole site is worth exploring: http://www.aica.org/d Go to Documentation, Bishops, etc. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 19:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I linked to the source. Are you saying you have a problem with that, 190.111.219.140? Excuse me for trying to help. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
John Pack Lambert: The lack of such language or anything remotely like in the document I linked to is perplexing, no? Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
As pointed in the article, it was the speech of 2004 the one that caused the childish reaction of the government. Still, it's a bit exaggerated to say that they were "rivals", actually, the Kirchner saw him as a rival, which is not quite the same thing. That's just their own paranoia: they see rivals and enemies everywhere. Other heads of state, politicians of other parties, politicians of other lines within their own party, justice, congress, union leaders, press, NGOs, even artists... anyone who is not a mindless zombie bowing to the will of the perfect president, is deemed as a traitor of the nation and attacked with all the resources of the state, including the network of propaganda outlets. Bergoglio was simply just another one who said something that Kirchner did not like. But he was not a rival, for the same reason that it is not correct to think that the Kirchners are innocent victims of an evil world turned against them. Cambalachero ( talk) 21:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
In "Relations with the Argentine government" section, "As bishop" subsection, it reads "The Kirchnerist regime", which is a biased wording, implying some kind of dictatoresque illegitimate government. Instead, the President was reelected on 2011 with mora than 55% of the voting on the first round. Please, change this wording to "The Argentine government" or "Kirchner's government" or something of the like. Thanks.
Well, it was one "dictatorial regime" that Bergoglio had no trouble standing up to.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 05:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
What was baseless about the claim?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 11:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I had placed that his inauguration (or installation) mass would be on the 19th. It happened as scheduled. I am wondering why this was removed since this is the ceremonial start of the papacy and the mass itself is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page? John Paul II and Benedict XVI both mention this event as part of their papacy for comparison. >> M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 10:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The name in Italian (Francesco) is irrelevant, particularly in the first sentence. If anything, the name in Latin is primary; the rendering in English is relevant in an English-language encyclopaedia, though English first makes sense. I make this comment for consideration, and won't edit. Conceivably it might be relevant to include a list of renderings in different languages somewhere in the text. According to languages of Vatican City the Holy See's language is Latin; Vatican City publishes laws and regulations in Italian. Pol098 ( talk) 15:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
The accusations stem only from ONE SOURCE, Horacio Verbitsky's (with a past history as a leftist guerrilla, hence probably also a biased source) books "El Silencio", upon which the media draw conclusions of their own. Before attacking the person more inforamation needs to be obained, instead of basing it on one source and (parhaps biased) jounalists that draw upon it.
Hey, not really sure how this wikipedia thing works but I wanted to point out that down at the bottom of The Guardian's article is what amounts to a retraction.
Currently it states he dismissed the two Jesuits "just prior to their disappearance." This is not true. Both were Jesuits at the time of their arrest. One, Jalics, still is a Jesuit. The other left after he was released. If they were professed Jesuits, the provincial could not dismiss them, it would take the Jesuit general. See http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/francis-jesuits-and-dirty-war RCSJ ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
For proof that Jalics is still a Jesuit, see his statement that is headed "Stellungnahme von P. Franz Jalics SJ." The "SJ" after his name means he is a Jesuit. RCSJ ( talk) 23:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
AP says "Both men were freed after Bergoglio took extraordinary, behind-the-scenes action to save them — including persuading dictator Jorge Videla's family priest to call in sick so that he could say Mass in the junta leader's home, where he privately appealed for mercy." See http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/pope-francis-biography-key-facts-life-in-latin-america-and-background-88818_Page3.html RCSJ ( talk) 22:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The bio states incorrectly that Jalics lives in German a monastery. Jesuits do not live in monasteries. It should be Jesuit community or Jesuit retreat house. For proof that Jalics is a Jesuit, see his statement that is headed "Stellungnahme von P. Franz Jalics SJ." The "SJ" after his name means he is a Jesuit. RCSJ ( talk) 23:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Footnote 49 lacks a reference to its source: "Trotskystfraction Fourth International" or "PTS Partido de los Trabajadores Socialistas." RCSJ ( talk) 23:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The comment, "There appears to be no outside confirmation for this," seems rather gratuitous since no other assertions are so qualified. RCSJ ( talk) 23:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
The Journalist Horacio Vervitsky has written several articles about this matter. They are all reunited on this link:
http://www.taringa.net/posts/noticias/5189962/Bergoglio-Dictadura-e-Iglesia---Por-Verbitsky.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.85.35 ( talk) 21:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Vervitsky has a clear bias in this whole debate and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. There are other sources who say that Vervitsky lacks any credibility on these matters. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The Section Relations with the Argentine government content doesn't reflect its source [18] fairly, what Bergoglio also did, according to the source, was lobbying so that the priests Yorio and Jalics were released. Bergoglio was also harshly criticised by the human-rights activists for not giving information, while Bergoglio himself claimed that he all the time pinpointed moral responsibility to involved parts. Circa so. Fair shall be fair. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 08:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The following sentence "Verbitsky also writes that the Argentine Navy with the help of Cardinal Bergoglio hid the dictatorship's political prisoners in Bergoglio's holiday home from a visiting delegation of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission" should be removed as it is not true. The note links to the source which is an article on "The Guardian", but the article itself has been amended on this regard with an apologising note stating this is not actually true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.243.165 ( talk) 13:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Done. Good catch, I verified the change to the cited source and removed the incorrect content. Andrew 327 14:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
This article in the Guardian makes the point that Bergoglio was accused of aiding the military dictatorship by hiding political prisoners from a foreign human rights commission. The article is from 2011 but it says the following:
As a supposed moral guardian and leader Catholic christians around the world this should be included in the article. -- Antabeta ( talk) 10:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
This sentence is contained within the article " Horacio Verbitsky, an Argentine investigative journalist and former montonero guerilla." Investigative journalist? Really. That sounds, slightly how shall we say, vague. Verbitsky is a Jewish communist who was personally involved in a campaign of violence with the Montoneros, a communist terrorist organisation during the Cold War involved in the kidnappings and murders of Argentine government personnel (according to Wikipedia's own article). Would for example, the claims of a member of Al-Qaeda be used as a source on the article of a high profile rabbi or somebody prominent in American society? The Vatican itself has claimed it was a defamatory campaign. If this sentence is to stay, I'd like to see after Verbitsky's name "Jewish communist terrorist", or any one of those three words to give some balance to what we're dealing with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.88.83 ( talk) 15:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thursday, March 14, 2013 ‘Bergoglio had no links with the dictatorship,’ Peace Nobel Prize winner
Peace Nobel Prize winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, assured today that elected pope Jorge Bergoglio "had no links with the dictatorship” that ruled Argentina between the years 1976-1983 as he’s been accused for many years. Speaking to BBC News, Perez Esquivel said that “there were bishops who were accomplices of the dictatorship, but it was not the case of Bergoglio.” “Bergoglio was questioned because it is said he did not do enough to get out of jail two priests, as he was the Superior of the Jesuits. But I know personally that many bishops called on the military junta for the release of prisoners and priests and these requests were not granted”, said Perez Esquivel.
Safku8 ( talk) 21:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The statement is rather contradictory. If he obtained the priests' release he obviously had influence with the junta.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 02:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Can be denied much, but not images and military government's own documents, i can't upload them to wikipedia, but I think a link to can see them.
Picture Bergoglio with Videla in a private mass (ultra-Catholic, Videla made "disappeared" his own son!)
http://arainfo.org/2013/03/papabilidades/
Foreign Ministry document during military rule:
http://i1297.photobucket.com/albums/ag32/Documents2/Bergoglio_zps9abb4408.jpg
This is the translation of the document:
"Father Francisco (Francis!) Calics
Solvent activity in female religious congregations (Conflicts of obedience)
Arrested in Mechanics School of the Naval (ESMA) (05/24/76). XI/76 (6 months) accused with the Father Yorio. Suspected guerrillas contact.
Live in a small community in the Jesuit Superior, dissolved in June 1976 and refused to obey requesting the exit of the company (of Jesus) on 19/3, received 2 expulsion, Father Jalics not, because have solemn vows. Any Bishop of Greater Buenos Aires want receive it.
NB: These data were supplied to the Mr. Orcoyen by the own Father Bergoglio, who signed this note, with special recommendation that don't give place to the are requesting."
Literally he released his hands, one of them was killed, the other had to flee the country. At other times the Church called this "relaxation to the secular arm"...Were not the only religious killed. And the guerrillas or the word that begins with the letter T, is too relative, was used as an excuse to murder political dissidents ... just by teach reading to the poor people, become you in a guerrillero.
Ashamed to read comments that do not know anything about my country history.
You knew for example that burning and banning books, ie A technical book as "La Cuba Hidroeléctrica" (the hydroelectric barrel) by the word Cuba, or even worst, forbidding teach more of 6 characters per school year, a child only could learn the whole alphabet at the five years of being in school!!!!
This not is politics, is the true...the more nobel value 186.62.185.205 ( talk) 00:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Alternative translation of the above document, without additional comment, except that "actividad disolvente", literally "dissolving activity", seems to mean a disruptive activity, might be a technical religious term. The document, on plain paper, is referring to an application ("the note") actually presented by Bergoglio. I have not myself added this to the article, just supplied an alternative translation.
"Father Francisco Jalics
- Disruptive activity in female religious congregations (conflict of obedience).
- The accused and Fr Yorio held in the ESMA 24/5/76 XI/76 (6 months). Suspected guerrilla contact.
- They lived in a small community that the Jesuit Superior dissolved in February 1976, and they refused to obey requesting release from the Company [of Jesus] on 19/3, two were expelled, not Fr Jalics because he is under solemn vows. No bishop within Greater Buenps Aires wanted to receive him.
NB: these data were supplied to Mr Orcoyen by Fr Pedro Bergoglio himself, who signed the note, with special recommendation that what is requested not be granted.
Signed: (apparently) Orcoyen"
Pol098 ( talk) 01:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe this information is both useful and important. The words come from Graciela Fernández Meijide, a former member of the CONADEP (Comisión Nacional sobre la Desaparición de Personas, National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons), an Argentine body created after the fall of the dictatorship to investigate the fate of the victims of the Dirty War. The sources are the following:
Thank you. -- 190.19.81.137 ( talk) 05:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The section about his role in the Dirty War seems to have "disappeared". The section seemed appropriate and didn't try to confirm such rumours but doubts have been expressed and this should be mentioned especially now that the Vatican itself has spoken about them. Wikipedia should not give in to the demands of the Vatican. This section needs to be restored.-- ЗAНИA talk WB (ctrl-click)">WB (ctrl-click)">WB (ctrl-click)"> WB talk] 18:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Human rights attorney Myriam Bregma claims Bergoglio endorsed the dictators when he knew they were torturing and killing Argentinians and claims “this key support” enabled the junta to operate that way. It is claimed Bergoglio knew at least one case when a woman five months pregnant in the De la Cuadra family was kidnapped, she gave birth in captivity, the baby was stolen and given to another family. A monsignor allegedly brought Bergoglio a written note saying the baby was with a family too important for the adoption to be reversed. In 2010 Bergoglio claimed not to have known about stolen babies during the dictatorship despite his alleged personal knowledge of this case. [1]
"Bergoglio has a very cowardly attitude when it comes to something so terrible as the theft of babies. He says he didn't know anything about it until 1985," said the baby's aunt, Estela de la Cuadra, whose mother Alicia co-founded the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo in 1977 in hopes of identifying these babies. "He doesn't face this reality and it doesn't bother him. The question is how to save his name, save himself. But he can't keep these allegations from reaching the public. The people know how he is." [1]
Estela de la Cuadra feels Borgoglio's denial that he knew about babies born in concentration camps being adopted amounts to "lies and hypocrisy". Estela de la Cuadra wants the Vatican to release documents which could shed light on what really happened but this is unlikely.
The above is a serious allegation and should stay in the article. What the defenders of Pope Francis say about his supposed heroic actions sheltering dissidents has remained in the article and accusations should stay too. Otherwise the article is unbalanced. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 20:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I've shortened this. It just carries on and repeats itself and the use of the blockquote made no sense at all. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 22:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Here we have another case similar to the saga with Horacio Verbitsky, the famous Cold War terrorist. According to the Spanish Wikipedia, Myriam Bregman, the person who is cited as a mere "human rights attorney" and given a platform to make outlandish claims that the Pope is involved in facilitating the "kidnapping of children" is actually a member of the Socialist Workers' Party (Argentina) which is a Trotskyist organisation. Like Verbitsky, she also appears to be Jewish if the surname Bregman and the spelling of Maria as "Myriam" is any indication to go by. If there are some criticisms of the Pope, then by all means find some reliable/non-partisan people, but lets not try to sneak in rabid anti-Catholic Trotskyists under their favourite little mask of "human rights activists" and people with an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.88.83 ( talk) 22:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Borgolio's claim that he heroically sheltered dissidents in church property and more is also suspect. We rely solely on Borgolio's personal testimony for that. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 09:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I personally don't think there is strong evidence that Borgoglio connived in abduction of babies. Still there is evidence he knew abut it during the dictatorship and lied when he claimed he found out only after the dictatorship. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 09:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Should we include at all the claims of Horacio Verbitsky at the "As provincial" section? As pointed, he is not a neutral observer, he was a guerilla soldier back in that time (for not saying the "T" word). And now he's a journalist, right... a journalist of a government-sponsored newspaper, always ready to provide slander and defamation to the perceived "enemies" of the Chávez-styled government of Argentina. I would hardly consider him a reliable source. Cambalachero ( talk) 02:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I removed the unsourced claim of no independent confirmation of Pope Francis' statements about helping people avoid capture by the government during the dictatorship. If someone published an article we could cite that stated "there is no independent confirmation of this", it would be worth including. However just infering this from the sources that exist here is not justified, it is editorializing and assumptions that are not justified. Information needs to be sourced, and that includes the claim of a lack of information. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
this was posted online last night.
please add the info+link to main article
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294580/Special-report-The-damning-documents-new-Pope-DID-betray-tortured-priests-junta.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.117.2.51 ( talk) 14:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The article opens with "Damning evidence that Pope Francis may have betrayed two priests" the fact that they use the conditional "may" shows that the title is intentionally inflamatory and that the material itself does not support the claims made. What really remains unclear is why the head of the Jesuits should tolerate preists who are not in line with vows of obeidience, and how what happens to them later is his fault. The article notes that Jalics traces his arrest to information provided by an anti-government guerrila after that guerrila was arrested. The Daily Mail is clearly involved in sensationalization we should avoid. It also is reflecting an anti-Catholic bias. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
"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”.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciao 90 ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
As an Argentinian, he was entitled to make somewhat nationalistic statements like that. If he continued to make such statements about the Falklands as the Pope, that would be notable. Scott P. ( talk) 01:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, the Guardian has here [19] run another article about Pope Francis and the Falkland Dispute. I am not really sure it is worth including anything from it in this article though. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Should we even have this secion. It seems to not really be related to actual religious teaching on his part. His statements seem to have been more about general Argentine patriotism than taking any considered postion on the question. I do not think it isreally a notable postion on his part and think we should remove that section from the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Should we have a section about the Falklands dispute? Bergoglio has not said anything about that topic as a Pope, only a year ago, and we shouldn't be detailing his position on every topic that he has ever talk about. Poverty, abortion, homosexuality, etc; are usual religious concerns, so it is justified to detail his ideas and actions in relation to those topics. The Falklands dispute is not a religious controversy but a geopolitical one. As an achbishop (what he was when he said those things) his opinion was inconsequential for the international arena, as a Pope, his opinion has more weight... and so his responsability is higher. Perhaps he will try to promote somehow the Argentine claim (for example, proposing a mediation), or perhaps he will stay neutral towards it. I think that we should remove the section, and recreate it in the case he actually takes action as Pope in the topic. Cambalachero ( talk) 01:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
This is still the biography article of Bergoglio, not just the "Pope Francis" article. So anything of note he said before he was pope can stay in the article, as long as it is put into proper biographical context. If he takes a more conciliatory approach to the Falklands as pope (as no doubt he will, at least rhetorically), this can still be put into context of what he had said before he became pope.
The anti-gay-marriage stuff was very much of note within Argentinian politics. No, it isn't notable that a pope is "anti gay", this is part of his job description. You cannot be an orthodox Catholic and at the same time take a "pro-gay" stance. THis is simply mutually exclusive. WHat you can do, and what is being done by the less conservative clergy, is argue that nobody is without sin, and that you should hate the sin, not the sinner. Unlike the discussion on abortion, the New Testament is very clear about male homosexuality at least, and as pope, you are not at liberty to just selectively throw out some of the less convenient Pauline statements. So this isn't news. What can and should be treated is the actual political activism (on top of purely doctrinal rejection) on the part of Bergoglio in Argentinian politics. -- dab (𒁳) 12:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Who and why removed the Section about MALVINAS?... There a section about it, and someone removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastian2013 ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
If you removed the Malvinas thing, you need remove ie the Kirchner part & many other...follow your arguments...pre-papal issues...him say "The Malvinas are ours"...with this 4 words...him say: I am Argentine (this is for other stupid doubts in the article), in the article say...many first from there...never say first of Argentina, first form South America (I prefer this this and not "Americas", because most of 45 countries in this fuc...ing continent call him America and not Americas -only 2 countries-, and is more, not call in this form call him South America, Central America, now is...The Americas, hahaha. If the pope come from USA certainly you say...The firts of America and nothing more.
Malvinas was not an isolated act of Bergoglio, but that "spiritual" helps veterans was continuous, on the other hand this is a common point (among many others) with Kirchner, who have been the visibilizaron to former combatants , and among other things gave them a decent pension and constant recognition and always making clear the stupidity the war.
Article visibly flawed subjectivity is everywhere, as many others, such as the opposition of Kirchner, there are many things that corcuerdan, but always clearly more "news" those in which you disagree.
Can track and see the many opportunities that have come together.
Maybe in other countries is different but in Argentina which are responsible for governing the politicians, not the Church, which incidentally always tried to interfere in the policies of all governments that have existed, and that is the only real conflict. 186.62.153.250 ( talk) 07:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this is just a British issue. You can say Bergoglio is just a patriotic Argentine, but the fact is (like many patriotic Argentines) he thinks that the wishes of Falkland Islanders should be trampled on. And he is now the head of an international church. That is significant.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not see any logic in Lambert's argument at all. The Falkland Islands have been a British colony for almost 200 years. They have no history as part of Argentina. There is no Argentine, or Hispanic, community on the island. The islanders are of British origin and almost unanimously want to stay a British colony. Sure, the colony is a creation of British imperialism, but Argentina is a creation of Spanish imperialism. Sure, nationalistic Argentines think they have a right to the islands, but that shows their bias, not mine.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I think this issue has become more than just an Argentine archbishop expressng national feelings as seen from this article [21] that mentions that Kirchner has called on Pope Francis to mediate the dispute. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
"full well that there is nothing Francis can do," :Hmmmm. This is what many thought about Pope John Paul II on Soviet Communism. The Soviet Union was not very catholic or even close to Christian. In the end, he had a hand in it's downfall.
For starters, events could sour quite easily in Northern Ireland if he voices his oposition tocolonialism. This Pope will work quietly in his own way to end colonialism, in all of its forms. He is an Argentine who stands against injustice, his anti colonial feelings are well known. He has been quite open about it. He knows his nations history and the fact that Britain usurped part of his nation’s territory, hard won in its independence from Spain, and evicted the Argentine population. A British usurpation that Argentina has never accepted, and whose lawful claim is protected by the United Nations charter. Spain and then Argentina have exercised sovereignty over the Malvinas/Falkland Islands and Argentina did have a settlement exercising sovereignty after its independence until they were usurped through an act of piracy. The Vatican does have the moral authority to intervene in such matters, particularly when Peace is threatened, as in this case by Britain’s unilateral militarization of the South Atlantic. Making threats of missile attack, nuclear annihilation, an act of fear to cover up its inability to deal with international norms and abide by United Nations resolutions. Pope John Paul II took quite action to undermine Soviet Communism and contribute to its downfall. Papal Intervention in politics to affect political outcomes has happened before and there is no reason to believe that this Pope will not do the same. For starters, events could sour quite easily in Northern Ireland if he voices his oposition with colonialism. I am quite sure that London has thought about this. A reformation of the Vatican diplomatic corp is under way. This Pope willl not allow any party to duc its responsibilities to the International Community where peace is at risk. Your Holiness, greetings from the United States. God bless you. We pray for a successful Papacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.132.70 ( talk) 16:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Are we sure we want The Falkland Islands to have a whole section for itself? Personally I dont see how it is significant enough to even be in the article. But if it is going into the articles then it must as a subsection under relations with the argentine goverment.
Jack Bornholm (
talk)
14:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Just a suggestion. If someone finds that Bergoglio's pre-papal comments ("usurped") and Cameron's wisecrack ("white smoke") and Kirchner's request for papal mediation belong somewhere on WP, then the material should be added there and a simple entry under "See also" in this entry would suffice. As far as I can tell that hasn't happened yet. Perhaps Argentina–United Kingdom relations. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 21:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Father Franz Jalics, one of the priest captured and tortured and now living in Germany, issued a statment today (for now, it seems to be issued just in German):
Erklärung von Pater Franz Jalics SJ
Gugganij ( talk) 13:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Jalics say: "Ich bin mit den Geschehnissen versöhnt und betrachte sie meinerseits als abgeschlossen" (I have been reconciled to the events and from my side consider them closed)...not is the same true???
Jalics write the book "Szemlélődő lelkigyakorlat" (hungarian)(Meditation or maybe Contemplation Exercises)(1994):
"Many people who held far-right political beliefs frowned on our presence in the slums. They interpreted the fact that we lived there as a support for the guerrillas and proposed denounce us as terrorists. We knew where the wind was blowing and who was responsible for these slanders. So I went to talk to the person in question and explained that I was playing with our lives. He promised that the military would know that we were not terrorists. For subsequent statements of an officer and thirty documents that could be accessed later we saw that this man had kept his promise but, on the contrary, had filed a false complaint with the military...that person made credible slander using his authority...him testified to the officier that kidnapped us who us worked on the terrorist scene. Earlier I told to this person who was playing with our lives. He must be aware that him sent us to their deaths with their statements."
Gives no names, just said person.
Letter to Father Moura, Assistant General of the Company of Jesus, Roma, 1977...Orlando Yorio describes the same circumstances but change "person" by Jorge Mario Bergoglio... 186.62.153.250 ( talk) 08:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Pater Jalics issued another statement. In a nutshell:
Gugganij ( talk) 21:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
This information should be added to the article. I believe a sentence or two would suffice. -- 190.19.77.29 ( talk) 21:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Here [22] is an article by Thomas Reese, in which he explains that Bergoglio had not in any way removed Jalics and Yorico from being Jesuits. I tried to incorproate that notion into the article, but have to say I wonder if we should not go further. It seems the preponderance of evidence is making Verbitsky's claims more an more the subject of 2005 than the 1970s. The whole thing needs to be re-examined with the realization there is no grounds for the claims that Bergoglio had removed these men from the ministry, and that Jalics has on multiple occasions explictly stated that his capture was not prompted by Bergoglio, and that any though that it was on his or anyone else's part was incorrect. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
This paragraph "The Jesuit historian Fr. Jeff Klaiber interviewed Jesuit Fr. Juan Luis Moyano, who had also been imprisoned and deported by the military. Moyano told Klaiber that Bergoglio did go to bat for imprisoned Jesuits. There are disagreements over whether he did as much as he should have for them, but such debates always occur in these circumstances." from the Reese article might be worth incorporating in some way. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I was referring to comments such as "We are family"...-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Are the languages he is fluent in notable? We had a referenced list that was removed with the argument it is not notable to him. Being "known for it" seems to high a bar. It would seem to me that the leader of a multi-national organization could benefit from being fluent in multiple languages and such fluency would be worth mentioning in an article on him. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
These have disappeared once again. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 19:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
This article [23] suggests that Bergoglio initially sought a different course in response to the proposal for same-gender marriage by the Argentine government. I am not sure how best to integrate this information into the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
This has been added. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 21:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
This has been denied by other sources. See http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fnoticias.universogay.com%2Fcontinua-la-polemica-por-el-nuevo-papa-y-las-uniones-gays__22032013.html 209.116.238.162 ( talk) 15:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
According to Leonardo Boff, Francis approved the adoption of a child by a same-sex couple not long ago: [24]
"Hace un par de meses por ejemplo aprobó expresamente que una pareja de homosexuales adoptara un niño."
The story appears to be based on an interview Boff gave to Der Spiegel. Confirmation? Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 18:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Right now See Also has Jerónimo Podestá & Jesuit formation. That seems like an odd choice. I think there are better options: Jesuits to begin with. What pages should be there >> M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 14:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The statement that he was a bouncer has re-surfaced (previous discussion has presumably been archived). It is so stated in some references, but they seem dubious. Given the amount of unfounded nonsense that is published, we need better sources to say this. Pol098 ( talk) 16:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I see nobody's picking this up. The most detailed reference I can find says: "to support himself during his studies he worked for a time as a bouncer in a dive of very bad repute in Cordoba" (my translation). I haven't found any references in Spanish (which doesn't mean they don't exist), which I'd expect if this were true. I would say that this point is only credible if more detail and witnesses are found - at least the name of the place, dates, maybe someone who knew him at the time. Search terms I've tried: buttafuori, cordoba, combinations of sacaborrachos, boliche, local. Gorila isn't very useful, too common in Argentina. Pol098 ( talk) 19:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Did Francis study at Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina as maybe suggested by this [25] telegraph article, or should we write it off as unsourced claims like the claim he has a masters in chemistry, which also appears in that article, but seems unlikely based on what we have. In fact, we lack any proof he was ever a student at the University of Buenos Aires. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys, as an alumni of the most prestigious university in Argentina (University of Buenos Aires), I was amazed to read in here that Pope Francis studied there too. In fact, that's not true. Where do you get that information?? First of all, the University of Buenos Aires didn't say a word about his designation, each time an alumni or professor get something (an award, or something like that), the university use to communicate that. This was not the case. The University of Buenos Aires is a centre-left or leftist academy, it's impossible this guy has ever put a foot at the doors of any of its faculty. Sorry, but no. Whoever put that information has a way to show or support that falacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeroPsycho22 ( talk • contribs) 08:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
This article [26] in the Gaurdian reports plans for Pope Francis to wash the feet of inmates. I will leave it up to others to see what, if anything, to include in the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was closed by Aunva6 below. -- BDD ( talk) 20:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
Pope Francis → Francis (pope) – New naming convention for Popes agreed upon by concensus at WP:Naming conventions (clergy)#Popes. Primary article should be Francis (pope) with a redirect from from Pope Francis to Francis (pope) ReformedArsenal ( talk) 01:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
should the article be renamed to Francis (Pope)?
consensus recently changed at WP:naming conventions (clergy), however, due to the visibility of the article, extra consensus is required.-- Aunva6 talk - contribs 05:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
No, oppose. Consensus on this page is that we do not move this article anywhere. Francis (pope) is a hopeless, clumsy title, worse than all other previous proposals. I don't see any changed consensus, article titles of Popes in Wikipedia have been well established for 10 years or so and I see no reason to change that. Mocctur ( talk) 04:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose rename, there is absolutely no compelling reason whatsoever to arbitrarily rename our articles on hundreds of popes when we are served just fine by our current approach. Further, the discussion you linked to seems to be developing a consensus for the status quo. Harej ( talk) 08:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Would this mean that you want to change 266 wikipedia articles from Pope X to X (pope)? That is not realistic and goes against a pretty established 266 article precedence. What would be the reason to do so? Jack Bornholm ( talk) 15:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. It would make the title of this article clumsy and counter-intuitive for casual readers of Wikipedia. The new naming convention for popes is a silly idea anyway: whatever is done with more strictly secular monarchs, popes are a unique case. There are 266 of them: there's no reason they can't have their own aptly customized article-naming convention, instead of being clumsily assimilated to the convention for a broader category. Wikipedia should aim for clarity and ease of use as an *encyclopedia* for those seeking information, not at being an outlet for a "blessed rage for order" among us frequent editors. How many encyclopedia readers instinctively type "Francis (pope)" for information on this guy? I imagine very few. The proposed change is obfuscatory. Rinne na dTrosc ( talk) 16:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
After the sentence that reads "Following the resignation ofhis predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, on 28 February, the conclave elected Bergoglio, who chose the papal name Francis in honour of Saint Francis of Assisi." please add this sentence: "There is speculation that he may have had two other individuals in mind when he chose the name Francis, namely (1) St. Francis Xaviar, the Jesuit who was very humble and helped the poor, and (2) Francis Sisco, the popular transgender New York comedian, who is usually known as Fran Sisco."
FrankSisco ( talk) 03:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Let's be clearer. Rather than say "speculation". This has been contradicted by eyewitness accounts of what Francis said at the very moment he took the name. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 17:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not experienced enough to know the best way to do this. The presence of Bartholomew I at the Papal inauguration is already mentioned in the section on relations with the Orthodox Church but I think his presence is noteworthy enough to mention at the part on the inauguration. Could I write "As seen above, the Patriarch of Constantinople was present at a papal inauguration for the first time since the great schism of 1054."? Or is there a better way to do this? I presume many will not read the article from start to finish but jump to what they want. >> M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 17:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I've added into the Other section under Writings one of the few previous English-language publications by Jorge M. Bergoglio, a book chapter in: Buzzi, Elisa. 2003. A generative thought; an introduction to the works of Luigi Giussani. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10132858. Giussani founded the Catholic movement Communion and Liberation. This book is of note since two other Cardinals considered for the papacy, Angelo Scola and Marc Ouellet, also contributed chapters. A more experienced editor can probably properly finish fine-tuning this addition to the references. Ajschorschiii ( talk) 18:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
So content is to be censored based on the fact that the sources are Jewish?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
See comments above. The supposed fact that certain people are "Jewish" is repeatedly stated as a reason to disregard allegations against the Pope.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Really??? What about this?
Jews are therefore "unreliable"???-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The wish has been granted: Verbitsky is back in the article. The government sent a secret report to the conclave, based on Verbitsky's rants, to try to prevent the election of Francis. That's more grave than mere rants in a newspaper, that's actual politics. Still, the entry points who is this man, to make it very clear that, endorsed by government or not, his claims have no credibility (and indeed they had not) Cambalachero ( talk) 15:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, John Paul II did stand up to the Communists in Poland. And how could the cardinals in the conclave know whether there was substance to this? What is obscured in this discussion is that the only person who knows the truth is the Pope himself. Only he knows what he knew and when he knew it, what secret meetings he had, and what covert and illegal activities he might have undertaken to help victims.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 04:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The whole truth is only known by the Pope. And he alone can know his motives. If someone has access to Rubin's book, The Jesuit, it would be worthwhile to include something of the Pope's own account of himself during this difficult period, rather than an exercise in accusing the accuser.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 11:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not a great source - a lot of personal commentary in there. Bergoglio's testimony is not just vague: it's evasive. The issue of the priests' status seems unresolved. Wikipedia currently says they weren't dismissed, but the transcripts indicate they were in some "transition". I don't know what this means. However, terminating their status doesn't make the Pope complicit in what happened next. The junta clearly had no problem with attacking priests, nuns etc. It would be good to know if the archives were, in fact, released. Other sources say he refused to release them. Wikipedia currently doesn't make it clear that it was Yorio who initiated the 2005 case. According to this article, he even suggested that Bergoglio was present at the interrogation. However, the two priests had only limited awareness of what was going on, and have never been in a strong position to accuse or absolve Bergoglio. Being against liberation theology doesn't make him a supporter of the junta. However, he only seems to have come out an opponent of the junta in recent times.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Well here [27] is a Wall Street Journal article. The main thing I used it for was adding Olievera's statement Bergoglio helping people flee the country. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
While the WSJ editorial pages are purely political, its news pages are considered absolutely solid. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 16:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I am regretting I ever put the Falklands section back in there. Now we have the Beagle Island dispute section tacked on with a-no sources cited, b-an attempt to connect Auxiliary Bishop Bergoglio with it, even though it was resolved in 1984 and he was not made auxiliary bishop until 1992. If he was involved in some later negotiations they should be dated and sourced. I really wonder if we should not scrap the whole section. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is what the Spanish article has to say about this (translated by Google):
Isn't it notable that Kirchner was the first head of state he met with after becoming Pope, especially given how the article goes on about how their relations are strained? I think not mentioning this meeting and Kirchner's request for mediation violates both WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:POV. If Barack Obama were the first head of state Francis met with, you can be sure that English Wikipedia would mention that. Also, English Wikipedia is edited mostly by Americans and Brits; the Brits having control over the Falklands is a legacy of English colonialism, so editors prefer to ignore that Francis takes this issue seriously, violating WP:POV. Does Wikipedia ignore that John Paul II believed the communist government of Poland to be illegitimate? No. How are the two cases different? The USSR was an enemy of the U.S.; Britain is America's closest ally. – Herzen ( talk) 19:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Should we include information on Miguel La Civita in this article. This [29] Gaurdian aritcle states I was the exact prototype of what used to be called "third world" priests," says Miguel La Civita, who in 1976 was a close collaborator of Bishop Enrique Angelelli, murdered by the dictatorship for his work organising the poor into labour unions and manufacturing cooperatives in the northern province of La Rioja. "After Angelelli's murder, Bergoglio put us under his protection," La Civita says. He claims Bergoglio was secretly active "helping people who were persecuted by the military", hiding them at the school he headed in Buenos Aires. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The introduction needs to summarise the body to a reasonable degree, without becoming huge. Points that needed to be included: attitudes regarding abortion, contraception, homosexuality; attitude (non-pompous); emphasis on the poor. Actions during the dictatorship. Rather than starting with a discussion, I've added a couple of suggested paragraphs. I'm sure they'll be much edited, so I'll give my original text here. While I'm not wedded to my text, these points need to be there.
Pol098 ( talk) 15:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Other points need to be added with minimal detail, e.g., relations with other religions. Pol098 ( talk) 15:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not agree. Important modifications (such those you made in the incipit) needs to be discussed in advance. To me there is no consensus, so I removed them. -- Chessstoria (3 s) (All your base are belong to us) 16:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The article says: "Murias Carlos of God". It should read: "Carlos de Dios Murias". ( http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_de_Dios_Murias) Thank you, -- 201.231.134.189 ( talk) 19:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)