![]() | 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 | Archive 6 |
I just deleted a "clarification needed tag." I almost never delete what other editors post, but I think this is a situation where "this may have been" is a true description of scholarly judgment about an issue, not a waffling in the article that demands we do some more homework and figure out if it is or isn't. This is the note I wrote to the editor who put in the clarification needed tag. Perhaps others can help with the decision. "I just deleted your "clarification needed" note after a comment "this may have been." I wanted to let you know that I think this is the best phrase to use based on the scholarly reference. The fact that it "may" have been the first time the Orthodox Ecumenical Bishop attended a papal installation -- but definitely was the first time since the split between Western and Eastern Catholicism -- is the scholarly judgment of the history. Readers who want to learn more about the reasons it "may" have been, and that's as close as we can get to a scholarly judgment, can read more in the ref. I don't think this is an open and shut case, but really a good statement of scholarly opinion. I hope you agree.... Anyway, I'll reprint this on the talk page, but wanted to explain to you directly as well, since I hardly ever delete what others have added. However, saying clarification needed normally means there is a time limit to get an answer -- and this is an historic fact that may never be answered." (End of my post to him.) NearTheZoo ( talk) 21:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Regret to see "Edit lock" placed at midnight, so I cannot continue developing segment on Pallottine martyrs with a link to radio interview of on-the-ground-witness of 1976 events, Irish Bishop Seamus Freeman in a radio interview broadcast on RTE1, March 14 2013. Disagree with the "edit move" to Cardinal, since the 6 disappearances were first an unsolved crime before they became a form of faithful religious witness as martyrs when the murders were revealed. Pls advise. MrsKrishan ( talk) 04:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Have expanded segment with forensic photo of the murders and hotlink to the St Patrick Church massacre page. Left newer sentence fragment under "Cardinal" linking to the original 3-level heading segment MrsKrishan ( talk) 05:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I support the removal of this material by DeCausa. The only point that relates to Francis is his support of the beatification process, which I rescued from this. I have advised MrsKrishan in a discussion on our Talk pages to consider adding to San Patricio Church massacre and Pallottines, which are far more appropriate for some of her factual material. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 17:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure if the link is to the right Seamus Freeman, but it seems he is probably the right person. If it is so, his article should probably mention something about his connection with Francis. I am a bit unclear what Freeman's link to the whole matter is. I am also not 100% sure how the St. Patrick's massacre links to Francis either. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
We need to specificy when Cardinal Bergoglio opened the cause of the San Patricio victims. Dating such events is important, it is currently a very weak mention. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the Holy See (separate, of course, from The Vatican City State) should be mentioned in the lede. Perhaps replace "As such, he is both head of the Church and Sovereign of the Vatican City State" -- with "As such, he is head of the world-wide Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome with ecclesiastical authority over the Holy See, and Sovereign of the Vatican City State. Not sure that wording is perfect, but better? What do others think? NearTheZoo ( talk) 14:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
NearTheZoo ( talk) 14:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be the misunderstanding that the Holy See somehow refers to the local role of the Pope as Bishop of Rome, that it refers to the diocesis of Rome. But that's not the case! The term is synonymous with the Pope and encompasses all his roles. Hence, I'm afraid, I have to take it out again. Str1977 (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The article states that the Gospel was sung in Greek because of +Bartholomew's attendance. However, the Gospel was also sung in Greek at Pope Benedict XVI's installation Mass, as it traditionally has been done at all solemn papal masses. The difference this time was that the Gospel was sung only in Greek, and not also in Latin ( http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-inauguration-brings-world-to-rome/). Since the claim, as usually stated, doesn't get the facts quite right, I'm skeptical also that it was "because" of +Bartholomew's attendance. 02:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.56.249 ( talk)
I've made a change, putting the claim that the Gospel was chanted in Greek to honor Bartholomew in a note, contrasted with what the Vatican News Service says to the contrary. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 21:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
What's the general view of this section under Teachings. I've read it through and it means little to me and seems a series of platitudes. I guess that doesn't matter, that's probably just my persoanl reaction. However, when I look at the sources there are only three of them and they are all primary (i.e. Francis's own words). There are no secondary sources that identifies this as a topic in itself. How did this section come about? How has it been identified as a notable topic? I am suspicious that it amounts to WP:OR - not the statements themselves, but its identification as a noteworthy topic deserving of its own section. Views please. DeCausa ( talk) 16:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The lead now says he is "the first to come from the Americas, the first to come from the New World and the first to come from the Southern Hemisphere".
It seems unncessary to have such a long list of all firsts imaginable, especially as all these essentially cover the same topic (in this context, the New World and the Americas refer to the same thing). First from the Americas would suffice. Mocctur ( talk) 04:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
As discussed ad nauseum perhaps, Francis's country of origin does break new ground. There has never before been a Pope from outside of Europe or the Mediterranean. I don't think the wording really captures this.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Do we need to say this in the lead? I mean, of course he is the first Pope to chose the name Francis, otherwise he would be Pope Francis II, Pope Francis III or something else. That seems a needless additional first to just have more. I think we should cut back to from the southern Hemisphere and from the Americas. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The article needs to start getting split up as per John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I know it's still early, but it's already somewhat unwhieldley. Ericl ( talk) 13:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
"Buenos Aires Islamic leaders praise Bergoglio's close ties with the Islamic community by citing his reactions to a 2005 incident when Pope Benedict XVI quoted a medieval document that described Muhammad as "evil and inhuman".[100]"
The year should be changed to 2006 (September 12, 2006 actually). It was at the Regensburg Lecture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regensburg_lecture
74.71.97.118 ( talk) 00:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Dan Sheffield 74.71.97.118 ( talk) 00:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Done The cited source referred to it as happening in 2005, so I just removed the date altogether to avoid confusion.
Andrew
327
15:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Everyone knows that the pope use to be a jesuit, but is he still so. And if not when did he stop being? Discussions about this that was all over this talkpage are gathered here. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 16:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Does he keep the "SJ" post-nominals after his name, as a Jesuit? Pylon ( talk) 19:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
All of that goes away. The only thing that matter is the fact he is now the Bishop of Rome. Jorge Mario Brogoglio, SJ for all intents and purposes does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.204.221.78 ( talk) 20:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
What's the basis for adding "SJ" to the name of the Pope. Sure, he was "SJ" as a bishop and cardinal but I see no precedence for adding a religious order to a pope - see Pope Pius V, who is never called Pius V SJ. Str1977 (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
It's true that Bergoglio was a Jesuit for 32 years. But once he became a bishop, he is technically no longer a Jesuit. Jesuits make a promise not to accept higher offices in the Church. When they are asked to take on those jobs, they are dispensed from that promise as well as their vows of obedience to their religious superior and poverty. They literally have to leave the Society in order to become bishops.
So, the comment that he is the first Jesuit pope is actually a misnomer. A Jesuit cannot be pope and still be a Jesuit.
I'm new to this forum, but some sort of note to that effect should be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jas2013 ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Here [1] is a New York Times article on Francis' time as head of the Jesuits in Argentina. Considering that the New York Times' forming managing editor basically stated that it is ok for journalists to be biased on social issues, and the clear bias of the NYT on social issues is against the moral positions taken by Pope Francis and the Roman Catholic Church more generally, it could very well be plagued by biases, and should be balenced by other sources, but it is worth at least considering in the formation of the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Some sources say he was elected rather than named Provincial. The Jesuits don't elect someone to that office. He is named by the order's Father General. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 17:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
From Jesuits, the National Jesuit News, a blog post includes comments from Gerald Blaszczak SJ, of the New York Province, who is now director of the Secretariat of the General Curia for the Promotion of Faith: "The Jesuits promise not to seek high offices in the church, which explains in part why there has never been a Jesuit pope before. However, Father Blaszczak said, that Jesuit promise is secondary to their promise to always be available for whatever mission the church needs them to take on." --- OtherDave ( talk) 22:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The last 2 previous popes from religious orders were Benedictines who were elected in 1800 and 1846. I don't think postnomial initials were used for them when referring to them as pope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 15:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is an article [2] that suggests that at least one of the reasons Pope Francis nad the Kirchner's have had such deep disagreements is because he felt it was wrong to undo already applied amnesties. I would argue the article is biased for the Kirchner's and fails to analize the reason why amnesty is a worthwhile thing, and why undoing it particularly is a bad idea. I think the quotes from Sergio Rubin get somewhat at the reasons that trying to make everyone into a "collaborator" does not work, but I think there needs to be more analysis of the issue. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that the "Relationship with the Kirschner's" section overly plays up the extent of bad relations between Francis and Mrs. Kirchner. Argentina has a Catholic majority and the present government is liberal, so of course there is going to be tension between the government and the RCC hierarchy, on account of the hierarchy's positions against abortion and same-sex marriage.
This AP story says the Pope had lunch with Kirchner last Monday and that "They also seemed to have patched up their relationship." Isn't that worth a mention in this section? If any Western government has poor relations with Francis, it is the UK government—on account of its hardline position on the Falklands—not the Argentine government. – Herzen ( talk) 21:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Is this notable? She isn't really making a positive statement about him. It's just she doesn't know anything.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Several days ago The Wall Street Journal released an article exposing the reasons why Pope Francis was the subject of allegations regarding the kidnapping of two priests by the military. I believe a sentence or two explaining the situation would help readers to understand why he was unfairly accused of crimes he never committed. Thoughts? -- 190.19.77.29 ( talk) 05:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
URUGUAY-VATICAN-POPE FRANCIS-MOSCA or EXCLUSIF AFP: un Uruguayen dit avoir fui la dictature argentine grâce au pape François. Relevant? -- Cyrus Grisham ( talk) 10:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that Clarín, La Nación, Perfil and other media in open war against Kirchnerism should not be used as sources: what I'm saying is that IF they are used as sources, they should be explicitly mentioned in the text, as a sort of warning.
It is clear (for everyone, I hope) that Wikipedia is a great place to look for information on Fibonacci numbers or the Gregorian Calendar, but it is also an awful place to look for information on the freedom of the press in Venezuela during the Chávez administration: everyone knows that the contents of articles dealing with controversial issues are modeled according to the editing power of fire of either side. My point is: when you contaminate Wikipedia articles on contemporary politics with non-neutral content, you don't harm your political adversaries, but you harm the quality of the articles instead. For in any case, perhaps no one is as silly as to form his/her opinions on contemporary politics by reading Wikipedia articles.
Sorry if I went a bit off-topic in the previous paragraph, but sooner or later Wikipedia should decide how to deal with articles on Latin American politics which use furious anti-leftist media as overwhelmingly dominant sources.
In this particular article, I read the following sentence, with a reference to Clarín newspaper of Buenos Aires:
"During his time as archbishop, Cristina Fernández rejected 14 requests for meetings by Bergoglio"
And I changed it to:
"According to an article by Clarín newspaper of Buenos Aires, during his time as archbishop... etcetera
Since Clarín newspaper is obviously non-neutral, it is evident for me that the second version is better.
Should I use a NPOV tag instead? Sebasbronzini ( talk) 07:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
One more statement: by my own experience, I came to the opinion that NPOV tags and NPOV boxes are insufficient tools to deal with this problem, because the same editors who use to contaminate controversial articles with information taken from non-neutral sources, typically also engage in deleting NPOV warnings and/or reverting editions when another editor dares to question the reliability of their sources. Sebasbronzini ( talk) 08:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
My Spanish isn't great either, but it's good enough to notice that it seems pretty clear that some of these sources, including El Pais, have reservations (to put it mildly) about the claim and are NOT presenting it as 'uncontested fact'.
which basically means "In the most remote part of history, there appears to remain the 14 times when, according to various Argentine media, Bergoglio officially called to the gates of the Pink House to be received by the president, and nobody opened them." In other words, it is NOT a confirmation by a newspaper of record. And it was supplied to us by a user with no name and red ink for a talk page and who did not offer us a translation, all of which should arguably itself have been grounds for skepticism (except for the problem that we're seemingly expected to live in Cloud Cuckoo Land, and are thus supposed to comply with WP:AGF and Assume Good Faith).
This translates as 'It is said - though there is no confirmation from the National Government - that the Pink House 14 times postponed requested audiences by monsignor (or My Lord?) Jorge Bergoglio when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires....". Again this is clearly NOT asserting that this happened.
Translation: "With total aplomb, local media tell of 14 times when the former cardinal of Buenos Aires asked to be received by president Cristina, 14 times that the requester was refused, 14 times when the current pope was snubbed by the president, 14 times when pride gave a slap in the face to piety, simplicty and humility." Again seemingly NOT claiming to be factual reporting, but an opinion piece based on claims by unspecified local media.
I know nothing about the reliability of Perfil, but Wikipedia describes it as a tabloid newspaper which is strongly critical of the government. (The word 'tabloid' tends to have pejorative connotations with regard to reliabilty, which may well be undeserved in this case). It seems to more than accept the story (14 has become 'at least 14'). It says 'The now pope requested at least 14 audiences from Her. She never received him. He who is now coming.' I'm not 100% sure that 'He who is now coming' is a correct translation. The capital E in Ella seems ironic (perhaps meaning something like She who must be obeyed, or She who thinks She is God) though I can't be sure it isn't just politeness or a friendly nickname. At any rate this sounds like an opinion piece, not factual reporting, and in any case not from any clearly reliable source.
In conclusion, I think we should at least temporarily revert to the position before these highly questionable citations became available. And we may also need to decide on what if anything needs to be done to try to prevent this happening again. Tlhslobus ( talk) 12:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Despite (or perhaps because of) being the one who has now deleted the claim, I'm not sure that this is quite the right thing to do, despite
WP:EXCEPTIONAL (which can always be overridden by
WP:IAR if that improves the encyclopedia). We have a claim which in two months has made it from Argentina to Uruguay and Spain, and will quite possibly soon be all over the world, but which nobody can learn anything about on Wikipedia even though that is arguably precisely where people should be able to go to learn the status of such a claim. So arguably it should be mentioned while pointing out its lack of reliable support, something along the lines of:
'In January 2013, the Argentine newspaper Clarin, which is frequently in conflict with the Kirchner government (citation), claimed that President Christina Fernandez de Kirchner had refused 14 requests to meet Bergoglio while he was Archbishop of the Argentine capital of Buenos Aires (citation). The claim was soon reported in places as far apart as Ecuador (citation) and Spain (citation) , though the more reliable sources usually added qualifiers attributing the claim to elements in the Argentine media (repeat Ecuador and Spain citations).'
I may eventually add this to the article myself, but I'd prefer to give people some time to comment here first.
Tlhslobus (
talk)
a) If Clarin wishes to publish the truth as it sees it, and the government takes action to try to prevent it, that is 'a struggle or clash between opposing forces' as per your chosen definition 1 of 'conflict', even though this could also be described by many reasonable people as a one-sided attack by the government on Clarin.
b1) If Clarin thinks it a good idea to publish the truth as it sees it, and the government thinks it a good idea to take action to try to prevent it, that is 'a state of opposition between ideas' as per your chosen definition 2 of 'conflict', even though this could also be described by many reasonable people as a one-sided attack by the government on Clarin.
b2) If Clarin thinks it is in the interest of the Argentine people to publish the truth as it sees it, and the government thinks it is in its interest to takes action to try to prevent it, that is 'a state of opposition between interests', again as per your chosen definition 2 of 'conflict', even though this could also be described by many reasonable people as a one-sided attack by the government on Clarin.
b3) If Clarin thinks it is in the interest of the Argentine people to publish the truth as it sees it, and the government disagrees and takes action to try to prevent it, that is a 'disagreement', again as per your chosen definition 2 of 'conflict', even though this could also be described by many reasonable people as a one-sided attack by the government on Clarin.
C) If Clarin wishes to publish the truth as it sees it, and the government wishes to prevent it and takes action to try to prevent it, that is 'opposition between two simultaneous but incompatible wishes' as per your chosen definition 3 of 'conflict', even though this could also be described by many reasonable people as a one-sided attack by the government on Clarin.
But since there is probably literally an infinite number of similar dubious or false arguments that you can find to throw at me as you have been doing for the past week, we could carry on with this absurd debate until Doomsday. And I happen to have better things to do with my time. So I hereby announce that I surrender. I agree that everything I have written here, to use your wise and objective words 'makes absolutely no sense', while everything you have written are the self-evidently wise and objective words of a dispassionate and neutral observer. You win. Congratulations. Tlhslobus ( talk) 05:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't Argentina have massive criminal gang problems, like MS 13 or something? Does the new Pope have trouble there? That would be terrible if he did and no doubt cause a schism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.146.74 ( talk) 18:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
This new section under relations with other religious communities includes a lot of non-referenced statements, so I added some "citation needed" tags, plus I deleted some sentences which really had nothing to do with Pope Francis (only background information on church history, both at the beginning and at the end, where a sentence categorized a theological difference as a great heresy). There is a statement that I left that says this exchange is a "step forward" in terms of the split that occurred in 451, but I think this should be included only if someone recognizable in the religious world said so. Otherwise it's an "original research" conclusion, I think. Anyway, hope the section is slightly improved, but it definitely needs more work. By the way, I added a good number of wikilinks which can provide background rather than including the background in the section or page. NearTheZoo ( talk) 15:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
User:Juddhoward has engaged in some very insulting edit summaries. I went and posted comments on his talk page asking him to cease doing so. However I also noticed that he had responded to my previous comment on his talk page in a very insulting and rude way. After I made the comments I noticed he told me not to comment on his page again. I find his behavior to be very disruptive, especially his insistence on insulting and calling a liar anyone who disagrees with what he thinks should be in the article. I am seriously considering reverting another one of his recent edits merely because his rude way of justifying it made no sense. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Once had a 'crush' on a girl, ( citation) causing him to reconsider preisthood (and whether celibacy should be required). Interesting. Includable? LCS check ( talk) 00:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The section on celibacy seems to make the same point a few times, explicating words which don't require much explication. Francis doesn't talk this. It's just because snippets are being taken from a variety of accounts. A block quote of his actual words would do the job, IMHO, far better, with perhaps a little expert commentary to finish it off. Like this:
He said:
For now the discipline of celibacy remains firm. Some say, with a certain pragmatism, we're losing manpower. If, hypothetically, Western Catholicism revises the issue of celibacy, I think it would for cultural reasons (as in the East), not as a universal option. For the moment, I am in favor of maintaining celibacy, with the pros and cons it has, because there are 10 centuries of good experiences rather than failures.... It is a matter of discipline, not of faith. It can change.
Per Manseau, Peter (21 March 2013). "In Praise of Priestly Marriage". New York Times. Retrieved 21 March 2013.
And this one:
In the Western Church to which I belong, priests cannot be married as in the Byzantine, Ukrainian, Russian or Greek Catholic Churches. In those Churches, the priests can be married, but the bishops have to be celibate. They are very good priests. In Western Catholicism, some organizations are pushing for more discussion about the issue. For now, the discipline of celibacy stands firm. Some say, with a certain pragmatism, that we are losing manpower. If, hypothetically, Western Catholicism were to review the issue of celibacy, I think it would do so for cultural reasons (as in the East), not so much as a universal option.
OK, so he does repeat himself. These are conversations after all. We can still do better than the goulash we have now, no?
Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 17:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear Str1977, Please see the section in Pope Francis re celibacy of priests. I did some rewriting based on your comments, and hope you think this is a good compromise. I don't think we can know that the comments Francis made as Cardinal really were restricted to the possibility of ordaining married men, especially since the Catholic Church has already ordained a number of married men who had been Lutheran and Episcopal priests. The reaction that his words were "remarkable" wouldn't have fit his comments if that were the case -- and he is discussing a hypothetical conversation about "the celibacy of priests". I think we should stick to his comments. Do you agree? In terms of the correct fact that in the East, the tradition is to ordain married men as priests but not to allow priests to marry is, of course, true, but I can't find a quote from Bergoglio that makes this distinction. So instead of leaving the words changed as you wrote them I simply used direct quotes from him. I think this is the preferred way to go until he makes additional comments or perhaps someone makes that distinction in a response to these comments by him. Anyway, my hope is that when you look at the section again you'll agree the rewritten version is good enough at this point. Best, NearTheZoo ( talk) 14:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I removed this paragraph "In March 2013, 21 Catholic parliamentarians from the United Kingdom wrote a letter to Francis, asking him to allow married men in Great Britain to be ordained as priests, keeping celibacy as the rule for bishops, as a sign of the "high regard we have for those who are able to live a genuinely celibate life.” [1] The letter cited the fact that married Angligan priests have been ordained by the Catholic Church and allowed to serve as Catholic priests, noting that "These men and their families have proved to be a great blessing to our parishes." [1] "Based on that very positive experience," the letter continued, "we would request that, in the same spirit, you permit the ordination of married Catholic men to the priesthood in Great Britain." [1]" from the Celibacy section. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
We are reporting on Pope Francis' views. There might be some mention of this worthwhile in the Papacy section, but really I think maybe if there is soemthing worthwhile it belongs in some other article. If Pope Francis responds and institutes the suggested change in Britain it might have a place, but for now I do not think it does. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on regarding the section about views on issues including abortion, birth control, euthanasia, and the elderly--in terms of what order should be used to list these issues. Can I suggest we change the sub-section tile to "Dignity of Life," which seems to be the term used in the Bergoglio quote to encompass the issues addressed here? (Another term used by many theologians to categorize such topics is "the edges of life" -- but I think using a phrase taken directly from Bergoglio's words is preferable.) Of course, he also uses "culture of death" -- but I would still vote for "Dignity of Life." What do others think? NearTheZoo ( talk) 16:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I was just about to comment on this. Here's what I wrote:
We have a sub-section titled "Abortion, euthanasia, birth control and the elderly". While the sequence of items might not seem a big matter, there is no reason to change it from its original version, which makes sense for two reasons:
However, there is another editor who insists on changing this sequence, not once but three times now.
His edit summaries suggest that these reverts are happening for POV reasons, namely to equate abortion and birth control.
I don't think this behaviour is acceptable. Str1977 (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
My general answer is "no". I think the two-paragraph quote is a complrehensive statement of his views. I removed this part of the article "]], and in 2011 referred to it as "the devil's work". [2]" I have 3 issues with it. 1-most precessingly the way it was justified to be included involved a needless insulting of editors. 2-although this article comes from 2011, it seems to just be commenting on our quote from 2010. 3-everything in this quote is included in the actual quote from Bergoglio himself we have a little further down. This article seems to be trying to emphasize one of Bergoglio's points without considering the context in which he said it. "Father of lies" may be the same as "devil" in reality, but the connotation of the two terms is not the same. Also the "he calls it the work of the devil", seems to be trying to say he has not applied analysis to the issue, while the quote we have gives a better sense of his actual thought process on the issue. I think we are best off leaving out this quote, especially since it appears to be just a rehashing of the other quote we have. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I am indifferent on the header. But including the "devil" quote in addition to the full actual quote is redundancy and reflects a POV. It is also using a translation that isn't supported by two different reliable sources. Both Time magazine (which was the original RS before both paragraphs of the full quote was put into the article) and the current RS used for the 2 paragraph quote used "father of lies" as the translation. Marauder40 ( talk) 12:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Pope Francis' statements in oppostion to same-sex marriage were in opposition to same-sex marriage. We should not try to interpret them in some other way by removing that term from the section heading. Realistically that is the main thing discussed in the section, and we definately should use that term in the title. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is an interesting video that uses a heat map to show how online activity reacted to Pope Francis being announced (based on log data from Patheos.com) . I think it would be an interesting link to add to the external video/media section? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GydeAMI21I0
Jeff Smith 76.185.4.125 ( talk) 14:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I know the subject of expanding the lead has come up before and the concensus seems to be to keep it as it is. However, because it is supposed to be a concise summary of the article, I would like to recommend that we add at least one more sentence, noting that he has always been known for his humility, his care for the poor, and his commitment to interfaith dialogue and the healing of divisions among people of different beliefs. (I suggest "different beliefs" because he not only believes it is part of the mission of the Catholic Church to heal divisions between those of different faiths, but also between those of faith and so-called "nonbelievers." I think just saying "people of different beliefs" would include these different categories.) Again, I know we want to keep the lead short, but right now it does not mention anything about him as a human being or the impression he has made throughout his life on those who have worked with him--despite the fact that the article certainly includes these subjects. What do others think? NearTheZoo ( talk) 01:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please make the revision indicated in bold to the following sentence under the Cardinal section
At the same time, Begoglio ordered an investigation into the murders themselves, which had been widely blamed on the military regime that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983.[65]
At the same time, Bergoglio ordered an investigation into the murders themselves, which had been widely blamed on the military regime that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983.[65] 147.108.253.254 ( talk) 10:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Here [10] is the Atlantic article that serves as a source for the doubling of the number of priests assigned to the slums of Buenos Aires while he was Archbishop. There might be other things worth extrating from the article as well. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Pre-papal career", I find the heading "Jesuit", which includes this:
"before becoming a bishop[when?] Bergoglio was mentored"
Try moving "[when?]" to just after "mentored"; in its PRESENT location, it seems to be asking when he became a bishop, and we do know when he became a bishop.
128.63.16.20 ( talk) 15:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
In teh section " Homosexuality and same-sex marriage" we mention the "Bishops' Conference of Argentina". Is this the same as the Argentine Episcopal Conference used elsewhere in the entry, which also has its own modest entry of WP? Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 18:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
We need a new page on his teachings. I understand that only the hot button issued addressed here are provocative enough to go on the main page. But his more strictly theological views have been discussed on this talk page and never added to the page, and subsequently deleted from the talk page. These would be appropriate for a separate page on his teachings alone. We should start such a page with the information about his teachings currently on the page and then let it grow to include the less prominent subjects. 209.116.238.162 ( talk) 14:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Pope Francis have already made shown that he will take the church in a different direction (the old feetwashing rewieved as an example), so 209... why not be bold and make the page. I dont know if you have to be a registered editors to do that, but it is really easy to make an account in any case. If such an article really is so meaningless it will be nominated for deletion, but considering the presedence with Benedicts teaching article created 10 days after his election I think that would be very unlikely to happen. Happy work Jack Bornholm ( talk) 21:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#RFC on Papal article consistency.
Elizium23 (
talk)
22:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is a press release [11] about four volumes in Spanish and later English translations of Pope Francis' teachings, specifically addresses given in 2005, that is planned. I am not sure if these are new works, or if any have been previously published. My initial supposition is that the works are previously unpublished. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Under the papacy section, we include English as one of the languages spoken by the pope. However, in the March 31, 2013 news analysis by BBC analyst David Willey here, he notes that "Pope Francis was, however, almost incomprehensible when he tried out a few words in English to the crowds in St Peter's Square last week." NearTheZoo ( talk) 14:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't the last pope to choose a name not used by his predecessors John Paul I (1912–1978)? — Torontonian1 ( talk) 16:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
His name should be pronunced like [franˈtsiskus] not [franˈtʃiskus]! 79.163.147.147 ( talk) 17:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like to suggest putting the previous picture of Pope Francis back up. He wears glasses most of the time, so the previous picture of him as pope that was on the page before would be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsepe ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I am making this section in case the Vatican wishes to provide images and other material. Most of the information they will need is at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates If the copyright holders themselves follow the steps then that would be easiest. We can upload the images from a website or email but the rights holders would need to specify a licence through OTRS for them. Just click the edit button at the top right of this section and post comments at the bottom.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 18:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Older images may be hard to find the copyright holders. We do have some of John Paul I as Pope in commons:Category:Ioannes Paulus I. I also found an email for the Vatican and added the request for other papal images.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 01:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
This: "However Miguel Woites, the director of the Catholic News Agency of Argentina, who works directly for the Bishops' Conference of Argentina and as such worked closely with Bergoglio when he was head of the conference, denied that Bergoglio ever made such a proposal."
The fact that he's "director of the Catholic News Agency of Argentina" isn't sufficient to identify him? I'm also not sure he claims anything about "worked closely in the source. The source makes the point without belaboring it. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 19:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Done. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 02:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Does the photo File:Student, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, circled, studied chemistry before joining the priesthood.jpg have an acceptable copyright? According to Argentine copyright law, it is not enough that the photo was produced more than 20 years ago, it must have been published as well. A personal photo kept in a family album or similar, has not been "published". If the value increased (for example, because a man in the photo became pope), the 20 years after publication begin to count after a media made for the general public publishes the photo.
But should this photo be nominated for deletion, or can a non-free use rationale be justified? As this is a very visible article, I don't want to rush things. Cambalachero ( talk) 04:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Reference 171 is cited as written by "Heller, Jim". Should read "Heller, Jill".
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.66.114.182 ( talk) 15:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
"Aparecida Document" is a terrible heading. It's part of a series of subjects on which Francis has expressed himself. It stands out in the table of contents as an example of "which of these things is not like the others".
I know this has been discussed before, but..... Instead of trying to find a label to put on the material we now have in place, shouldn't we decide on one or more headings and then place the appropriate matter under each heading? One might be "child abuse". Another would be "abortion and euthanasia" (because as far as I can see Francis discusses them as two sides of one coin and we should use the categories on which he has expressed himself, not pre-existing categories or categories that we devise. I'm sure people have opinions. And I'd like to see more of what he has said over the years, less focus on Aparecida as if it was all we had to work with. Perhaps separate headings?)
There are also 2 stray sentences that either need to be expanded or dropped, one about contraceptives and another about "seniors". These may or may not deserve their own headings. The first seems more like opposition to government policy that could be placed elsewhere.
The underlying point is that we should be covering subjects Francis has addressed, not summarizing a document, and not summarizing a document written on behalf of a group and subject to papal approval. We should be able to find his won words. At most, coverage of the Aparecida document should be used to support our best summary of Francis' thinking/rhetoric on these issues. By using the heading Aparecida, we limit the sources we can bring to bear on the subject and exclude other statements he has made as an individual, and that does our readers a disservice. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 21:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
una movida del Diablo
![]() | 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 | Archive 6 |
I just deleted a "clarification needed tag." I almost never delete what other editors post, but I think this is a situation where "this may have been" is a true description of scholarly judgment about an issue, not a waffling in the article that demands we do some more homework and figure out if it is or isn't. This is the note I wrote to the editor who put in the clarification needed tag. Perhaps others can help with the decision. "I just deleted your "clarification needed" note after a comment "this may have been." I wanted to let you know that I think this is the best phrase to use based on the scholarly reference. The fact that it "may" have been the first time the Orthodox Ecumenical Bishop attended a papal installation -- but definitely was the first time since the split between Western and Eastern Catholicism -- is the scholarly judgment of the history. Readers who want to learn more about the reasons it "may" have been, and that's as close as we can get to a scholarly judgment, can read more in the ref. I don't think this is an open and shut case, but really a good statement of scholarly opinion. I hope you agree.... Anyway, I'll reprint this on the talk page, but wanted to explain to you directly as well, since I hardly ever delete what others have added. However, saying clarification needed normally means there is a time limit to get an answer -- and this is an historic fact that may never be answered." (End of my post to him.) NearTheZoo ( talk) 21:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Regret to see "Edit lock" placed at midnight, so I cannot continue developing segment on Pallottine martyrs with a link to radio interview of on-the-ground-witness of 1976 events, Irish Bishop Seamus Freeman in a radio interview broadcast on RTE1, March 14 2013. Disagree with the "edit move" to Cardinal, since the 6 disappearances were first an unsolved crime before they became a form of faithful religious witness as martyrs when the murders were revealed. Pls advise. MrsKrishan ( talk) 04:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Have expanded segment with forensic photo of the murders and hotlink to the St Patrick Church massacre page. Left newer sentence fragment under "Cardinal" linking to the original 3-level heading segment MrsKrishan ( talk) 05:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I support the removal of this material by DeCausa. The only point that relates to Francis is his support of the beatification process, which I rescued from this. I have advised MrsKrishan in a discussion on our Talk pages to consider adding to San Patricio Church massacre and Pallottines, which are far more appropriate for some of her factual material. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 17:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure if the link is to the right Seamus Freeman, but it seems he is probably the right person. If it is so, his article should probably mention something about his connection with Francis. I am a bit unclear what Freeman's link to the whole matter is. I am also not 100% sure how the St. Patrick's massacre links to Francis either. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
We need to specificy when Cardinal Bergoglio opened the cause of the San Patricio victims. Dating such events is important, it is currently a very weak mention. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the Holy See (separate, of course, from The Vatican City State) should be mentioned in the lede. Perhaps replace "As such, he is both head of the Church and Sovereign of the Vatican City State" -- with "As such, he is head of the world-wide Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome with ecclesiastical authority over the Holy See, and Sovereign of the Vatican City State. Not sure that wording is perfect, but better? What do others think? NearTheZoo ( talk) 14:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
NearTheZoo ( talk) 14:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be the misunderstanding that the Holy See somehow refers to the local role of the Pope as Bishop of Rome, that it refers to the diocesis of Rome. But that's not the case! The term is synonymous with the Pope and encompasses all his roles. Hence, I'm afraid, I have to take it out again. Str1977 (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The article states that the Gospel was sung in Greek because of +Bartholomew's attendance. However, the Gospel was also sung in Greek at Pope Benedict XVI's installation Mass, as it traditionally has been done at all solemn papal masses. The difference this time was that the Gospel was sung only in Greek, and not also in Latin ( http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-inauguration-brings-world-to-rome/). Since the claim, as usually stated, doesn't get the facts quite right, I'm skeptical also that it was "because" of +Bartholomew's attendance. 02:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.56.249 ( talk)
I've made a change, putting the claim that the Gospel was chanted in Greek to honor Bartholomew in a note, contrasted with what the Vatican News Service says to the contrary. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 21:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
What's the general view of this section under Teachings. I've read it through and it means little to me and seems a series of platitudes. I guess that doesn't matter, that's probably just my persoanl reaction. However, when I look at the sources there are only three of them and they are all primary (i.e. Francis's own words). There are no secondary sources that identifies this as a topic in itself. How did this section come about? How has it been identified as a notable topic? I am suspicious that it amounts to WP:OR - not the statements themselves, but its identification as a noteworthy topic deserving of its own section. Views please. DeCausa ( talk) 16:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The lead now says he is "the first to come from the Americas, the first to come from the New World and the first to come from the Southern Hemisphere".
It seems unncessary to have such a long list of all firsts imaginable, especially as all these essentially cover the same topic (in this context, the New World and the Americas refer to the same thing). First from the Americas would suffice. Mocctur ( talk) 04:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
As discussed ad nauseum perhaps, Francis's country of origin does break new ground. There has never before been a Pope from outside of Europe or the Mediterranean. I don't think the wording really captures this.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Do we need to say this in the lead? I mean, of course he is the first Pope to chose the name Francis, otherwise he would be Pope Francis II, Pope Francis III or something else. That seems a needless additional first to just have more. I think we should cut back to from the southern Hemisphere and from the Americas. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The article needs to start getting split up as per John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I know it's still early, but it's already somewhat unwhieldley. Ericl ( talk) 13:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
"Buenos Aires Islamic leaders praise Bergoglio's close ties with the Islamic community by citing his reactions to a 2005 incident when Pope Benedict XVI quoted a medieval document that described Muhammad as "evil and inhuman".[100]"
The year should be changed to 2006 (September 12, 2006 actually). It was at the Regensburg Lecture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regensburg_lecture
74.71.97.118 ( talk) 00:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Dan Sheffield 74.71.97.118 ( talk) 00:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Done The cited source referred to it as happening in 2005, so I just removed the date altogether to avoid confusion.
Andrew
327
15:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Everyone knows that the pope use to be a jesuit, but is he still so. And if not when did he stop being? Discussions about this that was all over this talkpage are gathered here. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 16:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Does he keep the "SJ" post-nominals after his name, as a Jesuit? Pylon ( talk) 19:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
All of that goes away. The only thing that matter is the fact he is now the Bishop of Rome. Jorge Mario Brogoglio, SJ for all intents and purposes does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.204.221.78 ( talk) 20:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
What's the basis for adding "SJ" to the name of the Pope. Sure, he was "SJ" as a bishop and cardinal but I see no precedence for adding a religious order to a pope - see Pope Pius V, who is never called Pius V SJ. Str1977 (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
It's true that Bergoglio was a Jesuit for 32 years. But once he became a bishop, he is technically no longer a Jesuit. Jesuits make a promise not to accept higher offices in the Church. When they are asked to take on those jobs, they are dispensed from that promise as well as their vows of obedience to their religious superior and poverty. They literally have to leave the Society in order to become bishops.
So, the comment that he is the first Jesuit pope is actually a misnomer. A Jesuit cannot be pope and still be a Jesuit.
I'm new to this forum, but some sort of note to that effect should be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jas2013 ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Here [1] is a New York Times article on Francis' time as head of the Jesuits in Argentina. Considering that the New York Times' forming managing editor basically stated that it is ok for journalists to be biased on social issues, and the clear bias of the NYT on social issues is against the moral positions taken by Pope Francis and the Roman Catholic Church more generally, it could very well be plagued by biases, and should be balenced by other sources, but it is worth at least considering in the formation of the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Some sources say he was elected rather than named Provincial. The Jesuits don't elect someone to that office. He is named by the order's Father General. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 17:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
From Jesuits, the National Jesuit News, a blog post includes comments from Gerald Blaszczak SJ, of the New York Province, who is now director of the Secretariat of the General Curia for the Promotion of Faith: "The Jesuits promise not to seek high offices in the church, which explains in part why there has never been a Jesuit pope before. However, Father Blaszczak said, that Jesuit promise is secondary to their promise to always be available for whatever mission the church needs them to take on." --- OtherDave ( talk) 22:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The last 2 previous popes from religious orders were Benedictines who were elected in 1800 and 1846. I don't think postnomial initials were used for them when referring to them as pope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 15:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is an article [2] that suggests that at least one of the reasons Pope Francis nad the Kirchner's have had such deep disagreements is because he felt it was wrong to undo already applied amnesties. I would argue the article is biased for the Kirchner's and fails to analize the reason why amnesty is a worthwhile thing, and why undoing it particularly is a bad idea. I think the quotes from Sergio Rubin get somewhat at the reasons that trying to make everyone into a "collaborator" does not work, but I think there needs to be more analysis of the issue. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that the "Relationship with the Kirschner's" section overly plays up the extent of bad relations between Francis and Mrs. Kirchner. Argentina has a Catholic majority and the present government is liberal, so of course there is going to be tension between the government and the RCC hierarchy, on account of the hierarchy's positions against abortion and same-sex marriage.
This AP story says the Pope had lunch with Kirchner last Monday and that "They also seemed to have patched up their relationship." Isn't that worth a mention in this section? If any Western government has poor relations with Francis, it is the UK government—on account of its hardline position on the Falklands—not the Argentine government. – Herzen ( talk) 21:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Is this notable? She isn't really making a positive statement about him. It's just she doesn't know anything.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Several days ago The Wall Street Journal released an article exposing the reasons why Pope Francis was the subject of allegations regarding the kidnapping of two priests by the military. I believe a sentence or two explaining the situation would help readers to understand why he was unfairly accused of crimes he never committed. Thoughts? -- 190.19.77.29 ( talk) 05:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
URUGUAY-VATICAN-POPE FRANCIS-MOSCA or EXCLUSIF AFP: un Uruguayen dit avoir fui la dictature argentine grâce au pape François. Relevant? -- Cyrus Grisham ( talk) 10:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that Clarín, La Nación, Perfil and other media in open war against Kirchnerism should not be used as sources: what I'm saying is that IF they are used as sources, they should be explicitly mentioned in the text, as a sort of warning.
It is clear (for everyone, I hope) that Wikipedia is a great place to look for information on Fibonacci numbers or the Gregorian Calendar, but it is also an awful place to look for information on the freedom of the press in Venezuela during the Chávez administration: everyone knows that the contents of articles dealing with controversial issues are modeled according to the editing power of fire of either side. My point is: when you contaminate Wikipedia articles on contemporary politics with non-neutral content, you don't harm your political adversaries, but you harm the quality of the articles instead. For in any case, perhaps no one is as silly as to form his/her opinions on contemporary politics by reading Wikipedia articles.
Sorry if I went a bit off-topic in the previous paragraph, but sooner or later Wikipedia should decide how to deal with articles on Latin American politics which use furious anti-leftist media as overwhelmingly dominant sources.
In this particular article, I read the following sentence, with a reference to Clarín newspaper of Buenos Aires:
"During his time as archbishop, Cristina Fernández rejected 14 requests for meetings by Bergoglio"
And I changed it to:
"According to an article by Clarín newspaper of Buenos Aires, during his time as archbishop... etcetera
Since Clarín newspaper is obviously non-neutral, it is evident for me that the second version is better.
Should I use a NPOV tag instead? Sebasbronzini ( talk) 07:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
One more statement: by my own experience, I came to the opinion that NPOV tags and NPOV boxes are insufficient tools to deal with this problem, because the same editors who use to contaminate controversial articles with information taken from non-neutral sources, typically also engage in deleting NPOV warnings and/or reverting editions when another editor dares to question the reliability of their sources. Sebasbronzini ( talk) 08:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
My Spanish isn't great either, but it's good enough to notice that it seems pretty clear that some of these sources, including El Pais, have reservations (to put it mildly) about the claim and are NOT presenting it as 'uncontested fact'.
which basically means "In the most remote part of history, there appears to remain the 14 times when, according to various Argentine media, Bergoglio officially called to the gates of the Pink House to be received by the president, and nobody opened them." In other words, it is NOT a confirmation by a newspaper of record. And it was supplied to us by a user with no name and red ink for a talk page and who did not offer us a translation, all of which should arguably itself have been grounds for skepticism (except for the problem that we're seemingly expected to live in Cloud Cuckoo Land, and are thus supposed to comply with WP:AGF and Assume Good Faith).
This translates as 'It is said - though there is no confirmation from the National Government - that the Pink House 14 times postponed requested audiences by monsignor (or My Lord?) Jorge Bergoglio when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires....". Again this is clearly NOT asserting that this happened.
Translation: "With total aplomb, local media tell of 14 times when the former cardinal of Buenos Aires asked to be received by president Cristina, 14 times that the requester was refused, 14 times when the current pope was snubbed by the president, 14 times when pride gave a slap in the face to piety, simplicty and humility." Again seemingly NOT claiming to be factual reporting, but an opinion piece based on claims by unspecified local media.
I know nothing about the reliability of Perfil, but Wikipedia describes it as a tabloid newspaper which is strongly critical of the government. (The word 'tabloid' tends to have pejorative connotations with regard to reliabilty, which may well be undeserved in this case). It seems to more than accept the story (14 has become 'at least 14'). It says 'The now pope requested at least 14 audiences from Her. She never received him. He who is now coming.' I'm not 100% sure that 'He who is now coming' is a correct translation. The capital E in Ella seems ironic (perhaps meaning something like She who must be obeyed, or She who thinks She is God) though I can't be sure it isn't just politeness or a friendly nickname. At any rate this sounds like an opinion piece, not factual reporting, and in any case not from any clearly reliable source.
In conclusion, I think we should at least temporarily revert to the position before these highly questionable citations became available. And we may also need to decide on what if anything needs to be done to try to prevent this happening again. Tlhslobus ( talk) 12:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Despite (or perhaps because of) being the one who has now deleted the claim, I'm not sure that this is quite the right thing to do, despite
WP:EXCEPTIONAL (which can always be overridden by
WP:IAR if that improves the encyclopedia). We have a claim which in two months has made it from Argentina to Uruguay and Spain, and will quite possibly soon be all over the world, but which nobody can learn anything about on Wikipedia even though that is arguably precisely where people should be able to go to learn the status of such a claim. So arguably it should be mentioned while pointing out its lack of reliable support, something along the lines of:
'In January 2013, the Argentine newspaper Clarin, which is frequently in conflict with the Kirchner government (citation), claimed that President Christina Fernandez de Kirchner had refused 14 requests to meet Bergoglio while he was Archbishop of the Argentine capital of Buenos Aires (citation). The claim was soon reported in places as far apart as Ecuador (citation) and Spain (citation) , though the more reliable sources usually added qualifiers attributing the claim to elements in the Argentine media (repeat Ecuador and Spain citations).'
I may eventually add this to the article myself, but I'd prefer to give people some time to comment here first.
Tlhslobus (
talk)
a) If Clarin wishes to publish the truth as it sees it, and the government takes action to try to prevent it, that is 'a struggle or clash between opposing forces' as per your chosen definition 1 of 'conflict', even though this could also be described by many reasonable people as a one-sided attack by the government on Clarin.
b1) If Clarin thinks it a good idea to publish the truth as it sees it, and the government thinks it a good idea to take action to try to prevent it, that is 'a state of opposition between ideas' as per your chosen definition 2 of 'conflict', even though this could also be described by many reasonable people as a one-sided attack by the government on Clarin.
b2) If Clarin thinks it is in the interest of the Argentine people to publish the truth as it sees it, and the government thinks it is in its interest to takes action to try to prevent it, that is 'a state of opposition between interests', again as per your chosen definition 2 of 'conflict', even though this could also be described by many reasonable people as a one-sided attack by the government on Clarin.
b3) If Clarin thinks it is in the interest of the Argentine people to publish the truth as it sees it, and the government disagrees and takes action to try to prevent it, that is a 'disagreement', again as per your chosen definition 2 of 'conflict', even though this could also be described by many reasonable people as a one-sided attack by the government on Clarin.
C) If Clarin wishes to publish the truth as it sees it, and the government wishes to prevent it and takes action to try to prevent it, that is 'opposition between two simultaneous but incompatible wishes' as per your chosen definition 3 of 'conflict', even though this could also be described by many reasonable people as a one-sided attack by the government on Clarin.
But since there is probably literally an infinite number of similar dubious or false arguments that you can find to throw at me as you have been doing for the past week, we could carry on with this absurd debate until Doomsday. And I happen to have better things to do with my time. So I hereby announce that I surrender. I agree that everything I have written here, to use your wise and objective words 'makes absolutely no sense', while everything you have written are the self-evidently wise and objective words of a dispassionate and neutral observer. You win. Congratulations. Tlhslobus ( talk) 05:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't Argentina have massive criminal gang problems, like MS 13 or something? Does the new Pope have trouble there? That would be terrible if he did and no doubt cause a schism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.146.74 ( talk) 18:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
This new section under relations with other religious communities includes a lot of non-referenced statements, so I added some "citation needed" tags, plus I deleted some sentences which really had nothing to do with Pope Francis (only background information on church history, both at the beginning and at the end, where a sentence categorized a theological difference as a great heresy). There is a statement that I left that says this exchange is a "step forward" in terms of the split that occurred in 451, but I think this should be included only if someone recognizable in the religious world said so. Otherwise it's an "original research" conclusion, I think. Anyway, hope the section is slightly improved, but it definitely needs more work. By the way, I added a good number of wikilinks which can provide background rather than including the background in the section or page. NearTheZoo ( talk) 15:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
User:Juddhoward has engaged in some very insulting edit summaries. I went and posted comments on his talk page asking him to cease doing so. However I also noticed that he had responded to my previous comment on his talk page in a very insulting and rude way. After I made the comments I noticed he told me not to comment on his page again. I find his behavior to be very disruptive, especially his insistence on insulting and calling a liar anyone who disagrees with what he thinks should be in the article. I am seriously considering reverting another one of his recent edits merely because his rude way of justifying it made no sense. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Once had a 'crush' on a girl, ( citation) causing him to reconsider preisthood (and whether celibacy should be required). Interesting. Includable? LCS check ( talk) 00:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The section on celibacy seems to make the same point a few times, explicating words which don't require much explication. Francis doesn't talk this. It's just because snippets are being taken from a variety of accounts. A block quote of his actual words would do the job, IMHO, far better, with perhaps a little expert commentary to finish it off. Like this:
He said:
For now the discipline of celibacy remains firm. Some say, with a certain pragmatism, we're losing manpower. If, hypothetically, Western Catholicism revises the issue of celibacy, I think it would for cultural reasons (as in the East), not as a universal option. For the moment, I am in favor of maintaining celibacy, with the pros and cons it has, because there are 10 centuries of good experiences rather than failures.... It is a matter of discipline, not of faith. It can change.
Per Manseau, Peter (21 March 2013). "In Praise of Priestly Marriage". New York Times. Retrieved 21 March 2013.
And this one:
In the Western Church to which I belong, priests cannot be married as in the Byzantine, Ukrainian, Russian or Greek Catholic Churches. In those Churches, the priests can be married, but the bishops have to be celibate. They are very good priests. In Western Catholicism, some organizations are pushing for more discussion about the issue. For now, the discipline of celibacy stands firm. Some say, with a certain pragmatism, that we are losing manpower. If, hypothetically, Western Catholicism were to review the issue of celibacy, I think it would do so for cultural reasons (as in the East), not so much as a universal option.
OK, so he does repeat himself. These are conversations after all. We can still do better than the goulash we have now, no?
Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 17:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear Str1977, Please see the section in Pope Francis re celibacy of priests. I did some rewriting based on your comments, and hope you think this is a good compromise. I don't think we can know that the comments Francis made as Cardinal really were restricted to the possibility of ordaining married men, especially since the Catholic Church has already ordained a number of married men who had been Lutheran and Episcopal priests. The reaction that his words were "remarkable" wouldn't have fit his comments if that were the case -- and he is discussing a hypothetical conversation about "the celibacy of priests". I think we should stick to his comments. Do you agree? In terms of the correct fact that in the East, the tradition is to ordain married men as priests but not to allow priests to marry is, of course, true, but I can't find a quote from Bergoglio that makes this distinction. So instead of leaving the words changed as you wrote them I simply used direct quotes from him. I think this is the preferred way to go until he makes additional comments or perhaps someone makes that distinction in a response to these comments by him. Anyway, my hope is that when you look at the section again you'll agree the rewritten version is good enough at this point. Best, NearTheZoo ( talk) 14:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I removed this paragraph "In March 2013, 21 Catholic parliamentarians from the United Kingdom wrote a letter to Francis, asking him to allow married men in Great Britain to be ordained as priests, keeping celibacy as the rule for bishops, as a sign of the "high regard we have for those who are able to live a genuinely celibate life.” [1] The letter cited the fact that married Angligan priests have been ordained by the Catholic Church and allowed to serve as Catholic priests, noting that "These men and their families have proved to be a great blessing to our parishes." [1] "Based on that very positive experience," the letter continued, "we would request that, in the same spirit, you permit the ordination of married Catholic men to the priesthood in Great Britain." [1]" from the Celibacy section. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
We are reporting on Pope Francis' views. There might be some mention of this worthwhile in the Papacy section, but really I think maybe if there is soemthing worthwhile it belongs in some other article. If Pope Francis responds and institutes the suggested change in Britain it might have a place, but for now I do not think it does. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on regarding the section about views on issues including abortion, birth control, euthanasia, and the elderly--in terms of what order should be used to list these issues. Can I suggest we change the sub-section tile to "Dignity of Life," which seems to be the term used in the Bergoglio quote to encompass the issues addressed here? (Another term used by many theologians to categorize such topics is "the edges of life" -- but I think using a phrase taken directly from Bergoglio's words is preferable.) Of course, he also uses "culture of death" -- but I would still vote for "Dignity of Life." What do others think? NearTheZoo ( talk) 16:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I was just about to comment on this. Here's what I wrote:
We have a sub-section titled "Abortion, euthanasia, birth control and the elderly". While the sequence of items might not seem a big matter, there is no reason to change it from its original version, which makes sense for two reasons:
However, there is another editor who insists on changing this sequence, not once but three times now.
His edit summaries suggest that these reverts are happening for POV reasons, namely to equate abortion and birth control.
I don't think this behaviour is acceptable. Str1977 (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
My general answer is "no". I think the two-paragraph quote is a complrehensive statement of his views. I removed this part of the article "]], and in 2011 referred to it as "the devil's work". [2]" I have 3 issues with it. 1-most precessingly the way it was justified to be included involved a needless insulting of editors. 2-although this article comes from 2011, it seems to just be commenting on our quote from 2010. 3-everything in this quote is included in the actual quote from Bergoglio himself we have a little further down. This article seems to be trying to emphasize one of Bergoglio's points without considering the context in which he said it. "Father of lies" may be the same as "devil" in reality, but the connotation of the two terms is not the same. Also the "he calls it the work of the devil", seems to be trying to say he has not applied analysis to the issue, while the quote we have gives a better sense of his actual thought process on the issue. I think we are best off leaving out this quote, especially since it appears to be just a rehashing of the other quote we have. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I am indifferent on the header. But including the "devil" quote in addition to the full actual quote is redundancy and reflects a POV. It is also using a translation that isn't supported by two different reliable sources. Both Time magazine (which was the original RS before both paragraphs of the full quote was put into the article) and the current RS used for the 2 paragraph quote used "father of lies" as the translation. Marauder40 ( talk) 12:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Pope Francis' statements in oppostion to same-sex marriage were in opposition to same-sex marriage. We should not try to interpret them in some other way by removing that term from the section heading. Realistically that is the main thing discussed in the section, and we definately should use that term in the title. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is an interesting video that uses a heat map to show how online activity reacted to Pope Francis being announced (based on log data from Patheos.com) . I think it would be an interesting link to add to the external video/media section? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GydeAMI21I0
Jeff Smith 76.185.4.125 ( talk) 14:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I know the subject of expanding the lead has come up before and the concensus seems to be to keep it as it is. However, because it is supposed to be a concise summary of the article, I would like to recommend that we add at least one more sentence, noting that he has always been known for his humility, his care for the poor, and his commitment to interfaith dialogue and the healing of divisions among people of different beliefs. (I suggest "different beliefs" because he not only believes it is part of the mission of the Catholic Church to heal divisions between those of different faiths, but also between those of faith and so-called "nonbelievers." I think just saying "people of different beliefs" would include these different categories.) Again, I know we want to keep the lead short, but right now it does not mention anything about him as a human being or the impression he has made throughout his life on those who have worked with him--despite the fact that the article certainly includes these subjects. What do others think? NearTheZoo ( talk) 01:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please make the revision indicated in bold to the following sentence under the Cardinal section
At the same time, Begoglio ordered an investigation into the murders themselves, which had been widely blamed on the military regime that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983.[65]
At the same time, Bergoglio ordered an investigation into the murders themselves, which had been widely blamed on the military regime that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983.[65] 147.108.253.254 ( talk) 10:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Here [10] is the Atlantic article that serves as a source for the doubling of the number of priests assigned to the slums of Buenos Aires while he was Archbishop. There might be other things worth extrating from the article as well. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Pre-papal career", I find the heading "Jesuit", which includes this:
"before becoming a bishop[when?] Bergoglio was mentored"
Try moving "[when?]" to just after "mentored"; in its PRESENT location, it seems to be asking when he became a bishop, and we do know when he became a bishop.
128.63.16.20 ( talk) 15:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
In teh section " Homosexuality and same-sex marriage" we mention the "Bishops' Conference of Argentina". Is this the same as the Argentine Episcopal Conference used elsewhere in the entry, which also has its own modest entry of WP? Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 18:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
We need a new page on his teachings. I understand that only the hot button issued addressed here are provocative enough to go on the main page. But his more strictly theological views have been discussed on this talk page and never added to the page, and subsequently deleted from the talk page. These would be appropriate for a separate page on his teachings alone. We should start such a page with the information about his teachings currently on the page and then let it grow to include the less prominent subjects. 209.116.238.162 ( talk) 14:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Pope Francis have already made shown that he will take the church in a different direction (the old feetwashing rewieved as an example), so 209... why not be bold and make the page. I dont know if you have to be a registered editors to do that, but it is really easy to make an account in any case. If such an article really is so meaningless it will be nominated for deletion, but considering the presedence with Benedicts teaching article created 10 days after his election I think that would be very unlikely to happen. Happy work Jack Bornholm ( talk) 21:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#RFC on Papal article consistency.
Elizium23 (
talk)
22:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is a press release [11] about four volumes in Spanish and later English translations of Pope Francis' teachings, specifically addresses given in 2005, that is planned. I am not sure if these are new works, or if any have been previously published. My initial supposition is that the works are previously unpublished. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Under the papacy section, we include English as one of the languages spoken by the pope. However, in the March 31, 2013 news analysis by BBC analyst David Willey here, he notes that "Pope Francis was, however, almost incomprehensible when he tried out a few words in English to the crowds in St Peter's Square last week." NearTheZoo ( talk) 14:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't the last pope to choose a name not used by his predecessors John Paul I (1912–1978)? — Torontonian1 ( talk) 16:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
His name should be pronunced like [franˈtsiskus] not [franˈtʃiskus]! 79.163.147.147 ( talk) 17:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like to suggest putting the previous picture of Pope Francis back up. He wears glasses most of the time, so the previous picture of him as pope that was on the page before would be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsepe ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I am making this section in case the Vatican wishes to provide images and other material. Most of the information they will need is at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates If the copyright holders themselves follow the steps then that would be easiest. We can upload the images from a website or email but the rights holders would need to specify a licence through OTRS for them. Just click the edit button at the top right of this section and post comments at the bottom.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 18:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Older images may be hard to find the copyright holders. We do have some of John Paul I as Pope in commons:Category:Ioannes Paulus I. I also found an email for the Vatican and added the request for other papal images.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 01:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
This: "However Miguel Woites, the director of the Catholic News Agency of Argentina, who works directly for the Bishops' Conference of Argentina and as such worked closely with Bergoglio when he was head of the conference, denied that Bergoglio ever made such a proposal."
The fact that he's "director of the Catholic News Agency of Argentina" isn't sufficient to identify him? I'm also not sure he claims anything about "worked closely in the source. The source makes the point without belaboring it. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 19:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Done. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 02:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Does the photo File:Student, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, circled, studied chemistry before joining the priesthood.jpg have an acceptable copyright? According to Argentine copyright law, it is not enough that the photo was produced more than 20 years ago, it must have been published as well. A personal photo kept in a family album or similar, has not been "published". If the value increased (for example, because a man in the photo became pope), the 20 years after publication begin to count after a media made for the general public publishes the photo.
But should this photo be nominated for deletion, or can a non-free use rationale be justified? As this is a very visible article, I don't want to rush things. Cambalachero ( talk) 04:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Reference 171 is cited as written by "Heller, Jim". Should read "Heller, Jill".
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.66.114.182 ( talk) 15:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
"Aparecida Document" is a terrible heading. It's part of a series of subjects on which Francis has expressed himself. It stands out in the table of contents as an example of "which of these things is not like the others".
I know this has been discussed before, but..... Instead of trying to find a label to put on the material we now have in place, shouldn't we decide on one or more headings and then place the appropriate matter under each heading? One might be "child abuse". Another would be "abortion and euthanasia" (because as far as I can see Francis discusses them as two sides of one coin and we should use the categories on which he has expressed himself, not pre-existing categories or categories that we devise. I'm sure people have opinions. And I'd like to see more of what he has said over the years, less focus on Aparecida as if it was all we had to work with. Perhaps separate headings?)
There are also 2 stray sentences that either need to be expanded or dropped, one about contraceptives and another about "seniors". These may or may not deserve their own headings. The first seems more like opposition to government policy that could be placed elsewhere.
The underlying point is that we should be covering subjects Francis has addressed, not summarizing a document, and not summarizing a document written on behalf of a group and subject to papal approval. We should be able to find his won words. At most, coverage of the Aparecida document should be used to support our best summary of Francis' thinking/rhetoric on these issues. By using the heading Aparecida, we limit the sources we can bring to bear on the subject and exclude other statements he has made as an individual, and that does our readers a disservice. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 21:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
una movida del Diablo