![]() | Theology of Pope Francis was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 4, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Theology of Pope Francis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Pope Francis was copied or moved into Theology of Pope Francis. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Theology of Pope Francis. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Theology of Pope Francis at the Reference desk. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
As discussed at The Talkpage of Pope Francis I have forked out this new articles simply by copying Pope Francis, subsection on Teaching. This is of course just to give this article a start. I will leave it to other more informed editors to do the real work.
When working on this article please also look at Pope Francis#Teachings to make it leaner and simpler since there now is a main article on the subject of Pope Francis teachings, just as there is one on the former Popes teachings.
Happy work everybody Jack Bornholm ( talk) 21:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking that there might be statements he has made this weekend worth including. The way some people speak about it, it seems there might be some theology derived from his washing feet in a prison, but that might be a bit harder to show. Here [1] is a Washington Post article on it, but I am not sure we really get Francis' views enough to include anything here. We mainly hget the reactions of people who don't like his actions, and statements from others that what he is doing is OK, but no clear explanation of his own thoughts on it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is a press release [2] about four volumes in Spanish and later English translations of Pope Francis' teachings, specifically addresses given in 2005, that is planned. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
In 2008, he gave a speech in Quebec City about the Eucharist. This speech contains many valuable insights into his eucharistic theology. So this would be good to add into the article as a source. [3] 132.208.158.85 ( talk) 16:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The references need a complete overhaul – use Template:cite web. (I was 90% finished and lost my work.) D B D 21:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
This article delivers more than than title promises. I'd suggest changing the title rather than creating articles for separate topics. Theology is basically religious ideas. The article also covers Francis's ideas in all areas, including social policy and sexual morality. I'm not sure what to call it: "Theology and policies of Pope Francis"? Pol098 ( talk) 16:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The section on the Aparecida document presents a very unbalanced view of its content, with subsections focusing on Contraception, Celibacy, and the Obligation of Catholic Legislators to follow Church teachings. The document's introductory summary lists quite different concerns:
The disjunction between the article's sections, with their focus on sexual morality, and the broader themes of the Aparecida document seems to call for a major revision of that section of the article. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 23:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Theology of Pope Francis. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
When I turned to copy editing this article on Pope Francis for the Catholic portal in June 2017, I found that all but a few of its references were to the time prior to his appointment as Pope. I suggest that his adjustment to his more universal mission should be reflected, unless the article is to emphasize "What the Cardinals knew of Cardinal Bergoglio from his work in Argentina." I have tried to give it a post-2013 focus since all the major lines of his theology, as pope, have been adequately covered in the media during his papacy. Also, this is not an article on the history of his actions during his papacy; its focus is his theology ("understanding") that has underlied these actions. Jzsj ( talk) 00:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I note that an anonymous editor has removed much of the emphasis which I found very helpful in this article. My understanding is that the style of an article is to be respected unless it clearly violates Wiki policy. I've restored the sparsely-used italics and bolding before I continue editing the rest of the article. Italics, as in the intro, is to indicate the section titles. And where I used bolding for topics that run only a few lines I suggest that this is appropriate by way of exception, rather than creating a separate section for each topic. Please advise me as to what Wikipedia policy you are following in this removal of italics and bolding for section topics. @ 82.53.216.6: Jzsj ( talk) 05:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Doctorg ( talk · contribs) 18:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@
Jzsj:I'm starting this review now, please reply to my comments below as you continue to work on the article so we can keep a good record of the communicaiton flow. Thank you for working so hard editing this article. I'll try to keep my review organized using the same headers as in the article.
DoctorG
(talk)
18:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Please do a complete review of punctuation; there ar many places where commas should be used.
DoctorG
(talk)
18:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Make sure quotations are used consistently throughout the article, and make sure that all qoutes have quotation marks around them. It appears that many of the indented sections are quoted without using quotation marks.
DoctorG
(talk)
18:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Make sure references are used consitently throughout article.
DoctorG
(talk)
18:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Considering NPOV, is there anyone in the Catholic church that disagrees with the views of Pope Francis or the changes he is making? These should be included to show all viewpoints. DoctorG (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
What are all the numbers in parenthesis at the end of so many sentences? Are these references to something else?
DoctorG
(talk)
19:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind withdrawing my nomination of this article if it needs substantial changes for becoming a "good" article. I think the breadth of the topic requires a concise style, to keep the article within bounds for proper length. Admittedly, one needs to read all this matter slowly and thoughtfully, since there are so many different ideas to present. It's a huge topic! @ DoctorG: Jzsj ( talk) 19:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I still think that NPOV deals with properly representing what the article is about, what Pope Francis has said and done, not what others think about what he has said and done. That said, I can add a section at the end which mentions the most disputed points in his theology, but a lot of this is hinted at in his own statements and my intros. The chief areas of dispute would be on sex matters, with some emphasizing the "intrinsic evil" of abortion as if it trumped all other voting issues. Also there's Cardinal Burke and others who oppose Communion for remarried Catholics. And there are more fundamental differences like whether to rely more on scholastic theology or on the Bible for one's theology. But here we're opening a whole new can of worms. I don't think we need to get into any of this if we limit this article to what is proposed in the introduction: entirely about Pope Francis, a neutral point of view presenting his understanding of the various topics that are most distinctive of his thought. As to further labelling of EG quotes, if there's a consensus that we need to put "LG" into all the inline citations then I'll do this but doing more the 58 times these occur would make a mess of the article. @ Display name 99: @ DoctorG: Jzsj ( talk) 18:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the citations, Wikipedia does have a policy that different styles of referencing should not be used in the same article; see Parenthetical referencing for the details. This article currently has footnotes and parenthetical citations, which is probably the real root of this discussion. I realize it is a little bit of work to standardize it throughout the article, but changing everything to one style or the other would really be the best way to address this issue. DoctorG (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the NPOV, I see your point and partially agree with you. I think the goal of the article is a great one and I don't want it to turn into a theological debate. Can we really say it is a neutral point of view about what he has said without including the responses/reactions of others? I think adding the section at the end that covers the topics you proposed is a perfect way to do this. DoctorG (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I've gone over the article with a view to adding some evaluation of his theology and I don't think this can be done without raising POV questions and welcoming endless debate as to what "people" think of his theology. I suggest that his own remarks quoted in the article again and again imply that there is much that is a reversal of direction here, and that he is in disagreement with very much of what has gone before (and persists in the Church: people are not likely to change in mid-life). Time magazine, quoted in the article, may put it best to respond to the question of reaction: "What makes this Pope so important is the speed with which he has captured the imaginations of millions who had given up on hoping for the church at all. People weary of the endless parsing of sexual ethics, the buck-passing infighting over lines of authority when all the while (to borrow from Milton), “the hungry Sheep look up, and are not fed”. In a matter of months, Francis has elevated the healing mission of the church – the church as servant and comforter of hurting people in an often harsh world – above the doctrinal police work so important to his recent predecessors." It goes without saying that many have not just turned around and changed, but to estimate the extent of pushback and evaluate opposition seems to me to be a topic for another article: this is simply an article on his theology, regardless of what people think of it. The original suggestion here that this violates NPOV seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what NPOV means. Thanks for your careful consideration of this! @ DoctorG: Jzsj ( talk) 18:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Should change "gay" to homosexuality or something similar.
DoctorG
(talk)
19:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I suspect this is an area where there are some dissenting views.
DoctorG
(talk)
19:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
You got me at a busy time when I'll be travelling the next couple days. Please give me a few days to respond to corrections. @ DoctorG: Jzsj ( talk) 19:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with this. I await specific directions on further changes. I see my original ellipses had been changed, and the punctuation around quotation marks is consistently British style, so I'll leave those alone. I've bolded the two explanations of in-text references to Evangelii Gaudium, but please remove the bolding if it seems inappropriate. I favor succinctness, on references and in general, but am open to exigencies. Jzsj ( talk) 20:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Article has been failed due to the inability to gain consensus on whether or not parenthetical references and footnotes should be used in the same article. I recommend, for any future reviews, that the referencing style be looked at to determine if it is within Wikipedia standards or if it needs to be modified. There was also some minor disagreement on NPOV, but that seems to have been settled. Overall, this is a well written article that I think is very close to GA status. Thank you, @ Jzsj: for working to make Wikipedia better. DoctorG (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The article seems heavily based on primary sources, with sometimes half a section or more without any secondary sources. To me it seems that the article arranges Francis' writings in some strange fashion, picking quotes here and there, to arrive at some original synthesis mostly without providing the secondary sources we need for interpretation. Some random examples:
There are also some WP:Words to avoid, such as "points out". Huon ( talk) 01:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your proposals. I've made changes to respond to all of them. I have also added numerous secondary sources to embellish on his own words; these point out the distinction between his words and previous understanding in the Church. That said, please note that the article is not primarily proving that Pope Francis' theology is different but rather exposing what that theology is, with an emphasis on what is different rather than on what he shares in common with recent Catholic theology. Jzsj ( talk) 03:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I am quite interested in the topic of the article and was going to do a GA review, only to discover that a major part of the subject matter has been completely omitted: the critical response to Pope Francis' theological views. I have noticed that this has extensively been discussed in the failed GA review, but I have not come across any convincing reasons not to include critical response as part of this article. I also have noted that little, if anything, was corrected to the article in the previous GA review. If you are nominating for GA review, you should be able to make adjustments.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 15:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
...if you think...
Please check articles on other theologians..., see WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 11:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
References
If you believe that ideas should be added to the article but want to entrust that to me, you can suggest the ideas here. I'm not denying your freedom to make changes yourself, but I hope that the article doesn't become bloated: it's already near the upper limit of usual article length (over 63,000 bytes). Jzsj ( talk) 16:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
"Paraphrase whenever you can—it's easier to quote rather than rework the wording to fit the point of the paragraph, but it's your job to make the argument. Use quotes for illustration, not because you can't think of any other way to say something." This is from an essay used for film articles ( WP:RECEPTION), but it might be useful in this case. Ironically, I'm conveying this through a quote.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 06:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The benefit of paraphrasing is that you can add much more content in less space. So instead of quoting the Pope once on a particular topic, and leave it at that, you can find patterns in what he's saying in different instances, paraphrasing and sometimes quoting short phrases of particular creative content. This is illustrated well in the essay about film articles cited above, especially in the example articles given.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 06:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I have checked all quotes in the article and I hope that in its present form it satisfies Wikipedia standards for good articles. I will be away from next Monday to Thursday but will tend then to further editing as needed. Jzsj ( talk) 06:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
There are many controversies within the Catholic Church about Pope Francis' Theology. These should be addressed here as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NearlyMad ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Just thought I'd mention some new and forthcoming book-length studies of Pope Francis's thought that might be worth using in this article:
-- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 01:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm pasting this discussion from User_talk:Awesomemeeos#Theology_of_Pope_Francis which explains the changes he wanted when he added the POV template to the article.-- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 16:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
You recently added a POV template to the article Theology of Pope Francis without an explanation on the talk page. The Template's instructions state, "Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies."
Would you please let us know what issues concern you so we can try to make appropriate changes. Lacking such guidance, we cannot address your concerns and the template may be removed. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 02:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the suggestion to remove first person references, which inadvertently showed disrespect for the general readership. I think I have removed all of these from the article, changing them to third person. Jzsj ( talk) 16:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I am taking a closer look at this article, and I agree that it needs much TLC, to put it gently. My observations so far:
As to #3 above, I suggest that once we establish what the main points of Francis' theology are we should let him speak for himself if we want his theology and not how others twist and turn and critique the meaning of his theology. In some of what you say above I think you have another article in mind. Jzsj ( talk) 01:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
As to #4 above, Wikipedia still allows similar citations as Parenthetical referencing and In-text attribution where such things as Biblical books and classical works are mentioned. Here it seems an elegant way to point to a work that is used more than 50 times throughout the article, making the source clear without repeatedly naming it. If we are showcasing Francis' theology, how can we do better than to follow his own emphasis in "a core document of this pontificate", in his own words "pointing out new paths for the Church's journey for years to come", while using footnotes to verify and elaborate on his emphases. In the Environmentalism section with only six references to the encyclical, I can agree that footnotes may be the better route. Jzsj ( talk) 00:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
As to #1 above, my access in the past month to about a dozen books on his theology as reflected during his papacy is enabling me to further fill in and to substantiate the picture presented in Evangelii gaudium and in the full spectrum of media reports. Before contributing to the article I carefully examined Evangelii gaudium as the index to his thought (as multiple sources confirm that he intended it to be) and found this has held true. EG produced the categories in the article that still seem to me to be well chosen and reasonably ordered. If anyone disagrees with these or finds other major categories in his thought, please let's talk about it here. I have not opposed what are improvements in accord with the other points made. Jzsj ( talk) 10:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The source says: While some have spoken of celebrating the liturgy looking “to the East,” Francis today emphasized that “the altar is one of the visible signs of the invisible mystery, the sign of Christ the living stone.” For this reason, the altar is “the center to which the attention converges in all our churches.” now, the proposed edit analyzes this as saying Pope Francis denounces "efforts to turn the congregation's attention away from the altar" which is WP:OR, and extremely deceptive. In ad orientem posture, the altar is even more the center of attention! In versus populum, many complain, it's the priest who takes the focus, rather than the Eucharist or the altar. So I don't see how we go from Point A (statement in the source) to Point B (assertion in the edit). It seems very preferable to leave out the whole rationale, unless someone has a better source than a dissenting heretical magazine that twists doctrine and denies truth. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 ( talk) 02:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I suggest that America is "a reliable source for Catholic doctrine or liturgy" since, unlike secular media, it is subject to control from Rome. Also, when referring editors to a Wiki page of over 5000 words, like reliable sources, it seems more sincere and is more helpful if we point to what on that page supports our allegation; otherwise the implication that others are not aware of the page is simply insulting. @ SteveMcCluskey: Jzsj ( talk) 13:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Theology of Pope Francis was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 4, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Theology of Pope Francis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Pope Francis was copied or moved into Theology of Pope Francis. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Theology of Pope Francis. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Theology of Pope Francis at the Reference desk. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
As discussed at The Talkpage of Pope Francis I have forked out this new articles simply by copying Pope Francis, subsection on Teaching. This is of course just to give this article a start. I will leave it to other more informed editors to do the real work.
When working on this article please also look at Pope Francis#Teachings to make it leaner and simpler since there now is a main article on the subject of Pope Francis teachings, just as there is one on the former Popes teachings.
Happy work everybody Jack Bornholm ( talk) 21:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking that there might be statements he has made this weekend worth including. The way some people speak about it, it seems there might be some theology derived from his washing feet in a prison, but that might be a bit harder to show. Here [1] is a Washington Post article on it, but I am not sure we really get Francis' views enough to include anything here. We mainly hget the reactions of people who don't like his actions, and statements from others that what he is doing is OK, but no clear explanation of his own thoughts on it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is a press release [2] about four volumes in Spanish and later English translations of Pope Francis' teachings, specifically addresses given in 2005, that is planned. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
In 2008, he gave a speech in Quebec City about the Eucharist. This speech contains many valuable insights into his eucharistic theology. So this would be good to add into the article as a source. [3] 132.208.158.85 ( talk) 16:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The references need a complete overhaul – use Template:cite web. (I was 90% finished and lost my work.) D B D 21:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
This article delivers more than than title promises. I'd suggest changing the title rather than creating articles for separate topics. Theology is basically religious ideas. The article also covers Francis's ideas in all areas, including social policy and sexual morality. I'm not sure what to call it: "Theology and policies of Pope Francis"? Pol098 ( talk) 16:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The section on the Aparecida document presents a very unbalanced view of its content, with subsections focusing on Contraception, Celibacy, and the Obligation of Catholic Legislators to follow Church teachings. The document's introductory summary lists quite different concerns:
The disjunction between the article's sections, with their focus on sexual morality, and the broader themes of the Aparecida document seems to call for a major revision of that section of the article. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 23:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Theology of Pope Francis. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
When I turned to copy editing this article on Pope Francis for the Catholic portal in June 2017, I found that all but a few of its references were to the time prior to his appointment as Pope. I suggest that his adjustment to his more universal mission should be reflected, unless the article is to emphasize "What the Cardinals knew of Cardinal Bergoglio from his work in Argentina." I have tried to give it a post-2013 focus since all the major lines of his theology, as pope, have been adequately covered in the media during his papacy. Also, this is not an article on the history of his actions during his papacy; its focus is his theology ("understanding") that has underlied these actions. Jzsj ( talk) 00:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I note that an anonymous editor has removed much of the emphasis which I found very helpful in this article. My understanding is that the style of an article is to be respected unless it clearly violates Wiki policy. I've restored the sparsely-used italics and bolding before I continue editing the rest of the article. Italics, as in the intro, is to indicate the section titles. And where I used bolding for topics that run only a few lines I suggest that this is appropriate by way of exception, rather than creating a separate section for each topic. Please advise me as to what Wikipedia policy you are following in this removal of italics and bolding for section topics. @ 82.53.216.6: Jzsj ( talk) 05:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Doctorg ( talk · contribs) 18:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@
Jzsj:I'm starting this review now, please reply to my comments below as you continue to work on the article so we can keep a good record of the communicaiton flow. Thank you for working so hard editing this article. I'll try to keep my review organized using the same headers as in the article.
DoctorG
(talk)
18:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Please do a complete review of punctuation; there ar many places where commas should be used.
DoctorG
(talk)
18:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Make sure quotations are used consistently throughout the article, and make sure that all qoutes have quotation marks around them. It appears that many of the indented sections are quoted without using quotation marks.
DoctorG
(talk)
18:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Make sure references are used consitently throughout article.
DoctorG
(talk)
18:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Considering NPOV, is there anyone in the Catholic church that disagrees with the views of Pope Francis or the changes he is making? These should be included to show all viewpoints. DoctorG (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
What are all the numbers in parenthesis at the end of so many sentences? Are these references to something else?
DoctorG
(talk)
19:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind withdrawing my nomination of this article if it needs substantial changes for becoming a "good" article. I think the breadth of the topic requires a concise style, to keep the article within bounds for proper length. Admittedly, one needs to read all this matter slowly and thoughtfully, since there are so many different ideas to present. It's a huge topic! @ DoctorG: Jzsj ( talk) 19:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I still think that NPOV deals with properly representing what the article is about, what Pope Francis has said and done, not what others think about what he has said and done. That said, I can add a section at the end which mentions the most disputed points in his theology, but a lot of this is hinted at in his own statements and my intros. The chief areas of dispute would be on sex matters, with some emphasizing the "intrinsic evil" of abortion as if it trumped all other voting issues. Also there's Cardinal Burke and others who oppose Communion for remarried Catholics. And there are more fundamental differences like whether to rely more on scholastic theology or on the Bible for one's theology. But here we're opening a whole new can of worms. I don't think we need to get into any of this if we limit this article to what is proposed in the introduction: entirely about Pope Francis, a neutral point of view presenting his understanding of the various topics that are most distinctive of his thought. As to further labelling of EG quotes, if there's a consensus that we need to put "LG" into all the inline citations then I'll do this but doing more the 58 times these occur would make a mess of the article. @ Display name 99: @ DoctorG: Jzsj ( talk) 18:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the citations, Wikipedia does have a policy that different styles of referencing should not be used in the same article; see Parenthetical referencing for the details. This article currently has footnotes and parenthetical citations, which is probably the real root of this discussion. I realize it is a little bit of work to standardize it throughout the article, but changing everything to one style or the other would really be the best way to address this issue. DoctorG (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the NPOV, I see your point and partially agree with you. I think the goal of the article is a great one and I don't want it to turn into a theological debate. Can we really say it is a neutral point of view about what he has said without including the responses/reactions of others? I think adding the section at the end that covers the topics you proposed is a perfect way to do this. DoctorG (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I've gone over the article with a view to adding some evaluation of his theology and I don't think this can be done without raising POV questions and welcoming endless debate as to what "people" think of his theology. I suggest that his own remarks quoted in the article again and again imply that there is much that is a reversal of direction here, and that he is in disagreement with very much of what has gone before (and persists in the Church: people are not likely to change in mid-life). Time magazine, quoted in the article, may put it best to respond to the question of reaction: "What makes this Pope so important is the speed with which he has captured the imaginations of millions who had given up on hoping for the church at all. People weary of the endless parsing of sexual ethics, the buck-passing infighting over lines of authority when all the while (to borrow from Milton), “the hungry Sheep look up, and are not fed”. In a matter of months, Francis has elevated the healing mission of the church – the church as servant and comforter of hurting people in an often harsh world – above the doctrinal police work so important to his recent predecessors." It goes without saying that many have not just turned around and changed, but to estimate the extent of pushback and evaluate opposition seems to me to be a topic for another article: this is simply an article on his theology, regardless of what people think of it. The original suggestion here that this violates NPOV seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what NPOV means. Thanks for your careful consideration of this! @ DoctorG: Jzsj ( talk) 18:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Should change "gay" to homosexuality or something similar.
DoctorG
(talk)
19:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I suspect this is an area where there are some dissenting views.
DoctorG
(talk)
19:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
You got me at a busy time when I'll be travelling the next couple days. Please give me a few days to respond to corrections. @ DoctorG: Jzsj ( talk) 19:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with this. I await specific directions on further changes. I see my original ellipses had been changed, and the punctuation around quotation marks is consistently British style, so I'll leave those alone. I've bolded the two explanations of in-text references to Evangelii Gaudium, but please remove the bolding if it seems inappropriate. I favor succinctness, on references and in general, but am open to exigencies. Jzsj ( talk) 20:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Article has been failed due to the inability to gain consensus on whether or not parenthetical references and footnotes should be used in the same article. I recommend, for any future reviews, that the referencing style be looked at to determine if it is within Wikipedia standards or if it needs to be modified. There was also some minor disagreement on NPOV, but that seems to have been settled. Overall, this is a well written article that I think is very close to GA status. Thank you, @ Jzsj: for working to make Wikipedia better. DoctorG (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The article seems heavily based on primary sources, with sometimes half a section or more without any secondary sources. To me it seems that the article arranges Francis' writings in some strange fashion, picking quotes here and there, to arrive at some original synthesis mostly without providing the secondary sources we need for interpretation. Some random examples:
There are also some WP:Words to avoid, such as "points out". Huon ( talk) 01:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your proposals. I've made changes to respond to all of them. I have also added numerous secondary sources to embellish on his own words; these point out the distinction between his words and previous understanding in the Church. That said, please note that the article is not primarily proving that Pope Francis' theology is different but rather exposing what that theology is, with an emphasis on what is different rather than on what he shares in common with recent Catholic theology. Jzsj ( talk) 03:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I am quite interested in the topic of the article and was going to do a GA review, only to discover that a major part of the subject matter has been completely omitted: the critical response to Pope Francis' theological views. I have noticed that this has extensively been discussed in the failed GA review, but I have not come across any convincing reasons not to include critical response as part of this article. I also have noted that little, if anything, was corrected to the article in the previous GA review. If you are nominating for GA review, you should be able to make adjustments.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 15:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
...if you think...
Please check articles on other theologians..., see WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 11:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
References
If you believe that ideas should be added to the article but want to entrust that to me, you can suggest the ideas here. I'm not denying your freedom to make changes yourself, but I hope that the article doesn't become bloated: it's already near the upper limit of usual article length (over 63,000 bytes). Jzsj ( talk) 16:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
"Paraphrase whenever you can—it's easier to quote rather than rework the wording to fit the point of the paragraph, but it's your job to make the argument. Use quotes for illustration, not because you can't think of any other way to say something." This is from an essay used for film articles ( WP:RECEPTION), but it might be useful in this case. Ironically, I'm conveying this through a quote.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 06:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The benefit of paraphrasing is that you can add much more content in less space. So instead of quoting the Pope once on a particular topic, and leave it at that, you can find patterns in what he's saying in different instances, paraphrasing and sometimes quoting short phrases of particular creative content. This is illustrated well in the essay about film articles cited above, especially in the example articles given.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 06:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I have checked all quotes in the article and I hope that in its present form it satisfies Wikipedia standards for good articles. I will be away from next Monday to Thursday but will tend then to further editing as needed. Jzsj ( talk) 06:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
There are many controversies within the Catholic Church about Pope Francis' Theology. These should be addressed here as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NearlyMad ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Just thought I'd mention some new and forthcoming book-length studies of Pope Francis's thought that might be worth using in this article:
-- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 01:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm pasting this discussion from User_talk:Awesomemeeos#Theology_of_Pope_Francis which explains the changes he wanted when he added the POV template to the article.-- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 16:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
You recently added a POV template to the article Theology of Pope Francis without an explanation on the talk page. The Template's instructions state, "Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies."
Would you please let us know what issues concern you so we can try to make appropriate changes. Lacking such guidance, we cannot address your concerns and the template may be removed. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 02:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the suggestion to remove first person references, which inadvertently showed disrespect for the general readership. I think I have removed all of these from the article, changing them to third person. Jzsj ( talk) 16:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I am taking a closer look at this article, and I agree that it needs much TLC, to put it gently. My observations so far:
As to #3 above, I suggest that once we establish what the main points of Francis' theology are we should let him speak for himself if we want his theology and not how others twist and turn and critique the meaning of his theology. In some of what you say above I think you have another article in mind. Jzsj ( talk) 01:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
As to #4 above, Wikipedia still allows similar citations as Parenthetical referencing and In-text attribution where such things as Biblical books and classical works are mentioned. Here it seems an elegant way to point to a work that is used more than 50 times throughout the article, making the source clear without repeatedly naming it. If we are showcasing Francis' theology, how can we do better than to follow his own emphasis in "a core document of this pontificate", in his own words "pointing out new paths for the Church's journey for years to come", while using footnotes to verify and elaborate on his emphases. In the Environmentalism section with only six references to the encyclical, I can agree that footnotes may be the better route. Jzsj ( talk) 00:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
As to #1 above, my access in the past month to about a dozen books on his theology as reflected during his papacy is enabling me to further fill in and to substantiate the picture presented in Evangelii gaudium and in the full spectrum of media reports. Before contributing to the article I carefully examined Evangelii gaudium as the index to his thought (as multiple sources confirm that he intended it to be) and found this has held true. EG produced the categories in the article that still seem to me to be well chosen and reasonably ordered. If anyone disagrees with these or finds other major categories in his thought, please let's talk about it here. I have not opposed what are improvements in accord with the other points made. Jzsj ( talk) 10:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The source says: While some have spoken of celebrating the liturgy looking “to the East,” Francis today emphasized that “the altar is one of the visible signs of the invisible mystery, the sign of Christ the living stone.” For this reason, the altar is “the center to which the attention converges in all our churches.” now, the proposed edit analyzes this as saying Pope Francis denounces "efforts to turn the congregation's attention away from the altar" which is WP:OR, and extremely deceptive. In ad orientem posture, the altar is even more the center of attention! In versus populum, many complain, it's the priest who takes the focus, rather than the Eucharist or the altar. So I don't see how we go from Point A (statement in the source) to Point B (assertion in the edit). It seems very preferable to leave out the whole rationale, unless someone has a better source than a dissenting heretical magazine that twists doctrine and denies truth. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 ( talk) 02:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I suggest that America is "a reliable source for Catholic doctrine or liturgy" since, unlike secular media, it is subject to control from Rome. Also, when referring editors to a Wiki page of over 5000 words, like reliable sources, it seems more sincere and is more helpful if we point to what on that page supports our allegation; otherwise the implication that others are not aware of the page is simply insulting. @ SteveMcCluskey: Jzsj ( talk) 13:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)