Talk:Pope Francis

Foot Washing Issue

Old Text Under Heading "Early Issues," 3rd paragraph:

On the first Holy Thursday following his election, Francis washed and kissed the feet of 12 juvenile offenders, ages 14–21, at Rome's Casal del Marmo detention facility, telling them the ritual of foot washing is a sign that he is at their service.[185] He told them to "Help one another. This is what Jesus teaches us".[185] According to church experts, this was the first time that a pope has included women in this ritual (there were 2 women and 10 men).[185] Canon lawyer Edward Peters noted that this was a break with canon law, although not with any "divine directive".[185] The twelve included two Muslims,[186] including one of the two women.[187] Before leaving, the pope told the detainees, "Do not let yourselves be robbed of hope".[186]

Suggested Insertion after "Canon lawyer Edward Peters noted that this was a break with canon law, although not with any "divine directive".[185]":

It is arguable, under canon law provisions on customs, that the Pope's action constituted approval for including women in the ritual.[186]

Source to be cited as Footnote 186: Sobrino, Oswald. "Pope & Foot Washing of Females". Logos Blog. Retrieved 25 April 2013.

˜˜˜˜

The father of Pope Francis born in ALESSANDRIA

Acording to this trustful source (http://www.cemla.com/busqueda.php#)

BERGOGLIO, MARIO 21 S CONTADOR CATOLICA ITALIANA GIULIO CESARE GENOVA 01/02/1929 - BUENOS AIRES Born in ALESSANDRIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo

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

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2014

In the "Name" section, I find

"Pope Clement XIV who had suppressed the Jesuit order"

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

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

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

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

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

Guardian Accusation of bias

Guardian critique of this page

Just passing on the reference- which makes negative comments about our neutrality.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I also came across that article. It's by Paul Vallely, who authored the book Pope Francis: Untying the Knots. He states

“ A glance at his Wikipedia page reveals one side of the battleline. It has clearly been written primarily by religious conservatives. Its entries seek predominantly to accentuate the religious orthodoxy of the man who was born Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Throughout his papacy, it insists, Pope Francis has been a vocal opponent of abortion. ”

--Երևանցի ^talk 02:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, the lamestream media is upset that the liberal darling Francis is actually orthodox and this article lacks the usual liberal spin on the things he's said. I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you. Elizium23 (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that article has a flaw: it begins with the wrong questions. To decide if someone is a full liberal or a full conservative can easily become a false dilemma, as we can usually find points where the man does or say things that go against either doctrine. Francis, like everybody else, simply does what his own concience tells him it is the correct thing, and his set of moral codes does fit exactly into any specific tag. Only a fundamentalist's moral codes do. Francis is partially conservative in some things, and partially liberal in others; our task is to try to describe the whole picture.

And yes, this article details mainly "one side of the battleline", as they say it: the side of Francis. This is his biography, and we must describe what does he think about abortion. The correct article to describe the multiples views on abortion is abortion, not this one, and the article would go off-topic if we begin doing that. Cambalachero (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, what the Guardian piece is saying is something similar to what you are saying (and Elizium123 has oversimplified it). The Guardian piece is saying that Francis's position is full of ambiguities and cannot yet be categorised in terms of a liberal v. conservative polarity. His criticism of this article is that it has oversimplified that ambiguous and complex position too much in favour of presenting him on the conservative side of the polarity. He then makes the leap to attribute that to the article being edited by conservatives, which I think is unlikely. But as to the main point, the question is: has the article oversimplified Francis and doesn't properly reflect the balance of views in the sources (possible) or has the mainstream media and comentators over simplified Francis (more likely). As we all know, the article's purpose is to reflect the so-called "reliable sources" and not to present a novel analysis: "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead". DeCausa (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian does have one good point in the critique of the excuse given about Bergoglio's lung. None of the sources link this to his lack of Gregorian chant in the Mass. I have removed it. The Guardian's point about abortion is baseless. Francis speaks consistently against abortion and has never wavered. This is well-documented. One off-the-cuff remark about "obsession" with it does not make for a policy shift, no matter how public and widely disseminated (and misinterpreted) it was. I think we are done with this critique. It really holds no other valid suggestions for improving the article. Very little has ever been discussed on this talk page regarding bias or NPOV violations, so unless someone else has a substantive claim to make here, I think we are done. Elizium23 (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not up to you to say when we are "done". There is a difference between editors saying this article is not NPOV, and the Guardian (or at least a writer in the Guardian) saying that this article is not NPOV. An editor's post is not a WP:RS; the Guardian is. This requires further comment from other editors. DeCausa (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

So you are up for placing the assertion in the article, "This Wikipedia article was written by conservative editors." with a citation pointing to the Guardian, since it is obviously so reliable for statements about Wikipedia? No, actually you have it backwards. The Guardian article has no merit here. Wikipedia is run by editors, by consensus of those who edit the pages; Wikipedia is not run by liberal newspapers spouting trite criticisms about random articles the editors find to be problematic. If an editor had brought concerns about NPOV and/or tagged this article with legitimate criticisms left on this talk page, then there would be merit to the claims and an earnest effort to right the course could be undertaken. But no editor has brought this claim. The OP in this thread made no claim of support or denial of the article's accusations, he was merely reproducing the link here. Once again I say, unless some editor brings substantial criticisms to this talk page, we have nothing to act on. You have not, the Guardian has not, nobody has. So until that happens, we are done. I would also like to point out that Wikipedia has a policy against the off-wiki coordination of editing articles. The Guardian's criticism seems to be a thinly-veiled call for liberals to attack and edit the article to "correct" its "conservative" bias. If this is the case then we should be watching closely for single-purpose IPs and accounts coming specially to Wikipedia at the beck and call of the Guardian article, rather than of their own volition. Elizium23 (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That's just nonsense that isn't worth a reply. In any case, it's done when everyone thinks it's done, not you.And there's nothing you can do about that. So just calm down. DeCausa (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Long introduction, bias towards orthodox acts of Pope Francis

The introduction to the article focuses too much on his orthodox beliefs. While these may be true, this belongs in another section, as opposed to the introduction, as there are at least three paragraphs in the introduction about this subject alone. These either need to be shortened to a few sentences or moved to another section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100B:B11A:43A7:6DB8:B2A:A146:7239 (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC) — 2600:100B:B11A:43A7:6DB8:B2A:A146:7239 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2600:100B:B11A:43A7:6DB8:B2A:A146:7239 (UTC).

There's a problem with the last two paragraphs of the lead (which have been added in recent weeks) but I think the rest of the lead is fine. The penultimate paragraph contains too much detail for the lead and should be combined with the paragraph preceding it. The final paragraph is very strange. I don't see how it passes WP:LEAD since it is not a summary of the body of the article. Some of the sources are dubious. But overall it comes across as very much an NPOV diatribe against "Western media". I think it should be removed - or at the very least it should be transferred to the main body of the article and re-written. then it would warrant a line or two in the lead. DeCausa (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Change Request 3/21/2014

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

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

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