Talk:Pope Francis

Society of Jesus (SJ) or not?

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)

Post-Nominals

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

Looks like a trophy to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.77.61.139 (talk) 20:17, 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)

SJ

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

• How likely is it that Pope Francis will retain the SJ suffix? I would imagine not, but can't cite anything yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Of course he wasn't called Pius V SJ. He was a Dominican, not a Jesuit.--Vidkun (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Pius V O.P.?--KTo288 (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• He is almost certainly no longer a Jesuit. By the rules of their order, Jesuits are not allowed to hold official dignities such as bishop, pope, etc. unless they get a special permission, which is almost never granted. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_formation for some info on this.) So the s.j. is not justified.Michaelmke (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

"Almost certainly?" Says who? And besides, who's he gonna ask permission of? He's the POPE. I'm not lobbying for the inclusion of the SJ, that's dumb, but let's use logical reasoning when making our arguments. Iamvered (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Not Technically a Jesuit

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)

If you can dig up some suitable sources, you should go ahead and edit it yourself (or if you're not autoconfirmed, post an edit request.Blelbach (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

While it is true that a member of a religious institute who is raised to the episcopacy is released from his vow of obedience to the superiors of that institute, by custom he is still considered a member of the institute, and is listed as such in the directories of the institute to which he has belonged, and he will continue to use the postnominal initials of the institute. So, yes, he is still a Jesuit in some form. Daniel the Monk (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Especially in a case like this, where he was also the Jesuit provincial for Argentina for 6 years (The superior of all Jesuits in the country), and was a Rector in a Jesuit seminary for 6 years. No other Pope has a Jesuit history like this. wxwalsh 05:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxwalsh (talk • contribs)

This is why we rely on reliable sources and forbid original research. It appears that there are several people active on this talk page with a really deep understanding of the Roman Catholic church, but we should wait for more articles to come out about the pope before deciding most of these questions. Andrew³²⁷ 05:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

New York Times article on time as head of Jesuits in Argentina

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)

Jesuit provincial

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)

I am not sure of the exact process in the Jesuits but in my congregation and most others, Provincials are both elected and named. The members of the province are consulted for who they think would be a good provincial (by secret ballot) then the general names someone - most of the time, the one with most votes but sometimes #2 or #3 in votes if the #1 has some other responsibility he can't give up, or the general sees something strongly objectionable about him. Since the vote is only consultative, I think named is more accurate if we want to summarize it in one or two lines. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 08:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The Jesuits think Francis is (still) a Jesuit

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)

I think that his Coat of Arms really tells the whole story, with the insignia of the order right in the middle. But is still remains the question: "Is it Pope Francis or Pope Francis SJ" in the infobox? Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

(That was me, earlier; I forgot the signature line.) The Vatican's web site has "The Holy Father, Pope Francis." I don't think there's any need for an SJ in the infobox. The article makes clear he's a Jesuit, as does this account of a visit to the pope on Sunday by the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, who said that Francis "insisted that I treat him like any other Jesuit." --- OtherDave (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Masters degree?

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

The detailed reference above supports Bcartolo's comment; it gives details of the school from wich he graduated as chemical technician, and says that he decided to follow the priesthood at 21 (too young for a master's degree). In point of fact I do think that in 1957 there was a degree of "licenciado en ciencias químicas", which is comparable to a master's (at least 4 years), though the reference above implies Bergoglio didn't study for it. There certainly was such a degree a few years later. I suppose that this will be clarified as time goes by. Pol098 (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of reliable sources that say it was a masters and name the university, such as this one and this one. It looks like he decided to become a priest at 21, but that doesn't mean that he had graduated at that point; for all we know he continued his chemistry studies for a time before or while he had entered the Jesuits. He wasn't ordained until he was 32. (Also, do you speak Spanish? I don't, but I'm reticent to trust a machine translation for the Spanish-language source.) Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Also: this source is from 2005, so we can be sure the recent sources weren't just copying the Wikipedia article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Chemistry in Ciencias Exactas was a fairly gruelling full-time 4-year course, preceded by a 1-year evening preparatory course. Conceivably he could have been studying chemical engineering (different building, different location at that time), but that was no easy option either. The references are fairly specific that he graduated from secondary school as a chemical technician. I have been thinking "either-or" with blinkers on (technician or university), but of course it's quite sensible to do chemistry both in school first and at university level afterwards, so it's conceivable he did both. On the one hand it's utterly unimportant anyway; on the other it'll probably come out in the wash eventually. Searching in Spanish finds lots of references to him being a chemical technician, but they probably derive from Wikipedia anyway! So I think I should leave this alone. Chemists (and physicists) have probably been doing too much running things in living memory (Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Francis...) Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget Mohamed Morsi (I reckon materials science is close enough...) Anyway, the official biography refers to "a degree as a chemical technician" which is also somewhat ambiguous. I think since we have sources on both sides we should mention both degrees for now, expressing appropriate caution, and if new sources clarify the matter we can update as needed. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sources may be ambiguous, but WP has to be squeaky clean in its accuracy and balance. Tony (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If that's what the official biography says, I would quote it exactly and drop the rest. If somebody is a licenciado en ciencias químicas, or an ingeniero químico (not sure of wording actually used for engineer, conceivably ingeniero en química), he would not be described as a technician. The Spanish version of the official Web site (Spanish as his language and the language he studied and graduated in) says "Estudió y se diplomó como Técnico Quimico"—"he studied and graduated as a chemical technician" which in my opinion unambiguously does not say he has a university degree, there is no Argentine university degree of "técnico", much less equivalent to a masters degree, and there is such a qualification from an industrial secondary school. The capitals imply the formal name of a qualification. The Italian site uses the same wording as the Spanish, without the capitals. But I probably won't edit further myself unless real rubbish gets written. Pol098 (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I am fluent in Spanish because I am from Argentina. I am pretty sure by now that he is a chemistry technician, a degree awarded by a high school. I also believe the masters degree was made up by the catholic telegraph, catholic herald or catholic news. I will call the university today and request they make a formal statement and post it in the web page today. Wish me luck with that, there is a lot of bureaucracy involved. bcartolo (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the detective work, I'm interested to see the resolution either way. I suppose someone could have mistranslated or misunderstood the Spanish name of the degree and published it in an English-language source, but in that case it would be odd that a specific university was named. Hopefully the matter will be explicitly clarified. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Another (admittedly not all that decisive) piece of evidence: many recent sources such as this one contain the sentence "He became a priest at 32, nearly a decade after losing a lung due to respiratory illness and quitting his chemistry studies." This implies that he quit his chemistry studies no more than nine years before being ordained, at the age of 23 at the youngest, which is reasonable for a masters degree. This means that he would have had to continue his university studies for a few years after deciding to become a preist (at the age of 21) and becoming a member of the Jesuits. Of course, it could also be the sources being imprecise with their language. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser. There are lots of sources mentioning the masters degree, but the only pre-2013 source I can find on the Internet is this 2005 source from Catholic News Service. Meanwhile, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, Reuters, and The Associated Press all just say he studied as or was trained as a chemist without any specifics. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said, bureaucracy can take some time to decide this. We must be patient. Regarding the name of the university, it can be made up, you see UBA is the most important university there so someone could have assumed the pope went there. bcartolo (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, somebody noticed us: [2]. I think the preponderance of the evidence at this point is that the masters degree is probably the result of an error or mistranslation that got repeated by moderately reliable sources. Perhaps it would be a good idea to move the sentence to a footnote for now? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Let's wait for an official response from the University of Buenos Aires. --190.19.67.176 (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The University site makes no such claims, in its History section. It also requires a High School Degree (a term indicating systemic inflation of grades) or certificate that the undergraduate applicant has passed all his subjects. However, the special edition of the Clarin newspaper in the notes section also states that he never completed his schooling, working mornings for a Paragayan Communist, Esther Balestrino Carreaga, doing QC on the raw materials used in the Hickethier-Bachmann Laboratory. As he fell ill aged barely 20, he must have started work when still very young, and so lacked the qualifications needed to enter the University. His later qualifications were consistent with his position in the Seminary, and show no indication that he studied elsewhere. Given the lack of verifiable back-record, I think that reference must be suppressed, as it breaches NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.85.248 (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not an NPOV issue, it's an issue of reliable sources. My main concern is that I don't want more press sources copying the claim from Wikipedia if we're not sure ourselves about its veracity. I raised the option of putting it in a footnote until we get official confirmation because this would preserve the information but make it less visible to readers who aren't interested in parsing the nuances. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I still have not heard back from the university. I am going to call tomorrow and see how far can I go. I have also sent some new emails to different people. Unfortunately, I am not in Argentina so I cant go personally. I will ask the guys of the wikimedia chapter [3], maybe they can go. I am trying to contact both, the Chemical Engineering department ([4]) and the Chemistry department ([5]), since both grant chemistry degrees. Additionally, I have no news from the technical school, I have sent them an email asking for confirmation whether the Pope graduated from there or not, but no response so far. bcartolo (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: He did not attended Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales (UBA). I have received the confirmation from the Board of Directors and Corporate Relations Office. Anyway we can cite an email? I told them to put a formal statement in their webpage, but I am not too optimistic about it. As regard to the chemical engineering degree, the chemical engineering department office has told me they dont have any record of his attendance and that I should contact the students department or the alumni department, which I would do shortly. bcartolo (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Relations with the Argentine Junta

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

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

The accusations stem only from ONE SOURCE, Horacio Verbitsky's (with a past history as a leftist guerrilla, hence probably also a biased source) books "El Silencio", upon which the media draw conclusions of their own. Before attacking the person more inforamation needs to be obained, instead of basing it on one source and (parhaps biased) jounalists that draw upon it.

Remember that millions of people might read this article, so make sure that you have plenty of reliable sources to back up anything you add. I'm sure that there will be countless biographical articles written about him in the coming weeks and months, so I recommend not adding anything more about it until there are more sources. Andrew³²⁷ 23:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Two articles from The Guardian: 2011 and today, including a comment by Argentinian Father Eduardo de la Serna. Certainly not just one source. --CocoLacoste talk 02:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it is still one source. The whole thing is still built around Verbitsky's allegations, and should be clearly identified as based on Verbitsky's claims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, not really sure how this wikipedia thing works but I wanted to point out that down at the bottom of The Guardian's article is what amounts to a retraction.

Why do we need such a section. In its first subsection it basically covers the "military dicatorship" issue. This could be a section of its own.

Meanwhile, the second subsection puts together two separate issues which could be better covered in already existing subsections (under "Views") that deal with the underlying issues. If we moved them there, we wouldn't have to included circumstantial pointers to these sections.

What do other people think? Str1977 ^(talk) 18:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

As provincial

Currently it states he dismissed the two Jesuits "just prior to their disappearance." This is not true. Both were Jesuits at the time of their arrest. One, Jalics, still is a Jesuit. The other left after he was released. If they were professed Jesuits, the provincial could not dismiss them, it would take the Jesuit general. See http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/francis-jesuits-and-dirty-war RCSJ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

For proof that Jalics is still a Jesuit, see his statement that is headed "Stellungnahme von P. Franz Jalics SJ." The "SJ" after his name means he is a Jesuit. RCSJ (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

AP says "Both men were freed after Bergoglio took extraordinary, behind-the-scenes action to save them — including persuading dictator Jorge Videla's family priest to call in sick so that he could say Mass in the junta leader's home, where he privately appealed for mercy." See http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/pope-francis-biography-key-facts-life-in-latin-america-and-background-88818_Page3.html RCSJ (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/pope-francis-biography-key-facts-life-in-latin-america-and-background-88818_Page3.html#ixzz2Nq6oQu6E

The bio states incorrectly that Jalics lives in German a monastery. Jesuits do not live in monasteries. It should be Jesuit community or Jesuit retreat house. For proof that Jalics is a Jesuit, see his statement that is headed "Stellungnahme von P. Franz Jalics SJ." The "SJ" after his name means he is a Jesuit. RCSJ (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Footnote 49 lacks a reference to its source: "Trotskystfraction Fourth International" or "PTS Partido de los Trabajadores Socialistas." RCSJ (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The comment, "There appears to be no outside confirmation for this," seems rather gratuitous since no other assertions are so qualified. RCSJ (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Relation to military dictatorship 1976-83

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

The Journalist Horacio Vervitsky has written several articles about this matter. They are all reunited on this link:

http://www.taringa.net/posts/noticias/5189962/Bergoglio-Dictadura-e-Iglesia---Por-Verbitsky.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.85.35 (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Vervitsky has a clear bias in this whole debate and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. There are other sources who say that Vervitsky lacks any credibility on these matters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Section: Relations with the Argentine government

The Section Relations with the Argentine government content doesn't reflect its source [6] fairly, what Bergoglio also did, according to the source, was lobbying so that the priests Yorio and Jalics were released. Bergoglio was also harshly criticised by the human-rights activists for not giving information, while Bergoglio himself claimed that he all the time pinpointed moral responsibility to involved parts. Circa so. Fair shall be fair. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Already fixed! Sorry, I forgot Ctrl-R! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

involvement with argentinian dictatorship

The following sentence "Verbitsky also writes that the Argentine Navy with the help of Cardinal Bergoglio hid the dictatorship's political prisoners in Bergoglio's holiday home from a visiting delegation of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission" should be removed as it is not true. The note links to the source which is an article on "The Guardian", but the article itself has been amended on this regard with an apologising note stating this is not actually true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.243.165 (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Good catch, I verified the change to the cited source and removed the incorrect content. Andrew³²⁷ 14:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request: Criticism/Actions during the Argentinian dictatorship

This article in the Guardian makes the point that Bergoglio was accused of aiding the military dictatorship by hiding political prisoners from a foreign human rights commission. The article is from 2011 but it says the following:

The extent of the church's complicity in the dark deeds was excellently set out by Horacio Verbitsky, one of Argentina's most notable journalists, in his book El Silencio (Silence). He recounts how the Argentinian navy with the connivance of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, now the Jesuit archbishop of Buenos Aires, hid from a visiting delegation of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission the dictatorship's political prisoners. Bergoglio was hiding them in nothing less than his holiday home in an island called El Silencio in the River Plate. The most shaming thing for the church is that in such circumstances Bergoglio's name was allowed to go forward in the ballot to chose the successor of John Paul II. What scandal would not have ensued if the first pope ever to be elected from the continent of America had been revealed as an accessory to murder and false imprisonment.

As a supposed moral guardian and leader Catholic christians around the world this should be included in the article. --Antabeta (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That info is already included in the article Cambalachero (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• The whole above seems to come from pushing a very particular POV. Horacio Verbitsky is not an unbiased observer on this issue, he is a former leftist gurilla, and this part of his background should not be obscured. Balance means considering multiple views. I would say the article already holds too close to Verbitsky, but we definately do not need such POV-pushing attacks on the Pope as the above put in the article. "As a supposed moral guardian and leader" is not neutral language in any sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Yet Verbitsky's "Silence" is a thorough examination of Bergoglio's case during the dictatorship. It relates than one of the two Jesuit abducted and tortured priests, Orlando Yorio, noted that one of the interrogators had externally knowings about theological questions that led him to think that their own provincial, Bergoglio, had been involved in his interrogatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clivejb (talk • contribs) 00:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

If you go to your linked article, you will find a footnote added, which states that the Guardian retracted this part of the story, saying that this accusation can not be found in Verbitsky's book. Gugganij (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Jewish communist terrorist leader, a reliable source?

This sentence is contained within the article "Horacio Verbitsky, an Argentine investigative journalist and former montonero guerilla." Investigative journalist? Really. That sounds, slightly how shall we say, vague. Verbitsky is a Jewish communist who was personally involved in a campaign of violence with the Montoneros, a communist terrorist organisation during the Cold War involved in the kidnappings and murders of Argentine government personnel (according to Wikipedia's own article). Would for example, the claims of a member of Al-Qaeda be used as a source on the article of a high profile rabbi or somebody prominent in American society? The Vatican itself has claimed it was a defamatory campaign. If this sentence is to stay, I'd like to see after Verbitsky's name "Jewish communist terrorist", or any one of those three words to give some balance to what we're dealing with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.88.83 (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Montoneros was left-wing Peronist, not communist. --Againme (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Are one sites terrorist not many times the other sites freedomfighters? Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's write "Jewish" afterwards because stating his religion will thereby show this journalist's malevolent and deceitful proclivities and provide "balance" to his claims. In fact, we could even write "Zionist propagandist". That way, even those still unfamiliar with the wily ways of the Jew will recognize this journalist's innate mendacity. The Al-Qaeda and Rabbi analogy is quite sublime. Dare I suggest though that seeing as we all know that Jewish communist terrorists committed the 9/11 atrocities, you unfairly traduce the spiritual peace-loving members of Al-Qaeda? Juddhoward (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I raised a similar concern at the "Horacio Verbitsky" thread. Let's clarify that for this discussion it's unimportant if Verbitsky is jew or not, he was a terrorist during the Dirty War of Argentina, which was not a "judaism vs. antisemitism" conflict, but a "far left vs. far right" cold war conflict. Cambalachero (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's only address the fact that 176.24.88.83 mentioned that Verbitsky is Jewish and completely ignore his valid points, so that he or she looks like an anti-Semite and his argument is (fallaciously) discredited. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is anti-Semitic, and it shows a lot about how the controversy is viewed in Argentina.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

So because a completely random person mentions that Verbitsky is Jewish, you assume that a) he or she is an anti-Semite, and b) that says something on how the controversy is viewed in Argentina? Excuse me, but that sounds extremely illogical and narrow-minded. --190.19.88.16 (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless we have proof that the person who started this section lives in Argentina, there is no reason to thing this tells us anything about how this is viewed in Argentina. After having read material on Pope Francis' relations with the Jews, I think it even less likely that we can assume any special insight on the part of the editor who started this section. For what it is worth, President Kirchner and her late husband are both baptized Roman Catholics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

‘Bergoglio had no links with the dictatorship,’ Peace Nobel Prize winner

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/126367/%E2%80%98bergoglio-had-no-links-with-the-dictatorship%E2%80%99-peace-nobel-prize-winner

Thursday, March 14, 2013 ‘Bergoglio had no links with the dictatorship,’ Peace Nobel Prize winner

Peace Nobel Prize winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, assured today that elected pope Jorge Bergoglio "had no links with the dictatorship” that ruled Argentina between the years 1976-1983 as he’s been accused for many years. Speaking to BBC News, Perez Esquivel said that “there were bishops who were accomplices of the dictatorship, but it was not the case of Bergoglio.” “Bergoglio was questioned because it is said he did not do enough to get out of jail two priests, as he was the Superior of the Jesuits. But I know personally that many bishops called on the military junta for the release of prisoners and priests and these requests were not granted”, said Perez Esquivel.

---

Safku8 (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a useful article. How do you suggest we integrate it into the article? Andrew³²⁷ 21:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Something around "... while others ... are uneasy about his supposed ties to the country's oppressive military dictatorship in the 1970s." I'm not really comfortable with that current phrasing, especially if the ties are really just supposed and not substantiated. Moncrief (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a false appeal to authority to me. Twarwick666 (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you even know what a fallacius argumentum ad verecundiam is? Either the authority is not a subject-matter expert, or there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter (or both). Adolfo Perez Esquivel was a direct protagonist of the events, he suffered much at the hands of the dictatorship, and he received the Nobel Price for Peace for his efforts in the defense of human rights. So indeed an appeal to authority, but a very legitimate appeal. --RCarmine (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a complicated issue, but the relevant Wikipedia policies are WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Briefly referencing a Nobel Prize winner's statement would satisfy both rules and there's no reason not to include it in the article. Andrew³²⁷ 16:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The statement is rather contradictory. If he obtained the priests' release he obviously had influence with the junta.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You are assuming that you had to have a certain degree of influence to obtain the release of the priests. In reality, the priests (as it was the case with many other prisoners) could have been released due to other reasons and without such influence. --190.19.88.16 (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Being an obnoxious pleader for the release of prisoners whose words are listened to by an unjust ruler who wants some peace and quite does not make someone a collaborator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ties with military dictatorship -documents-

Can be denied much, but not images and military government's own documents, i can't upload them to wikipedia, but I think a link to can see them.

Picture Bergoglio with Videla in a private mass (ultra-Catholic, Videla made "disappeared" his own son!)

http://arainfo.org/2013/03/papabilidades/

Foreign Ministry document during military rule:

http://i1297.photobucket.com/albums/ag32/Documents2/Bergoglio_zps9abb4408.jpg

This is the translation of the document:

"Father Francisco (Francis!) Calics

Solvent activity in female religious congregations (Conflicts of obedience)

Arrested in Mechanics School of the Naval (ESMA) (05/24/76). XI/76 (6 months) accused with the Father Yorio. Suspected guerrillas contact.

Live in a small community in the Jesuit Superior, dissolved in June 1976 and refused to obey requesting the exit of the company (of Jesus) on 19/3, received 2 expulsion, Father Jalics not, because have solemn vows. Any Bishop of Greater Buenos Aires want receive it.

NB: These data were supplied to the Mr. Orcoyen by the own Father Bergoglio, who signed this note, with special recommendation that don't give place to the are requesting."

Literally he released his hands, one of them was killed, the other had to flee the country. At other times the Church called this "relaxation to the secular arm"...Were not the only religious killed. And the guerrillas or the word that begins with the letter T, is too relative, was used as an excuse to murder political dissidents ... just by teach reading to the poor people, become you in a guerrillero.

Ashamed to read comments that do not know anything about my country history.

You knew for example that burning and banning books, ie A technical book as "La Cuba Hidroeléctrica" (the hydroelectric barrel) by the word Cuba, or even worst, forbidding teach more of 6 characters per school year, a child only could learn the whole alphabet at the five years of being in school!!!!

This not is politics, is the true...the more nobel value186.62.185.205 (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The first picture proves precisely nothing, not even that it was a private Mass. Anyone and everyone can consume the eucharistic bread at Mass. How exactly does that link Pope Francis to the dictatorship? That's quite a big leap in logic. As for the second picture, the text merely states that Pope Francis gave some information to the authorities about Father Francisco Jalics when asked to do so. It doesn't prove any relationship at all. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course every Father can give a private mass to the Dictators...and any religious has a meeting with the secret services and says: "who signed this note, with special recommendation that don't give place to the are requesting."

Request of who? Father Calics, at that time literally signed a death sentence.186.62.185.205 (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Where is the proof that he gave a private mass to Videla? Where is the proof that Videla was at the time a dictator? Where is the proof that Pope Francis had a meeting with Argentina's secret service? How exactly does the phrase "with special recommendation that what is requested not be granted" proves a link between Pope Francis and the dictatorship? Your whole hypothesis is based entirely on assumptions. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Bergoglio has written that he said mass for Videla's family. And yes, he was a dictator... just read some... --Againme (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I cannot help but notice that you are not providing a single shred of evidence backing up your claim. Besides, as I have stated before in this very thread, anyone and everyone can attend Mass. That doesn't prove anything. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Alternative translation of the above document, without additional comment, except that "actividad disolvente", literally "dissolving activity", seems to mean a disruptive activity, might be a technical religious term. The document, on plain paper, is referring to an application ("the note") actually presented by Bergoglio. I have not myself added this to the article, just supplied an alternative translation.

"Father Francisco Jalics

- Disruptive activity in female religious congregations (conflict of obedience).

- The accused and Fr Yorio held in the ESMA 24/5/76 XI/76 (6 months). Suspected guerrilla contact.

- They lived in a small community that the Jesuit Superior dissolved in February 1976, and they refused to obey requesting release from the Company [of Jesus] on 19/3, two were expelled, not Fr Jalics because he is under solemn vows. No bishop within Greater Buenps Aires wanted to receive him.

NB: these data were supplied to Mr Orcoyen by Fr Pedro Bergoglio himself, who signed the note, with special recommendation that what is requested not be granted.

Signed: (apparently) Orcoyen"

Pol098 (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The photo not only does not prove anything, it isn't even Bergoglio at all. There is a report here detailing the circumstances of the photo. The priest (whose face, notice the detail, is not visible from the angle of the photo) is Carlos Berón de Astrada, and the photo was taken at the chapel "Pequeña Obra de la Divina Providencia Don Orione". Note as well that the priest of the photo is an old man, not a man in his fifties, as Bergoglio was back in the 1990s.

As for terrorism, right, teaching things to poor people does not turn you into a terrorist. Commiting terrorist attacks does. Horacio Verbisky, the man that seems so concerned about human rights now, took part in a terrorist attack against the Argentine police on July 2, 1976, that left 24 deaths and 60 injuries. Cambalachero (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Actually I think the first picture proves negative. This may be the picture that another Argentine newspaper has stated was falsely claimed to be of Bergoglio, and is not of him. It really rememds me of the cover of Goldhagen's book on Pius XII which was claimed to be of Pius exchanging salutes with Nazi troops after Hitler's election, but was really of Pius exchanging salutes with troops of the Weimar Republic on the occasion of Hindenburg's election. The picture proves nothing because there is no proof that it is even actually of Bergoglio.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

"I have no data linking Bergoglio with the dictatorship", says former member of CONADEP

I believe this information is both useful and important. The words come from Graciela Fernández Meijide, a former member of the CONADEP (Comisión Nacional sobre la Desaparición de Personas, National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons), an Argentine body created after the fall of the dictatorship to investigate the fate of the victims of the Dirty War. The sources are the following:

• Meijide: "No tengo ningún dato que vincule a Bergoglio con la dictadura"
• Bergoglio, nuevo Papa: "No tengo ningún dato que lo relacione con la dictadura", dijo Graciela Fernández Meijide
• “Jamás nadie mencionó a Bergoglio” en la dictadura, dijo Fernández Meijide
• Niegan que tuviera vínculos con la dictadura, which also includes Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Nobel Peace Prize winner, denying Bergoglio's alleged links with the dictatorship
• Militantes de derechos humanos refutan críticas sobre Bergoglio, which, again, includes Adolfo Pérez Esquivel's words

Thank you. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• To what extent do we need to include this, as opposed to just exclude the baseless accusations of a connection that seem to mainly stem from the Kircheners personal dislike and animosity towards Bergoglio and have no basis in fact. Sometimes reporting a negative gives the impression there is really something there, if not done properly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether it's true or not, the fact that the allegations are out there, and there are reliable sources that the allegations exist, means that Wikipedia should cover them, although not passing judgement on whether or not the allegations are true. Same with reliably sourced claims such as this, which says that they are not true. RNealK (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement of Franz Jalics

Father Franz Jalics, one of the priest captured and tortured and now living in Germany, issued a statment today (for now, it seems to be issued just in German):

Erklärung von Pater Franz Jalics SJ

Gugganij (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Very relevant, have added a bit to article. Pol098 (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Dirty War

The section about his role in the Dirty War seems to have "disappeared". The section seemed appropriate and didn't try to confirm such rumours but doubts have been expressed and this should be mentioned especially now that the Vatican itself has spoken about them. Wikipedia should not give in to the demands of the Vatican. This section needs to be restored.--ЗAНИA ^talk WB (ctrl-click)">WB (ctrl-click)">WB (ctrl-click)">^{WB talk}] 18:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Babies taken from their families

Human rights attorney Myriam Bregma claims Bergoglio endorsed the dictators when he knew they were torturing and killing Argentinians and claims “this key support” enabled the junta to operate that way. It is claimed Bergoglio knew at least one case when a woman five months pregnant in the De la Cuadra family was kidnapped, she gave birth in captivity, the baby was stolen and given to another family. A monsignor allegedly brought Bergoglio a written note saying the baby was with a family too important for the adoption to be reversed. In 2010 Bergoglio claimed not to have known about stolen babies during the dictatorship despite his alleged personal knowledge of this case.

"Bergoglio has a very cowardly attitude when it comes to something so terrible as the theft of babies. He says he didn't know anything about it until 1985," said the baby's aunt, Estela de la Cuadra, whose mother Alicia co-founded the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo in 1977 in hopes of identifying these babies. "He doesn't face this reality and it doesn't bother him. The question is how to save his name, save himself. But he can't keep these allegations from reaching the public. The people know how he is."

Estela de la Cuadra feels Borgoglio's denial that he knew about babies born in concentration camps being adopted amounts to "lies and hypocrisy". Estela de la Cuadra wants the Vatican to release documents which could shed light on what really happened but this is unlikely.

The above is a serious allegation and should stay in the article. What the defenders of Pope Francis say about his supposed heroic actions sheltering dissidents has remained in the article and accusations should stay too. Otherwise the article is unbalanced. Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to disagree. That would be a violation of WP:FRINGE as it would make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is. Moreover, "the defenders of Pope Francis" you are referring to are no less than a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and a former member of the CONADEP; in other words, notable and well known. Who exactly is Myriam Bregma? This is the first time I have read anything related to her. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. NPOV =/= balancing every "good" with a "bad", especially in a BLP where such allegations had better have solid evidence backing them up.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've shortened this. It just carries on and repeats itself and the use of the blockquote made no sense at all. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Here we have another case similar to the saga with Horacio Verbitsky, the famous Cold War terrorist. According to the Spanish Wikipedia, Myriam Bregman, the person who is cited as a mere "human rights attorney" and given a platform to make outlandish claims that the Pope is involved in facilitating the "kidnapping of children" is actually a member of the Socialist Workers' Party (Argentina) which is a Trotskyist organisation. Like Verbitsky, she also appears to be Jewish if the surname Bregman and the spelling of Maria as "Myriam" is any indication to go by. If there are some criticisms of the Pope, then by all means find some reliable/non-partisan people, but lets not try to sneak in rabid anti-Catholic Trotskyists under their favourite little mask of "human rights activists" and people with an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.88.83 (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Response to: "Moreover, "the defenders of Pope Francis" you are referring to are no less than a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and a former member of the CONADEP; in other words, notable and well known"

if you want can looking for the same statements nobel prize (Pérez Esquivel) in 2005 accusing Bergoglio to know about the theft of babies and do nothing even religious deliver the military (Yesterday all Argentines could see on TV that note showing the contradiction in his speech).

Sorry precisely that person is not who has fought for human rights, is a comet that changes speech at their convenience. Soon i give you the link (I hope you understand spanish)186.62.185.205 (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I do understand Spanish. I will be waiting for your link, then. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a book: "Iglesia y Dictadura: El Papel de la Iglesia a la Luz de Sus Relaciones con el Régimen Militar" (Church and Dictatorship: The Role of the Church in the light of its relations with the military regime)...Author...Emilio Fermín Mignone

http://books.google.com.ar/books/about/Iglesia_y_Dictadura.html?id=Bs9aAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

Mignone? Mignone? the person who accused Bergoglio, is the founder of CELS in the '80s, when the investigation began, now Verbitsky, is director of CELS, as it could have been someone else, only keeps alive such research. Who wrote the foreword to the English version ... Adolfo Perez Esquivel, the Nobel Peace Prize...still searching the TV note186.62.185.205 (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a link that shows Adolfo Pérez Esquivel accusing Bergoglio of knowing about the theft of babies and doing nothing in response. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Even at their basic substance the claims of these allegations do not add up. The military dictatorship existed because it had the military power to exist, not because of any endorsement from religious leaders. Some Catholic leaders did work with the dictatorship, but there is no evidence that Bergoglio was among them. However neither Musolin, nor Franco nor the dictatorship in Argentina existed because they were backed by religious leaders, they existed because they had orchestrated the military situation to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Borgolio's claim that he heroically sheltered dissidents in church property and more is also suspect. We rely solely on Borgolio's personal testimony for that. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't think there is strong evidence that Borgoglio connived in abduction of babies. Still there is evidence he knew abut it during the dictatorship and lied when he claimed he found out only after the dictatorship. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• The claims of one unrelated biased commentator have no value. The claims of the subject himself, as reported by his biographer's are logical to include. They are clearly shown to be based on his own statements, but they clearly belong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a whitewash. These claims have been carried by reputable media sources and should be included in some form.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

A former terrorist working at a propaganda outlet of a Chávez-styled government, a reliable source? Don't make me laugh. Holocaust denier Luis D'Elía says that the Pope is an agent of imperialism sent to destroy the socialist revolution (or some crap like that), should we mention that merely because some newspaper gave him room to talk? Cambalachero (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Horacio Verbitsky

Should we include at all the claims of Horacio Verbitsky at the "As provincial" section? As pointed, he is not a neutral observer, he was a guerilla soldier back in that time (for not saying the "T" word). And now he's a journalist, right... a journalist of a government-sponsored newspaper, always ready to provide slander and defamation to the perceived "enemies" of the Chávez-styled government of Argentina. I would hardly consider him a reliable source. Cambalachero (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Considering how much the Kirchner's expressed dislike of Bergoglio, and how much they apparently saw him as a rival to their power, this may be a good point to keep in mind. I would not mind removing all material coming from Verbitsky, but I doubt that will happen. I think it is good we have moved from a quote from Senora Kirchner that makes it look like her issues with Bergoglio are recent to an explanation that the Kirchner's have been angry at Bergoglio since about 2003. At a minimum we should probably made it fully clear what Verbitsky's connection to the current government of Argentina is, so that his reasons to dislike Bergoglio are clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me guys, but the investigation start in the 80's, by the CELS, not by Verbitsky, who now is the Director of the CELS, not in the 80's also you can see the Bertoglio papers of the Militars in the web.--186.62.185.205 (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

While it is true that Emilio Fermín Mignone, founder of the CELS (Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales, a left-wing think tank), was the person who originally promoted the idea, he is not a neutral actor either, as his own wife was Angélica Sosa, one of the founding members of the Madres de Plaza de Mayo (Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo), an association of Argentine mothers whose children disappeared during the Dirty War and which includes the mothers of former left-wing terrorists among its members as well. I think it goes without saying that Mignone never managed to demonstrate a connection between Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the military regime. It is also false that you can see any papers linking Bergoglio with the junta on the Internet; if that were true, the alleged relationship between him and the dictatorship would have been already proven a long time ago. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Context is also important. Bergoglio said something that the Kirchners did not like, and the Kirchners reacted by linking him to the National Reorganization Process. With very weak evidences, unable to actually prove anything at a court of law, but repeating the slander all over the government-financed media as an already proved fact. A system they have used with journalists, politicians, union leaders, celebrities, anyone who doesn't bow to the Kirchners. If someone was not a guerrilla or a dissapeared, he's labeled as an accomplice of the dictatorship in all the government-financed media. And this is precisely what happened with Bergoglio. It all comes down to Kirchner don't liking the comments of Bergoglio during a mass, and his childish reaction to it. Cambalachero (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

More on dispute with Kirchner

Here is an article [7] 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)

The problem with that article is that it is not specific, it is a big Non sequitur. The government of the Kirchners did that, yes, and did several other things. The article does not actually point something specific about Bergoglio opposing those policies, only a vague "The Kirchners had this political idea, Bergoglio is against the Kirchners, then he is against that political idea". Nonsense. It's as if we say "Bush was against Al-Qaeda, Obama was against Bush, then Obama supports Al-Qaeda". Cambalachero (talk) 22:22, 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)

We should not editorialize on material

I removed the unsourced claim of no independent confirmation of Pope Francis' statements about helping people avoid capture by the government during the dictatorship. If someone published an article we could cite that stated "there is no independent confirmation of this", it would be worth including. However just infering this from the sources that exist here is not justified, it is editorializing and assumptions that are not justified. Information needs to be sourced, and that includes the claim of a lack of information.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Father Jalics has publicly reconciled with Bergoglio and considers the matter closed???

Jalics say: "Ich bin mit den Geschehnissen versöhnt und betrachte sie meinerseits als abgeschlossen" (I have been reconciled to the events and from my side consider them closed)...not is the same true???

Jalics write the book "Szemlélődő lelkigyakorlat" (hungarian)(Meditation or maybe Contemplation Exercises)(1994):

"Many people who held far-right political beliefs frowned on our presence in the slums. They interpreted the fact that we lived there as a support for the guerrillas and proposed denounce us as terrorists. We knew where the wind was blowing and who was responsible for these slanders. So I went to talk to the person in question and explained that I was playing with our lives. He promised that the military would know that we were not terrorists. For subsequent statements of an officer and thirty documents that could be accessed later we saw that this man had kept his promise but, on the contrary, had filed a false complaint with the military...that person made ​​credible slander using his authority...him testified to the officier that kidnapped us who us worked on the terrorist scene. Earlier I told to this person who was playing with our lives. He must be aware that him sent us to their deaths with their statements."

Gives no names, just said person.

Letter to Father Moura, Assistant General of the Company of Jesus, Roma, 1977...Orlando Yorio describes the same circumstances but change "person" by Jorge Mario Bergoglio...186.62.153.250 (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, "reconciled" implies there was a problem in the first place.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it only implies that at one point Jalics felt there was a problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

final(?) docs published online today on snitching

this was posted online last night.

please add the info+link to main article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294580/Special-report-The-damning-documents-new-Pope-DID-betray-tortured-priests-junta.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.117.2.51 (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The article opens with "Damning evidence that Pope Francis may have betrayed two priests" the fact that they use the conditional "may" shows that the title is intentionally inflamatory and that the material itself does not support the claims made. What really remains unclear is why the head of the Jesuits should tolerate preists who are not in line with vows of obeidience, and how what happens to them later is his fault. The article notes that Jalics traces his arrest to information provided by an anti-government guerrila after that guerrila was arrested. The Daily Mail is clearly involved in sensationalization we should avoid. It also is reflecting an anti-Catholic bias.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Judgement says the accusations were false

One of the judges who led the judgement said that accusations against Bergoglio were false. In Spanish: [8][9][10] --Robert Laymont (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Another statement by Pater Jalics

Pater Jalics issued another statement. In a nutshell:

• Since some commentaries on his first statement reversed the meaning what he wanted to say, he feels obliged to complement his original statement from March 15
• Two or three days after the arrest of the lay woman (who was a member of the guerrilla), he and Pater Yorio were detained as well. The officer interrogating him thought he was Russian spy, since he was born in Budapest
• He thinks the reason why they were not released immediately laid in the fact that already in the years before false information were spread within church circles. It was rumored that they moved into the slums, because they were members of the guerrilla.
• Originally he tended to think, that they were reported by someone to the authorities. At the end of the 1990s, after numerous talks, he came to the conclusion that this assumption was not correct
• Therefore, he says, it is wrong to state that their arrest came about after an initiative of Pater Bergoglio

Gugganij (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Miserando atque eligendo (His Motto)

I haven't been satisfied by either translation of the cardinal's motto I've seen so far on this page, although I readily admit it is tricky to render in English. To put it in context, it alludes to a line from the Venerable Bede, Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum, et quia miserando atque eligendo vidit, ait illi, Sequere me, which means, "And so Jesus saw the publican, and since he saw with pity and love, he said to him, Follow me." The reference is to Christ's calling of Saint Matthew. Here I've translated miserando atque eligendo as "with pity and love", although "love" does not quite do eligendo justice. I could just as easily translated the motto as "with pity and discernment" or "with pity and selection", although these would, I think, lose the original impact of the Latin. The Latin has a definite verbal quality to it. ("He sees by pitying and choosing.") The word eligendum is a Latin gerund; it is cognate with the English word and concept of Election (Christianity). Rwflammang (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

"with pity and discernment" is a good translation. I agree that "with pity and selection" doesn't make any sense in English. --dab (𒁳) 06:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Choosing, although a literal translation of the Latin, isn't natural English syntax at all. With mercy and discerning is the best option available. Doops | talk 06:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've seen it translated as "Lowly (or Unworthy) but Chosen." Any thoughts on that?

Бегемот (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

@PrayingTheMass has a good explanation of that translation 198.160.135.100 (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've seen it translated that way too. I don't think it fits well into its original context. If you abandon context, you can of course translate Latin almost any way you like, for instance, as gerundives, "To someone who should be deplored and should be chosen", but obviously, that is nonsense when applied to Bede's homily, or to the pope's motto.

Thank you 198.160.135.100 for providing a link to an English translation of the homily. Perhaps we should use that, since it is from an official source: He saw the tax collector and, because he saw him through the eyes of mercy and chose him, he said to him: "Follow me." Kind of paraphrastic, but surely better than what we have now. Rwflammang (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In several of the translations I've seen, atque has been translated as "but" or "yet". I am sceptical. In Latin, atque is usually a more emphatic way of saying "and" than the more usual et. It can sometimes have a slight difference in meaning, or at least color, from et; it can mean "and since", in contrast to et which can mean "and so". So it could emply that the eligendo is is some sense prior to the miserando. Rwflammang (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with "lowly but chosen", apart from its grammatical impossibility, is that in Bede's text "miserando atque eligendo" pertains to Christ, not the publican (@PrayingTheMass overlooks this). I agree my translation "With mercy and choosing" is clumsy and I'd love to improve it. What it needs to capture is the sense that Christ elected (chose) Francis, unworthy as he is, and that in the act of choosing Christ took mercy on his failings and supported him. It's a humility formula like "by the grace of God". "Discernment" is unsatisfactory, I think, because it doesn't refer to his election. I've been keeping an eye on the Vatican website hoping for an official translation, but I haven't seen one yet. Helperzoom (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right that it is Christ doing the miserando and eligendo, but I do not think that Bergoglio is merely comparing himself to the publican. Rather, he is saying that we should imitate Christ in his attitude of mercy and love when we too look at "publicans". Rwflammang (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that "Miserando atque eligendo" was his motto as a cardinal. That does not mean it will also be his papal motto. 198.160.135.100 (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That is an important point. Of course, this article is also about his cardinalacy, which, so far, naturally, has been more momentous than his papacy to date. Rwflammang (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I really think discernment is way off. The first word is the insight/sensibility of pity and the second is the ensuing action of choosing to associate with this outcast tax collector.

It's Christ who feels pity and chooses/acts-on-bhalf-of the object of his pity (in some unspecified way). The canny reading is a very elegant way of expressing the "preferential option for the poor" without any of the liberation theology baggage associated with that phase. It's more "feeling pity and acting on that instinct". Not easy. And none of this captures the impact of the gerundive form. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a good point, but I don't think it is so unspecified. Christ said, "Follow me", and the rest is gospel. Rwflammang (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry everyone, but individual editors conjecturing on the intended translation of the pope's episcopal motto the motto is simply WP:Original Research. We have to stick with the English translation that is widely used in verifiable sources such as official church documents and reports in the media, where the motto is translated as "Lowly, yet chosen."[11] 5-HT₈ (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

One clueless and inaccurate news source does not a consensus make. Rwflammang (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

hi everyone! I have no knowledge of Latin whatsoever. Am I still allowed to tell everyone what I think the best translation is? Because I have some thoughts about what I think the sentence I don't understand means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.17.89 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The Latin grammar is more similar to my Czech language (which has 7 cases similar to the Latin 5-6 cases) than to English, I will try to translate the sentence literally to English, although I'm not very good at English. Btw.,

• Rwflammang confused gerund (gerundium) with gerundive (gerundivum).
• The two gerundives are in ablative, not in dative. "Video" with accusative and ablative can be translated as "I see somebody as ..." ("I see somebody to be ...").
• The conjuction "atque" is generally used as escalating but can also express a contrast ("nevertheless").

"Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum, et quia miserando atque eligendo vidit, ait illi, Sequere me."

"Then Jesus saw a customs officer and because he saw (find) he as somebody who is worthy of commiseration/contempt and (moreover/nevertheless) who is worthy of be chosen (worth beeing chosen), he said to him: follow me."

I would translate the motto as "Regrettable but chosen" or something similar. I believe, the established translation "Lowly, yet chosen." is fitting enough. --ŠJů (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, very sorry. Rwflammang is right. The two words are really rather gerundia than gerundiva. I'm canceling all my explanation. --ŠJů (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a fascinating theory, but I can find no evidence of Latin videre ever using that idiom. The videre + accusative + ablative construction is used in Latin, but not to mean that, but rather to indicate the instrument of seeing: videre occulis, to see with the eyes, videre mente, to see with the mind. So videre miserando could mean "to see by pitying", taking miserando as a gerund, or "to see by means of a pitiable man", taking miserando as a gerundive, which seems to be ruled out in our case by context. Rwflammang (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the news sources don't have consensus yet. The AP renders it as "Having had mercy, he called him"; Catholic News, similarly, "because he saw him through the eyes of mercy and chose him." I don't think we should use the dubious translation "lowly but chosen", when there's disagreement in the press. (Has the Vatican offered an official English translation in any of its sources?

Well, Vatican Radio has this, and I think the best solution is to have both their literal translation and "meaning". DeCausa (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a very sensible suggestion, and I like it very much. I suggest we use the official text from the Liturgy of the Hours for the paraphrase, and make a literal translation of our own. Something like this:

miserando atque eligendo ("by pitying and choosing", i.e. "[Christ] saw him with the eyes of mercy and chose him")

We'll need a reference for the paraphrase part, because it is not obvious that it is right without its context. Any thoughts? Rwflammang (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the Vatican Radio one counts as definitive yet. It's not an official statement by the Vatican, it's reportage by a Vatican news agency--and, as we're seeing, different sources are translating the phrase in different ways. -- Narsil (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No, obviously no news source, not even Vatican Radio could possibly count as authoritative. However, the Liturgy of the Hours, obviously, does. That is the one that should be referenced. The news media sources should not even be mentioned. They do not improve the article. Rwflammang (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

In the infobox, an editor rendered the motto "with pity and with choice". The source seems to be the editor's own translation of a news source in the Italian; I think this falls afoul of WP:OR, since the issue here is how to translate the phrase, and we're relying on an editor's own translation (and worse yet, a translation of a translation, Latin to Italian to English). Also, in the body of the text, someone reverted the translation back to "lowly but chosen", even though the linked source translates it differently. I'm going to remove both of those--reporters have translated the phrase in various ways, there doesn't seem to be consensus yet. -- Narsil (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth--this morning NPR was translating the phrase as "lowly but chosen", but as of this afternoon it changed its translation to "Having had mercy, he called him". I think "lowly but chosen" was a rushed first attempt at the translation, and improvements are on offer now. -- Narsil (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Any translation that suggests opposition between the gerunds misses the point. "atque" is an intensive conjunction. Feeling pity and so choosing. The Latin motto doesn't specify the object of these verbs, which the context supplies. In English we really need to state them. Feeling pity for him and so choosing him. Moved by pity to choose him. There's just no "but" about it. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That's WP:OR. At the moment there is no explanation in the article. How is that of any use to the reader? I think the precise literal meaning is only of relevance to pedantic latinists. There is clearly a variety of translations swimming around none of which appear very satisfactory. We do have a source from Vatican Radio that does give the meaning behind the words, whatever the literal translation. Vatican Radio isn't just reportage it is the official broadcaster of the Vatican. Until the Vatican issues an official statement specifically on this, it's the closest we have to an authoritative statement on the issue. With all this in mind I have put in this edit. DeCausa (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Not bad, but it would be better if it cited the Liturgy of the Hours as a source, and dumped the useless media speculation. Rwflammang (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the important thing is the sense behind the words. What Vatican Radio says about that is notable, not because it is a media outlet but because it is an official voice (one of them) of the Holy See. DeCausa (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Falklands Islands position

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

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciao 90 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Notable? That would be like the Brit's taking issue with a Pope from American who expressed support for the revolutionary army and their sacrifice. It's his home country, and his support of them is rather...well...non-notable. wxwalsh 22:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that the majority of the Falkland Islands' residents reject Argentina's territorial claims, right? 144.92.249.238 (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do, but I also realize there was a strong sense, even among some in the Continental Congress, that reconciling with Britain was right for America. And at the very least, Argentina's claim to the Falklands has some historical merit. That the population wants to stay British, after being British since the 1833 occupation (legal or illegal), is not surprising, nor relevant to whether this man supported his home military members for their part in a war to fight for territory they have long considered theirs. I just really don't see this as very relevant at all to an article about the man. wxwalsh 22:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If a majority of residents of Manchester voted to become part of India I doubt the British government would respect that. The Argentines do not see the Malvinas as a seperate territory, so they do not acknowledge a right to seperate in them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that a sentence or two in the "Relations with the Argentine government" subsection wouldn't be out of place; this is reliably sourced, notable enough for a small mention, and was one of things I expected to be able to find out about there. It would certainly illustrate his relations with the current Argentine government quite deftly. --xensyria^T 00:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see your point on that, and accept it. I'm just leary of a lot of changes being made in the short term, and think care should be made, as we're going to see a lot of people with axes to grind ideologically coming in and trying to create controversy here in support of their various POVs. wxwalsh 01:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; it's not urgent. --xensyria^T 01:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

As an Argentinian, he was entitled to make somewhat nationalistic statements like that. If he continued to make such statements about the Falklands as the Pope, that would be notable. Scott P. (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A much more concise and on point way to say what I was trying to say, well said wxwalsh 02:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxwalsh (talk • contribs)

Guardian reference

Well, the Guardian has here [12] run another article about Pope Francis and the Falkland Dispute. I am not really sure it is worth including anything from it in this article though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Did Bergoglio said anything about the dispute now, as a Pope? If at some point he offers to mediate in the dispute (an actual intervention as a pope), we shall see, if it's all about things he once said, it should be ignored Cambalachero (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Should we have this?

Should we even have this secion. It seems to not really be related to actual religious teaching on his part. His statements seem to have been more about general Argentine patriotism than taking any considered postion on the question. I do not think it isreally a notable postion on his part and think we should remove that section from the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Falklands

Should we have a section about the Falklands dispute? Bergoglio has not said anything about that topic as a Pope, only a year ago, and we shouldn't be detailing his position on every topic that he has ever talk about. Poverty, abortion, homosexuality, etc; are usual religious concerns, so it is justified to detail his ideas and actions in relation to those topics. The Falklands dispute is not a religious controversy but a geopolitical one. As an achbishop (what he was when he said those things) his opinion was inconsequential for the international arena, as a Pope, his opinion has more weight... and so his responsability is higher. Perhaps he will try to promote somehow the Argentine claim (for example, proposing a mediation), or perhaps he will stay neutral towards it. I think that we should remove the section, and recreate it in the case he actually takes action as Pope in the topic. Cambalachero (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the only things we really know about him are from before he was pope. As he does official things as pope, his biography will change. In time, I'm sure that section will be either updated or removed. Andrew³²⁷ 03:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This is still the biography article of Bergoglio, not just the "Pope Francis" article. So anything of note he said before he was pope can stay in the article, as long as it is put into proper biographical context. If he takes a more conciliatory approach to the Falklands as pope (as no doubt he will, at least rhetorically), this can still be put into context of what he had said before he became pope.

The anti-gay-marriage stuff was very much of note within Argentinian politics. No, it isn't notable that a pope is "anti gay", this is part of his job description. You cannot be an orthodox Catholic and at the same time take a "pro-gay" stance. THis is simply mutually exclusive. WHat you can do, and what is being done by the less conservative clergy, is argue that nobody is without sin, and that you should hate the sin, not the sinner. Unlike the discussion on abortion, the New Testament is very clear about male homosexuality at least, and as pope, you are not at liberty to just selectively throw out some of the less convenient Pauline statements. So this isn't news. What can and should be treated is the actual political activism (on top of purely doctrinal rejection) on the part of Bergoglio in Argentinian politics. --dab (𒁳) 12:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we cover enough of his pre-Papal actions to argue that in context there is clear evidence his statements on the Falkland Islands were notable. Was this his only involvement in commenorating the hisotry of Argentina? Was he the only Argentine Catholic leader to make such comments, or did others? To just pick the Falkland issue seems to be to give the article a British slant with no consideration for how this incident fits with other postions and statements by Bergoglio. This is especially the impression because his statements only seem to be connected with a notable anniversary, there is no evidence he has consistently or even on multiple occasions made comments about such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

you are right, the statements were uncontroversial because they were not reported outside of Argentinia, and not controversial in Argentinia. All we can say is that they were thrown around by UK newspapers after his elections, so in a certain sense, yes, the statements date to before the election, but evidence of their notability only arises after the election. That doesn't change the fact that they are notable now. --dab (𒁳) 17:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Who and why removed the Section about MALVINAS?... There a section about it, and someone removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastian2013 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed it because it really seems to be trying to make into an issue his participation in the general nation-wide observation of a major anniversary. I am not convinced there is anything unique in his role there. Also, I wonder if we were showing truly unacceptable biases by not refering to them as the Malvinas in an article on an Argentine. Also, it feels like drawing us into what is essentially a news story, people trying to make some British angle in the new Pope, and not of permanent encyclopedic value.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If you removed the Malvinas thing, you need remove ie the Kirchner part & many other...follow your arguments...pre-papal issues...him say "The Malvinas are ours"...with this 4 words...him say: I am Argentine (this is for other stupid doubts in the article), in the article say...many first from there...never say first of Argentina, first form South America (I prefer this this and not "Americas", because most of 45 countries in this fuc...ing continent call him America and not Americas -only 2 countries-, and is more, not call in this form call him South America, Central America, now is...The Americas, hahaha. If the pope come from USA certainly you say...The firts of America and nothing more.

Malvinas was not an isolated act of Bergoglio, but that "spiritual" helps veterans was continuous, on the other hand this is a common point (among many others) with Kirchner, who have been the visibilizaron to former combatants , and among other things gave them a decent pension and constant recognition and always making clear the stupidity the war.

Article visibly flawed subjectivity is everywhere, as many others, such as the opposition of Kirchner, there are many things that corcuerdan, but always clearly more "news" those in which you disagree.

Can track and see the many opportunities that have come together.

Maybe in other countries is different but in Argentina which are responsible for governing the politicians, not the Church, which incidentally always tried to interfere in the policies of all governments that have existed, and that is the only real conflict.186.62.153.250 (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• In light of Kirchner's call upon Pope Francis to intervene in the Malvinas dispute as recorded in this [13] version of Nicole Winfield's AP article on the issue, I would say this has moved to being a notable enough thing to include in Francis' biography, moved beyond just being a 30-year-commemoration by Francis and the British Prime Minister grandstanding on the issue, and we should put the reference to the Malvinas back in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is just a British issue. You can say Bergoglio is just a patriotic Argentine, but the fact is (like many patriotic Argentines) he thinks that the wishes of Falkland Islanders should be trampled on. And he is now the head of an international church. That is significant.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You are showing your biases. You are ignoring that to Argentines that Malvinas have no indepdent right to exist, and have as much right to break away as a section of Manchester would have to unilaterally declare themselves part of India.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

So East Timor has no right to be independent of Indonesia, the Ukraine has no right to be independent of Russia, and Ireland has no right to have independence of Britain???--Jack Upland (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually if you brought up Northern Ireland you might be closer to an at all equivalent issue. Or maybe if you brought up South Ossetia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

so, you're implying, by that logic, that the US should still be a British colony? Aunva6 (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any logic in Lambert's argument at all. The Falkland Islands have been a British colony for almost 200 years. They have no history as part of Argentina. There is no Argentine, or Hispanic, community on the island. The islanders are of British origin and almost unanimously want to stay a British colony. Sure, the colony is a creation of British imperialism, but Argentina is a creation of Spanish imperialism. Sure, nationalistic Argentines think they have a right to the islands, but that shows their bias, not mine.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Falklands/Malvinas revisited

I think this issue has become more than just an Argentine archbishop expressng national feelings as seen from this article [14] that mentions that Kirchner has called on Pope Francis to mediate the dispute.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm. What is happening here? Kirchner, knowing full well that there is nothing Francis can do, asks him to do the impossible. How did she manage to keep a straight face? And he knew exactly what she was doing, tossing him a hot potato. He probably thought: Well played. By which I mean to say: all of this is posturing. There's no substance here at all. Bmclaughlin9 (talk)

You are assuming she did keep a straight face. After your explanation this sounds like a continuation of Kirchner doing all she can do to undermine Francis. Also, the reference to Pope John Paul II negotiating between Chile and Argentina seems to indicate she is setting Frnacis up to fail. The British government has historically rejected any power or authority being held by the Vatican, making it a very different situation than when Chile and Argentina were both lead by governments that claimed to be in some way Catholic. Also, Kirtchner is ignoring the fact the British see no problems with the current situation in the Malvinas, and lack the insentive to go to heavy negotiation to avoid war that Chile and Argentina have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"full well that there is nothing Francis can do," :Hmmmm. This is what many thought about Pope John Paul II on Soviet Communism. The Soviet Union was not very catholic or even close to Christian. In the end, he had a hand in it's downfall.

For starters, events could sour quite easily in Northern Ireland if he voices his oposition tocolonialism. This Pope will work quietly in his own way to end colonialism, in all of its forms. He is an Argentine who stands against injustice, his anti colonial feelings are well known. He has been quite open about it. He knows his nations history and the fact that Britain usurped part of his nation’s territory, hard won in its independence from Spain, and evicted the Argentine population. A British usurpation that Argentina has never accepted, and whose lawful claim is protected by the United Nations charter. Spain and then Argentina have exercised sovereignty over the Malvinas/Falkland Islands and Argentina did have a settlement exercising sovereignty after its independence until they were usurped through an act of piracy. The Vatican does have the moral authority to intervene in such matters, particularly when Peace is threatened, as in this case by Britain’s unilateral militarization of the South Atlantic. Making threats of missile attack, nuclear annihilation, an act of fear to cover up its inability to deal with international norms and abide by United Nations resolutions. Pope John Paul II took quite action to undermine Soviet Communism and contribute to its downfall. Papal Intervention in politics to affect political outcomes has happened before and there is no reason to believe that this Pope will not do the same. For starters, events could sour quite easily in Northern Ireland if he voices his oposition with colonialism. I am quite sure that London has thought about this. A reformation of the Vatican diplomatic corp is under way. This Pope willl not allow any party to duc its responsibilities to the International Community where peace is at risk. Your Holiness, greetings from the United States. God bless you. We pray for a successful Papacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.132.70 (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Are we sure we want The Falkland Islands to have a whole section for itself? Personally I dont see how it is significant enough to even be in the article. But if it is going into the articles then it must as a subsection under relations with the argentine goverment. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, that section should be removed. The things he said were trivial when he said them (he was not pope, and there was no political controversy), and nothing noteworthy has actually happened in those days. Cameron's reaction to things said years ago is a bit of an overreaction (not everything about Argentina revolves around the dispute), and so far I'm not aware of Francis reacting in any way to Kirchner's proposal. If he silently dropped the whole issue (as he was the archbishop of the Argentines back then, but now he's the Pope of both the Argentines and the British, as well as everybody else) and does not take any political position, we should do so as well. Cambalachero (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Partially agree. I don't think what he said as Cardinal is noteworthy enough, and a whole section is definitely not warranted. However, the Head of State of the Pope's home country asking him to intervene politically in an international territorial dispute in that country's favour is worth a sentence somewhere in the article (even if he doesn't respond). DeCausa (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think the current tacking it on to the end of the "relationship with the governmetn" section works. I think it is important enough to keep in the article, but would agree that it does not merit a seperate heading. If he does try to negotiate we could move it to the Papacy section, but for now I think it works best where it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Languages

Are the languages he is fluent in notable? We had a referenced list that was removed with the argument it is not notable to him. Being "known for it" seems to high a bar. It would seem to me that the leader of a multi-national organization could benefit from being fluent in multiple languages and such fluency would be worth mentioning in an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I believe that a list of his fluent languages is notable for inclusion. Andrew³²⁷ 03:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

These have disappeared once again. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• They have been now tacked onto the end of the early life section. I am not sure that is the best place to put them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I moved them to the introduction (where I think they belong), but this was objected to; I have now moved them out of early life and into papacy. I've distinguished Latin and Italian, job qualifications as Vatican languages, from English etc., nice to have. (+native Spanish). Pol098 (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Girlfriend - Is it relevant

I noticed that someone did a live edit removing the information about having a teenage girlfriend. I think it is relevant enough to merit one sentence and a reference of 2. edit differences. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It's trivial. The vast majority of teenage boys have a girlfriend at some point. Even ones that go on to become the pope. Haha. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This might be relevant, but right now it seems just too unclear. Was he really trying to get married at 12? Did his relationship only exist when he was 12? Was he, the girl, or both 12? The article in the gaurdian seemed to suggest she was, and he may have been a little older, though it was not detailed enough to say either way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who removed that stuff. It's completely irrelevant to the life of a Pope that he had a girlfriend before becoming a priest. As stated above, is more than usual for teenage people to have boyfriends/girlfriends.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think if there is significant coverage of this is sources than we should include it. However, at least what I have read does not rise to significant coverage. The Gaurdian seemed to be trying to say that his relationship with Amalia Damonte lead to his entering the priesthood. However I am not convinced that there was really any substance to that article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• Well here [15] is an article that mentions it, but I would not use it. The relationship with Damonte actually does not neccesarily even reach the level of "girlfriend", whatever that may be, since it mainly seems to be a 12-year-old crush. They were not even yet teenagers. Then there is the claim that he "admitted" he had a "girlfriend" before becoming a priest. This almost seems to me to be a case of bait and switch. They are trying to make it sound scandalous, especially by using a term like "girlfriend" that has different meanings in different contexts, and even more so with "admitted" which makes it sound like he did something frowned upon, which makes no sense at all. To make it even less based in fact they do not even know that Bergoglio was speaking in 2010 of his relationship with Damonte, he may have been speaking of someone from a time when he was older. Considering he does not start to study to be a priest until he is 21, it seems a bit much to try to claim it is an outgrowth of what happened to him when he was 12. There may be some worthwhile material there, but we do not have truly reliable sources that would raise it to the level of being included. Do we for example have any discussion on people Barack Obama may have had a crush on when 12?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• This lead "Pope Francis may have been a Latin Lover first, it emerged, on Thursday night, after a childhood sweetheart claimed she may have driven him into the church, Daily Mail of London reported on Frida" tells me there is no substance here yet. Having to use "may have" twice in a paragraph just tells me this is idel speculation. I would exclude it for now since wikipedia is not news. Maybe if someone comes out with something that actually builds on substance. I also thing we need to avoid implying more than the sources say. To some "girlfriend", and "Latin lover" imply a more physical relationship than is even really hinted at in the sources. The claims that Bergoglio's actions even as a 21-year-old were really created by incidents that happened to him a decade earlier needs more than the 20-minutes-of-fame seeking of a women latched onto by a media desperate for stories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• Here [16] is the source for the above quote. I would actually be hesitant to include it in the article unless a-Bergoglio says he actually wrote the claimed letter, or b-some other person, independent of Damonte supports the claim. Even then I would think that there are much more important things, like where Francis recived his education as a Jesuit, that we should address first.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Quoting from John Paul II: "Wojtyła's first, and possibly only, love affair was with a Jewish girl, Ginka Beer, who was described as "slender", "a superb actress" and "having stupendous dark eyes and jet black hair"." I think the criteria would be the same, if we include it for one Pope, we do for another. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 08:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• • I don't object that there are other items that are more important but this is an easy edit since it was added then removed. Unless someone responds to why this is different from John Paul II, I'm putting this back in the article tomorrow. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 08:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
• This is different because the statement about John Paul II is from a more solid source. The statement about Pope Francis comes from an interview and has never been confirmed, denied or textualized by anyone but this one person. I would suggest that you find solid sources that do not engage in unjustified calls of "Latin lover" while making the report. If you can find a more solid, reliable reference than it might be includable, but right now it comes from extremely shaky evidence. I also think we should have a confirmation or denial of the letter before inclusion. Ideally someone would read Rubin's biography of Francis, and at least be able to tell us if Rubin says anything on the matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that the latin lover connotation is not needed. I have seen this reported on reliable sources such as the Guardian and the Globe and Mail. They seem to copy the same interview and the claim of this lady which neither the Pope nor childhood friends have confirmed. I will try to find a solidly reliable on (we may need to wait a few weeks for the dust to settle). >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 10:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Bias

So content is to be censored based on the fact that the sources are Jewish?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please specify. Bias and censorship are based on questionable opinions, especially negative ones about living persons. If Jewish sources attack him in ways that are not substantiated elsewhere, they would be considered biased. Jewish sources would be valuable for the section on relations with other religions. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 10:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If you talk about Verbitsky, no, he's not rejected because of being Jewish. We are treating him the same way we would treat any former terrorist who had killed 24 police and injured 60 others in a far-left terrorist attack during the cold war, and now hypocritically talks about human rights. His religion is of no concern. Cambalachero (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Not every person of far-left tendencies using violence is terrorist. P.S. even though I identify with highly leftist and libertarian tendencies, the biggest animal I intentionally harmed was a dragonfly, trying to attack me. While Verbitsky perhaps indeed was a terrorist, Dilma Rousseff, for example, was certainly not. Terrorists, if we are supposed to use loaded words here, were those helping those regimes, torturing people, and they are those that should be shamed until they stop being so nostalgic (a recent attack by people formerly involved with the dictatorship happened in Brazil), as in other people's viewpoint, that is as valid as yours.

Oppression is still there to make their point, in Latin America you still get beaten up for manifesting for your rights, this happens a lot with education professionals' manifestations in Rio de Janeiro. The government can even support much more indecent manifestations i.e. midday full grown adults' public promiscuity, with citizens' tax money, if it promotes sheeple behavior as it does not relate to actual issues. Some people make dumb things as rebels, but rebels most certainly are always necessary. And sincerely, I think that what people did 40 years ago don't count to whom they are now if they don't promote such views anymore. Further, it was very tiresome to be an atheist and people using this similar approach to the former Pope Benedict XVI, when he was conscripted. This is prejudice at its best. ;) Lguipontes (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No one is stating that "every person of far-left tendencies using violence is [a] terrorist". Your statement is fallacious (specifically a straw man) as it misrepresents a position. --190.19.88.16 (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition to what others have said, I should also mention that Verbitsky's allegations are in the article (they can be found in the subsection Relations with the Argentine government). The reason why he is not explicitly mentioned is because he was not the original source of said accusations; he merely relaunched them. --190.19.88.16 (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

See comments above. The supposed fact that certain people are "Jewish" is repeatedly stated as a reason to disregard allegations against the Pope.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't know what you're reading, but not a single person has stated that the reason for exclusion as a source is that a person is Jewish.Farsight001 (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Jack, I think you misread those comments. No one has said that the reason why certain allegations should be ignored is because they were made by Jewish people. --190.19.67.176 (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Really??? What about this?

Jewish communist terrorist leader, a reliable source? If this sentence is to stay, I'd like to see after Verbitsky's name "Jewish communist terrorist", or any one of those three words to give some balance to what we're dealing with

Myriam Bregman ... appears to be Jewish if the surname Bregman and the spelling of Maria as "Myriam" is any indication to go by. If there are some criticisms of the Pope, then by all means find some reliable/non-partisan people

Jews are therefore "unreliable"???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I see. But that's a single example, in a highly populated talk page. Do you have more, or is that all? If you have a problem with the comments of a single user, then report him and get on with it. Cambalachero (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Jack, don't be intentionally dense. Jews unreliable? No. Communists and terrorists are though. But you knew this already.Farsight001 (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The wish has been granted: Verbitsky is back in the article. The government sent a secret report to the conclave, based on Verbitsky's rants, to try to prevent the election of Francis. That's more grave than mere rants in a newspaper, that's actual politics. Still, the entry points who is this man, to make it very clear that, endorsed by government or not, his claims have no credibility (and indeed they had not) Cambalachero (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the way the whole issue is made out to be the rants of one disreputable man (and perhaps some equally disreputable associates) is highly biased. Bergoglio was head of the Jesuits under the military junta which was responsible for thousands of murders, disappearances, and incidents of torture. This was a very difficult situation. As he is now a major world figure it is valid to ask how he handled such a difficult situation. I don't see how he has fully answered that.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the National Catholic Reporter gets it right: he probably could have done more, but he was not a collaborator.

In the face of tyranny, there are those who take a prophetic stance and die martyrs. There are those who collaborate with the regime. And there are others who do what they can while keeping their heads low. When admirers tried to claim that John Paul worked in the underground against Nazism, he set them straight and said he was no hero.

Those who have not lived under a dictatorship should not be quick to judge those who have, whether the dictatorship was in ancient Rome, Latin America, Africa, Nazi Germany, Communist Eastern Europe, or today's China. We should revere martyrs, but not demand every Christian be one.

With all the scandals that the RC church has had recently, and given that the cardinals who got to vote wanted a reformer, I think that it's highly unlikely that they would have selected Francis if there was much substance to these allegations. (Note: I am not a Catholic, and would never say anything positive about John Paul II, for example.) – Herzen (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, John Paul II did stand up to the Communists in Poland. And how could the cardinals in the conclave know whether there was substance to this? What is obscured in this discussion is that the only person who knows the truth is the Pope himself. Only he knows what he knew and when he knew it, what secret meetings he had, and what covert and illegal activities he might have undertaken to help victims.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually some of these things might be known by others. Whther they are still alive or willing to state such is another question. However by definition a meeting has at least two people, so someone else must know of a secret meeting. Also, in theory those he may have helped escape Argentina knew he was doing so, although there may be cases where they did not. However the reality is that many of the people involved have died in the intervening 30 years, so we have to go with what we have. The key to any information is finding it in secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The whole truth is only known by the Pope. And he alone can know his motives. If someone has access to Rubin's book, The Jesuit, it would be worthwhile to include something of the Pope's own account of himself during this difficult period, rather than an exercise in accusing the accuser.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There's an extended piece in Counterpunch that has parts of transcripts of Bergoglio answering questions about what he knew about the disappearing of people. The main way in which he comes off badly (other than being repeatedly vague in his answers at times) is that he appears to have terminated the Jesuit status of two priests, apparently for their liberation theology activities, and this demonstration of lack of support for them made it easier for the junta to kidnap those two priests (who were released half a year later, possibly partly through Bergoglio's intervention).

One overarching problem here is that even if he did not collaborate, he and the junta had similar views on liberation theology. (But the same can be said for the Polish nationalist known as John Paul II.) – Herzen (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The new pic in the infobox?

The copyright declaration says "own work". The pic (added here) is a good quality close-up from the press audience on 16 March. So the photo must have been taken by a professional press photographer in attendance. AGF, but is it normal for a professional press photographer to upload their work on major current news event to Commons for everyone to use for free? I don't know much about Commons and how the copyright declarations are checked, but maybe someone who does could confirm everything is fine. DeCausa (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that too and I am very suspicious about it. It is more than likely going to be deleted soon. Surtsicna (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I have my reservations as well, but I checked with a tool that seeks similar photos in the web and did not find anything. Cambalachero (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately the current image has no question of copyright. Andrew³²⁷ 17:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, just to be clear the image that I referred to above has now been changed to one where there is no copyright question. DeCausa (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Reaction

We now have just this coverage of Argentine rection to his election:

In Argentina, initial opinion following the election was divided; some support Bergoglio and admire his austere lifestyle, while others disapprove of his opposition to the Argentina same-sex marriage law and his behavior during the country's military dictatorship.[38][89][90]

Should we privilege Argentine reaction in this way? Should there be wider coverage of reaction than this or....? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. Non-Argentine reactions should also be included.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Actually I am more the other way around. This seems to privilage comments from ignorance. I do not think this adds substance to the article, and just allows for sneaking in non-contextualized statements about his past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

How about Leonardo Boff? No ignorance there. He's a well qualified observer. 174.254.160.55 (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Why was "non-European" removed?

It's not a fight I want to drag on and on, but why is it controversial that Francis is non-European? If he had been born and grew up in the USA under the exact same set of circumstances (Italian-born father, Italian-American mother), no one would question for a moment that he was non-European. (See my Dean Martin analogy above.) There's something about Argentina that some people seem not to get... the vast majority of people are of non-mestizo European background. That doesn't make them any less Argentine (and therefore non-European), though, then a European-heritage American is an American (and therefore non-European). Moncrief (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not controversial that he's "non-European" by some, arbitrarily chosen definitions strictly focusing on cartography and its modern borders. But it's anachronistic to portray him as somehow having more in common with someone from Syria, than with people from eg. Italy or Germany or Poland. Syria was once part of the Roman Empire and the traditional cultural realm of christianity, and considering it "non-European" (as opposed to eg. Greek or southern Italian) in this context is really ahistorical too, because it was the same mediterranean region and Christianity started in the Middle East. Large parts of modern Tyrkey (in "Asia" as we understand it today) were once core Greek areas where European civilization was born, but describing a Greek person from those areas as "Asian" or "non-European" is just silly. Francis was born to two Italian parents and is 100% European/Italian by other definitions such as ethnicity. Choosing one definition like this only produces a small piece of trivia and a very pointless comparison between an Italian who was born in Argentina in the 20th century, and an Assyrian in the 8th century who was born in what was then the enormous Umayyad Caliphate and what was formerly a Roman area. Mocctur (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, if he were American from the USA, this conversation would not be happening. He is not an Italian. He's an Argentine of Italian heritage. I do get what you're saying about the comparison with the Syrian pope, and you're coming at it from that angle, and that's fine; there's enough description in the article as it is now ("from the Americas"). But I wish people would examine their conceptions about Latin America, and give its heterogeneous population the same descriptors they'd give someone from the USA or Canada. Moncrief (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he is an Italian (note that this refers to the ethnic group, not a particular country). Just as African-Americans are widely considered, well, "African" as far as ethnicity is concerned. He is an Italian (Italian people, not Italy (country)) who was born in the country of Argentina, to a family who just left Italy a few years before he was born[17]. If my parents were English, moved to some African country in 1925 and I was born in 1927 (entirely fictional scenario), I would still be English by ethnicity. In this case, a son born to Italian-born parents has even returned to his parents' country.

As noted below by another editor, the very ambiguous term "European" can, amongst other things, refer to people descended from people from the continent of Europe. For example people who settled in the Americas, and their children, are frequently referred to as Europeans (meaning "people from Europe"/"of European origin"), as opposed to eg. native populations. Mocctur (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No they're not - at least not by English-speakers. That may be the difference. But this is en WP. DeCausa (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mocctur: by saying non-European, we are noy saying "from outside the Western civilization", which could have included the Mediterranean sea area at times in history. We are saying "from outside of the physical continent of Europe". This is a geo criterion precisely because we no longer use those words as racial descriptions because races are a social construct. --Againme (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This is truly ridiculous. "Choosing one definition like this". This isn't the 19th century. There is only one definition. I don't think we need pander to some editors' idiosyncratic hang-ups about the word "non-european". DeCausa (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Everyone except you are aware of multiple definitions of "European." We are not going to pander to your idiosyncratic hang-ups, and this is not the 19th century. Mocctur (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't appear to have read much of the thread then. DeCausa (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. According to our article "European," this term can mean the following in the English language

• "A person of any of the Ethnic groups in Europe" (eg. Italian people)
• "Relating to or characteristic of Europe or its inhabitants"
• "A citizen or attribute of or from the European Union"

While I see that you fanatically insist that only the second definition is valid, I see no sources to back up such an ahistorical claim. The current pope belongs to the Italian people as he was born to two Italian parents who lived in Italy until just shortly before the pope was born. Heck, he is even a resident of Europe and thus European by any definition. Mocctur (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Good grief. Waste of time. So Christina Kirchner, George Bush, Fidel Castro are all "Europeans". Don't worry I'm done here. DeCausa (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

To add how much races are a social construct, a small correction. Argentines are mostly of white phenotype and mestizo ancestry, different from Brazil, Venezuela and Paraguay, where a plurality is of mestizo phenotype and the overwhelmingly majority is of mestizo ancestry. ANY Latin American administrative division, including all of the Southern Cone, is of mestizo ancestry majority. And by the Spanish/Portuguese sense, there are also important mestizo minorities (if not majorities, who would know) among not only non-Hispanic white Americans (some >30%), white South Africans (Afrikaners have ~5-7% of autosomal sub-Saharan DNA in average, the same of white Brazilians), white Australians, white New Zealanders, Central and Northern Asians of Russian descent, etc. etc. as well as many Africans (e.g. about the totality in Cape Verde, the majority in São Tomé and Príncipe) and Asian (e.g. Japanese are a mix of Jomon natives and Yayoi settlers of Korean origin) peoples, if we don't take the view that the whole of humanity is somehow mestizo (i.e. of mixed ancestry). Europeans are at least a couple thousand times more genetically diverse than Amerindians (descended from only 68 persons about 12000-15000 years ago), as far as my knowledge of human population genetics goes, so a 90% Aztec Mexican is less of a mestizo in the adequate sense than most to the other side of the Atlantic. Lguipontes (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No, "European" is ambiguous. It can be used to mean someone who is descended from people from Europe. The wording could be something like "the first Pope from outside of Europe" (in x number of years).

Yes, the world was different in Roman times, but to imply the Empire was a homogenuous whole is false. The Eastern Empire was Greek-speaking, with a cosmopolitan Hellenic culture which had strong Eastern influences. Christianity itself was quite foreign to Roman (and Greek) civilisation when it emerged. It is very hard to talk of "Western civilisation" when taking the historical long view. To some extent this is trivial, and it is not very meaningful to make comparisons over such a wide arc of history. However, it is relevant to say that the Popes in ancient and medieval times were more representative of the "national" background of church membership than in modern times, where they have largely been Italian. The change to choosing a Polish Pope, then a German, then an Argentine, is certainly significant. I don't think the article as it stands captures that.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It can be used to mean someone who is descended from people from Europe.

Except that, without some sort of qualifier, it doesn't mean that. I have seen "European-American" (though very few people would call themselves that), but no one (other than maybe hardcore white supremacists?) would ever talk about born-and-bred New Worlders as "Europeans." At any rate, I'm satisfied with the article as it is now, but, no, "European" is not ambiguous. Moncrief (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think by saying he is "from the Americas" we are saying he is not "European". However I think there is a point that there is no reason to say he is the first "non-European in x years", because how European some of his predecessors were, and how logical defining them in that way is controversial. He is clearly the first Pope from the Americas, I think that is enough on that subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Holy See

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)

Doesn't that apply for all popes? Cambalachero (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes -- definitely applies to all popes, but what is already written in the lede (Sovereign of the Vatican City State) does, as well. I don't think it makes sense to mention the Vatican City State (political) without Holy See (ecclesiastical). I think both are important, especially for "average readers" who don't understand the distinctions.... NearTheZoo (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• How is this described in the article on his predecessor? Also, for what it is worth this is a much different political role than that held by the last "Hispanic" Pope Alexander VI, who had political power over a much larger territory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The description in this article is the same as in the article about his predecessor, Benedict XVI -- but I like to think we improve as we go along! :) The basic info that I am recommending as an addition does appear in the wiki article Pope. It is not a *crucial* addition, but i think that if we are going to include a sentence that begins "as such," then adding a few extra words to make that sentence as accurate as possible is (in my opinion) worthwhile. My recommended sentence deals with the pope's threefold responsibility: (1) head of the world-wide Catholic church; (2) specific ecclesiastical responsibility for the area designated as "the Holy See"; and (3) specific political responsibility for the area designated as the "Vatican City State." Again, I think the few extra words are not crucial...but certainly would be an improvement. Plus, having both the Holy See and the Vatican City State in the same sentence in the lede enhances (again, in my mind) the entire article -- because readers can hit those links to the two articles and learn the difference between the two. NearTheZoo (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if Holy See is really the best term here. Maybe we should include "as such he is the bishop of Rome, with specific oversight of that diocese".John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The Holy See is such a specific and unique term that I still think it is important to mention. As the article on the Holy See points out, Ambassadors are actually accredited to the Holy See as opposed to the Vatican City State. So it is not just a matter of the Pope's responsibility to oversee a specific diocese. Still think mentioning head of the church and sovereign of the Vatican City State leaves out this third extraordinarily important responsibility. Saying that "as Bishop of Rome, he has eccleiastical responsibility for "the Holy See" still seems to me to add something significant.... NearTheZoo (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone just changed the line in the lead from "sovereign of the Vatican City State" to "sovereign of the Holy See." This is definitely incorrect, so I changed it back -- but I do think it raises once again the question of adding a correct reference to the Holy See. Based on the wikipedia article for Pope, I'd like to change the sentence to: "As such, he is head of the Catholic Church; sovereign of the Vatican City State; and as Bishop of Rome, the ecclesiastical authority for the Holy See. After the discussion here, would anyone object? NearTheZoo (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

After ready up on this, I have to say that I agree that the Holy See should be included, but I too am struggling with the language. Your suggestion, NearTheZoo, has 3 parts: head, sovereign, ecclesiastical authority. How different are the first and third of those? How is Francis "head of the Church" if not as an "ecclesiastical authority"? The words "head of the Catholic Church" just hang out there as if unrelated to his role as Bishop of Rome and head of the Holy See. Isn't the distinction we need to make just dual: (1) head of the Catholic Church by virtue of being Bishop of Rome with authority over the Holy See and (2) the sovereign of a territorial state.

And using the term "ecclesiastical authority" only makes sense if it's used in opposition to something like "secular authority" (or "political" or the rather antique "temporal") over the Vatican State. Easier to drop the adjective. I also find "sovereign" a bit orotund. Thus:

head of the Catholic Church as Bishop of Rome with authority over the Holy See and ruler of the Vatican City State.

or

head of the Catholic Church, Bishop of Rome with authority over the Holy See, and ruler of the Vatican City State.

Apologies for being long winded. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested compromise on same-gender marriage issue

This article [18] suggests that Bergoglio initially sought a different course in response to the proposal for same-gender marriage by the Argentine government. I am not sure how best to integrate this information into the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Impossible to find that in the article. I wonder what were you reading?

This paragraph from the second page of the article is what I was referring to. "According to Francis' authorized biographer, Sergio Rubin, the former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was politically wise enough to know the church couldn't win a straight-on fight against gay marriage, so he urged his bishops to lobby for gay civil unions instead. It wasn't until his proposal was shot down by the bishops' conference that he declared what gay activists called a "war of God" on the measure — and the church lost the issue altogether."John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This has been added. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

New York Times has more detailed article about this http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/world/americas/pope-francis-old-colleagues-recall-pragmatic-streak.html?hp&pagewanted=all&_r=1& --В и к и T 21:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This has been denied by other sources. See http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fnoticias.universogay.com%2Fcontinua-la-polemica-por-el-nuevo-papa-y-las-uniones-gays__22032013.html 209.116.238.162 (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Dununciations of the government in Argentina

This article [19] contains this quote "In last year's address, Bergoglio said Argentina was being harmed by demagoguery, totalitarianism, corruption and efforts to secure unlimited power: a strong message in a country whose president has ruled by decree and left scandals unpunished." That would seem to be relevant to the relationship with the government section.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, most part of your quote is impossible to find in the article. It only says: "Francis and Fernandez are longtime rivals: As leader of Argentina's Catholics, he had accused her populist government of demagoguery, while she called his position on gay adoptions reminiscent of the Middle Ages and the Inquisition." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.111.219.140 (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The quote I provide is in the article, it is in teh second page. you would not see if from reading only the first page, which appears to be what you did.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe you can find the original Spanish text of this address. Wasn't it the national holiday May 25? Here's 2012

The whole site is worth exploring: http://www.aica.org/d Go to Documentation, Bishops, etc. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

In the May 25th 2012 "Tedeum" you just linked ([20]) there is not a single mention (even indirect) of the Argentine government. The paragraph Johnpacklambert quoted at first seems to be the usual rant from the opposition politicians here in Argentina, not the speech of the head of the Argentine Catholic Church. I'd like to know which is the original source. 190.111.219.140 (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph I quoted is from an AP article by Nicole Whitfield as printed in the Deseret News. It is on page 2 of the article I linked to, but the link starts you at page 1. Look at it specifically "In last year's address, Bergoglio said Argentina was being harmed by demagoguery, totalitarianism, corruption and efforts to secure unlimited power: a strong message in a country whose president has ruled by decree and left scandals unpunished." It actually is only a quote from the article, as you can tell by the start "in last year's address, Bergoglio said". It should be noted that Whitfield does not provide quotes, and since what Bergoglio said was most likely in Spanish, any quote would be subjected to alternate translations. It appears from the article this is a reference to the 2012 "Te Deum" address by Bergoglio. What Whitfield's sources are for interpreting the statements by Bergoglio in the way she suggests I do not know. However calling statements from the AP "the usual rant from opposition politicians here in Argentina" seems far too dismissive of the article. This is clearly a source telling us that Bergoglio is at least seen to have made these statements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right I didn't check the second page, but I still would like to know whether Bergoglio said those words aout the Argentine government ("totalitarian", wanting "unlimited power", etc.) or is it just someone's "interpretation". However, given that the journalist cites Kirchner's government as "governing by decree", it seems to me he is just passing (someone's/his own) pov, which left the entire sentence as biased. I'd like a more straightforward actual quote from the former Archbishop to take this seriously. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.111.219.140 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I linked to the source. Are you saying you have a problem with that, 190.111.219.140? Excuse me for trying to help. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

John Pack Lambert: The lack of such language or anything remotely like in the document I linked to is perplexing, no? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary. Thanks for linking a database with all of Bergoglio's speeches as Head of the Argentine Catholic Church ([21]). It is just that the comments referred by the first poster are not there. 190.111.219.140 (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

As pointed in the article, it was the speech of 2004 the one that caused the childish reaction of the government. Still, it's a bit exaggerated to say that they were "rivals", actually, the Kirchner saw him as a rival, which is not quite the same thing. That's just their own paranoia: they see rivals and enemies everywhere. Other heads of state, politicians of other parties, politicians of other lines within their own party, justice, congress, union leaders, press, NGOs, even artists... anyone who is not a mindless zombie bowing to the will of the perfect president, is deemed as a traitor of the nation and attacked with all the resources of the state, including the network of propaganda outlets. Bergoglio was simply just another one who said something that Kirchner did not like. But he was not a rival, for the same reason that it is not correct to think that the Kirchners are innocent victims of an evil world turned against them. Cambalachero (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A few days ago we had this:

When Bergoglio celebrated mass in 2004 at the Buenos Aires Metropolitan Cathedral to mark Argentina's National Government holiday, President Néstor Kirchner attended and heard Bergoglio request more political dialogue, reject intolerance, and criticize the exhibitionism and strident announcements.[56] Kirchner celebrated the national day elsewhere the following year and the mass in the Cathedral was suspended.[57] Kirchner has viewed Bergoglio as a political rival ever since.[58] Bergoglio's relations with Kirchner's widow and successor, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, have been similarly tense. In 2008, Bergoglio called for national reconciliation during disturbances in the country's agricultural regions, which the government interpreted as a support for anti-government demonstrators.[58] The campaign to enact same-sex marriage legislation was a particularly tense period in their relations.[58]

Citations:

• Jorge Bergoglio y los Kirchner: años de una relación tensa
• Suspendió la Iglesia el tedeum en la Capital
• El mensaje de la Iglesia era para Kirchner

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"Regime"

In "Relations with the Argentine government" section, "As bishop" subsection, it reads "The Kirchnerist regime", which is a biased wording, implying some kind of dictatoresque illegitimate government. Instead, the President was reelected on 2011 with mora than 55% of the voting on the first round. Please, change this wording to "The Argentine government" or "Kirchner's government" or something of the like. Thanks.

Considering quotes in the article on his relationship to the government I mention below, I think this would be the view on many people in Argentina, considering how much the current president rules by dictate. Also, in my experiece this is the general way to refer to Argentine governments and does not actually imply what you claim it does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not the usual way. It is a biased way that is mostly used when talking eufemistically about a dictatorship. BTW, the government does not rule by decree. That is a gross exageration. Argentina is a functioning democratic republic (with a lot of problems, yes). It is not a dictatorship nor anything of the like. Saludos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.111.219.140 (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is pointless anyway, the paragraph was removed for other reasons Cambalachero (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was one "dictatorial regime" that Bergoglio had no trouble standing up to.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Such baseless claims ignore that his postion was different at various times, and also ignore the fact that no one has claimed the current government disappears people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

What was baseless about the claim?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Photos in the article

Now maybe a good time to talk about the photos in the article. In all good articles there should not be to many or to little. But what kind of photos do we need? I have put a photo of the pope as cardinal in, and I think it would be nice to have some of him as Provincal and even as a young man. But right now there is no one at Wiki Commons.

On the other hand I personally cant see how photos of jewish and muslim holy places have any need to be in this article. The two that are in the article no has no special connection to the Pope, they are simply holy places for Jews and Muslims in Argentina. Are they really needed?

If the article lacks pictures I would think that a painting of Saint Francis was more relevant, I have put one in the article to show what that could be. It has great connection to the Pope and his what he want to do in office.

But what do you think, what would be a good photo policy for this article? Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Pope Francis in March 2013 (cropped).jpg is a tighter crop that may work better for the infobox. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the media coverage of his vestments, I think it's appropriate to keep the current image that shows him from the waist up. I completely agree with OP that the Jewish and Muslim photographs are unnecessary. Andrew³²⁷ 17:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I also think that we should keep the current photo in the infobox. He is not wearing the iron cross by chance, he is making a clear statement by his way of dressing, much more than any popes coming before him the last century have done. That is significant. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that the photo of the Islamic site was appropriately removed, so I just removed the photo of the AMIA site from the Jewish section. Here is a video of Cardinal Bergoglio visiting and speaking at the AMIA site, and I could capture one frame of that visit, which would be more relevant to the article...but it wouldn't pass the copyrigh test.... Maybe a copyright-free photo of that talk will show up down the line. NearTheZoo (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Homosexuality and same-gender marriage

The current title of this section does not match its contents. It is all related to his postion on same-gender marriage. Either we should include statements about his positons more broadly, or we should retitle the section to reflect its actual content.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Although Wikipedia articles tend to refer to "same sex marriage" as opposed to gender, including articles that are linked in this BLP. Andrew³²⁷ 17:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I believe that this sentence needs to be changed or removed per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE: "Observers believe that the church's opposition and Bergoglio's language, which was criticized by rights groups and politicians, including the President of Argentina,[154] worked in favor of the law's passage and that Catholic officials learned from their failed campaign against the same-sex marriage law to adopt a different tone in later debates on social issues such as parental surrogacy.[155][156]" Andrew³²⁷ 17:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but only in part. The point is relevant to Francis' approach to this and other issues. That people have noticed a change of tone doesn't doesn't strike me as a very opinionated statement. I think some of the language does tend to "hammer home" that point, so I'll remove the unnecessary "which was criticized by rights groups and politicians, including the President of Argentina,[154]", which, as they say, goes without saying, and isn't the point. Hope this helps. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC) And then I edited it still more: "learned from their failed campaign" was also unnecessary underlining. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Falklands revisited

Just a suggestion. If someone finds that Bergoglio's pre-papal comments ("usurped") and Cameron's wisecrack ("white smoke") and Kirchner's request for papal mediation belong somewhere on WP, then the material should be added there and a simple entry under "See also" in this entry would suffice. As far as I can tell that hasn't happened yet. Perhaps Argentina–United Kingdom relations. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would support such a revision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead

The lead doesn't remotely comply with WP:LEAD (and is anyway too short per WP:LEADLENGTH). Topics that need to be covered (since they are covered in the article) are:- relations with Argentine government; relations with other religious communities; and teachings. Less clear structurally, but probably also need to be covered is something about what, so far, is known about his his style of papacy: the reasons for his adopting "Francis", less pomp, etc DeCausa (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarín, La Nación and other media in open war against Kirchnerism, are NON-NEUTRAL sources for Argentine politics

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)

The sources might be used, but giving due weight to the section they are placed in. Nevertheless, this is an article regarding a Pope, not one dealing with Kirchnerism. One more thing: persistently deleting a maintenance template, such as {{NPOV}} is, is vandalism.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No it's not - or not necessarily at least. It could be a lot of other things (tendentious, edit-warring etc) but it's not vandalism when it's one of those "other things" and the editor thinks what he's doing is "right" (even if "wrong"). Vandalism is per WP:VANDAL only. DeCausa (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarín and La Nación are not in "open war" with anyone. On the contrary, it is always a trait of totalitarian governments to see the freedom of the press as a "threat", or to find bias and secret agendas at every thing that does not praise them as the saviors of the nation. As for what this article is concerned, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is only for points of view, not for facts. That Kirchner rejected 14 requests for meetings is a fact, not an opinion. WP:YESPOV is clear on that: "Avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion". We shouldn't include an "according to Clarín..." here, same as we don't say "according to the NASA, Earth is the third planet of the solar system". Cambalachero (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

But is it an 'uncontested factual assertion'? Sebasbronzini at least gives the impression that he may well think otherwise, though so far he hasn't said so explicitly. I know almost nothing about Argentine politics, so I don't much care either way (except that I'm mildly interested in how Wikipedans should handle such matters, plus I am usually biased against the Church, though I think my only edit of this article was correcting a misleadingly anti-Francis mistranslated headline from La Nacion to a more accurate neutral one). But it would not surprise me in the least if the Kirschner version was something like 'we only received 6, rejected 2 for reasons X, Y, and Z, ignored 2 for reasons A, B, and C, and were still considering the last 2 when the Cardinal's departure for the Conclave made them irrelevant'. And, given Sebasbronzini's objections, it would at least mildly surprise me if the Kirschner version was 'we entirely agree with the Clarin version', which is what an 'uncontested factual assertion' would seemingly require. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Kirchnerists propaganda outlets simply skip that information. That is not really to "contest" it. If there is an article saying that, that Kirchner had frequent meeting with Bergoglio and that their emnity with him never existed, then we shall see. Problem is, false information may be refuted by other media, skipped information simply goes unnoticed. Cambalachero (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted "According to an article by Clarín newspaper of Buenos Aires" twice, because I think it is silly to mention that in the text when the same information is given in the footnote. The point I made in my edit summary is that either the source is reliable, or it isn't. I think the relevant policy here is exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I would say the claim that Fernández refused 14 times to meet with Bergoglio is exceptional. (Does this mean that she simply stopped meeting with him at some point? That's unclear.) The WP guideline clearly states that in cases such as this, "multiple high-quality sources" are required. Since this issue has been debated for some time without a second source backing up this strange allegation ever being found, the allegation should be removed completely. (Hence, no need for the redundant "According to an article by Clarín newspaper of Buenos Aires".) – Herzen (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Allegations that Clarín and La Nación are in "open war" against Argentina's current government are only made by Kirchnerists in order to damage their reputation, as they are not controlled by Kirchnerist businesspeople and publish independent reports on poverty, crime, and unemployment. A similar tactic has been used by the government of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. The consensus among Argentines and the international press is that they are reliable and trustworthy. I should mention that La Nación is even considered a newspaper of record. --190.19.77.29 (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the allegation in question not because I consider Clarín to be an unreliable source (not being Argentinian and not reading Spanish, I have no opinion on the matter), but because the claim is exceptional, and WP guidelines require multiple high quality sources in such cases. One source, even if it is reliable, is not sufficient in this case. – Herzen (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition to Clarín, I have found five newspapers (two of them from outside Argentina) that have reported the same information. Please consider adding it again.

• Perfil (Buenos Aires, Argentina): Al menos catorce audiencias le pidió el ahora pontífice a Ella. Nunca lo recibió. Lo que viene.
• El Diario Noticias (San Miguel de Tucumán, Argentina): Bergoglio le pidió 14 audiencias a Cristina Kirchner, y Ella no lo recibió.
• La Voz del Chaco (Resistencia, Argentina): Se dice –aunque no hay confirmación por parte del Gobierno Nacional- que la Casa Rosada habría postergado 14 veces audiencias solicitadas por monseñor Jorge Bergoglio cuando era arzobispo de Buenos Aires y planteaba desde ese rol cuestiones urticantes como la necesaria justicia para los muertos de la tragedia de Cromañón o una revisión en los mecanismos de distribución de la asistencia social ante las sospechas que recaían sobre organizaciones vinculadas al Gobierno, como por ejemplo la Fundación Sueños Compartidos.
• El País (Spain): En lo más remoto de la historia parecían quedar las 14 veces que, según varios medios argentinos, Bergoglio llamó formalmente a las puertas de la Casa Rosada para ser recibido por la presidenta y nadie le abrió.
• El Universo (Ecuador): Con total aplomo, medios locales cuentan 14 veces que el entonces cardenal de Buenos Aires pidió ser recibido por la presidenta Cristina; 14 veces que fue rechazado el pedido; 14 veces que el actual papa fue desairado por la presidenta. 14 veces que la soberbia abofeteó a la piedad, a la sencillez y a la humildad.

Thank you. --190.19.77.29 (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly what was needed. Thank you. El País is certainly a reliable source. Unfortunately, I don't read Spanish. Hopefully someone whose Spanish is good will look at those articles, confirm that the allegation is not coming just from one single source and then being repeated in other places (as sometimes happens), and then restore this claim to the article, this time making it well sourced, by citing at least two sources, one being preferably El País, since it the most well known internationally. And it will not be necessary to cite any source in the body of the article, which is what Sebasbronzini proposed when he started this talk section. – Herzen (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have restored the information and mentioned that multuple sources are listed here. I do not feel confiudent enough in my Spanish to seamlessly integrate these additional sources into the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, since you did that, I've removed the explicit reference to Clarín in the article body and added El País as a second reference. My position here all along has been that we should decide whether there are good sources supporting this claim or not. If we decide there are, there is no reason to mention them in the main text; if we decide there are not, the article shouldn't mention this at all.

Hopefully, Spanish speakers will check the sources at some point to verify that they say what the article claims, but I see no reason to mistrust the person who came up with the additional sources. – Herzen (talk) 05:24, 21 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'.

• El País (Spain): En lo más remoto de la historia parecían quedar las 14 veces que, según varios medios argentinos, Bergoglio llamó formalmente a las puertas de la Casa Rosada para ser recibido por la presidenta y nadie le abrió.

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).

• La Voz del Chaco (Resistencia, Argentina): Se dice –aunque no hay confirmación por parte del Gobierno Nacional- que la Casa Rosada habría postergado 14 veces audiencias solicitadas por monseñor Jorge Bergoglio cuando era arzobispo de Buenos Aires ...

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.

• El Universo (Ecuador): Con total aplomo, medios locales cuentan 14 veces que el entonces cardenal de Buenos Aires pidió ser recibido por la presidenta Cristina; 14 veces que fue rechazado el pedido; 14 veces que el actual papa fue desairado por la presidenta. 14 veces que la soberbia abofeteó a la piedad, a la sencillez y a la humildad.

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.

• Perfil (Buenos Aires, Argentina): Al menos catorce audiencias le pidió el ahora pontífice a Ella. Nunca lo recibió. Lo que viene.

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.

• El Diario Noticias (San Miguel de Tucumán, Argentina): Bergoglio le pidió 14 audiencias a Cristina Kirchner, y Ella no lo recibió. Bergoglio asked Cristina Kirchner for 14 audiences, and She did not receive him. Again I don't know whether the capital E is ironic or polite, and I don't know how reliable this paper is, but it is has no article about it in Englsih Wikipedia, and it seems to be a relatively small provincial paper (San Miguel de Tucumán is a remote provincial capital), rather as if somebody has had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find supporting quotes.

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)

Tlhslobus, your interpretation is accurate. "Ella" with a capital "E" is ironic in the opposition press of Argentina, which takes Perfil (a political sensasionalist tabloid) and the newspaper from Tucumán apart. The other media (incluiding the reliable El País) explicitly include some reservations ("some local media says"). In sum, I would not trust the Clarín counting until some reliable source is found. Saludos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.111.219.140 (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have now removed the claim as insufficiently supported to satisfy the requirements of WP:EXCEPTIONAL, as earlier in this discussion Herzen has already explained why this is what should be done. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:20, 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)

Thanks for clearing that up and for deleting the claim again. I don't see why John Pack Lambert was in such a hurry to restore the claim without waiting for people with some knowledge of Spanish to look over the new references.

This whole affair seems silly to me, and I don't see why the article should mention it, unless the allegation gets picked up by the mainstream English-language press. But if we do include it, I support the proposal you have written. Another possibility is to mention this apparent smear/hoax in the article Conflict between Fernández de Kirchner government and the media. I think it better belongs there, since it is more about Kirchner than about the Pope. – Herzen (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

As a sidenote, I would add that Uruguay is not faraway from Argentina, but it is its closest neighbor in any aspect. Its media is always picking up Argentine issues precisely because its bigger neighbour is important politically and economically to them. As for the El País, the Spanish media has been paying very much attention to Latin American affairs since a few years ago, specially focusing on Venezuela, Argentina, México and Brazil. El País, in particular, has recently opened an alternative First Page, aside for the usual editions, under the name "America edition", referring to Latin America (much like the NYT's "Global Edition"). This is because many readers in the hispanosphere use this newspaper as a node for information of all around the hispanic world. In fact, Spain aims to act as a hub for the hispanosphere as much as its companies and (formerly) their governments use to meddle in Latin American political and economical affairs.

So, in other words, these news do not "make their way" to faraway places. This kind of news for hispanosphere online readers are in no time in every place, as long as national newspapers also replicate the news from here and there. So it is usual that a comment from Clarín makes its way to El País and then to any newspaper in the Hispanic world. Specially given that El País has also a (somewhat more moderate) bias against Kirchner's government in Argentina. 190.111.219.140 (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

My apologies - I mistakenly wrote Uruguay when I should have written Ecuador, and I've now corrected that in my earlier post (I actually knew that Uruguay is a small neighbour of Argentina (as well as arguably the most remarkable small country in world football, etc), which is why I wrote 'places as far apart as Uruguay and Spain' which says Uruguay is far from Spain but carefully avoids saying it's far from Argentina) Tlhslobus (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for both your comments. Having read them, I think I'll leave my suggestion on hold, to be looked at again if and when the story starts appearing in the media of the English-speaking world. Meanwhile, if anybody else wants to transfer it to Conflict between Fernández de Kirchner government and the media, a possible alternative pointed out above by Herzen, then please feel free to do so, though I won't be doing so myself (I'm currently mildly interested in the papacy, but I have no current interest in Argentine domestic politics). Tlhslobus (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid Tlhslobus's proposal suffers from a severe lack of accuracy. As has been stated before, Clarín is, along with La Nación, one of the most reliable newspapers in the country. The allegation that it is against Argentina's current government is not only inaccurate, but a downright lie put forth by those who support the government of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner with the aim to discredit it, as it often publishes independent reports on crime, poverty, and unemployment which conflict with official statistics made by the INDEC (which have been widely discredited as fallacious). It is also worth noting that Argentina's government has been putting a tremendous amount of pressure on the aforesaid and other independent newspapers (not my words, but rather those of the Inter American Press Association). It is interesting to notice as well that currently there is no solid reason for considering Perfil as an unreliable publication other than 190.111.219.140's opinion and Nico89abc's unsupported claim on the corresponding article, as the only "source" that the latter provided for such accusation is simply an opinion piece criticizing the Argentine government. `` DL ( t | c ) 22:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I find it very hard to believe that Clarín is a reliable source, given that the Clarín Group's main owner had close ties to the military junta that ruled Argentina during the period of dictatorship. – Herzen (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

According to whom? And even if they did, how does that prove that Clarín is an unreliable source? You ought to note also that their supposed enemies, the Kirchners, had ties with the dictatorship too; Alicia Kirchner, for instance, worked for the junta. `` DL ( t | c ) 01:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Why was his inauguration mass removed

I had placed that his inauguration (or installation) mass would be on the 19th. It happened as scheduled. I am wondering why this was removed since this is the ceremonial start of the papacy and the mass itself is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page? John Paul II and Benedict XVI both mention this event as part of their papacy for comparison. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 10:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Since Pope Francis inauguration has been created, I edited the first line for the main article. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 13:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus for "See Also"

Right now See Also has Jerónimo Podestá & Jesuit formation. That seems like an odd choice. I think there are better options: Jesuits to begin with. What pages should be there >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

See also is for bits not linked above. The emphasis is on also. Someone else objected to Jerónimo Podestá so I added him in the body. (He was doing no harm in "see also" but some people like to be the decider.) Try thinking of other things not incorporated above but related. No reason to expect many, really. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I edit less active pages for the most part and I thought it was just for the few most relevant links EVEN IF INCLUDED in the article. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 16:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Name in Italian irrelevant

The name in Italian (Francesco) is irrelevant, particularly in the first sentence. If anything, the name in Latin is primary; the rendering in English is relevant in an English-language encyclopaedia, though English first makes sense. I make this comment for consideration, and won't edit. Conceivably it might be relevant to include a list of renderings in different languages somewhere in the text. According to languages of Vatican City the Holy See's language is Latin; Vatican City publishes laws and regulations in Italian. Pol098 (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"Bishop of Rome" DeCausa (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see how it is more relevant than the name in the pope's native language (Castilian). Having his name in four languages (English, Castilian, Italian and Latin) in the lead would be just ridiculous. The guideline is to mention the variants that a reader is likely to encounter while reading English language texts about the subject. Anything more is excessive and detrimental to the quality of the lead sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think your edit was premature and have reverted. The articles on his two non-italian predecessors both have the name in Italian, even though they were not Italian. The Pope is also a bishop of an Italian diocese, as well as the business language of the Vatican being Italian. DeCausa (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the insertion was premature. The articles on his 260 predecessors don't have the name in Italian and most did live in Italy. The Pope was also archbishop of an Argentine archdiocese for fifteen years. Surtsicna (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The material should definitely be in the article, given Italian is the working language of the church, that his announcement was met with a chamt of "francesco", the precedent of Benedict and JPII's articles, and plain old encyclopedic comprehenisivity. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

In the article - perhaps, but in the lead sentence - certainly not. It just does not make sense to list his name in several languages before saying who he is. There is enough room in Titles and styles section for his name in Italian and any other language, should the necessity somehow arise. Surtsicna (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we get this straight and consistent regarding Popes. Here we have IPA, Benedict XVI lacks IPA. Benedict has Italian and Latin, and had German (being his native tongue, so Spanish for Francis) but now lacks it. Either way is fine for me but let's be consistent. Maybe even we could list Papal names in 10 languages further down on their page since they are some of the few names in this world that are translated. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 19:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Native, Italian & Latin for the church, and English because this is the English WP, make perfect sense. These don't count as titles or styles, and there is no need to pick some arbitrary number like ten languages. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Bouncer?

The statement that he was a bouncer has re-surfaced (previous discussion has presumably been archived). It is so stated in some references, but they seem dubious. Given the amount of unfounded nonsense that is published, we need better sources to say this. Pol098 (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I see nobody's picking this up. The most detailed reference I can find says: "to support himself during his studies he worked for a time as a bouncer in a dive of very bad repute in Cordoba" (my translation). I haven't found any references in Spanish (which doesn't mean they don't exist), which I'd expect if this were true. I would say that this point is only credible if more detail and witnesses are found - at least the name of the place, dates, maybe someone who knew him at the time. Search terms I've tried: buttafuori, cordoba, combinations of sacaborrachos, boliche, local. Gorila isn't very useful, too common in Argentina. Pol098 (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Another quote from the Telegraph article given as source for the bouncer bit: "He ... has a master's degree in Chemistry from the University of Buenos Aires". Which doesn't say much for the credibility of the article as a source. Pol098 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. - quote by Albert Einstein--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

that's a good one... I'd say that source is about as reliable as 4chan... Aunva6 (talk) 04:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I removed the bouncer claim. The Telegraph article does not seem to be well grounded enough that we should use it. Also, that article really did not say when during his studies he worked as a bouncer. Thus by putting it in any specific place in his life we were going beyond the source. If people can find a solid source saying when he worked as a bouncer that will work, but the telegraph article did not even give any specific dates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Main Picture of Pope Francis

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)

What we should do is email the Vatican for an official portrait image. Does anyone know a Catholic priest that knows the correct way to contact them or do they respond to email, twitter, facebook, etc?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Pope's twitter page may help with that. Also, the director of the Holy See Press Office is Father Federico Lombardi. Maybe he can help as well.

I emailed the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops media dept. to contact the Vatican. I suggested they can respond on this talk page or to me directly.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Images from the Vatican

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)

will this photo work? http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/elezione/index_en.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsepe (talk • contribs) 04:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Can you contact the copyright holder to licence it? Higher resolution if they have it as well. It is only 313 x 400.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Adoption approval

According to Leonardo Boff, Francis approved the adoption of a child by a same-sex couple not long ago:[22]

"Hace un par de meses por ejemplo aprobó expresamente que una pareja de homosexuales adoptara un niño."

The story appears to be based on an interview Boff gave to Der Spiegel. Confirmation? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Relevant Information Deleted. Why???

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 segmentMrsKrishan (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I've just seen this, and deleted it. There's barely any mention of Francis. At most it's worth one sentence. And that sentence is already in the article in the "Cardinal" sub-section. DeCausa (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Three decades of faithful pastoral concern is worth at most more than you give it credit (events happened way before he became Cardinal or Pope). Pope_Francis&oldid=546324476 is "stet." (undo) I have appended topical quotes on tyranny and truth and hearts of stone and hands with stones from comments to world diplomats and homily to garbage collectors.Pls adviseMrsKrishan (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Your post is incoherent and I can't tell what point you are making. Your edit adds a lot of information about these murders, but there is no connection with Francis other than he discussed them with Freeman on two occasions. That's no reason to put in a large chunk of text about events with which he was not involved. DeCausa (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You betray your non-neutral POV with your hectoring tone, "events with which he was not involved" is your opinion only on the political nature and worth of his involvement, my point (if I could complete my edits which i am being prevented from doing by your strident arrogance) is that the SPIRITUAL value of the martyrdom is vast and Pope Francis is in a unique position to give it credit: he was there when it happened and hes now presides over the keys that judge their eternal spiritual (not historical secular) merit, quite an uncontroversial and necessarily valid point to be included in an article on a religious figure IMHO.MrsKrishan (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

what? Wikipedia is not the place to write a religious meditation. Has Francis written on this subject? No (or at least it's not in your edit). Has Francis spoken on this subject? No (or at least it's not in your edit). Was Francis in some way involved in the events surrounding the murders. No (or at least it's not in your edit). What you are trying to do is add a lot of text about the murders themselves. This article is not the place for that.

The only thing we do have in connection with the murders is his support of the beatification - which is already in the article. DeCausa (talk) 17:27, 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)

Please stop trolling

I wasn't even on the real article. Isn't the Talk section supposed to be for talking? Yes it is. So why on earth would my question be erased. I had a very important question and it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FunnyBunny215 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Talk pages are for talking about things to improve the article, not things that are totally unrelated to the article. Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. Asking about worms is totally unrelated to Pope Francis.Marauder40 (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC) "Asking about worms is totally unrelated to Pope Francis." That's what you sound like. Maybe worms aren't directly related to the Pope, but they're not "totally unrelated" either. Pope Francis lives on the earth. Worms live on the earth. Pope Francis is very old. Worms are very old. Many people really don't care for Pope Francis. Many don't care for worms, either. There. I just named 3 things that worms and the Pope have in common. FunnyBunny215 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Father Francisco Jalics: "It is wrong to say that our capture occurred because of [Pope] Francis."

This information should be added to the article. I believe a sentence or two would suffice. --190.19.77.29 (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Celibacy can change

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)

I don't think that's quite what he's saying. I think it's more something along the lines of "he's open to discussion about changes in celibacy requirements" Aunva6 (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Key to this, though, is his personal experience of having had romantic feelings. Significant, I think, that he couldn't pray for a week, overwhelmed by thought of this dynamic woman, and had to reflect on his theologically directed life choice. Encounter seems to have had a lifelong impact on his views.LCS check (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Did Francis study at Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina

Did Francis study at Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina as maybe suggested by this [23] telegraph article, or should we write it off as unsourced claims like the claim he has a masters in chemistry, which also appears in that article, but seems unlikely based on what we have. In fact, we lack any proof he was ever a student at the University of Buenos Aires.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

More sources on the Popes past

Well here [24] is a Wall Street Journal article. The main thing I used it for was adding Olievera's statement Bergoglio helping people flee the country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That seems a very biased article, implying that anyone who criticises the Pope is trying to turn Argentina into a totalitarian state. The claims he helped people seem rather nebulous: who was he helping and why? He was not a martyr, but was he not courting martyrdom if he did indeed illegally help fugitives to escape?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal article from Mary O'Grady might be biased in some parts, but is she right about the popes past and is this importent enough to get in the article? I think so... --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Being an Argentine myself, I wholeheartedly agree with Cyrus. The article nails it on so many fronts. --`` DL ( t | c ) 14:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

While the WSJ editorial pages are purely political, its news pages are considered absolutely solid. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have restored the use of the article as a source for Oleivera stating Bergoglio helped people flee the military regime. This is an important and significant claim, especially since previously we had statements that made it seem like no one else has ever stated that Bergoglio helped people leave Argentina. It is clearly a useable source for this information.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You should not have restored the use of this opinion piece. As I said before, the WSJ editorial and opinion pages are notoriously biased and unreliable, and it just makes Wikipedia look bad and edited by uninformed people if pieces from there are used as sources. Bmclaughlin9 said the same thing, but you just ignored him. (He was under the misconception that the piece in question was from the news pages, which it was not, something that you knew.)

I have kept the claim but used the original source that the WSJ opinion writer is apparently referring to, with these edits. – Herzen (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Here [25] is a Gaurdian aritcle that also mentions "various witnesses have started coming forward to paint a formerly unseen picture of Bergoglio moving secretly behind the scenes to rescue a number of priests whose lives were in danger from the military death squads that began roaming Argentina."John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess you didn't follow the link. This is not an article, but something from the WSJ Opinion page. Hence, it is purely political, as you say. – Herzen (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Bergoglio had not removed Jalics from being a Jesuit

Here [26] is an article by Thomas Reese, in which he explains that Bergoglio had not in any way removed Jalics and Yorico from being Jesuits. I tried to incorproate that notion into the article, but have to say I wonder if we should not go further. It seems the preponderance of evidence is making Verbitsky's claims more an more the subject of 2005 than the 1970s. The whole thing needs to be re-examined with the realization there is no grounds for the claims that Bergoglio had removed these men from the ministry, and that Jalics has on multiple occasions explictly stated that his capture was not prompted by Bergoglio, and that any though that it was on his or anyone else's part was incorrect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This paragraph "The Jesuit historian Fr. Jeff Klaiber interviewed Jesuit Fr. Juan Luis Moyano, who had also been imprisoned and deported by the military. Moyano told Klaiber that Bergoglio did go to bat for imprisoned Jesuits. There are disagreements over whether he did as much as he should have for them, but such debates always occur in these circumstances." from the Reese article might be worth incorporating in some way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That article is an opinion piece rather than a piece of investigative journalism, and it is from an apologetic Catholic perspective. Reese's comments on liberation theology suggests he is unable or unwilling to grasp the issues at stake and the period in question. (Liberation theology is not merely a Christian concern for the poor.) Bergoglio as the head of the Jesuits was in the centre of a severe conflict in Argentine society. That article addresses details in some specific allegations against Bergoglio but skirts around the broader question of what he did in this period with vague assurances and insubstantial appeals to authority.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Your assesment of Reese really does not work. He is normally looked to as the source par excellence by the mainstream journalists. To call him a "Catholic apologist" really does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to comments such as "We are family"...--Jack Upland (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

University of Buenos Aires? Really?

Hi guys, as an alumni of the most prestigious university in Argentina (University of Buenos Aires), I was amazed to read in here that Pope Francis studied there too. In fact, that's not true. Where do you get that information?? First of all, the University of Buenos Aires didn't say a word about his designation, each time an alumni or professor get something (an award, or something like that), the university use to communicate that. This was not the case. The University of Buenos Aires is a centre-left or leftist academy, it's impossible this guy has ever put a foot at the doors of any of its faculty. Sorry, but no. Whoever put that information has a way to show or support that falacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeroPsycho22 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't see this now. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Miguel La Civita

Should we include information on Miguel La Civita in this article. This [27] Gaurdian aritcle states I was the exact prototype of what used to be called "third world" priests," says Miguel La Civita, who in 1976 was a close collaborator of Bishop Enrique Angelelli, murdered by the dictatorship for his work organising the poor into labour unions and manufacturing cooperatives in the northern province of La Rioja. "After Angelelli's murder, Bergoglio put us under his protection," La Civita says. He claims Bergoglio was secretly active "helping people who were persecuted by the military", hiding them at the school he headed in Buenos Aires.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth the Gaurdian seems biased against postions that Bergoglio has taken.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If by biased, you mean as a left/liberal paper The Guardian's editorial position wouldn't be supportive of Catholic positions on homosexuality, birth control, divorce etc, then yes. But it's a highly reputable newspaper and its news coverage would, I would have thought, be considered WP:RS. The piece was written by Uki Goñi who is a freelance Argentinian writer who seems to be reputable and well-known. DeCausa (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, mainly by bias I mean the in this article argument that the government recognizing more relationships someone equates to freedom. In reality it can be just as easily equated to more government regulation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be, but it's not worth getting into. DeCausa (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Celibacy

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.

Source: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Pope-Francis-said-celibacy-among-priests-can-change-and-admits-to-being-tempted-by-a-woman-199328231.html#ixzz2OBpcC2yW

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)

Washing feet

This article [28] in the Gaurdian reports plans for Pope Francis to wash the feet of inmates. I will leave it up to others to see what, if anything, to include in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's avoid predicting the future and reporting plans. There will be time enough to report the facts as they occur. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

Pope Francis → Francis (pope) – New naming convention for Popes agreed upon by concensus at Naming conventions (clergy)#Popes. Primary article should be Francis (pope) with a redirect from from Pope Francis to Francis (pope) ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

it's easy enough to put a g6 csd on the redirect. I've already done it. admins complete the move as soon as they delete the conflicting page, so there isn't a need for a move req, just post in the tasks completed, or put a section in the talk explaining it. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of the Pope articles are protected, so even if they delete the redirect, I cannot move them myself. ReformedArsenal (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G6 they complete the move for you. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I have declined the speedy move request. I see there is a bulk requested move discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)#Article Move due to updated convention. I think there needs to be consensus generated there rather than just one admin unilaterally doing it. --B (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

'kay, guess we need consensus to conform to consensus... although further discussion may be fruitful. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, when it affects what is probably one of our most visible articles right now, yes. --B (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

good point. although, for this page, perhaps the discussion should take place here, where it is most visible. same with benedict xvi. I'll start an RfC on it here. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My personal preference/suggestion would be to see one unified RM that lists all of the articles to be moved and their proposed new names, rather than litigating this in fragmented discussions all over creation. It's easy to say "we don't use honorifics in article titles" but when you're actually confronted with the practical question of "does that mean Mother Teresa is now Teresa (mother)", it's a harder sell IMO. Francis (pope) seems like a very confused title for an article, as would renaming Prince Harry of Wales to Harry (prince). --B (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

it's just because Francis is a disambig. pope benedict xvi would become Benedict xvi. all it is is lining it up with the conventions regarding royalty. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand that ... but just understanding the reasoning behind it doesn't make it not sound odd. --B (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC- rename to Francis (pope)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

should the article be renamed to Francis (Pope)?

consensus recently changed at WP:naming conventions (clergy), however, due to the visibility of the article, extra consensus is required.-- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing has changed, and your claims to the contrary are not going to make that statement any more true. There are two ongoing discussions at that WT page. Come back when and if there is consensus. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is a bizarre way to introduce the RfC. Having just looked at it, (a) the RfC at WP:naming conventions (clergy) is not closed (b) anyway, shows no emerging consensus in favour of the change, (c) if anything shows the most popular view is "oppose". The OP's statement above is weird and misleading. DeCausa (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

discussion

No, oppose. Consensus on this page is that we do not move this article anywhere. Francis (pope) is a hopeless, clumsy title, worse than all other previous proposals. I don't see any changed consensus, article titles of Popes in Wikipedia have been well established for 10 years or so and I see no reason to change that. Mocctur (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• see Wikipedia talk:naming conventions (clergy)-- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• • There is no consensus to change the title of this article on this talk page (the only place where its title is determined), and there is no consensus to change anything on the other page you are referring to either, only your proposal which is rejected by others. Mocctur (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    • umm, so you are saying that the naming conventions have no import on this article's naming? besides, your the only one rejecting it so far, I think it's a little premature to say it's rejected. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose rename, there is absolutely no compelling reason whatsoever to arbitrarily rename our articles on hundreds of popes when we are served just fine by our current approach. Further, the discussion you linked to seems to be developing a consensus for the status quo. Harej (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Would this mean that you want to change 266 wikipedia articles from Pope X to X (pope)? That is not realistic and goes against a pretty established 266 article precedence. What would be the reason to do so? Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as per above. Nothing to be gained but confusion. LCS check (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. It would make the title of this article clumsy and counter-intuitive for casual readers of Wikipedia. The new naming convention for popes is a silly idea anyway: whatever is done with more strictly secular monarchs, popes are a unique case. There are 266 of them: there's no reason they can't have their own aptly customized article-naming convention, instead of being clumsily assimilated to the convention for a broader category. Wikipedia should aim for clarity and ease of use as an *encyclopedia* for those seeking information, not at being an outlet for a "blessed rage for order" among us frequent editors. How many encyclopedia readers instinctively type "Francis (pope)" for information on this guy? I imagine very few. The proposed change is obfuscatory. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Ridiculous. See WP:NATURAL. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Move to close The pope naming issue has been taken up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)#Article Move due to updated convention. While it looks unlikely to succeed, if it does, it should apply to all popes where there are no disambiguation problems. There's no point in changing this article alone, so I call for a close. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree. DeCausa (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Close- see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)#Article Move due to updated convention for the discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request on 22 March 2013

After the sentence that reads "Following the resignation ofhis predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, on 28 February, the conclave elected Bergoglio, who chose the papal name Francis in honour of Saint Francis of Assisi." please add this sentence: "There is speculation that he may have had two other individuals in mind when he chose the name Francis, namely (1) St. Francis Xaviar, the Jesuit who was very humble and helped the poor, and (2) Francis Sisco, the popular transgender New York comedian, who is usually known as Fran Sisco."

FrankSisco (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

source? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

also, I highly doubt that francis sisco is even notably likely speculation. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

"Speculation" by definition should not be included in Wikipedia articles per WP:SPECULATION.

That's what I thought... wasn't sure tho. it also looks like (s)he has a COI, judging by the name, and how (s)he went ahead and edited the article anyways -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clearer. Rather than say "speculation". This has been contradicted by eyewitness accounts of what Francis said at the very moment he took the name. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Er, I think the OP is engaging in "humour" (I mean "humor"). DeCausa (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Firsts

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)

The Americas are not solely located in the Southern Hemisphere. If that sentence absolutely must be shortened (it really doesn't look that long, IMHO), the fact that he is the first Pope from the Southern Hemisphere should be kept too. --190.19.77.29 (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal article.

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)

See above under "More sources..."--Jack Upland (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

And to state it in brief, the "article" is question is not a work of journalism and does not pretend to be. It's an editor's opinion piece. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction needs to summarise the body to a reasonable degree, without becoming huge. Points that needed to be included: attitudes regarding abortion, contraception, homosexuality; attitude (non-pompous); emphasis on the poor. Actions during the dictatorship. Rather than starting with a discussion, I've added a couple of suggested paragraphs. I'm sure they'll be much edited, so I'll give my original text here. While I'm not wedded to my text, these points need to be there.

Before being elected Pope Francis expressed views strongly against abortion, contraception, and homosexuality; in the early days of his papacy no actions regarding these issues have arisen. He continued to maintain his simple style on being elected, eschewing pomp and formality. He spoke about support for the poor, saying "How I would like a poor Church, and for the poor".

Immediately after he was elected Pope there was criticism suggesting that he had acted in support of illegal acts of the Argentine dictatorship in the 1970s; but no evidence was found, and victims said that they did not deem him culpable.

Pol098 (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Other points need to be added with minimal detail, e.g., relations with other religions. Pol098 (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree. Important modifications (such those you made in the incipit) needs to be discussed in advance. To me there is no consensus, so I removed them. --Chessstoria (3 s) ^{(All your base are belong to us)} 16:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Any objections? Remember WP:BOLD, WP:BRD. Pol098 (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference Bartholomew in "Inauguration"?

I am not experienced enough to know the best way to do this. The presence of Bartholomew I at the Papal inauguration is already mentioned in the section on relations with the Orthodox Church but I think his presence is noteworthy enough to mention at the part on the inauguration. Could I write "As seen above, the Patriarch of Constantinople was present at a papal inauguration for the first time since the great schism of 1054."? Or is there a better way to do this? I presume many will not read the article from start to finish but jump to what they want. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 17:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is his presence so notable as to be the only named attendee in the Inauguration section? DeCausa (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Answer is, because no Patriarch has attended such an event in a millenium. It's a bigger deal than the usual government leaders. LCS check (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree it's a big deal. But once is enough, and there is a separate WP entry for the Papal inauguration of Pope Francis, where it has been properly included, I'd say. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It needs to go in the article. But it's importance is in Orthodox-Catholic relations. I don't see it as being significant enough to be mentioned twice or to be the only attendee to be mentioned in that section. DeCausa (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Didn't notice it was already above. Agree one mention's enough. LCS check (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Added reference for 2003 English-language book chapter by J. M. Bergoglio

I've added into the Other section under Writings one of the few previous English-language publications by Jorge M. Bergoglio, a book chapter in: Buzzi, Elisa. 2003. A generative thought; an introduction to the works of Luigi Giussani. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10132858. Giussani founded the Catholic movement Communion and Liberation. This book is of note since two other Cardinals considered for the papacy, Angelo Scola and Marc Ouellet also contributed chapters. A more experienced editor can probably properly finish fine-tuning this addition to the references.Ajschorschiii (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)