Jump to content

Talk:Pope Francis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.225.10.37 (talk) at 20:27, 13 March 2013 (→Assisi or Xavier? Or some other?: return deleted material). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Include information pertaining to the Popes stance regarding SCIENTOLOGy's religious status (in Argentina).99.8.125.39 (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-White?

His parents were Italian immigrants to Argentina. Italian still counts as white, guys. 

 Yeah I don't know if whoever wrote that he is non-white has seen the big picture of him at the side of the article, but he's definitely completely white.
Quite. Not sure where that came from. I see another editor removed that bit exactly as I did. David (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And his parents are Italian soo yeah I'd say white --69.146.219.170 (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Argentina being "non-white" is a meme. He's Argentinian. Of course someone's going to say he's not white. 96.48.172.204 (talk)
That's a retarded meme from reddit, probably some random guy trying to vandalize wikipedia.

he looks purple to me

comment

There is a quite lengthy article on no: about Bergoglio that can be translated, instead of mendeling with the copyright article. no:Jorge Beroglio Profoss 22:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have never posted on Wikipedia before and have no real plans to post later.. but i think the sentence "He is another homophobic bastard indeed." should probably be removed. It is in the "Early" section FYI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.142.201.254 (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2013

Congratulations! Now our work begins

I expect lots of edit warring here, so this is a request to editors to take issues to the talk page before making controversial edits to the article. Andrew327 19:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regnal Name

Just to nip the inevitable edit war in the bud, why is it "Francis" and not "Francisco"? Localized name thing? Matteric (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • NPR is calling him "Franciscus" so does that localize to "Francis" ala St Francis of Assisi (USA) or "Francisco" ala San Francisco (Espanol)?
  • John Paul II was Juan Pablo II in Spanish speaking countries, Giovanni Paolo II in Italian ones, and so on. ~~----

Francis the First

Where's the ordinal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.136.61 (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2013

First Non-European Pope in History on March 3, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.58.239 (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2013

HE IS NOT THE FIRST NON EUROPEAN POPE. SAINT PETER (FIRST POPE) WAS NOT EUROPEAN EITHER. Fredyrod (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None needed. There is no second.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 19:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was notable that John Paul I chose to be use the ordinal and was the first to Pope to be "XXX the First". Clearly Francis I is following in this tradition. Move. jameslucas (" " / +) 19:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's notable that he is the only Pope Francis, and he will probably be the only Pope Francis for years into the future, and the article can be moved if a future pope becomes the second. His official Vatican title is "Pope Francis". Andrew327 19:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is only 1. It can be updated if/when a Francis II is named. Dmarquard (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, eventually. If the Pope, in his official capacity, refers to himself as Francis the First, Francis I, or whatever, we can do no less. As noted, above, John Paul I chose to do so, and we likely would have followed suit. But it is really really too early to speculate. I'm betting the Vatican will offer a news release or some sort of official announcement (their website is behind) that will clarify things. Give the poor man a few hours to get situated, yes? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this counts as official but the official Twitter account just tweeted "HABEMUS PAPAM FRANCISCUM" https://twitter.com/Pontifex/status/311922995633455104 Eddyproca (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's perfectly normal to use both "Francis" and "Francis I", like they did with "Benedict" and "Benedict XVI". Oh, and the Pope tweeted he is Francis I [1] so yeah, he decides. Smartyllama (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Official announcement did not mention an ordinal, so until he claims the ordinal like John Paul the 1st did, he is just Pope Francis. Anyone using an ordinal is doing it out of ignorance. wxwalsh 19:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Currently the Vatican web page announces him as 'New Pontiff Is Pope Francis of Argentina' No ordinal at this time. That seems, for now, to be as reliable a source as you will find. http://www.vatican.com/ Sarafinadh (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Vatican News website (news.va) uses both "Francis" and "Francis I". Eddyproca (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Popes are traditionally given a numeral. Even when they are "the First". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, only John Paul I took an ordinal, and he did it deliberately. No others had an ordinal until after a 2nd was made. Also, the vatican news site typod his name as well, to get a hasty article out, their use of the ordinal should not be taken as official. wxwalsh 20:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIANS ARE MAD (see discussion below)!
By the way, what means "non-european"? I guess that you have good reasons to regard Italy no longer as part of Europe. A certain affinity towards torture, human rights violations, rape, euthanasy, intolerance, ignorance, especially against the heart of Christianity, does not fit to European ethics? I am not sure, but all these inconveniences might happen to catholic folks here in Europe... Che vergogna! --151.77.61.139 (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Nominals

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

Looks like a trophy to me.

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.

Pius?

Here it says Pius XIII.

It's Francis I – A New Pope

Pope Francis → Pope Francis I – Sources are giving his name as Francis I. I would have done a simple move but that page redirects here so I can't. Smartyllama (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Is there proof that the 'Francis' refers to Francis of Assisi, not Francis de Sales? Both are saints - de Sales was a bishop and is a Doctor of the Church. I was unable to hear the official announcement of the regal name, but it would be good to confirm this association, rather than assume it.

  • Or Francis Xavier for that matter. He was the founder of the Society of Jesus.

91.83.198.239 (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Madnight[reply]

  • Opposed for below reason. No ordinal until there's a second Pope Francis.
  • Opposed Until/unless there's a source stating that he's called himself "Francis I" as opposed to just Francis. EWTN and MSNBC alone are saying simply "Francis" right now. Also, apparently John Paul I actually specified that he was "the First". umrguy42 19:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed Reiterating - no ordinal until there's a second Pope Francis. erielhonan 19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a move would be right. John Paul I had an ordinal in his lifetime.

I doubt this. Please cite source. erielhonan 19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title should include the ordinal I, as Pope John Paul I, but somebody already redirected that here. Grsz 11 19:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ordinal is only used for the first when there's a second. John Paul I was only John Paul until John Paul II was elected. 86.9.122.202 (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, like John Paul, who specifically chose to add the ordinal. If this one does the same, the rule "no ordinal until there's a second" does not apply. 94.224.96.189 (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iv'e noticed that the page has already been moved, should it be moved back for the time being since there clearly it not a consensus yet for this move.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is decided, the history from Pope Francis may need to be merged into this article, as both have been edited in parallel after a copy and paste move. For now, I have protected that page from editing to prevent the problem getting worse. WJBscribe (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's perfectly normal to use both "Francis" and "Francis I", like they did with "Benedict" and "Benedict XVI". Oh, and the Pope tweeted he is Francis I [9] so yeah, he decides. Smartyllama (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait We don't know yet whether he's going to reign as "Francis" or "Francis I"; it's very likely he'll clarify that soon (as John Paul I did, and, for that matter, as John XXIII did in a similar situation--it wasn't clear whether he was XXIII or XXIV until he said so). In the meantime, we should combine Pope Francis and Pope Francis I, it's ridiculous to have two pages--but either name is fine for a temporary place, until we know what his official name is. -- Narsil (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Their very first article says "Who is Pope Francis?" And the next one mentions a Fracis [sic] I. So I'd say let the Vatican sort it first. :) --JohnDBuell (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just before I undertook to write the paragraph you are reading, the article said in one place the name "Francis" was in honor of Francis Xavier, and another place in the article said it was in honor of Francis of Assisi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2013

  • Procedural Question Since the move has apparently already been carried out, should we close this discussion as procedure and open a new one about moving it back to Pope Francis? Smartyllama (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • [11] AN OFFICIAL VATICAN SOURCE cleary says POPE FRANCIS I. Other pages on that site may give the shortened name, but it's just that, a shortened name. People sometimes called Benedict XVI "Pope Benedict" but it isn't his official name. Smartyllama (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Official vatican source" quoted by Smartyllama has contradicted itself, and shown it is thus not a reliable source. wxwalsh 20:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It has not contradicted itself. It just used a shortened name. this article refers to Benedict XVI by just "Pope Benedict" at times. I guess it contradicts itself too? No wait, it doesn't, it's just a shortened name. It's nothingnew. Smartyllama (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only time your "official source" called him with the ordinal, they misspelled his name. Should we now move this to Pope Fracis I based on your source? wxwalsh 20:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, at [12] the POPE HIMSELF announced on Twitter that he is Francis I. He decides, not you. Smartyllama (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like Belgian and Spanish monarchs, Popes are traditionally called "the First" even if there is no second yet. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not, only John Paul I took an ordinal as the first, all others only got it in historical context after a 2nd was made wxwalsh 20:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
As User:Eddyproca points out (above), news.va uses both with and without the "I." Twitter account does not have the blue "verified" icon on it yet. Defer decision until the Pope himself clarifies. 74.96.191.244 (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of user Rtrac3y: Per en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#Popes, correct style is "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one}" [13] Mike V • Talk 20:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Vatican News Website now refers to him with the numeral on one of three rotating messages at the top (go to [14] and wait for it to change). If the Vatican isn't a reliable source, and the Pope isn't a reliable source, I don't know who is. Smartyllama (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Let's wait and see what develops in RS and what the Pope himself uses. The information we have so far is a bit contradictory and in any case may not reflect what the Pope may use. E.g. the official papal message I'm pretty sure written while the pope was still speaking.Nil Einne (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 13 March 2013

He was transferred in 1980 to become the rector of the seminary in San Miguel where he had studied. Tonylatt (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source? Andrew327 19:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date of election

Please change the elction date to the 13th of March, not the 14th. It is not yet the 14th in Italy. Today is the 13th... Even in Europe. :) --91.56.37.184 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was just about to come and say the same thing. Change the date, please. --91.152.235.120 (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DoneAbductive (reasoning) 19:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
isn't he pope francis? Not pope francis I.
Francis I as Popes are always given an ordinal number. Kilonum (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's Francis I according to most sources. He's using the oridinal like John Paul I did. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date fixed to the 13th Pieism (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First new name since 10th century

An examination of the List of popes shows that, discounting the special case of John Paul I where he combined the names of his immediate predecessors, Francis is the first brand-new Pope name since Pope Lando took the chair in 913 AD. Might be worth noting somewhere. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally notable in that he was the first Pope to do so since all Popes began using names not their own in the 16th century. Lando was merely the latin version of his given name, Landus.

  • Ignore fiction about Lando being Latin.
John Paul I was a new name too.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Place of Birth

It reads he is the first Pope born in the Americas but then says he was born in India. Can we clarify / correct that?

He was not born in India - FIX THAT

Are we sure about which Saint?

Francis Solanus (The patron saint of Argentina) makes more sense than Francis of Assisi

He may be playing the "sounds like" game though

"For twenty years Francis worked at evangelizing the vast regions of Tucuman (present day northwestern Argentina) and Paraguay. He had a skill for languages and succeeded at learning many of the regions' native tongues in a fairly short period. It is claimed that he could also address tribes of different tongues in one language yet be understood by them all. Being a musician as well, Francis also played the violin frequently for the natives, which helped them relate better to him. He is often depicted playing this instrument."

Spandox (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He will announce this --Guerillero | My Talk 19:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Until he announces it, why guess that it was St. Francis of Assisi? Aren't BLPs supposed to have facts? Tied to citations? not guesses? Even good ones? -69.225.10.37 (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francis I?

Shouldn't it just be Francis as there is no Francis II?

Yes, it should, as the official Twitter states "HABEMUS PAPAM FRANCISCUM" with no use of an ordinal. [15]. --Zimbabweed (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Only pope to take an ordinal as part of the first use of their name was John Paul I, to distinguish his as a compound of preceding popes John and Paul. Unless the Vatican (or this Pope) states plainly that the ordinal is to be included, get rid of it. LCS check (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of the above. Fitnr (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Popes are called "the First" even if there is not yet a second. The name of the article should be changed. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the Vatican Italian language site it says "Habemus Papam Franciscum" [[16]]--PeregrinusW (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont agree... On German TV during the inauguration ceremony they all addressed the new pope as Francis 1st. Logically... Its a clear signal and important to refer as Francis of Assisi (which is the name giver) was a rebel and purist who liberated and reformed the Catholic church peacefully during his time... no other pope before selected this name. User:ElJay_Arem
Popes are always given an ordinal number. Even it they are "the First".Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francis of Assisi

Is this actually confirmed? I've heard various reports that it was after Francis Xavier, which would make more sense consider he was the co-founder of the Order of Jesuits. Do we have any confirmation about which man he chose the name for? Morhange (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't think this is factual, just speculation, because many people think "of Assisi" when they hear Francis... User:geerlingguy (talk)

Yes, I think, its Francis of Assisi and not Francis Xavier... I just followed the discussions of the specialists and highest member of Catholic Church with live broadcasting on German TV.... and they all referred to the Franciscan Order. One of the speakers was a journalist of Vatikan Radio/TV and she same referred to... User:ElJay_Arem

Edit request on 13 March 2013

Liberation theology Bergoglio is an accomplished theologian who distanced himself from liberation theology early in his career. He is thought to be close to Comunione e Liberazione, a conservative lay movement. [edit]Abortion and euthanasia Cardinal Bergoglio has invited his clergy and laity to oppose both abortion and euthanasia.[3] [edit]Homosexuality He has affirmed church teaching on homosexuality, though he teaches the importance of respecting individuals who are gay. He strongly opposed legislation introduced in 2010 by the Argentine Government to allow same-sex marriage. In a letter to the monasteries of Buenos Aires, he wrote: "Let's not be naive, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God." He has also insisted that adoption by gays and lesbians is a form of discrimination against children. This position received a rebuke from Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who said the church's tone was reminiscent of "medieval times and the Inquisition".[4] [edit]Church and AIDS Main article: Roman Catholic Church and AIDS His doctrinal orthodoxy emphasizes Christ's mandate to love: he is well remembered for his 2001 visit to a hospice, in which he washed and kissed the feet of twelve AIDS patients. [edit]Social justice He consistently preaches a message of compassion towards the poor, but somewho? observers would like him to place a greater emphasis on issues of social justice. Rather than articulating positions on matters of political economy, Bergoglio prefers to emphasize spirituality and holiness, believing that this will naturally lead to greater concern for the suffering of the poor. He has, however, voiced support for social programs, and publicly challenged free-market policies. [edit]Relations with the Argentine government See also: Dirty War On April 15, 2005, a human rights lawyer filed a criminal complaint against Bergoglio, accusing him of conspiring with the junta in 1976 to kidnap two Jesuit priests, whom he, as superior of the Society of Jesus of Argentina in 1976, had asked to leave their pastoral work following conflict within the Society over how to respond to the new military dictatorship, with some priests advocating a violent overthrow. Bergoglio's spokesman has flatly denied the allegations. No evidence was presented linking the cardinal to this crime.[5] [edit] Mmhmbop (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Little early for this, isn't it? In any event, your proposed edits are non neutral and unsourced, and are unlikely to be included. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request includes information that is potentially monumental. I strongly encourage you, Mmhmbop, or other editors interested in adding content on the Dirty War to please seek out good references if these claims are indeed verifiable! That would mean the world to me and my family. Eekiv 19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was initially surprised to see this much material summarily deleted (it was present since 2005), but it makes sense to remove it from the main article given the lack of citation. However, it does make sense to leave them on the Talk page for re-inclusion once people provide supporting citations. Given his location, I would expect most useful citations to be in Spanish or Italian. For example, here's a citation for the foot-washing event: <http://www.zenit.org/es/articles/cardenal-argentino-lava-los-pies-a-enfermos-de-sida>. English-language searches turned up nothing earlier than 2005, when the unsourced material was added.

not elected on 14th

its still 13th of march, even in iraq time zone 85.26.186.107 (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assisi or Xavier? Or some other?

Article says he took the name of St. Francis of Assisi. I believe that but need a citation (that I can read). Otherwise, might not St. Francis Xavier, cofounder of Jesuits, seem a reasonable assumption also? --Kbh3rdtalk 19:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the citations link to anything that says he selected St. Francis after Francis of Assisi. Can this be cited to something that states exactly which St. Francis? Why not the Jesuit St. Francis, after all? Seems like a good guess, Francis of Assisi, but, really are BLPs made of guesses?

If this is confined to registered users, please, to the registered users, stick with facts that you can cite. -69.225.10.37 (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CBS is currently saying that it's Assisi. CNN's blog originally stated that it was Assisi, before the comment was removed. Xavier has also been brought up, according to some other editors. It looks like no one knows for sure at the moment.--xanchester (t) 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that it's more important to be right than it is to be quick, and it's more important to be verifiable than it is to be right. --Kbh3rdtalk 19:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CBS is also spelling Assis, "Assissi." I agree with Kbh3rd, especially with news events where it has been found out that news sources, probably not CBS one hopes, get their information from Wikipedia. If we don't know for fact from somewhere else, let's not include it until we do. Simple, even if Assisi is probably a good guess, we're not here to report our guesses or prove our cleverness, it's just the facts that we can tie to reliable sources. . -69.225.10.37 (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

20:04pm GMT The BBC, EWTN and Vatican Radio are all saying that no announcement has yet been made about WHO he has named himself after. there are many possibilities. The guesses of presenters and journalists from big USA TV News broadcasters like the CNN carries no weight. Can I suggest we delete the guesses about his name and wait.

Anruari (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The media is going to point to Francis of Assisi because he is well known to people outside the church (like the media, in general). Francis Xavier is a co-founder of the pope's own order, so it is very hard to believe that the pope does not have Francis Xavier in mind. The great thing with names is that they can mean many things at the same time. Benedict XVI cited several reasons for choosing his name, and I can say the same about the names I gave my own kids. Let's cut out any speculation, even from the media, until we hear the pope give his own reasons. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the best course of action right now is to wait for something that qualifies as reliable.--xanchester (t) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its Francis of Assisi and not Francis Xavier... I just followed the discussions of the specialists and highest member of Catholic Church with live broadcasting on German TV.... and they all referred to the Franciscan Order. One of the speakers was a journalist of Vatikan Radio/TV and she same referred to... User:ElJay_Arem

I would be doubly wary of citing CBS's assertion of Assisi. I watched the CBS webcast of the announcement, and the monsignor they had on the air assumed Assisi, with no documentation, as soon as the name was announced.

NOT the first non-European

The List of Popes proves that. Anyone who re-submits that false claim should have it autoreverted. Just an FYI. --JohnDBuell (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The last pope outside of Europe was Gregory III from Syria. --Zimbabweed (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

spelling

The following edit should be made: "conformation" should be "confirmation" and "Papem" should be "Papam" in the cite for the reason for "Francis". Collect (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

references

The references section is doubled! Teemeah 편지 (letter) 19:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Statements

In the minutes before editing began in earnest on this page, I noticed a great deal more topics under the heading of his views, many of which likely would have been seen as controversial. The majority of those have now disappeared. Please consider checking out older versions of this page, and re-adding those statements or views.

I've noticed the same, it's been shrinking by the minute. This absolutely should be reverted!212.64.14.89 (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; the article is already having positive stuff removed and negative stuff added. I am not Catholic but I am already noticing some less-than-flattering edits being made. A few minutes ago, the article contained a story about him ministering to 12 AIDS patients and even kissing their feet. Now, that's gone...and the section on homosexuality has been edited to include a quote from Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner claiming that Francis I's views on homosexuality are reminiscent of "medieval times and the Inquisition". Does someone (who's more knowledgeable than I) want to tackle those? I think the story about his ministry to AIDS patients is a lot more relevant to his biography than hyperbolic criticism from an Argentinian politician, but maybe that's just me. NathanDahlin (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section about the Dirty War allegations needs to be looked at. It's sourced to an LA Times article that makes it clear that no specifics were provided as part of the complaint, and that Argentine law has a very low burden of evidence for that stage of the process. I just heard this fact cited on NPR so we should think quickly about whether WP:DUE is being followed here. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Dirty War allegations were made 8 years ago in a lawsuit. There is no evidence that the suit was ever persued and it was not made by any well-known human rights group. It has not been picked up by mainstream media in recent reports. I suggest therefore it be taken out and only put back if it receives media attention. TFD (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm checking to see if I can find any other sources now, but if there are none, I concur. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, looks like there's more to this story. Take a look here: [17] and [18] Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that many of the things removed lacked any citation. Please find the citations and then re-add the text with citation. See the hospice example above. You'll probably need to search in Spanish.

Article name

The name of the new pope should be "Francis", not "Francis I". Popes who take names that have not been taken by previous popes do not bear a number. John Paul I was a an exception to this rule. Please refer to list of pope's names provided here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes. Notice that pope Landus, elected in 913, was the last pope--except John Paul I and Francis-- to take a name not previously taken by a pope, and he does not have a number. Also, refer to the announcement of the the cardinal Protodeacon, who gave the name of the new pope without the number.

Thanks. 71.6.42.66 (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. please move the page to 'Pope Francis'. He becomes 'Pope Francis I' only when there is a 'Pope Francis II'. The Discoverer (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I agree won't be Francis I until there is a Francis II.--KTo288 (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also think Francis I is incorrect. The only pope having the I in his regnal name was John Paul I, but the number was included in the name as it was announced as Ioannes Paulus Primi. Skortzy (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not correct. Not only is there precedent that Pope John Paul I used a regnal number, but the pope himself has tweeted that he will use the regnal number [19]. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note, Bergoglio tweeted this on his personal account, not the Vatican account. [20] --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with no number, as per my comment in the above section on the name. LCS check (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All old examples are from before ordinals were invented, so theygive no clue. The rule is to use an ordinal, but we should read the official statementsfrom theVatican to see if your idea about an unprecedenced use of no ordinal is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.136.61 (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2013
My vote is that the number is wrong regardless what the Pope calls himself. There is only a "I" when there is a "II". All the other popes whose names were not used again have no number. Queen Anne of Great Britain is never called "Anne I". Queen Elizabeth I was just "Queen Elizabeth" until 1952. CasparRH (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this move would be non-controversial, so I deleted Pope Francis I to allow for moving the article under the proper name. The circumstances were urgent, and the translation was incorrect -- it is Franciscum, not ordinal I. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. He has referred to himself as Francis I on Twitter. He decides, not you. Grsz 11 20:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not our place to decide. It is the prerogative of the new Pope to decide how he wishes to be known; so we should use the same name that the Roman Catholic Church uses and not try to twist the facts. This article says Pope Francis I. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 5)Just a comment but the Vatican seem to be referring to "Fracis I" [21] --wintonian talk 20:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The catholic herald is not the official catholic church, and the news.va site clearly was hasty in their post and even typoed his name, we can't really consider that a reliable source. wxwalsh 20:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, but if we can't call the Vatican a reliable source for papal elections then who is? --wintonian talk 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to rush around, stick with the title as it is for now until it becomes clear what he intends to call himself.--KTo288 (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So we seem to have a bunch of editors who have decided what ought to be (no regnal number) and have zero sources backing them up, and we have several sources using the regnal number, including the pope himself. The pope's tweet clearly falls under WP:SELFSOURCE. Please bow to the sources and use the regnal number. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. No Regnal is the rule until we have a reliable source saying otherwise. The twitter account is non-verified, and not a reliable source, the vatican's news site contradicts itself, and has hastily pushed out news. So we need to wait for the dust to settle and see what the official vatican statement will be on this. Until then, the long standing precedence is the best choice, no regnal number. wxwalsh 20:23, 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)[reply]

SJ

How likely is it that Pope Francis will retain the SJ suffix? I would imagine not, but can't cite anything yet. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 13 March 2013

In the lead paragraph, please expand the following:

Francis is the first pope from outside of Europe in more than a millennium, the first from the Americas, and the first from the Southern Hemisphere.

To this:

Francis is the first pope from outside of Europe in more than a millennium, the first from the Americas, and the first from the Southern Hemisphere or the Western Hemisphere.

Articulant (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like tautology. The Americas are in the Western Hemisphere. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 20:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, he is the 265th successor to Peter, which means he is the 266th Pope... --151.27.46.185 (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. He's not the first from the Western Hemisphere. My fellow countryman Pope Adrian IV was certainly born in the Western Hemisphere, and may not have been the first either - there have been at least four others, since part of France and all of Spain and Portugal are in the Western Hemisphere. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticity of twitter account

Have you verified that the account @JMBergoglio truly belongs to him? There are several twits in that account that would lead to believe it's a fake, and it's been used as the first reference in the article. forgot to sign EOZyo (мѕğ) 20:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the @Pontifex account is the more reliable source. It is the verified Twitter account of the Pope afterall. Xeltran (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I'm pointing it out because the above it's currently being used as first reference EOZyo (мѕğ) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do bear in mind if people haven't already WP:ELPEREN --wintonian talk 20:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lando

Think we should mention that he is the first Pope to take a completely new name since Lando in 914, John Paul was originally taken by combining the names of the previous 2 Popes as tribute to them.

first non-white?

How is this the case? This New York Times article reports that he was born to Italian parents who emigrated to Argentina. I have no further info on his parents' races, but that sounds like he is of "white" descent [whatever that means] to me. I should stress that I don't personally care either way, but if we're going to say he's the first "non-white" pope we need some evidence. Frumptydoo (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non White??

The first para lists him as non white. Why? His ancestry is Italian. He is from Argentina (a country who's population is overwhelmingly white. I hope this is not simply north american jingoism that everyone from south of Texas is mestizo.66.178.230.34 (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Francis&oldid=543917830"