Talk:Pope Francis

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2024

Change "county" to "country" in the 3rd sentence of "Position toward China" SteijnBol (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Why is there no critical section in the article in relation to the theology, and other teachings, of Pope Francis?

Why is there no critical section in the article in relation to the theology, and other teachings, of Pope Francis - he is certainly not without critics in the Roman Catholic Church, these critics may be wrong - but to ignore them is not correct for what is supposed to be a reference article. Presently the article reads like a Public Relations handout - even stressing the "humility" of the subject of the article. This sort of praise is very much a matter of opinion. 2A02:C7C:E1BA:CE00:DDF1:C189:C89A:5C03 (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think editors are often just busy! You should write it! Middle Mac CJM (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Remember also that per Wikipedia:Criticism "criticism" and "controversies" or the like are not favored headings. These sorts of things are better handled according to subject matter not point of view -- in other words a section of Francis' view of theology would also describe notable critiques. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Pope Franics 2024 picture

could you update picture of pope Francis. JNOJ1423 (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I would definitely say the picture needs an update, his holiness has been looking a lot more frail over the last year Pikachubob3 (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree. I like this photo, or we can revert back to him waving at the camera while on his trip to South Korea in 2014/15. BRELMAAJ2024 (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Nvm forgot it. JNOJ1423 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I prefer the one shown here better than the current one and the one that was recently reverted. The recently reverted one just isn't a good image overall, and I honestly thought it was AI generated because of the shoddy quality until I inspected it further. The Last Words of Sir Winston Churchill (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I prefer the current one. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

He looks like he's not happy/pretending to be happy in that one. BRELMAAJ2024 (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The current image is very outdated, and he looks significantly different now. Not high res, and I don't know if it's the lighting, but it makes it look as if it was taken with a phone camera back then. I think it's best to change with a more recent one maybe with the one mentioned in this thread except for the fact that the bodyguards in the background taking significant real estate. Kaeez06 (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The current one is the best we have. It is an official portrait and those tend to be used when they are available and I disagree with the current image being "very outdated" as it is only four years old and we don't need to update it just so we can show the Pope looking more frail than he did four years ago.

In the current image, the Pope is front-facing the camera looking at the camera, in this photo, it seems as though he is looking at the crowd and not at the camera and is faced to the side. The official portrait has a clear background (excluding the statue) whereas in this photo, there are two bodyguards in the background who distract from the Pope. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, my bad I got the ages mixed up from the 2014 one, I take back what I said on it. Yes, I agree that weighing in the pros and cons of the photos we have available, I think this is our best choice. Kaeez06 (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that my choice to revert to the 2025 picture may not have been the best alternative, as it’s heavily cropped and overly processed. Also, I think it’s time we update the 2014 photo, he looks quite different now, and the image itself appears unprofessional for a 'papal portrait' which makes him look unflattering as if it was taken with a phone camera. I prefer the 2024 one where he’s waving; much recent in representing how he looks now and moreover he is oriented towards the text and has a more polished look except maybe the bodyguards in the background. Kaeez06 (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2024

Remove redundant text under International Diplomatic Role -> Russia and Ukraine. The article contains the following: Later, he described Ukraine as "martyred" and prayed for the victims of Russian aggression, but still did not directly criticize Putin or the Russian government.[493] but still avoided direct criticism of Putin or the Russian government.[494]

The second sentence is a restatement of the first and is unnecessary, one can just keep the first sentence and have two citations. SunGodAteMyChildren (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done - thank you and merry Christmas! ObserveOwl 🎄 (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

My edit

Greetings and felicitations. I just made a significant edit to the article. Please let me know if there's something about that edit that you would like to discuss. —DocWatson42 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Mention him being a bouncer, chemist or previous pneumonia

Before a trim by @Nikimaria (the other changes I support), the page used to include this:

"worked for a time as a bouncer and a janitor before training to become a chemist and working as a technician in a food science laboratory. After recovering from a severe case of pneumonia and cysts, he was inspired to join the Jesuits in 1958"

I think the article should include that he worked as a bouncer (because it is interesting, not something people think a recent pope did), and the previous pneumonia (because he is suffering now from pneumonia). I understand my reasons aren't the strongest which is why i didn't revert but I did want to start a discussion about it. Rolluik (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

This information is already shared elsewhere in the article, so I think we're good. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have just seen it in the Early life section. This topic can be closed. Thank you and thanks to Nikkimaria. Rolluik (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2025

Was. Not is 2600:1702:74A1:CB60:DDAA:A51E:C9CC:136F (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 16:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Current event Template

Should we add a current event template to this article, considering the latest news is that the pope's health is 'critical'? GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Not if he's lounging in an armchair, no. kencf0618 (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

"lounging in an armchair" is a bit of an understatement, but i agree that we should hold off on the template. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 21:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The Vatican has historically not been very forthcoming about the health of Popes. And considering that he is in critical condition and therefore in danger of death, saying he's lounging in an armchair is a gross understatement. I believe marking this as a current event would be appropriate at this point. MrJ567 (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

As per the the 40-minute press conference, Pope Francis is not "in danger of death", but is not "out of danger"; furthermore, he is not attached to ventilator and is expected to be hospitalized at least for the entirety of next week. That was 21 February 2025, 18:56 CET (UTC+1), i.e. yesterday, and he was in an armchair today, so... kencf0618 (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

That conference is outdated and took place prior to him falling into critical condition. Your description of his situation was a gross understatement; have the humility to recognize when you're wrong. MrJ567 (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

He's been "lounging in an armchair" for the past few years. He's a nearly 90-year-old man with double pneumonia and a pre-existing lung condition. There's a fairly high chance that he'll die in the next few days. That said, I'm not sure if adding a "Current event" template is appropriate yet; we're not exactly going to be getting hourly updates from the Vatican. Ships & Space_(Edits) 02:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Speculating on someone's imminent death, even if their health is serious, isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia discussion and just downright gross. If there are official updates on his condition, we can update accordingly, but let's avoid speculation. Kaeez06 (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

"The Vatican said the 88-year-old was alert and in his armchair, but required a 'high flow of oxygen and his prognosis 'remains guarded'." That's the BBC. He's not on his death bed yet, and WP:CRYSTALBALL. kencf0618 (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Shubhayanb85 added {{current person}}, but I have now removed it. We only need to add the template if the article is being heavily edited (i.e. dozens of edits per hour) due to some rapidly changing situation, and that is not happening on this article at the moment. Mz7 (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

In agreement with others. No need for such a template, at this time. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Unless the article is being heavily edited BECAUSE of the health issues or if he passes away, then an appropriate template would be required. --AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Name

How comes in some parts he is listed as Bergolio and in others Francis? Shouldn't it just be Francis? LootLlama7708 (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe that the guideline is to refer to him as Bergoglio when talking about his life before he became Pope, and to refer to him as Francis thereafter. - delta (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Main article photo

There's obviously a desire to change from the current photo, but no consensus has been reached nor a good discussion brought forth. For context, here is the current photo, taken in 2021:

• 

Here are some possible replacements from commons:Category:Franciscus in 2024 and commons:Category:Franciscus in 2023

• 
• 
• 

Please discuss below whether we should keep the current photo, or change to a different one.

I see the argument that the current one is out of date and he's not really smiling in it, but it is the most official looking and the most flattering; the others are not the best. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes but he is looking a lot older and more frail now, the photo should be more up to date Pikachubob3 (talk) 08:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Of these three photos, the photo on the right (from 24 June 2023) is the best, but it's still a bit outdated. Whatever is decided now, the older, more official-looking photo should probably be used after his eventual passing. — PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 08:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with it being the one that's most official looking. If anything, it looks unofficial considering the blurriness and overall framing. It makes it look like someone just waltzed up to him and asked if they could take a picture with their phone. I personally prefer the one taken in 2024 because of the overall quality, and it's the most recent one that doesn't look terrible. The Last Words of Sir Winston Churchill (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that nothing in the MOS says that a photo of a person needs to be recent. Of course it shouldn't be a photo from his youth, but there's nothing wrong with a photo where he weighs 30 lbs less. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I vote we keep the official image for the time being. We might want to discuss other images (such as File:Pope Francis Korea Haemi Castle 19.jpg) after his eventual passing, but we're not there yet. This image is clear, it's head-on, it's not particularly old, and it's representative. None of the alternatives proposed here are better. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 19:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Executive20000 changed the image to the middle one proposed above, but I have restored the original image. I agree with others above that none of the proposed alternatives look better than the 2021 image. Mz7 (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Although I agree with the idea of using a more recent picture of the Pope, I must admit that the current images on Wikimedia do not compare to the quality of the 2021 photo. Therefore, I support using the "older" image. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Rome reports as a source

Is Rome reports a valuable source? I used it in the Covid 19 section but apparently a citation was needed for this section until Feb 2025. Just wondering if it's useful or not so I can remove the citation or keep it Petrosm7 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is probably a wp:reliable source. The archives of the wp:reliable sources noticeboard don't contain any discussion about it but their about page seems good enough. Not the best source because they don't seem to have a reputation for accuracy (yet) but acceptable for the way it is used here. Rolluik (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism

Search for "because he has aids"

I suppose the editor could have meant "assistants" rather than HIV but looks like vandalism. I think it showed up after recent edit: 12:47, 26 February 2025 TheMuffinMan420 Delicious Edits (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted it. None of their edits are construcive, they should be blocked again. Rolluik (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

His papacy began on March 19, not March 13.

The papacy of Pope Francis began on March 19, 2013, when he was inaugurated. He was elected on March 13, but he was still the Pope-elect and NOT yet the Pope for several more days. Fix the infobox please. 192.42.55.22 (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The pope becomes the pope the instant that he accepts the election. Cf. Canon 332. §1: "The Roman Pontiff acquires full and supreme power in the Church when, together with episcopal consecration, he has been lawfully elected and has accepted the election" ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 12:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Well then, what is the point of the inauguration if he becomes Pope automatically? Are you sure that you're right about this? 192.42.55.22 (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure. It's a formal celebration and recognition, just like King Charles became king the moment his Elizabeth II died, not eight months later at the formal coronation. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia's responsibility

What is our responsibility regarding his recent bout of health issues? Sure, every day there is a new source updating the situation, but do we really need to report a play-by-play of his alternating decline and improvement? Details like the "inhale vomit" comment seems like the article is participating in the media sensationalism as we inch closer to the passing of a world leader, and that is not an unbiased methodology. Does anybody feel the same way as I do? TNstingray (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The citations stand. kencf0618 (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

We don't need to include every update, but it is nonetheless something important as a major and well-reported-on illness of a world leader. It should contain a general summary of the illness and its progression, as well as the most recent status. It might be slightly too detailed now, but it's not terrible. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

We can balance WP:NOTNEWS while still providing semi-regular updates. Concur with Darth Stabro. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

It's way too detailed. If the details of his inevitable death are that notable, we can make a separate article. But for the BLP this is easy to much EvergreenFir (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Your reductions look good. I still think the "inhale vomit" reads as sensationalism, but I recognize this is also the wording used in the attached sources so I don't know if we can extrapolate out a more technical term such as pulmonary aspiration, or leave it out entirely- "...suffered a bronchial spasm causing him to inhale vomit and require non-invasive mechanical ventilation...". I won't die on this hill. Thanks to all for the discussion and changes. TNstingray (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Jesuit image

The first image under Jesuit has very clearly been touched up by AI and is therefore not a particularly good representative of him at that time. 86.160.243.19 (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The image may have been airbrushed (it comes to us via the New York Post, who in turn got it from the pope's autobiography), but I don't see evidence that the image was so manipulated as to not be worth including. I also do not see any direct evidence that this manipulation was done by AI. Wikipedia features paintings of subjects, even though they will inevitably fail to represent their subjects in an objectively accurate fashion. It is only when an image strays into providing an outright inaccurate portrayal that we should be concerned. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)