Talk:Pope Francis

Main article photo

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.

---

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I see the argument that the current one is out of date and he's not really smiling in it, but it is the most official looking and the most flattering; the others are not the best.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Of these three photos, the photo on the right (from 24 June 2023) is the best, but it's still a bit outdated.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)

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.

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)

I think you are probably right EJD77 (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Death

pope Francis died at 7:35am Monday 21, 2025 according to AP press 76.149.19.70 (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

right after easter, huh? 216.184.66.99 (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I would like to add:

According to the CNN, he had a double pneumonia. His last meeting was with JD Vance. His doctor told him to stay inside, a possible other meaning to his death, his doctor saying, if he recovers so quickly, they will have to put on the brakes." 2407:7000:8E29:5600:0:0:0:1004 (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how notable the meeting with JD Vance might have been. But yes, I think the brakes have now been applied. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is brakes? 2407:7000:8E29:5600:0:0:0:1004 (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I assume his doctors meant "a general slowing down of activity". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Correction:

"According to the CNN, he had a double pneumonia. His last meeting was with JD Vance. His doctor, Sergio Alfieri, Dr., told him to stay in the hospital, a possible other meaning to his death, his doctor saying, "if he recovers so quickly, they will have to put on the brakes." 2407:7000:8E29:5600:0:0:0:1004 (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

He passed away at 7:35 AM Vatican Time, but that would be 10:35 PM Pacific Time which is still on Easter Sunday. A little confused on his death date still. 2603:8000:9E3E:7D3B:593C:6819:5AA3:E4DE (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Correct, he died at 0735 CEST on Monday 21st, so he died on Easter Monday, not Easter Sunday. MrSeabody (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

As Death and funeral of Pope Francis now states: "The last political official to meet with Pope Francis before his death was Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenković" although, as far as I know, he has not been subsequently branded as the Antichrist. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Mario Bergoglio - which region of Italy

The article says where the mother is from but not the specific region of Italy where the father’s from. Whether it’s North, Central, or South. It also should be included. M555333555M555333555M (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

17:48, 21 April 2025 (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 17:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Older image to be used?

As we all know, it is almost tradition to use younger pictures of the person that passed away, when they're relevant. Pope Francis was relevant as Pope from 2013, so I think we need to choose the main infobox image to be an image of his closer to that date. When his health was declining, I made the Category:Portrait photographs of Franciscus category on Commons, so y'all can take a look too. Here are images I propose be used

• 
  2014 Canonization image (1)
• 
  2014 Korea image (2)
• 
  2021 image (current, 3)

What do you think? I personally favor the second one. Nurken (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, looks good. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I vote File:Pope Francis Korea Haemi Castle 19 (cropped).jpg ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 13:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Shame the cross is cropped off, though? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I thought it'd be fine if he was just a little further away. Pope John Paul II also has a portrait where he stands a little further than most politician portraits, if I recall correctly. In this case, as the other user said, the cross is not cropped out too. Nurken (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe a wider crop then of the same image ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 15:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I now see that is image 2, which I support. It wasn't loading on my other device. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 21:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

That makes more sense lol Nurken (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I vote image 2. Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I second this, the second looks most professional QueenElizebethlll (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I vote image 2 as well, it's higher quality than the other two, and shows Francis just after his election, and before his face bloat that he had in his last years. FredMcKinley (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I put my support behind 2 aswell. It has the highest technical quality of the three. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Image 2 is my vote.

~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Image 2 is great. For those interested, the pin is for the Sinking of MV Sewol, nice to have a nod to his humanitarian tendencies. Mikewem (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

2015 image

Of the three, I lean towards number 2. Although the background is somewhat distracting. Number 3 seems to lack acceptable lighting for a portrait, and it is the worst of the three. After taking a quick look at the images in the Category:Portrait photographs of Franciscus on Commons, I would like to propose a fourth option to the editors, File:Franciscus in 2015 (cropped).jpg, although perhaps with a wider crop. Frodar (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Image 2 has my vote. Bakir123 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

2, good natural feel to this image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

image 2 I think we all agree that Francis stood out, and will be remembered, for his charisma and proximity. A picture of him smiling illustrates perfectly who he was. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

It's interesting how quickly Wikipedians were able to come to a consensus on this. Usually there's a couple thousand words of argument. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

There just weren't that many high quality fitting images anyway I think Nurken (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Image 2 looks the best to me. Francis blends into the background of image 1 a bit, and image 3 doesn't have as good lighting as the other two. Bowler the Carmine | talk 17:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Image 2: Includes more of the subject and adequate illustrates him. Better lit than other the options, in my opinion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Image 1: A bit of an odd vote out, but his canonization was when he entered into the broad public consciousness. I wish that the photo itself didn't have the "crust" that it does at the moment, but I think it's a fine image. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

No. The time when he entered public consciousness was when he was elected Pope in March 2013, which is supported by Google Trends. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 16:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

JD Vance

So JD Vance met him, wholly coincidentally, the day before his death. Does that really justify that image, with that commentary in the caption, in that section? Is this because Vance has become a Catholic? If so, perhaps the caption should be adjusted. It seems a bit awkward to associate the visit of Vance so closely with the Pope's death. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think that a photograph of JD Vance is warranted on Pope Francis' page. So much current controversy and this detracts from the whole page. There are so many far more worthy people that the Pope met that have not been pictured. Jayelaitch (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

It also kind of "trumps" his last public appearance, which was to bless audiences at Saint Peter's Square, a surprise appearance, which is not even mentioned? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC) ... in fact I think it spoils the entire article.

Agreed, I think it would be best if it was removed from the article. DrofnnuD (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Something like this is far better - Pope Francis appeared from the Loggia of Blessings overlooking St Peter's Square to offer a final Easter blessing. He waved to crowds in what would be his last public act before passing away the following day.

And remove all mention of Vance Jayelaitch (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree the image doesn't really add any value to the article. I went ahead and removed it. Bowler the Carmine | talk 17:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I thought it was kinda silly that it was there. If there is a photo of his last public appearance that we can use that should obviously be there instead. Raskuly (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Concur with Raskuly: if we get an image of his final public appearance, that's far more relevant to a global audience. Encyclopedically, Vance's meeting with Francis will be more a piece of trivia than one that represents him as a subject. However, I can see the image of Vance and the pope being something used on articles related to Vance and his vice presidency. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Pbritti here. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Common sense and decency prevail, the photo and mention of the meeting have both been removed. 👍 Jayelaitch (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Was JD Vance Responsible? 2A02:908:187:E801:912D:4A3C:8E46:3BFB (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? If you are suggesting that Pope Francis's visit with JD Vance was somehow linked to his death, there is no evidence whatsoever to support such an outrageous claim, and it is best for everyone if we refrained from even mentioning such claims in the absence of strong reliable sources for them. Bowler the Carmine | talk 16:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The IP might be asking a rhetorical question, essentially saying that unless Vance caused Francis's death, it's not a relevant image. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that would make sense. I've just been seeing a lot of conspiracy theories flying around this morning. Bowler the Carmine | talk 17:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Top Trump MAGA allies troll JD Vance over visit before death of Pope Francis, for your amusement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

"Pope Francis used his final public address to warn politicians against “stirring up” anti-migrant sentiment, hours after meeting US Vice President JD Vance." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Scandal

The child abuse scandal should be mentioned in the lede as it was the most controversial aspect of his papacy. 86.131.7.57 (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE would disagree with this. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Francis was personally accused of covering up child abuse, so this should be included in the lede. 2A00:23C5:C419:D301:68C2:CA24:6A72:555D (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The accusation remains largely unsubstantiated and has been widely regarded by scholars and commentators as politically motivated. As such, I don't think it meets the threshold for inclusion in the lead section of the article in adherence with WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE as mentioned previously. The controversy is already covered in detail within the body of the article, refer Pope Francis#Sexual abuse response. Kaeez06 (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2025 (4)

CET is UTC + 1 not UTC + 2 82.202.90.3 (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The article says CEST, which is an hour ahead of CET. Yeshivish613 (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Change image to this 2015 picture of Pope instead

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.

---

could you please change it to this image of Pope Francis in the year 2015 this one is better i like this one Wikitranslator1242 (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion above. This is definitely an inferior option due to the size, blurriness, and color. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

(Relevant discussion for those viewers who can't find what @Pbritti is referring to).

I agree with Pbritti this image is quite blurry. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 22:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Redundancy in the lead?

Hello, the lead says "...from 2013 until his death.". Earlier today I added "in 2025", which was reversed by supposedly being redundant, and another user did the same edit and it was reversed again. Other articles of people who held an office until their death (whatever the cause is) also mention when they died, such as:

• Pope John Paul II: from 1978 until his death in 2005.

• Pope Paul VI: from 21 June 1963 to his death on 6 August 1978.

• Pope John XXIII: from 28 October 1958 until his death in June 1963.

• Pope Pius XII: from 2 March 1939 until his death in October 1958.

• Elizabeth II: from 6 February 1952 until her death in 2022.

• Kim Jong Il: from the death of his father Kim Il Sung in 1994 until his death in 2011

• John F. Kennedy: serving from 1961 until his assassination in 1963.

Do we have to wait to put "in 2025"? It seems like the correct standard to follow in leads like these. Lucafrehley (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I personally prefer having the year included. Its succinctness allows for readers who are reading the first sentence to easily read and understand one of the most important pieces of information: how long and what time period he served as pope. Yeoutie (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. The year must be necessarily included so that the readers can provide more information from serving as pope until his death. It should be a correct standard for the lead. Migfab008 (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Stating the end date of the papacy in the first sentence is indeed standard. Here's the last ten popes (excluding Pope Francis):

Pope Leo XIII: "was head of the Catholic Church from 20 February 1878 until his death in July 1903."

Pope Pius X: "was head of the Catholic Church from 4 August 1903 to his death."

Pope Benedict XV: "was head of the Catholic Church from 1914 until his death in 1922."

Pope Pius XI: "was the head of the Catholic Church from 6 February 1922 to 10 February 1939."

Pope Pius XII: "was head of the Catholic Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State from 2 March 1939 until his death in October 1958."

Pope John XXIII: "was head of the Catholic Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State from 28 October 1958 until his death in June 1963."

Pope Paul VI: "was head of the Catholic Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State from 21 June 1963 to his death on 6 August 1978."

Pope John Paul I: "was head of the Catholic Church and sovereign of Vatican City from 26 August 1978 until his death 33 days later."

Pope John Paul II: "was head of the Catholic Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State from 1978 until his death in 2005."

Pope Benedict XVI: "was head of the Catholic Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State from 19 April 2005 until his resignation on 28 February 2013."

There is significant variability, but the year of death is usually mentioned. The exceptions are Pope Pius X and Pope John Paul I, the latter of which died the same year his papacy began. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 23:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thank you, I will insert it again. Lucafrehley (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2025 (7)

Change "When the Argentine club won the 2014 Copa Libertadores, he received all the team and the whole comission which give to him the trophy." to "When the Argentine club won the 2014 Copa Libertadores, he was visited by the team at his guest house near St. Peter's Square, where he was gifted a replica trophy and a glove of goalkeeper Sebastian Torrico. 2600:8804:200A:1C00:8CCC:216A:8884:2CAB (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done thank you. It turns out there's discourse on whether or not it was a replica, but it mainly stems from a NYPost article. All the more trusted sources say it's a replica so I'll go with that for now. Also it turns out the team planned to rename the new stadium after him dating to 2014, but I can't tell how far past a proposal that got. Mikewem (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Delete last paragraph in Legacy?

The entire last paragraph:

The sheer rate of change over the course of the pontiff’s tenure, which witnessed the legalization of same sex marriage in the United States and much of the world, the rise of social media, the reinvigoration of populist and far-right extremist movements globally, the American exit from Afghanistan, the COVID-19 pandemic, the rise of China in the global economy, and the largest conflict in Europe and highest number of countries engaged in conflict since the Second World War, distinguished his papacy from earlier administrations.

feels out of place to me. Not just in this section but in this article. The history of the papacy is very long and has witnessed many societal changes and this claim of exceptionalism feels almost like original research. Wanted to reach out for thoughts before deleting outright. Mikewem (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. The citation on the paragraph is a general history of events and doesn't pertain specifically to the Pope's tenure. If a reputable source was found that corroborated these claim in regards to the Pope's tenure, then that should instead be used. As it stands now though, it seems like a case of original research. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 03:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Every era has its own unique attributes that make the people living within it believe that things are radically or exceptionally different than at other times. However, in a several very exceptional ways, life has changed radically in the past 30 years in a way that it hasn’t throughout the rest of human history, simply because of the sheer pace at which information is being shared and produced, and the sheer number of people it’s occurring to. Notwithstanding the fact that the actual makeup of the soil has been different since 1945 CSGinger14 (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, apologies CSGinger14 (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m really pressed for time at the moment but several AP drawn sources over the past half decade have spoken about his struggle to communicate the ideas and values of the papacy to a public that simply didn’t look or perceive like the public of any other time in human history, in a way that was fundamentally changing the nature of the church. Do as you feel is needed, though I’d ask some effort be made to locate possible citations until I’d have time to provide them CSGinger14 (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

What you just articulated (the struggle to communicate) feels like a different point than is being made in the paragraph currently. And I think it could be a good point. The end of the second paragraph is a bit of a downer so I definitely am in favor of something else following it in a third paragraph. What is currently there isn’t “wrong”, it just feels very generic to me in a way that is not useful. It doesn’t speak specifically to his legacy. And it’s already covered by the first sentence in Legacy:

Francis reigned over a period of widespread change and reckoning within the global Catholic order.

Mikewem (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with deleting most, if not all, of this paragraph. Every pope in history has overseen changes in society. But also, what do smartphones, end of the Afghanistan war, etc. have to do directly with Francis? This same paragraph could be put in literally every world leader's article if events tangental as this warrant inclusion. Yeoutie (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

All of these are tied to specific events which represented his activism over the course of the past decade CSGinger14 (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The sourcing used is not connected to the papacy. This paragraph is making an evaluation and argument which we cannot do, originally, per WP:NOR. The sources must directly make that analysis and connect it with his papacy, before we can put that analysis in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The Vatican was necessarily a barrier to Chinese influence on the African continent, which nyt and Al Jazeera have noted in multiple reports. Anti-war and liberation activism made up the lion share of the work he performed during his papacy. The end of US involvement in Afghanistan marked the unofficial end of the security regime that had existed in the Middle East since Sept 11, which was another project supported by the Vatican on through multiple administrations. Mali could be considered a failure on the peacemaking front. Social media and the digital age fundamentally changed the nature of the pontiff’s work and the means by which he communicated his message to the public, as well as how that message was perceived by the public. Look guys I’m not saying god appeared but these are necessarily important changes to the way in the which the Vatican was administered over his tenure. Lots of popes have been the pope during a period of fundamental transition. Im afraid that people are moving towards this idea that the idea of exceptionalism has done so much damage throughout human history that we can’t possibly consider ourselves exceptional in any context. However, this era has been fairly exceptional, and I’d hope many of you would have realized that. Beyond that, I’d ask that there be more effort to attempt to source items before deleting them if you have the time, especially when this is page in particular is being viewed currently by hundreds of thousands of people every hour. If someone makes a point that makes sense, I’d hope you’d give them enough credence to look into their claim.

all the best- CSGinger14 (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Provide the cites that directly support this analysis connecting it to the papacy, there is no need for long posts on more of your uncited thoughts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Cause of death

The BBC, and other outlets, are still reporting that Pope Francis died of stroke and heart failure, while others - including the sources cited in this article - have reported circulatory collapse instead. Should this article mention both? OGBC1992 (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd say no, not until there is agreement between sources. The cause of his death isn't really relevant for this article, and can wait until verified. EmilySarah99 (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Isn't "circulatory collapse" what happens when someone's heart fails? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Dosen't seem there is agreement or even official confirmation on what the cause of death was, so until that happens I say it should not be mentioned. --AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Or no agreement? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Pope Francis

Pope Francis was Italian by birth, as were his parents. 76.90.187.128 (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

He was born in Argentina, as was his mother. Only his father was born in Italy. They were all of Italian ancestry, but this isn't the same thing as citizenship of a country.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

He was born in Argentina not Italy Wikitranslator1242 (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Then it should say that he is born in Italy, and not Argentina. He's Italian and not Argentinian. 2A02:908:187:E801:912D:4A3C:8E46:3BFB (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you know that Italy and Argentina are different countries? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

His dad left Italy to escape WW2, mainly during Benito Mussolini reign. 173.245.253.159 (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Did he go on to become Pope? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

What are you even trying to imply here? The other user pointed out the known fact that he was born in Argentina and then you go on to claim that he was born in Italy? I feel like you have some geographical misunderstanding here so maybe you should clear that up first. Kaeez06 (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes mate, looks like you don't know your arns from your negro. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Using racist terms such as Negro is not allowed on wikipedia. His father is Italian so he is also Italian. 2A02:908:187:E801:C4E:5ECA:8BF0:AE8E (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Not even when it's the name of a river? We have an article about it here. But apologies, it was a pun. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually he's Vatican. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Pope Francis could probably have claimed joint Argentinian, Italian and Vatican City State citizenship, but he is primarily regarded as an Argentinian citizen. Along with Diego Maradona, he is probably the most famous modern Argentinian citizen.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, also Divine intervention. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Awards and honors

Do you think it would be wise to split some content to make a new article about the awards and honors received by him? Perhaps something like the Jimmy Carter one or Barack Obama one. I don't know if it would be a sensible split so I'm bringing it up for discussion. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

If you are talking about the section entitled "Distinctions", it doesn't seem long enough to me to be worth splitting. Is there a lot not there that you think needs to be added? Or are you referencing something else? meamemg (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit request

Bergoglio currently redirects here. Please add a hatnote for Bergoglio (disambiguation) to handle this situation.

Please add

{{redirect|Bergoglio|other uses|Bergoglio (disambiguation)}}

"Bergoglio" redirects here. For other uses, see Bergoglio (disambiguation).

-- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for contributing. EmilySarah99 (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Theological conservatives?

In article is written:

Since 2016, criticism against Francis by theological conservatives had intensified.

Who are these "theological conservatives" and who is allowed to label any position in the Catholic Church in this way? A similar term is used in the article several times in different contexts, although it is not appropriate. This is probably under the influence of sources, which are usually politically oriented newspapers, which usually divide politicians into "conservative" and "progressive" - which also applies to writing about the Church, church affairs and people. I think that one should be careful when using these "political" labels, especially on Wikipedia, which aims to be objectively scientific and impartial. If we can say that only about a percent of Francis' moral teaching was controversial, while the rest was more or less in line with traditional Christian or Catholic teaching - then it is clear that we cannot just throw his critics among "conservatives" - which, on the other hand, is even a disqualification and an insult in political jargon. Therefore, such labels have no place in an encyclopedic article - regardless of the fact that daily newspapers and world media regularly use it.--Stebunik (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)