Talk:Pope Francis

Pope Franics 2024 picture

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The current image is very outdated, and he looks significantly different now.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official portrait and those tend to be used when they are available and I disagree with the current image being "very outdated" as it is only four years old and we don't need to update it just so we can show the Pope looking more frail than he did four years ago.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

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.

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)

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

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.

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)

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

Perhaps some clarifying edits could be made:

First:

Under the LGBT section, it states: "Under his pontificate, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has confirmed that transgender people can be baptised and additionally allowed the blessing of same-sex couples in the document Fiducia supplicans."

It needs to be edited to say, something along the lines of, "... allowed the blessing of individuals in same-sex unions, but not the union itself."

Suggesting that Fiducia Supplicans allows for the blessing of "same-sex couples" is vague and is ripe for confusion, because it sounds as if it allows for the blessing of the same-sex union (which it does not).

Second:

This statement ("He has called on the Western world to increase immigration levels significantly") misconstrues the Holy Father's statements, and the articles it cites do not support it.

A more accurate statement that expresses the Holy Father's ideas on immigration would be: “While the Holy Father has acknowledged the right of nations to regulate migration, he has implored that such regulations must never undermine the essential dignity of the person." Source: Pope Francis supports U.S. Bishops in migrant advocacy - Vatican News

I've noticed there are lots of vague and misconstrued assertions in this article about the Holy Father's ideas, many of which seem to bend toward a political agenda. Kyleskopec (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

LGBT and Fiducia Supplicans section

We should keep the couples language because that was in the original document and the language most widely used by analysts/media but I think it is possible to add a sentence from the Aftermath section of Fiducia supplicans: When asked about blessings for homosexual couples, in an interview with 60 Minutes, Pope Francis stated: "What I allowed was not to bless the union, that cannot be done because that is not the sacrament. But to bless each person, yes, the blessing is for everyone."O'Donnell, Norah (17 May 2024). "Pope Francis clarifies his stance on blessing same-sex couples | 60 Minutes - CBS News". www.cbsnews.com. CBS News. Retrieved 31 May 2024.

Immigration

The sentence in the lead should be changed because it is a case of (reasonable) Original Research. Taking his words seriously would indeed lead to more immigration (into Europe and North America) but he seems to deliberately avoid saying that. I'm not a fan though of your proposed sentence, it is to whishy washy (it is a sentence that could have been said by Benedict 16.) We are looking for something stronger but also short and that isn't easy. Rolluik (talk) 00:33, 14 March 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)

I vote for the image Bakir123 suggested, as I personally think it shows the pope the best and works the best as an image of him. Although parts of the image are over exposed, I wouldn't say it's that much of an issue. The Last Words of Sir Winston Churchill (talk) 20:21, 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 from March 2016

I also vote for image 2, however I personally quite like this one, and I would vote for it if it were to be in option. 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)

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)

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)

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)