Talk:Theology of Pope Francis

Start of a new article

As discussed at The Talkpage of Pope Francis I have forked out this new articles simply by copying Pope Francis, subsection on Teaching. This is of course just to give this article a start. I will leave it to other more informed editors to do the real work.

When working on this article please also look at Pope Francis#Teachings to make it leaner and simpler since there now is a main article on the subject of Pope Francis teachings, just as there is one on the former Popes teachings.

Happy work everybody Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Is anything from this weekend worth including

I was thinking that there might be statements he has made this weekend worth including. The way some people speak about it, it seems there might be some theology derived from his washing feet in a prison, but that might be a bit harder to show. Here [1] is a Washington Post article on it, but I am not sure we really get Francis' views enough to include anything here. We mainly hget the reactions of people who don't like his actions, and statements from others that what he is doing is OK, but no clear explanation of his own thoughts on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

4 volumes of Francis' work to be published by Ignatius Press

Here is a press release [2] about four volumes in Spanish and later English translations of Pope Francis' teachings, specifically addresses given in 2005, that is planned.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Speech given in Quebec City

In 2008, he gave a speech in Quebec City about the Eucharist. This speech contains many valuable insights into his eucharistic theology. So this would be good to add into the article as a source. [3] 132.208.158.85 (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple issues, 8 August 2013

The references need a complete overhaul – use Template:cite web. (I was 90% finished and lost my work.) DBD 21:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Subject is more general than title

This article delivers more than than title promises. I'd suggest changing the title rather than creating articles for separate topics. Theology is basically religious ideas. The article also covers Francis's ideas in all areas, including social policy and sexual morality. I'm not sure what to call it: "Theology and policies of Pope Francis"? Pol098 (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Although Catholics also philosophically see morality as rooted in natural moral law the knowledge of which is accessible to people without requiring religious beliefs or faith, Moral Theology is a major branch of theology, and this finds application in specific personal and social contexts. A potential problem with your proposed title is that sometimes moral or religious beliefs which the Church has consistently taught and which orthodox Catholics believe the Church teaches infallibly, are regarded by others as changeable current "policies" (often because of activists' hopes that the "policies" can be changed). But in most cases this is specifically at odds with a Catholic understanding of the nature of the matter. Another idea for the article title would be "Teachings of Pope Francis". --70.226.161.25 (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Aparecida Document

The section on the Aparecida document presents a very unbalanced view of its content, with subsections focusing on Contraception, Celibacy, and the Obligation of Catholic Legislators to follow Church teachings. The document's introductory summary lists quite different concerns:

a) To be a lively Church, faithful and credible, which is nourished from the Word of God and the Eucharist.

b) To live our being Christians with joy and conviction as disciples-missionaries of Jesus Christ.

c) To form lively communities that nourish the faith and encourage missionary action.

d) To value the diverse ecclesial organizations in a spirit of communion.

e) To promote a mature laity, steward in the mission of announcing and making visible the Kingdom of God.

f) To impel the active participation of women in society and in the Church.

g) To maintain our preferential and evangelical option for the poor with a renewed effort.

h) To accompany the youth in their formation and search for identity, vocation and mission, renewing our option for them.

i) To work with all the people of good will in the building of the Kingdom.

j) To strengthen with audacity Family and Respect Life Ministries.

k) To value and respect our Indigenous and Afro-American peoples.

l) To advance in the ecumenical dialogue “so that all may be one”, as well as in the inter-religious dialogue.

m) To make of this continent a model of reconciliation, justice and peace.

n) To be stewards of creation, home of all, in fidelity to the project of God.

o) To collaborate in the integration of the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean.

The disjunction between the article's sections, with their focus on sexual morality, and the broader themes of the Aparecida document seems to call for a major revision of that section of the article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The Aparecida document's list of themes covers a wide range of topics. Since Bergoglio acted as editor of the document, each section of which was voted on by the assembly as a whole conference, it is difficult to tell which of the items in the document reflects Bergoglio's own theological point of view. It may be safe to say, however, that those sections which Bergoglio cited in his later writings reflect his own theological expressions. I looked over the footnotes in Pope Francis's Evangelii Gaudium and found that he cited the following sections of the Aperacida document:

§12 (against the routinization of religious practice),

§201 Calling priests to a state of mission and away from mere administration,

§§262-264 (six times) on the value of popular spirituality to the Church's mission,

§360 on the important mission of communicating life to others,

§370, §548 on the need to go out as missionaries rather than passively waiting inside church buildings,

§380 that nothing human is alien to the mission of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ,

§551 on the need to be permanently in a state of mission.

The themes Francis selected here from the Aparecida document clearly reflect the issues he wished to raise in Evangelii Gaudium, yet they provide an indication of the issues raised at Aparecida that were important in his thought. These sections (and those he may have cited in other works) provide useful starting guides for revising the discussion of how the Aparecida document reflects Francis's thought.

I am particularly struck by Francis's frequent citation of Aparecida on popular spirituality, which Austen Ivereigh considers, in his recent biography The great reformer: Francis and the making of a radical pope, to be central to an understanding of Pope Francis. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Theology of Pope Francis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130808200003/http://www.dominicasanunciata.org/794/activos/texto/wdomi_pdf_8799-uZODCPoyPESwuCgs.pdf to http://www.dominicasanunciata.org/794/activos/texto/wdomi_pdf_8799-uZODCPoyPESwuCgs.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Has his theology developed during his papacy?

When I turned to copy editing this article on Pope Francis for the Catholic portal in June 2017, I found that all but a few of its references were to the time prior to his appointment as Pope. I suggest that his adjustment to his more universal mission should be reflected, unless the article is to emphasize "What the Cardinals knew of Cardinal Bergoglio from his work in Argentina." I have tried to give it a post-2013 focus since all the major lines of his theology, as pope, have been adequately covered in the media during his papacy. Also, this is not an article on the history of his actions during his papacy; its focus is his theology ("understanding") that has underlied these actions. Jzsj (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Clarification through italics and bolding

I note that an anonymous editor has removed much of the emphasis which I found very helpful in this article. My understanding is that the style of an article is to be respected unless it clearly violates Wiki policy. I've restored the sparsely-used italics and bolding before I continue editing the rest of the article. Italics, as in the intro, is to indicate the section titles. And where I used bolding for topics that run only a few lines I suggest that this is appropriate by way of exception, rather than creating a separate section for each topic. Please advise me as to what Wikipedia policy you are following in this removal of italics and bolding for section topics. @82.53.216.6: Jzsj (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The anonymous edit seems to follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which says boldface should not be used for emphasis, although it does accept limited use of italics for emphasis. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This style page allows for "occasional exceptions", and I would think that such a "common sense" exception might include where the words "emphasized" and "papacy" would be bolded in the intro as extensions of the title itself. Jzsj (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Theology of Pope Francis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Doctorg (talk · contribs) 18:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jzsj:I'm starting this review now, please reply to my comments below as you continue to work on the article so we can keep a good record of the communicaiton flow. Thank you for working so hard editing this article. I'll try to keep my review organized using the same headers as in the article. Doctor^G  (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Overall

Please do a complete review of punctuation; there ar many places where commas should be used. Doctor^G  (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I've finished checking for commas throughout; I hope this satisfies. Jzsj (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Make sure quotations are used consistently throughout the article, and make sure that all qoutes have quotation marks around them. It appears that many of the indented sections are quoted without using quotation marks.  Doctor^G  (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I only noticed a few, I think you took care of these.

I've used block quotes consistently. The indented quotes are block quotes in the Wiki style. Jzsj (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't come across block quotes very often on Wikipedia, thanks for teaching me something new.  Doctor^G  (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Make sure references are used consitently throughout article.  Doctor^G  (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe this is the case; please point out where it is not. Jzsj (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I have addressed this below with the parethetical referencing discussion.

Considering NPOV, is there anyone in the Catholic church that disagrees with the views of Pope Francis or the changes he is making? These should be included to show all viewpoints. Doctor^G  (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I think NPOV here has to do with what Pope Francis thinks, that it is properly represented, not what others think of his ideas. It goes without saying that there are all sorts of people who would disagree with various things he's said and done, but that seems to me to be matter for another article. @DoctorG: Jzsj (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I beg to differ with the nominator here. To understand not only the nature, but the impact and influence, of the Pope's theology, explaining a little bit of how it has been received, both positively and negatively, would be very helpful. Display name 99 (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

If this must be done then I strongly advise that it be done in one section at the end. In general, it's Pope Francis who is disagreeing with the heavy brunt of Counter-Reformation traditions, many of which were revived during the previous 35 years. If you start welcoming anyone who wants to disagree on the basis of other theologies, I suggest it will ruin the article whose singular focus is on the newness of Pope Francis' focus on Jesus' example rather than on recent Church traditions. I suggest that another article might be written on the reception of Francis' theology in the Church, and to do justice to that would take a longer article than this one. I can write a small section for the end, but where will it end? @Display name 99: Jzsj (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jzsj: I think there are a few ways you could do this. You could add a little bit of content at the end of each section where some dissent exists. Or, as you proposed, you could add one section at the end with some content on the reaction or response of the Catholic church as a whole. I agree that this page shouldn't turn into a theological debate, but the fact that Pope Francis is trying to turn the Catholic church in a new direction (at least partially) has almost certainly stirred up some dissent among some log time Catholics. So, some content that speaks to this would hlep provide the NPOV balance that is required on Wikipedia.  Doctor^G  (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't all have to be dissent either. Just a little bit about the impact that his approach is having, how its affected the Church and the world, and how people have reacted to it in various ways. Display name 99 (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

What are all the numbers in parenthesis at the end of so many sentences? Are these references to something else?  Doctor^G  (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The answer is at the end of intro and at the beginning of the references section, and it is explained in the intro. If you know of a better way of handling this, please let me know. I've bolded these if you think that helps, but was previously admonished to use less bolding in this article. Jzsj (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest changing the citations to Evangelii gaudium from simple paragraph numbers (45) to appropriate refs (EG 45), this pattern is already used for citing Laudato si, as LS and could be readily extended to Amoris laetitia, as AL and other important examples of his theological writings. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This would make it a little more clear. Sorry, I missed your note at the beginning of the reference section. Doctor^G  (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Since most of this article is based on LG, I was hoping to get by without putting "LG" into the 58 times that LG numbers are listed. @SteveMcCluskey: Jzsj (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jzsj:You'll have to forgive me, I am ordained on the Protestant side of the house, so I am not as familiar with Catholic terminology. That being said, Parenthetical_referencing is perfectly fine if you want to use it. The confusing part for me, initially, was that there was just a number without any association to the overall document that was being referenced. Your note in the lead and reference sections cleared this up for me, but it may confuse other readers as well. Might I suggest you do something like, (Evangelii Gaudium 2013, para. 20). I think this would be more accurate to the Wikipedia parenthetical referencing style. You could also remove the note in the lead and reference sections if you make these changes. Most of the changes could be made with copy/paste and only take a few minutes.  Doctor^G  (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

In interest of keeping this organizaed, let's keep this conversation going at the end of this section. Doctor^G  (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind withdrawing my nomination of this article if it needs substantial changes for becoming a "good" article. I think the breadth of the topic requires a concise style, to keep the article within bounds for proper length. Admittedly, one needs to read all this matter slowly and thoughtfully, since there are so many different ideas to present. It's a huge topic! @DoctorG: Jzsj (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jzsj: This is a very well written article, I would not withdraw it. I think you already addressed some of my initial thoughts. This is only the second review I have done so I am learning along with you about this process.  Doctor^G  (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I still think that NPOV deals with properly representing what the article is about, what Pope Francis has said and done, not what others think about what he has said and done. That said, I can add a section at the end which mentions the most disputed points in his theology, but a lot of this is hinted at in his own statements and my intros. The chief areas of dispute would be on sex matters, with some emphasizing the "intrinsic evil" of abortion as if it trumped all other voting issues. Also there's Cardinal Burke and others who oppose Communion for remarried Catholics. And there are more fundamental differences like whether to rely more on scholastic theology or on the Bible for one's theology. But here we're opening a whole new can of worms. I don't think we need to get into any of this if we limit this article to what is proposed in the introduction: entirely about Pope Francis, a neutral point of view presenting his understanding of the various topics that are most distinctive of his thought. As to further labelling of EG quotes, if there's a consensus that we need to put "LG" into all the inline citations then I'll do this but doing more the 58 times these occur would make a mess of the article. @Display name 99: @DoctorG: Jzsj (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the citations, Wikipedia does have a policy that different styles of referencing should not be used in the same article; see Parenthetical referencing for the details. This article currently has footnotes and parenthetical citations, which is probably the real root of this discussion. I realize it is a little bit of work to standardize it throughout the article, but changing everything to one style or the other would really be the best way to address this issue. Doctor^G  (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Please tell me where there is a rigid policy expressed by Wikipedia that one can never use any in-text references when endnotes are also used. I do know that this would add 58 footnotes and this seems to me to go against their "common sense" policy. @DoctorG: Jzsj (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The place where different methods are discussed is Wikipedia:Citing sources, and I read there: "imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit", but it uses an argument from easy of reading, not from rigid policy. I suggest that the dual method makes for easier reading here so that one does not constantly have to check the endnotes for the two main sources in the article (EG; and LS limited to one section). On a limited check I've found some support for my "mixing styles" in a couple "featured articles": Ode on a Grecian Urn, Conatus#In Spinoza, and Ten Commandments in Catholic theology. @DoctorG: Jzsj (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jzsj: Unless I misundersood everything I have read (which is very possible), I see this mentioned in item 2 under the "assessing the article and providing a review" section of Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, the lead section of Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines, and in the lead and consistency sections of Parenthetical referencing. There is also a mention in Citing sources that full citations, listed as footnotes, are the most commonly used citations in Wikipedia articles. I am happy to help you do some copy/paste operations in the artilce to standardize these if you like, just let me know. Doctor^G  (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't find any "consistency section" in the article on Parenthetical referencing and in the article on Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles item 2 doesn't say that mixing methods of citation is entirely ruled out, while the intro there gives the main matter to be checked: "Good articles meet a set of minimum standards (the Good article criteria) for quality of writing, factual accuracy and attribution, broadness of coverage, stability, and appropriate use of images." I see nothing here about method of citation, but the strongest argument in my favor is that the featured articles I list do somewhat mix the two types of citation: please note that, and the criteria for good articles are less than that for featured articles. Again, I repeat what I said above that without incontrovertible evidence that there is never any reason for mixing citation methods I would like to maintain the in-text citations just adding an "EG" in each of them and thus making it clear to the reader from the start what is being cited. The alternative would be to mention before all 58 EG quotes that the quote is from EG, and I don't see many people arguing that this is preferable to what I have now. Please check out the following: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and Wikipedia:Common sense on courtesy. Thanks! @DoctorG: Jzsj (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I mis-linked the parenthetical referencing one, didn't realize there were two, try this one: Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing. Though, it does seem we are at an impasse, so maybe bringing in someone else for their opinion would be a good idea. Display name 99 (talk · contribs), any thoughts on the way citations are used in this article?  Doctor^G  (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe that the use of footnotes for the Evangelii Gaudium citations is the best solution, as the current format seems remarkably inconsistent and tedious. It also makes for difficulties and inconsistencies when citing parts of other encyclicals. Also, there are no authors listed for any of the citations. For any article, especially a good article, I strongly recommend that they be added. Otherwise, the citations look fine. Display name 99 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you call it "remarkably inconsistent" and "tedious" and overlook the three "featured" articles I mention, in which the two styles are mixed. What I am proposing is like inline-attribution-plus-page in parenthesis, as recommended in Wikipedia:inline citation#In-text attribution. Far from being tedious I find this the most elegant way to handle such a huge volume of references. What if I respond to your objections by placing all quotes from Pope Francis' own works (no commentary) in parenthetical parentheses and give complete citations for these in a section "Direct citations" before the endnotes section. I agree that this should be done at least for the EG and LS citations, and would be willing (but not anxious in cases of singular references) to add all citations that pertain to his own works rather than someone else's commentary-with-quotes (like Vatican Radio). @Display name 99: Jzsj (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jzsj:I'm not sure what else to say about this piece of the discussion. I asked someone else to step in, just in case I was way off base, but we seem to be in the same place as before. I saw the featured articles you referenced, and your argument there is a good one. But we also don't know when the parenthetical citations were added or if they existed before it was a featured article (I didn't take the time to dig into it). Standards have also changed over time and it's possible they became featured before some of the attempts at stadardization were undertaken. At any rate, we still need to resolve the concerns about this article. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that the article use the same stylenof references throughout and I think the Wikipedia pages I previously cited say the same thing (or at least allude to it). Doctor^G  (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Please note what it says about Wikipedia:Featured articles. If you don't think these article remain as exemplars then it seems to me that you should propose their demotion, not disallow others from imitating them. I don't think we're going to resolve this without going to a higher authority. While you say your references allude to an absolute I say they are not speaking about an absolute, and we happen to have a special case where their generalities don't apply. @DoctorG: Jzsj (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the Wikipedia police, I'm just trying to help as much as I can. Your suggestion isn't a bad one, maybe someone will take the time to look at those articles later. Perhaps the best thing to do, since we have beaten this dead horse for quite some time now, and one second opinion has not helped to resolve the impasse, is for me to fail the article, then you can immediately re-nominate it for someone else to review it. Let me know your thoughts on this and I will take care of it. Doctor^G  (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Could I just withdraw the proposal rather than presenting it as a failed article? If not, then please do fail it and if possible give your reason as simply the dual method of referencing: that's all that really divides us in the end. Thanks. @DoctorG: Jzsj (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the proper method is to go the fail route so we have a complete record and so the next reviewer will know to look at the complete discussion here. I will cite the referencing disagreement as the reason. Doctor^G  (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the NPOV, I see your point and partially agree with you. I think the goal of the article is a great one and I don't want it to turn into a theological debate. Can we really say it is a neutral point of view about what he has said without including the responses/reactions of others? I think adding the section at the end that covers the topics you proposed is a perfect way to do this.  Doctor^G  (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I will devise something for the end if no one else responds to this, but I still don't agree that we need to include criticism of what he says with accurate portrayal of what he said. It still seems to me that we are confusing two issues here, and the criticism by others is not the primary thrust of NPOV, which concerns more the fact that I am impartial and back up everything I attribute to him. Do you not see the critical difference here? @DoctorG: Jzsj (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jzsj: So maybe not criticism, because that could certainly lead down a very long path. Maybe just some general reaction and impact would provide the needed balance. It could even include good reaction and impact; i.e. There has been some mixed reaction to Pope Francis' thoughts on X, some Catholics have said... Doctor^G  (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll do something in this regard when I have time and when we get the citation issue resolved. @DoctorG: Jzsj (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I've gone over the article with a view to adding some evaluation of his theology and I don't think this can be done without raising POV questions and welcoming endless debate as to what "people" think of his theology. I suggest that his own remarks quoted in the article again and again imply that there is much that is a reversal of direction here, and that he is in disagreement with very much of what has gone before (and persists in the Church: people are not likely to change in mid-life). Time magazine, quoted in the article, may put it best to respond to the question of reaction: "What makes this Pope so important is the speed with which he has captured the imaginations of millions who had given up on hoping for the church at all. People weary of the endless parsing of sexual ethics, the buck-passing infighting over lines of authority when all the while (to borrow from Milton), “the hungry Sheep look up, and are not fed”. In a matter of months, Francis has elevated the healing mission of the church – the church as servant and comforter of hurting people in an often harsh world – above the doctrinal police work so important to his recent predecessors." It goes without saying that many have not just turned around and changed, but to estimate the extent of pushback and evaluate opposition seems to me to be a topic for another article: this is simply an article on his theology, regardless of what people think of it. The original suggestion here that this violates NPOV seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what NPOV means. Thanks for your careful consideration of this! @DoctorG: Jzsj (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jzsj: I think I understand your point, but the reason why this balance is so important is because of the weight his statements carry. His words have an impact on over a billion people. Adding some content that references some general reaction and impact would be helpful. I would expect the same for articles about any other major leader in the world. Also, please don't get upset with these discussions, I know it can be frustrating having your work critiqued, but talking this out makes the articles better. As a side note, I really like what Pope Francis is doing and I have personally ministered with some charismatic Catholic leaders who also love what he is doing. I hope he is able to accomplish much of what he is trying to do. Doctor^G  (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm mulling over the possibilities. As you say, the evaluation would have to be balanced and present both sides. I'm not against exposing the push-back he's experienced within the Catholic Church, to the extent that this is necessary in an article about his thinking, not about his supporters and adversaries. I suppose if the pros and cons got out of hand we could turn it into a separate article. But I want to settle the issue of the two distinct kinds of references before settling on evaluative comments. @DoctorG: Jzsj (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Morality as a vehicle of God's mercy

Should change "gay" to homosexuality or something similar.  Doctor^G  (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Francis has used the term "gay" several times, so it doesn't seem inappropriate to use it here. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is innapprorpiate, and since the focus of the article is on the theology of Pope Francis, using his language is probably the best way to present it.

Church leadership

I suspect this is an area where there are some dissenting views.  Doctor^G  (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, this article is not a debate about his theology but simply his own, distinctive views. One could take exception to just about any of them, but the article is already quite long and I question whether dissent must be registered in the article. Jzsj (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

We're discussing this in other sections so I'll strike it out of this section to keep things organizaed.  Doctor^G  (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You got me at a busy time when I'll be travelling the next couple days. Please give me a few days to respond to corrections. @DoctorG: Jzsj (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with this. I await specific directions on further changes. I see my original ellipses had been changed, and the punctuation around quotation marks is consistently British style, so I'll leave those alone. I've bolded the two explanations of in-text references to Evangelii Gaudium, but please remove the bolding if it seems inappropriate. I favor succinctness, on references and in general, but am open to exigencies. Jzsj (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Article has been failed due to the inability to gain consensus on whether or not parenthetical references and footnotes should be used in the same article. I recommend, for any future reviews, that the referencing style be looked at to determine if it is within Wikipedia standards or if it needs to be modified. There was also some minor disagreement on NPOV, but that seems to have been settled. Overall, this is a well written article that I think is very close to GA status. Thank you, @Jzsj: for working to make Wikipedia better. Doctor^G  (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Original research

The article seems heavily based on primary sources, with sometimes half a section or more without any secondary sources. To me it seems that the article arranges Francis' writings in some strange fashion, picking quotes here and there, to arrive at some original synthesis mostly without providing the secondary sources we need for interpretation. Some random examples:

• Right in the lead: The focus here is on salient features, what he emphasized during his papacy, what marked off his pontificate as special or different. - all too often it seems our editors' interpretation what's salient and what marks his pontificate as different.
• as verified by his later words and actions. - that should either be removed or supported by a seconary source.
• And he was addressing all Christians when he said: - source? Francis himself doesn't say whether that's addressed to Catholics, to all Christians, or to mankind at large.
• Francis was schooled in the Spiritual Exercises of the Jesuit founder Ignatius of Loyola, which immerse one in the life of Jesus - no source other than a translation of Ignatius of Loyola himself, and even if there were a source, that's a statement of opinion, not of fact.
• “The old question always returns: ‘How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods, and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help?’ ” (187). “To speak properly of our own rights, we need to broaden our perspective and to hear the plea of other peoples and other regions than those of our own country” (190). - I'm pretty sure I can quotemine Francis to quite a different effect.
• He mentions the need for solidarity (14x) and dialogue (25x) to counter widespread indifference (7x) and selfishness (4x). - Why those word counts? Why not "He mentions the need (94x) for solidarity (14x) and dialogue (25x) to counter (1x) widespread (4x) indifference (7x) and selfishness (4x)"? The secondary source does not say word counts are indications of importance; it does not mention any word counts.
• He spoke of pastoral customs that become a protocol which instead of welcoming distances people from us. - "us"? Francis speaks for himself or his Church, not for "us", certainly not for Wikipedia or for me.

There are also some WP:Words to avoid, such as "points out". Huon (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your proposals. I've made changes to respond to all of them. I have also added numerous secondary sources to embellish on his own words; these point out the distinction between his words and previous understanding in the Church. That said, please note that the article is not primarily proving that Pope Francis' theology is different but rather exposing what that theology is, with an emphasis on what is different rather than on what he shares in common with recent Catholic theology. Jzsj (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Article does not cover critical response

I am quite interested in the topic of the article and was going to do a GA review, only to discover that a major part of the subject matter has been completely omitted: the critical response to Pope Francis' theological views. I have noticed that this has extensively been discussed in the failed GA review, but I have not come across any convincing reasons not to include critical response as part of this article. I also have noted that little, if anything, was corrected to the article in the previous GA review. If you are nominating for GA review, you should be able to make adjustments.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Again, I suggest that to do justice to the critical response to Pope Francis' thought would require another article much longer than this one. One need only follow the daily news to find that almost everything he says or does will have its naysayers, especially among the many Catholics who are very dedicated to Pope John Paul II and not interested in further implementing the Second Vatican Council. Francis has brought a sea-change in the Catholic church, resuming implementation of the return to Scripture called for by Vatican II, and true assessment of his theology will have to wait until the next papacy, to see what survives of the immense newness of his theology and of his approach to the papacy. Jzsj (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That is not acceptable. An encyclopedia article is per definition a critical overview of a topic, shown from different sides. Besides, do Pope Francis' ideas not manifest the clearest when he's responding to his critics?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• He usually does not address his critics, only past traditions which are implicit in the way he expresses himself. Please check articles on other theologians like Thomas Aquinas or philosophies like scholasticism if you think that articles on a topic must include criticism of the topic itself, which is Pope Francis' theology. "A critical view of [the] topic" here is an accurate presentation of what he actually holds; all we can demand is a critical view of what his theology is, without any misrepresentation. Jzsj (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

...if you think...

Jzsj, it is not only my opinion to include critics, as can be seen from the past GA review. My point is that the article will improve if you add the context in which Pope Francis developed his theological ideas. This context inevitably includes critics.

You do not need to add a separate section with criticism, but you can add how his ideas were received, throughout the article, whether positively or negatively. It is not that much work, but you need more scholarly and sometimes news sources. As for the argument Please check articles on other theologians..., see WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The widely quoted statement "to not raise walls but bridges, to not respond to evil with evil, to overcome evil with good" is a text book example of the argument I am making: the strength of this statement is not only its theological content, but also the timing and the context in which it was made. It is also significant that the Vatican tried to downplay the political implications of the statement afterwards—this only shows how risky the statement was.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the mention of the bridges statement: somehow I'd overlooked it but have now included it in the article. Interestingly, it's hard to find any criticism of it, and this is true of most of a Pope's statements: opposition is implicit in how they speak, but open opposition, attacking the reigning Pope, is rare. It comes after their death, when I suggest this article will need a section on that topic. The criticism of Francis, what little there is, comes mostly from fringe groups that are themselves subject to even greater criticism: this progressive-traditionalist divide is acknowledged again and again in Francis' words and I see no need for more proof of it in the article. But let's hear from you here on contemporary criticism of Francis: most of it is implicit in the prioritizing of the abortion issue by most conservative US Catholics and their bishops, contrary to Francis' express desire to remove the focus from this prime issue of the John-Paul II papacy. Jzsj (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Jzsj, to be honest, I am not familiar with the subject enough to point out the critics. I am just here because of the GA nomination. I am just saying that writing how people responded to the Pope's statements will help improve the comprehensiveness of the article. Whether or not criticism or commentary should be included, depends on whether the criticism is featured in secondary sources, whether mainstream or notable fringe. I think it is unlikely that there is none. Positive reception of the Pope's ideas should also be included, of course, for that matter.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

On a more general note, if you want this article to be GA, you should be ready to add, delete and rewrite. My impression of the previous GA was that you felt the article could best be left unchanged in its current version, but I could be wrong.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• At this point I'd like to delete both nominations and not have the article go through the "good article" disputes that arise. I am most ready to add notable criticism but I don't think that's what writing a critical article on what Pope Francis believes is about. Do you know if it's acceptable for me to remove both nominations: I didn't see the first reviewer as being very experienced in Wiki (supra) is the reason that, after trying to respond to suggestions, I tried a second time. Jzsj (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Jzsj, it is possible to withdraw the nomination, if that is what you really want. It is not possible to remove the previous assessment. Personally, I don't think you should withdraw the nomination. If you are certain there is not much criticism out there in the sources, then so be it, but my point is that you do need to use all reliable and notable sources on the Pope's ideas and the reception of those ideas, even the sources that feature fringe or stupid opinions.

In fairness, it could be that others are of a different opinion than me. Another person might want do the assessment of the article under the scope you have set, or come with other conditions than me. So don't just withdraw yet.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your kind regard. Jzsj (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Suggested materials for inclusion

If you believe that ideas should be added to the article but want to entrust that to me, you can suggest the ideas here. I'm not denying your freedom to make changes yourself, but I hope that the article doesn't become bloated: it's already near the upper limit of usual article length (over 63,000 bytes). Jzsj (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I am glad you did not withdraw. Did you include the recent controversy about the Pope's foreword to a book about sexual abuse? In the country I live in, this was featured in reliable press reports. I remember there were some people who praised the Pope for it, while others criticized him. Responses were very varied. I think it should be included, since it shows the typical courage of Pope Francis to deal with controversial problems and not to flee from them.

• What country do you live in? I checked dozens of English Google references to the book and found no opposition to what he said in the foreword. Again, to keep the article focused, not the importance of the issue but the distinctiveness of Francis' contribution should be the criterion for coverage. Jzsj (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Try this and this source. More positive reports can also be found.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Again, I thought you meant that responses to his foreward were "very varied". Your references are to criticism from before he wrote the foreword, not to the foreword. I think that his "theology" on the matter is presently adequately expressed in the article, and it's very hard to find opposition to that. He humbly acknowledges his own learning curve, even as the church, psychologists, and people in general have gone through a learning curve on this beginning mostly in the 1980s. His personal theology appears even here, as showing Christ's compassion to the best of one's own understanding. Jzsj (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright, whatever the sources say, we write.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want to shorten the article, you should try to paraphrase some of the quotes given, per MOS:QUOTE. Currently, the article provides a little too many direct quotes, as can be evidenced by a 72 % score on Earwig.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Please help me in understanding this website: it appears to me to rate the likelihood of any one quote being in violation of the law. Are you saying that it estimates excessive use of quotes in an article? Jzsj (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You are right in saying that it rates the likelihood of plagiarism, but it is sometimes also used to show an article uses too many quotes, which might also get Wikipedia in legal troubles.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I was being offensive, I was just raising an example. If you are looking for additional sources, Jzsj, try searching on Google News and Google Scholar.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• It will take some time for me to do justice to this agenda, as I'll be away all next week. As I review the quotes I can shorten some but I think this is a special case where it's often important to hear Francis in his own words to grasp the spirit and newness of his statements. Jzsj (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand. On a personal note, I also edit religious Wikipedia articles and I have found Wikipedia's policies at time to be quite restrictive. But after a while, I have mostly started to appreciate these policies and why they are there. For what it is worth.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that I probably never should have nominated the article if I expected it to survive with all these quotes. Now people would have to go to the original to capture the full impact of what Francis is saying. So it goes. Jzsj (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay. The rule is there for legal and ethical purposes, to not to copy original content too much. I once got warned by another editor for too close paraphrasing myself—it is an issue on Wikipedia. I understand that this looks ridiculous with regard to religious sources, but on the positive side, summarizing quotes can help create a clearer narrative.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yet this paraphrasing means withdrawing again and again from clarity on precisely what he said. It places us one degree further from his real thought, which I would prefer to avoid by simply adding better and better connectives to smooth the way between quotes that allow him to speak for himself. I wonder what Wikipedia would say about that. It may be the "common sense" solution, that they recommend at times, to just carry more quotes. But if that's true, how do you convince the whole body of editors about common sense solutions at variance with general principles? Jzsj (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

"Paraphrase whenever you can—it's easier to quote rather than rework the wording to fit the point of the paragraph, but it's your job to make the argument. Use quotes for illustration, not because you can't think of any other way to say something." This is from an essay used for film articles (WP:RECEPTION), but it might be useful in this case. Ironically, I'm conveying this through a quote.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The benefit of paraphrasing is that you can add much more content in less space. So instead of quoting the Pope once on a particular topic, and leave it at that, you can find patterns in what he's saying in different instances, paraphrasing and sometimes quoting short phrases of particular creative content. This is illustrated well in the essay about film articles cited above, especially in the example articles given.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• The difference is that here Francis is usually not speaking about specific countries and incidents but is himself generalizing on what is the Christian mode of behavior as regards larger issues worldwide. But again, will others see this if it becomes a "good" article or will they rigidly apply what Wikipedia says in general.

I have checked all quotes in the article and I hope that in its present form it satisfies Wikipedia standards for good articles. I will be away from next Monday to Thursday but will tend then to further editing as needed. Jzsj (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I will take a look at the article as soon as I have finished the current one i am assessing. Thank you for all the hard work.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Controversies Suggestion

There are many controversies within the Catholic Church about Pope Francis' Theology. These should be addressed here as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NearlyMad (talk • contribs) 19:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

NearlyMad, I have made similar arguments above. I think it is most fruitful if you mention specific issues that are missing in the article, as the editors that wrote it respond well to specifics.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that you should be more specific on what needs to be covered as to differences between Francis and the previous two Popes, 35 years of very different teaching, mainly because they were working out of a traditionalist understanding based on scholastic philosophy and theology and Francis' teaching is closely tied to the New Testament. It's like saying that when you write an article on the Democratic Party in the USA you have to point out all its differences with the Republican Party: everything that is listed as distinctive in Francis' Theology is in contrast to the philosophical theologizing that preceded it, but that's not the topic of this article, as the introduction tries to explain. This article would entirely lose its elegance, proper length, and focus if you started drawing all the contrasts between Pope Francis and his predecessors. Francis is not looking for a fight with devotees of his predecessors but is simply laying out a new, more Biblical way of theologizing and letting everyone decide for themself if they can believe in it. Jzsj (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Jzsj, there may be a more pressing problem that needs fixing, and that is the use of primary sources. As you know, in Wikipedia policy, primary source material such as the writings of Pope Francis himself should be combined with secondary sources that take some analytical distance from these sources. I think you are well aware of this, as you have trimmed all the quotes quite skillfully and have added many news and other secondary sources. Still, the fact of the matter remains that the article is written from an insider's perspective at times. It may be worthwhile to check once more which of Pope Francis' writings are not referred to by secondary sources. I think the article has a few places where it is citing only Pope Francis and not any others.

Coming back to the topic of controversy, it may be good to do a full check on a reliable scholarly search engine such as Google Scholar to see if there are any topics left that have not been covered. When there are reliable sources, you can add the information. When anyone brings up any controversy involving theology, you have got all the topics covered. Just my two cents, anyway.

If you still want to do that GA, I can start it after I have finished the current one I am doing. (It seems no-one is responding to it, so it will probably fail.)--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• I have removed the proposal, since I don't agree that a person's own words are not evidence of what he believes, unless there's controversy on whether he said them. I really don't care whether the article is judged good, I just wanted to override the ugly "not judged good tag" at top. I personally disagree with Wikipedia's use of all the ugly tags: it seems kind of narcissistic to me, like we make more of our perfectionism than of the public's interest in the topics. If I had my druthers no tag would exceed one line or draw so much attention to itself, but simply give a link to where one wishing to improve an article might find out what needs doing. Thanks for the time you've invested in this but I don't see that it's worth pursuing any further. Jzsj (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• • • • Too bad, it seems to me you are almost there. Please note I am not saying that primary sources are in itself wrong, I am just saying that to prove you are not cherry-picking quotes—which I don't think you are—you need to show that the quotes you are using are in fact referenced to by other sources as well. Again, I think you have already done this in many parts of the article, but you might want to check whether there are any quotes that can be further backed by secondary cites.
      • So I am not saying you must remove any content, but rather, you need to prove its relevance in order for it not be challenged or removed later. A reliable news paper article or scholarly article should be referring to the same quotes you are citing, so no-one can accuse you of cherry-picking, that's all.
      • Finally, just a short response to say that I don't believe the "former good article nomination" shows on the article page if you are not logged in (which most Wikipedia readers are not). So most viewers of the article wouldn't have a clue what was going on with the nominations, unless they took a peek on the talk page. Which is rare.
      • A GA status is of course just another number, but it can make an article better, and also more noticeable, which can protect it more from vandals and biased editing. Usually, more people will start to protect or be stewards of the article once it is passed. But it is not the most important thing of course.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion to reinforce my selections with other sources. I agree that this is expected in Wiki and have added numerous references that reinforce my choices. Honestly, the media can also be accused of cherry-picking but the chief proof of the importance of a point to Francis' theology is his choice of words in expressing his thought, with the implication that this is something which Catholics have yet to learn. Jzsj (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• • • • • • Okay. Nice work finding the right references!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

New/forthcoming studies

Just thought I'd mention some new and forthcoming book-length studies of Pope Francis's thought that might be worth using in this article:

• Luciani, Rafael (2017), Pope Francis and the Theology of the People, translated by Berryman, Phillip, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, ISBN 9781626982529

• Borghesi, Massimo (2018) [2017], Jorge Mario Bergoglio: Una biografia intellettuale [Jorge Mario Bergoglio: An Intellectual Biography], translated by Hudock, Barry, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I read today that the Vatican Publishing House (Libreria Editrice Vaticana) has announced publication of The Theology of Pope Francis, a series of eleven books by eleven different authors, edited by Roberto Repole, President of the Italian Theological Association. Contracts have already been signed for English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Polish and Romanian editions. Details of the Italian edition are on the LEV website. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I spent the last week picking over the best books on Francis in the Rockhurst U. library. I'll keep on these as they become available there, and use interlibrary loan sparingly, when it seems most helpful. I find that on the basis of mention the main categories in Francis' theology are already in the article. I'll be working on the article in the next couple months as time permits. I hope that others who are very familiar with Francis' thought will make their contributions also. And I hope that the scope of the article expressed in the intro will be respected, or the article will soon become excessively long and unfocused. @SteveMcCluskey: Jzsj (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

POV Template

I'm pasting this discussion from User_talk:Awesomemeeos#Theology_of_Pope_Francis which explains the changes he wanted when he added the POV template to the article.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

You recently added a POV template to the article Theology of Pope Francis without an explanation on the talk page. The Template's instructions state, "Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies."

Would you please let us know what issues concern you so we can try to make appropriate changes. Lacking such guidance, we cannot address your concerns and the template may be removed. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Stevo, the POV for that article is from an extremely biased Catholic point of view. It directly supports the Pope's theology in its very Christocentric wording, and initially I found it offensive, as if it tried to claim that's the reliable way to non-Christians like me (I did make some minor edits to the article as well). Furthermore, most of the references are from Christian or Catholic sources, and especially the Evangelii gaudium (EG) and Laudato si' (LS), which are both primary references from the Pope. I was about to put the reason on the talk page, but I forgot about it, so I apologise for forgetting. — ^{they call me} AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 06:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll paste this discussion on the talk page for the record. Feel free to edit the article if you can find reliable sources discussing Pope Francis's theology. Off hand, I suspect there'll be few reliable non-Chrisitian sources on Francis's theology, but you're free to look for them. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The use of primary sources in this article has been discussed before (see Suggested materials for inclusion) and (see Controversies Suggestion). There are already many secondary news sources in the article, but there still is work needed. The article needs more of an outsider's perspective, which will help to improve both skeptical tone and better understanding of the article.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I just found this edit by @Awesomemeeos: which clarifies another aspect of his concern. He edited the discussion of Evangelium Gaudii to transform the discusion so that it does not assume the reader is a Christian; e.g., the phrase "we should find Jesus in others" becomes "Jesus can be found in others." This use of passive voice, and other changes in that edit, provide useful models for further edits to remove what he sees as "Christocentric wording." --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion to remove first person references, which inadvertently showed disrespect for the general readership. I think I have removed all of these from the article, changing them to third person. Jzsj (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Salient points for consideration

I am taking a closer look at this article, and I agree that it needs much TLC, to put it gently. My observations so far:

1. The preponderance of sources which all agree with each other. Mainstream news such as The Independent, Associated Press, CNN, NYT, together with the likes of America, Commonweal, and National Catholic Register. As a combined force, they paint a distorted, biased and sensationalistic picture of this topic. As a result, we will encounter very little criticism or correction for the views expressed here, and thanks to WP:SYSTEMIC bias, we have violated NPOV in a barely-detectable fashion: by simply ignoring the sources we don't care about.
2. The conformity of the text to the given sources. Now, given that the sources are bad enough, we should prioritize adding those of better quality. But that does not mean we will exclude what's currently included, and that means that we need to examine the assertions in the article for conformance with what the sources actaully say. And I have found several glaring contradictions within a few minutes. Sensationalistic or outrageous claims need to be considered critically, attributed if necessary, and removed otherwise.
3. As noted above, the article is an absolute quotefarm. I understood the enormity of it as I edited. This is not the venue to analyze, unpack, and/or quote his encyclicals. This is the venue to collect and curate reliable secondary sources and what they say about Francis. We use their analysis, and we are deceiving ourselves if we think that a direct quote can stand on its own, rather than doing the work of finding scholarly analysis and paraphrasing it.
4. The citation style is creeping away from the norm. We cannot use (EG 36) or (LS 42) if the established citation style is contrary to that. These in-text blurbs are vanishingly rare and more or less frowned-upon by Wikipedia, where the wikitext language allows us to put inline footnotes in vivid HTML.
5. The style is a bit weird. MOS:TENSE exhorts us to use present tense for most things wherever possible. This papacy is current and ongoing as of my writing, so all the more reason to use the present.
6. I agree with the above that we must consider our target audiences and this medium. This is not a churchy-people-reading-a-church-site. I'm especially looking at things such as the glib assertion--in the lede--that "With Vatican II 'the monopoly exercised by neo-Thomists in the church collapsed' and Christianity increased its appeal to non-Western cultures". You can't just drop that on a Hindu from Mumbai, he's going to want context and explanation, especially because of the very fact of Christianity's "increased appeal" to him.
7. The structure is likewise weird. Where did we come up with the ideas for primary sections? They're kind of all over the place, and they do not seem to cover Francis' beliefs in any systematic fashion. Maybe I am just balking at their nonstandard nature. I don't know. But it is certain that there are weird facts and assertions that come up in wholly inappropriate places, such as the canonization of Paul VI, or the Mafia "excommunication" incident.

• In summary, I do think that there are many useful nuggets to be found in this article, so I am not saying that we have a case of WP:TNT, but surely if it continues in its present state, it will be detrimental to the project. I am willing to offer my meager services to collaborate with the other contributors toward a higher quality article piece. Thanks all! 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

As to #3 above, I suggest that once we establish what the main points of Francis' theology are we should let him speak for himself if we want his theology and not how others twist and turn and critique the meaning of his theology. In some of what you say above I think you have another article in mind. Jzsj (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

As to #4 above, Wikipedia still allows similar citations as Parenthetical referencing and In-text attribution where such things as Biblical books and classical works are mentioned. Here it seems an elegant way to point to a work that is used more than 50 times throughout the article, making the source clear without repeatedly naming it. If we are showcasing Francis' theology, how can we do better than to follow his own emphasis in "a core document of this pontificate", in his own words "pointing out new paths for the Church's journey for years to come", while using footnotes to verify and elaborate on his emphases. In the Environmentalism section with only six references to the encyclical, I can agree that footnotes may be the better route. Jzsj (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

As to #1 above, my access in the past month to about a dozen books on his theology as reflected during his papacy is enabling me to further fill in and to substantiate the picture presented in Evangelii gaudium and in the full spectrum of media reports. Before contributing to the article I carefully examined Evangelii gaudium as the index to his thought (as multiple sources confirm that he intended it to be) and found this has held true. EG produced the categories in the article that still seem to me to be well chosen and reasonably ordered. If anyone disagrees with these or finds other major categories in his thought, please let's talk about it here. I have not opposed what are improvements in accord with the other points made. Jzsj (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, well, this article is rapidly becoming a glowing hagiography and has precious little to do with theology. It is not worthy to be called a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does not rely on "letting our subjects speak for themselves". We are not a quote farm. We use quotes minimally in order to convey what reliable secondary sources say. primary sources such as EG should take a back seat to the secondary ones which do analysis for us. We cannot rely on the documents he wrote and hope that they will create a neutral or critically accurate article. Speaking of which, you heavily rely on many sources that fawn over the Holy Father and so there is precious little criticism or controversy included: a curious lacuna for such a high-profile figure's beliefs and teachings. This article has rightly earned its NPOV tag and is becoming worse and worse the more you dig into it. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jzsj: I really mean it about the quotes: You have no basis for disagreement. Wikipedia is not Wikisource: we are an encyclopedia. Articles are written by paraphrasing and distilling what the sources say. We don't copy-paste what the sources say and on the other extreme, we don't make up things on our own. Therefore, in order to prevent the unbounded growth of the quotes in this article, I will be excising them from future edits until you can control your own contributions in this manner. It would be nice if he could just "speak for himself" and we pasted links to his encyclicals and homilies and let people read the primary sources. But that's not why people come to Wikipedia, and we are doing a disservice to our readers if we expect them to plow through raw quotes without sufficient analysis and interpretation to make this a worthwhile article. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, per WP:CITESTYLE, you are not free to make up different styles of citation and interperse them alongside existing styles. We need to converge on one single maintainable style, and before you took a hold of it, this standard was inline footnotes just like the vast majority of other articles on the project. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Ad orientem

The source says: While some have spoken of celebrating the liturgy looking “to the East,” Francis today emphasized that “the altar is one of the visible signs of the invisible mystery, the sign of Christ the living stone.” For this reason, the altar is “the center to which the attention converges in all our churches.” now, the proposed edit analyzes this as saying Pope Francis denounces "efforts to turn the congregation's attention away from the altar" which is WP:OR, and extremely deceptive. In ad orientem posture, the altar is even more the center of attention! In versus populum, many complain, it's the priest who takes the focus, rather than the Eucharist or the altar. So I don't see how we go from Point A (statement in the source) to Point B (assertion in the edit). It seems very preferable to leave out the whole rationale, unless someone has a better source than a dissenting heretical magazine that twists doctrine and denies truth. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is the original speech where I find nothing against ad orientem or facing East or changing the altar around or anything. Francis has a perfectly lovely meditation on how the altar is the center of attention. It is America which has twisted this meditation into a polemic against ad orientem and very unfairly, at that. America is not a reliable source for Catholic doctrine or liturgy. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I am pasting a discussion which the anonymous editor initiated on my talk page:

No, Pope Francis doesn't speak against something. Read the source. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

[4] 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to our edit dispute in the Theology of Pope Francis. I will reply here and copy this discussion to the article's talk page. Theology of Pope Francis cites as its source an article in America magazine, by Gerard O'Connell, "Pope Francis says with magisterial authority: the Vatican II liturgical reform is ‘irreversible’." The relevant passage follows:

"After this general reflection, Francis went on to address some specific aspects of the Italian conference that focused on the theme 'A live liturgy for a live church.' 'The liturgy is "alive" because of the living presence of Christ,' he said. “'Just as without a heartbeat there is no human life, so too without the pulsating heart of Christ there is no liturgical action.'

"While some have spoken of celebrating the liturgy looking 'to the East,' Francis today emphasized that 'the altar is one of the visible signs of the invisible mystery, the sign of Christ the living stone.' For this reason, the altar is 'the center to which the attention converges in all our churches.'"

In O'Donnell's account, Francis was contrasting ad orientem to a focus on the altar. O'Donnell's account is a legitimate reading of the source you provided. If you want to answer O'Donnell, cite the original source in the article, but the Jesuit magazine, America, is a reliable source, even if you disagree with it. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

After writing the above, I came across your criticism of Jzsj for his excessive use of primary source quotations without using reliable secondary sources to interpret them. Seems like we have a problem of the pot calling the kettle black here. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that America is "a reliable source for Catholic doctrine or liturgy" since, unlike secular media, it is subject to control from Rome. Also, when referring editors to a Wiki page of over 5000 words, like reliable sources, it seems more sincere and is more helpful if we point to what on that page supports our allegation; otherwise the implication that others are not aware of the page is simply insulting. @SteveMcCluskey: Jzsj (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)