Jump to content

Talk:2013 papal conclave

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

Issues with the article

[edit]

Incorrect information, in this article it states: "If by the end of the third day a new pope has not been elected, the cardinal-electors shall take a day off for prayer and rest. Should the deadlock continue, a rotating schedule of three days of voting and one day of rest ensues until the 34th ballot. If no pope has been elected by then, a mandatory election takes place that consists of voting only on the two names on which the ballots immediately preceding had received the greatest number of votes.[78]

This is no longer true, instead: "A two-thirds supermajority vote is required to elect the new pope, which also requires acceptance from the person elected." (see Wikipedia: Papal conclave)[footnote Benedict XVI (11 June 2007). De aliquibus mutationibus in normis de electione Romani Pontificis (in Latin). Motu proprio. Vatican City: Vatican Publishing House]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johninvienna (talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a lot of speculative data and are unreliable. All reliable sources from this must come from Vatican references due this is Catholic Church only event, all other press releases or other information from secular places are no reliable specially from anticatholic sites.

Most of the information like that here seems that comes from people who do not actually know about how this works. There are no candidacy (no papabili or papable), no exclusions from Cardinals (as says from , no promotions or propaganda from any one, no democratic election and most important: THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL ELECTION and as so it does not affect others but Catholics around the world, and only Catholics, not all people around the world.

I will edit this document later with all references but I need you to understand that before any problems, as happened here before.

Here are some links with real and useful information. Please READ before do any changes. If you need further information please let me know in my user talk page (spanish or english prefered, or italian or portuguese that I have some understand but cannot write properly).

http://www.news.va/en/news/secretariat-of-state-communique

http://www.news.va/en/news/fr-lombardi-sj-sede-vacante-and-conclave-explained

http://www.osservatoreromano.va/portal/dt?JSPTabContainer.setSelected=JSPTabContainer%2FDetail&last=false=&path=/news/vaticano/2013/046q13-Comunicato-della-Segreteria-di-Stato.html&title=Comunicado%20de%20la%20Secretar%C3%ADa%20de%20Estado&locale=en

--Mario Soto (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is all nonsense. You lost all your credibility when you mentioned "anticatholic sites", which is ridiculous. Of course there are papabili and it quite clearly explained what that means. It means that there is a good reason to believe that that person will be elected. You can try to ignore it, but this election is a very political matter. I doubt anyone else seriously believes that the cardinals will elect with the help of divine providence or something like that. This is like claiming that the article about human rights in North Korea should only use official North Korean sources because it is a North Korea thing only and all other sources are unreliable and anti-Korean. That said, please do not remove properly sourced information without achieving consensus. So far, it does not seem that you convinced anyone. Surtsicna (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia and here we adhere to Wikipedia policies and not the laws of the Catholic Church. This article is not an official Catholic mouthpiece, we at Wikipedia report what is covered in all reliable secondary sources, not primary sources, not official Catholic sources, but secondary sources such as news outlets and books. Your efforts to reduce this article to the official Catholic party line will be met with much resistance and will ultimately result in your banishment from Wikipedia. I strongly suggest that you read WP:PILLARS and other policies on Wikipedia such as WP:NPOV and WP:RS to understand how things work here. I look forward to your collaborative editing and respecting the views of other editors here so that we can work together to improve this encyclopedia. Elizium23 (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please Ban me if I violated wikipedia rules, and please before you do that let me know exactly what I did.

When I say that This is not a Political Election, I mean that this has no Political Parties, groups inside the church, no Cardinals saying 'Hey I am a candidate' or others says 'We support that one'. Including this are Papabili. Will quote from Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." Unless you found a Cardinal saying that, any other texts are guesses from Journalists.

Also I quote from the same source: " Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources."

Again, when I write Anti Catholic I keep quoting from the same document: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest", in this case I emphatize the part "or have an apparent conflict of interest".

Now, from WP:NPOV I quote here: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements". There are opinions no direct statements from Cardinals, the only ones that can vote to elect a new Pope.

If this is a Catholic Conclave how vatican is not a full reliable source? WP:NPOV "Quote from Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements." I am not saying that you cannot present other facts as controversies from other media, I am saying that this media should be against, not fully included as statement.

As apparently not many read read the links I placed here is an important part of what a reliable source inside Vatican have to say about it, including Papabili. This following is from the first one:

"If in the past the so-called powers, i.e., States, sought to influence the election of the Pope, today there is an attempt to do this through public opinion, which is often based on judgements that do not capture the typically spiritual aspect of this moment that the Church is living.
It is deplorable that, as we draw closer to the moment that the Conclave will begin and the Cardinal electors will be held—in conscience and before God—to freely express their choice, there is a widespread distribution of often unverified, unverifiable, or even completely false news stories that cause serious damage to persons and institutions."

Has anyone read Universi Domini Gregis?

Well, this is the third time that I tried to fix this. I will not try further, maybe until this finishes. I am out of this.

PS: If anyone wants to discuss this you can reach me though my talk page. I will not further read this, maybe until finishes the Conclave.

--Mario Soto (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article also states at the end he was elected in the fourth ballot. That's wrong, it was the fifth. Just saying, too lazy to register and edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.197.220.159 (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Electors

[edit]

The only Cardinal among those that under 80 today that will not have a vote is Lubomyr Cardinal Husar, M.S.U. who turns 80 on 26 February 2013 and thus loses his vote on the 27th.--Dcheney (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Kasper, who turns 80 on March 5, could also be excluded since the conclave is not expected to be held until mid-March. Canuck89 (what's up?) 12:14, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure? I've read that the new pope will be elected by mid-March. Surtsicna (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the phrasing is they may not vote if they have turned 80 before the day that the Holy See becomes vacant. So anyone reaching 80 on or after 28 Feb '13 may vote in the conclave.--Dcheney (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the day of the papacy vacancy, but rather the conclave start date; see this, which clearly states that any cardinal over 80 at the start of the conclave is ineligible to vote. Canuck89 (have words with me) 12:28, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that was the phrasing of one part of one document, you may wish to read a blog post I wrote on this topic (with references) more than a year ago. When does a Cardinal become ineligible to Vote in a Conclave? (please remove if this would be considered a COI voilation)--Dcheney (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) In a case like this, the primary source with the official rules, trump any third parties reporting. Per section 33 of Universi Dominici Gregis, it is "those who have reached their eightieth birthday before the day of the Roman Pontiff's death or the day when the Apostolic See becomes vacant".[1] -- KTC (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, all cardinasl who are 80yrs or older at the moment Benedict XVI abdicates, will be unable to vote for the next pope. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"eightieth birthday before the day" mean they're still eligible if the see becomes vacant on their 80th birthday, not that any of the current cardinals are due to be 80th on the 28th I don't think. That was a change from Paul VI initial rules. KTC (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis_en.html

I see the 80+ age stuff on the Cardinal (Catholicism) page, but some details are missing. I don't think earlier conclaves had the case of a cardinal who was under 80 when the papacy became vacant and then turned 80 before or during the conclave. Cardinal Husar turns 80 before Pope Benedict XVI's announced resignation; Cardinal Kasper and 2 other cardinals turn 80 during March. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Papabili

[edit]

So who are the papabili? Surtsicna (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This term, or Prefiriti, is handled by media of who they think is the best to be elected as Pope. This is irrelevant to this document because other than media there are no other source in Catholic Church to this. Instead, there are sources that claims that there must not be this references. See Universi Dominici Gregis, #35, #36, #38, #43 to #48, #52 to #86. Just as an example. If something else found, please add into this section. --Mario Soto (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not irrelevant. Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources. Secondary sources mention candidates who are likely to be elected. Given that this is an article about an upcoming election, it can hardly be called irrelevant. Surtsicna (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant in the case that only cardinals elect among themselves. There might be media coverage but their guesses are not taken in consideration nor viewed by the electors. If any news agency, newspaper, tv show or any other media has its own "cantidates", this varies between each other and each has its own agenda. Have you read the way that the Pope is elected? Have you read the part where it says that Cardinals must not have any contact with the outside world when the election happens? Including all media or news. If that so, how can this be relevant if the Cardinals will not base their elections on any media presented list? All Cardinals can be elected, not only those that the media considers elegible. Most media includes a candidate for Africa. The election for an african Cardinal is unlikely but not impossible, due the time that the church has been actually present there. The chances of that happening as the media says is high, but really is very low. Not due skin color or any stupid thoughts alike, but heritage as explained before. --Mario Soto (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course media assumptions are not considered. It is silly to even point that out. It is also silly to assume that a Wikipedia article might influence the outcome of the election. The article does not say that the cardinals will elect a candidate suggested by the media, which is what you seem to think that it says. Surtsicna (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No Wikipedia article, but media itself. If the media is not relevant to election why set it here. The candidates are any Cardinal. In any case the list is included in the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_papabili_in_the_2013_papal_conclave and must not be listed in this document. --Mario Soto (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any baptised Roman Catholic man is a candidate. That is what the article quite clearly says. "Must" is a very strong word. What gives you the authority to say that the names of the cardinals "must not be listed in this document"? Names of those men are obviously relevant because commentators believe one of them may be elected pope, based on their accomplishments and policies. They are not random guesses. You have misunderstood the entire paragraph or are misinterpreting it. Stop edit-warring. Please achieve consensus before removing relevant and adequately sourced material. Surtsicna (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not any is candidate, but this is not a news stand, this is an encyclopedic article. There is no reference in previous document of this. This is not a contest of who wins, you rely undo my changes as a child. I've requested protection and review for this document. The content is not legitimate because is in newspaper, is iletigimate because is private practice and any outside Vatican documents or factual data is irrelevant. Please remove edition. Find legitimate sources not guesses. --Mario Soto (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are obviously not wild guesses. Read the sources. I cannot make heads or tails of the rest of your comment. You do not appear to understand the point of that paragraph, i.e. you are grossly misinterpreting it. Surtsicna (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article elsewhere on wikipedia listing papabili for this conclave. I prefer to keep some distance from it, and it would be interesting to review once we know who the new pope is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Benedict XVI will NOT participate in the Conclave

[edit]

Per Vatican Radio (sorry, I don't have a link yet - their web site is having issues.--Dcheney (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He can't anyway because he's overage. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, at 85, he couldn't have voted even if he wanted to. Canuck89 (converse with me) 12:54, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
That's correct, he'd have to be under 80 when he abdicates, in order to vote for his successor. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or enact a law that previous Popes regain their Cardinalate (which is not clear at all if I'm correctly informed) and are exempt from the 80 years rule.--131.159.0.95 (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to be a Cardinal in order to become Pope, so such a new canon law would need to promote the Pope to the rank of Cardinal if they weren't previously one. The Pope only ranks as Bishop. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The previous comment were regarding B16 taking part in voting for a new pope, not being elected to be one. -- KTC (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to be a cardinal to be elected pope, but you do need to be a cardinal to participate in the election of a pope. Plus, you need to be aged under 80. Benedict XVI will not revert to the status of cardinal when he resigns, that's been confirmed. So, even if he were aged under 80, he could not have helped choose his successor. But it seems to me that there's nothing preventing the cardinals from re-electing him all over again, because he's a baptised Catholic male in good standing with the Church. Obviously he'd decline, but it could still happen. Hypothetically. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 01:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conclave start date

[edit]

Is the start date really 15 March? Article 37 of UDG says that "the Cardinal electors who are present must wait fifteen full days for those who are absent," but if everyone shows up earlier, do they still have to wait? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakuchen (talk • contribs) 21:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely that they will all be able to attend. Several are not in the best of health and are unlikely, imo, to make the trip. (In 2005, two were unable to make the trip: Cardinals Sin and Suárez Rivera.) --Dcheney (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Today the director of the Holy See Press Office indicated that the Holy Father is considering the publication of a Motu Proprio in the coming days to clarify some points of UDG. _If_ the rules about the start date of the Conclave are to be modified - this would be the tool to use.--Dcheney (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should note that 15 March is both the Ides of March and this year's Red Nose Day: some people might see it as inauspicious. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that the actual name of the Mass held before conclave begins is "Pro Eligendo Romano Pontifice" (for the election of the Roman pontiff), at least according the the Vatican's summary of the 8th congretation at http://attualita.vatican.va/sala-stampa/bollettino/2013/03/09/news/30609.html#TRADUZIONE%20IN%20LINGUA%20INGLESE. I had made this change anonymously, but see it has been rejected. Petriedn (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirects for creation

[edit]

Put "13" in place of "05" and create new redirects:

2005 Papal conclave

2005 Papal election

2005 conclave

2005 papal conclave

2005 papal election

Conclave 2005

Conclave of 2005

Last papal conclave

Last papal election

Papal Conclave, 2005

Papal Election of 2005

Papal Election. 2005

Papal conclave 2005

Papal conclave of 2005

Papal election of 2005

Papal election of 2005 speculations

Papal election, 2005

Pope 2005

Possible papal election of 2005

Vatican election, 2005

Michael Hardy (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT? -- KTC (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

making the article look like all the others

[edit]

I added a chart from the previous one with some modifications. The term "pope emeritous" has been one of the titles proposed b the vatican for what to call Ratz once he steps down at the end of the month.Ericl (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That spelling should be "emeritus", and that is indeed what Benedict XVI became when he stepped down. There were many protocols to be worked out because of lack of precedent regarding retired pope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Any baptized male"?

[edit]

I don't believe the statement about "any baptized male" being eligible to be elected pope is accurate because the new pope must be ordained a bishop. In no part of the Catholic Church (western or any of the Eastern Catholic Churches)—nor, for that matter, in the Orthodox Churches, although they're not directly relevant—are married men ordained to the episcopate. There are limited circumstances in which married Anglican bishops who convert to Catholicism can be appointed as an "ordinary" for Anglican converts and thus exercise ecclesiastical authority equivalent to a bishop, but he will only be ordained as a priest. The canon law requires that the man elected pope must be ordained as a bishop (and, if necessary, as a deacon and then as a priest prior to being ordained a bishop). This would appear to exclude any possibility for a married man to be elected pope, as such a man would be ineligible to become a bishop.

I realize the cited source says "any baptized male." Does anyone know of an easily-accessible source that's more accurate? 1995hoo (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll cite the view of a canon lawyer on the topic Who can be eletced pope? --Dcheney (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to put forth another source verifying that any baptized male may become pope. You do not have to be a bishop. See this YouTube video, which is both informative and funny. Cheers! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One does not have to be a bishop to be elected, but has to become a bishop in order to assume the office.[1] Surtsicna (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Basil Hume 'rise through the intervening ranks' fairly quickly once he was given his Cardinal's title? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of your "rise through the intervening ranks" regarding Cardinal Hume (who died in 1999)? He was a Benedictine, and by the time he became cardinal in 1976, he was Archbishop of Westminster; concurrent with that, he became a cardinal priest, the usual practice for a man who heads a diocese outside of the province of Rome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Fix

[edit]

Could someone please fix whatever is wrong with the references? References are what I am the very worst at - I hate asking for someone else to do something so seemingly simple, but I always manage to butcher it, and this article is of substantial interest, right now. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone got it. The syntax for references is kinda wacky, that's why I use the citation helpers in the reference toolbar, makes it more like filling out a form. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post article, might have something useful

[edit]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/scandals-loom-over-italians-hoping-to-reclaim-papacy/2013/03/01/9a9647bc-82aa-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html?wprss=rss_world Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal electors from the UK

[edit]

The article currently states that 'Cardinal Keith O'Brien ... would have been the only cardinal elector from the UK'. See the discussion here under 'Armagh' as to where Cardinal Sean Brady should be designated as being from. Alekksandr (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, 2013 be merged into Papal conclave, 2013#Cardinal electors. I think it should be merged as the electors article covers everything that is in the electors section of the main article and just adds a list of cardinals. So if we can we can incorporate this list into the main article, as a drop down box list minus the images, it would make the cardinal elector article redundant GAtechnical (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger as 1. it would make the article too long and 2. other conclaves have similar separate lists. -- fdewaele, 6 March 2013.
How is the article too long with it's addition. The article is only 20K at the moment and would only be about 10-15k max by the end of the process. Also it's a clickable drop down box and does not make the article too long unless you click on the list, by which you obviously have an interest to have clicked on it. GAtechnical (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger It should remain a stand alone list. It is only a click away if people want to look at it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's too long, and would overwhelm the narrative of the conclave article. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not to long nor overwhelming when I'm proposing a collapsible list and as with oppose one. The article is 20K and will be 30k ish max. So not too long or overwhelming the narrative. GAtechnical (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger, for the reasons given above. But I would suggest as a practical matter of Wikipedia mechanics that all of the cardinal electors (not just the papabile!) have sand-boxed redirects in place, because one of these guys is going to become the next Pope and take on a new name, and that article is going to be slashdotted and protected p.d.q.! kencf0618 (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger As mentioned by others above, the article will become way too long to read. Adding the list and hiding it doesn't seem a good Idea to me. And a variation of that is what exactly is there now. Instead of a hidden list, there is a link to the list. I have two questions for you:
  1. I don't see any reason given by you for this proposed merger. You have mentioned what will happen if merged (the cardinal elector article will become redundant) but why do you think they should be merged? I can't think of any good reason to merge them.
  2. Are you proposing to merge Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, 2005 too? I mean if merging this article is reasonable, then all other similar article are to be merged too, right?
--Jayarathina (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This article is 41k, already long. The other is 29k, already approaching the rule of thumb of 30 to 50k. What's more, the list is long enough that the scroll length of this article would be too long, about double the current length. -Rrius (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not concerned about length per se, but the electors article is structured appropriately as a standalone list. There's no need to name them all here. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image proposal

[edit]

I noticed a nice image on some other language versions. For your consideration: File:Conclave 2013 by continent.svg. Cheers, Taketa (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a superior graphic, in my estimation, so I've used it. Thanks! kencf0618 (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Could Apostolica sedes vancans be added to the links, along the lines of Papal conclave, 2005? 122.59.249.222 (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent issue

[edit]

At least two items in the ref-list have multi-paragraph summaries about Air Jordan shoes. Anyone else seeing this? References 7 and 17... What's the fix? Stalwart111 08:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worked it out - something about this template:
{{registration required}}
Have removed both instances until I can work out what it was supposed to do. Cheers, Stalwart111 08:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone vandalised the template itself, thus vandalising the article and every other article it was in. Template fixed, template restored to article. All good. Stalwart111 08:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Results table

[edit]

The table was removed with the question of what value it adds to the article. After a pope has been elected, the value is zero, but I think for the pendency of the conclave, the at-a-glance information is of enough value to warrant temporary inclusion. What do others think? -Rrius (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francis or Franciscus?

[edit]

Is the English version 'Francis' or 'Franciscus'? —WWoods (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francis. 86.163.215.162 (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance at balcony

[edit]

Andybody have sources for Pope Francis' attire. He didn't wear his stoll the whole time & he didn't wear the post-conclave 'red' mozetta. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the protodeacn didn't open his annoucement with "Dear brothers and sisters". GoodDay (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He wore a stole during the blessing. Cresix (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many ballots?

[edit]

I've seen multiple news outlets and sources state that Pope Francais was elected after the 4th ballot, and just as many others say he was elected after the 5th ballot. Even here in this article, both numbers of ballots appear. The summary at the beginning of the article reads ″White smoke was witnessed at 19:06 local time, and the bells began pealing minutes after, on 13 March, following the 5th ballot, signifying the election of a new pope," cited from http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0313/376399-cardinals-to-resume-conclave-in-vatican/ (which does not indicate the number of ballots taken). In the "Day Two" section, it reads ″The fourth ballot ended with the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires. He took the name Francis, after several saints,″ which is not cited.

Isn't the number of ballots taken speculative at this point anyway?

The numbers for each count are speculative. The number of the ballot are not that much. There are 2 electons in the morning and 2 in the afternoon, usually. There are no place where says that there were 4 on 13th, but if it were at the 3rd, first in the afternoon, the white smoke would emerge before. This is not a real number but the accurary is not much questionable. 1 ballot on 12th and 4 on 13th, equal 5. Unless there are information against I guess that says 5 ballots is ok. --Mario Soto (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MilesFrmOrdnary (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mario, your estimate of five also is speculative. The process after the final ballot can be very lengthy. It's not a simple matter of the new pope putting on the white cassock immediately after the count is finished and walking out to the balcony. A lot happens between those two events. We have no idea how long it took. I don't know whether it was four or five, but we don't put anything in the article based on our speculations. Cresix (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting reports

[edit]

Italian newspapers (e.g., http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/conclave-23200/) are starting to leak alleged details about how the cardinals voted in the conclave, and other outlets are echoing (e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/world/europe/new-popes-piety-and-humility-aided-his-surprise-selection.html). This kind of information is included in Papal conclave, 2005. Should this interesting but unverifiable insider info be included here as well?Mgruhn (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let the dust settle. This is not a newspaper. We can wait for the wild speculation to be sorted out from reasonable, well-sourced information. Speculation generally is not included on Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This source has some information about voting, if no exact numbers: http://ncronline.org/news/global/path-papacy-not-him-not-him-therefore-him#.UUfBLAdBsek.twitter . --Coemgenus (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are these numbers correct?

[edit]

The article currently has this after my editing; previously I saw reference to 153 cardinals and 115 electors, and presumably the electors are a subset of the number of cardinals present at that 7th general congregation. Please correct this if I am wrong:

>On 8 March, 153 cardinals, including all 115 participating electors, attended the 7th general congregation,

Also, I had seen references to 115 electors; to this I have added "participating", to account for the 2 electors who did not participate in the conclave. Cardinal Husar had reached 80 two days before Pope Benedict XVI's retirement kicked in, so that left 117 electors. I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official Results?

[edit]

Can anyone find the official results of the vote online? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.36.162 (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only result that is revealed about a Conclave is who was elected Pope.--Dcheney (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're wrong. The person who gets elected is the person who gets the highest number of votes. Therefore, there must be an official vote count! Please find it. Thanks. --70.83.36.162 (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're wrong. The Cardinals are sworn to secrecy about the proceedings, and so the only vote counts are unofficial, illicitly leaked rumors that do not belong on Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Papal conclave, 2013. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Papal conclave, 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Papal conclave, 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_papal_conclave&oldid=1213065104"