This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2013 papal conclave article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from 2013 papal conclave appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 3 March 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
-- Mario Soto ( talk) 23:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
So who are the papabili? Surtsicna ( talk) 12:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? Stalwart 111 08:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
Is the English version 'Francis' or 'Franciscus'? —WWoods ( talk) 19:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
Also, the protodeacn didn't open his annoucement with "Dear brothers and sisters". GoodDay ( talk) 12:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
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?
MilesFrmOrdnary ( talk) 21:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)