Talk:2013 papal conclave

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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

]

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]

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]

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 decker^talk 01:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

I propose that

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

]

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]

Could Apostolica sedes vancans be added to the links, along the lines of

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130520104925/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jdZHOcOZFlHIouPmk3mCQSdW8Yww?docId=CNG.f367e8ca21c533982ac544839e4abb7f.31 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jdZHOcOZFlHIouPmk3mCQSdW8Yww?docId=CNG.f367e8ca21c533982ac544839e4abb7f.31
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://attualita.vatican.va/sala-stampa/bollettino/2013/03/05/news/30596.html
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://attualita.vatican.va/sala-stampa/bollettino/2013/03/06/news/30600.html
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://attualita.vatican.va/sala-stampa/bollettino/2013/03/07/news/30604.html
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://attualita.vatican.va/sala-stampa/bollettino/2013/03/05/news/30598.html

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.

• 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.—