Talk:Pope Leo XIV

Ancestry, descent and nationality

Proposed summary

"Leo XIV is the first American Pope, the first Peruvian Pope via dual-citizenship, the first North American Pope, and the second (and second consecutive) Pope from the Americas." Citizens outside the United States know that "American" means from the United States. This is like trying to force a new word like "United Statesian" into the lexicon. What are we doing here? Bighardsun (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Latin Americans often have gripes with calling Americans, Americans, claiming it would cause confusion over which nationality of the Americas it would cause. In reality, in the Anglosphere, “American” is the de-facto term for American nationals, as well as in German, Japanese, and I’m sure many others. Just describing him as “US Born” or “US National” is also suboptimal, as it leaves out important context; he is culturally American, with shared life experiences of the archetypal American. He grew up in America, and has voted in several elections in America. This can be aptly described by the term “American”, and as language is not prescriptive, you cannot force this meaning into the very broad definition of “United States Citizen”. 2607:FEA8:529E:C300:BD51:EFEC:6A54:2115 (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. In English "American" means somebody from "America", also known as the "United States of America". Get over it. Do you suppose that the article for Friedrich Merz or any other German person should instead call them Federal Republicans given there are German-speaking countries apart from the Federal Republic of Germany? 675930s (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

It’s ambiguous, but usually irrelevant.

I too understand the word America to be both (1) a shortening of United States of America (along with United States, USA, US and U.S.), and (2) the name of the landmass comprising the North and South American continents. Indeed, Wikipedia article Americas literally opens with "The Americas, sometimes collectively called America, ...", and in German, people from the US are usually more correctly called US-Amerikaner (lit. US-Americans) ... to resolve this ambiguity.

If Francis had been from Africa, nobody would care about this wording right now because Leo would be the first from both America the country and America the supercontinent. But Francis was from Argentina, and Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia so authors care about getting the words right.

Least unambiguous is to say Francis is the first from Latin America, and Leo is the first from North America.

Note that Friedrich Merz calls himself a Sauerländer (the part of Germany he's from), German, Bundesdeutscher (lit. federal German), a "proud European", and a "convinced transatlantian". The German-speaking countries of Europe call themselves D-A-CH (even though they speak German in other parts of Europe too). People from the country of Australia (formally, Commonwealth of Australia) call themselves Australian (even those in the part of the Australian country that is located in the Zealandian rather than Australian continent), while people from Western New Guinea (part of Indonesia) and Papua New Guinea could also call themselves Australian because they’re ALSO part of the Australian continent. Aussies can’t stop them if they want to call themselves Australian as an expression of being a part of the Australian continent, because they are. Elrondil (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@675930s, that's bullshit and if you knew how to use a dictionary you wouldn't have bullshitted. See Wiktionary:American and American pope. You may seethe, but reality won't change only to please you. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Please be WP:NICE Jahaza (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Nor will reality change to please Brazilians; Leo XIV is American in the English language and no amount of lecturing by Brazilian nationalists will change how English-speakers (such as Americans) speak English. 675930s (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Not is the first American Pope... Steven17yt (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes he is. This is English Wikipedia. “American” means citizens and nationals of the United States. Get a grip. 2601:18E:D005:7CD0:D4CD:87B9:66C8:C827 (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Seethe. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

What's happening here is you have one culture controlling another culture and forcing it to change. This is like if Americans and Canadians insisted that the sport be called "soccer" on Spanish Wikipedia. We shouldn't be afraid to call him American when that is custom for everyone on Wikipedia from the US. 2601:248:601:A010:DD84:A966:9BEC:9462 (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

then we can replace "the second (and second consecutive) Pope from the Americas" with "the second (and second consecutive) Pan-American Pope". is it this specific sentence that you want to change? LIrala (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Why isn't it mentioned that he is the first pope from the United States? Seems largely newsworthy. 136.27.14.252 (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Not only is it newsworthy, it's literally part of our ITN blurb. Maybe we need an RFC... --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

el papa es peruano nacido en estados unidos

Asi como luis miguel mexicano pero nacido en puerto rico 181.176.107.49 (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Descent

I can't get this in because of all the edit conflicts, but [1] his father was of French AND Italian descent, and the mother of Spanish descent. Right now we have a paywalled French source allegedly claiming his mother was Italian (Martínez is an incredibly rare surname for an Italian). Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:DFTT EvergreenFir (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some sources also indicate that he has some Jewish lineage on his father's side. He clearly has a very Jewish looking nose is what one commentator from an Italian news source suggested. 47.146.38.207 (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC) Ah yes, we're actually going there, we're guessing people's heritage by the shape of their nose, cited from "one commentator from an Italian news source". Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC) "A very Jewish looking nose" such nose bends are normal everywhere around the Mediterranean. Where he traces his lineage to. 94.225.14.231 (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Should he really be described as "American and Peruvian"? None of his grandparents of Peruvian. He only has dual citizenship because he moved there. He is 100% American. 73.176.211.102 (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

100% this, the man is not peruvian (even if his grandparents were) 2800:40:38:E265:5431:7BB0:471:BDC1 (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

He is an American with Peruvian dual citizenship. He now also has Vatican City citizenship (something that always implies multi-citizenship — unless a previously held citizenship is revoked). Treycera (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

In that case, Vatican citizenship should also be noted in the infobox. The role of pope automatically grants him Vatican citizenship. 88.135.131.11 (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

He attained his Vatican Citizenship in 2023. Rtb2425 (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, unseen standard in this page for adding Peruvian. 2601:644:937E:A370:4113:F8B2:7E90:A299 (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

You’re being disingenuous. He lived and worked in Peru for 20 years. He is legally and in some sense culturally Peruvian. Stop treating this like some competition and stick to the facts. 2601:151:C000:BC30:4CE6:584:62FF:828F (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. He is a Peruvian citizen and has lived in the country for more than a decade. He isn't merely a passport holder. Cortador (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

He's Peruvian since he has Peruvian citizenship and lived there for what? 20 years?

He's also, of course, American by birth.

I don't understand how this is an issue. Gue101 (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

What is the evidence that the pope is of Spanish descent? The only current source for this claim in turn cites Vatican news which describes Mildred Martinez as "of Spanish descent". But this is at least false by omission as the genealogical research has shown that she was in fact Louisiana-Creole. The article on the Leo XIV's family mentions no Spanish ancestor, neither on his mother's nor his father's side. The only evidence for Spanish descent is the 1910 American census where the pope's great-grandmother is listed as Spanish. But as this source notes, the census contains inconsistencies and it was very common for mixed-race people to claim mediterranean descent to pass as white. In addition, if the Spanish ancestry claim is accepted then by the same standard of evidence the article should list Leo XIV as of "Maltese descent". Without a verified Spanish ancestor who is more closely related to Leo XIV than other ancestors of nationalities that are currently not listed, I believe "Spanish descent" should be removed.Rappatoni (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Pope's early life

Consider correcting his mom's degree, and adding more details on his parents' education per the DePaul website:

 (his mother)...she earned a BA in education at DePaul University in 1947 and completed substantial Master's-level education courses. His father, Louis Marius Prevost (July 28, 1920 – November 8, 1997), also a Chicago native, graduated from DePaul with an MA in education in 1949...

Dsalerno (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

His mother is not Italian. His father's parents were French and Italian ; his mother's roots are SPANISH ("Martínez", guys, definitely not Italian). The very same mistake is also made in the French version of this page. 90.166.134.163 (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, someone should re-add the links for the Italian, French, and Spanish ethnicity pages. Robertclarke32 (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

My genealogical research was that Mildred's immigrant ancestor was Jacques Martino, immigrating from Italy who arrived in New Orleans in 1834 and settled there and had at least two slaves, according to the 1840 census. By that time, he had changed his surname to Martinez, which often happened to immigrants trying to assimilate; of course, New Orleans was primarily French, but - for some unknown reason, he chose the Spanish version of his surname. He married Marguerite Cadeneth, who was born in about 1804 in Louisiana; according to the 1850, she was mulatto, which was the term at the time to describe someone who was of mixed European and African heritage. Le Petit Paris LA (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

If true, Spanish should be removed. I don't think the distant 'mulatto' heritage is worthy of coverage in his early life section though due to the fact that he likely doesn't identify/know of it, it's also genetically insignificant. Robertclarke32 (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

No, Spanish should not be removed. Mildred's maternal grandfather was Marie Rosa nee Ramos was born in New Orleans in 1827. Maria Rosa's surname great grandfather was Manuel Jose Ramos, who was born in Havana, Cuba in 1760; his father was Francisco Ramos, born about 1720 in Burgos, Castilla-Leon, Spain. Francisco was Mildred's fourth great grandfather.

Therefore, Mildred's heritage included Italian, Spanish [from her father's side] (and French - all of her mother's side was of French descent) ancestry.

Agreed, mulatto may not be significant, I included it mainly for this discussion forum member's interest. Le Petit Paris LA (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, do you have a source that the pope's distant ancestor was Spanish? Thanks! Rappatoni (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The source of the claim that the pope had Black or mulatto ancestors is a Black genealogist in New Orleans, and he hasn't shown any proof. He's been talking to reporters about his supposed discovery like he's got an agenda. The New York Times published an article stating his claim as fact and it has photos of two documents, one of them recent, and neither one says that the pope's grandparents were Black. And the pope's brother said that his family didn't claim Black identity. 2601:241:8C00:F700:55BD:975B:7B31:FF1F (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

MUCH documentation DOES exist for those with time and expertise to perform genealogical research!

Though his family may [not sure of the evidence source] "claim Black identity", still his mixed race status is an interesting and significant fact! 97.96.12.231 (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

the guy works at the Historic New Orleans Collection. he’s not working out of his bedroom in New Orleans. 100W bulb (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

What guy? 97.96.12.231 (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

the genealogist derided by the poster i’m replying to 100W bulb (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The couple's only child was Jacques Antonio Martinez, born in about 1822 in New Orleans, Louisiana; interesting to note that his first name is French, his middle name is Italian and his surname was Spanish. His son and Mildred's father Joseph Norval Martinez, was born in Louisiana in 1864 and was recorded in the 1870 census also as mullato. He eventually moved to Chicago, Illinois and died there. Le Petit Paris LA (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

2A0C:F040:0:2790:0:0:0:A03D (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

In the USA, he is Black, according to the One Drop Rule. 2A02:ED04:3581:2:0:0:0:D001 (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The one drop rule is from a legacy of degrading Afro Americans in the Antebellum Southern United States. I firmly disagree that this is a "fact" that should be added. Le Petit Paris LA (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

You misunderstand that fact. It is not degrading to be considered Black. It is a fact, if that is how one is treated. Furthermore, tbe One Drop Rule was invented, alongside race, and racism to try to justify slavery, and increase the number of enslaved people. You seem focused on the Pope's personal background and how he is treated. That is how this became relevant. In the United States, he would be considered a Black person. 2A02:ED04:3581:2:0:0:0:D001 (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

None of that is relevant to the discussion Gravy59 (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

No. He wouldn't be considered black in America. No such rule exists. 96.2.30.37 (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

That's not true. The One Drop Rule is a cardinal tenent of racism in America. 2A0C:F040:0:2790:0:0:0:A01D (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The one drop rule was a legal term used in the early 20th century and is not applied today 2601:19C:5283:6E30:6190:C598:2D5E:DA56 (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@2A0C:F040:0:2790:0:0:0:A01D you're a crazy person. no one views or treats him as black. Weloc (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that "no one views or treats him as black".

He has African ancestry, which is a well-documented fact, those who deny this without researching it first are the ones who are "crazy" and almost surely staunchly prejudice. Le Petit Paris LA (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

And yet the rapper Logic is considered black Shoshin000 (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I think Logic is a great example. For me, he looks much more white than the pope himself yet he considers himself a Black person, while the pope does not. That's the problem. Kowalmistrz (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Such laws existed in the Antebellum South but no longer so. So, at the time, it was a racist-motivated legal construct. Le Petit Paris LA (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

No documents have been shown that say the pope's grandparents were Black or mulatto. And the pope's brother said that his family doesn't claim Black identity. 2601:241:8C00:F700:55BD:975B:7B31:FF1F (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the 1870 and 1900 U.S. Census are just two sources, with dozens more documents are available scanned on many genealogical websites.

The family's "identity" does not negate the numerous authoritative evidence sources that establish his mixed European and African history.

There appear to be many highly prejudice people arguing against these facts. Le Petit Paris LA (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• All of this WP:OR is just not going to affect the article in any way. It can't be used to add or remove content. Kingsif (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  No problem - I was responding to the origin of this string, just explaining his Spanish and Italian heritage.

  Also, for interest to some in this forum, no changes needed to article... Prevost with an accent aigu over the "e" is a common French-Canadian surname. However, Robert Francis' paternal grandfather immigrated from Italy, where the original surname was Prevosto. Le Petit Paris LA (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  I think it could affect the other if the article wanted to include information about the Pope's ancestry. It seems to be a classic American story, not entirely surprising, in that his ancestors were Black at some point (maternal Grandmother) and successfully passed as White to avoid racism. There was a strong motivation to do this in the USA because of the One Drop Rule (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule). Reportedltz the Pope's grandmother was classified as Black in Louisiana in the 1900 censhs and moved to Chicago where she was classified as White in the census (passing as White, and moving to avoid racism) 2A02:ED04:3581:2:0:0:0:D001 (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Actually both of the Pope's maternal grandparents were Black, not only his grandmother. 2A02:ED04:3581:2:0:0:0:D001 (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  True,with caveats. Joseph Norval Martinez (1864–1926) - the maternal grandfather showed on his birth certificate as WHITE, 1870 U.S. Census as MULATTO, 1900 U.S. Census as BLACK, 1920 U.S. Census as WHITE; that he was of mixed race European and African is very likely as the truth.

  The same fact pattern is shown for his wife Louise nee Baquie (1868–1945) Le Petit Paris LA (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The Pope's maternal grandparents, Joseph Martinez and Louise Baquié, were listed as "Black" on the 1900 U.S. Census, when they lived in New Orleans. They were then listed as "White" on the 1920 U.S. Census, when they lived in Chicago. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Race is not fixed and in this instance, it seems relevant, because of the USA's involvement. They were treated like they're Black and they were treated like they're White. Each time their race is based om how they are treated. If they were White, this wouodn't have come up. The Pope is Black.

It seems very likely that his grandparents were of mixed race, but it concerns me that his grandfather being born in "Haiti" is being used as evidence. This suggests that he was born to US citizens in Haiti, for example during a short trip.

However, I think it's more useful to consider him Catholic, since American power is in retreat (as of 2025 A.D.). 2A0C:F040:0:2790:0:0:0:A03D (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Slight difference from my perspective - a person's race is a fixed fact, based on their ancestry and DNA - for instance, the same family can have diverse racial skin tones - based on how much Caucasian DNA they have and how much Negroid DNA in similar cases.

How society views them and calls them a certain racial classification term may vary by era and geographic location.

That the pope has some African heritage in the article would be a bold statement bringing pride to African Americans and to create a sense of affinity to the pope in African nations and others with significant Negroid race - Cuba, for instance. However, in the polarized U.S. and much of the rest of European or so affiliated countries - as a matter of practicality and reality - racial backlashes are likely to occur --- as demonstrated by the vile, obscene, racially insulting comments in this thread that had to be censored in their removal. O.M.O. - one man's opinion. Le Petit Paris LA (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

No, race is not a fixed fact. DNA is not directly tied to geography and/or ethnicity. There is a wide range of Haplogroups scattered all over the planet crossing national and ethnic boundaries, each one overlapping independently. Due to millennia of near constant migration ethnicities are only somewhat to be told apart by the percentages of admixture. To give skin colour that much significance is just arbitrary - Africa for instance is the genetically most diverse continent due to the fact that by far the most of human prehistory happened there. There is more genetic distance between many African ethnicities than between many white and African ones. Edmundtrobitzsch (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. One's racial characteristics are a fact that remains throughout your life, baked into your DNA - it is scientifically based, which makes it a fact.

I never said that DNA was based on era and geographic location --- I started a new paragraph and said that society's culture at a point in time and location determined the label, the term that they use to describe a person. Le Petit Paris LA (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

There's no scientific basis for race. You are wrong. 2A02:ED04:3581:2:0:0:0:D001 (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

A person's DNA reflects their ancestry, a scientific fact. Le Petit Paris LA (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

and 'negroid' is a long obsolete term deeply rooted in 19th century racial hallucinations Edmundtrobitzsch (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, so sorry for the mistake. Le Petit Paris LA (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Even the claim that Joseph N. Martínez was born in Haiti is dubious; it originates from a marriage record stating he was the son of Jacques Martínez and Marie Rosa Ramos. The use of 'Haiti' as the birthplace may stem from the common practice at the time of referring to the entire island as Haiti, according to local genealogists. In a 1910 census, he is listed as being born in Santo Domingo, with race marked as 'W' (White). 181.37.179.148 (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it could make sense because it says Santo Domingo, Haiti. We are talking about a time not far from when Louisiana belonged to New Spain. GFX-Guy00 (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Good point - the island known as Hispaniola is now divided in to Haiti and the Dominican Republic and Santa Domingo is s located on the Dominican side. The indigenous peoples called Hispaniola "Ayiti", which, of course, led to the name Haiti.

Thanks, these kind of comments from you and similar help build collective knowledge. Le Petit Paris LA (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The same page that says he was born in Santo Domingo was edited to say he was born in Haiti. However the Dominican register has Joseph N Martinez, as born in Santo Domingo, DR to an Italian born father. Martinez is a predominant last name in DR but also people with Italian ancestry are very common. The racial category of Mulattos are very common there but more important: Louisiana wasn't under The USA ruling when his great grandmother was born there which could explain why they were first Hispanic Mulattos, then black as the US took over and then white after they move to Chicago. Again the birth record lists Joseph Martinez and "Louis Baquiex" as Mildred's parents. The father's birthplace is listed as the Dominican Republic; the mother's, New Orleans.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/us/pope-leo-creole-new-orleans.html GFX-Guy00 (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The two documents shown in that article don't say "Black". I suspect that the genealogist made up the claim that the pope has Black ancestors out of wishful thinking and wanting to give Black people a claim on him. 2601:241:8C00:F700:55BD:975B:7B31:FF1F (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Wow, what an unfortunate conspiracy theory! No wishful thinking, there is plenty of authoritative documentation in ancestry.com and similar sites.

The point is not that he is "Black", but his mother's side had much documented mixed race ancestors - some degree of mix between European and African ancestry / DNA.

Do you think that this a case of "woke"? No, it is a matter of genealogical fact.

What is so revolting for so many that have not researched this in depth? I hope noit White Nationalism...

So, many "white" complexed national or world leaders have mixed ancestry as a matter of fact. It happens. Many FPOC "free people of color" lived in the Deep South before the civil war, fell in love with European immigrants and started families together. It happens. Le Petit Paris LA (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Not MORE USEFUL, just ADDITIONALLY USEFUL; his ancestry and his religious status are both based in well-documented facts. Le Petit Paris LA (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

A Black genealogist from New Orleans made that claim but where is the proof? 2601:241:8C00:F700:55BD:975B:7B31:FF1F (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Plenty of proof if you were brave and skilled enough to research it, like many of this forum have... Le Petit Paris LA (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

can we agree to changing the sentence in the lead to "Born in Chicago to a family of mixed European and Louisiana Creole descent..."?

That would be similar to Pope Francis's page, which says "Born in Buenos Aires to parents of Italian origin" 222.152.26.95 (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

You're off to good start with your proposal, I would recommend:

"Born in Chicago with Italian, French, Spanish and Louisiana Creole ancestry... 97.96.12.231 (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the pope's Italian, French, Dominican and Louisiana Creole descent is clearly established in the form of concrete ancestors of these nationalities/ethnicities. The same does not go for the his Spanish descent. Without a unambiguous Spanish ancestor, I don't think Spanish descent should be included. Instead I would suggest:

"Prevost has two older brothers, Louis Martín and John Joseph, and is of Dominican, French and Italian descent with mixed European and African ancestry."

This highlights the geopgraphical origins of the pope's most recent not US-born ancestors without obscuring their ethnicities. Rappatoni (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, further research shows it is even more complicated: the Dominican descent is unclear at best. Hence I would suggest:

"Prevost has two older brothers, Louis Martín and John Joseph, and is of Louisiana-Creole, French and Italian descent. His mother, Mildred Agnes Prevost (née Martínez), was born in Chicago into a mixed-race family of Louisiana Creole and probably Hispaniolan descent that had moved to the city from the 7th Ward of New Orleans. A possible Spanish and Maltese origin as indicated in the 1910 census descent is unlikely." Rappatoni (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Apparently there is a birth record for the pope's maternal grandfather in Santo Domingo. But his father in turn was born in Louisiana. Rappatoni (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

can you stop suggesting that the genealogist must have an ~agenda because he’s ~black 100W bulb (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

References

"Peruvian-American"

He was born in the US but later took Peruvian citizenship, isn't it more correct to call him American-Peruvian? --Jfruh (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Peruvian-American explicitly means Americans of Peruvian descent. He has no Peruvian heritage. He should be indicated as an American-born Peruvian. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes this was very misleading. The article should reference his naturalization somewhere. Wkjekf (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. It is certainly a misclassification to even describe him as Peruvian without adding the Naturalized preface. The man is of Italian, French, and Spanish descent and is a born-American, naturalized Peruvian. Quite misleading to have Peruvian in the header. Robertclarke32 (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Correct. An American who moved to Africa to minister would never be referred to as the first "African pope" no matter what the preface. Treycera (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

He has lived and voted in the United States numerous times. Saying American-born would lack context. 2601:644:937E:A370:4113:F8B2:7E90:A299 (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. 2607:FEA8:529E:C300:BD51:EFEC:6A54:2115 (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Should not say he's the first "American" pope. That's not correct. The prior pope was also American. 66.115.205.182 (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia.

American refers to people from the USA in English 2600:100C:B252:E160:C864:9EBD:5549:5851 (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I second that he is American and that we explicitly mean, in English, someone is from the United States of America by this and that it's not wrong or confusing to say this. Johnnygoesmarchinghome (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I am from USA and when we say someone is America we mean they are born in the USA. Not in another county in the americas. Jake01756 (talk) (contribs) 08:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

AcKsHuAlLy 172.56.64.88 (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

You should fix this page then: Americans

so far "North American" leads you to North America which is referring to a continent. 2601:644:937E:A370:4113:F8B2:7E90:A299 (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Please refer to American 2601:644:937E:A370:4113:F8B2:7E90:A299 (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

If referring to someone from the United States of America as an "American" is incorrect, then nearly every single article about Americans on English Wikipedia is wrong. For example, Obama, Michael Phelps, Mark Twain, and Ford Motor Company. Wikipedia itself has a page titled,"Americans" which refers specifically to people from the United States of America. If it really bothers people that much, why not just add a link to that page? Lefishe25 (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

"American" is the only adjective in the English language to describe a citizen of the United States. There is no alternative that I am aware of. 24.186.19.7 (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Yankee. MaillardReactionary (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

"Yankee" Generally refers to someone from a specific region of the US. A rough comparison would be saying that a Dane is a "North African" 74.192.132.142 (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Yankee is a slang term and is often derogatory, much like referring to an English person as a "limey." Or would you honestly suggest editing every Wikipedia article about an American to instead refer to them as yankees? MrJ567 (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

American is, 2nd a native or inhabitant of North America or South America and 3rd a native or inhabitant of the U.S. : a U.S. citizen. So if there's no better adjective, choose, another from: "is the first US citizen to became a Pope". But in a context with another American Pope (Francis was American, Merrian Webster definition), that is confusing, and leads to the actual writing with absurd clarification: "but Francis was from the Americas, but Leo XIV is the frst from the USA". Just stop calling youselves Americans excluding the rest of the continent! 195.77.20.5 (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

That's not the correct definition of the word "American" in the English language. In English "American" means someone (or something) from the United States. That's really the only acceptable use of the word. That makes Leo XIV the first American pope as Francis was Argentinean, not American. In other languages "American" has a different definition, but this is the English language page so using any other definition would incorrect. 2601:152:200:1020:BE15:72BB:F3BE:5999 (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

That isn't how the word "American" works. The name of the nationality of people born or naturalized in the United States of America is "American". Poor Francis was from the Americas, but an Argentinian. 2601:190:67F:2220:38A7:CAA2:91C1:7C41 (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

An American is a person who is a citizen of the United States. Pope Francis was Argentinian, not American. MrJ567 (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

There should be a mention about his Peruvian nationality, given that it's confirmed by Peruvian media that it's registered as such.

I could not find the source for the information that he has a Peruvian citzenship. Is this really acurate?Paulo Rená (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that it's accurate given that it was reported by the BBC and they are yet to issue a correction, which if wrong probably would've happened by now Barabbus04 (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Fact

Pope Leo XIV is the second Pope born in the Americas. Alimsts (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

ALSO WHAT THE HELL IS HAPPENING WITH THE CHANGING?! Alimsts (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Alimsts Yeah, this article is going to be crazy for a while 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something?) 17:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I think there's been a confusion, sources are saying "first American Pope" and editors are misinterpreting that as first Pope from the Americas and not first Pope from the United States of America Coleisforeditor (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Just refer to USA as USA and America as America. USA is not the whole of America. Alimsts (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. Colloquially the USA is known as America, sources will refer to the USA as "America", and thus editors are misreading it as "first Pope from the Americas" and not "first Pope from the USA" Coleisforeditor (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The article should clarify:

• He is American. (A citizen of the United States.)
• He is a naturalized resident of Peru and holds American citizenship.
• He is the first Pope from both the United States and North America more broadly.

UnashamedPapist (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not making any defence of it, I'm just adding context. Additionally, I could not make an edit as I am not extended confirmed. Coleisforeditor (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

He is actually a Peruvian citizen as well: https://www.reuters.com/world/prevost-first-us-pope-supported-francis-shunned-spotlight-2025-05-08/ BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This is an argument that can't be won, because the adjective American is ambiguous. Just like Georgian and Georgian. Talmage (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand the ambiguity of the adjective "American", and I recognize that colloquially in English it often refers specifically to people from the United States. However, in my opinion, context should be taken into account: the papacy and the Catholic Church operate within a global context that goes beyond the Anglosphere. Therefore, the article should clarify that he is the first pope from the United States, and the second from the American continent. Shnnypperh (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, in English there is no ambiguity as to what the term "American" means, someone from the United States. There is no alternative "United Stater" is not a term.

In other languages that may be different, but English Wikipedia should reflect the English language. 2600:100C:B252:E160:C864:9EBD:5549:5851 (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Merrian Webster disagrees. Just use "the first Pope from the USA". 195.77.20.5 (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Appealing to Merriam-Webster appears rational at first glance but in my maybe foolish opinion, is silly. You object to calling him an "American" because it could refer to people from the Americas. Well lets change the article to what you say for example. Could I not then object to what you say by saying that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary (the very thing you appealed to), "American" can refer to people from the United States? In the cultural context of the English speaking world, "American" COULD refer to everyone from the Americas but in PRACTICE means people from the United States of America. I have had the fortune to travel across the world, including many non-native English speaking nations, in all my years I have (not that my anecdote is the standard to go by but still) NEVER had to specify to someone that "American" means from the United States rather than the Americas. Also, as I stated in a previous comment, nearly every single article on English Wikipedia has ZERO problems using "American" to refer to people from the United States, if Leo XIV's article must be changed, I better see the same people arguing here combing through every article in the same manner as they are here. Lefishe25 (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Unlike in Spanish, a dictionary is not the authority of the English language. We have the Royal Spanish Academy in Spain, which is regarded as the authority over the "correct" form of Spanish.

In English, dictionaries come from unofficial companies and institutions who document the language.

It's silly to find one dictionary that lists your preferred definition on top and use it as support when all of English Wikipedia uses the other, more common definition of the word. Maalavor (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. My Macquarie Dictionary for example (de-facto standard Australian) defines American to mean six things: (1) of or relating to the USA or its people, (2) of or relating to North or South America, or any of the peoples of these continents, (3) a citizen of the USA, (4) a native or inhabitant of North, South or Central America, (5) the English language as spoken in the USA, (6) a type of playing marble. Elrondil (talk) 06:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

It is not ambiguous. More context is welcome: that he is American but served in a South American nation where he apparently became a citizen, and that now he's the head of state of Vatican City-State (the Holy See, in some contexts). Johnnygoesmarchinghome (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Please refer to Americans 2601:644:937E:A370:4113:F8B2:7E90:A299 (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This guy is trolling. America and Americans Exist. Ali3576 (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Pope from USA not first American Pope Alimsts (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

He's the first Pope from the United States and the first Pope from North America. Citizens of the United States are known as Americans in English. It's non-existent for, say, Mexicans to be known as "Americans". They're people of the Americas. I've never seen a citizen of Canada, Mexico, Brazil, or Chile be called an "American" anywhere in English, despite the countries being located in the Americas. It's two different things. UnashamedPapist (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, citizens of the United States are known as Americans in English, but OTHER "things" are ALSO called American in English, including '"things" of or relating to North or South America, or any of the peoples of these continents' and 'a native or inhabitant of North, South or Central America'.

I most decidedly HAVE heard of citizens of non-US countries in the Americas being called, and calling themselves, Americans, in English, but they are usually more specific because of the ambiguity it creates, and tend to use it the same way Europeans use European; to say: hey, we're from the same neck of the woods, we have stuff in common, welcome "cousin".

The resistance you're encountering here is probably because they're being told they're not something they think they are ... as you are resisting being told American also means other things to other people and your pride in having a pope from YOUR country is seemingly being attacked. I think you'll find they have no problem with that pride, and would probably even celebrate it with you if you wouldn't also take their pride of the last pope being from America the supercontinent (often called the Americas) at the same time. Find words that work for everyone in the Anglosphere: nobody could argue with "first person born in the US, and first citizen of the US and Peru", and would that really diminish the pride people from the US, Peru, and the Americas have? Elrondil (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

In the English language, American is the demonym for people born in the USA.

this is English Wikipedia, American is the standard 2600:100C:B252:E160:C864:9EBD:5549:5851 (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Merrian Wesbter disagrees. USa dies not own english nor english wikipedia . In this context, with Francis, you can't say Leo XIV is the first American Pope, because, he was also American. That leads to the actual absurd and long clarification. Jut say that is the first Pope from the USA. 195.77.20.5 (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster also says that "American" can refer to people from the United States of America. So changing it in the way you desire, based solely off definitions, just results in an infinite loop. If only there were some other cultural context in the English world we could refer too to solve this dilemma. Lefishe25 (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

what do you think American means? 2600:6C9D:5700:9D:30BF:B772:1B01:445B (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

People from the United States of America, like Leo XIV, are called Americans. 66.44.113.139 (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans 170.64.104.99 (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Alimsts Please refresh your memory on what the term "American" means. It means a national of the country The United States of America. Alexysun (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

No, that is one of its meanings. My Macquarie Dictionary (de-facto standard Australian) defines American as: (1) of or relating to the USA or its people, (2) of or relating to North or South America, or any of the peoples of these continents, (3) a citizen of the USA, (4) a native or inhabitant of North, South or Central America, (5) the English language as spoken in the USA, (6) a type of playing marble.

Huh, I learnt something 😁. I didn't know about the 'type of playing marble' thing ... but the rest is definitely what I, in the Anglosphere, understand by the term American. Elrondil (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Alimsts (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

By that, I mean this section called "Fact". Alimsts (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2025 (7)

Pope Leo XIV's citizenship should reflect his American Citizenship and status as first American Pope, not just "first Pope from North America." 12.52.61.42 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The problem is whether people read "American" as citizen of USA or "American" as someone who just lives in the Americas. I think colloquially American is the denonym for those from the United States so it should read first American pope. Coldbrewicetea (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The fact is in the English language American = USA

This is English Wikipedia, he is the first American pope and the second from the Americas 2600:100C:B252:E160:C864:9EBD:5549:5851 (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

It should read American. It read ''American cardinal'' without any issue mere hours ago. Killuminator (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Because he was an American cardinal, whether America is understood to mean USA or the Americas. But he's not the first American pope to very many people outside the US because there the word America is ambiguous ... but that ambiguity is also usually irrelevant.

I too understand the word America to be both (1) a shortening of United States of America (along with United States, USA, US and U.S.), and (2) the name of the landmass comprising the North and South American continents. Indeed, Wikipedia article Americas literally opens with "The Americas, sometimes collectively called America, ...".

The article needs to be readily comprehensible to everyone in the Anglosphere, not just US readers, so wording needs to be found that works for all. But when I hear someone say "I'm American" it's equivalent to hearing "I'm European". Elrondil (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Request deactivated until consensus is reached. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

"he is the first pope from the United States and the first from North America…" Naeggy (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2025 (9)

change "Prevost became the first Pope from North America" to "Prevost became the first Pope from North America and also Peru"; he has a dual citizenship, he's not just American 2800:2265:9041:7FEE:85C4:A9B0:C409:EEFC (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done The second sentence already reads "as well as the first American and Peruvian pope." Celjski Grad (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Nationality.

He has dual citizenship, MEANING he's American AND he's Peruvian, not "American and Peruvian." He's as much an American Pope as he's a Peruvian Pope. The first paragraph is semantically incorrect and acts as an erasure of Peru's first Pope. 2800:2265:9041:7FEE:85C4:A9B0:C409:EEFC (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

What are you asking to be done? Celjski Grad (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I would change the part about "the first North American to be elected as Pope", because it is the first time for Peru as well 2800:2265:9041:7FEE:85C4:A9B0:C409:EEFC (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The article already says "as well as the first American and Peruvian pope" in the second sentence. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Would it not make sense to just say "First North American pope and first Pope born in the United States"? The language in the current description seems unnecessarily complicated, and he's also not genetically peruvian so I feel like adding peru to the description isn't reasonable. Iristhescorpio (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

As Pope he now has triple citizenship though, since now he is also Vatican.

Man I reaaally want to change the infobox to add that Lucaetre (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Here is an article from the Catholic News Agency which discusses, at length, the legal issues of the new Pope's triple citizenship, including the possibility of renouncing one or the other, paying taxes to the IRS, and the delicate matter of "Vatican Citizenship" which is very interesting in itself. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:2BB7:758D:6B86:A04B (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

Born in america means he is American. Plain and simple.

Wait, if you become a citizen of Peru as an adult, don't you ipso facto lose your USA citizenship? Where is it documented that he has retained his U.S. Passport?

Second pope from the American continent

He is also the second pope from the American continent, after his predecessor Francis.

This should be reflected in the introduction. Thank you very much. 37.132.34.52 (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Is being second at something notable? Celjski Grad (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This is not notable enough in my opinion as he is also lots of other things that aren't mentioned. It's important where he's first, and not much else. JacobTheRox (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

In Spanish-language news and sources, for example, there are numerous references to things like "the second pope of the American continent." Being the first, third, or last of something is important because it marks a milestone. For example, Pope Benedict XVI was the seventh pope to resign and the first since Gregory XII; this appears in your article. In this same article it says: He is the first pope to come from the Order of Saint Augustine, and the seventh from orders that follow the Rule of St Augustine (Augustinians).--37.132.34.52 (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The Americas are two continents in English. In Spanish or other languages, where they refer to North and South America collectively as "America", and refer to people from the US as "Estadounidense", this would make sense, but since this is an English article, I believe we should call him an American. Maybe "Leo is the first pope to be from the United States, and the second from the Americas" could work? I feel it both makes it clear where he is from, and satisfies a dissatisfied minority of native Spanish speakers on this article. Midship Runabout (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Just The First American Pope. This is an English article using the American Dialect. We must use the proper terms. Ali3576 (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Boy oh boy, you guys are just so guilty of defaultism, EVERYTHING has to be USA-centric with you. Do you realize outside of the USA refer to you as "US-Americans" to identify you as separate from all the other Americans from all the other American countries? Geeze! 151.34.76.89 (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Now I may be wrong, but from what I understand Germans call Americans, "Amerikaners." you say "outside of the USA refer to you as "US-Americans,"" yet clearly some countries seem to think "Americans" means from the United States of America. Nearly every single article on English Wikipedia which refers to someone from the United States of America refers to them as "American." If you think Leo XIV's article was wrong to say so, please go ahead and change every single other article which refers to "Americans" on Wikipedia to fit this entirely new standard. Further, it is true that many Americans (such as myself) get too caught up in American-defaultism, in this case it is not a defaultism to refer to word by its cultural context (which in the case of English Wikipedia, especially about an "American," would refer to the United States rather than the continents).

This whole argument is silly just include the link to "Americans" and all will by solved in my opinion. Lefishe25 (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

That's completely untrue. Check the different language versions of the Americans article and you will see several variants of "amerikan" used including the latin article. Spanish, Italian and Portuguese don't get to decide what other languages use. He's the first American Pope as he's the first one from the country commonly referred to as America. Also in many languages the Americas are divided into two continents, not one, North America and South America. In North America the first country to gain independence from their colonial overlords were the United States of America. They were first so they could without opposition claim the name America. My great great grandfather moved to (the United States of) America. No misunderstand when I say that in real life. No one wonders which South American nation I'm referring to, because America is USA.

//Dude born and raised "outside the USA" 176.10.137.55 (talk) 08:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I have quite literally never heard of Americans being called "US-Americans" abroad, especially in English. In all the 30 countries I've visited, it's either always been "American", or whatever the country's own language term for American is (migukin, Estadounidense, Amerikaner, etc.) This seems like an awfully niche term that isn't widely used. Midship Runabout (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

But it is not a US-American article. The English Wikipedia covers the whole anglosphere - and way beyond. Latin Americans are Americans. To use American only for US-Americans is colloquial Edmundtrobitzsch (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

According to the "Anglosphere" article on Wikipedia, the 5 core nations which make up this group are, the UK, the USA, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. In which of these nations would the most common understanding of of the word "American" be someone from the Americas as opposed to someone from the United States of America. Latin America (other than Belize or Guyana maybe I guess) is not the Anglosphere, in fact their native language isn't even English, why should English Wikipedia bend to it? Lefishe25 (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The core, developed, wealthy anglosphere does have a consensus that "American" means "from the US". On top of that we do have the Manual of Style thing about American ("USian") English. I would love for a variety of the English language that more gracefully/inclusively handles this issue (as some might say, "without USian arrogance") become the world's lingua franca, but that is not something either of us can change. Artoria2e5 🌉 12:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

As a native Spanish speaker, I can confirm that the people who are saying that saying "American" is wrong are just trolling and bullying you guys.

You guys should not change your own Wikipedia because some minority of some foreign country thinks that you named things wrong in your own language. Imagine how they would react if this was the other way around.

Mexico gets to be called Mexico when the real name is United States of Mexico (Mexican US). America gets to be called America when when the real name is United States of America. Also: Americans. Maalavor (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

North and South America are two continents lol 675930s (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

North and South America are two continents in the English-speaking world. In the rest of the world, they are a single continent.--87.217.168.112 (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

North and South America are two separate continents according to the Dutch, Romanian, Finnish, Norwegian Bokmål, Danish, Icelandic, Faroese, Turkish, Czech, Belarussian, Russian, Bosnian, Polish, Latvian, Albanian, Amharic, Arabic, Javanese, Hebrew, Maltese, Malaysian Malay, Indonesian Malay, Tagalog, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Hindi, Urdu, Vietnamese, and Persian Wikipedias. Given that the countries these languages alone are officially spoken in make up over 60% of the global population without even including America, Britain, Canada, or Australia, I find it very difficult to believe that "In the rest of the world, they are a single continent."

They are also considered separate continents according to the tectonic plates. More importantly, they are considered separate continents according to the English language, which you are attempting to argue in, on none other than the English Wikipedia. Your argument is not only invalid, but irrelevant as well. 675930s (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

North and South America in Spanish and Portuguese are considered subcontinents.--87.217.168.112 (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

So first you claimed that "the rest of the world" calls them a single continent, with the implication that Anglophones are lecturing the rest of the world. Then, when your claim was demonstrated false, you yourself lecture the rest of the world based on Spanish and Portuguese conventions?

What North and South America are called in Spanish or Portuguese is not relevant to any Wikipedia other than the Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedias. In English, Leo XIV is American and there's nothing you can do about it. 675930s (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Is Not the First American Pope, Francis Was

First North American Pope? GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I would say he's the first American Pope i.e. first Pope from the USA. Second Pope from the Americas, and first from North America. US citizens are worldwide known as Americans so we can't change the rules because a vocal minority disagree. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

American is a nationality too.

he is the first American Pope 2600:100C:B252:E160:C864:9EBD:5549:5851 (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

"American" refers to people from the United States and you know it. 2601:18E:D005:7CD0:E447:AD7F:B0BA:B92 (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Granted, he would have a point if this article was written in Spanish or another language where the term "American" primarily refers to people from the "Americas"

however, this is English, American refers to people from the USA 2600:100C:B252:E160:C864:9EBD:5549:5851 (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This is also American English Coldbrewicetea (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I've changed the lead back to say "American", which in English is the demonym for people of the United States. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Very doubtful and pejorative to american brothers. Besides, he has peruvian nationality ( double one) 88.6.232.175 (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Again, this is the English Wikipedia. In the English language, the proper Demonym for people born in the United States is "American" there is no alternative in wide usage.

It should read "The first American Pope and the second born in the Americas" 2600:100C:B252:E160:C864:9EBD:5549:5851 (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

In the English language at least, American refers to the people of the United States of America, and is how the large majority of the people here identify ourselves, regardless of outsiders. Claire 26 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The Americas are two continents in English. In Spanish or other languages, where they refer to North and South America collectively as "America", and refer to people from the US as "Estadounidense", this would make sense, but since this is an English article, I believe we should call him an American. The term "North American" is ironically a bit too ambiguous, since North American could also imply he is Canadian or Mexican.

I think that it should say "Leo is the first American pope, and the second pope to be from the Americas", or maybe "Leo is the first pope to be from the United States, and the second from the Americas". It also seems that the whole argument against calling him American is a bit silly -- nobody called Francis "the first American pope" in English-speaking media, but rather, the first pope from the Americas. Midship Runabout (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This isn't even really true of Spanish in general. In Latin American Spanish countries (which, to be fair, house the majority of the world's Spanish spenders), yes Americans are referred to as "Estadounidense" or some derivative, but in Spain and a few other non-American Spanish nations, US Americans are called Americana. This also used to be common in Latin America. CamdenQ (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I came here to laugh at you all 2600:8800:6200:6BD:D0C3:B790:9066:8145 (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• The article should not force everyone to use US slang perspective and make things deliberately confusing for everyone from other countries. Certainly he is the first Pope from the United States (as well as the first from Peru; dual citizen). The "First American Pope" was of course Francis. That may not be how some people in the US are used to hearing it, but Wikipedia is not restricted to USA only, so let's state things simply and clearly. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Silly. Everyone understands what is meant when something is called "American." Leo XIV is the second consecutive Pope from the Americas, but he's the first American to become Pope. Bighardsun (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  If only "Usonian" had caught on, this debate would not be needed... Procrastineur49 (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a silly debate because it suggests that a Pope from the United States cannot have a demonym that isn't something like United Statesian.

This is accurate and should prevail: Leo XIV is the first American Pope, the first Peruvian Pope via dual-citizenship, the first North American Pope, and the second Pope from the Americas.

The current version -- "A dual citizen of the United States and Peru, Leo is the first pope from North America and the first to be a Peruvian citizen" -- is a bad and pedantic way of trying to make United Statesian a thing, or otherwise obfuscate that the American guy is an American guy. Bighardsun (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I edited the sentence you mention about dual citizenship. The reason it reads the way it does now is because it had previously said, "A United States and Peru dual citizen, Leo is the first pope from North America and Peru." It sounded terrible. "United States" doesn't work well at all as an adjective in this sort of context. So I flipped it to say, "A dual citizen of the United States and Peru ...." Someone else later changed the end of the sentence to say "and the first to be a Peruvian citizen" with an edit summary along the lines of "need to make his Peruvian citizenship more explicit." I thought that was overkill but couldn't be bothered to go back and change it. I will agree that I get tired of Wikipedia's anti-US mafia making silly arguments every time the word "American" is used, and I get tired of people from the Western Peninsula of the Asian Continent arguing that there is just one "American continent" (there are two). Their sniping is never going to stop, but the arguments being made against "American" here are utterly disingenuous. 1995hoo (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

To help educate my fellow wikipedians, in the English language, "America" is equivalent to "USA". However "Americas" as in plural, mean North, South and Central America. So Pope Leo XIV is the first pope from America, but not from the Americas. As an American, I'm not confused, it's how our language works. If you still find the term confusing, know wikipedia is in many languages, so perhaps go to your native language wikipedia and edit there. For reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

(Redirected from AMERICA)

"America" redirects here. For the landmass comprising North and South America, see Americas. For other uses, see America (disambiguation).

Several terms redirect here. For other uses, see US (disambiguation), USA (disambiguation), United States (disambiguation), and The United States of America (disambiguation). 75.61.99.105 (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Nationality

On the claim that Pope Leo XIV is "the first American and Peruvian pope" in the lead section:

Pope Leo XIV[a] (born Robert Francis Prevost; September 14, 1955) is the head of the Catholic Church and sovereign of Vatican City. He is the first North American to be elected pope, and the first pope to come from an English-speaking country since Adrian IV, as well as the first American and Peruvian pope.

Please consider supplementing this statement with the following reliable sources, which confirm that Robert Francis Prevost holds dual citizenship (American and Peruvian), including reports from reputable international media and peruvian national media:

References:

1. BBC News – "Who is Pope Leo XIV?" [2]
2. EFE – "Robert Prevost, papa peruano" (in Spanish) [3]
3. France 24 – "From Peru missionary to pope" [4]
4. CNN – "New pope elected" [5]
5. RPP Noticias – "Prevost tiene DNI peruano vigente" (in Spanish) [6]
6. El Comercio – "El nuevo papa tiene DNI peruano" (in Spanish) [7] Juancarlosgonzales4 (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Why? The article already properly cites his Peruvian citizenship. Why would we need nine more sources? Celjski Grad (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

It would help immensely if everyone would actually read the definition of nationality before continuing to beat this dead horse. Sundayclose (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Nationality is by definition is different than Citizenship. We honestly need to use the Citizenship tab considering its now saying that the Vatican is part of His nationality. Even if we follow the Wikipedia on nationality, his nationality is American by Jus Soli and his Citizenship is Peru and the Vatican. Coasterghost (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Disagree: On the wiktionary link in the comment above you, third definition of nationality (first two are marked rare) is:

> National origin or identity; legal membership of a particular nation or state, by origin, birth, naturalization, ownership, allegiance or otherwise. [from 18th c.]

You could argue that someone who was born in US to German parents, was then brought back to Germany as a baby, grew up there and lived their life mainly there while holding US and DE citizenship is a German national, but US citizen, as they have little ties to US other than holding citizenship.

Leo XIV lived in US for 30 years, and then spent the next 39 years mainly in Peru, becoming a naturalized citizen sometime during that time. How long does one need to live in a country, align themselves with its culture, its language, before they're to be considered a "National"? Aveaoz (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

in the US it's especially ironic to differentiate between citizenship and nationality Edmundtrobitzsch (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Using citizenship really won't convince the misguided and confused editors in this discussion. He is a citizen of the USA, so his citizenship is USA, Peru, and Vatican. He hasn't renounced his American citizenship. Sundayclose (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Why does this article say he is "from Peru"? It also says he was born in Chicago? I would understand if it noted he had citizenship from Peru but that does not mean he is from there, a person can only be from one place right? 2600:4040:95F4:7900:3C91:EDBE:DA01:7E68 (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

even if it doesn't apply here: there are many people born in one place and constantly moving even during their childhood - people aren't that static really Edmundtrobitzsch (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

For his early life section the Italian, French, and Spanish descents should be linked to the respective ethnic group articles. Additionally, until we get solid confirmation from a Vatican source, the header should not include Peruvian, and if verified, should state that it is naturalized citizenship. An example of this would be, "First American and naturalized Peruvian Pope", or just simply, "First American Pope".

Robertclarke32 (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Plus unnecessary linking - see WP:OVERLINK DeCausa (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Partly done I have added the wikilinks as I don't think it counts as overlinking, but feel free to change it back if you want to discuss here further @DeCausa. I disagree with the need to mention he is a naturalised citizen, as he is still a citizen nonetheless and it would just clog up the lead even more.

Kind regards, JacobTheRox (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

There are notable differences between a naturalised citizen and a native-born citizen. Vofa (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

"His father was the son of Giovanni Prevost, an Italian man, and Suzanne Fontaine, a French woman". This should be reversed since Prevost is a french surname and Fontaine is an italian one

"United States" isn't a country

It's "The United States of America" ("USA" or "America" for short.) That's all. It would be like referring to the People's Republic of China as "People's Republic" only and not, you know... "China." 2600:1700:3350:37E0:116D:1FB1:4FE7:8CDF (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

"United States" is widely used. Move on to something important. Sundayclose (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

American is also widely used, but North American is used instead, which links you to the continent North America 2601:644:937E:A370:4113:F8B2:7E90:A299 (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

What is important is calling him what he is. He is American. 66.44.113.139 (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm from the US and we definitely say "United States". Even federal agencies like the "United States Department of Agriculture" use this term.

You can't really use an analogy with China because "People's Republic" isn't in common usage. It's an apples to oranges comparison. MrTaxes (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

No one is saying we shouldn't say he's American. But his native country is the United States, the most common term. Sundayclose (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

He is an American, the cultural group of a person from the United States of America and the term for the inhabitants of that country in English, which this website is written in. Claire 26 (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The Most Common Term is America:

In most languages, the general population tends to use "America" or its equivalent (e.g., "América" in Spanish, "Amérique" in French) more commonly than "United States" or "USA" in casual conversation. This is because "America" is shorter, widely understood, and often carries a cultural or geographic connotation that resonates broadly. However, the preference varies by region and context:

• English-speaking countries: "America" is very common in the U.S. itself, while "USA" or "United States" is used more in international English (e.g., UK, Australia) to avoid ambiguity with the continent.
• Latin America and Spanish-speaking countries: "Estados Unidos" (United States) or "EE.UU." (USA) is often preferred to distinguish the U.S. from the broader "América," which includes all of the Americas.
• Europe and other regions: Translations of "America" (e.g., "Amerika" in German, "Америка" in Russian) are frequently used in casual speech, but "United States" or "USA" equivalents appear in more precise or formal contexts.
• Global media and pop culture: "America" dominates due to its prevalence in music, movies, and informal discourse.

Ali3576 (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Why are you yelling? Also, I'm nearly certain this response was generated with a large-language model. Doing either of these things are strongly discouraged, @Ali3576. Do you have a reliable source to prove that "America" is used more than "United States"? Departure– (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely. Firstly, virtually everyone in Europe, Asia, Middle East, Africa and Oceania knows it's called America. It is a FACT. Secondly, No study is needed for absolute common sense. Ali3576 (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Virtually EVERYONE I know says United States. Next topic. 2600:100F:B129:37A8:4C4D:D0A9:D167:7688 (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

NO I MEAN IT IS A FACT THAT EXCEPT SOUTH AMERICA (5% of the world population) EVERYONE USES AMERICA. Ali3576 (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Can I ask you to tone down your shouting? Your extra markup is also not helpful. More visible messages doesn't strengthen your argument that "everyone knows it's America", which isn't a policy-based reason to change the article. Departure– (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Even your AI list very clearly says that outside of the USA and one context in which the USA dominates, “America” is not the most common term. Give it a rest. Kingsif (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Where are you getting any of this info from?

I'm from the US and I normally just say US or sometimes USA, since it's just easier to say. Saying "America" is common but it's also very common to say US.

Source for "America" dominating in pop culture? Born in the USA? Party in the USA? God Bless the USA? Surfin' USA? I'm trying to assume good faith, but I genuinely can't understand how anyone could think that American "dominates" pop culture when people say USA all the time. MrTaxes (talk) 05:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not american and I agree with you. 82.76.78.221 (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

You agree with him about his experience as an American---even though you are not? Wow. Helpful. 66.44.113.139 (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Let's start with the fact that this article is written in American English.

That means saying "The First American Pope" is totally normal for everyone who understands what the American English dialect is. Even the phrase "American English" has America in it.  "América" is in another language and is used in another region. Everyone in the Regions of Europe, Middle East, Africa, Asia and Oceania call it "America" when referring to The United States of America, and "Americans" is the official demonym for people living in The United States of America. Ali3576 (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is your complaint? 57.135.233.22 (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Very plain and simple I want it to say this first:"Pope Leo XIV is The First American Pope" Ali3576 (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Did you actually read the message that you replied to? 66.44.113.139 (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Quote:

"This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus." Ali3576 (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Ancestry of his maternal grandparents

The article says "his mother was the daughter of Louisiana Creole parents, Joseph Martínez and Louise Baquié, from New Orleans, of African, French, and Spanish descent." Which on of his two maternal grandparents are you referring to here?

This is obviously not clear and ought to be edited. 2803:9400:3:4D80:BF10:74CC:62B4:D435 (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The wording has since been changed. Does this resolve your concerns about clarity? Mason7512 (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

American vs North American

If my understanding is correct "American" in English refers to someone the United States. While in other languages that may be different, this is English Wikipedia. Saying he's the "first North American Pope" is too broad as that could mean anyone from the US, Canada, Mexico, etc.

think on English Wikipedia we should settle on "First American Pope" and if necessary "Second Pope from the Americas" 174.246.129.14 (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

EXACTLY! THANK YOU!

This quote from the above for the rules is perfect:

"This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus." Ali3576 (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

i agree. it's notable i think that you don't see this kind of discussion on the pages of say American actors. Why when there is an understanding on those articles that it means "from the United States of America" is it so hard to come to a consensus here? Rhymeswpicard (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Because this page seems to be getting flooded by ESLs, usually from Latin America, who don't seem to understand that English and Spanish are different languages 174.246.128.236 (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

see it would be one thing if this was spanish wikipedia but uhhh it’s not, it’s english wikipedia lol. surely there can be an understanding that, as in every other case, wikipedia articles follow the linguistic conventions of the language they’re in. Rhymeswpicard (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Just say he's American. Simple as. Jibolba (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Confusion with main summary

The text is confusing for the average reader especially considering this topic is about a leader of the world wide Catholic religion. The main summary states 1st pope of America, but then states, 2nd pope of the Americas. It should be corrected to the 1st pope of the United States of America and 2nd pope of the Western Hemisphere (also a link to Pope Francis of Argentina should be included). As some can confuse the duplicate terms America/Americas. (Noted as well when looking into European popes it's usually listed as a German pope of origin, a French pope of origin, etc. Not just listed as a continents pope.) 75.108.64.235 (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2025 (7)

Add "Vatican City" to nationalities list, possibly with a disclaimer similar to that of Peru. I feel it is incorrect to leave out that he now holds Vatican citizenship since he will probably now use it to travel, etc. Cornerstone1949 (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Anything relating to Vatican City, diplomacy, and nationality is very complicated. The entity that relates to other countries diplomatically is the Holy See, not the Vatican City. The Holy See controls the Vatican City, but they are not equivalent as the Holy See encompasses the catholic church in its entirety. When traveling the pope is a representative of the Holy See, not a citizen of the vatican. "Vatican City" as a nationality has not been present in previous papal infoboxes and should not be added here despite the presence of the nationality line to note the dual citizenship status as american and peruvian. Ha2772a (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

"This article is written in American English"

Huh. That doesn't seem right. Why doesn't it say United States English?

Oh, right, because "American" is the English-language descriptor for something related to the United States of America. It follows that the article—which is part of English-language Wikipedia—should be updated to reflect this standard English-language convention. Pope Leo XIV should be called what he is: an American. 66.44.113.139 (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

 Already done. American English is the standard name used by Wikipedia for articles written using American naming conventions (e.g. 'color' and 'realize'). Leo is specified in the article as having been born in Chicago and that he is the first pope from the United States. If there's anything else you want changing, please say so in a clear change X to Y format. Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

He should be described as an "American" in the lead. At present, he is described as a "Peruvian" and a "United States" citizen, but not an "American." There is no good reason for this double standard. 66.44.113.139 (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

New Pope Leo XIV is from Dominican Roots, no Haiti-born

All the documentation indicates his Maternal Grandfather was born in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic as confirmed by the BBC and the Dominican civil register; Haiti doesn't have this register. I don't understand why people is playing with this fact. He was the son of Italian immigrants in Dominican Republic where they are plenty of Italian immigrant descendants. His last name was change to Martinez for easy assimilation into the Hispanic society. GFX-Guy00 (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I have proof that his grandfather is of dominican descent. There are images contained within the New York Times article that show his mother Mildred Martinez is of Dominican and Louisiana descent. Her father, Joseph N Martinez was born in Santo Domingo, Dominican republic. He was the son of James Martinez and Rosa Ramos. Her Mother was, Louise Baquie a native of New Orleans daughter of Jaronome Baquie and Eugenie Gambon. New York Times got a hold of these documents, and can be seen here: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/us/pope-leo-creole-new-orleans.html Gesda (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Be careful of original research. Secretlondon (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The fourth Pope with African heritage?

If he or the relatives he grew up with were born in an African country, it would be relevant in regards to his inner world and life experience, which would inevitably influence his Papacy.

But, if you see what I mean, in his case, his last ancestor who was actually from Africa probably died hundreds of years before his birth. How relevant is it then? He has never lived in Africa from what I've gathered, neither have any of his parents or grandparents. So you can guess how present Africa can only be in his experience of the world and the way he would define himself.

We homo sapiens all come from Africa when you stretch back far enough. All of us have African heritage; if you consider every person with some degree of African blood to be African, then you should consider Leo XIV to be the 267th Pope of African ancestry. Shoshin000 (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the line should be changed to "The first modern pope with African heritage", heritage has a clear distinction here for recent mixed ancestry vs what you are describing. But arbitrarily pointing to the three popes believed to have been born in North Africa is misleading. These previous popes likely share similar African heritage to many popes born in southern Italy. Doeze (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2025 (3)

Pope Leo’s mother was not a Black Creole. Her father is listed as White on FindAGrave

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/96451514/joseph_n-martinez Cocoapie22 (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Not done Find a grave is not a WP:Reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 21:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
•  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. FindAGrave is not an acceptable source. See WP:RSPFINDAGRAVE DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • The Pope's maternal grandparents, Joseph Martinez and Louise Baquié, were listed as "Black" on the 1900 U.S. Census, when they lived in New Orleans. They were then listed as "White" on the 1920 U.S. Census, when they lived in Chicago. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

You're providing the results of your work in primary sources. We need reliable secondary sources. Like the work of professional historians and genealogists. Rutsq (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Ancestry - possible relevant media on Commons

If the article should eventually be expanded to include a section about his family, I note that Commons has a picture of the church in New Orleans where his maternal grandparents were married. File:Old Our Lady of the Sacred Heart Church, New Orleans, Claiborne & Annette.jpg -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Do we have a source that his parents were married there? If so it could definitely be added to the article. JacobTheRox (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

It's in the recent NY Times article about his family New Orleans connections archive copy. Since my earlier comment I found another (somewhat clearer) photo of the church and created a category, also with a crop from old Sanborn map. Commons:Category:Our Lady of the Sacred Heart Church, New Orleans, 1872 building -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Nationality

Since he spent most of his life in Peru, he is peruvian and not American. This should be corrected.2A02:908:182:6201:940E:1C61:2623:3B92 (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

That's now how it works. He was born and raised in the United States. His cultural heritage is American — as in, he the United States of America, colloquially referred to as American. Justfixingit (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

No Tippx (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Almost 100% of the world's media (except in the Spanish-speaking and Portuguese-speaking world) reported the news of the pope in the same way: He is an American. Also, "American" is the default term (except in Spanish or Portuguese media. (Even most of the Italian media stated: "il Papa è americano".) English Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, and many others use "American" as the default term for someone from the United States. Wikipedia usage in many languages is not based on the usage of Spanish Wikipedia. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

His grand father’s ethnic roots

Currently the article claims based on citations that his paternal grand father is of mixed Italian and French decent. But the following Italian citation claims that he was born an Italian with the name Giovanni Pietro Felice Prevosto. Source: https://www.quotidianopiemontese.it/2025/05/10/trovato-a-settimo-rottaro-latto-di-nascita-di-giovanni-pietro-felice-prevosto-i-dati-sono-compatibili-con-il-nonno-di-papa-leone-xiv/ Kanatonian (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2025 (3)

Change: Their maternal grandparents were Hispaniola-born mixed-race Joseph Martínez, and New Orleans-born, mixed-race Louise Baquiet (also rendered Baquiex), a Black Creole.[4][18][19] to Their maternal grandparents were Haitian-born Joseph Martínez, and New Orleans-born, mixed-race Louise Baquié , a Black Creole.[4][18][19] Jgalouis (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2025 (4)

Change:

Their maternal grandparents were Hispaniola-born mixed-race Joseph Martínez, and New Orleans-born, mixed-race Louise Baquiet (also rendered Baquiex), a Black Creole.[4][18][19]

to:

Their maternal grandparents were Haitian Born, Joseph Martínez, and New Orleans-born, mixed-race Louise Baquié, a Black Creole.[4][18][19] Jgalouis (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Also possibly needing consensus. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure about Haitian born: according to New York Times the birthplace kept switching due to unknown location of birth Alimsts (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Nationality - again

The infobox gives one of his three nationalities as "Vatican City". Do we have a source for this? I've never heard of this particular nationality. MidnightBlue (Talk) 11:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Vatican City is an independent state with its own proper citizens. So, yes Vatican nationality exists. Tvx1 17:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

This website, which seems authentic, states there is no Vatican nationality: [8] MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

No further comments, so I'll remove the 'Vatican nationality' in the InfoBox shortly. It might be better to replace 'Nationality' with 'Citizenship'? Any thoughts? MidnightBlue (Talk) 13:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Done earlier today by another editor. Thanks. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

"United States or North America"

We have officially lost the plot. Of all the facile back and forths on whether we should call Pope Leo an American or not (which everybody in the Anglosphere is), by far the most ridiculous is this little gem of a line: "Leo XIV is the first pope to have been born in the United States or North America". Have you seen a map before? Saying he is the first pope to have been born in the United States or North America is like saying that Pope Benedict was the most recent German or European to have been pope. The US is very obviously in North America, to say that he is the first one from the United States or North America is ridiculously redundant. Saying he is the first from the United States would suffice. Can we all just agree to call him an American in English Wikipedia and whatever else in Spanish Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midship Runabout (talk • contribs) 2025-05-13T03:00:41 (UTC) (Special:Diff/1290149657)

Señoras y señores

Original in Spanish

Discurso de respuesta: Señoras y señores, Hoy me dirijo a ustedes con profundo respeto para responder a una pregunta que ha generado opiniones divididas: ¿Es el Papa León XIV peruano? La respuesta es sí, y no solo desde el punto de vista legal o documental, sino también desde el corazón, desde la identidad forjada con el tiempo, la cultura y el amor a esta tierra. El Papa León XIV vivió más de cuarenta años en el Perú. No fueron años pasajeros ni de simple estadía, sino décadas de entrega, de trabajo pastoral, de servicio al pueblo y de formación espiritual entre nosotros. Aquí echó raíces, aquí maduró su vocación, aquí amó, luchó y soñó. La patria no siempre es solo donde uno nace, sino también donde uno elige vivir, crecer y servir. El Perú no solo lo acogió: él eligió ser peruano de alma, de vida, de compromiso. Por eso, cuando decimos que el Papa León XIV es peruano, no es una frase simbólica ni patriótica: es una verdad construida día tras día, año tras año, en el calor de nuestro pueblo y en la profundidad de su misión. Asi como luis miguel mexicano nacido en puerto rico Y Papa león 14 peruano nacido en estados unidos

Gracias. 181.176.107.49 (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

English translation:

Response Speech:

Ladies and gentlemen, Today I address you with profound respect to answer a question that has generated divided opinions: Is Pope Leo XIV Peruvian?

The answer is yes, and not only from a legal or documentary perspective, but also from the heart, from the identity forged over time, culture, and love for this land.

Pope Leo XIV lived in Peru for more than forty years. These were not fleeting years or a simple stay, but decades of dedication, pastoral work, service to the people, and spiritual formation among us. Here he put down roots, here his vocation matured, here he loved, fought, and dreamed.

The homeland is not always only where one is born, but also where one chooses to live, grow, and serve. Peru not only welcomed him: he chose to be Peruvian in soul, in life, in commitment.

Therefore, when we say that Pope Leo XIV is Peruvian, it's not a symbolic or patriotic phrase: it's a truth built day after day, year after year, in the warmth of our people and in the depth of his mission.

Just as Luis Miguel, Mexican, born in Puerto Rico, and Pope Leo XIV, Peruvian, born in the United States.

Thank you. GN22 (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Per consensus at Wikipedia:RSP some sources in this article are unreliable such as, New York Post (WP:NYPOST), Catholic Hierarchy, Rolling stone (WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS), and more. We should remove these sources. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 02:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree with removing Catholic Hierarchy and Rolling Stone.

The New York Post is not normally reliable, but I think it can be used in this specific context. It is just used to show that the Pope embraced some cardinals after he got elected. This is pretty mundane so a lower-quality source is sufficient in my opinion. MrTaxes (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The section states;
There is consensus the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting, especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the New York Post more reliable before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage involving the New York City Police Department. A 2024 RfC concluded that the New York Post is marginally reliable for entertainment coverage; see below.
This consensus does not apply to the broadsheet publication of the same name, that existed from 1801–1942.
Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree the NYP is not generally reliable, but I think it's acceptable to cite marginally reliable sources like the NYP for mundane information, as it is being used now in the article.

I think it's relatively obvious that more important or extraordinary claims require higher quality sources (i.e. medical information), while extremely mundane claims have a lower standard. In my view, the Pope embracing some cardinals agree being elected is so mundane that even a marginally reliable source like the NYP is sufficient, MrTaxes (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

If it's a primary source, it needs a new one, secondary I believe is fine. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 19:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with MrTaxes. Rlendog (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

New York Post appears to have fabricated this 'fact'. Here is video of Prevost exiting the Sistine Chapel immediately after his election. He walks out with one other cardinal, while the rest remain seated. While there are some cuts in the video where he could have potentially embraced them, it would not be immediately upon exiting, and would require the other Cardinals to 'pass' him. Dolgubon (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Mundane facts still need to be facts, and the NYP is often worse for the mundane stuff - which it presumably feels it can embellish if not completely make up without consequence. Kingsif (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

More Unreliable sources

Ref 110 is a solo reference for an inline, but also proven to be unreliable.

Also 91 with the same unreliable source (But along with others).

55 unreliable per this.

And many others. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 19:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Please don't just give numbers when referring to sources; they change when a new source is added before or between them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thankfully, we can rewind a bit. Here is the article as it was just before Valorrr's comment. If I have it correct, Citation 55 was aleteia.org, Citation 91 was Newsweek, and Citation 110 is The Guardian. That one seems to be a miss, but Citation 111 is also Newsweek. Is this correct, Valorrr?

Assuming that is correct, both of the Newsweek citations are gone, but the Aleteia one is still in the article as Citation 58 for the following sentence: Within the Episcopal Conference of Peru, he served on the permanent council (2018–2020) and was elected president of its Commission for Education and Culture in 2019, also contributing to Caritas Peru. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me, and correct. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

110 should of been 111, per newsweek, as I linked it. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Just clarifying, do you Support or Oppose removing these references? Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 18:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with removing the Newsweek ones (Support), but am currently confused by the Aleteia source issue (Opposed). I see there is a WikiProject Spam report, but I am struggling to understand it. All I get from it is that the link is "not on the blacklist", "not on the domainredlist", "not on the Monitorlist", "not on the whitelist", and "not on the monitor list." Towards the bottom is says "Too many link additions (3382)" and that is all I can tell. It terms of sourcing, Aleteia is used in 694 other articles. So I am currently confused by the unreliable part. If that is cleared up, then I am no longer opposed at all; just right now confused by the exact issue due to missing something apparently. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Does having a report make it unreliable? --Super Goku V (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure, its a script I use. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 00:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Super Goku V found some clarity on this "Aleteia"... Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 314#Is Aleteia a reliable source? Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha. Then, I would agree that they should be removed. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done: Decided that I may as well do so. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that's really a sufficient enough analysis or discussion to rule it as unreliable. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

It's the noticeboard for reliable sources, and sorry consensus overrules us... Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing there! Secretlondon (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Note: this has been open for several days and had the chance to reply, plus with another one from the notice board, there is consensus... Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 19:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't count anyone from the archived discussion as part of a consensus, just that they had concerns about the source that convinced me that we should consider excluding. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

True. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a more in-depth discussion here with more editors weighing in. Honestly I don't see enough people providing concrete reasons to disqualify it as reliable, at least with attribution or discernment in terms of who authored the particular piece we're citing. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:DBD1:1DD1:A05B:14FD (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

I think attribution would be a bit weird when both sentences had other sources in use. Given the situation, I am okay with restoration if that is preferred. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Given that a week has passed and no one has commented here, I have decided that restoration is the best situation at the moment as it is unclear if there is a consensus for removal. Perhaps discussion at RSN is advisable regarding Aleteia. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

There's no "consensus", it's just one person replying to another. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Note: this has been open for several days and had the chance to reply, plus with another one from the notice board, there is consensus... Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 19:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Looking over Aleteia at this point, I can see that they do have a masthead, they do employ a professional and international editorial staff, and their content has been reliably high-quality. I do not know if all of their content is professional journalism, but the citations in question seem to pass muster. I would not object to restoring Aleteia as a reliable source in this article and retaining it in other articles. If anything, it is elevated significantly above the amateur blogosphere as of 2025. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:292B:B2B6:ACC1:1969 (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

Sorry, but the reliable sources noticeboard considered it "unreliable" and we really rely on that for consensus. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

No, that's a complete misrepresentation of what happened there. One person on the noticeboard objected to it. One person. That's not a consensus, and that's not the "noticeboard community". We are a part of whatever consensus emerges about this particular source and we have a right to reassess it, especially since those comments were made 4.5 years ago.

Please do not misrepresent sources or consensus or other discussions. It is very uncool to reinterpret things and state your opinion as if it is fact. Anyone can click through to that link and see that you've exaggerated the scope and finality of any consensus that could be had by a single query and a single person's response to that query. Thank you. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:292B:B2B6:ACC1:1969 (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

Restored from archive per request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 Note: Removing the Newsweek references. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 21:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

 Note: Newsweek and Aleteia sources have been removed. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Controversies over validity of his election as Pope

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article seems to whitewash Leo XIV unlike all the other articles on persons on Wikipedia. Specifically, Prevost has been heavily criticized in Catholic media, serious accusations have been made against him, even that his election is invalid. Wikipedia needs to confront the issue of how to add these historical facts and controveries without locking up the discussion if it is going to retain its credibility. 109.52.50.218 (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC) "Prevost has been heavily criticized in Catholic media" -- the proportion of criticism to other reactions matters. "serious accusations have been made against him" -- please describe the accusations and provide a link to a reliable source. "even that his election is invalid -- since I can't find much discussion on this topic online or in the news, it is likely untrue. This talk page is a place for discussion that improves the article. To add anything to the article, at the very least there have to be reliable sources supporting what's being added. Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC) Please link any reliable sources that make these claims. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 14:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC) Assume the OP is referring to sedevacantist cranks like this bunch. DeCausa (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC) So far, any invalidity arguments have been much more muted than even those (already very uncommonly) leveled against Pope Francis (because there were some people who held that Benedict XVI's resignation was invalid and therefore Francis's election was). I think including sedevacantist claims in the article would be WP:undue unless and until they get substantial coverage in reliable sources that links them particularly to Leo XIV. Jahaza (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC) Agree with above statements, reliable sourcing is needed if claims such as these are going to be put on the page.Eruditess (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)  Note: Archiving per this is not a forum, its meant for improvements on the article. Valorrr (lets chat) 16:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

 Note: The topic #Talk archiving disputes was split off from this discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk archiving disputes

This topic was split off from #Controversies over validity of his election as Pope, above.

The "note" included by Valorrr above is incorrect, as this was not forum type discussion, but rather, correctly, discussion of whether to include, albeit fringe, sedevacantist reactions to Leo XIII's election.

I have had to unarchive this discussion to add this note as Valorrr repeatedly reverted it when I tried to add it to the archived discussion. Jahaza (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Note: The title is;
Controversies over validity of his election as Pope
You understand this thing is just about his validity, with no reliable sources, nothing, just someone pissed about this guy or has some hate towards him, this is not a forum, unless proven that it is fake. There is no improvement to this article as it states above;
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Pope Leo XIV. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Pope Leo XIV at the Reference desk.
Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 19:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

This was someone suggesting, albeit incorrectly, a change to the article that they viewed as an improvement. We need to assume their good faith and not bite the newcomer. We then appropriately discussed whether and why not to include the accusation and/or commentary from sedevacantists. At some point, such accusations may become notable, but their not now and would be undue to include in the article. As the discussion had stabilized/completed, it would have been fine to archive it, but not by citing an inapplicable rule, which would have further confused the newcomer, had they seen it and which came close to casting aspersions on the other participants in the discussion. Jahaza (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia's NOTFOURM States;
Discussion forums. Stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk; questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. However, these should be used for questions of reasonable academic interest; Wikipedia does not serve as a technical help line or customer support for products or companies that have articles.
I believe there is a valid reason to archive it... Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 21:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Its puzzling that you keep insisting that this was a forum-like discussion when it's explicitly about what to put or not put in the article. It was fine to archive it, because it was decided and the discussion complete, but it was and is incorrect to label it a violation of the talk page guidelines and it would have been wrong to archive it for that reason. Then, when this was pointed out to you, you reverted the comments rather than displaying any understanding of the error.

It makes me wonder what material you have or might archive due to similar incorrect understandings of the talk page guidelines. Jahaza (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Your concern about the archiving being early might have merit, but the IP user has failed to provide any reliable sources for the statements over the past few days. (I will note thought that with the two day archiving, Valorrr was early only by thirty minutes.) --Super Goku V (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the archiving being early (I've repeatedly said that the archiving itself was correct.) I'm concerned that the reason for the archiving was wrong. And then when I tried to gently point this out for the record on the archive page, it was twice reverted by the person who had given the incorrect reason, who insisted that I unarchive it in order to make this point... And then reverted me when I was in the process of unarchiving when I was delayed by an edit conflict. All of which makes me concerned that 'in general' things are being done too fast and without regard for other contributors participation in the process. Jahaza (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that things are being done too fast. There is no technical reason, and no social reason, for archiving threads that are still relevant to the article content, especially considering how rapidly things are changing on the ground, how many new editors are being attracted to this area, and how difficult it is to update people when there's no obvious record of our prior conversations.

I suggest that the OneClickArchivers take a deep breath and please not manually archve anything at all because there are no justifications for this. Please, just set some reasonable defaults for the automatic archiving bots, and they will be along when the threads go dormant.

If you aggressively archive threads, then you will need to answer when the same dispute comes right back up and we need to waste time on rehashing, and playing telephone, with questions that were already settled and reached a consensus before the talk page was manually and deliberately disrupted. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:292B:B2B6:ACC1:1969 (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

Its not a simple, "take a break", this talk page is over 160k bytes large, which is massive and we're attempting to cut it down... Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

You seem to have arrived here from the year 2000. Highly active talk pages on highly visible topics are going to be very large, with many threads open -- including some threads that people just haven't gotten around to dealing with yet. A raw desire to "cut it down" has no place here. If you have trouble dealing with large, complex pages on large, complex subjects, edit something else. EEng 00:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

160K is not massive at all. There are only 7 threads open at the moment! The Wikipedia interface provides a nice table of contents that anyone can navigate between a mere 7 threads with great ease. You can go to the bottom and start a new thread. I do not see how 160K prevents anyone from finding relevant threads, participating in discussions, gleaning information, or contributing new insight.

Now if there were a significant number of irrelevant threads, or spam, or walls-of-text with derailed conversations, or duplicated requests, then I can see it becoming an issue. But 7 orderly and relevant threads are not "massive". Please do not impose your standards on other editors, because aggressive archiving is hindering discussion and making consensus more difficult to achieve. I hope you can understand that! 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:DBD1:1DD1:A05B:14FD (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

160k is larger that 75k. Per ARCHIVE: The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 75 KB (or 75,000 bytes) or has multiple resolved or stale discussions.

There has still be no reliable sources provided. All this has been is off-topic. Please provide a reliable source if you can. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I fear you are missing the point as well. It's not off topic to discuss why something is not included in an article and to discuss the fact that there are no reliable sources for a point of view. If it was, your most recent comment would itself be off topic! Jahaza (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

You have quoted Help:Archiving a talk page as stating that "talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 75 KB (or 75,000 bytes) or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." However, it turns out that that is not in fact part of the guideline page at all. See: WP:TALKSIZE, which you linked to and which does not currently include a size suggestion (and even if it did, a suggestion is not a mandate.) Jahaza (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Everything in the Help: namespace is hopelessly out of date. EEng 00:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I get your point, but this have been a very active talk page. Not only that, but there hasn't been a reliable source provided, making the original claims made moot until it is provided. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, @Valorrr: has chosen to continue edit-warring over archiving parameters which have been adjusted recently, by myself and by @EEng:, to what we have determined as reasonable defaults, and even though automatic archiving should be in place by now, Valorrr has also continued to aggressively and unnecessarily perform manual archiving on recent threads. I suggest that we arrive at a consensus for how archiving should be accomplished here, because it is unproductive to continue disputing it, and it is also counterproductive to keep hiding relevant discussions from new and existing editors on this article! Thank you. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:3452:E065:3724:41A7 (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

Sadly it can't just be about that, but this is 200 THOUSAND, and keep in mind, you did that WITHOUT consensus, while what I had was up for several at least 20 days, and you magically remove it without consensus, which is not reasonable, User:Pigsonthewing can most likely confirm, and if you look at the following revision ([9]) Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 18:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest that you don't understand what consensus is, nor how to interpret it, nor what policies and guidelines are, because you've consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented such things. Please don't do that; for the sake of honesty and transparency, try to confine your statements to matters of fact and/or your own opinions. I am not sure what "200 THOUSAND" refers to, but I assure you that these numbers are flexible and subject to our discretion, but I humbly suggest that they be reasonable, and your ideas, Valorrr, are distinctly unreasonable [for example, the revision you just linked shows your edit summary doesn't seem to be connected to the change you made,] and you are not factoring in important aspects of collaborative editing when trying to formulate these parameters. If you insist on insisting that you're always right, and not admitting correction or compromise from other editors, it's not going to be a favorable atmosphere for resolving even the simplest disputes. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:1E8F:17D5:D7BB:C939 (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

200,000 bytes. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 14:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

200,000 bytes of... I am going to make a wild guess now... talk page raw content?

By the way, page-sizing metrics may refer to “readable prose size”, rather than raw byte-count. I am unsure how to measure the former, but it probably isn’t different by much on a typical talk page. Anyway, EEng reminds us that there really isn’t a concrete number enshrined in our guidelines anymore — it is currently 2025, and most everyone’s device will not freak out loading 200KiB, and I contend that as long as this page is clean, and navigable, with an appropriate number of thread section headings, we’re not going to shoot ourselves in the foot with artificially small/restrictive archive parameters. Thank you. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:8DCE:967D:5630:E03D (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

I believe all Editors here should be providing a support/oppose on how long archiving should be, do you disagree IP? Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 14:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@EEng, @Jahaza, @Pigsonthewing, @Super Goku V, @2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:1E8F:17D5:D7BB:C939, @2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:DBD1:1DD1:A05B:14FD, @2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:3452:E065:3724:41A7 and @2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:292B:B2B6:ACC1:1969 I'd like to mention the archiving errors are now set to setup a new archiving page per archive, which is gonna flood the pages. I recommend we set a precedent on how long the archiving should be, please reply in the thread below, but my suggestion is...

3 Days until the activity calms down, when it calms down, 2 months.

Clarification: "Calms down", shall be decided by another community consensus/review, not by 2 editors or even a singular editor. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 15:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Adding more editors;

@GloryToCalifornia, @Darth Stabro, @IvanScrooge98, @EF5 Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 15:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Here are my thoughts. To whoever thought it was a good idea to cut a prior discussion in half to make this: Please don't do that as it messes with context.

Regarding the archiving, I think two months is too long. I think three days is too short. I think that talk pages exceeding 100,000 bytes should have shorter archiving times, but I see that not everyone agrees with that. I think the archiving errors could have been fixed manually without much issue and discussion. I think that sections can be manually archived before the auto-archiving date. I think that manually archiving should be done with reasonable sense and not be done when the last comment is just three days old. And I think this discussion is getting silly fast. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Great. We've got the date-format debate, the semicolon debate, and now Valorrr has added the talk-page archiving debate by ridiculously proposing that threads be archived after 2 days of inactivity. We go through this regularly with people who prize form over substance -- a neat and clean talk page over getting issues and concerns actually addressed and resolved, however much time that may take.

The page is big because this is a highly visible topic right now, so a lot of concerns are being raised; it's inevitable that some or even many of those concerns won't get addressed right away -- and that can mean days, weeks, or even a month or more. So what? It should never be that someone opens a legitimate concern on Friday, goes on holiday for the weekend, and returns on Monday to find that, in the rush of all the other things going on, his or her thread got archived before anyone had time to address it. That's what this stupid 2-day proposal would mean.

With many experienced editors active on the page, resolved threads are best archived manually via One-click. No robot should be artificially consigning threads to the dustbin just because some editors can't stand the sight of a large and vigorous talk page with many editors doing their best to address things when they have time. EEng 15:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I would take issue with the One-Clicking. That already formed part of my protest at the outset. Because it permits individuals to get far ahead of the archiving bot, and far ahead of any consensus or common sense, and unilaterally quash threads. I would say there is simply never any need to O-C-A any thread if we have properly set reasonable archiving parameters.

In fact, if you're hiding edit requests that have just been answered then that is a disservice to everyone else, especially the requestor, who may wonder where the hell their request went off to? An answered edit request -- even a malformed one -- should stand as a resolved thread, so that the OP can be duly informed, as well as later editors who may come back with the same question, you know? For any other dispute or question, when a thread is resolved, again, that serves to inform others of the resolution and consensus! Why hide that away? It was not for our own benefit!

Also, I would suggest that aggressive/frequent archiving is less welcome when things are busy. A busy talk page will reflect the busy editing sessions, and there is no need to go Procrustean! If things do "quiet down" (which may not happen, because he is a reigning, young, English-speaking pope) we can revisit the numbers, but again, I contend that if archive parameters are reasonably set in the first place, we'll find no need to adjust them.

I also take issue with the mass-pinging, Valorrr. It is unclear what you intend to accomplish by re-Wikipedia:Canvassing so many editors. Also your pinging of multiple IPv6 addresses doesn't actually do anything. I would humbly suggest that anyone with an interest in contributing to this thread is already watching/subscribed. I would also humbly suggest that pinging editors without a clear question or reason is rude and disruptive. Thank you. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:1325:B8FF:E2C0:83E (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

It wouldn't happen if someone else replied? You are focusing on one person not the others... Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

What in the world are you even trying to say? EEng 16:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm stating the thread is active regardless, it'll be active if the thread has no replies for 3 days, but if I reply on that day it won't archive. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

To the extent I can make sense of your somewhat unintelligible post (I'm stating the thread is active regardless – huh???), you're telling us that if archiving is set to 3 days, and someone edits on the third day, it won't get archived. Thanks for explaining how archiving works. EEng 17:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was a bit rushed, I was about to go somewhere, what I meant was;

"I'm stating that the thread is active if someone replied before the archive." Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 19:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that you're explaining to us how archiving works. EEng 22:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

One-click needs to be used with discretion, taking into account the points your raise. That means that experienced, judicious editors should be applying that tool, not the editor who just wants the page to be a rigid in-and-out assembly line.

Your point that aggressive/frequent archiving is less welcome when things are busy is absolutely the crux of the matter. Totally agree. The archiving time should be set to 60 or 90 days -- if something really hangs around that long, it's either been addressed and settled, or it's not going to be addressed. On a not busy page, that means settled threads stay around a while, so new visitors can get a sense of what's been happening. On a busy page, that means that experienced editors should judiciously and conservatively use One-click to archive settled issues that have no remaining "educational value", so that the page doesn't become clogged with stuff serving no further purpose. EEng 16:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

P.S. Can some kind admin please delete Talk:Pope_Leo_XIV/Archive_6, which Valorrr caused to be created in the course of all his tinkering?

I've placed {{Db-g6|rationale=reason}} on the page, so hopefully someone will be along. Jahaza (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd forgotten about G6. EEng 22:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

By Script Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

What Are You Babbling About Now? EEng 22:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Stated that I made the edits via script? Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 23:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Nobody cares? EEng 01:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I believe it should be pointed out, if you don't like it, ignore it. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 14:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Going along with what EEng has said, One-Clicking isn't the problem. The issue is that some uses of it were too early. Personally, this talk page is very chaotic and does need some archiving, but only when and where reasonable. Finally, I don't consider myself canvassed as I was participating in this discussion as it as when it was called "Controversies over validity of his election as Pope". (Partly for that reason, I have restored the lost context, along with other reasons.) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The context was not lost. The discussion utterly derailed into the meta-issue and deserves its own thread. If none of this discussion is about the original issue then it cannot be contained or classified under the original heading. Oh, I am sorry, was context lost because some aggressive archiver aggressively archived the top-level thread? I am so not sorry! 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:8DB6:9653:34F4:CB50 (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

@Super Goku V insists on obscuring the topic of this thread, muddying the waters, tampering with archived threads and files, and generally making this talk page difficult to read. Ironically it is precisely this problem which sparked the dispute on talk page archiving.

Do you want people to be able to navigate this talk page or not? Do you want clarity of thread topics or not? Do you want to hide important discussions from new editors? Please don't undermine people who are trying to organize it properly. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:8DB6:9653:34F4:CB50 (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

I have addressed the refactoring issue elsewhere along with some other stuff.

In any case, do you still have an issue with manual archiving or has that portion been resolved? Additionally, are they any parts still unresolved that have been discussed above by myself? --Super Goku V (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Any one click archiver believes it needs to open a whole new page, not sure why. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 14:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Again with the unduly rapid archiving, User:Valorrr? Like on your own talk page, an editor should not be attempting to limit discussion by micro-controlling the archiving. On your own talk you said you liked a nice clean talk page; fine. Currently we're on the absolutely busiest talk page in the history of Christendom, and Valorrr, with roughly 70 days' total edits on Wikipedia is dictating to wikipedians with over 20 years history how the archiving should proceed. Valorrr, you do not have the experience and have not demonstrated the judgement to rule on such matters. If you continue to proceed in this way, expect to be taken to a discussion board by one of these (or myself). You should stop clerking talk pages (other than your own). Just like on your own page, rapid archiving sends a message to other contributors that discussion is not welcome. This is bad. You should make most of your newbie mistakes in pagespace, not in meta-discussion with trusted and vastly experienced contributors. Please stop your disruption here. BusterD (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  Alright, then I'll stop discussing here. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Capitalization

Per MOS:ISMCAPS, "mass" should be lowercased in the article, as should "church" except when "Church" appears in a proper name, such as "St. Paul's Church" or "the Church of St. Mary" (also "St. John's Parish)." "Gospel as a noun should be capitalized, as an adjective lowercased "gospel values".

There seems to be some flexibility in our manual of style for quotations. I think we should probably lowercase "Church" in quotations as well, because the sources for quotations will not be consistent in capitalizing and our style doesn't give us the option of capitalizing where the source doesn't.

Note, this doesn't apply to capitalization in link URLs or citation titles, which generally should come from the source. Jahaza (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Tagging @1995hoo for awareness. Jahaza (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I don’t believe the section you cite actually supports your claim as to the word for the liturgy, but I’m not motivated to do anything about it late on a Saturday afternoon or to start an edit war about it. The word "mass" without a capital letter refers to what many people conflate with weight (pounds, kilograms, etc.), whereas "Mass" referring to the liturgical rite is ordinarily treated as a proper noun (and hence capitalized, including under the guideline you cite because it says to capitalize proper nouns). 1995hoo (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with 1995hoo. I'm not sure if the MOS actually supports that. It talks about proper names, transcendent ideas, pronouns, major works of scripture, types of mythical beings, and names of religious events vis a vis the Flood. Maybe the sentence Doctrinal topics, canonical religious ideas, and procedural systems that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith or field are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as a virgin birth, original sin, transubstantiation, and method acting. is close but even then I'm not sure. Things like Shacharit, Mincha, and Ma'ariv are capitalized, so it would seem like Mass would be as well. The AP seems to think that Mass is a proper noun. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

While 1995hoo was changing the capitalization today, they said there is "no firm resolution" but I contend that there is. Consensus has been already achieved long before this discussion. All you need to do is reference the firmly consistent usage throughout Wikipedia, especially in the main topic, anchor articles:

• Mass in the Catholic Church
• Mass (liturgy)
• Tridentine Mass

I would contend that if our MOS should be interpreted as using lowercase for "mass" instead, that this would already have been raised and resolved in such articles. Indeed there are many editors who still lowercase it, but I regard this as a consistent error, and these errors contravene the overwhelming consensus that has already been observed since time immemorial here. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:5D54:906C:EEEF:8F60 (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

I think that it's not quite that settled. Those articles get a lot of traffic, but also a lot of partisan editing. There are other apparently carefully edited articles don't use uppercase:

• Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Berlin
• Catholic Church in Estonia
• Catholic Church in France
• Roman Catholic Territorial Prelature of Trondheim

Jahaza (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Wow, those are some really obscure and inconsequential articles with inconsequential edits to them! I want to know, how do you calculate that finding some exception to the rule proves that there is no rule? I want to know, why you think that just because a few stray edits haven't been caught by copyeditors, that this contradicts the clear evidence I found for you in those foundational articles, which are overwhelmingly consistent? I would ask, how many articles did you survey where you found it capitalized, before you found these outliers? 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:ABAA:E61E:BFE3:FC90 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

WP:AGF, anon. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, DS, and I do apologize for my tone, and the badgering which I may engage in here. Civility is important and there's no reason for anything less. I stand by my position, however, and humbly submit that the decision is already made for us, and that pervasive consensus is abundantly clear, regardless of what sort of process we follow in this thread. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:D848:C1FF:8BBD:76EF (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

Edit request (first address)

Change/expand "He then delivered his first address in Italian and Spanish. He expressed gratitude for the legacy of Pope Francis, and imparted his first Urbi et Orbi blessing in Latin" to "He then delivered his first address to Rome and the world in Italian, advocating for peace and dialogue, expressing gratitude for the legacy of Pope Francis and quoting Saint Augustine; he also greeted his former diocese of Chiclayo, Peru, in Spanish. After the speech, he imparted his first Urbi et Orbi blessing in Latin." source: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-05/pope-leo-xvi-peace-be-with-you-first-words.html. 78.209.222.222 (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Do not change image until consensus, keep the current image.

The new image with his meeting JD Vance should not be used, the old image from May 12 is a better placeholder. Kaisersauce1 (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The Vatican has released an official portrait for him, I strongly recommend we consider using it. Misleduk (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

We cannot use the Vatican photo because it does not have a Wikipedia compatible license. See Talk:Pope Leo XIV/FAQ. Jahaza (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Not the seventh

Well it didn't take long for the "six other [Augustinian Rule] popes" canard to make it back into the article.

I am tired of active and relevant threads being aggressively archived when there is simply no need for it. We need to keep raising the same issues in new threads, and that is not the way Wikipedia works.

I assure you that far more than six previous popes have observed the Rule of St. Augustine. There are many orders which have adopted this Rule, far more than the ones in the Augustinian family. There is absolutely no citation for this "six other popes" claim, and you cannot keep adding unsourced information with a big long explanatory footnote purporting to support it. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:D0B9:C145:8ABD:FB60 (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

 Note: This claim is backed up by a reliable source, and if you believe this is wrong, please establish consensus to remove this from the article completely, if this exists already permalink it for me and I'll remove it, but I recommend doing a extended edit request for this. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 21:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I see that you haven't bothered to read either of those sources, because they say nothing of the sort. In fact the second one doesn't mention St. Augustine at all. The first one says nothing about how many popes have been Augustinian. Why do you insist that these sources back up the claim? They do not. You are lying. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:39CC:9681:DF17:DF9 (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

It states, and its ONE source, not 2... It states;

six previous popes belonged to other orders which follow the Augustinian Rule.^[108]

And the source states;
How many popes have been part of the Order of Saint Augustine? How many popes have been Augustinians?

Pope Francis was the first pope from the Jesuit religious order, and he was the first pope in more than a century and a half to come from any religious order. The previous one was Gregory XVI, a Camaldolese monk (1831-1846). In all, 34 of the 266 popes have belonged to religious orders, according to America, a Jesuit magazine.

Also according to the magazine, there had been six Augustinians to become pope before Leo XIV.

And AP news also lists this .

Please stop causing drama... Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 00:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

The claim is false: "orders which follow the Augustinian Rule"

And the claim is not corroborated by the sources, which say something different: "six Augustinians to become pope"

Which is also a false claim, because the Augustinian Order itself was not founded until after those popes reigned.

The truth is that there have been far more than six popes following the Rule. You have no source that has an accurate assessment or count.

Get it right or get it out. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:39CC:9681:DF17:DF9 (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:39CC:9681:DF17:DF9, please read "verifiability, not truth". Only in rare cases do we make up our own conclusions, but this isn't one of those times. — ^EF⁵ 00:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

EF5, the main problem currently is that the assertion in our article is unverifiable because there is an entirely different claim being reflected in the citations we've included. What I'm saying is that we not only need to follow the sources, but we also need to recognize when they are merely parroting each other (the source that we cited specifically says that the assertion came from a completely different source.)

There are plenty of sources which clearly say that Leo XIV is the first from the OSA. That is the TRUTH and that is the VERIFIABLE fact that is agreed by a consensus of sources. The ancient-times popes may have followed the Rule of St. Augustine, but once again I tell you that Dominicans and many other orders have done so as well, which moves the needle far beyond six previous ones. Honestly, we've already worked to excise this assertion several times; it keeps bouncing back in; there have been multiple discussions that agreed to remove it; and some aggressive archivists keep hiding those discussions from your view. That is unjust to the editors on this rapidly-changing article.

There is also the issue that Eugene IV was never an Augustinian, yet we have a famous historian's say-so that he was. So we resolve this by trusting the more-reliable sources and discounting the oft-repeated lie. You see, we cannot depend on every source equally. The current sources trumpeting about Augustinian heritage for the past week are playing a game of "Telephone" and not doing very well at it. Let us not engage in "Telephone" with quasi-reliable sources. The mainstream media often willfully misunderstands the Catholic faith and the structure of religious orders, so perhaps you'd care to delve into some actual Roman Catholic journalism for the real verifiable truth on this. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:8BBB:5005:EF29:7F4A (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

NikolaiVektovich removed the footnote a few days ago, which I entirely support, because that footnote was rife with Wikipedia:SYNTH and had no real corroborating footnotes.

The question is, if we're going to tally seven popes who were "Augustinian" we'll need to define the scope. If we're counting popes who "followed the Rule of St. Augustine" then there are far more than seven. If we exclude "non-Augustinian orders" who followed the Rule then we've got another count. If we count "only Canons Regular and real Augustinians" then we arrive at yet a different number.

But we can't count any of these without reliable secondary sources which support those numbers. Currently, the only number we can reliably support is "ONE". One Augustinian Pope from the OSA and another from the Canons Regular [before the foundation of the OSA].

I feel that we should stick to verifiable facts in this article. Perhaps you outrank me and you can shout me down and ignore all the rules about verifiability and cram in your game of telephone factoids. But I honestly don't see the point. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:8BBB:5005:EF29:7F4A (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

You need to learn Wikipedia:AGF, and learn that what @EF5 said is true, but I find it very weird, there is two IP users on this thread? [[@2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:39CC:9681:DF17:DF9 and @2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:D0B9:C145:8ABD:FB60?? Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 00:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:IP users: IP users frequently contribute from different IP addresses because Internet service providers (ISPs) usually assign IP addresses dynamically; meaning that the same actual person may return to Wikipedia with a different IP address that was re-assigned by the ISP. Same user, but the IP address changed. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Valorrr: In a later AP News article, they issued a correction, which reads "This story has corrected the number of Augustinian popes. Vatican News says Pope Leo XIV is the first Augustinian pope, not the seventh." article

The relevant Vatican News bio is here: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-05/biography-of-robert-francis-prevost-pope-leo-xiv.html

The article currently cited is a AP News wire report, the original of which can be seen here. Importantly, this contained the paragraph you quoted. However, this line was removed in later versions of the article, (current version), so I think it would make sense for us to go along with that.

Previous discussion is Talk:Pope_Leo_XIV/Archive_1#First_Augustinian_Pope_2. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

As a layman, I have no horse in the race over whether or not Pope Leo XIV is an Augustinian or not. (Nor do I understand what an Augustinian is.) Wikipedia is built on consensus.

Proposal: Mention Pope Leo XIV as the 7th Augustinian Pope.

Justify a choice of yes or no, or propose a third option.

@EF5 @Super Goku V @Valorrr @2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:8BBB:5005:EF29:7F4A @2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:D0B9:C145:8ABD:FB60 Bremps... 13:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I also know nothing about Catholicism, so I won't vote. — ^EF⁵ 13:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I am catholic myself, but I remain neutral, my vote is Support or Yes. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTAVOTE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I am uncertain on the difference myself, so nothing from me. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't Pope Adrian IV an Augustinian Monk? Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

References

2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:1E8F:17D5:D7BB:C939 (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

MOS:BIRTHNAME

@GloryToCalifornia: when you made this edit, you placed the semicolon inside the bolded text, which has no good purpose and is against our Manual of Style. When you restored your edits, you ignored @IvanScrooge98: who directed you to read MOS:BIRTHNAME, which very explicitly demonstrates when to use a semicolon and when to use a comma. It is clear that the comma is correct in this case, and should be placed outside the bolded subject name. Thank you. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:F1B:A2D3:7B56:A9CF (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The semicolon isn't bolded anymore, it now comes after the bolded text. Each and every article about anyone who legally changed their name uses a ";" on their article. See Pope Francis, Kanye West, JD Vance, the list goes on. If this goes against Wikipedia policies why is every other article like this, and why is this dude's edits getting undone constantly. And what do you mean "against our manual style". Wikipedia isn't your website and you don't even have an account. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure why the other articles do not conform, but that is not our concern here; our concern is adhering to our Manual of Style. @Bkell: is the editor who updated this guideline in September 2022. Perhaps they have more insight or can explain why. It seems to me the right way to do it.

It is important to note that our Manual of Style is on the list of Contentious Topics, per WP:CTOP, so it is of utmost importance that edit wars and disputes not be inflamed over such details. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:F1B:A2D3:7B56:A9CF (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

Other articles don't follow because that's not how Wikipedia articles are written. I'm convinced you're IvanScrooge98 on an alt to make it look like other users disagree with me. How do you know who made what guideline or the site in general if you don't have an account. People have reverted your edits multiple times and I saw you edit other articles on your IvanScrooge98 account, where you didn't remove the semicolon on other popes articles. I have no idea what you're doing with this article. And removing "U.S." and replacing it with "US" looks so unprofessional, like look at how other articles are written. Not how Wikipedia is written. And if your not IvanScrooge98 why do you keep saying "our policies" if you dont own the site or have an account? And why would some anonymous user who doesn't even bother to make an account care? GloryToCalifornia (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

First of all, that anon is not me. Remember to assume good faith. Secondly, The comma and semicolon are used in different situations:

• XXX (born YYY; 3 June 1951 – 6 May 2017) was …
• XXX (born YYY, 3 June 1951) is …

Hope that is clear now. Regards. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this is right. In the first case, with the semicolon, "born YYY" and "3 June 1951 – 6 May 2017" are independent of each other: if the person's birth and death dates were unknown, the parentheses would contain only "born YYY", and if the person did not have a different birth name, the parentheses would contain only "3 June 1951 – 6 May 2017". In the second case, with the comma, the word "born" goes with both "YYY" and "3 June 1951": the separate phrases "born YYY" and "born 3 June 1951" are being combined. —Bkell (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Your edit will get undone by someone. Instead of changing the article while there's an active discussion mind discussing first? And if this is how articles are written Why isn't this on any other articles i gave examples on? What's the obsession with this article. Someone please explain. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The fact that someone might want to change it is why I put a comment explaining why it is more recommended to use a comma, which you promptly reverted. Now, Pope Francis is dead (semicolon + two dates), JD Vance has been changed to comma + birth date just like we’re trying to do here, Kanye West is protected so an edit should be requested. Mind explaining why you are so keen on the semicolon here? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

me and the people that reverted that edit are keen on the semicolon here because that's how 80% of articles are written, so it makes the page look weird when it's not there. When Pope Francis was alive he had the semicolon. Mind explaining why you guys want this article to look weird. By removing "U.S." in the infobox to "US" to removing the semicolon. Because you're making the article different from like 80-85% of other articles on famous people it looks extremely unprofessional from someone who pays attention. It looks sloppy, it looks like this page wasn't cared for when worked on. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It looks sloppy and weird to you, it looks like it makes more sense to me. With the difference that the Manual of Style supports my choice and not yours. What the usage was for Pope Francis is irrelevant, and if there are other articles where the semicolon is used before the birth date of a living person, then those articles should be amended, not this one. Please bring an actual argument if you are so opposed. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I do not understand how you can justify this by appealing to consistency.

A consistency claim may be made in matters of taste. It may be made to bring outlying articles into compliance with guidelines or something. But you're suggesting that the "right way to do it" is demonstrated by these other articles, when we're contending that those articles are in fact doing it wrong, and they're the ones that need fixing.

If the other articles are doing it right, then you can independently justify your position by simply explaining how and why they are right, and we are wrong, and our MoS guideline is wrong, and why we should fix the guidelines and then proceed to fix this article. I don't see that happening here.

What you're doing is sort of an argument from authority. But other Wikipedia articles are not authoritative. The articles you list have not been vetted as GA-class or Featured or anything. They're simply the product of a lot of people editing them -- they are high-profile indeed. Typically, these types of articles accumulate errors, and these errors are not to be imitated, OK? 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:1A5:55C:E498:AEFE (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

@IvanScrooge98 My "actual argument" is, why does over 80% of articles on people who've had a name change have the semicolon and no administrator has changed them, articles on MEGA famous people like the vice president of the United States, only today was it changed because I brought it up it. You, your IP address, and that one administrator seems like the only people who care while your edit got reverted by different people like 4 times GloryToCalifornia (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

That is not an argument. That is saying we should disregard the conventions because there are more cases formatted in your preferred way. If you and others don’t like the conventions, open a discussion in an appropriate place to change them, or else the current conventions should be applied. Complaining on a specific article is not the way. (Also, I’d love to know where you got that “80%” statistic from.) ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I got the 80% statistic based on like 40-50 articles I've read. We don't know the actual number, it might be 90%, but you can make an educated guess based on the stuff you've seen. You know how surveys poll people, like a politicians approval rating or just someone's thoughts. You can get a pretty good idea of the percentage of how the whole country is feeling by surveying random people, of course your percentage is going to be a little off but you'll be close. And fine, let's keep the comma, but don't be surprised when people undo that because it looks terrible. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

GloryToCalifornia, you're flat out wrong, and should drop this. EEng 17:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

RFC on date format

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pope Leo XIV/RFC: Date format. Soni (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

MOS:US

Cannot believe the trivial trivia being argued over this article and by now we deserve a spot on the "lamest edit wars" list.

The abbreviations "U.S." and "US" are governed by the guideline at MOS:US. @GloryToCalifornia has demanded discussion while sustaining an edit-war on this triviality. Okay, here's the facts:

GTC cited a small excerpt of the guideline which calls for retention. That retention is qualified: "unless there is a good reason to change it". Therefore let us enumerate the good reasons to change it [from "U.S." to "US"]

• The same guideline says that "U.S." is deprecated elsewhere in favor of "US".
• The establishment is debatable. By the time the article was stabilized in early 2023, a single instance of "U.S-born" was the only usage present, and that's a rather ambiguous and anomalous usage. I would disagree that it's a firm establishment.
• This article was not so popular when Prevost was a Peruvian bishop. He became an obscure cardinal and little changed. Now he is first-ever US-born leader of the universal Church and there's an opportunity for us to overhaul the article, and bring it into a vastly improved state. Upgrading to "US" usage is a good direction forward, and the increased notability is a good reason.
• Going forward, if other abbreviations such as "UK" are introduced, then we'll need that consistency again, therefore if "US" usage is already in place, it's one less worry for us.
• Edit wars and disputes on the Manual of Style are really petty and should never be sustained or bitterly protracted like this. Those who insist on the back-and-forth are losing our assumptions of good faith and calling into question their own competence or reason for editing here.

2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:533B:8CAA:DD87:2FC9 (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Someone added "U.S." in a few places in the article. The guideline says use U.S. if it's established in the article. I also just saw "US" too so I don't know if it was removed or there's both mentions of "US" and "U.S". If U.S. is established and nobody removed it or anything, we should keep "U.S." in infobox like the guideline says. Also a leader of over a billion Christians, the infobox needs to look professional. "US" doesn't look right for a person so significant GloryToCalifornia (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

No, no, no. Don't misrepresent the guideline by abridging it. I linked it and anyone can read the full text. I just finished laying out justifications. I even argued that it's not established and you still say "if".

Now you also say it "doesn't look right / professional". Now you're imposing your own tastes to contravene our Manual of Style. See Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT. Your personal tastes are overridden by consensus, guidelines, policies. You cannot edit war over feelings or personal judgement. You'll lose. I advise that you take a break from disputes and editing and think about it. The more you write, and the more you edit, the deeper you're digging a hole. Bro. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:533B:8CAA:DD87:2FC9 (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

I said "if its established" because I saw someone put U.S., but today I also saw a mention of US, so I dont know if an editor removed it or not. But IF it's established let's follow the guidelines. IF not let's find who removed it and why before doing anything else GloryToCalifornia (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The revisions after the article was expanded from a redirect used "U.S-born", "U.S.", and "United States" once each. If you want to go from there, then feel free to do so. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

2600, you might want to drop the tone down a notch. Other than that, your point stands. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I am late weighing in (and defending myself against templated attacks on my talk page) because I have the day off work and I went to see the new Mission:Impossible. My point was very simple. MOS:US is accurately quoted above. But if all of you would simply bother to search the darn article, you would find the same thing I did. "U.S." with periods appears six times, all of them in article titles in the references. Those don’t count as "established" for purposes of assessing the article's text (just like if the BBC referred to the "World Trade Centre" it would not establish that as the correct name of the complex in New York). That form does not appear anywhere in the article's text (other than, earlier today, in the infobox when user GlorytoCalifornia kept inserting it there). Meanwhile, "US" without periods appears three times, all in the article's text (I searched for those letters with spaces on either side to cut down on false positives, and of course I’m not counting instances of the pronoun "us"). So under MOS:US, either no form at all was established or "US" without periods was established, but either way it is very clear that "U.S." with periods was not established, which means that the MOS guideline directs that we should use "US" (no periods). That is why I reverted it earlier. 1995hoo (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

One further comment: It’s currently spelled out in full in the infobox. I certainly think that’s a fine solution to the issue that started this discussion. 1995hoo (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't seen the new Mission impossible yet so don't spoil anything. Also I just saw the infobox, I think having "United States" in infobox looks good too. I think that's about the only agreement we're going to have so might as well call consensus right here GloryToCalifornia (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@GloryToCalifornia, sigh. See your user talk page.

• Oppose expansion to "United States". This is an Infobox; every field needs to be as brief and concise as possible. We need to abbreviate here, of all places. Please remove the misleading hidden comments from the article's wikitext. They must have been planted by The Syndicate!
• Oppose "U.S." style abbreviation. While acknowledging that it was in prior use by Non-Official Cover agents in years past, we've enumerated and established plenty of "good reasons to disavow change it". Conversely, there is no compelling reason to retain it.
• Support "US" style abbreviation, should you choose to accept it. Let us seize this opportunity, as the article undergoes a complete makeover, to bring this style into compliance with common usage. The other styles are deprecated elsewhere. There are plenty of good reasons to change. It's an overall upgrade.

This message will self-destruct in 13 months. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:2E86:C85A:8B38:362D (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

I checked your edit history, you started editing yesterday. And how do you know so much about the wiki as an IP user? It's clear you're logged out of your account pretending your a different person, I just don't know which account I talked to today was you. Just log in. Also, it wasn't a misleading hidden comment, me and the user I had a dispute with came to an agreement, and you, without an account, decides to drag the conversation on despite saying earlier it's petty if I care what's in the infobox. Also, since "U.S." is established in this article if we remove "United States" from the infobox, we would have to put "U.S." not "US" according to Wikipedia's guidelines on what's established. You're breaking the WP:IDONTLIKEIT guideline you accused me of breaking earlier. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 has now been blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23, following the outcome of an AN/I thread they posted where they admitted to logged-out sockpuppetry. I have struck out nearly all the comments they have left on this talk page accordingly, aside from original posts in threads which have received response from other users. Their comments are not to be taken seriously as a result. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok. I knew something was off about that guy GloryToCalifornia (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Nationality the Third

Came across [10].

Until there is an actual conflict of interest involving a Pope and his passport-state nothing more need be said. Jackiespeel (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content

Hello @Wayfarer7575: I already left a message on your talk page after reverting your recent edits, but you appear to have ignored that message so I am bringing it here to the article talk page. Please do not remove cited information from an article without providing an adequate explanation as to your reasoning for the removal in the edit summary. Thank you. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Wayfarer7575: Is there a reason you are disregarding this and continuing to remove content without explanation? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)