Talk:Pope Leo XIV/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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

In "Eleuterio Vásquez Gonzáles" is "González" instead of "Gonzáles" the correct. You can find the correct name "Eleuterio Vásquez González" in the internet. 201.204.89.81 (talk) 02:59, 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2025 (2)

In Illo Unum, uno is not translated correctly 81.102.36.18 (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 02:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Adding the book

Shouldn't his book "Probability and Theistic Explanation" be added ? https://academic.oup.com/book/50039?login=false 2A02:8428:129B:AD01:C6B7:DD28:B188:66C5 (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

That is by a different Robert Prevost, a philosopher. Leo's academic specialty is Catholic canon law. Maximilian775 (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit request: Language error

Someone wrote he learnt a “Quechan language.” Quechan is a North American tribe—the pope learnt Quechua (the South American language), not Quechan. 74.70.54.228 (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Rutsq (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit request: Use more concise date format in first line

−

He was elected pope in the 2025 conclave on May 8, 2025, following the death and funeral of Pope Francis.

+

He was elected pope in the 2025 conclave on May 8, following the death and funeral of Pope Francis.

Per MOS:DATEFORMAT, the year may be omitted when it's unambiguous. As the election year is specified in the same and prior sentence, the more concise date format may be used.

Ymerazu (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2025 (5)

Add quechua to the list of languages he speaks, under "Personal Life"

Here is a reliable source:

https://elpais.com/america/2025-05-10/prevost-el-papa-peruano-misionero-y-politico.html

Other sources from outlets that I consider less reliable may be found on the Spanish version of this page, like this source:

https://www.infobae.com/peru/2025/05/09/papa-leon-xiv-aprendio-quechua-en-peru-cardenal-de-estados-unidos-revela-que-robert-prevost-intento-dominar-la-lengua-milenaria/#:~:text=Seg%C3%BAn%20Tobin,%20el%20nuevo%20Papa,durante%20su%20estancia%20en%20Per%C3%BA.

Thanks. 2603:6080:6BF0:1CF0:AC45:9489:5BCD:519E (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done, thank you for bringing this up. JacobTheRox (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Should this article use DMY or MDY date format?

Old discussion; please see RFC

He is now a pope, and MDY date format is American. However international sports events hosted in the US uses MDY date format. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 17:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Given that he is now the regent of Vatican City, a European nation state, we should default to the European standard, no? Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it'd be reasonable to use the European standard. Pope Francis' article uses DMY Eebiedeebie (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Also given that He spent most of his life outside of the USA and this happened in the Vatican we ought to use DMY Alfkarl (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

a new pope was elected and your first thought is arguing on wikipedia about date format lol. seek therapy or something and get a life Thebrufo (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Grace & peace be with you, my brother or sister. Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Calm yourself down Ashleyashville (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

You go on the site where people build an encyclopedia and are shocked that they are building an encyclopedia.

Anyway I believe date can remain as it was (MDY) unless people build consensus to change it. The default action is to leave it as it was according to manual of style. Ymerazu (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

MDY should be used since he is an American. 12.132.105.50 (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Per MOS:DATERET the article should remain as it was, which is MDY. Neither the Vatican nor Italy is an English-speaking country. Celjski Grad (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Would this not surely count as a landmark moment where a change could happen? -boldblazer 18:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This is an article about an American person who has lived internationally. It doesn't seem like there's a clear answer as to which date format to use which means to follow the default course of action and leave the article as it was. That is, leave the article in consistent MDY format.

If people generally want it changed to DMY then they can make arguments for that and when there's overall consensus (remembering that consensus is not a vote) it can be changed. There doesn't need to be any landmark moment (though that can be part of the argument in favor of changing the format), just a discussion and consensus. Ymerazu (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

DMY should now be used - MOS:DATERET does not apply in this case. DMY corresponds to the prevailing international standard, that of the Vatican and Italy, and can be dismissed easily with "consensus on the article's talk page." AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Neither the Vatican nor Italy are English-speaking countries. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The pope is not tied to the United States, but the global Catholic church which includes every single English speaking nation's Catholics, where the prevailing standard is DMY AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Guys The MDY (Month-Day-Year) format is generally preferred for articles on the Pope—especially if the article is written in American English. Wikipedia English articles use American English and not British English. Ashleyashville (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ashleyashville not true, Eebiedeebie (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

sorry, accidentally sent before adding context: "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others." Eebiedeebie (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

That's not true, Wikipedia prefers no particular national variety of EnglishVJ (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

MDY may reflect his birthplace, but he's now Pope and sovereign of Vatican City—a European state where DMY is standard. Given the context of his current role, not his origin, DMY is clearly the more appropriate and consistent choice for this article. Edl-irishboy (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

You right. DMY is the perfect. His not representing American in this position and any American standards or way of doing things doesn't apply here. Ashleyashville (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree, DMY is the clear option , his role is no longer tied to the US, but the entire global Church, with other English speaking countries (aside from the Vatican/Italy) AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

MDY is better because this is written in American English, so you should stick with American English formatting. At any rate, be consistent. In the "Bishop of Chiclayo" section, its all over the place. Coldbrewicetea (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Thats not a rule/reason against DMY, Pope Francis's article is written in American English but uses DMY AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

That patently does not make sense. The standard across Wikipedia for writing about most Latin American countries is US English and DMY - dates and ENGVAR are not forced together when it's illogical. Kingsif (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, DMY is appropriate as he is more closely affiliated to the Vatican (a country of which he is now the head of state) than the US now that he has become Pope. Using DMY also maintains consistency with the articles for other Popes Zaphod4244 (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Totally agreed, there's no real reason to use MDY, the man has spent most of his life, particularly his recent life outside the US. He's probably used MDY more often, himself - VJ (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:TIES does not apply to the Catholic Church in Europe (not English-speaking), and also the Vatican, Peru, and Italy are not English speaking countries. With the article being stable at many years with MDY, and WP:TIES applying to the US here, the article should be at MDY. Canuck^{89 (Talk to me) or visit my user page} 18:30, May 8, 2025 (UTC)

WP:TIES does not apply for a different reason, there is no "strong" national connection and fails to meet this mark, his work is for the the Catholic Church across the world, and whose work and following is not in any way going to be confined to the United States, but every other English speaking nations Catholics where the clear prevailing standard is DMY AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

DMY would be better. Averagebilly (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

How should we go forward? The page is all over the place now with the { Use mdy dates } tag re instated and mdy and dmy dates mixed. Edl-irishboy (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

By a cursory view, there does seem to be consensus across the two (confusingly) simultaneous discussions here to change it to DMY in my opinion AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There are nine editors in favor of DMY and six for MDY. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

1. You should revert your changes back to MDY until consensus is reached.

2. The next step would be the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This should probably be redone as an RFC putting MDY vs DMY to a vote, as the current discussion is quickly going nowhere and is confusing to follow. In the meantime, the article should be reverted back to MDY as was originally used until this gets resolved. PolarManne (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Be careful with the use of the word "vote" in relation to RFCs, you're going to get taken to task as people will point out RFCs are not a vote. I understand your meaning and agree on the request for comment for resolution. Ymerazu (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand the concern, I simply felt calling it a vote was appropriate in this case since MOS gives us exactly two options for formatting dates (DD MM YYYY or MM DD, YYYY), so any discussion on the matter will inevitably boil down to "which of these two formats do we use for this article". PolarManne (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

If the choice of date format is contentious then let's seek to resolve it in a constructive way. In the meantime, the article started in MDY and standard practice is to leave it as it was and to ensure all dates in the article follow one format. I also hope everyone takes a deep breath! Ymerazu (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Dmy dates

As per MOS:DATETIES and WP:DMY, "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that country. Although he is from the United States he is head of the Catholic Church and Bishop of Rome, and so dmy should be utilised. Francis was South American from Argentina, and article did not use mdy. Edl-irishboy (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Italy and Europe all use DMY dates, and the Vatican City State itself uses DMY DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 17:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The article is actually meant to be using dmy as it has that tag, there's just currently no consistency but it should get fixed. Brandon Downes (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Should be MDY, per WP:DATERET. The article was stable at many years with MDY, and WP:TIES doesn't apply to the Vatican or Peru or Italy (since none of those is an English speaking country). Canuck^{89 (Converse with me) or visit my user page} 18:06, May 8, 2025 (UTC)

Keep MDY. He has obvious ties to the United States, and no ties to any other English-speaking country. He has not become the head of the Church of England, he has become head of a state where English is not official, so the DMY/MDY customs of the Vatican or Peru are moot. In 200 years, the books will call him "the first American pope" just as Pope Adrian IV is known for being the first English pope, not the head of the Papal States. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The date format is also discussed here: Talk:Pope_Leo_XIV#Should this article use DMY or MDY date format?. Ymerazu (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

DMY should now be used. WP:DATERET does not prevent this - can be easily dismissed with consensus on the article's talk page. He is pope of the global Catholic Church and is not tied to the United States, but every other English speaking nation's Catholics now. It should also follow the prevailing standard, including that of the Vatican, Italy as that use on Pope Francis's page AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

MDY may reflect his birthplace, but he's now Pope and sovereign of Vatican City—a European state where DMY is standard. Given the context of his current role, not his origin, DMY is clearly the more appropriate and consistent choice for this article. Edl-irishboy (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Except the Vatican is not an English-speaking country. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This is not an ENGVAR issue, but a TIES issue - the standard date format of a nation is unrelated to the language(s) spoken there. Kingsif (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The article is a biography of a person, not of the position of Pope. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Date formats in articles aren't tied to an individual/static. What is clearly more appropriate to the reader is DMY. His personal ongoing work as a person is not going to be confined to the United States but the world and every other English speaking nation's Catholics too AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Can we come to a conclusion. Major of editors agree on DMY Ashleyashville (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, majority here clearly prefer DMY, enough to make a change imo AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is not determined by majority, but by the quality of the arguments. One side believes that DMY should reflect the global nature of the person's new role while the other side believes it should remain as is per MOS:DATERET and no strong ties to any one country. In the absence of consensus, DRN sounds like a good idea. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Excuse the typo "majority" Ashleyashville (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This discussion is one hour old. It is premature to suggest that there is a consensus either way. Most interested editors probably don't even know that he has been elected pope yet. Rlendog (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this as I use the argument that when you become pope, in a way you're no longer who you were, and are now just "the pope", the one and only pope of the time. -boldblazer 19:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I certainly hope Wikipedia doesn't start treating popes like newly created persons. Treycera (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

A more formal RfC will likely be needed, to bring a wider collection of arguments. Canuck^{89 (Talk to me) or visit my user page} 19:03, May 8, 2025 (UTC)

I'm of the mindset that given that the article originally used MDY dates, there is no strong compelling argument to change it per WP:DATERET. Any attempt to argue that there's consensus for a change is way too immature. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

In this case I don't think WP:DATERET matters much because his role as a pope far overshadows what was previously a short article on a little-known cardinal so given the unique circumstances it makes more sense to treat it like a new article- which means for consistency with other popes, DMY. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Date format

Is it possible for there to be some sort of vote and to come to some consensus on what date format is going to be used as I can see this causing a lot of back and forth editing. Brandon Downes (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

There is an existing discussion above. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

An RFC has now been created by me at Talk:Pope Leo XIV/RFC: Date format. Please feel free to copy-paste your arguments or rewrite them as you see fit :)

Editors involved thus far:

• @JrandWP
• @Northern-Virginia-Photographer
• @Alfkarl
• @Thebrufo
• @Ashleyashville
• @Ymerazu
• @Celjski Grad
• @Boldblazer
• @AlbusWulfricDumbledore
• @Vijay Chopra
• @Edl-irishboy
• @Kingsif
• @Averagebilly
• @PolarManne

(note: please may an admin oe check I've set this all up correctly please)

Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

It should be in ISO8601 like every Wikipedia page should be in, anything else makes no sense. AddInfinty (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I get the sentiment, but (1) ISO 8601 is actually not supposed to be used in prose per MOS:DATEFORMAT, and (2) changing the Manual of Style like this would require extensive discussion, and any proposal that something "should" be formatted a given way is almost certain to be shot down. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I get that it's not the Wikipedia rules, but it is annoying that it isn't consistent when we have a great date format available. AddInfinty (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I personally think DMY should be a standard date format because it is increasingly common and reads nicer. However, until then, we have to follow MOS:DATEFORMAT and that's what we will do. JacobTheRox (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia page date formats are determined by MOS:DATE, not ISO8601. Celjski Grad (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Image

FAQ: Why doesn't this article use a more recent photo of the Pope?

Hello, recently the site of "silere non possum" shared the official photography of pope Leo Xiv. I would suggest to use that for the Wikipedia page J.matro (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia can only include photos or media released under a free content licence or that meet all of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria § Policy. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

To elaborate: We must presume that all images are copyrighted, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Images published by the Vatican are no exception. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

could we not use this photo?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pope_Leo_XIV_(cropped).jpg Crowgirll (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

That's copyrighted, so yes, we can't. Quincy2293 (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Whatever the solution is, it can't be this blurry photo of the Pope. It looks unprofessional. I think Wikipedia should revert to an older, copyright-free photo until one can be used. It's a shame the one on the Vatican website can't be used because it's perfect for an article like this. Confuro (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

give it a few days. usually the pope meets an important govt official on a diplomatic visit and then they'll publish a high quality photo for free. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 16:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

True. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Can't Wikipedia just ask the Vatican to use the official photo? They'll give permission certainly Alfred Carbo (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Alfred Carbo There is no body called "Wikipedia". I have suggested to Wikimedia Italia that they ask, but a positive response is not as certain as you suppose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

He's meeting diplomats sometime next week I think 90.215.79.141 (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Can we use this? https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16Hn3m8GsQ/?mibextid=wwXIfr Pwg98 (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Not unless you can show that it has been released under an open licence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

New Image with CC License BY 4.0 Found

I just uploaded to Wikimedia an new image with a Creative Commons license (CC BY 4.0) using the Google Image search's filtering system:

((File:Pope-Leo-XIV.jpg from WikiCommons)) The source is called Heute.at.

Please feel free to verify the image's free copyright license independently.If everyone agrees on the licensing and the image quality, the image can be used in the page. InfinitySeries (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

this is a reuters photo and will be deleted from commons shortly. Jahaza (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the photo from this page, as it is a copyright violation, although I have left the file name in "(())" so people can locate it on Commons if desired. Jahaza (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Blurry image of the Pope

The pope's face is slightly blurred. Lack 237 (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Copyrighted images cannot be used on Wikipedia; the one in the article is by far the best we have. JacobTheRox (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I personally would rather use a photo of him from before he became Pope as a placeholder until something that isn't copyrighted inevitably comes along, rather than use one where you can't even see his eyes. --Miss Blue Tinted (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Unclear photo of the Pope

It is rubbish that no one has added a clear photo of the Pope. It is better to wait until the installation ceremony for an HD photo 117.231.197.24 (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Upscaled version

File:Pope Leo XIV 2-upscale.jpeg seems perfectly adequate to me, and preferable to the current version for quality reasons. I am no expert in whether upscaling changes non-free status, or if this constitutes an AI image per WP:BLPIMAGE (feels like a stretch to me). @Superbass, Johnpaulo5860, Pbritti, Jahaza, and Darth Stabro: U-Mos (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

As this is probably one of the most-viewed resources on the pope right now, we have a strong responsibility here. My biggest worry is that people will begin using this AI-manipulated image and copying it, sharing it, etc, and it is clearly a manipulation that has artifacts around his fingers, glasses, surplice lace, stole patter, etc. It is not a true representation of the Pontiff. The non-"retouched" image is the one that should be used. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm genuinely curious: how do you know AI has been used to retouch the image? The image description describes the retouching in terms that have been familiar for decades. U-Mos (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Click on the full-size version of the image, and zoom in on his glasses. They are misshapen, and his eyes were also clearly generated using data not available in the original image. Also note on his right hand, on his chest, that his ring finger is melting into his pinky. All clear AI artifacts. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Right you are - I was never good at spot the differences either! I'll remove from other articles now. U-Mos (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Most upscaling tools use AI technology, including those from Adobe and other manufacturers. As you can see in the Exif data, I used Topaz Photo AI. Both images, the original and the upscaled version, have massive technical deficiencies and it may not be permissible to generate an AI-supported upscale version from such a weak image. I consider this a suggestion - if the impression is that the photo deviates more from reality than the original, which is also not particularly realistic due to optical blurring, it should not be used in any article or may even be deleted. Superbass (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I personally think that displaying this AI image would make the entire project less reliable as a whole. Displaying some mathematically-calculated upscaling that guesses what his eyes are like, what his glasses are like, (and fails miserably!) decreases the credibility of the project. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. We should be patient. The current version is good enough, and no doubt within a week or two we will get a better alternative. In the meantime, consensus is strongly against using AI-based images on Wikipedia for BLPs, and this article is especially high profile. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with waiting. I just reverted because it was, in fact, a free image. If @Pbritti had removed as @Darth Stabro did because he simply preferred the other version I would have left it. Jahaza (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me, Jahaza! I now have a question regarding the licensing, but that is more about specific tagging rather than whether we can have it on the project. I oppose the use of AI images except to discuss AI images. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was image replaced. JacobTheRox (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

---

Infobox image proposal

Should we change the infobox portrait to this one until we get a more recent higher-quality free licensed photo?

The author is Ricardo Perna, released under public domain on Flickr. It was taken in 2023 when he was still a cardinal. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Support much better TheLoyalOrder (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Support (at least until we have a high quality pic of him as Pope) ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose With the reflections on the glasses and shadow, I don't think this photo is, in fact, "much better". Jahaza (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I believe this should be an RFC. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Probably moving too fast for an RFC. We may get a better picture much sooner. Jahaza (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

But this needs really a big consensus, since this is a 24/7 topic about images, I believe we should be alerting people. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

And currently, this article is very popular due to he just got the Pope title. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Indifferent. I think it's best to have an image of him as pope, and Jahaza is right that the shadow and reflection on this photo aren't great either. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Support the picture as pope might be better for the ITN item, but this is a much sharped and higher resolution portrait for the article. Its recent, and he's wearing an appropriate enough outfit. Once we get better images of him as pope this discussion will be redundant anyway, but this should be fairly obviously picked over the current File:Pope Leo XIV 2.jpg. — jonas (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Support There was an official portrait that was released. However, it was proved not to be free. In lieu of that, I'd say this is a much higher quality photo. AsaQuathern (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Support much higher quality photo even though outdated BogBoiE (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Support Way better than the current portrait. gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose because the photo is not actually much better, and it shows him as a cardinal. He is very prominent at the moment as pope, so the photo of him on the loggia makes a lot more sense in my opinion, even if it is admittedly slightly blurrier. JacobTheRox (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

what if we use this for this page, as it is still of, the man whom this page is about, while keeping the blury one for Pope as it is a photo of the pope, when they were pope Daniel (strangestuff) (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Support this is the best image I have seen thus far MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 11:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Support Quality hopefully sufficient to avoid perennial changes until a good quality picture during papacy exists for the infobox, and can probably exist at a relevant point in the body after that point. U-Mos (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. I'll just wait until we have a high-quality, un-copyrighted image of him as Pope. Quincy2293 (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

We require images to be openly licensed. That does not (necessarily) mean they are "un-copyrighted". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Support as historically significant as a picture of the pope's first appearance is, this one is a much more qualitative portrait and will have to do for now. Procrastineur49 (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image edit

Hi there. I have changed the image to an edited version to make it look a bit nicer. The below gallery shows the two side-by-side (not a major difference). Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• 
  Old image
• 
  New image

Photo Exposure

Could someone bump up the infobox's photo exposure by about 5-10%? It looks a bit dark and a bit more exposure could help. Would do it myself but I'm on mobile ATM and Apple seems to always compress/add artifacting any photo I make edits to.
- Hurstbergn (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Please just leave it alone now, it's been discussed at length to use this image and minor cosmetic changes are not necessary. U-Mos (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

it will be changed to a new one soon enough this isnt necessary Daniel (strangestuff) (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

New picture here

The Vatican unveiled Pope Leo XIV’s official portrait and signature Saturday. Is it copyrighted? Can we use it? It is a very good photo

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/264033/vatican-releases-pope-leo-xivs-official-portrait-and-signature-showing-return-to-tradition 2804:D41:F852:3E00:8D78:78AC:1836:E5F7 (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

We cannot use that photo. All photos by Vatican Media are fully copyrighted per their website. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's look for a good and not copyrighted pic 2804:D41:F852:3E00:8D78:78AC:1836:E5F7 (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

That's copyrighted. Quincy2293 (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2025 (2)

Change image in infobox to File:Leo XIV.jpg. Finley 2009 (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Copyright violation  skovhund  t  19:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Does not appear to be a copyvio; but see prior discussion, above, and in the archive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Image originally requested was copyvio, and deleted from commons (see commons). Current link is to a different photo.  skovhund  t  21:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Image in request was uploaded at 13:50, 9 May 2025. request was made today, 10 May. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Coat of arms section

@Mir Novov and Mikra1: Could we create a section about his coat of arms (like this)? I'm not an expert in heraldry, so this is not my expertise. RyanW1995 (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Not the seventh

Greetings, someone has been aggressively archiving active and relevant threads again, that is a no-no. Please let the threads stand while they are still germane to rapidly-changing article content.

In particular, Leo XIV is certainly not the "seventh Pope to ... follow the Rule of St. Augustine". There are way more than that. Eugene IV, in particular, was never an Augustinian at all, and the Augnet source supports this (contradicting an oft-repeated historian's error.)

I strongly urge editors to remove the "seventh Augustinian" canard from the article text unless you can actually back that up with real and reliable secondary sources, which you have been unable to identify; Wikipedia in itself is not a reliable source. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:86DE:2C36:87E7:86D (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

At the time the section was archived it stated that the change you are requesting had already been enacted; and had said so for many hours. As anyone can see, here: Talk:Pope Leo XIV/Archive 1#First Augustinian Pope. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Well somehow it came back, and it's been in there for hours with no sources. This is why this "OneClickArchive" thing is very overly aggressive; it was less than 24 hours when the thread was last updated, but now editors are unaware that it was ever discussed because it's "archived" without the requisite delay. Please do not archive live and relevant threads!!! 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:3A30:8E42:1CBE:B84D (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't a live thread when I archived it. Without active archiving, this page would now be unusable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Those are extremely subjective judgements. Who says it wasn't a live thread, and who complains about usability when there are perfectly serviceable navigation tools for active talk pages? Who sets a 23-hour timeout for thread activity? That's crazy. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:D660:B4AE:6666:DB43 (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

In any case, the seventh Augustinian bit was removed two or so hours ago.

For reference, the larger discussion was at (the archive 1 link above links to the first version). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The false Eugene IV claim is there again. Quincy2293 (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not there now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2025 (6)

Chang X to Y

X: In 1998, Prevost was elected Prior Provincial of the Order of St. Augustine's Province of Our Mother of Good Counsel based in Chicago, assuming the role on March 8, 1999. In 2000, he permitted Augustinian priest James Ray, suspended from public ministry since 1991 due to credible accusations of sexually abusing minors, to reside at St. John Stone Friary in Chicago under supervision, after prior housing was rejected by the archdiocesan review board for its proximity to a parish school at St. Thomas the Apostle Church. Ray was moved in 2002 after American bishops implemented stricter rules.

Y: In 1998, Prevost was elected Prior Provincial of the Order of St. Augustine's Province of Our Mother of Good Counsel based in Chicago, assuming the role on March 8, 1999. In 2000, he authorized Augustinian priest James Ray to reside at St. John Stone Friary in Chicago. Ray had been suspended from public ministry since 1991 due to credible accusations of sexually abusing minors. This arrangement came after the archdiocesan review board had rejected prior housing for Ray at St. Thomas the Apostle Church due to its proximity to a parish school. Ray was relocated from the friary in 2002 following the implementation of stricter rules by American bishops.

Rationale: The changes were phrasing, not content. The purpose is to make the section more understandable, as when I read the original, I had to read over it a second time. Cowington (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I made some changes, not exactly what u proposed. Rutsq (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Timing of events of May 8, 2025

White smoke: 18:08 CEST (16:08 UTC)
Announcement Habemus Papum: 19:14 CEST (17:14 UTC)
Appearance of Leo XIV on the loggia: 19:23 CEST (17:23 UTC)
Leo XIV leaves the loggia: 19:40 CEST (17:40 UTC)
Source: watching live TV broadcasting -- AnnaBruta (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: We should be listing a source, not just Watching live TV broadcasting.
Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Vatican News is a perfectly reliable source, and their live stream covers all these events. There is no problem at all with citing this as a primary source, since there is no interpretation or analysis, just relating what was plainly in view on the video cast. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:86DE:2C36:87E7:86D (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Community Consensus finds it generally unreliable. (For YouTube) Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: Link. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

That is untrue. Many YouTube channels can be reliable. YouTube is a platform, not a publisher. It is the individual channel which must be judged reliable or not. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:86DE:2C36:87E7:86D (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you fully, but consensus overrules us. I trust that there is a solid reason we aren't thinking of. Terraviridian (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability.

There you go - Vatican News is a reliable secondary source, so its YouTube channel inherits that status. Thank you for the link contradicting your bullshit assertion! 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:86DE:2C36:87E7:86D (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that Vatican News is fine as a source, but I still don;t think we need this in the article. Secretlondon (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of sourcing, this is trivia of no historical import. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Totally wrong, Mabbett... Timing matters in every venue of life. And you people can trust me about the timing. 100% accurate. —AnnaBruta (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

As a observer, I was looking at the Pope Francis article during the 2025conclave and was surprised that there was no mention of the time that he appeared on the balcony/announcement. I would argue that we don't need all of these time stamps but it would've been helpful to at least mention the time of the announcement/his first appearance. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 14:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I think we can remove when the white smoke appeared and just say it was the late afternoon. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Let me just archive this section Alimsts (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2025

Please add the honors of the pope. Following his election, Leo XIV became Grand Master of the following orders: Order of Christ, Order of the Golden Spur, Order of Pius IX, Order of Saint Gregory the Great, Order of Saint Sylvester. Moreover on 11 February 2025, he was awarded the insignia of Bailiff Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion of the Sovereign Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Rhodes and Malta. He is thus, after John XXIII and Benedict XVI, the third pope to be a member of this order. Archihisto (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source for your claims and it will be added. Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2025 (3)

On 8th May 2025, morning, a team of organizational scholars from Bocconi University—Giuseppe Soda, Alessandro Iorio, and Leonardo Rizzo—published a pioneering study applying social network analysis to the College of Cardinals. The research aimed to identify structural determinants of influence and papability within the ecclesiastical hierarchy, using multilayer data on co-appointments, episcopal lineage, and informal affiliations.

The model evaluated cardinals along three key dimensions: status (measured via eigenvector centrality), informational control (betweenness centrality), and coalition-building capacity (a composite index of clustering, degree centrality, and strategic bridging). Adjustments were made for age in line with historical papal precedents.

Among the findings, Cardinal Robert Prevost (USA) was ranked first in terms of status, reflecting his centrality among high-status peers in the Vatican network. Following the death of Pope Francis on 7 May 2025, Prevost was subsequently elected as the 267th Pope during the ensuing Conclave, lending retrospective credence to the model’s diagnostic utility—though the authors themselves emphasized its interpretive, not predictive, nature.

https://www.unibocconi.it/en/news/network-conclave Vector Subspace (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 20:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit requests on 11 May 2025

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2025 (2)

I suggesting including a mention in this article somewhere that, prior to his elevation to the papacy, Leo XIV met with all three of his predecessors: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/264005/photos-pope-leo-xiv-meeting-the-last-three-pontiffs SVeach94 (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Date format RfC

Noting here the ongoing Talk:Pope Leo XIV/RFC: Date format, as the earlier discussion has been archived. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: Putting on the FAQ section if possible, if I can this section will be archived so we can clear the mess out of this area. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 18:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: It has been added, the archive will now happen. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 18:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

AI

Should this be mentioned in the article?

"Pope Leo XIV lays out vision for his papacy and identifies AI as a main challenge for humanity....Leo referred to AI in explaining the choice of his name: His namesake, Pope Leo XIII, was pope from 1878 to 1903 and laid the foundation for modern Catholic social thought. He did so most famously with his 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, which addressed workers' rights and capitalism at the dawn of the industrial age".(https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/pope-leo-xiv-lays-out-vision-for-his-papacy-and-identifies-ai-as-a-main-challenge-for-humanity#:~:text=Leo%20referred%20to%20AI%20in,dawn%20of%20the%20industrial%20age.)

Barjimoa (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

It already is, in the Views section. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 14:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Change "head" to "visible head"?

This is similar to leade description in Pope. 207.96.54.137 (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

No! All our articles on popes since Gregory VIII use the exact phrase "head of the Catholic Church". Using visible head instead would introduce an undue Catholic POV into the lead sentence. Joe vom Titan (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Lead citation

Hey @Alanscottwalker! Per WP:LeadCite, it's fairly common to omit citations in the lead if the exact same things are already stated in the body. Here, the quote is reproduced under "Views". Aaron Liu (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

That's not how Leadcite, nor WP:V works, and it makes little sense to force readers to try to find what you are talking about somewhere else. If you know where it comes from, move the cite inline per policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how that quote is any more "challengeable" or difficult to find than anything else in the lede. Ctrl/Cmd+F–ing "for the defense" instantly gets you to the "Views" section, just like every other claim in the lede. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no reason not to put the cite where it belongs with the quote, especially in a BLP. That's not some claim, that is supposedly someone's direct words, and readers should be able to inspect where is comes from inline and in context. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why this is the only claim for which you insist on having a citation. Doesn't everything you say apply to the rest of the lede as well? Do you mean you want the entire lede to be cited?

That's not some claim, that is supposedly someone's direct words

The claim is that Leo XIV said these words. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you disagree on how we are to handle quotes per policy, and don't understand why quotes are handled that way, but they are because quoting is especially in need of care. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I've been asking why quoting is especially in need of care. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

And I am telling you that policy requires it, whether you understand the policy's values of care or not (viz, WP:BLP policy: "All quotations . .. must be supported by an inline citation" (emphasis added)) . I think I understand them, and I agree with them, but I can't make you understand them. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The actual quote is All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation. Per V, that's the exact same as the rest of the article and lede with no special emphasis. I'll just cite the rest of the lede as well per your quotation, then. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Leadcite says in line with BLP and V: "all quotations ... must include an inline citation" (emphasis added). When you quote, follow the policy directive and cite inline. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Again, it's all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. The same thing you quoted applies to most claims. There's no special status for quotations as opposed to material likely to be challenged.

I've cited the entire lede. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

If you want to challenge some statement in the lead that's up to you, don't expect me to challenge whatever you want. Policy has three areas of concern. Quotations are the policy's and my area of concern, here.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The only PolicyAndGuideline reason (yes, there are more basic reasons why the core PaGs exist like "inspect where the claim comes from and assure it's more true", but we're talking from a PaG standpoint here) people even cite claims is because they could be challenged and thus fall under WP:V. I just don't see how policy treats direct quotations and material likely to be challenged differently.

Anyways, do you think having the entire lede cited as it is now ends this dispute? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Are you making up a dispute? I did not challenge or say I thought anything was else was likely to be challenged in the lead text. I said, as policy demands, a quote needs inline citation. That was solved long ago by putting the inline citation where it belonged, with the quote. Nothing I raised, was solved by your other edits (they are orthogonal to my request to cite one particular quote). I'm beginning to think you made those other edits to make some kind of point, and all I can say to that is see, WP:POINT. Don't don't do that. And if you did not challenge, or in good faith think those other things would likely be challenged, you had no good faith reason to make those other edits. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I am attempting to understand how or why a direct quotation is different from any material likely to be challenged, the latter of which is why anything is sourced in the first place if you just take a PaG perspective. Unfortunately, I still see neither PaG nor non-PaG reasons to treat verification of direct quotations differently than verification of anything else, and I don't think we're getting anywhere either, so let's just leave it at that.

you had no good faith reason

It looks too weird to only have that one claim cited. It was not WP:Point. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The plain reading of policy is, you have three things that require in-line citation, which means that if they don't fall into those three things, inline citation is not required. Which is why Leadcite allows for no cites when not dealing with those three things. I have not and do not take a position on whether other things in the lead fall within those three things. I am firm in my position that the quote does. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Davide King who originally did the revert and @Likeanechointheforest who added the citation. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine either way, personally! Likeanechointheforest (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Biggest traffic spike in Wikipedia history?

According to this Bluesky post, this article saw "probably the biggest single traffic spike to an article we have *ever* seen on Wikipedia". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Possibly notable, but only if reliable sources pick it up. Cortador (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting it be added to the article (though of course if it gets reported widely it should be); I just thought those who'd worked so well on it ought to know. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Francis' use of old papal stole

The article's section on Leo's election says: "Leo appeared wearing the traditional papal embroidered stole and mozzetta, vestments which Pope Francis never wore."

This is only half true. Francis never wore the red mozzetta (cape) but wore on several occasions the same stole Leo used, including at his first appearance (albeit only putting it on for the blessing after his initial speech). See picture in this article: https://www.npr.org/2013/03/13/174224173/transcript-pope-francis-first-speech-as-pontiff

I suggest it be changed to:

"Leo appeared wearing the traditional papal mozzetta, a vestment which Pope Francis never wore." 222.153.93.48 (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. I made the change. I should have remembered that moment! Rutsq (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: Archiving as done. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 15:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Why is the article using MDY?

Well... I think the heading covers my question. 155.4.130.66 (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The FAQ at the top of the page covers this, but I see that you posted from mobile and IIRC the mobile site hides the templates at the top of a talk page by default. Per MOS:DATETIES, topics with strong ties to an English-speaking country should normally use that country's date format (and English variety per MOS:TIES). So, because Robert Prevost is an American, his article has used MDY since 2021. Per MOS:DATERET, an article should stick with the format it has developed under unless there is good reason to change it. Now that he is the pope, some editors are supporting a switch to DMY. There's an ongoing RfC to decide which format should be used. TeoTB (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: Archiving as it says on FAQ above. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 15:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2025

Regarding the "Early life and schooling" sub-section, I suggest the last sentence read "He also participated in speech and debate, competing in Congressional Debate." This assertion is supported by the citation. The reason is that high school speech and debate is a broad category, consisting of many different events, so this change provides more specificity. Strategio (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Partly done: Changed a bit in the article, but you can see it in there. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 19:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Congressional Debate was the event that he competed in as part of speech and debate, so "along with" doesn't make sense in this context. In addition, it would not require the use of the definite article "the" or any article as a proper noun. The sentence should most accurately read according to my initial request. Strategio (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done fixing now. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 15:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: Archiving as done. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 15:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Peruvian soccer team

It's a question that means as much in his adopted homeland as whether he is a Cubs or White Sox fan means in his city of birth, but is there sufficient evidence to add this back in? The statement that he supports Alianza Lima is widely spread in South American media, and here we have a nun who knows him personally, backing it up. Peruvian public media seems a little more cautious, saying this has only been "insinuated", but has been claimed by the club itself. Does such a statement have to come from the man himself? Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Unknown Temptation, it's also been claimed by some of his colleagues that he is a supporter of AS Roma. He himself kinda confirmed it by saying "Forza Roma" to a Roma fan while touring Rome yesterday.Barjimoa (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

That's hardly conclusive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Internet usage

Probably not enough for a significant mention yet, but him being the first pope to actively use the internet and social media will receive more coverage and should be eventually incorporated in the article. His explicit mention of artificial intelligence as one of the first subjects he spoke about is certainly an indicator. AFP even called him "extremely online". — jonas (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Not so much "first pope to actively use the internet and social media", as "first pope to have actively used the internet and social media before appointment to the papacy". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Francis had a twitter account as Pope.Barjimoa (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Did he? Or did someone else operate one on behalf of the papacy? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the twitter account operated by his staff. Barjimoa (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Papacy section

I'm having difficulty making it clear, that one becomes pope upon accepting his election & changes his name, upon declaring that name. Some here, keep trying to make it look as though the White Smoke chooses the pope, which isn't the case. The White Smoke merely makes it known to the public, that a pope has already been chosen. Therefore it was as "Leo" that the pontiff exited the Sistine Chapel, not as Prevost. His name was already Leo XIV, before the cardinal protodeacon made the announcement. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you propose a specific change, with sources? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Sources??? The person becomes pope, the moment they accept their election & than they chose their papal name. Neither the White Smoke or the proto-deacon, makes that happen. That's common knowledge. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

If it's common knowledge, does it need to be made clear? I'm not even sure what's being implied here. As soon as the article mentions his election, he is referred to as Leo even before the balcony. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 19:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Infobox image (again)

Image 1

Image 2

There seems to currently be a dispute over the infobox usage of the current image of Leo seated, or the image of Leo standing. The image of Leo standing has a more neutral facial expression, however...

Image 1 would be my preference as image 2 shows that he really doesn't have a properly tailored cassock yet, it's a bit oversized; the seated image hides that a bit. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: Archiving, move this to Talk:Pope Leo XIV#Article main image. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 00:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Coat of arms of Leone XIV.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Claim that he is a mathmetician

Peruvian Categories

Who removed Category:Peruvian mathematicians, and when? I've restored it. He is Peruvian and he is a mathematician, therefore he is a Peruvian mathematician. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that getting a bachelor's degree in mathematics is enough to make one a "mathematician." Furthermore, I don't think it's defining for him (See: WP:CAT#D). Jahaza (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

First American citizenship, later Peruvian citizenship, continues to vote in New Lenox, Illinois, is he American-Peruvian ?

2601:646:203:E7B0:74A9:81B1:3DF4:2859 (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

"someone who studies, teaches, or is an expert in mathematics"

Good or not, knowing real analysis or not, he is a mathematician. Period. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Period. Like cause you say so? Show us a source. See below. Rutsq (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that a bachelor's degree is usually enough for someone to be categorized with a profession. Joe Biden, Shakira, Sacha Baron Cohen and Steve Carell are not known to the general public as historians, (see WP:CATDEFINING) nor are they likely to refer to themselves as historians. Referring to Ricky Gervais, Lana del Rey and Steve Martin as philosophers would border on the absurd, and I'm not talking about absurdism. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

By this logic he is also a physicist and a philosopher, it should absolutely be mentioned he taught and studied, but i think it does a disservice to the other peruvian mathematicians to call him one. Daniel (strangestuff) (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, Pope Benedictus XVI is categorized as Catholic philosophers. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm uncertain how much of Benedict's writings would qualify as philosophy vs theology, but they'd certainly dwarf what Leo has published in mathematics. Rutsq (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I would be against the inclusion of the categories "mathematician" and especially "Peruvian mathematician." It is undeniable that he has a bachelor's degree and some experience as a high school teacher, but it is certainly not enough to categorize him as such, having contributed nothing to the field. Furthermore, all of this seems to date back to before he was naturalized as a Peruvian, at which point he had obviously abandoned mathematics and physics for the canonical career. Sira Aspera (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Do we have any RS claiming he is a mathematician? I think that is the core question. Jjazz76 (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes we have RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't see it in the article. Where is it? Jjazz76 (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

here: and [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/world/europe/villanova-pope-leo-xiv.html EvergreenFir (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

It says he studied "mathematics and philosophy" and graduated "with a math degree."

Where does it say "mathematician"? Jjazz76 (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Mathematician

We now have several categories that class Leo as a mathematician. Do we have any sources for that? It seems to be a conclusion based on his BS and some high school teaching. Calling him a mathematician is quite a stretch Rutsq (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Please see the Peruvian categories section of this page. Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 11:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Even if we categorise him as a mathematician for his work in the 1980s; do we have any evidence to call him a 21st century mathematician? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

He was a maths teacher, not a mathematician afaik. Secretlondon (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Someone has removed the categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Other University information regarding honorary degrees

Merrimack College awarded Pope Leo XIV an honorary degree in Augustinian Education in 2005 per https://www.wcvb.com/article/merrimack-college-honorary-degree-pope-leo-xiv/64719071#:~:text=Pope%20Leo%20XIV%2C%20who%20was,Andover%2C%20Massachusetts%2C%20in%202005. I heard of another school in Ireland that awarded him an honorary degree as well, although I'm having difficulty finding a source for that information. Can these also be mentioned? AGates94 (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: Information requires a source to be added, if you wish for more information on this or any other topic, feel free to check out the Teahouse! They will give you information regarding topics that you may not know much about, if you wish for more information, check out my talk page. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 19:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: If consensus reaches that it should be added, open a edit request. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 19:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I think he'll get lots of honorary degrees so we don't want to list them all. Secretlondon (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: Archiving per Wikipedia:NOTNEWSPAPER. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Parents Draft

Given today's Ny times article, I've created a draft article here: Draft:Parents of Pope Leo XIV. Jahaza (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

You might have more chance of getting it published (or kept) as "Ancestry of Pope Leo XIV", when the relevant section of this article grows too large. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. MisawaSakura (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

A better title would be "Early life and family of Pope Leo XIV" with information about his parents, ancestry, and childhood. There are a number of sources already available including NYT about his neighborhood in Chicago and NYT about his Creole family Anybar (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest simply Family of Pope Leo XIV. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

This seems best. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 14:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jahaza: I've created the above article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: Archiving as I believe this thread is no longer needed, if you believe it is needed, please ask me on my talk page to revert this edit, or you can revert it here, and in the archiving page.

Thanks, Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)