Talk:Papabile

message: Oops. That'll teach me to write so late at night/early in the morning. I'm mixing up my JPs! (Though considering I read 370 pages today on JPI I'm surprised I didn't get him right! )FearÉIREANN 06:01, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: comments

message: Would Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger still be considered papabile?  I would think his age (nearly 78) would work against him here.  I know that John XXIII was over 75 when he was elected, but would the Cardinals do that again?  I also haven't really heard of Ratzinger being papabile before reading this article. - JesseG 06:43, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
:I seems to keep reading his name in different sources citing him as a possible next pope so yes. Also, it is generally accpeted that after a long papacy, the next one elected tends to be an older one so that probably do him a favour rather then the opposite. Personally however, I don't think he'll get elected for various other reason but he definitly qualifies as a papabile. - KTC 14:04, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
:Besides age, Ratzinger's health is not in his prime. I read he suffers of diabetes and even had a brain hemorrhage in the early 1990's, and his responsabilities and duties have been softened since then. Still, certainly papabile for various reasons, both political and religious, and if they apply the 'fat pope lean pope' tactic. But maybe also risky... just imagine (in the wake of Terri Schiavo), what if he has further brain and vascular problems? What would happen if he becomes brain-dead and needs life-support? The bioethical issues would be tremendous, and the new pope is expected to maybe solve such issues, not to actually become one (although it would force stronger discussion of the issue by the Church, but it would be too ironic to let it happen and maybe I'd seem too cynic to present the question). Cardinal Ratzinger is also becoming prominent in the media as a king-maker, one who will not be elected pope but who will influence election greatly. I just read about the Nigerian papabile, Francis Cardinal Arinze, and really liked what I read about him, he has become a sentimental favorite for me (although I dislike his conservatism in 'family' issues), and he's relatively old (72), thus perhaps filling the lean pope profile, but I also think that maybe the next pope is not among the papabile and maybe he will be a surprise (although a Black, African, and Ibo pope such as Arinze would be revolutionary). Everyone around here (Venezuela) would like a Latin American pope. Again, a German (a compromise between not electing traditionally a Italian and not electing revolutionarily an African, Asian or Latin American pope) like Ratzinger becomes a surprise posibility among current papabili because almost everybody would like a Dark Horse - Dalegrett, 0:43, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) (Pardon my English)
Oh well, I'll eat my hat. :D -- KTC 23:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

message: I added the bit about Paddy Power starting to take bets on who would succeed Benedict to the article.  I figure it's worth mentioning, it's probably the same with every Pope regardless of age.  Even though Benedict is getting up towards 80 years old, there's no telling how long he'll be in.
JesseG 00:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Benedict's Successor

message: Apart from the final result, all aspects of the vote counts are secret. So what is the basis for the claims about the numbers of votes for various candidates? For example:
*Giovanni Benelli ... was defeated in both (narrowly the second time); and
*Francis Arinze ... did not gain a substantial amount of votes in the 2005 papal conclave.
-- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They've only been 'forever secret' in the 19th-20th centuries (JP II).  And not even then.  When a Cardinal dies, he may leave behind a private diary or secret memoirs, which get published without violating their life-long oath (Domenico Tardini). Cardinals gossip, just like everybody else, and, however discreet and indirect they may be, people can put things together. Some conclavists don't care about the threatened excommunication, and leak information anyway.  Cardinal Svampa kept his tally sheet from the last ballot at the 1903 election, and it is obtainable by Googling it.  Masters of ceremonies keep official diaries, which are part of their archives;  if a person has access, a person can find the information.  Paris de Grassis' diary for the 1523 conclave has been published; it lists all the ballots and all the individual votes.  Before 1878, when officially accredited Orators (Ambassadors) of the various European states were Custodians of the Conclave, they had 'inside people' who fed them information on a daily basis at the gates of the Conclave.  See Marino Sanuto's diaries from 1480 to 1533 for many many examples.  And then there are the KGB, CIA, Mossad, and a number of other security organizations who want to know, and don't care about ecclesiastical censures. --Vicedomino (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims about vote counts 

message: "In some cases the Cardinals will choose a papabile candidate." Wouldn't it be better to say that sometimes the Vaticanologists fail to pick papabili. Nurg (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oddly worded 

message: No source for Papabili elected pope? Please provide it.
Pgarret (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papabili elected pope?

message: Papabili are cardinals short-listed as possible popes; there are always going to be many more papabili than elected popes. A section "Papabili not elected pope" is not warranted, there will always be several at each papal election. Suggest deleting the whole section. "Papabili elected pope" is also dubious - it's like "horseraces won by horses expected to do well". Pol098 (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the motion.  These are non-facts. They are gossip, rumor, and baseless speculation. The sources are usually journalists, who are engaged in filling space in their columns and time until a pope is elected.  Not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. --Vicedomino (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papabili not elected pope - unwarranted section 

message: A literal English translation is "able to be pope"; "one who might become pope" is not literal. Italian suffix "-abile" is very close to English "-able". Examples Pol098 (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: So how does a papal election get "vetoed" ?  Does the person who kept writing this even know what the word means? Eregli bob (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't exist anymore, but back in history... Have a look at papal conclave. -- KTC (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it exists.  All you have to do is get together one-third of the cardinals (plus one), and convince them that Cardinal X would make a terrible pope.  Cardinal X will never be Pope because he will never get the two-thirds that he needs.  It's called a 'virtual veto'. --Vicedomino (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veto ? 

message: The Wikipedia article, "Wikipedia:Bombardment", contains the following advice:
::What is and is not bombardment[edit]
::Adding additional references is good when each source has a lot of information of its own. Since one of the purposes of references is to provide the reader information beyond what the Wikipedia article says, providing more sources of information is a good thing. However, adding a reference to already verified material merely to get the reference into the article is not a good practice. Such material is better placed in a "Further reading" section.
::Use of the same source to verify different information in different parts of an article may be necessary. But when this occurs, it is still a single source. Such citations can all be made to point to the same reference in the references list by using the named references system. This avoids the reader being bombarded with a long list of references that are all really the same source.
::When the sources are identical to one another or otherwise redundant, on the other hand, this can be seen as bombardment. News agencies like the Associated Press share their stories with many other news organizations. Many news sites then present the exact story, word-for-word. The only difference is the URL used to access the same information. Instead of "multiple, reliable sources," these are merely a single source.
This advice could well be applied to the strings of references following each Papabile.  Some, at least, of those references are overkill. --Vicedomino (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple References to a statement

message: The Huffington Post 2013 article on Papabili (note 23) appears to be a dead link.  If so, it will have to be removed from numerous places. --Vicedomino (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Huffington Post Dead Link

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Papabile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130302034551/http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/02/world/pope-contenders/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2 to http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/02/world/pope-contenders/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 19 are mentioned but 20 are listed  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.4.52 (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papabili in future conclave - The Next Pope (2020)