Talk:2015 visit by Pope Francis to North America

Anonymous editor User:98.215.153.31 link contribs

The following links found by User:98.215.153.31 seem relevant, but cannot be worked into the limited prose at this time. I have removed them as references in the article, but editors are encouraged to use these to expand the article, or help tag these links with relevant keywords so that they might be useful for future editors. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The Onion is not a source. Elizium23 (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I only found out later that it was a witty non-news article. Shouldn't be used.98.215.153.31 (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 23 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Pope Francis' 2015 visit to North America, which enjoyed late support and seemed to address most concerns any opposition had. I've left the apostrophe situation as is though, because judging by the section below it's not uncontroversial and there was no discussion of it in this RM to say there was a consensus to change it. It can be addressed in a new RM if anyone feels strongly about it. Created several redirects from other titles proposed in this discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Pope Francis' visit to the United States → Pope Francis' visit to Cuba and the United States – All part of the same trip, and Francis' trip to Cuba is highly notable. Juneau Mike (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Juneau Mike (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• The current version of the article doesn't cover the Cuba leg of the trip. —  AjaxSmack  14:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It should, and can easily be expanded to do so. Juneau Mike (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Mightn't a separate article be better? —  AjaxSmack  14:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It's all part of the same trip. But yes, if that is the only way to get the Cuba trip covered here... Juneau Mike (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The Cuba leg still forms no part of the article (infobox doesn't count) and the text of this article notes that "the pope's visit immediately followed his visit to Cuba", so...

• Oppose per WP:SCOPE. Another article on the Cuba trip can be created. —  AjaxSmack  01:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Your appeal to WP:SCOPE is specious, because this RM is essentially a request to widen the scope, so the criteria in WP:SCOPE (article title and lede section) are exactly the items under discussion now. I believe that maintaining the narrow scope is untenable, given that one editor has already tagged this article for notability, a separate Cuba article is likely to be dragged to WP:AFD and subject to "ghettoization" as English-speaking editors concentrate their efforts on the USA article. Elizium23 (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Arguing that the trip is not notable is itself "specious", given the worldwide coverage, numerous topics addressed, and commentary on what was addressed. A tag for WP:Notability is clearly unwarranted; stub or start class would be more appropriate. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • User:Elizium23: "...WP:SCOPE is specious, because this RM is essentially a request to widen the scope [of the article]." That is not what a move request discussion is for. You should have created the Cuba-related content at the article first as you have since done. Then the move could have been judged on its merits instead of crystal ball promises. With your additions, I no longer oppose a move although the "article" still needs a lot of work (like some actual text). We could also split or rename as User:Zfish118 advocates below. —  AjaxSmack  00:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support as the scope of the article according to the infobox is Cuba and the US, and there is no reason to have two separate articles. Elizium23 (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I think this article should should be condensed into a short paragraph and moved into List of pastoral visits of Pope Francis outside Italy with redirects to that paragraph added from Pope Francis' 2015 pastoral visit to Cuba and Pope Francis' 2015 pastoral visit to the United States. Nothing notable, other than speeches, happened as far as I can see. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: the event itself clearly passes notability, given the significant worldwide coverage. Individual content items for an article about a notable topic do not themselves need to be notable. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Article contains content on both visits. 77.42.228.142 (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Weak oppose; Per the lead section, the trip was called the "Apostolic Journey to the United States of America". Do not oppose including Cuban leg of trip in article, though no need for clunky title. Redirects from Pope Francis' trip to Cuba, Pope Francis' trip to Cuba and the United States, Pope Francis' trip to the United States and Cuba, should be created if not yet done so. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I amend this to include appropriate redirects from "Francis'..." or "Francis's..." as appropriate. I have no opinion regarding the apostrophe position. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• • I have not found evidence that the official title is "Apostolic Journey to the United States of America" - it is not in the Rolling Stone article cited. In fact, the Vatican source calls it the "APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS TO CUBA, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND VISIT TO THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION HEADQUARTERS on the occasion of his participation at the Eighth World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia" so I would contest your grounds to oppose. Elizium23 (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I noted that too, after posting. Still oppose name change due to the vastly different levels of press coverage for the US leg versus the Cuban leg. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Evidence that it was considered three separate trips (new source): http://www.usccb.org/about/leadership/holy-see/francis/papal-visit-2015/2015-papal-visit-schedule.cfm --Zfish118 (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support – The Cuban leg was nearly as (daresay just as) symbolic and significant as the American leg, and should be included in the title. (I'm somewhat surprised as it is that the official title of the trip didn't even acknowledge Cuba.) –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 06:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply: There were three apostolic trips, that were seamlessly coordinated, and presented publicly on a single agenda. The "official" US trip did not cover Cuba, as that was officially the Apostolic visit to Cuba. There was also a technically separate Apostolic visit to the United Nations, which the Pope is an observing member of. I favor keeping the name "...to the United States", at least in part because "...Cuba and United States" misses this critical detail. (As a possibly alternative, see "Third Option"). --Zfish118 (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

How about "Pope Francis's 2015 visit to North America", as there were three official visits to Cuba, the US, and the UN? --Zfish118 (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I think that if "United States and Cuba" is to prove too unwieldy that this would do a better job of covering the scope. Seems like a compromise choice to me. –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 08:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support Pope Francis's 2015 visit to North America. Seems like the most WP:CONCISE and reasonable compromise.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Apostrophe move reverted

I have reverted the revert of the page move from Pope Francis's visit to the United States. It flies in the face of consistency with all the other articles. The guideline MOS:POSS also requires consistency. If you feel strongly enough about this, you will need to start an WP:RM to gain WP:CONSENSUS; however, in light of the fact that another RM is already in process, we should wait for that one to finish, or modify it accordingly, in order to stave off move-warring. Elizium23 (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

For clarity, did you set the name to "Francis' " or "Francis's"? --Zfish118 (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I am supporting "Francis'" across all topic-related articles. Elizium23 (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Kim Davis

Kim Davis' lawyer is claiming she met with the Pope in Washington on Thursday and that he expressed support for her. [1]. The Vatican has not commented; not sure if this merits mentioning until then, but it seems like this is accurate. 331dot (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The Holy See has confirmed the meeting as explained in this Snopes page. Elizium23 (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)