Talk:Reactions to the death of Pope Francis

Can we add this back to the main article

I at least did 70% of all of this in the main article, just for it to be moved. Its not fair to users who wrote this part of the article. JFP1212 (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The death is notable and often they will get seperate pages for reactions (e.g. Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II) STCSTW (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I think we should keep this page, there are more and more people and organization have reactions towards the death of Pope Francis, if you move it back, it wiil be too much words on one pages.--金色黎明 (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Either way, should the text be in Oxford English, which is laid down for the article about the Pope's death and funeral? Right now, we seem to have a hodgepodge. Kelisi (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

Seeing as on the revisions people are attempting to merge the page back what should we do:

• Keep - Keep the page as more tributes are expected
• Merge - Merge back to the main page
• Draft - Draft the page until more tributes are released

STCSTW (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep - because other pages of famous personalities such as Kim Jong and Queen Elizabeth are also there Anas Riaz (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep - The Queen Elizabeth article exists so there is no reason to merge this with the main article in my personal opinion. Underdwarf58 (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

(At least it's not Trump-related because there is a WP about it if I'm not mistaken) Underdwarf58 (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep -More tributes are expected and he was a figure of great magnitude like Queen Elizabeth and a leader of Catholicism. Mtvdanilo (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep -Repeat again, I think we should keep this page, there are more and more people and organization have reactions towards the death of Pope Francis, if you move it back, it wiil be too much words on one pages--金色黎明 (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep – per above Bakhos Let's talk! 13:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. He was a head of state, like Elizabeth II, and there will likely be more tributes. Also, the main article will expand as events surrounding the funeral unfold. This is Paul (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
  • It's worth noting that at present this article is almost twice as long as the main article, with 26KB and 48KB respectively. This is Paul (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge Arguments above seem to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments regarding Queen Elizabeth. It doesn't matter whether other people have their own articles in this style, it matters what the coverage here is, and I see this article as pure recentism. Merge to Death and funeral of Pope Francis. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge by creating a table on Death and funeral of Pope Francis.

My opinion is to create similar table like this one as for example for the reactions to his death so that it covers everything up in one section.

Although, I do support a weak keep as well since more tributes are expected and he was a very famous figure. Imwin567 (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep - The table linked was made under special circumstances and discusses aid not just reactions STCSTW (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

That was just an example which could potentially be done. Imwin567 (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Merge per above. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Since more tributes are expected, let's keep the page to stop the other one from getting cluttered up 41.210.141.7 (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)— 41.210.141.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Merge and drastically trim per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Reactions to someone's death, even very important people, are not intrinsically notable. This is little more than a giant quote farm. The vast majority of these could be summarized with something along the lines of "The pope's death provoked widespread sadness with numerous expression of sympathy and regret from world governments, and prominent persons." -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  We need to have a centralised community discussion about these "reactions to" articles that pop up every time something notable happens. Maybe they'll end with a "delete on sight" consensus. Maybe they'll just stay around. I agree, the reactions themselves are mostly not notable themselves: maybe commentary on how Donald Trump's reaction—given their disagreements in the past—can be presented, while maybe JD Vance's is notable because of the hoax/joke that claims he was involved in Francis's death, cited to The New Republic, which I'm surprised hasn't ended up just like the JD Vance couch hoax with its own article to be deleted promptly. Other than the usual subjects, Lula and Milei saying that they're having official mourning periods, and Lai Ching-Te and Palestine thanking him for recognising that they each exist, nothing really jumps out as notable in it of itself. BarntToust 23:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Honestly, I was going to send this to AfD, but when I got to the page the merge discussion was already underway. I may still send it that way. But yeah, I think we need to have a broad discussion about these silly reaction pages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Merge because by itself, the reactions of the death is not notable. Also, the death is the media focus right now. Yours truly, Stuffinwriting | talk | sign | contributions 19:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Merge because it was moved unexpectedly, we have not even added the reactions of normal christians, only the leaders.. JFP1212 (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Merge per Imwin567 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 21:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep, some news are mentioning reactions by some notable leaders. StormHunterBryante5467⛈️ 21:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Merge per above, reactions of his death is not important enough for notability. Randomdudewithinternet (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep to avoid uneccessary bloating in the main page. But in the even of a merge, this needs to be rewritten in prose rather than some FLAGSOUP/celebrity bacchanalia. Borgenland (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep per WP:AS. Merging this may unnecessarily bloat the main article, especially since this list may only continue to grow as time goes on. Kaito-san (talk/contribs) 13:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Size is not an issue if you cull 90% of this non-notable quote farm. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep already too many Braganza (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

What to do when there's too many non-notable condolences from foreign dignitaries providing zero encyclopedic understanding of anything? That means it's time for content reform. BarntToust 15:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Merge I understand there's some precedence for this, with the death Queen Elizabeth II, but I don't know think it's necessary for Wikipedia to catalogue out all these reactions. Many of these "reactions" are similar and could appropriately live within the main article for the death of Pope Francis, if they're needed at all. Dflovett (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep For reasons mentioned above Yesyesmrcool (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Ioannes II (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep As for there being "too many non-notable condolences from foreign dignitaries providing zero encyclopedic understanding of anything", I think you never know what might be notable. The meer act of making a public statement or not can be an important political issue. And there may be reason for people to want to look up if a specific person released a statement. Arg Matey (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep The page is too big for a merge. Stephen"Zap" (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep We already have pages like Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II, Reactions to the death of Kim Jong Il, and Reactions to the death of Bhumibol Adulyadej. As far as I can tell, they never had a request for merge. I don't see how this page is any different. Thunderforge (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Delete them all! Secretlondon (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  Secretlondon You can't just say Delete them all without providing a valid reason. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  It's just irrelevant crap. This isn't a deletion debate anyway, but we don't want any of this stuff. Secretlondon (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  Secretlondon Saying "It's just irrelevant crap. This isn't a deletion debate anyway, but we don't want any of this stuff." does not show that you have a valid reason for deleting the article. Also, the "but we don't want any of this stuff." makes it seem like you think you are speaking on behalf of all Wikipedia editors and readers. Also with the "we" part of it makes bring up to it. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• Merge Comparing Kim's and Francis's reaction pages show why this should be merged. Kim's page has commentary outside of being a condolence book, this is not visible in Francis's. A lot of this also seems to be somewhat routine, world leaders will simply comment on it simply because it was an event that happened. As for how it should be merged, it should be a paragraph mentioning that governments, organizations, et cetera sent their condolences to the pope and then highlight any notable ones that garner more attention than a simple statement. Vance's comes to mind for this criteria. ✶Quxyz✶ 17:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Commentary needed can be added. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has an article on her. And he is as famous of a Pope as Elizabeth II was Queen. Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Page is massive and a merger would make the main article unweildy.★Trekker (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a WP:QUOTEFARM with flags as bullet points, and the sourcing is mostly primary. Putting into an article would only turn that article into a poorly sourced quotefarm with a flag salad. Abductive (reasoning) 11:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Draft/delete This is just cruft. Every leader says something nice. We don't care, frankly. It certainly shouldn't be in the main article. Secretlondon (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think "every leader says something nice" is some kind of default when an important person dies, nor does it make the subject cruft nor none-noteworthy.★Trekker (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Religious statement

If I were to add the LDS church's statement of "We join the world in mourning the passing of His Holiness Pope Francis. His courageous and compassionate leadership has blessed countless lives", what section would that be under? 1879515Starwars1 (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I've just added a statement from the Archbishop of York, which is currently under the UK entry, but there should probably be a separate section for a reaction from religious leaders. This is Paul (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama also made a statement: https://www.dalailama.com/news/condolences-on-the-death-of-his-holiness-pope-francis --Harmenator (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Added Tibet and Dalai Lama. Richard Nowell (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Would this be a reaction?

To mention how some people are speculating or jokingly saying that JD Vance killed the pope. 35.146.68.141 (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

If someone wrote it carefully, sure. This source from The New Republic, reliable per WP:NEWREPUBLIC might be used. This source from The Daily Beast may need additional considerations per WP:DAILYBEAST, but per WP:DAILYBEAST most concern about using the source stems from doubt over using the source for factual statements about controversial subjects: this would be coverage of a hoax, which may be construed as controversial, but does not concern actual facts. BarntToust 00:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Let's leave jokes out of the articles, unless they are about the joke itself. Cambalachero (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

To expand the idea, this "joke" is really unfunny and, unless there's something to it beyond "some guys are making memes", it should be ignored. First, a man has just died for real, making jokes about that death is disgusting for those who supported Francis. And second, jokes focused on wordplay or graphic humor over something Vance said or did in some photo? Fine. But jokes that treat him as a murderer? Big no. Surely that goes against BLP or something. Cambalachero (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to mention this, largely because it's trivial and would be considered to be in poor taste. For context though, and as mentioned here, Vance is a Catholic convert, so meeting the pope wouldn't be unheard of during a visit to Italy. This is Paul (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

"Pope Donald" has quite a ring about it? Or is that just a load of bull? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Didn't see this before posting below but this is abundantly a reaction to the death, covered in enough sources, not less significant than mourning statements from tiny countries. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

India's reaction.

The government of India has declared a three day state mourning on passing of the Pope. Is this notable enough to be added to the page? The source Warriorglance(talk to me) 06:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. 41.210.141.7 (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s reaction

On Easter Sunday, U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted how glad she was the pope had died. Is this notable enough to add to the page? https://www.thedailybeast.com/mtg-appears-to-celebrate-the-death-of-evil-pope-francis/ KevinTheSeaCucumber (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, she is notable. (And seems to be pretty pleased with herself) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

As a suggestion, I would search for other articles that cover Greene's comments to get a better sense of whether notability is established (possibly during the next few days to avoid this being a reaction to WP:Recentism). Having an article other than from The Daily Beast (per WP:DAILYBEAST) would also address concerns from that source in particular. Gramix13 (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

She tends to say provocative things for the purpose of getting coverage from publications like the Daily Beast. Ragebait, if you will. So that's my hesitation in adding her language to this, but I won't remove it. Dflovett (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Info at Draft:JD Vance papal death conspiracy theory

There has been discussion that this conspiracy theory, that Vance either killed the Pope or somehow otherwise caused or sped up his death, does not yet met its own article, but something be mentioned here from the half dozen sources on the draft page? It’s a wild meme, and obviously a reaction to the death. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

If it continues to get coverage it could maybe be it's own article, or get a couple of mentions here.★Trekker (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Myanmar

So the National Unity Government (the government in exile) released a statement regarding the matter. Is it okay to put it in the "Other" section? Underdwarf58 (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

And this is what happened to the junta regarding the matter. Should it be included as well? Underdwarf58 (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Pretenders/Nobility

@90.243.107.174: i don't know how often i have to tell you this, she is NOT a leader. She doesn't have any position in the Romanian state Braganza (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Title of Prince Jean d'Orléans

His Royal Highness The Prince Jean of Orléans is not Duke of Vendôme today. Since the passing of his father, he is Count of Paris with the style of "Monseigneur". The Head of The Royal Branch of Orléans does not use the style of His Royal Highness neither his spouse because they are higher (see main site HERALDICA ROYAL STYLES AND STYLES). The Count and Countess of Paris use the style of "Monseigneur" and "Madame".

Thank you to pay attention for my contribution.

Sincerely,

François MR FRANCOIS DUBRULLE (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Cyprus

Should Cyprus be listed under Europe or Asia? There seems to be a prolonged slow edit war over this somewhat trivial question. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The edit war now seems to have speeded up and is getting disruptive. TomTom7474 I think you should discuss it here first, BEFORE changing it back yet again? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair. I have an another idea. Include it to both then.

Just putting Cyprus in Europe is incorrect so include it to both then. TomTom7474 (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Should it not depend more on how aligned it is with the Catholic Church, which is based in Rome? Or at least Christianity in general, which would suggest Europe? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? TomTom7474 (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that Cyprus is a predominantly Christian country. The Church of Cyprus is Greek Orthodox and Greece is in Europe. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Cyprus is an independent country however.

Just because Cyprus is a Christian country does not mean it is in Europe. Not to mention, Christianity is an Asiatic religion.

The physical location is what determines a country’s continent. TomTom7474 (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I also think Cyprus has stronger political ties to Europe than to Asia. The lead image at the article shows Cyprus in the European Union, not Cyprus in Asia. This article is not predominantly a "geographical" article. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Again though… politics is irrelevant. Geopolitics and geography are different.

The European Union and Europe are not the same thing.

Continents are based on the geographical location of a country. Cyprus is geographically in Asia making it a part of the continent of Asia. TomTom7474 (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the European Union and Europe are closer than are the European Union and Asia. Perhaps other editors would like to contribute here. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

No the EU is a geopolitical organization while Europe is a geographical continent. TomTom7474 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, quite correct. But I'm not sure how that makes the European Union any closer to Asia. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the EU is not equivalent to Europe.

Yes Cyprus is in the EU, but is is actually in Asia due to its geographical location. TomTom7474 (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, your position is perfectly clear, and quite straightforward. But other editors seem to disagree with your edits in this regard here. Let's see if any consensus can be established. Otherwise we might have to open a RfC. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough and I agree with you. And thank you for understanding.

I am blocked from editing. I don’t know why I was blocked. I won’t edit anything until this all gets resolved but it does seem a bit unfair that I was blocked. TomTom7474 (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

You are now blocked from editing this article. It was for edit warring. Whether you wish to edit any other article is (currently) your choice. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Again… why am I blocked for having a different opinion? It is not warring for having a different opinion. That is completely unacceptable and unjustifiable. TomTom7474 (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The correct venue for contesting your block is at AN/I, or possibly your own Talk page, but not here. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Just unblock me then? TomTom7474 (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

TomTom7474, I can't tell if by now you actually understand why you are blocked, but I will tell you that this is not a debate society, and we really don't do opinions here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

What I am saying is that blocking me was too harsh and frankly an abuse of power. TomTom7474 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the list is based in geography. Indonesia is listed under Asia, not both Oceania and Asia. I also don't think it makes sense to group countries strictly geographically; this is about a social and political response to an event, and is rooted in people, not in stone. I !vote Put Cyprus in Europe for the purpose of this article. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

How about putting it in both then? TomTom7474 (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

No, because that is not consistent, and not needed if the list is indeed based on sociopolitical response, rather than geographic response. (Which, unless the earth comes alive, should be nil.) C.f. the Indonesia entry. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

But the continental sections do not say geopolitical. It literally says “Asia.” Cyprus is entirely in Asia so it should be under Asia. TomTom7474 (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

If that's so, why is Russia listed in Europe? Most of its land is located in Asia. Underdwarf58 (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Russia does have territory in Europe though so it can be placed there. Cyprus on the other hand has no territory in Europe. All of it is in Asia.

But I am on board with what you are saying though. TomTom7474 (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

"Asia" can describe a geopolitical group just as easily as a geographic one. As stated above, you've made your stance clear. I understand your point, I just disagree. Let's see what others think. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: editor is now indef blocked for WP:IDHT. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

What about others transcontinental countries? Georgia has a part in Europe and other part in Asia, but like Cyprus (or Russia) is considered a European country. Rpo.castro (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

See no problem with leaving Georgia where it is, which is under Europe. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 The problem is that Georgia is not under Europe but under Asia. Rpo.castro (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't see it as "a problem". I think it's too trivial to worry about. If a reader wants to search for "Georgia", they will find it either way. I'm pretty sure President Salome Zourabichvili won't be rushing here to complain. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I would say that Cyprus was also trivial and we would find it either way, and we can see how much drama it caused. And since you said Georgia was under Europe, which is not...It's just a matter of consistency. Rpo.castro (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, also equally trivial. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

This case is similar to Cyprus' except it's not about placing nations. I want to point out that per Flag of Northern Ireland, this consecutive nation does not have an official flag unlike the others (England, Scotland and Wales). However, some user keeps on adding the de facto flag. What should we do?

• Yes Flag - Keep the flag even if it's not official
• No flag - No flag will be displayed

Underdwarf58 (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes flag. As far as I'm aware it's the de facto flag for the country.★Trekker (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

But it's not de jure, therefore we'll have to wait for opinions from other users Underdwarf58 (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes flag. Rpo.castro (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Cyprus in Europe?

Hi. I was wondering why Cyprus is in Europe and not Asia? I am from Cyprus and even though I know we are in the EU, we are actually entirely located in Asia, making us an Asian country. Meanwhile, Turkey, which does have territory in Europe is marked as Asia despite Cyprus being under Asia Minor with no territory in Europe.

I would just like some insight and to bring this up with you all. Nick306090 (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

see the discussion on Cyprus above? Secretlondon (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah but only bits of it. Nick306090 (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

How about for Turkey though? Shouldn’t it be in Europe as well then? Nick306090 (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you think the reactions themselves, from the respective leaders, depend in any way on whether we list the countries as being in Asia or in Europe? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC) p.s. are you a sock puppet of TomTom7474?

I was literally just asking a question…

And what are you talking about? Nick306090 (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, a fair question. It does seem somewhat contradictory when compared to Cyprus. I was suggesting that, for the purposes of this article, it doesn't really matter.

Regarding your possible identity: the fact that you created your account the day after TomTom7474 was blocked, have made no edits anywhere else, have a very similar user name format, and the fact that you've said "I am from Cyprus and even though I know we are in the EU, we are actually entirely located in Asia, making us an Asian country", suggested a certain similarity of purpose to me. Of course, this may all be pure coincidence. In which case I would have to sincerely apologise for even suggesting such a thing. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

All good and thanks for your apology. And I was not aware of that account before I posted my question. Nick306090 (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah "just a coincidence". Rpo.castro (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Pope Donald Trump pic

Naturally, it has made huge news that President Trump posted a pic of himself as Pope on White House social media. This after not long before answering a reporters question about who should be the next pope by suggesting himself. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

An essential detail. Almost as important as this Francis Pope on a Rope: "To welcome Pope Francis to America, we've created a hand-crafted, limited-edition Pope On A Rope to commemmorate his Philadelphia visit." (Although, admittedly, that was four years ago, before he had actually died.) Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

In case you failed to notice so, that was a joke. Nobody gets to go to the press and say "I want to be the new Pope" (of course, they can do it, but it would be meaningless). If they made a joke using official social media accounts, that's a US problem; it doesn't make it any less of a joke. See Papal conclave for an article about the process. And remember that not everything Trump does deserves to be mentioned in an article. Cambalachero (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Trump a complete joke? Fake nooz, surely. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)