Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2015

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 2010 ← Archive 2013 Archive 2014 Archive 2015

Use of {{infobox religion}}

Evrik has recently added {{Infobox religion}} to four articles, Simbang Gabi, Misa de Gallo, Rorate Coeli and Red Mass. I feel it is a misuse of this template to describe these topics, which are types of Catholic Mass, as a new "religion". If Evrik feels that they need an infobox and there is none suitable, then he should perhaps create his own, rather than hammer this square peg into a round hole. Elizium23 (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I started a discussion here. Feel free to join it there. As for the template. I'm glad to use another template, if you suggest one you'd like. Otherwise, not one sees which template is being used, so does it matter? --evrik (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I see NOTHING inappropriate about the use of this template; the template name is not part of the public-facing content of the article, nor does it wp:categorize the blue mass/red mass/etc as a "religion" in the Wikipedia index. The template simple organizes the information. The template phrasing is a bit awkward, but no other existing templates are less awkward for expressing the desired content. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Elizium23 has now started wikistalking me. Elizium23 tagged this article, Blue Mass for speedy deletion five minutes after I created the article. If you look at the recent history of my talk page, you'll see that the editor is making up policies and coming up with strange interpretations of the way that pages are to be edited. I've tried to assume good faith, but Elizium23 seems to be escalating. --evrik (talk) 06:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Evrik:, I think "Infoxbox holiday" may work better for this; I have included a sample inclusion at Blue Mass, here.

Consistory to Create Cardinals - Feb 2015

Today the Holy See announced the intention of Pope Francis to hold a Consistory to create new Cardinals on 14 February 2015. No names or even numbers have been suggested. Typically that information is revealed about a month before the event.--Dcheney (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The names of the new Cardinals were named today. But they will not become Cardinals until 14 February.--Dcheney (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
At present, Wikipedia has individual articles on less than half of them, although others are mentioned in the articles on their dioceses or on other persons. Esoglou (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Articles now exist for all of the cardinals-elect, but some of them are just stubs. – Maliepa (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Pope Leo X was homosexual, or not

Hi! I have a problem with "original research". Mr McCabe, an anticatholic polemist in the early XX century said that Pope Leo X was homosexual, citing a contemporary author who knew him, Francesco Guicciardini. It so happens that Guicciardini's book is available on the internet and he does not say what McCabe claims he said. Quite the opposite. I have provided links to the text, links to an english online translation of the text. The same problem happens with another false quotation by Jovius. But a user is desperate not to correct the article and keeps making excuses to revert my edits and accusing me of I doing "original research". Since the article falls on the scope of this project I ask you to visit the talk page and give your opinions. Thanks a lot. El Huinca (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have now joined the discussion, but there is no fruitful interchange yet with Frimoussou who has previously taken a more sensible and workmanlike attitude than he is now showing. I have not started editing Leo X. I think a workable consensus is possible with other editors, though (including you, I hasten to add!). Ridiculus mus (talk)
El Huinca's precedent behavior made me suspicious, I'm sorry. It seems to me that some users linked with this project want absolutely to push the POV that he was not homosexual (a "sodomite" as some people like to say...), don't ask me why. I add that if it's rather clear that he was homosexual, the article isn't taged by an "LGBT" cat, and the paragraph on his sexuality is balanced. Last weeks, I reverted El Huinca's posts just because, as proven now (Contaldo80 and Andrew Dalby), his revisions about the chastity of Leo X after he became the pope were totally false. But everybody can make constructive and balanced revisions. Frimoussou (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Article naming convention for Latin documents identified by incipits

Moved: was at User talk:BoBoMisiu

The following discussion took place on my talk page.

I agree and support your recent page move to Ad sanctam beati Petri sedem based on the fact that Latin incipits do not capitalize all the words. However, it is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia; see Category:Documents of the Catholic Church. Should we endeavor to move all the pages in question to lowercase names? And if so, I suggest we open a thread first on WT:CATHOLIC to make sure there is WP:CONSENSUS for the change first. What do you think? Elizium23 (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that using the capitalization found in sources such as Denzinger, etc. is the way to go and I see that the Vatican website also uses lower case incipits. It seems to be the more correct way. Now that I looked at how many articles are not lower case incipit form, it is better to find WP:CONSENSUS. A thread on WT:CATHOLIC is the best way to go. I would help moving them. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) that all the articles about church documents identified by latin incipits should be moved to titles with lower case and that a naming convention for such articles be defined somewhere. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Admittedly, capitalization is often used in English, especially in journalism, through mistaking an incipit for a title. Thus, for instance, "Lumen Gentium" is quite common. But it is still incorrect. It does not concern only documents in Latin. Think of Mit brennender Sorge and Non abbiamo bisogno. Esoglou (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
@Esoglou: No, official English versions of Vatican documents capitalize the incipit titles. (e.g. [1]) I see that the Latin version uses different capitalization (e.g. [2]), but this is an English encyclopedia. Using the Latin capitalization convention is appropriate on the Latin Wikipedia (e.g. [3]), but not here. You acknowledge that "capitalization is often used in English, especially in journalism," and that is further evidence that English capitalization should be used here. Please stop doing that. -hugeTim (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The relevant guideline explicitly addresses the topic of written works with titles in another language: "usually the capitalization found in English-language reliable sources is recommended, but when such sources use different capitalizations there is some leaning towards the capitalization rules valid for the language of the creator." So the question is how these titles of Church documents are capitalized in English language reliable sources. I personally only remembered seeing these titles capitalized in the usual English way, but just now I found at least one counterexample (Britannica is inconsistent on PT: [4]). Given that, I have no strong objection to the re-capitalizing project, though my own preference is for full capitalization. -hugeTim (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
An incipit isn't a title. Wikipedia rules about titles do not apply to incipits. The same document may have both a title and an incipit. All the Second Vatican Council documents have titles, but they are more commonly referred to by their incipits, doubtless because the incipit is shorter.
In English, perhaps simply because of confusion with titles, incipits are often (mistakenly?) capitalized. Not always. Take the citations of Non abbiamo bisogno here and here and here and here and here and here, etc. You will also find "Non Abbiamo Bisogno" in English books. Both forms are in use in English. Among the styles that are in fact widely used in English for punctuating quotations, Wikipedia has in MOS:LQ made a choice for logical punctuation. Wikipedia must also make a choice for incipits. The logical one seems best. It is the choice that it has made for Gloria in excelsis Deo, not "Gloria in Excelsis Deo". Esoglou (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a an English Wikipedia style convention:

Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper noun. For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper noun that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence.
— WP:NCCAPS 2014-11-28

So, when an incipit is the title of an article, sentence case is the standard. Logical exceptions would be the capitalization used by the author, since "adherence to conventions widely used in the genre" is "important to credibility" according to the same WP:NCCAPS guideline. It is credible to use the capitalization of the incipit of a Latin document as found in the typical edition – that would be found in, for example, the Catholic Church's AAS or ASS or other sources. @Hugetim: the Vatican English website capitalization is all large capital letters for titles of documents, yet that is not the convention used when writing about those documents. Journalism standard is not the genre standard. Here is a style sheet for writing about church documents which states that "Preference is for less capitalization rather than more." It also provides among its examples, how to quote Lumen gentium ("Initial Citation: Vatican II, Lumen gentium 1, November 21, 1964: AAS 57 (1965) 5.") and ("Vatican II, pastoral constitution Gaudium et spes, December 7, 1965: AAS 58 (1966) 1025-1115.") – which is in sentence case and the same style here and here. It is "LUMEN GENTIUM" as the page title on vatican.va and I think many contributors would agree that is not the way it is done in English Wikipedia. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Papal tiara

The papal tiara is seen as offensive by many Christians of other denominations (and possibly by some eastern-rite Catholics) and might usefully be dispensed with in the images accompanying the article----Clive Sweeting 25 January 2015— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clive sweeting (talk • contribs) 12:40, 25 January 2015

First of all, we don't elide images because they may be offensive to someone. See the eternal controversy swirling over the images of Muhammad in his article. Second, Eastern-rite Catholics who accept the authority of the Pope? How could they be offended by the tiara? Thirdly, I don't see how leaving images out of their own article would be edifying for anyone. The article on the Papal Tiara should be generously illustrated so that people can know what we are talking about. Do you have any real examples of people being offended, or is this just your speculation? I can't identify any current disruption at that article (papal tiara), are you talking about some other article? Elizium23 (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Clive sweeting: some people are offended by a corpus on a crucifix and others by the keys of Heaven, but that is neither here nor there, as many of those are not Catholics but Protestants. Some want to force their reformation on the Catholic Church. Catholic culture includes many symbols and eliminating the symbols is, in a way, eliminating the culture. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Papal infoboxes

I've noticed a few additions were placed in the infoboxes of the most recent popes. I've deleted His Holiness & (Bishop of Rome etc). I would suggest that we delete the Native name section, aswell. We should be striving for consistency across these papal bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bishop Mathew Arackal

Dear Catholicism experts: Here's an old AfC submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable subject? If so, the references need some work.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, bishops are generally notable. StAnselm (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, StAnselm. I made a few reference improvements, so it won't be deleted for six months. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Pope Francis

The article about Pope Francis is currently nominated as a good article. Reviews may be welcomed. Cambalachero (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Mid vowels in Ecclesiastical Latin

I'm curious about the pronunciation of the letters ⟨e⟩ and ⟨o⟩ in Ecclesiastical Latin. Help:IPA for Latin lists two pronunciations for each letter (/e ɛ/ and /o ɔ/), as in Italian, but I'm not sure if this is correct. If you know anything about this, please comment on the WikiProject Latin talk page. — Eru·tuon 01:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Christian denominational families

You are invited to a discussion regarding the naming and content of category:Christian denominational families found at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_10#Category:Christian_denominational_families. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Catholics in the United States Military

As Buddhists in the US Military was deemed notable, than I highly suggest that a new article Catholics in the United States Military should be created. Using the logic used to defend the kept article, an article about Catholics in the United States Military will clearly pass notability requirements.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Roman Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA might be expanded to include the content you desire? --Zfish118 (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirect from Roman Catholic Church

Roman Catholic Church was recently redirected to Latin Catholic Church, which is itself a redirect to Latin Church. Likewise, Roman catholic church was directed to Latin Church. This is problematic. Human searchers will invariably be looking for Catholic Church rather than the sui iuris Latin Church. Hundreds if not thousands of articles which link to the Roman Catholic Church article intended to point to the Catholic Church article. Those with doubts should consult our article, Roman Catholic (term) which explains the many and varied uses. I suggest that these redirects both be pointed back to the Catholic Church article to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I had already reverted this redirect before I notice this discussion. The redirect to RCC should not have been made in the first place and was done so on the very false premise that "Latin Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are "synonomous" when, in fact, they are not as the Roman Catholic (term) article makes clear. The only correct redirect of "Roman Catholic Church" is to "Catholic Church". Anglicanus (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Lucidius of Verona

Hi, is anyone able to validate this saint? I can't find (anything other than mirrors) from Google, and some websites with lists of feast days exclude him entirely. Does anyone know if he existed? Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he is in the Roman Martyrology. Elizium23 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your time. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

NPOV discussion

Neutrality issues have been raised on several related articles. More contributions would be welcome.

Elizium23 (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Content dispute devolving into edit war

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Greetings, While doing article assessments, for the first time I notice that these two articles are almost duplicates.

If another more experienced editor could look these over and do the merging would be great. I am asking for help mainly because I do not know how to do this. Thanks. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think these two articles may be conflating more than two groups. I think this edit took out actual historical content, a new contributor (Special:Contributions/Halcyon0612), @Halcyon0612: seems to know something about the subject but just not knowledgable about wikipedia methods. I think this contributor needs some hand holding to format what, to me, looks like content that just needs attribution. That would be a start at helping to resolve what to do. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on confirmation of election of Church of England bishops

At Talk:Martin Seeley. DBD 14:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how that relates to this project.--Dcheney (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
"catholic". The Church of England has a catholic ecclesiology. DBD 23:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Episcopal ordination/consecration

I am not sure anyone besides the three of us care about this, but I thought I would at least bring it to public attention. The IP 71.191.176.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is slowly but surely changing all articles that reference episcopal "ordination" to "consecration". Philip Trueman (talk · contribs) objects to this but he doesn't believe that "consecration" is correct - it is correct, it's simply an older, more traditional specific term for episcopal ordination. If it were up to me, I'd just let the IP continue on his merry way and change them all, but I thought I'd float it here just in case anyone else has objections and thinks the IP should be stopped (although I'd be curious to see how that would be possible.) Elizium23 (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

1983 CIC canon 379 uses the word consecration. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
1997 CCC #1559 uses the word ordination. Next? Elizium23 (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Mmmm. Latin also has this difference. CCC 1554: "sacramental act called "ordination," that is, by the sacrament of Holy Orders". And 1557 "The Second Vatican Council 'teaches . . . that the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred by episcopal consecration, that fullness namely which, both in the liturgical tradition of the Church and the language of the Fathers of the Church, is called the high priesthood, the acme (summa) of the sacred ministry.' " Canons 1010–1014 add insight. I believe "consecration" is more correct. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to clarify the terms a bit. Consecration is a more generic term - places, items, and people can be consecrated in a variety of ways. Ordination is specific to the sacrament of holy orders (deacon, priest, and bishop). Ordination is just one way of being consecrated.--Dcheney (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
To answer the question as to how the IP can be stopped: Wikipedia has processes for resolving content disputes - WP:DR and the like. The aim is to achieve consensus and then, if necessary, enforce it. I'm happy to participate in such a process (although real life has been intruding recently); it is significant and disappointing that the IP has shown no inclination to do so. My initial interpretation of the distinction between the words was that 'ordination' is the sacrament, and 'consecration' a specific act which occurs within it - just as 'confession' is a specific act within another sacrament, but not the sacrament itself even if sometimes it is used to refer to it. I'm open to persuasion on this, and I'm grateful for the references above which I intend to read more closely. Philip Trueman (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
See Consecration. Consecration is another name for episcopal ordination, the two are synonyms, just as Confession is another name for the Sacrament of Penance ([5] CCC #1424). Elizium23 (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
If they are synonyms, then I don't see how one can be more correct than the other, as BoBoMisiu suggests. I'm much more inclined to Dcheney's suggestion that 'ordination' is a more specific term [and, presumably, 'episcopal ordination' is a fortiori an even more specific term] and 'consecration' a less specific term. In which case I think the more specific term should be used if it is appropriate, and that it is up to the IP to justify his preference for the generic over the specific, which he hasn't done. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@Philip Trueman: from canon 1012 "The minister of sacred ordination is a consecrated bishop." Commentary explains "that only the consecrated bishop is a minister of sacred ordination". Yet the same commentary uses both terms to explain canon 1013 the faculty to authorize episcopal ordination [...] bishop who consecrated. A different commentary on canon 379. comparing CIC canon 336 and CCEO 49 that "instead of Summus Pontifex ('Supreme Pontiff') one finds Romanus Pontifex ('Roman Pontiff') and in the place of 'sacramental consecration' one finds 'sacramental ordination'." They are both in contemporary use in parts of the Catholic Church. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.
:::::I'm not an active member of this WikiProject, but looking at this, I believe Philip Trueman has it right - "ordination" is the more specific term (and "episcopal ordination" even more specific", while "consecration" can refer to any of a large number of sacred actions, of which ordination is only one. Thus at the very least, a reference to a priest's elevation to the office of bishop should be referred to as his "episcopal ordination" the first time it's mentioned in an article. For stylistic reasons (not repeating the same thing over and over), future references could mention "consecration" instead. Argyriou (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I remember reading something about different use in different English speaking countries, but I don't remember more details. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.
(now becoming another subject). I had thought the church had discarded the term "Pontifex Maximus", ""Supreme Pontiff." This term was used to denote the Head of the Roman Church under Paganism and was transferred to the Pope after Christianity became the state religion. Critics point out that the Religion has changed and the term is therefore hypocritical, or whatever critics would usually say in such circumstances. I think the Holy See has dropped this title. (apparently still in some documents). Student7 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
No, as Pontifex Maximus says, & you can easily see from the Vatican giftshop, it is still used in some contexts, such as coins, medals, and inscriptions on buildings. Mainly for the Pope in his capacity as the ruler of Vatican City really, but also on encyclicals etc. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
PS Benedict XVI is "no longer available", but JP2 is. Hmmm! Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Citing encyclicals, apostolic constitutions, etc.?

In the course of improving Roman Catholic Diocese of Líbano–Honda, I replaced an in-text reference to The Bull "Ita Iam" with a reference to the apostolic constitution, which does, in fact begin "Ita iam". The reference I've used is 

{{Citation
 |url=http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/la/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19890708_libana-hondana.html
 |date=8 July 1989
 |first=Pope
 |last=John Paul II
 |author-link=Pope John Paul II
 |title=Quibusdam distractis territoriis ab Achidiocesi Ibaguensi nova Diocesis Libana-Hondana conditur
}}

Do any of you have suggestions for a better way to cite this, or some sort of consensus on how to do this? Argyriou (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I normally use the Latin title in references and not the incipit if the title is available. That is the modern way. I use author=Pope John Paul II for popes. I think the diocese name is also the title of the apostolic constitution Libana Hondana (see here for how others are listed). But, if I'm writing about the document, I use the style I find in the new version of Enchiridion. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
OK. I fixed it up a little, and put the incipit in the quote= parameter. Go take a look and tell me if you like it. Argyriou (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Argyriou: I do not think you even have to that, few people will read the Latin. You already wrote that in English and the linked document has all the Latin text. I think it looks good, there is not more say about the territory. I would just add that it was erected from territory divided from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Ibagué. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Asking for consensus for diplomatic article titles

Greetings,

Recently while doing WP Catholicism article assessments, I see that for Category:Diplomatic missions of the Holy See articles there are a mixture of titles. For example:

The category shows 48 article pages, so before making any changes I am wondering if there is a preferred article title, or something different (and better)? Please feel free to leave your feedback and opinions. Cheers, JoeHebda (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Google Ngram shows "Nunciature in" has more use. But "Nunciature to" seems more precise to me. I would use "Apostolic Nunciature to [country or organization]" in title, and "The Apostolic Nunciature of the Holy See to [country or organization], also known as the Vatican Embassy. (see e.g. diplomatmagazine.com, Azerbaijan diplomatic list, Catholic Almanac) I would also have redirects:
  • from "Nunciature in [city]" with {{R from alternative name}}
  • from "Nunciature to [country or organization]" with {{R from alternative name}}
  • from "Vatican embassy in [city]" with {{temp|R from alternative name}}
  • from "Vatican embassy to [country or organization]" with {{temp|R from alternative name}}
I'd like to see what others think though. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"Nunciature" seems more correct - the Nuncio is a person; you wouldn't have an article about the U.S. Ambassador to Liberia, you'd have an article about the U.S. Embassy in (to?) Liberia. An article about a particular Nuncio should be in that person's name (unless, hypothetically, there was a nuncio who did something important but whose name has been lost), just as there's an article about J. Christopher Stevens, not about U.S. Ambassador to Libya. But this being Wikipedia, there should be redirects as BoBoMisiu suggests.
Incidentally, tying this with another discussion above, there should probably be a redirect from Diocese of [city] to Roman Catholic Diocese of [city] when there are no other Christian churches which have sees in that city. And a disambiguation page for cases like Diocese of Birmingham. Argyriou (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Must we use the word "Roman" in a title like "History of the Catholic Church in (a country)"?

Some 50 years ago the world's Catholic bishops issued decrees that would in effect make the Catholic church less "Roman" and more a world church. Some of the changes that have eventuated are Mass in the various vernaculars throughout the world, diversification of the curia into a truly international body, and selecting the last three Popes from outside Italy. Pope Francis at his first public appearance referred to himself as "Bishop of Rome", acknowledging this as his primary job, though this Argentinian will also be the Catholic church's spokesman when necessary. As we move into the future Catholics will still recognize that their church is centered in Rome but may not want to emphasize the "Roman" characteristic as much as was done during fifteen centuries of the Holy Roman Empire, and in the century after Vatican I when Counter-reformation theology was the order of the day. Now Pope Francis is calling for more synodal governance and has greatly diversified the college of cardinals, with the South replacing many of the Italian cardinals who run the curia and will elect the next Pope. My point is that we as Catholics should come together and request that going into the future we need the freedom to leave the word "Roman" out of the titles of our articles, when this leads to no confusion of churches (it doesn't in Belize). An editor changed the title of my article "History of the Catholic Church in Belize" to "History of Roman Catholicism in Belize". Restoring the title I had was disallowed by the Wikipedia editor I spoke with on the English Wikipedia help channel, May 14, 2015; in his words: <+Huon> jzsj, not without a discussion, and I pointed you towards the appropriate place. This is the place he pointed me to, so let's hear what Catholics think about leaving the word "Roman" out of some articles about local Catholic churches they write about in the future. They could still include it if they like. And Wikipedia could keep the category "Roman Catholic" for clarity and simplicity; articles without the title "Roman" could be properly placed there.jzsj 20:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs)

Greetings Jzsj, at |Category, Unassessed Catholicism articles for History of articles it looks like the consensus of editors is to include the Roman on the article titles. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"It looks like." Could you flesh that out a bit for me, please, I'm new here. Is there any point to our discussion in the WikiProject Catholicism/Terminology (Section) and on this page if the editors are closed to any changes in this?jzsj 22:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs)

  • Two quick observations. First Rome does not have a monopoly on the use of the term Catholic in self identification. And secondly the Roman Catholic Church correctly refers only to the Latin Rite of those suis juris churches that are in communion with the See of Rome. Consequently if you are to drop the "Roman" part from article titles you might be seen as inferring that you are addressing a much broader topic than is in fact the case. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • But there is no confusion on which Catholic church you are referring to in Belize since no other Latin rite or Catholic churches exists in Belize. Please note also that this discussion has progressed to why the name of the topic was changed on the first line of the article also, not just in its title. I can see why the editors may want the title to correspond more directly with their categories, but I don't see why they need to add the term "Roman" within an article since it had occurred only once in the article (in a reference to the Roman authorities). I explain on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catholicism/Terminology why this is a sensitive issue in the Catholic church. By inserting the word "Roman" within the article the editors are injecting themselves into the discussion within the church and biasing the article in favor of those who don't want change (by slowing down the process toward renewal). When the context makes clear what "Catholic" church you are speaking about, then why not let it go? If catholic wasn't capitalized then I could see others could be offended, but which other churches refer to themselves now as the Catholic church. One more question, what more do I need to do to "sign" these articles, to not get them tagged "unsigned"?jzsj 22:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC) —jzsj 23:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs)
So there are no Anglicans or Anglo-Catholics in Belize, a former British colony? There are no Orthodox Christians? All of these groups also self identify as Catholic. But even if all of that were true, you are still implying that the term Catholic applies only to those Christians in the Roman Communion. And then you are implicitly suggesting that we have multiple standards and guidelines for the term catholic depending on which country we are talking about. At the very least that is bound to create confusion. And it seems that a good part of your argument is based on a belief that the RCC is going to start moving away from it's emphasis on the Roman Primacy and related doctrines. That strikes me as extremely unlikely. No, I'm afraid that your suggestion, undoubtedly made in good faith, is unlikely to gain much traction here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I doubt if Christians not in union with Rome want to call themselves Catholic with a capital "C", and I fully agree that they are part of the universal (catholic) church with a small "c". The terms should be distinguished. Catholic is not ambiguous today since other churches don't want to be called simply Catholic with a capital "C". When you say that it seems unlikely to you "that RCC is going to start moving away from its emphasis on the Roman primacy and related doctrines," what do you make of the very concrete steps Pope Francis has taken (mentioned above) that have moved to synodal governance (2 very open synods called already) and decentralization in the Catholic church as evidenced in his appointments to the Curia and selection of Cardinals?jzsj 00:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Use four tildes , the squiggly lines usually found in the upper left of most keyboards to sign your name. Anglo-Catholics most definitely consider themselves big 'C' Catholics. As do the Orthodox. However the RCC does not recognize the Anglicans as in any way a part of the catholic church and do not even recognize their orders and sacraments. As for Pope Francis, when he repeals this little line... "So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema." do let me know. Until then you may color me unimpressed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I can give you a whole list of anathemas that any Catholic who inquired into it would know do not mean today what they meant when spoken in the Counter-reformation period. Your quote could not have come from Vatican II since it delivered no anathemas. When you say "Catholic church", from the time of Christ and still today that means the people, not the government. Note that Vatican II places the people and the "sensus fidelium" (tradition sustained by the people, what Jesus meant when he said that the gates of hell will not prevail against "it") before the hierarchy in its document on the Church. And one needn't hold that those not in union with the Pope are not in any way a part of the catholic church; the church allows the validity of ordinations in the Anglican and other Christian churches, and so also of their sacraments, and has many circumstances when it admits to the Communion table any who believe in the real presence of Christ in this sacrament.jzsj 01:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs)
@Jzsj:"the church allows the validity of ordinations in the Anglican [church]". You are mistaken. While the Catholic Church has always, since at least 200 AD, recognized that break away churches could validly ordain clergy according to its standards, the Catholic Church has never accepted the Holy Orders of the Anglican Church to be valid. Any practicing Anglican priest with orders recognized by Rome must have been ordained by a bishop of another Church. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Denotatively, "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are perfect synonyms. "Roman Catholic" is sometimes used refer to only Latin Rite Catholics, but it is perfectly correct to refer to the universal church as "Roman Catholic". Some people avoid the use of Roman Catholic in the universal sense to avoid offense towards Eastern, non-Roman Rite Catholics; some also choose to avoid the use of "Roman Catholic" to avoid appearing to endorse Anglican Branch theory, but these are more modern connotative choices. Roman Catholic has been used for centuries to refer to refer to the whole church in communion with the Pope; thousands of reliable sources will use the term to refer to the whole church without irony. Wikipedia cannot redefine language, nor give undo weight to more modern definitions that are inconsistently used. Wikipedia can only report what reliable sources and external researchers have concluded about the definition of terms. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Zfish118: Thank you for your insightful answer and clarification. Being somewhat new to WP Catholicism I am grateful for the practical explanation for this discussion. Cheers! JoeHebda (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The original question raised remains important to most progressive Catholics. The "Roman" Catholic church is far less Roman than it was during the days of the "Holy Roman Empire", and is growing less so over time. The Catholic church is truly worldwide in its leadership, with bishops receiving power directly from God and from consecrating bishops, all of whom, including the Pope as their presiding officer, must remain in communion with this universal college of bishops, successors to the Apostles. Catholics grow increasingly uncomfortable with the designation "Roman", given that it essentially designates only where the chief Bishop is found, without all the cultural baggage that was associated with it for 1500 years. But I recognize that it would present a problem for Wikipedia to make a decision at this time to make allowance in its categories for what is still in process.jzsj 17:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs)

@Jzsj: I don't who you talk to but I have never talked to a Catholic, i.e. a member of one of the Catholic Churches, who was "uncomfortable with the designation 'Roman' ", even Eastern Catholics since they know the context. I have talked to some Polish National Catholics and some people in what they call a Catholic parish run by a man who was never a member of one of the Catholic Churches – they seem to bothered by how it is used or not used. But not members of the Catholic Churches. It is used in Wikipedia for convenience to differentiate between what members of the Catholic Churches call Catholic and what other folks (who are not members of one the Catholic Churches) call Catholic (e.g. Old Catholic or Independent Catholic or the defunct American Catholic Church (1915)) in a neutral way. And, like Ad Orientem said there are others who also self identify as Catholic but are not members of the Catholic Churches.
From another direction, Belize was British Honduras and may have had an Anglican Church that called itself, hypothetically, something like the "Catholic Church of Honduras" since the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America that called itself, at times, the "Catholic Church in America" (or something to that effect) founded Anglican Churches in harmony with Crown laws in Crown colonies. It may have been part of those 19th century Protestant propaganda campaigns to convince people that churches should be formed along national and racial lines; and that what was Roman was not Catholic.
while I don't like it and I disagree with Zfish118 that "external researchers have concluded about the definition of terms", using Roman Catholic benefits the people who read wiktionary articles by differentiating when there is doubt about the meaning. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I am uncertain as to what you disagree with. Wikipedia cannot conclude anything on its own about how the terms are used; it can only cite how external reliable sources use a term, per WP:No original research and WP:Reliable source. --Zfish118 (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration

Eyes are needed here, in regard to NPOV, OR and appropriate sourcing. This has been the subject of a recent Arbitration Request, where ArbCom remanded the issue to the community. BMK (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus at Talk:Primacy of the Bishop of Rome

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Primacy of the Bishop of Rome#Consensus to change from ref to sfn style citations. Thanks. BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Martyrs of Laos

Greetings, Today I noticed that on Template:Catholic saints there is a red link for Martyrs of Laos so I added this to the WP Future articles for consideration section. Also I did find a Martyrs of Laos webpage as a possible starting point. I'm sharing this information in the hopes that another editor would be interesting in creating this article. Meanwhile I have left the template's red link in place. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Society of St. Paul and Society of Saint Paul

Please merge those two articles (I feel like it's too complicated for me to do it).--Pitthée (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

So merged. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Dutton

Are there anybody interested in expanding Joseph Dutton's article? There is talks about a possible canonization much like his colleagues Father Damien or Marianne Cope.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary—Featured Article Candidate

I have nominated the article for Justin Green's Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary—an autobiographical account of a man suffering from OCD, whose symptoms he blames on Catholic indoctrination—as a Featured Article Candidate. Please take part in the review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary/archive1! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"Latin"

The usage and topic of Latin is under discussion, see talk:Latin -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

remote Visiting scholar for DePaul University

Mass page-move effort underway

FYI, DBD (talk · contribs) is currently moving a large number of pages based on his interpretation of the WP:MOS. Included among them are clergy articles handled by this WikiProject. Elizium23 (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

There has been and will be no "mass page-move effort". I have simply moved a few pages — as and when I have come across them — where the subject's WP:COMMONNAME was something other than the article's title. Anyone is of course perfectly free as always to revert as part of the WP:BRD cycle. There is no need to raise an alarm as if something is under attack; we're all in collaboration here! DBD 21:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge similar articles?

Greetings, First of all, this subject is outside my area of expertise. While doing WP Catholicism assessments, I noticed these similar articles.

Today, I see there is a fourth article.

While each article is comprehensive and stands on it own merits, I am wondering if there might be any way of Merging these two:

  • Catholic abuse cases
  • Catholic Church sexual abuse cases

At this point I have not posted this question to any of the article Talk pages since I thought the discussion might begin here. Being somewhat new to Wikipedia (16 months) I have never done any article merges although I have seen the topic discussed occasionally at Teahouse and Village Pump. I am asking for input and help from more experienced editors. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@JoeHebda: Oh that is a giant knotted ball of twine that will take forever to separate into its individual threads. There is a {{Copied}} on the pages and the intention was to have Catholic abuse cases to include non-sexual abuse content and to have Catholic sex abuse cases for the larger sexual abuse content. For a months, I am reading background for the editing the papal primacy cluster of articles: Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, Historical development of the doctrine of papal primacy, and the Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy. It takes time to sort through the existing references, verify what is in the references and articles, and to plan what to move where. I suggest you start by looking at the existing references, improving them and seeing what is sourced in common. I have found that at times what I read is not what is represented in the articles so I mark it up with various inline templates (which I keep organized in a snippet manager) such as {{citation needed span}} and add to the talk pages. I usually don't change article quickly but give others time to respond. Don't try to organize it all in your head. I suggest you really understand how the senses of various terms about this topic are used. For example, although some people disagree with me, I think even the definitions have been shifting over the last few years – for example, read both Wiktionary:Talk:pedophilia and Wiktionary:Citations:pedophilia where I documented a criminal sense of pedophilia, but wiktionary administrators deny that the definition of pedophilia includes such a criminal sense at all and include senses that seem to imply it is generally a kind of victimless internal feeling that excludes a relationship to external criminality. I disagree with them – based on the actual usage of the word on the citations page – but that seems to be the current community consensus on wiktionary and so it is excluded from the entry page. The term sex abuse is also used in different ways. Everything about this topic is, for me, like a giant knotted ball of twine that has many conflated not clearly defined threads. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Jean-Marie Speich

Hi All,

This article has been largely written by an author who by their own admission has a close association with the subject. I have added a COI template and brought this up on the talk page. As I am no expert on this subject area I would appreciate it if someone would take a look at the article and decide if it warrants some fixing up. A new account was created today who has been repeatedly removing the template and who is acting suspiciously like a wp:sockpuppet. Only edits are to this article. Thanks in advance Paul  Bradbury 11:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: I read Jean-Marie Speich article (this version) and talk page (this version). You seem to be complaining about someone who has been contributing since 2007 and has edited other articles and not "Only edits are to this article". While the article does not look controversial to me, the cited sources might not support some of the content. I think it could be improved by adding content about what makes him notable beyond being an archbishop and career diplomat (both of which are notable). For example, did he write anything notable? He does not seem to be a controversial person. From the citations I have searched and improved, the article does need verification. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@BoBoMisiu: Thanks for taking a look at it, there were two issues I was referring to, the potential COI was around the fact the the user who wrote the article was self identified as an associate of the subject which is a clear violation of WP:COI, the edits may be unbiased but it needed looking at especially since the talk page indicated disagreements with other users. The second issue was that the COI template was being removed without being looked at by another account that had just been created and the only edits made by the account to date were to this article and my talk page. This is suspicious activity. Not being a subject matter expert I was just asking for a review to ensure balance. Thanks for the help. Paul  Bradbury 10:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Pbradbury: Sorry, I didn't see the user talk pages stuff. I was assumed you were writing about a different editor. Are you saying you think Northern Lights 2000 is WP:SOCKPUPPETing or WP:PROXYING for either Sulbud or 94.83.253.145? Otherwise, Northern Lights 2000 didn't contribute much.
As I improve more references, I see that {{COI}} should be on the page. I will add it later today. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@BoBoMisiu: Hi sorry for the delayed response. Yes it appears to me that it was a possibility, the english used in responses was similar and the account Northern Lights 2000 was only created to remove the COI I placed from what I can tell, however after warnings desisted, so no big deal now. Thank-you for your work in reviewing this article. Paul  Bradbury 22:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Jewishencyclopedia.com (the Jewish Encyclopedia) and newadvent.org WP:Reliable sources?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are jewishencyclopedia.com (the Jewish Encyclopedia) and newadvent.org WP:Reliable sources?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Try http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8122-inquisition. Not too bad for the time. http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12786-robert-of-bury-st-edmunds too terse and a bit slipshod IMO. On the other hand, the Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 manages to skip that! http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4361-christian seems objective enough. Hard to tell on an article by article basis, but seems okay if you can't find anything newer.
Same with newadvent/Catholic encyclopedia. I've had good luck with information there generally. But as often as not, there's something newer. There's been a huge number of theological degrees granted since then which means a lot more eyes and perception and use of modern language. There was sort of a task force to convert Catholic Encyclopedia articles to Wikipedia. I did one. It was a lot of work and dozens of people worked on it after me and created a pretty good article. I doubt that 20% survived, and none of that "intact!" Student7 (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Task Force Proposal

I propose the creation of an Archdiocese of New York task force. There are many articles that could use cleanup/expansion and far more that need to be created (e.g. churches/parishes within the archdiocese). Moreover, the archdiocese is very large in reality and notable in the eyes of Wikipedia so as to warrant a proper presence on Wikipedia. I have undertaken what I can but I am just one editor and the amount of work to be done is much larger than I could ever complete. Any there any other editors who would like to contribute to the formation of this task force? Ergo Sum 02:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Greetings @Ergo Sum:, The past winter months I worked on (21:11, 10 February 2015‎) and created the Template:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York so I do understand your concern of the numbers of articles involved. One of my motivational sayings is Divide and conquer. So the only guidance I can offer is to focus on improving existing articles first. Also, be aware that not every church/parish/school of the archdiocese can be considered notable per Wikipedia standards just because the archdiocese itself is notable.
I do like the idea of a task force creation, although being new (since March 2014) to Wikipedia I have no knowledge of the correct procedures. Perhaps another more expert editor could help. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@JoeHebda I want to thank you for your contributions, especially the creation of the aforementioned template. I find it a very helpful addition pertinent articles and I have made a few rather minor contributions to it myself. I am somewhat new as well and am only familiar with some of the task force creation procedures. I would much prefer to have the assistance of an experienced editor. Would you be interested in helping with the task force should it ever get off the ground? Ergo Sum 14:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum:, When I constructed the NY archdiocese template, most of the work was done offline using Notepad++ plain text editor. As I recall, I built & posted each of the subsection templates (ordinaries, churches, education) one at a time; then the archdiocese template last. So my suggestion would be to use this same template to drive the updates. While the amount of work may seem to be overwhelming, remember that Started is one-half done! At this time, I am focused on doing WP Catholicism article assessments (and improvements, especially biography) there will be updates included for some of the NY Ordinaries (Bishops) included. On my talk page I have a little To-do list that includes Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles as the top priority. It helps keep me on track.
Good luck with the task force formation. You might like to check out Wikipedia:TASKFORCE for more info. JoeHebda (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
A cautionary tale: There used to be Task Forces for each state. They were semi-inactive. A veteran Wikipedia pushed through a method of making each state force a subset of Project United States. See, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vermont&action=edit. The alternative, IMO, is to stay here or use the "lead" Archdiocese of New York article for discussions. The latter may annoy some people but so what?  :( Student7 (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC

Request for comment: Is Faith healing a form of pseudoscience and should it be labeled as such either in the article or by assignment of category pseudoscience? Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion at Talk:Faith healing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Catholic saints

Hi.

  1. It looks as though edits to List of Catholic saints made in October 2013 by 112.198.77.25 and maybe other IP addresses were incorrect. For instance see http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpelach.html or (if I'm reading these correctly) http://newsaints.faithweb.com/year/1993.htm which makes it appear that the editor mistook proposals for canonisations for actual canonisations. Can this please be confirmed.
  2. Is this separate page really needed at all? Should this just redirect to List_of_canonizations?

Thanks, -Hydronium Hydroxide (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is a real problem with these types of articles. I have been struggling with addition of future events to such pages as List of people beatified by Pope Francis and there is a reliance on web pages such as the ones you mention, which are in no way WP:RS. The article you mention is a mess. I would almost suggest WP:TNT. We cannot merely redirect to List of canonizations, because so many saints are pre-Congregation and were canonized by popular acclaim and not by a formal process. Any master list of saints would necessarily duplicate what is in the Roman Martyrology. Likewise for Eastern Catholic saints, you would want to include the Synaxarium. Frankly, I am not sure why we need a "master list" article at all when navigation by category is available. We even have Category:Lists of saints. So what purpose does a woefully inadequate and incomplete list serve? Elizium23 (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@Hydronium Hydroxide: yes, you are correct. For example, the 1993 page on newsaints.faithweb.com shows that a diocesan inquiry of María Belen Guzmán Florit was opened in 2001 and not closed by the diocese – she is not a saint according to that. The content added in this 2013 edit by 112.198.77.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is not correct. I am guessing, by looking at the IP user's contributions, that the user may not understand English very well. I also randomly checked 1999 page on newsaints.faithweb.com and picked Maria De La Concepciò D’oleza Gualde Torrella there. From there I followed the link to madreconcepcion.com which labels her a servant Of God and not a saint. The content added in this 2013 edit by 112.198.77.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) incorrectly lists her as a saint. I think the entire page is tainted and not reliable. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Caritas International

The article Caritas (charity) was deleted by an admin due to its promotional content and reliance on only primary sources. He had tried to improve it, but later thought to delete the whole article. I was trying to disambiguate some links when this fell to my notice. Since this is a notable institute, I talked to the admin about it and have reinstated the article as Caritas International and done some minor editing. One example of a similar institute is the Red Cross. But whether this article can be made to be inline with the Red Cross article? I would request interested editors to improve the article especially by using third party sources. ~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 09:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody interested?~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 06:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian thinkers in science (2nd nomination)

Discussion likely of interest to this WP - article could do with some attention if kept --ℕ ℱ 14:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Pope Francis' visit to the United States created

FYI, article Pope Francis' visit to the United States created and could use more content. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this really worth an article? Especially since it hasn't happened yet, and we don't know if it will have any lasting significance. Argyriou (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, why would it be more notable than any of the other overseas visits? StAnselm (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, we have Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the United States. But I think I agree. It is Wikinews or something. And WP:CRYSTAL as I write this. Journalism, not encyclopedic. Both should be nominated for deletion. (notify me if you nominate!  :) Student7 (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Inactive members on /Members subpage

Greetings, Today I moved a few members (from top of list) into a new Inactive members section. This is the same as a section I saw on another WikiProject. Once these moves are completed, it should be easier to find & communicate with active editors. While that other WP used inactive for 6 months for determining active vs. inactive, I extended it here for one year of no Wikipedia edits. If there are no objections within the next week, I plan to continue with the remaing member moves. Any discussion of this change is welcome. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Me likes. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 08:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
On the /Members subpage, I added a link to a bot generated Active editors list. I found this on another WP and thought it would be helpful here as well. JoeHebda (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank Joe for the Link. But it displays a grim picture. Only twelve active editors? ~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 08:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Top part is for editors and discussions meaning activity on our WP Talk pages, vs. the second section shows active editors on the WP. So this wikiproject articles are actively being updated and improved. Cheers! JoeHebda (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

Please see the WP:RM at Sacrament of Penance & Reconciliation (Catholic Church) (yes, I botched the move revert and RM is now necessary.) Elizium23 (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move: Pope Francis

Please see the WP:RM currently with minimal participation at Talk:Pope Francis' visit to the United States. Thank you and God bless! Elizium23 (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a WP Catholicism newsletter?

Greetings, While doing a few minor updates to WikiProject Catholicism/Members subpage, I see it mentions about a newsletter. Members will receive the project newsletter automatically. To unsubscribe, add yourself to the list here. Wondering if this is boilerplating from WP startup and can be removed? Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu, Student7, Elizium23, RFD, ScitDei, Briancua, and CanonLawJunkie:
@Cambalachero, Marcocapelle, Ergo Sum, Ad Orientem, and Hydronium Hydroxide:
ω Awaiting Does anyone know of a WP Catholicism newsletter? Or can these sentences be deleted?
Found Category:WikiProject newsletters and Category:Wikipedia news - nothing listed for Catholicism.
* Proposal: Replace above sentences with the following:
While there are a few wikiproject newsletters, there is no Catholicism newsletter at this time.
While the lines can be removed, but I would love it if efforts to revive the newsletter are taken up.~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 06:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
* Discussion:
Please add your feedback here. JoeHebda (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it was referring to the WikiProject Christianity newsletter, which has been inactive for some time. Having said that, if anyone wanted to revive it, I would welcome seeing that happen. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think its boilerplate and JoeHebda's changed sentence adds precision. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I "watch" this page and am interested in your work, I regret that I cannot participate in the vital functions that are making this project work. Student7 (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox in Catholic Church article

Editors may be interested in a discussion about inclusion of an infobox in the Catholic Church article at Talk:Catholic Church#Org Template (infobox). Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Athanasius of Alexandria

There has been recent discussion on the talk page regarding the use of a separate section of the article for quotations. That section has since been removed, as indicated at Talk:Athanasius of Alexandria#Quotes removal from Article Page. Input of editors involved here on how to deal with that material would be welcome.John Carter (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Grutness

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.
redundant to AN/I discussion

Grutness (talk · contribs) is currently filling up categories such as Category:Religious leaders from Louisiana and Category:Bishops in Mississippi with Roman Catholic prelates. This would be great except there are already subcategories, and entire hierarchies designed to contain the Catholic bishops already, and for some reason, he refuses to use them. I have attempted to engage with him at User talk:Grutness#Category:Bishops in *, but he disagrees, and at his high rate of edits is creating a lot of work for whoever wants to go through later and diffuse these categories to their proper children. I would really appreciate it if we cooperated to either maintain the hierarchies that are established for us, or discussed a proper course of action before undertaking mass edits that create extra work for editors in the future. Elizium23 (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Where such subcategories exist, I am using them. Where they don't, I am using "Bishops in Foo" categories, making it easier for the task of creating such categories as you wish later. I don't know enough about the individual hierarchies of the Roman Catholic Church to add categories in many cases - Elizium23 has already made it clear that the likes of Auxiliary Bishops are an unresolved problem in your categorisation. Rather than accepting that having bishops categorised together as bishops makes it an easier task for you to subcategorise them later, Elizium23 has described my "high rate of edits" (quite low by my usual standards) as "laziness" and started reverting me. An ironic description, since it could be claimed that he is asking me to do extra work rather than doing that work himself. Elizium23's "attempts to engage" have been confrontational and threatening. There is currently an ongoing report at WP:AN/I over his disruptive behaviour. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree that it is better to have a Catholic bishop article categorized somewhere rather than be orphaned. Geographical is a start, but without sect, such categorization is certainly less than ideal. Perhaps you and Elizium might work together to set up at least a top level Catholic subcategory for each state to sort Catholic bishops into, and then let those with more experience can sort them into individuals dioceses. Each state would only have a few active bishops, and I would imagine very few diocese have articles for multiple previous bishops; it would be a laborious request to ask some one with limited familiarity to create 200 or so diocesan subcategories with few articles to be added. --Zfish118 (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I have been adding "Roman Catholic bishop in..." categories where none exist, when I remember to do so. Elizium23 seems to have largely ignored that fact. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
In which case, I am surprised by the resistance your are facing. --Zfish118 (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
So am I. Grutness...wha? 06:23, 1 December 2015 (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.

Categorization and preliminary categorization of bishops

I would like to propose a reboot of the above discussion to focus on the categorization dispute. I would like to invite @Elizium23: and @Grutness: to participate if they choose, but would also appreciate input from multiple project members. --Zfish118 ⋉talk 21:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Questions I would like to see answered:

  • What is the current categorization scheme for Catholic Bishops?
  • Where is this scheme documented so that others can follow it?
  • How long has the current scheme been in place? What previous discussions were there previously?
  • What problems exists with the current scheme? What discussions addressed these issues previously?
  • How complete is the scheme? Do all states have categories prepared?
  • Are empty categories deleted, making it difficult to have category "templates" for each state?
  • Is is appropriate to place articles in a higher spot in the categorization tree if no appropriate sub-category specified by the current scheme exists?
From what I've observed while working on religious leader categories, RC bishops seem to be categorised by diocese and archdiocese in general when they hold a particular diocesan/archdiocesan see, but there is a lot of confusion relating to things like titular bishops, prelates, apostolic/episcopal vicars, auxiliary bishops, coadjutor archbishops, bishops emeritus, and various other obscure variants on the title. No scheme seems to be in place at all for Eastern/Orthodox Catholicism. Almost all states have parent "Roman Catholic bishops of Foo" categories (I'd estimate about 45 states have these), and most (probably 30-35) have individual diocesan categories, though in some cases not for all dioceses. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion

You are invited! Join us remotely!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion

  • Dates: 5 to 15 December 2015
  • Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event
  • Host: Women in Red (WiR): Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
  • Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in reigion to participate. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
  • RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Project related move request

FYI Talk:The Queen of Ireland (film) → The Queen of Ireland. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Cyril Desbruslais - serious NPOV problems

Hello, this article about an Indian Jesuit priest could use the attention of a topic expert. Large parts of it fail to maintain a neutral point of view, but without background knowledge it's difficult to identify the salvageable content. It would be great, if someone interested could have a look please. GermanJoe (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Aloysius Stepinac

Your input is requested at Talk:Aloysius_Stepinac#RfC:_What_honorific-prefixes_should_be_included_in_the_infobox.3F. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Slipper Chapel

I have happy news. The Slipper Chapel in England has been raised to the status of minor basilica. There is currently a WP:RM discussion on the talk page. There is also quite a bit of editing activity on the associated Our Lady of Walsingham page. Elizium23 (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism/Archive_2015"