Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Catholicism: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:56, 11 August 2009 editJohn Carter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users176,670 edits →Category:Roman Catholic Church: comment← Previous edit Revision as of 22:10, 13 August 2009 edit undoVanishedUserABC (talk | contribs)78,528 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 658: Line 658:


This article states Saint Ambrose encouraged clergy to execute people, but the article does not have a citation. In fact, Ambrose disagreed with the execution of a heretic by a "Christian" prince. Saint Ambrose also wrote: "God drove Cain out of his presence and sent him into exile... so that he passed from a life of human kindness to one which was more akin to the rude existance of a wild beast. God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another homicide." See Capital Punishment: A Balanced Examination by Mandery ] (]) 08:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC) This article states Saint Ambrose encouraged clergy to execute people, but the article does not have a citation. In fact, Ambrose disagreed with the execution of a heretic by a "Christian" prince. Saint Ambrose also wrote: "God drove Cain out of his presence and sent him into exile... so that he passed from a life of human kindness to one which was more akin to the rude existance of a wild beast. God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another homicide." See Capital Punishment: A Balanced Examination by Mandery ] (]) 08:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

: It seems a bit weird to comment on an article on this present kind of page without linking to it. Here it is: ] (note that it's a properly lower-case initial "p" in "punishment"; using a capital initial letter would violate ]). ] (]) 03:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


== Christian debate on persecution and toleration == == Christian debate on persecution and toleration ==
Line 680: Line 678:


This is an initial attempt to identify the various groups of articles that have "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" in their title. In general, my proposal is to change all such articles to use "Catholic" only and not "Roman Catholic". However, I recognize that there might be instances where this might not be appropriate. Let's get it all out on the table and look at it and start making some decisions to rationalize the use of "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic". This is an initial attempt to identify the various groups of articles that have "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" in their title. In general, my proposal is to change all such articles to use "Catholic" only and not "Roman Catholic". However, I recognize that there might be instances where this might not be appropriate. Let's get it all out on the table and look at it and start making some decisions to rationalize the use of "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic".






===Category:Roman Catholic Church=== ===Category:Roman Catholic Church===


This is the top level category. I <s>propose that we move it to</s> am seeking input on the advisability of moving this category to ]. In general, I <s>propose that all</s> think that we should move all subcategories that include "Roman Catholic" be changed to use just "Catholic" instead. I seek input from members of this project before making a formal proposal at ]. --] (]) 18:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC) This is the top level category. I propose that we move it to ]. In general, I propose that all subcategories that include "Roman Catholic" be changed to use just "Catholic" instead.


:I agree with you, Richard. I would suggest that any articles or categories which refer only to the Latin Rite be retained as "Roman Catholic." Otherwise, everything that refers to the entire Catholic Church should drop the term, "Roman." As an Eastern Catholic, this is important to me. I am a Catholic, but NOT a "Roman" Catholic.--] (]) 00:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
::This sounds reasonable to me as well, if only because of the huge number of categories specifically regarding the Latin Rite which exist out there. I'm not sure the amount of work required to change all those categories would necessarily be worth the minimal gain accomplished by doing so. ] (]) 00:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


===Category:Roman Catholic Churches=== ===Category:Roman Catholic Churches===


The organization of this ] category's subcategories is a bit muddled because ] is one of the subcategories. IMO, a more logical organization is to have ] be the top-level category with ] and ] as subcategories. The organization of this ] category's subcategories is a bit muddled because ] is one of the subcategories. IMO, a more logical organization is to have ] be the top-level category with ] and ] as subcategories.

I seek input from members of this project before making a formal proposal at ]. --] (]) 18:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


===Category:Roman Catholic Church by country=== ===Category:Roman Catholic Church by country===


This ] has 102 entries. I <s>propose that the category be moved to</s> am seeking input on the advisability of moving the category to ]. Most of the subcategories are of the form ], e.g. ] This ] has 102 entries. I propose that the category be moved to ]. Most of the subcategories are of the form ], e.g. ]


I propose that every subcategory in this category be changed accordingly. Thus, ] would be moved to ]. NB: This could be problematic if we need to differentiate between the ] and the ]. I propose that every subcategory in this category be changed accordingly. Thus, ] would be moved to ]. NB: This could be problematic if we need to differentiate between the ] and the ].


There are many articles whose titles are of the form ].
I seek input from members of this project before making a formal proposal at ]. --] (]) 18:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


*]
===Category:Roman Catholics===
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]


I propose that all these articles be changed to have titles of the form ]
In all likelihood, this ] includes only "Roman Catholics" and not "Eastern Catholics". If this is true, we could arguably leave the category named "Roman Catholics". On the other hand, we could rename it ] and leave it open to include "Eastern Catholics" as well. I seek input from members of this project before making a formal proposal at ]. --] (]) 18:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


:Ooops. Per ]'s comment below, this is an instance where I have confused "Roman Catholic/Catholic" with "Catholic (Latin rite)". So the question becomes... if the article on the church is at ], should we have a single category for all (Roman) Catholics under ] or should there be separate categories for Catholics (Latin rite) and Catholics (other rites)? --] (]) 19:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
::I'd propose making a separate subcategory for each of the particular churches within the main ]. The main ] and its obvious subcats would I think reasonably be kept for the Latin rite Catholics, given the huge number of articles included in those categories. ] (]) 23:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
:::I fear that, once again, "Roman Catholic" is perhaps being taken to mean "] Catholic". While some (especially Romanian and Ukrainian Greek-Rite Catholics) do use the term "Roman Catholic" in this sense, making it ambiguous, no document of the Holy See in the present or the preceding century uses the term to mean that. Instead, there are documents of the Holy See that use it to refer to the whole Church, Eastern as well as Western. I don't think that Misplaced Pages should use the ambiguous and (from the point of view of the highest authorities in the Church) mistaken term "Roman Catholic" in this narrow sense, when the unambiguous and official term "Latin Catholic" is available. ] (]) 02:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


===Category:Roman Catholics===
===Catholic Archdiocese of X vs. Roman Catholic Archdiocese in X===


In all likelihood, this ] includes only "Roman Catholics" and not "Eastern Catholics". If this is true, we could arguably leave the category named "Roman Catholics". On the other hand, we could rename it ] and leave it open to include "Eastern Catholics" as well.
My proposal is to change all articles to use only "Catholic Archdiocese of X" and not "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of X". This could be somewhat problematic if we need to distinguish between Roman Catholic archdioceses vs. Eastern Catholic archdioceses in the same city.


===Catholic Archdiocese of X vs. Roman Catholic Archdiocese in X===
:I should probably have said "Catholic archdioceses of Latin rite" not "Roman Catholic archdioceses". It also appears that Eastern Catholics have ] instead of dioceses so the potential problem that I posited seems not to exist. --] (]) 19:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


I am not knowledgeable enough to know if this is a real issue or not. At the moment, there seems to be only one article of this type, "]" My proposal is to change all articles to use only "Catholic Archidocese of X" and not "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of X". This could be somewhat problematic if we need to distinguish between Roman Catholic archdioceses vs. Eastern Catholic archdioceses in the same city. I am not knowledgeable enough to know if this is a real issue or not. At the moment, there seems to be only one article of this type, "]"


Catholic Archdiocese of X Catholic Archdiocese of X
*] *]
*] *]
*] *]
*] *]
*] *]
*] *]

All of the above are redirects to an article whose titles are of the form ]


Roman Catholic Archdiocese of X Roman Catholic Archdiocese of X
Line 739: Line 736:
*] *]
*] *]

I make a similar proposal to change all articles to use only "Catholic Diocese of X" and not "Roman Catholic Diocese of X".

Catholic Diocese of X
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

*] -- Whoop!

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of X
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

My one reservation would be about how we would name the various Eastern Catholic dioceses and archdioceses. If there are, as there are in several cases, both Latin and other dioceses/archdioceses of the same name, there would be ambiguity as to which one is meant by "Catholic", and I would prefer to avoid such ambiguity. And, it would probably be better to make the names consistent across the board, for simplicity's sake. ] (]) 23:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
: I strongly feel that you should not use only "Catholic" before the diocese name. There are many smaller churches that would also fall under the name "Catholic". Past Discussions can be found ] and ].] (]) 13:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


===Roman Catholicism in X vs. Catholicism in X=== ===Roman Catholicism in X vs. Catholicism in X===
Line 780: Line 750:
*] *]
*] *]


*] redirects to ]


There are also ten article whose titles are of the form ] There are also ten article whose titles are of the form ]
Line 796: Line 763:
*] *]


] redirects to ]


All of the above articles (]) redirect to ] ] redirects to ]


My proposal is to rename all articles whose titles begin with "Roman Catholicism in X" to be titled "Catholicism in X". My proposal is to rename all articles whose titles begin with "Roman Catholicism in X" to be titled "Catholicism in X".
Line 803: Line 771:
--] (]) 02:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC) --] (]) 02:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


My reservation would be about how to deal with locations which have Eastern rite Catholic articles as well. For the sake of consistency, I think the articles should all bear the same name. If there are any cases where there are extant articles dealing with Eastern Catholicism, but no article about Roman Catholicism, there could be problems. At this point, though, I don't know one way or another if that is the case. ] (]) 23:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

===Discussion about Articles===
:Changing ] to ] is ''not'' the same as changing ] to ] or ] to ] or such.
:An article named ] would have to be about all sorts of Catholicism, e.g. Old Catholicism, Anglo-Catholicism, etc. in England. They should all stay the same or change to ]. <sup>]]</sup> 04:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

::I agree with Carlaude on this point as "Catholicism" does not always equate to "(Roman) Catholic Church" - as the ] article itself clarifies. There are also particular historical and other issues with using the terms "Catholicism" and "Catholic Church" with regards to Britain or, at least, with England. The proposal is flawed. ] (]) 10:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

:::I expected this argument and, in principle, I am not unsympathetic to it. However, despite Carlaude's argument, the fact is that ] redirects to ]. In fact, it appears that every example of a title ] is, in fact, a redirect to the article titled ] which suggests that this issue is more one of abstract principle than encyclopedic reality (i.e. no one has seen fit to actually write an article titled ], probably because there is nothing of encyclopedic merit to say about such a topic outside Roman Catholicism). I mean, seriously, what can you say about Catholicism other than "well, there are Anglicans, Orthodox and some Lutherans who consider themselves catholic and these exist in countries X, Y and Z". How many people really go to ] looking for a discussion of the catholicity of Anglicans, Orthodox and some Lutherans?

:::--] (]) 13:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
::::None of this is a meanful precedent (since a redirect ''cannot'' point to all the sorts of ]) nor does it address the fact that "]" is not equal to "]," any more that "]" equals the "]," or "]" equals the "]," or "]" equals the "]," or "]" equals the "]." <sup>]]</sup> 14:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::I notice that Carlaude has just now redirected ] to ]. I have my doubts about the wisdom of this but I won't revert his bold move pending the views of other editors. Are we then intending to suggest that ] is only ] when it is in England? Or do we need to make similar fixes to ], ], ], etc.? (This is a rhetorical question unless we intend to have articles titled ], ], ], etc.)

:::::I actually would not have a problem in mandating that some or all the articles with titles of the form ] be changed to have a hatnote saying something like "] redirects here. For information on other forms of Catholicism in Country X, see ]. Or, instead of another article, we could point to a disambiguation page.

:::::The reason redirecting ] to ] seems to be a bad idea is that, unless we redirect all ] articles to ], it appears that we are suggesting that ] is equivalent to ] but Catholicism is equivalent to Roman Catholicism in every other country except in England. This is clearly not what we want to communicate. Carlaude's redirect would also oblige us to add a hatnote to ] that says "] redirects here. For other forms of Catholicism in England, see ]" or "] redirects here. For other forms of Catholicism in England, see ], ], or ]". I think the disambiguation page is the lesser of two evils but it ain't great.

:::::--] (]) 17:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::: I agree with Richard that redirecting ] to ] is not warranted. Is there any evidence that users plugging in Catholicism in England are really searching for Anglo-Catholicism? I find that hard to believe. I acknowledge that I have no independent information that the opposite is true. However, the edit history of that redirect shows changes, but always within the confines of Roman Catholicism (i.e. changing it to/from "in England", "in United Kingdom", etc.) with no history of redirects to Anglo-Catholicism. They are quite different, and I think that such a change, as bold as it is, should have some justification prior to being made. --] (]) 19:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::It is my recollection that most of the "Roman Catholicism in..." articles originally took the form "Catholic Church in...." But were changed a couple of years back. I agree that "Catholicism in..." is ambiguous, so would prefer to see those articles go to "Catholic Church in..." ]] 22:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with Carlaude and Afterwriting in this. The articles on "Roman Catholicism in Foo" are in fact about the concrete (Roman) Catholic Church in Foo, not about any "ism", still less about any supposed difference between the doctrine of the (Roman) Catholic Church in Foo from its doctrine in other countries. Richard's proposal should, I think, be to move the article to "Catholic Church in Foo". ] (]) 02:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with amending my proposal to use "Catholic Church in Foo" rather than "Catholicism in Foo". Do we keep the ] titles as redirects to ]? Or do we just delete them altogether? --] (]) 04:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

:I agree with your amended proposal to use "Catholic Church in Foo." I also think we should maintain a redirect to that article from "Catholicism in Foo." ] (]) 22:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

===Archdioceses and Dioceses===
:::Moreover, the above comments do not address the question of ] vs. ]. Is there any chance that ] could mean anything other than ]? Yes, I know that Anglicans consider themselves to be catholic but do they refer to any of their archdioceses as being "the Catholic archdiocese of X"? Would any Anglican seeing or hearing the name "Catholic archdiocese of X" confuse it with an Anglican archdiocese? I'm not convinced that Anglicans use the term "archdiocese" any more. It seems that they use "province" instead. Maybe someone more knowledgeable than I can enlighten me.

:::How about the term "diocese"? Anglicans do use the term "diocese". However, the same questions apply here. Is there any chance that ] could mean anything other than ]? Yes, I know that Anglicans consider themselves to be catholic but do they refer to any of their archdioceses as being "the Catholic Diocese of X"? Would any Anglican seeing or hearing the name "Catholic Diocese of X" confuse it with an Anglican diocese?
:::--] (]) 13:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

::No one objected to ]... at least I wouldn't on object ''these'' grounds. But it is flawed to try a wrap everything together like it is an all or nothing choice. Again... no reason to discuss this all at once. <sup>]]</sup> 14:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Please stop using POV section headings. I have not insisted that it is a "all or nothing choice". The fact that I have proposed a consistent approach (i.e. using "Catholic" in preference to "Roman Catholic" everywhere) is simply one proposal and a composite one at that. I have already suggested that there may be places where this is not appropriate. It may even be that we will decide only to use "Catholic Church" for the title of the article on the ] and in no other titles. However, this decision should be made consciously and explicitly and then implemented uniformly.

:::My number one concern is not to that we use "Catholic" in preference to "Roman Catholic". My number one concern is that we have a rational explanation of when we use "Catholic" and when we use "Roman Catholic" and that this explanation be consistently applied within each type of article (e.g. all articles on ] are either titled that way or all titled ] or all titled ]. Failing to do that is just flat unprofessional.

:::My number two concern is that our decisions show some consistency across different types of articles (e.g. titling of articles on ] have a similar rule as titling of articles on dioceses and maybe titling of articles on individuals. If the rules are different for different types of articles (e.g. "Catholic" for one type of article and "Roman Catholic" for another type of article, we should have a clear and explicit rationale for the divergence.

:::I don't really have a preconceived agenda about using "Catholic" in preference to "Roman Catholic". In fact, I helped change quite a few articles from "Catholic" to "Roman Catholic" a couple of years ago when the consensus was reached to do so. I'm only raising the issue now because the change in the title of ] to ] demands that we at least ask the question of how this affects the other related articles. The answer may well turn out to be "It doesn't affect them at all." but I think we should think about each group of articles individually and in relation to each other and then make a decision based on our analysis.

:::--] (]) 17:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

::::I would see the preferred and accurate term for most relevant bishoprics should be '''Catholic Diocese of...''' or '''Catholic Archdiocese of...''' In some circumstances '''Roman Catholic Diocese of X''' might be advisable if there were other Dioceses using say the name "Old Catholic Diocese of X", or if the Diocese itself uses that title. For some dioceses, even the use of the prefix "Catholic" might be redundant - where no other dioceses exist eg ], which currently redirects to RC Archdiocese of Warsaw. This rather reminds me of say "United States City of Houston". ]] 22:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::I may be mistaken here, but aren't ''all'' dioceses in particular rites only? ] (]) 10:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::More or less true. In general, dioceses are established for the faithful of a particular rite. The rite is not usually mentioned in the name of the diocese, but there are exceptions, as in the case of Damascus: Damascus of the Greek Melkites, of the Syrians, of the Maronites. In recent decades this has been avoided: in areas where another rite is dominant (not among Catholics alone) dioceses of other rites are named after their cathedral, as the Latin diocese of "The Mother of God in Moscow" and the Maronite diocese of "Saint Charbel in Buenos Aires". Thus New York is a Latin-rite diocese (I use the term "diocese" in the broad sense, to cover also those that have the rank of archdiocese), but the name that appears in the Annuario Pontificio (which also gives the official name in Latin) is "New York" (the Latin adjective is ''Neo-Eboracensis''), not "Latin Archdiocese of New York" (nor "Catholic Archdiocese of New York", nor "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York"); and Asmara is an Ethiopic-rite diocese, but the name in the Annuario Pontificio is simply "Asmara" (the Latin adjective is ''Asmarensis''). Since there is no diocese in Eritrea that is not of Ethiopic rite, all Catholics of whatever rite who live in Asmara, including those of Latin rite, are subject to the (Ethiopic-rite) Bishop of Asmara. The situation in New York is more complicated, since there are Eastern-rite jurisdictions there also. Catholics of a rite living where there is no Ordinary of their own rite are subject either to a bishop designated by the Holy See for such cases (examples are the Latin Archbishops of Buenos Aires, Vienna and Paris for those living in Argentina, Austria and France respectively) or, if no such Ordinary has been designated by the Holy See, then the Patriarch of those Catholics chooses a local Ordinary, Latin or Eastern, to have responsibility for them. ] (]) 12:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

:::A quick Google search suggests that Catholic Archdioceses/Dioceses use a mixture of "Catholic Diocese of ..." and "Roman Catholic Diocese of ..." as the title of their websites. The majority seem to use the former style (and it would be my own preference). After glancing through a few hundred entries on Google, I see no instances of an Anglican Catholic or Old Catholic diocese showing up without the Anglican, Old, etc.--] (]) 23:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

===Discussion of proposed category changes===

Please discuss my proposed category changes here. --] (]) 18:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
:One generic comment: You seem to use "Roman Catholic" to mean "] Catholic". No document of the Holy See in the present or the preceding century uses this ambiguous term to mean that. As you know, there are documents of the Holy See that use it instead to refer to the whole Church, Eastern as well as Western. ] (]) 18:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
::I think changing categories to "Catholic Church" is very advisable. It's an aspect i hadn't previously considered. ]] 23:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
:::The general outline for proposed changes looks good to me. I would suggest that we proceed along these lines and discuss specific issues here as they arise. ] (]) 17:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

===wrong forum to change categories===
This is the wrong forum to change categories.

If this is what you want post to ] and ] each category page. I advise you to start slower than just changing every such category at once. <sup>]]</sup> 04:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

:I respectfully disagree. This discussion spans both Category space and Article space. I am trying to get a single unified discussion that considers as many of the issues as possible. It is, IMO, the only way to acheive a coherent policy that covers the various relevant categories and articles. If a consensus is achieved here, we can seek a corroborating consensus at ] but this project is the most obvious forum for discussing the issues involved. --] (]) 12:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

::It is called ]. There is no reason that the dicussion on categories has to, or even ought to be dicussed on the same page as articles. There are used for different things and have different policies coving them. <sup>]]</sup> 13:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Have you actually read ]? It is forum shopping if I am looking for a different answer from Forum Y as I got (or am likely to get) from Forum X. If the goal is to find the editors who are most likely to be knowledgeable and interested in a global view on a topic that is relevant to a particular WikiProject, then it is simply asking a set of related questions and conducting the ensuing discussion in an organized fashion. I've already indicated that the goal is to validate any consensus formed here at ].

:::--] (]) 17:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

::While I am not seeing a rush of support here for your proposal, I think you prefer to have it here because you expect to have more interest and more support here. At ] I expect people will be more impartial or at least understand the issues in important in category names/renames. Forum shopping. <sup>]]</sup> 17:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

:::A little ] in interpreting motives would go a long way here...

:::Re: "No rush of support." It's called "the weekend". Besides, I'm not necessarily looking for support. I'm looking for input and discussion. Perhaps you have too confrontational a view of how Misplaced Pages works. Sometimes, it's good to just talk things through collegially without taking sides prematurely. Some of the questions I posed in my initial presentation of the issue were not intended to solely as rhetorical arguments but to query for information that I may not be aware of. I'm still thinking things through and I acknowledge that I am not an expert on Catholicism and Anglo-Catholicism. And, I acknowledge now that my initial presentation may have suggested more of a formal proposal than an invitation to discussion. For that, I apologize.

:::As for "forum shopping", you can think what you will and call it what you will. I know what I want to discuss and who I want to discuss it with. I see now that what I wrote sounded too much like a formal proposal and I agree that this is not the place to seek a formal consensus on a decision to change category names and structure. However, I'm not sure exactly what I want yet and I would prefer to hash it out with people here than over at ]. If there is a consensus here, then I will make the appropriate formal proposals (or someone else can).

:::My primary interest is in kicking off the discussion and getting people to understand the myriad pieces of this puzzle. To make decisions about category names without considering article titles or vice versa just seems folly to me. Why have categories titled ] when the articles are titled ] or vice versa? Why have a category titled ] when the article is titled ]? This kind of inconsistency looks unprofessional. On the other hand, the result of addressing these issues in a piecemeal fashion can only result in increasing inconsistency rather than achieving uniformity.

:::--] (]) 18:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

::::Thank you for taking this initiative, Richard. It is much needed. As to the appropriate forum for discussion. I think that this is the best one, due to the general nature of the changes and the fact that more editors who frequent the articles are likely to participate here. ] (]) 22:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::I tend to agree with Sunray here. I am myself in the process of making a list of the categories relevant to Christianity, for the purposes of making the categorization and subcategorization more consistent. Only seven pages so far, but I'm still in the first major subcategory. :) It is and was my intention to probably do more or less what you propose here for these and other relevant categories on the completion of same. I am posting a message on the main Christianity project talk page for more input on this matter, but generally, except in regards to specific instances like those I've already commented on above, I would tend to support the changes. ] (]) 23:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::I think this is a great forum for having this discussion, specifically because it needs input from people that can differentiate between "Roman" and "Latin rite" and other "Catholic" groups. (I'm not one of those people.)
::::::If/when a consensus emerges among those that are more familiar with the necessary content, the proposal can be taken to ]. Alternatively, a note could be left at CfD to alert editors there. ] (]) 23:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely the sensible procedure is to have the discussion at one place, presumably this one since it's already started, but place notices in all other relevant fora, inviting anyone interested to come here. ] (]) 09:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

====Others' comments ====
:''Quoting from: ]''
It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule is: '''Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.'''

''Never'' edit someone's words to change their meaning, <u>even on your own talk page</u>. Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so.

====Having inaccurate headings====
*Futhermore, take note that no one has any made any comments yet on the proposed category renames themselves.
*It would not be accurate to charaterize my comments as about that subject and doing so would only have them tend to be not well understood.
*If you or anyone ever ''does'' make comments on the proposed category renames, then not only will I ''not'' remove or edit the comments of the other people, I will then be glad to have something to label as "Discussion about Categories" so as to keep you from further mislabling ''my'' comments. <sup>]]</sup> 17:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

== GA reassessment of ] ==

I have conducted a ] of this article and found a large number of concerns which can be see ay ]. The article has been de-listed, but can be brought back to ] when these have been addressed. Thanks. ] (]) 15:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

== Discussion regarding naming convention for bishops, dioceses, etc. ==
This may not be the best place to start this discussion, but I'm going to anyway. One of the issues which seems to be of some possible importance to me is the occasionally seemingly almost random, occasionally unusual, and less than informative names we have given some articles and categories. Thus, we have some categories, like ], which are at best maybe unusually phrased, and any number of other categories and articles without any sort of denominational indicators, which sometimes forces us to even have dab pages, like ], to separate them. Given the huge number of dioceses and bishops that have existed, still exist, and probably will be created, it seems to me at least to make sense to perhaps try to change the names of this content to a more standard "(Church) Bishop of Foo" or "(Church) Diocese of Foo" structure. <br>
In town here, I have a fairly large book listing the "independent bishops" who either did or now exist. Many of them aren't really "independent", but rather bishops of small churches which might only have one or two other bishops in them. These are in addition to the Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Coptic Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, United Methodist, and other churches, all of whom have, to one degree or another, bishops and or dioceses, some of which doubtless have overlapping location names. Would it make sense to the rest of you to maybe try to create some sort of standard naming convention, possibly to include such a denominational descriptor at the start of the name, to reduce the possibility of confusion now or later?<br>
I realize that there are still a few questions which would need to be resolved, like how to handle Catholic dioceses which the Anglicans took on, but I think that is probably a rather small issue and could probably be fairly easily resolved.<br>
Anyway, I look forward to any responses, positive or negative. Thank you. ] (]) 14:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

== Old Catholic encyclopedia is a POV issue? ==

I was looking into to old {{tl|POV}} tags just now, and all of the very oldest listings in the POV article cats are tagged with {{tl|Catholic-cleanup}}. There are only 45 articles according to ], mostly stubs, and they may just need a simple copyediting by a knowledgeable editor (i.e., anyone that knows more than I do). If you're interested in this, please consider spending a few moments working on this task. It would be great to have this backlog cleared. Thanks, ] (]) 18:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

== Diocese vs Roman Catholic dioceses ==

{{tmbox
|small = {{{small|}}}
|type = move
|text = '''This is a discussion of the article name locations of Roman Catholic diocese articles that are not ambiguous'''.}}
It has been the pet project of {{user|Benkenobi18}}, to move all Catholic dioceses article to the style "Roman Catholic Diocese of X", even when the article is unambiguous. Benkenobi18's project has encountered localised resistance from myself and others. See for example the page history of ] (or other Scottish ones), and ]. Lots of it has occurred on low traffic pages however where no resistance has been met It's such a petty issue and I'm tired of seeing it, so would like it to be sorted out. ] (<small>]</small>) 05:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

===Preface title with "Roman Catholic" only where ambiguous===
* Following ]. When there's no need to disambiguate a title, we don't do it. ] (<small>]</small>) 05:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
* In most cases Anglican diocese have different names than Catholic diocese, so its not really a problem. It seems odd that only Catholic diocese should have to have a pointless disambiguation at the front. Also the word "Roman" instead of just "Catholic", in reality seems semi-condescending. - ] (]) 05:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

** I started moving some back. But Benkenobi has move so many. I think I should refrain from moving more until there is more input. ] (<small>]</small>) 14:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

===Preface title with "Roman Catholic" always===
*I would tend to favor this option for several reasons. One, there will be at least some instances when "Roman Catholic" or something similar will be necessary, and, for the sake of consistency, it makes sense to me to not have different names for different articles or categories, to reduce confusion. Two, there is the matter of names of entities other than the Latin rite church in the Catholic church to be considered. Three, admittedly the weakest, is that new dioceses, bishops, and so on are, I believe, being created (or dissolved) by one group or another on a fairly regular basis, and I think having to individually discuss changing individual names on a fairly regular basis would likely be ultimately a waste of time for those involved in these repeated discussions. ] (]) 14:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''. Within the (Roman) Catholic Church, there is no longer any confusion about the naming of dioceses. Only in the case of a very few sees does the distinction "Damascus of the Greek Melkites, of the Syrians, of the Maronites" and the like still persist. If there is some non-Eastern see among these few, it would not be called officially "Roman" but "Latin". "Roman" is ambiguous in this context, since some (perhaps including John Carter?) use "Roman" to mean "Latin"; but that is never the meaning of "Roman" in any official document of the Holy See of this century or the last. I don't see in what cases the addition of "Roman" would be "necessary". In the nomenclature of the (Roman) Catholic Church it is certainly unnecessary. And I don't believe that a diocese of any other group (Anglican, Old Catholic etc.) would ever be referred to as "the Catholic Diocese of Foo". ] (]) 15:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
**That may well be so, though I've certainly seen a sign on an Anglican parish church saying Holy Catholic Church of England. ] (]) 10:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
***Regarding the response that "very few" dioceses have this problem, I am in the process of working on the existing categorization of all Christianity articles, and will be in a better position to say after that is completed exactly how many such ambiguities exist. With any luck, that might be completed in a month or so. However, even if it is only "very few", I think those few would rationally benefit from such a renaming, and, for the purposes of internal consistency, it would probably make sense to make all the articles consistent. If that is true, then there would be, I think, possibly just cause for such a universal change. ] (]) 15:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
****I assembled the ]. In that process, I saw that dioceses with very similar names occurred in three types of regions: 1) those places with a long & fractured history of Christianity (the Middle East, the Levant, Caucusus, Ethiopia, India), 2) those places with large immigrant populations (North America, Brazil, Australia), 3) places with extensive multi-denominational 20th centrury missionary activities (Africa & Southeast Asia). In some of these locations, such as in India, Ethiopia, Ukraine or Iraq, the Latin rite is a tiny minority when compared to the total "Catholic" population(s). By making the word "Catholic" default to "Latin Rite" I fear we'd be guilty of elevating the Latin Rite to a higher position than it deserves worldwide for the sake of avoiding the need for disambiguation or redirects in other areas. ] (]) 17:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
****I agree that we should ''not'' make "Catholic" default to "Latin Rite". Nor should we make "Roman Catholic" mean "Latin Rite". ] (]) 19:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
*****Agree wholeheartedly. ] (]) 07:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

===Preface title with "Catholic" when necessary, with "Roman Catholic" never===
* "Catholic Diocese of Foo" is sufficient to avoid ambiguity in cases such as "Diocese of Southwark". No diocese not of the (Roman) Catholic Church is referred to as the "Catholic Diocese of Foo", while dioceses of that Church ''are'' referred to in this way. ] (]) 16:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
: Perhaps this is a regional distinction. I live in the United States, and dioceses are, almost without exception, referred to as the "Diocese of Foo," from within the Church, and the "Roman Catholic Diocese of Foo," outside of the church. I cannot recall a diocese every being referred to as the "Catholic Diocese of Foo." "Diocese of Foo" is clearly inadequate. In Pittsburgh, for example, there is the ], ], ], ] (incorrectly but often referred to as the Byzantine Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh), and the Greek Orthodox Metropolis Diocese of Pittsburgh. This is likely not comprehensive. I don't pretend to know or understand the distinctions involved in every case, but it seems to me that a certain level of detail is required. I know other similiar situations exist in places such as Philadelphia, Lviv, São Paulo, and Sydney. Lastly, I find the distinction helpful when dealing with the varied religious traditions of Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa and India. ] (]) 16:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
: You are right, but ... Why "Roman", rather than "Latin Rite"? Does "Roman" mean "Latin Rite"? Not at the highest level of the Church. In the case of Pittsburgh, there is only one Catholic ''Diocese'' of Pittsburgh, the other entity is, as you rightly say, the ''Archeparchy'' of Pittsburgh. ] (]) 19:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
::Good point. "Latin Rite" is clearly more specific and less potentially ambiguous. However, even as a member of the Latin Rite church, which I am, I have to say that it is a term that I myself don't use that much, and I can see how others who aren't Latin Rite Catholics might be confused over the usage. So far as I can tell, the Latin Rite Catholics are probably the group which is most specifically when the term "Roman Catholic" is used, and that does seem to me to be much more the more common term. As such, I personally think, possibly erroneously, that "Roman Catholic" is probably, in the long run, after people become familiar with the usage here, ultimately easier to understand and use. I might be wrong, of course. ] (]) 19:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
:::As you say, "]" is univocal and "Roman Catholic" ambiguous. Using "Roman Catholic" to mean "Latin Rite" would conflict with the usage of the Holy See, in which "Roman Catholic" refers to the whole Church. You will find plenty of Church documents that use "Latin" and "Eastern" as distinguishing terms. You will not find even one document of the Holy See in this century or the last that uses "Roman" to mean "Latin Rite". ] (]) 20:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
::::From ]: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." The problem here is how to balance the "reasonable minimum of ambiguity" and the name that "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". While "Latin Rite" has a minimum of ambiguity, even a lot of members of the church, myself included, might not easily recognize it. I am not myself qualified to say which would by policy be preferable in this instance, but I can see at least a reasonable argument for both sides. My own opinion, such as it is, would be that a name most English speakers would at least recognize would be preferable to one that many wouldn't, particularly if the ambiguity is effectively resolved by other, potentially conflicting, article and category names also bearing some sort of additional terminology, like the various Pittsburgh dioceses mentioned above. If none of them are called just "Catholic", then "Roman Catholic" might be the most recognizable name to use for the various dioceses, bishops, etc., of the Latin Rite, unofficial as it is. ] (]) 20:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::I strongly doubt that most English speakers understand "Roman Catholic" as anything other than Christians in full communion with the Pope. Maronites etc. are Christians in full communion with the Pope. ] (]) 08:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::The vast majority of English-speakers, including a lot of Catholics, have never heard of Eastern rites. They're completely unaware, for example, that there've been married Catholic priests for centuries. ] (]) 10:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::From that I conclude that for the vast majority of English-speakers the common expression "Roman Catholic" does ''not'' mean only those Christians in full communion with the Pope who are ''not'' Eastern Catholics. ] (]) 15:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::::True. However, if the articles on all Eastern Catholic dioceses or bishops were to be prefaced with "Maronite diocese", "Melkite diocese", "Lutheran bishop" (maybe "ELCA bishop" or similar, if appropriate) or whatever, that would reduce the possibility of confusion regarding what the name "Roman Catholic diocese" is referring to. Some such arrangement, where every diocese and bishop has in that articles title a clear indication of its "standing", for lack of a better word, is something which I think would both reduce the amount of potential confusion regarding the subject and make it easier for people to more quickly and easily find the content relating to the specific diocese or bishop, regardless of his or its affiliation. ] (]) 16:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::I have gone through the Catholic dioceses (broad sense: including ''arch''dioceses) listed under A in the Annuario Pontificio and have found only two where a distinction according to rite has to be made: Alep and Alexandria. They are all Catholic dioceses, a classification that avoids any confusion with Lutheran or ELCA dioceses, none of which is referred to as "the Catholic Diocese of ..." In these few cases the title of articles about them can be, for instance, "Catholic Diocese of Alep (Chaldaean Rite)" in order to distinguish between these Catholic dioceses at the same location. But for Catholic dioceses such as Adigrat, "Catholic Diocese of Adigrat" is surely enough for the title. The body of the article can mention that it is of Ethiopic Rite, but there is no need whatever to mention that in the title. If desired, categories can be set up for the dioceses of each Rite, but it is no more necessary for the ''title'' of an article to state the rite of a Catholic diocese than it is for an article's title to state the nationality of a writer who will be included in some subcategory of Category:Writers by nationality. ] (]) 06:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

: The purpose of having Roman Catholic diocese of X, is precisely so that it follows the same format for every Catholic diocese. This makes tasks such as listifying the entire heirarchy simple and predictable. It also makes it easy to tell if COI/COE/COS dioceses have been placed in the improper cat. The only dispute this has ever raised is with the COI/COE/COS folks, it's never been a problem in any of the other countries in the world, save 2 the UK and Ireland, and that is with one contributor, Deacon. Until Deacon returned, this had been a settled issue for over a year. I don't see why we should have a special rule for less then 10 dioceses, or why we should treat England, Scotland and Ireland any different from the rest of the Church. The use of "Roman Catholic" is to conform with the article ]. ] (]) 06:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
:::How does that work now the article has been moved to ]? ] (]) 11:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
::It does affect other places too, but no one has really seriously complained; I know I've mentioned to you a few times that the whole thing is kind of odd, but more importantly, again, please remember not to manually move an article if you find a redirect already there. I've had to fix Lisbon again, and I can't tell if you've done it anywhere else. ] (]) 11:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

== Good faith introduction and invitation ==
Hello. I am an openly gay wiki editor who joined this project originaly as part of my interest in Ancient Rome, Vatican and California History in relationship to Prop 8, however I have rediscovered my interest in subjects relating to the California Missions and their long history in California and South America.

I was recently editing an article about a Calfornia city and while researching the ] discovered that Father ] had lived there since the Missions conception and ran his presidency over the Alta California Missions from the site and died and was buried there. Originaly the article had attributed the founding of the mission to Father ] (who's article needs desperate help!). This was all absent from the article ]. Due to the major importance to the Catholic Church of the "Father of California's" buriel site and tomb, I have added the information with a reference and added the article to the scope of the project. I invite the project to all the pages mentioned to help expand the relevence to the project, the church, the city and the State of California.--] (]) 02:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==
I did a bold copy edit.....well I gutted the articl of all unreferenced material and argumentive prose. It's not under the scope of the project however, but is being used to prop up an abortion debate innaproppriatly. Thanks--] (]) 05:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

== Papal mandate ==

There are nearly 300 articles containing the two words "papal" and "mandate"; most of them are about specific individuals. In several cases the second of these words is wikilinked thus: ]; however, that is a disambiguation page, and I would like to amend the link to point at something which actually describes what a "papal mandate" is, for the benefit of those (like myself) who are unsure (there are, after all, articles on terms such as ], ] and ]). ] doesn't think that a suitable article exists. Do you think that there is scope for a new article on "Papal mandate" specifically? If not, perhaps it might be added as a further section to an existing article (not necessarily a "Mandate ..." article)? I'm afraid that I would not be able to contribute in either case: my knowledge of RC practices is much too scanty. If this does get resolved, please send me a ]. Thanks --] (]) 18:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

:I don't know if a suitable article exists, the bureaucratic jargon of the papal see is something I've never mastered. I redirected it to papal brief. I don't know if there is some technical difference of diplomatic or function, but they seem to be similar. I know a "brief" is a writ, a document a king sends to a subject ordering or allowing them to do something, and that's roughly was a mandate seems to be. Again, I'm not sure which ones are technical definitions of diplomatic, which ones of function, which ones generic, and so on. Hope someone will advise. ] (<small>]</small>) 18:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
::I don't know what you directed to "papal brief". In the articles that I presume Redrose64 referred to, "mandate" should not have been wikilinked. The word is there used in its ordinary, non-technical, generic sense, as given in dictionaries. See, for instance, Likely enough, the phrase was used of episcopal ordinations, such as the ] carried out, in violation of canon law, without a papal mandate. A pope's mandate permitting someone to be consecrated as a bishop is not issued in the form of a papal brief. ] (]) 06:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
::: I redirected ] to ], Lima. Curiously enough, OED sv "mandate 4d" does give a technical definition. I do suspect a technical definition lies behind its use is some of the sources used for the articles in question. Cheers, ] (<small>]</small>) 08:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
::::One example which I came across was in ], paragraph 7 where we have the phrase "implying that he had a mandate from the Pope". I believe that the meaning of "mandate" as used here overlaps the meaning in both ] and ], but I don't think that either of those is directly suitable. There are other articles where the word "mandate" is used in similar context, but simply wikilinked to the ] page which could confuse rather than enlighten.
::::In a nutshell: is there anything specific about a papal mandate that is not entirely covered by the dictionary definition of "mandate"? --] (]) 10:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::I still don't see that, in the contexts here dealt with, "mandate" needs any wikilink. "Implying that he had a mandate from the Pope" means no more than that he gave the impression that he was acting on instructions from the Pope, not necessarily written instructions. It certainly had nothing to do with a ] such as those by which certain territories (now mostly independent countries) were entrusted by the United Nations to some of the chief powers. And the stub article ] is, I submit, nonsense. As I said, the wikilink should simply be removed. Do we need wikilinks for words like "instructions", "authorization" that have the same meaning as "mandate"?
:::::A "rescript" is, technically, a written response to a petition. "Mandate" is much broader. ] (]) 11:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::In a nutshell then: no, there is nothing specific about a papal mandate.
::::::I'll just remove these wikilinks as and when I encounter them then. Thanks --] (]) 13:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
In "mandate for confirmation", and phrases like "A Papal mandate of 3 March 1244, from Pope Innocent IV authorized the Bishop of Caithness (Gilbert de Moravia) and one Martin, clerk of the papal camera, to inquire about the legality of the election and if appropriate confirm and consecrate Simon" ... "mandate" should link somewhere. A document is being referred to. We need to help the reader on this somehow. ] (<small>]</small>) 13:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
:I don't know what class of document would have been used in those circumstances. Probably, I think, a bull. Unless we can be sure, we should, I think, use generic terms like "instructions from the Pope", "a papal document" or ... "a papal mandate" (!). ] (]) 17:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

== Template Image Change ==

I've made a ] to change the image on the WPCatholicism banner to not have that black background, like it used to be before the image was deleted. Please provide input on that proposal so an admin can make the change. Thanks! ]<sup>]</sup> 00:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

== List of living cardinals ==

I’ve edited the ] into a sortable list. It now sorts the cardinals by A to Z, by country and by birth date. It seemed pointless to keep the article ] so I’ve redirected to ]. ] (]) 18:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

== Request opinions regarding ] ==

I have proposed changes to ] which are detailed at ] in the following sections: , and .

In a nutshell, I believe that this article tries to do too much. It discusses details of individual cases and individual victims at the country-level and the diocese-level thus obscuring the forest by showing too many of the trees.

Please express your opinion at ]. Also please express an opinion on my proposal to merge the article into ], leaving as the top-level main article about the global phenomenon.

--] (]) 17:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

== 3rd party, uninvolved editor suggest consensus ==
On a recent article that I added to the project (]), it has been suggested that perhaps the inclusion of this project may need to be discussed. Is it something the project feels needs to be included or should it be removed under consensus from here? It is felt that the connection between the city and ]'s tomb at the ]' may not meet guidelines for project participation. I had added it to the project as important because of the historical significance as the 2nd of the first two ] ] Missions and Father Serra's significance as one of the most historical Catholic figures in the United States.--] (]) 06:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

==] needs cleanup, cites==

] is, unsurprisingly, loaded with ], nonsensical, and un-cited material. It's been tagged "May contain original research or unverified claims" since September 2008 and "Needs additional citations for verification" since August 2008. Anybody interested in looking at this? -- ] (]) 20:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] nominated for deletion ==

I have nominated ] for deletion. Please express your opinion ]. --] (]) 06:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

== Christianity coordinators elections ==

Any parties interested in being one of the coordinators of WikiProject Christianity and its various related projects is encouraged to list themselves as a candidate at ]. It would be particularly beneficial if we had individuals from as broad a range of areas of the project as possible, to help ensure that we have people knowledgable about the widest range of content possible. ] (]) 20:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

== From Misplaced Pages in Spanish ==

Hi everybody , I am catholic , I have some arguments in the wikipedia in spanish ,that support the idea , that Michael it´s not Jesus , please if somebody can translate , this section of the spanish article, to the Michael Archangel in english article , would be nice.

*

Thank You --] (]) 21:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
:I'm not entirely sure what you're requesting. I know that there are some Christians who contend that Michael was Jesus, and I'm assuming that the material was included in that article to neutrally indicate that. I'm not sure that a lot of material saying Michael is not Jesus is necessarily required, as you, and me, and most Catholics, don't think he is. I don't myself know exactly what that article says, not reading Spanish, but if it just says something like "Some Christians believe Michael was Jesus, based on..." that's probably neutral enough to be included. I don't myself know of any particular sources which go into detail about how Michael is ''not'' Jesus, so I'm not sure how well sourced such material would be. But anyone else who can read Spanish is more than encouraged to do the translation. ] (]) 22:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

::For example : "Michael, one of the chief princes came to help me ..." Michael is one of several like him. The article is neutral but is very clear and forceful , to say with not doubt that Michael is not Jesus. --] (]) 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately, we as an encyclopedia cannot make a statement to the effect that, with no doubt, Michael is not Jesus. That would be taking an advocacy position of a sort, and as an encyclopedia we do not try to "prove" anything which is disputed by any substantial number of people in the real world. There are a few Christian groups out there, the ] and ] perhaps most notably, who do say that Michael was Jesus, and we would be violating ], and probably several other policies, if we were to make any statements like that. Such content could be reasonably added to the articles ] and ], or any other article going into greater detail about that theological point, but would probably best be placed in those articles. ] (]) 14:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


I wholeheartedly agree, Richard. To do this properly, I think WP requires discussion on each page, which would take a lot of time. But, it would be worth it. I would suggest starting with Spanish speaking countries. In Spanish the terms "Iglesia Catolica Romana" and "Catholico Romano" simply do not exist, so to use those terms for them is to project English language issues where they do not exist. This is one approach anyway. --] (]) 00:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
== GA Reassessment of ] ==


:Wow! Exactly how did all this come about and how many people agreed to it? Sounds like a disaster to me.... real disaster... many people, myself included, will ONLY follow Roman Catholic issues and do not associate with other Catholic issues. And many of these churches say Roman on their doors... And please remember that we have a ''huge'' potential audience in the far east, India etc. And many of these people only feel comfortable with the church of Rome because their own churches are called "Roman Catholic church of Saint ABC" etc. If they are not sure if some doctrinal issue refers to Roman vs Eastern, they may not read through the whole article. This type of change will be a real dis-service to Misplaced Pages users.... Must stop now.... Take the case of ]. Recently a single editor removed the word Roman from the ''content'' of that article with a few keystrokes. How can ''anyone'' be sure that some of those theological issues did not become incorrect" What proof is there that all that theology also applies to the Eastern church? As a Roman Catholic how can '''I''' be sure that as I read that article I am getting theology for the church of Rome and not the Eastern churches? If an article is written with significant effort over time, a sudden change may render the content inaccurate. With this type of rapid, sudden and less than careful change based on some ''naming convention'' claim valuable content that has been there for long may be suddenly rendered inaccurate. This train wreck must stop now... ] (]) 21:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I have done a GA Reassessment of the ] article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to nearly meet the ]. It is lacking in a couple of places and I have outlined my concerns ]. I have placed the article on hold for a week and I am notifying all interested projects and editors of the hold. If you have questions please contact me on my talk page and I will be happy to discuss the review. ] (]) 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:10, 13 August 2009

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Catholicism: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-08-05

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconCatholicism Project‑class
WikiProject iconWikiProject Catholicism is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Catholicism task list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconCatholicism Project‑class
WikiProject iconWikiProject Catholicism is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Catholicism task list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Template:WP Catholic Navigation

Archive 1: December 2005 – June 2006

Archive 2: July 2006 – August 2006

Archive 3: September 2006 – January 2008

Ensoulment

Please, if you have time, take a look at the Ensoulment article. It includes the oft-cited history of Catholic ecclesiastical penalties for abortion that pro-choice advocates use to claim the church has not maintained a consistent teaching on the immorality of abortion. I added an opening paragraph to the Roman Catholic Church section that should help a bit, but the whole article needs work, and I don't have the time to do it.MamaGeek 12:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

The article Roman Catholic Church is WP:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church is currently up for Featured Article status. Several editors on that page have expressed concerns about potential POV violations, the reliability of certain sources, and the inclusion/exclusion of certain information. Discussion are ongoing on the talk page of the article about potential improvements to the text. It would be nice to get more eyes to look at the article so as to reach broader community consensus. Karanacs (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Denver Register

References to the Denver Register keep coming up with regards to a claim that George Washington had some sort of deathbed conversion to Roman Catholicism. A Google search turns up very little about it except for some indication that it is/was some sort of Catholic journal. If someone could please reply on my talk page concerning the nature of this publication I'd appreciate it, because at the moment my inclination is doubt its reliability. Mangoe (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a message at the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Colorado page as well, hoping that somewhere there might have some idea of the publication. It was published in Denver, right? I hope? :) John Carter (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know. I have had great difficulty finding anything out about this. The Archdiocese of Denver publishes the Denver Catholic Register now; I'm given to assume that the older reference is to the same journal. I've looked at the archdiocesan website, but IIRC there was no email link that seemed to lead back to the DCR offices. Mangoe (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Expert

They still want an expert to take a look at Order of Saint Benedict. -- SECisek (talk) 22:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

5 Cardinal-Deacons elevated to Cardinal-Priests

Following today's announcement of the elevations, I made a first pass at fixing the various Wiki articles. The changes are: Cardinals Antonetti, Castrillón Hoyos, Cheli, and Medina Estévez were elevated to Cardinal-Priest while retaining their current titles. Cardinal Stafford was also elevated but given the title S. Pietro in Montorio. Because of these elevations, the most senior Cardinal-Deacon (aka, the proto-deacon) is now Cardinal Cacciavillan.--Dcheney (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Prophecy of the Popes

What is the Vatican's standpoint on the prophecy? Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Black Madonna of Częstochowa

I nominated the image to the right at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates please vote. Bewareofdog 19:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Abp. David Mathew

I've just created a page for him, at David Mathew (bishop). I'm sure that the project workers here will want to take a look at it and add any necessary templates. There's already a reality show contestant at David Mathew; I intend to request a move of that one so that we can make a dab page. You get to look it over first, though... -- BPMullins | Talk 04:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators for the Christianity projects

I have recently started a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Christianity#Coordinators? regarding the possibility of the various Christianity projects somewhat integrating, in the style of the Military history project, for the purposes of providing better coordination of project activities. Any parties interested in the idea, or perhaps willing to offer their services as one of the potential coordinators, is more than welcome to make any comments there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Diocese of Knoxville

I'm pretty sure this article has been vandalised. (I reverted a definite vandal edit elsewhere by the most recent editor.) I'm not sure whether I've reverted too much or not enough. Please could someone who knows more look at the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC) (also contacted the Tennessee project.)

Free high-quality images for Catholicism

I know where to get free high-quality images on things Catholic, mostly taken from the City of Rome. Please see HERE, where the owner declared: I, JPSonnen, took all these photos myself and I give permission for them to be used in any way on the internet.

If you are looking for an image, just use the search button.

Is there a way to publicize this better in the WikiProject Catholicism? Thanks. Marax (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Digital Patrologia Latina

May be of interest: there is a digital edition of Migne's Patrologia Latina available, along with a whole lot more material at www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/_index.html which may be of interest. In Latin of course. Someone (probably) associated with that project has been adding links to the relevant articles. Seems unobjectionable to me, but this has caught the eye of the ever-vigilant spam monitors, and here we are with a minor drama. This resource could be valuable for inline cites, for further reading sections, to create bibliographies for Medieval Latin religious writers, etc. Hope this is useful, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter Turkson

Just want to say that my meeting with Peter Turkson resulted in an image along with the exterior of his office. Please export to more languages. --Boongoman (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Islam now bigger proposed for Main Page

I place a heads-up here about the current proposal to feature this in the "In The News" section of the Main Page. The discussion can be found here: Misplaced Pages:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. __meco (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Coordinator?

It has probably been noticed by most of the editors who frequent this page that there is often a pronounced degree of overlap between the various projects relating to Christianity. Given that overlap, and the rather large amount of content we have related to the subject of Christianity, it has been proposed that the various Christianity projects select a group of coordinators who would help ensure the cooperation of the various projects as well as help manage some project related activities, such as review, assessment, portal management, and the like. Preferably, we would like to consider the possibility of having one party from each of the major Christianity projects included, given the degree of specialization which some of the articles contain. We now are accepting nominations for the coordinators positions at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. Any parties interested in helping performing some of the management duties of the various Christianity projects is encouraged to nominate themselves there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Much to my surprise, the period for the factual elections of the new coordinators has started a bit earlier than I expected. For what it's worth, as the "instigator" of the proposed coordinators, the purpose of having them is not to try to impose any sort of "discipline" on the various projects relating to Christianity, but just to ensure that things like assessment, peer review, portal maintainance, and other similar directly project-related functions get peformed for all the various projects relating to Christianity. If there are any individuals with this project who are already doing such activities for the project, and who want to take on the role more formally, I think nominations are being held open until the end of the elections themselves. And, for the purposes of this election, any member in good standing of any of the Christianity projects can either be nominated or express their votes at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church Peer Review

Roman Catholic Church has been listed at Peer Review. Editors are anxious to get this to FA status, so please help review the article and leave comments. Karanacs (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Bernard of Clairvaux

Bernard of Clairvaux needs a review before a GA nomination. Take a look, please. -- Secisek (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Incarnation Catholic Church and School (Glendale, California)

There is currently a discusion at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Incarnation_Catholic_Church_and_School_%28Glendale%2C_California%29#Incarnation_Catholic_Church_and_School_.28Glendale.2C_California.29 concerning the proposed deletion of a new article on Incarnation Catholic Church and School (Glendale, California). This is a parish in the Los Angeles area that is 80 years old and has thousands of member families. Yet, some are taking the position that articles about individual parishes are not notable. I am not sure if this issue has been raised here, but it seems to me that articles about large, important Catholic parishes are a valuable contribution to Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic content and to this project. Cbl62 (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been suggested by the individual proposing deletion that my comment somehow constitutes "canvasing." All I'm asking is that people take a look and make up their own mind.Cbl62 (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Blessed Virgin Mary

I'm extremely dubious about recent attempts to broaden the scope of this article to include Anglicans/Anglo-catholics and the Othodox. For example the present first sentence "The Blessed Virgin Mary, sometimes shortened to The Blessed Virgin or The Virgin Mary, is a traditional title specifically used by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, and some others to describe Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ..." is certainly not true as far as the Orthodox are concerned. Again, to say that "The Assumption of Mary -- meaning that, at the end of her earthly life, Mary was taken directly into Heaven -- is held infallibly by both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches." is pretty misleading, especially with no link to Dormition of the Theotokos. Nor am I sure what "infallibly" means in an Orthodox context. These changes have been defended agressively by reverting, and for example links to the Dormition article have been removed.

The article is equally misleading as to "Anglican", or at least average Anglican, beliefs at various points - again in the first sentence for example. There is a pretty full article on the Theotokos which covers the Orthodox view. The old versions, with an Anglican section which could be expanded, were much more satisfactory.

People may care to comment at Talk:Blessed_Virgin_Mary#Widening_the_scope. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Dimond

Could somebody take a look at the Michael Dimond article? Is he notable? Michael Dimond seems to be creating and editing the article himself. Corvus cornixtalk 03:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's now gone, he's a persistent little sod, Bro. Michael Dimond was deleted last year.FlagSteward (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Christian debate on persecution and toleration and related topics

Note: This is a cross-posting from ´Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Lutheranism

Two days ago I had added a short paragraph to the article Christianity giving an overview about the Christian debate on persecution and toleration, the article on which I am currently working. This was removed by another editor, who was of the opinion that one should describe the actions of the Inquisition as "Prosecution" instead of "Persecution" and that I would need a source for a new paragraph. Well, I really hope that we don't need to resort to heated debates about wp:NPOV and wp:verifiability here; It is only fair to debate the topic and it doesn't really hurt: If happened some hundred years ago and is nowadays totally rejected by all Christians (according to the historian Coffey, whom I have quoted in the article). And if no one works on the topic from an enlightened Christian perspective, the Neopagans will just continue working on it from their perspective; since the details here are really difficult, this might result in somehow biased articles, even with good-faith-editing. So, if you have the time check out articles like Persecution of religion in ancient Rome and see if you can help there. Regards, Zara1709 (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As the editor in question, I thought I would provide a response to this comment. I admit that I didn't take a close look at the edits that were made, and I thus apologize for my reaction. The paragraph in question seems sound, though I find that the last sentence makes too far a leap into the future to be totally congruous with that section of the article. I would also note that even something that is considered "prominent" or "well-known" historically needs to be referenced, especially if there is any controversy concerning the subject-matter. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Pope Stephen VII

Hi. I'd feel much happier if one of you chaps could check out this edit. And while you're at it, you can slap a WikiProject tag on the talk page! Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL!
Though I suppose I'm not actually "one of chaps," I did find that the text you refer to was lifted verbatim from here.
So I went ahead and block-quoted that text, and added that reference to the article.
Cheers, —Wikiscient— 03:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

St. Peter's Basilica to FA?

Hi guys. Assessing things for the Italy Project I came across St. Peter's Basilica which is looking pretty healthy, it's the sort of article that must be pretty close to FA if someone wants an "easy" FA, although it doesn't appear to have even gone through GA yet. Does anyone want to take it on? FlagSteward (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Milan Cathedral is also looking pretty healthy, it needs a lot more references but otherwise must be close to GA at least. FlagSteward (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Category: Roman Catholicism in the United States --- Mistitled

Shouldn't the above named category be retitled 'Catholicism in the United States?

"Roman Catholicism" is a vernacular term originated by Anglicans to refer to Catholic's who followed the Roman pontiff. While many Catholics are proud to use the name "Roman Catholic" to proclaim their support of the pople, no where does the Catholic Church adopt or use the title "Roman Catholic Church" in any of its documents or titles. In part this is because the Roman Rite is just one of many other Catholic rites.

Also, if this category includes not just Roman Rite Catholicsim in the United States, but also other Catholic rites, it is a misnomer.

Can the category be retitled or redirected so it would change and be propagated throughout wikipedia?--GodBlessYou55 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is unfortunately impossible to change categories in that way. Also, I think the "Roman" might be added to differentiate from any of the other variant forms of Catholicism, like Old Catholicism, out there. Takiing that into account, the added "Roman" might be best kept. John Carter (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
John, I'm not so certain about that-when one hears somebody referring to a dissident sort, they inherently refer to a 'liberal catholic' or an 'Old catholic', in other words, with a qualifier. However, in the words of the Creed, there is only 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church'(all in capitals), and that is the Petrine Church. To use the moniker 'roman' seems to me to be a misnomer and discounts the other 20-some eastern rites that are also part of the 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church'. And the term, 'latin rite' also only refers to that part of the Church which is headed by the Bishop of Rome.
I think that the term 'Catholic'(in caps), without a leading qualifier, would perhaps be best to describe the Petrine Church in Rome.--Lyricmac (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The term "Roman Catholic" is not part of the Vatican's lexicon. "Catholic Church" is the always preferred and is used to describe all Catholic rites in communion with the Church of Rome. I'd actually like to see the U.S. bishops engage in a mini-campaign to educate the press (and even the Yellow Pages) that the proper way to describe Catholics is as Catholics, not "Roman Catholics." If they are willing to be sensitive to the preferred self-description of other groups, why not also in regard to Catholics? (By the way, even the Old Catholics have taken care to give themselves a new adjective "Old" to distinguish themselves from just Catholics who acknowledge the papal authority of the current Bishop of Rome.--GodBlessYou55 (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This argument has been rehashed over and over again in the RCC article talk. The thing is that the Church does use "Roman Catholic" sometimes, often in relation to other denominations. Heck, parishes in my own diocese are sometimes subtitled "A Roman Catholic Parish". I've called myself Roman Catholic since forever. I would recommend that we focus on somewhat bigger issues than a relatively minor squabble over semantics. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Queen of Heaven article

The Queen of Heaven article is tagged as being part of "WikiProject Catholicism."
There's been some dispute around POV issues there recently, and I was wondering if someone here might have time to look the article over (especially recent changes to it), and perhaps also help resolve some of the conflict and/or improve the quality of the article itself?
Please also see my note on the Talk page there...
Thanks! --—Wikiscient— 01:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

St Lawrence Church, Morden

As this is simply another church building that was absconded by the Protestants during the reformation, my opinion is that we not concern ourselves with it. If the Anglicans wish to edit it and take out the advertisements, thats their business, not ours. Or should we worry ourselves about every article written about every pre-reformation European church stolen by the Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, ad nauseum? --Lyricmac (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


Corpus Christi (feast) needs your help

I can't figure out from Corpus Christi (feast) just what Corpus Christi is. Can anybody help out the non-Christians here? (Obviously, please add info to that article, not just here.) Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Music

There is a suggested article on the project page about "Liturgical Music." Also needed is something a bit broader maybe. For example, a book entitled "Why Catholics Can't Sing" resulted in a music revolution in the US and perhaps elsewhere in the 1990s with the result that RCs now sing as well an anyone in most places. Definitely need high level article to tie all music together - Contemporary, Liturgical, etc. Student7 (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

The Featured Article nomination for this article was restarted on June 1st, This is the top article for Wikiproject Catholicism and your comments of either support or oppose (with stated reasons) would be greatly appreciated on the nomination page here NancyHeise (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Diocese titles

Malleus Haereticorum (talk · contribs) has moved dozens of articles about Roman Catholic dioceses from the format "Roman Catholic Diocese of Foo" to "Diocese of Foo" / "Bishop of Foo", apparently without discussing this beforehand. Olessi (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

To my eyes, it makes much more sense for all of these articles to be named "Roman Catholic Diocese of Foo" or "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Foo" than to remove the RC from all the titles. Several other churches, including the Melkite, Marionite, Anglican, Old Catholic, and other churches will often have, between them, at least one similarly named diocese or archdiocese in their communities, and on that basis those would have to be disambiguated, with the names "RC Foo of Foo" and "(Name) Foo of Foo". If there are going to have to be at least some articles named in that way, it makes sense to at least me that, for the purposes of consistency and ease of understanding, they all have similar names. John Carter (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Due to the volume and timespan of contributions, a posted on Misplaced Pages:Editor_assistance/Requests. — MrDolomite • Talk 13:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please look at Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves where I started a section for discussion of this. Let us see if it is possible to reach a consensus?--Lyricmac (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Will add my voice. I am moving them slowly over. I've reverted about half of Maelleus's moves. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church

I have a concern that the List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church has drifted from being a factual list into something which may be misleading. I'd like to correct that and I've proposed that we remove all elements of the list which don't have citations. We can add them back once we find a cite, but this would give us a list that at least didn't contain any inaccuracies. (I'd rather it be missing correct entries than filled with incorrect ones.) But, before doing this, I wanted to leave a message here. Would any members of this project be willing to look through this list and add citations for the elements which you know to be correct? After a week or so, I can go through and remove any items that don't have them. JRP (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Counter-Reformation

See the requested move proposal (to Catholic Reformation) at Talk:Counter-Reformation. Pastordavid (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church - Second Discussion

I have made a proposal for a discussion to limit the List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church to those excommunicated by Papal decree (papal bull, etc.) only, rather than automatic excommunications. If you have an opinion on this, please respond on the talk page for the list. JRP (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Catholicism or Roman Catholicism ?

I asked for a review of Portal:Catholicism, and a user made a comment that caught my intrest . He said "There is a POV issue. I think at present this portal is about Roman Catholicism and should either rename to exclude Old Catholic churches etc or should include them. Although the Roman Catholic church defines Catholicism to mean those in communion with the pope this is not the exclusive use of the term in other parts of the church." Does anyone here think it is a POV issue ? Bewareofdog 23:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I though Episcopals considered themselves "Catholic." Not sure that is a small c or large which is important. Probably should change banner/project. Really not much choice. On the other hand not a lot of pressure to do so "instantly." Student7 (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Point in question - the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, called 'Eastern Catholics', are Catholics but not Roman. InfernoXV (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they officially are under the authority of the Pope, so they probably do qualify as "Roman". Having said that, I don't know that there are any particularly good articles (GA or better) relating to Old Catholicism, so, at this point, it's probably a bit of a moot issue, although it might arise later. I do think that there is a good question as to whether the scope of this project would include content relating to Old Catholicism or not, though. John Carter (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Sed contra, the term "Roman" refers to the liturgical rite used by a church rather than its hierarchy. So, for example, the Maronite Catholics aren't Roman, but are in communion with the Pope. It any case, that's kinda a minor point...this article seems to want to talk about the concept of "Catholicism", but doesn't seem to know where to start, either. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Carter, objection! Eastern Catholics (myself included) do NOT consider ourselves 'under the authority of the Pope', but merely in communion with him. InfernoXV (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The Church - and most media and scholars - use the term Catholic rather than Roman Catholic. Majoreditor (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholics in ODNB absent from Misplaced Pages

I've found that Roman Catholics (especially Jesuits) are statistically less well-represented in Misplaced Pages than they are in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. I've put a list of some Roman Catholics prominent in ODNB but lacking a Misplaced Pages page on my userpage. Dsp13 (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 738 of the articles assigned to this project, or 17.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Misplaced Pages 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Misplaced Pages 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

San Sebastian de Garabandal

I cleaned up the above article that had been languishing in NPOV disputes for many months. I'm no expert on Catholicism and it could still use more eyes on whether the official Catholic position on the reports of appearances of the Virgin in this small Spanish village in the 1960s is accurately reported. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring on the name of a diocese

Two editors have been engaged in an unhelpful and disruptive edit war concerning the name of a diocese in theUnited Kingdom. I have issued an RfC and fully-protected the page against page moves by anyone until the matter has been fully discussed and a consensus reached by more editors than just the two involved in the edit-warring. Anyone able to is invited to engage in the discussion to help wikipedia improve by reaching a better solution than the unstable edit warring that has previously happened. See Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle#What should the name of this article be?. The two names that were being used were "Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle" and "Diocese of Newcastle and Hexham". Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I have now realised, after a message from another editor and another administrator and looking at various editing histories, that the same thing has happened mostly today but over the past week for almost all of the dioceses concerning the Roman Catholic church in England and Wales, and it has mostly involved the same two editors.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we have reluctantly concluded that all dioceses must have "Roman Catholic" preceding them even thought there might not be any specific ambiguity today with other dioceses (Anglican, etc.). If somebody can prove otherwise, I'd be happy.Student7 (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Where have we concluded this? If there's an ambiguity now (of current or previous names), then I see it, but unless we are to go peppering all Anglican dioceses with 'Anglican', and to prefix all other RC dioceses with 'RC' on the off-chance that some new diocese of the same name and a different church will be created in the future, then I don't. Give them their natural names, and add 'RC' only where necessary. The lede should say that the RC dioceses are RC, but I see no need, or consensus, to put 'RC' in the name. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with Philip Trueman. Most articles on Anglican dioceses in the UK don't have the "Anglican" prefix. Why should Catholic dioceses in France be labelled RC Diocese of X, a name no-one is likely to input in a search. Xandar (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
There has been considerable discussion on this topic, most recently at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Diocese_titles. Anglican Dioceses are certainly one situation, not only in the UK, but South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, etc. Other Catholic Dioceses are also a possibility, and I have encountered many situations where Dioceses of Armenian, Chaldean, Greek-Melkite, Maronite, Ruthenian, Syrian, Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankar, Ukranian rites and others overlap with Roman Catholic (Latin) Dioceses. Because of this, I suggest that we should create a diocese or Achdiocese page using the Roman Catholic (or other denomination) prefix "Roman Catholic Diocese of XXX", and then, if there are no other dioceses with the same name, create a redirect page "Diocese of XXX". If there are other dicoeses with the same name, you should instead create a disambiguation page with "Roman Catholic Diocese of XXX", "Maronite Diocese of XXXX", etc.Npeters22 (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Saint-Fabrizio

Another editor has started Saint-Fabrizio. I do not think that name is the one by which the saint in best known in English. Perhaps Fabricius is more appropriate. Could someone please determine the most appropriate name and then move the article there? The article has interwiki links to the French, Italian and Portuguese Wikipedias, which may be of some hep. --Eastmain (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Project Taskforces

Now, I believe it is the Wikiproject Military History which functions as a very able and well organized project. One of the things they have done is subdivided the task of their project into sectors, for example World Wars, Civil Wars, African Wars and so on and so forth. Perhaps we should do something similar here?

I am particularly interested in creating a small group of Project members who would wish to dedicate some of their time to the articles belonging to Popes. Many of the Popes- especially the early ones- have very small articles or articles who's accuracy is not verifiable due to a lack of sources. I myself have spent quite some time working on the Pope Urban I article, building it up from a stub to what I feel is a very adequate article given the obvious restraints of the fact that so little information on him exists, I would hope that this could be repeated across articles concerning the Popes from Peter all the way to Benedict XVI.

Anyone who is interested, please reply or contact me! Gavin Scott (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea - the questions would be whether there would be enough interested editors to make it viable in the long run and how it would be different from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Vatican City, which I think already includes all the Popes and other articles related to the Vatican in its scope. The articles assessed for that project are also automatically assessed for Catholicism, so, in a sense, it already is a functional subproject. John Carter (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Even so I still think that a group of even just a few editors who dedicated themselves to one very narrow topic- i.e. Popes would be able to move through each page in that scope and pull each one up to a decent standard. It might fall into the scope of other projects this is true, but what it would hopefully achieve is gathering together active editors to work together and improve things section through section. As you know, we have many members of this wikiproject but how many are regularly active? If all those who were concentrated their efforts onto certain tasks we would see a good improvement- I would think. Also I don't see where Pope's falls into their subproject...Gavin Scott (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

culture of death subproject page

After looking at Peter Singer, euthanasia, and Action T4 articles and their soft pedaling the culture of death to the point of violating WP:NPOV I decided to make a subproject page to highlight such articles so that they are restored according to Misplaced Pages standards. I encourage editors who spot such articles to list them on the subproject page. TMLutas (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, is this a joke? Or is it serious issues you have but in a jokey context or what...Gavin Scott (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Religious rating for Catholic colleges?

I know this sounds like a funny question, but is there a scholarly/recognized work that rates Catholic colleges by purposeful dedication to religion? For example, religion no longer matters at Notre Dame, Catholic University or Georgetown. It does mean something at the new university being built in Naples, Florida (raison d'etre), and to Franciscan in Steubenville, Ohio (just to name two off the top of my head). Also for Protestants as well. The ivies, for example, were mostly founded as theological schools. While they still teach theology, they could care less about religion. As opposed to (say) Oral Roberts or Bob Jones, where religion is taken seriously. Student7 (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wanted pages: authors of common sources for the Catholic Encyclopaedia

It would be good to have biographies of Bede Camm, Thompson Cooper, Thomas Francis Knox and John Hungerford Pollen - all of whose writings are repeatedly cited as sources by the Catholic Encyclopaedia. Also a page about the Catholic Record Society. Dsp13 (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Done a couple. You might have warned me there were two of the Pollens - I did the father first, and you meant John Hungerford Pollen (Jesuit). Charles Matthews (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
you think I'd realised that? well done - do you think John Hungerford Pollen should be a hndis page? Dsp13 (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Dioceses of Wisconsin-the bishops

I was able to start articles about the bishops in the various Roman Catholic Dioceses in Wisconsin-the Dioceses of Madison, Superior, and Green Bay. Lot of them had redlinks. It was fun and I enjoyed doing it. Being a native of Wisconsin and Roman Catholic, I have knowledge about the history of the Roman Catholic Church in Wisconsin. I also started an article about Archbishop Kily of Milwaukee. I would had gotten it done if it was not for some editors who raised questions about the Roman Catholic bishops being notable, so I put that on the backburner. The article I did not do and I am relunctant on that one was that of Bishop Robert Banks of the Green Bay Diocese. Bishop Banks was auxiliary bishop under Cardinal Bernard Law in the Boston Archdiocese prior to going to Green Bay. With the sexual abuse scandal involving cardinal Law and Bishop Banks I am relunctant to start an article about Bishop Banks and hope someone with more experience and knowledge can do an article about Bishop Banks. Thank you again-RFD (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC) PS- I decided to start article about Bishop Banks-I kept the article as a stub and let people added to it.Thank you-RFD (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Catholicism/NPOV

I've proposed Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Catholicism/NPOV for deletion, because I believe it is an inappropriate page for this project to have - see my reasons on its talk page and on the MFD page. I thought I'd alert you here in case people don't have it on their wishlist. TSP (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Cathedral of Magdeburg at FAR

Cathedral of Magdeburg has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Catholic diocese

Template:Infobox Catholic diocese has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. All the instances where it was used (all 3) now point to the more widely used {{Infobox Roman Catholic diocese}}. Bazj (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion from BLP noticeboard copied here as more appropriate

Copying discussion in here. Text follows. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Popes and Saints - Special Treatment for Hagiographies?

I sought information about Pope Pius IX and read the WP article. I found it lacked balance, contained unsourced and difficult to verify information and read like a promotional piece from the Roman Catholic church. I made a number of edits seeking to improve neutrality but have seen these edits reverted or written over to maintain the old style of the article. Changes were made to my edits that amounted to reversions, with little or no explanation.

The offending editor is primarily using sources written by church scholars in the 19th century. Accounts of Pius IX written by reverential contemporaries are, in my opinion, of lesser value than independent historians of modern times. These old volumes are unlikely to be available in standard libraries but I found that complete text of at least two had been placed online. I linked the article to those texts, assuming a serious reader would prefer to look at the original words rather than someone's interpretation of them. Those online links were removed, restoring the original text citations.

WP guidelines seem to be silent on old and ancient sources. Is a book published in 1868 likely to be a reliable source in today's world? Anyone have similar experiences? I can imagine that many articles have vigilant defenders standing by ready to prevent edits that take the article away from favored positions. True, or not? --Interactbiz (Norm, Vancouver Canada) (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the rest, but sources can be both reliable and biased. --NE2 04:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the actual edits and reversions, it seems that what is going on is that Interactbiz wants to add a mention of some of the material from Edgardo Mortara to Pope Pius IX; that is, material relating to Pius's treatment of Jews. In my judgement, such an addition would be appropriate: the issue has been widely discussed by scholarly sources. There are, however, much better sources available than the one that Interactbiz was relying on (an NYT article). Looie496 (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Saints are by definition not living people (I think, please don't correct me if I'm wrong), and only one pope at a time is living. I'm copying this discussion to the Catholicism wikiproject, hoping to find knowledgeable editors there. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Where did this discussion take place Talk:Pope Pius IX? Gavin (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
No, though that would probably be the best place for it. the bio of living persons noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"See also" comes before "References"

I have noticed a lot of articles relating to the catholic church(es) contain the "References" section before the "See also" section. I have been reversing these when I come across them (, , , , ), but I am not making a point of going after them.

Misplaced Pages:Layout#Standard appendices suggests this order, using the reasoning: "sections which contain material outside Misplaced Pages (including Further reading, and External links) should come after sections that contain Misplaced Pages material (including See also) to help keep the distinction clear." If anyone else comes across this, could you reverse the order? Thank you. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages 0.7 articles have been selected for Catholicism

Misplaced Pages 0.7 is a collection of English Misplaced Pages articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Misplaced Pages talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Misplaced Pages:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Misplaced Pages 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Papal conclave, 1314–1316

There is currently a Good Article review of Papal conclave, 1314–1316, but the nominator seems to have become inactive. To achieve Good Article status, there is one section that needs to be referenced (see Talk:Papal conclave, 1314–1316/GA1), and I can do the rest of the necessary copyediting. So if the project wants another GA article, could someone please look at this. Thanks—the reviewer Arsenikk 17:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism in Vietnam

The article Roman Catholicism in Vietnam needs attention, because it is now under "attack" of users with strong anti-catholic sentiment.Ans-mo (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured list removal candidates/List of popes

The featured list List of popes has been nominated for removal. You can comment here. -- Scorpion 17:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

antichrist

I'm not part of this project, or any for that matter, but I thought I'd comment anyways. The antichrist article is in dire need of help right now. A fourth of it argues for the pope being the antichrist with no counter argument and another half or so is a bunch of quotes from people accusing the pope of being the antichrist. There is no mention of Obama or Bush as the antichrist and Nero gets only a passing mention. It's not part of the Catholicism project, but none of the other projects are doing anything about it and it seems like maybe it should be part of this project anyway. Farsight001 (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please remove TFP from Catholicism

The American TFP is not a Catholic group with the most minimal approval institutionaly by the Church. In fact, it is condemned in several AMERICAN dioceses including important ones like Miami. I am not a member nor an ex-member. I simply am a concerned catholic that knows their story. After their founder died they took wrong paths. The only ones that remained faithful to the Pope are the ones that are now a religious order well loved by the Pope, the Heralds of the Gospel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.37.211.86 (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Message

First Crusade has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OpenSeven (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect inversion

Hi, I'm User:OrbiliusMagister, from it.wikisource.

As a native Italian speaker I'm pretty sure that the exact title of Pius X's motu proprio is Tra le sollecitudini with no capital "S" and italian agreement between feminine article and feminine plural noun: Tra le sollicitudine is utter nonsense in Italian; I think the error arised from a confusion between Latin (Sollicitudo) and Italian (Sollecitudine). Obviously, before I get a "citation needed" message, you can trust this "random" site. Given this account Tra le sollicitudine should be moved to Tra le sollecitudini and Tra le sollicitudine should be deleted. Is there a reason to keep Tra le sollicitudine? Is it a commons misspelling? Well, I'd accomplish such a task without annoying this project, but redirect inversion needs an admin to be completed. - εΔω 18:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done everything's ready, as far as I could do by myself. - εΔω 18:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Catholicism/Great Britain task force

I have nominated the above task force for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Great Britain task force. Input from members of this project regarding the existence of this apparent subproject would be very welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

international relations

I just created the Foreign relations of the vatican as well as a relevant template. It would be great to get some bilateral relations here. For starters relations with the us, italy, russia and israel would do. Lihaas (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

List of cardinals

This list has a bit of a criteria problem. I've posted a question about it on the talk page, Talk:List of cardinals#Criteria, again. It's come up again and again, without ever being settled. Could project members please stop in and give their thoughts? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd note that the list has been rated as "high importance" for this project, so it'd be good to clear this up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
As I noted on the talk page for the list in question - there doesn't seem to be any disagreement about this list. It has had stable criteria for the last 3.5 years.--Dcheney (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
On a related note: when a Cardinal dies, the following is a list of entries that need to be updated: the Cardinal's personal entry; the entry for his last diocese/congregation; List of titular churches in Rome, List of cardinals, List of cardinals by country, College of Cardinals, and, if applicable, List of oldest Catholic bishops.--Dcheney (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Diocecean Naming Conventions

I noticed that the Archdiocese of Jos page was located at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Jos (which is redundant sicne the Anglican Diocese of Jos is not arch) and looking around it seems that alot of diocese have a redundant Roman Catholic on them. Shouldn't it be left off where there is no ambiguity since it is not part of the formal name? As Misplaced Pages we have no business promoting (or denegrating) the RCC's claims of exclusivity, but we also shouldn't imply that there are multiple claimants to a particular diocese if there in fact aren't. In any event, it would probably be a good idea to write a quick guide to best practice on this issue, whether agreeing with me or not, or point out the one that exists more prominently since I couldn;t find it. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Catholicism and novels

Hello, I am currently reading The Song of Bernadette and I wanted to know if it and similar novels fall under the scope of this project. Thank you, LovesMacs (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Charles Borromeo disambiguation

I've just created a disambiguation page: Charles Borromeo Church. I've added a "dablink" to the tops of the separate articles that says:

For other Catholic churches named after Charles Borromeo, see Charles Borromeo Church, a disambiguation page.

At least two of the articles, St. Charles Borromeo Roman Catholic Church and St. Charles Borromeo Church should be moved and the links to those pages appropriately fixed. Thus:

possibly with some style uniformity (whether to include "Roman", whether to include "Catholic", and possibly not, since individual names may vary.

After those titles get moved, the phrases "St. Charles Borromeo Roman Catholic Church" and "St. Charles Borromeo Church" should be created as redirects pages pointing to the disambiguation page. It doesn't make sense for Misplaced Pages to presume that a user who enters "St. Charles Borromeo Church" in the search box has in mind a particular one.

There's also the British-versus-American language issue about whether it's "St." with a period or "St" with no period; appropriate redirect pages should take care of that (presumably churches in England would not have the period and those in America would, but some of the titles should redirect to the disambiguation page, and in such cases there should be two redirect pages, one with and one without the period; similarly with "Saint" spelled out in full. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done some page moves and redirected some titles to the dab page. So I've created a chore for whoever wants to take it up: fix all the links that point to titles that redirect to the disambiguation page but should point to the one in Detroit, Michigan. And similarly for other particular cases, but Detroit is the one with a large number of links. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

...and now it appears that many of the links were from a template, which has now been edited appropriately. Here's the funny thing about templates: When you click on "what links here", all the articles that use the template get listed, but when the template is corrected so that it no longer links to the disambiguation page, and then you click on "what links here", you still see all those pages that used the template for a time that may run as long as about 24 hours. So we shall see. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI: New articles

A bot has been set up, which looks through the new Misplaced Pages articles and picks up those that are likely related to the Catholic Church. The search results are available at User:AlexNewArtBot/CatholicismSearchResult and are normally updated on a daily basis. Colchicum (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Father Damian

Father Damien is in need of in-line citations. Any help would be most welcome. -- Secisek (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Is there any naming conventions for cathedrals? I just discovered that we have two articles about the one in Providence, Rhode Island in the USA:

I know nothing about whether the first is properly named; the second follows the naming conventions for properties on the National Register of Historic Places. However, NRHP properties are supposed to follow other naming conventions if they apply, so the article should have the name that your project specifies if you specify one. Because the second one is much shorter, I'm merging it into the first and making the second a redirect. Please move the article if there's a better title than "Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul, Providence". Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Help

Talk:Bilocation#Better version. An article on a subject that is a deep part of Catholic theology is being co-opted, I'd say. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Status of Medjugorje

Hi -- the article in question is newly created and not, I feel, encyclopedic. It's way outside my domain but seems to fall into the domain of this wikiproject, so I wonder if anybody is around who would like to take a hand with it? Looie496 (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs to be merged with Our Lady of Međugorje. The information, quality not withstanding, is in the wrong place. -- Secisek (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting template assistance

I have been doing a lot of work to update attribution templates on Misplaced Pages.

I think we should add the source category Category:Misplaced Pages articles incorporating text from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia to the {{Catholic}} template, by adding the code <includeonly>]</includeonly> to the template. I cross-posted this message on both templates' talk pages.

If any admins out there feel like doing this, I thank you in advance. It may take some time for all the pages to show up in the category, due to system lag. If anyone here has any questions for me, let me know on my talk page. --Eastlaw (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability criteria for Catholic Media.

There's currently an Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christian Order AfD going on to get rid of Christian Order which is a very conservative Catholic monthly based in the UK and in continuous publication since 1960. The (stated) argument seems to be that as Catholics are a minority in the UK and that conservatives make up a minority of Catholics then it can't be notable. Of course there may be an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, but ignoring that has the "Catholics are a minority, and so their magazines aren't notable" argument come up before and how has the argument been dealt with?

I'm looking for precedents on the argument and not responses to any anti-Catholic assumptions that may have come from the deletionists.

17:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

See below - about Una Voce. It looks like we're facing a massive attack by deletionists on the articles about traditional Catholic organizations, personalities (Michael Davies (Catholic writer)), etc. Hithlin (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking for help to improve Pastor aeternus

I was surprised to find that, while we have an article on Lumen Gentium, there was no article on Pastor aeternus. Instead, it redirected to Papal infallibility#Dogmatic definition of 1870. This didn't seem right so I created an article and put some basic information in it. I need help fleshing this out as I don't know much about the topic. --Richard (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

Announcements
  • All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Misplaced Pages's announcements page.
  • Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
  • No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.
Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 21:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Our Lady of America

An editor has expressed concern about the lack of sources for this article and has indicated that without improvement it may be headed for deletion. If anyone wishes to begin the needed improvements, please step forward! -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Una Voce

The information from the article Una Voce has been removed, and the article itself made to redirect to Tridentine Mass#Opposition to the latest revisions of the liturgy, which does not mention the Una Voce movement. It has to be mentioned that Una Voce is not about "opposition to the revisions" but about the preservation and restoration of the classical Roman rite, something in which it now enjoys the support of Pope Benedict XVI.

The deletion has been done under the pretext of "lack of notability". However, the International Federation Una Voce is the world's largest association of lay Catholics attached to the Tridentine Mass, having a history since 1964, present in more than 30 countries, including dozens of chapters in the United States, and recognized by the Holy See. The vast majority of independent sources (see Talk:Una Voce) provided in order to support this assertion has been dismissed by User:Hrafn because of being linked to web sites interested in the same matters as the Una Voce movement - i. e., traditional Catholicism, though in no way dependent on, or bound to, the structures of Una Voce. This does not seem to be a fair criterion of dismissal.

I would like to ask help in providing for the restoration of the original text as well as in improving the article.

Please see the talk page and join the discussion. Hithlin (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Query re: content

Got the following email in via OTRS, I lack the subject knowledge to do anything about it but hopefully you guys do. 

At  http://en.wikipedia.org/Holy_Face_Medal
In the second paragraph under The Image it is stated:
"Although the Shroud of Turin has been publicly displayed by Roman Catholics
at least since the 16th century (and perhaps before) the faint image of the 
Holy Face on it can not be clearly seen with the naked eye and was only
observed with the advent of photography. In 1898, amateur Italian
photographer Secondo Pia was startled by the negative of the image in his
darkroom as he was developing the first photograph of the shroud. The
happenstance by which Secondo Pia received the King's approval to attempt
the first photograph of the Shroud for an exhibition was unusual in its own
right. And Pia later said that on the evening of May 28th, 1898 he almost 
dropped and broke the photographic plate in the darkroom from the shock of
seeing the image of a face on the Shroud (for the first time ever) that
could not have been clearly observed with the naked eye."
However in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/Shroud_of_Turin under
the title Analysis of the Image as the Work of an Artist in the first
paragraph titled Correspondence with Christian Iconography it states:
"In opposition to this viewpoint, the locations of the piercing wounds in
the wrists on the Shroud do not correspond to artistic representations of
the crucifixion before close to the present time. In fact, the Shroud was
widely dismissed as a forgery in the 14th century for the very reason that
the Latin Vulgate Bible stated that the nails had been driven into Jesus'
hands and Medieval art invariably depicts the wounds in Jesus' hands."
Clearly if the image "can not be clearly seen with the naked eye and was
only observed with the advent of photography" the shroud could not be
"dismissed as a forgery in the 14th century for the very reason that the
Latin Vulgate Bible stated that the nails had been driven into Jesus'
hands."  Obviously they could see the image.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Searching for Marcel Catholic Church in Abidjan

I would like to try and get confirmation that the Marcel Catholic Church exists in Abidjan, and that it has a Priest by the name of Rev.Partrick Bamba.

Help Please !


Jenny Uzzell e-mail: gorgeview@telkomsa.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenuz (talk • contribs) 15:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding project organization

Any comments regarding the structure and function of Christianity related material are welcome at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum#Project organization. Be prepared for some rather lengthy comments, though. There is a lot of material to cover there. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus

Hi, this article is currently near the top of the wp:featured articles/Cleanup listing as it is in 5 maintenace categories: Articles needing additional references (Dec 2008), Articles with unsourced statements (Jun 2008, Jul 2008, Aug 2008, Feb 2009). Anyone finding time to make improvements would be appreciated, thanks Tom B (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Knights of Columbus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Category deletion proposed

Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_13#Category:Apostolic_exhortations. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Misplaced Pages:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Misplaced Pages talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:56, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Recentism issues at Pope Benedict XVI and Judaism; assistance welcome

The Pope Benedict XVI and Judaism article is less than a month old and while has a good skeleton of sections present to flesh out, it suffers from serious recentism, apparently due to editorial focus on the Williamson fiasco. All eyes welcome with improvement of the page in mind. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin needs more cites

Shroud of Turin is templated as "within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism".
The article currently has a dozen or so statements tagged as "citation needed", which ideally we should cite or delete. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move Maundy Thursday to Holy Thursday

Council of Paderborn is ultra-stub

Council of Paderborn is currently an ultra-stub, if anybody is interested in working on it.
(Also is in the present tense, which is probably wrong per WP:STYLE.)
I will not be working on this myself. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the tense. Needs work still. --Secisek (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Help with article title needed

I have requested that the Holy Week in Malta article be renamed since the article is about far more than Holy Week. (It covers most of Lent as well as Easter.) Please provide suggestions here if you care. — AjaxSmack 00:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Forty Hours' Devotion

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Forty Hours' Devotion, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06151a.htm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Forty Hours' Devotion and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Forty Hours' Devotion with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Forty Hours' Devotion.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Misplaced Pages article layout. For more information on Misplaced Pages's policies, see Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Forty Hours' Devotion saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. Happy editing! Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ Death 12:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, may I ask why this was posted here? John Carter (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


Motu proprio needs light rewrite for comprehensibility

Motu proprio is one of those articles based on the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, and I find it quite difficult to understand. Anybody have any interest in doing a light rewrite for comprehensibility? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you not understand? --RandomNumberSee (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Bishops

Excuse me, I'm a italian user, I need a information: does it exist a rule for a "right of presence in the encyclopedia" for Catholic Bishops? Winged Zephiro —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC).

Any bishop who is "notable" may have an article. Discussions at "Articles for deletion" have generally said that an archbishop (arcivescovo) or bishop who governs a diocese can be presumed notable by office, but it's not clear that applies to an auxiliary bishop (vescovo ausiliare). Gimmetrow 19:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible rename of Portal:Pope

I have to think the name of the above portal is a bit misleading. On that basis, I have proposed that it be renamed Portal:Vatican, or, potentially, Portal:Vatican City, to more accurately reflect the contents. The discussion for renaming can be found at Portal talk:Pope#Requested move. All interested parties are encouraged to take part in the discussion. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD of interest: Category:Cardinals_by_nationality

Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_4#Category:Cardinals_by_nationality. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse: Catholic Church connection?

Re Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (recent news story in Ireland): The coverage of this that I'm seeing in the general press seems to emphasize that this is a "Catholic Church" issue. Our article hardly mentions the Catholic Church. We want to make sure that our article is NPOV and neither over-emphasizes nor under-emphasizes the facts. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Emeritus

Editing Cormac Murphy-O'Connor to reflect the fact he's just been replaced, the infobox doesn't look right. He's no longer Cardinal Archbishop, so that title doesn't work. But if the title's changed to Cardinal Archbishop Emeritus, it makes it look like his predecessor, Basil Hume, and successor, Vincent Nichols, were/are also Emeritus. The same applies in the case of Bernard Francis Law. It seems that the situation only gets tidied up when they die, and the whole Emeritus phase of their life is effectively wiped out, as for Jean-Marie Lustiger. Suggestions? Or other examples that handle the situation neatly? Bazj (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would assume that CMOC would be styled 'Cardinal Archbishop Emeritus' as that
seems the most logical title. Basil Hume died in '99 at age 76, in office, so he never had the opportunity to retire and assume emeritus status. If +Nichols were to retire without being awarded his red hat(most unlikely), he would be referred-to as the 'Archbishop Emeritus of Westminster'.
You are correct in assuming that, upon death, their biographies would refer to them as 'Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster'; the qualifier 'emeritus' would be
lost. At least, that has been my experience in reading about past prelates.--Lyricmac (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree 100%. The problem (as I see it, you may not see a problem) is:
Until yesterday the infobox on CMOC carried the title 'Cardinal Archbishop' and listed Hume as his predecessor. Which is true.
Now the infobox on CMOC carries the title 'Cardinal Archbishop Emeritus' and lists Hume as his predecessor. But Hume was never emeritus. And just as bad, his successor Nichols looks like he starts off as Emeritus.
I feel the infobox may need to be altered to handle an Archbishop's emeritus years separately from his in-post years. Bazj (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I see your point. Let me look at the infobox and see if there is a solution.--Lyricmac (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I've had a crack, added an emeritus flag, and used it at CMOC. Bazj (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
So did I, funny thing, I must have tromped on yours- see what you think.--Lyricmac (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories untagged

I am not sure but it appears there is little interest in this project re project tags in category talk pages? Have been doing some and suprised by the lack of project tags on what I would have thought were important categories. SatuSuro 01:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I'm trying to get to them all eventually, for all the Christianity projects. I'm also trying to start a category tree list, so that we can know which might benefit from retitling. But by all means tag as many as you would wish. I would personally prefer the use of the {{ChristianityWikiProject}} template with the Catholicism parameters, because that allows them to appear on the article alerts section of that project page, but feel free to use whichever you prefer. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Dunbarton College of the Holy Cross

Just a heads up - I've tagged the article with your project. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 17:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI GAR notice

Pope Benedict XVI has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Roman_Catholicism_in_Mongolia

I have done a GA Reassessment of Roman Catholicism in Mongolia as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to need some work, there is a dead reference link and I feel that more could be added to the article. My review is here. I will hold the article for a week and I am notifying interested projects of the possibility that the article will be delisted if improvements are not made. Please address any questions to my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Pope categories up for deletion

I have nominated the smallest of the categories of Roman Catholic popes for deletion. Of the group nominated, the largest of the categories contains six individuals. Please feel free to take part in the discussion here. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Consultation on renaming article: Roman Catholic Church --> Catholic Church_Catholic_Church-2009-06-13T12:14:00.000Z">

Wikipedians at Talk:Roman Catholic Church are discussing the merits of changing the article name as such.
Roman Catholic Church → Catholic Church. Please share your opinions there. --Carlaude 12:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)_Catholic_Church"> _Catholic_Church">

Expulsion of Jesuits from South America

User:Truthkeeper88 who is copy-editing the Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos article asked a question concerning the reason for the expulsion of the Jesuits from Spanish America in 1767 on this talk page. Quoting from there: From what I can tell the sequence of events was: 1. Political tension between Portugal and Spain over control of the region; 2. the general expulsion of all Jesuits from Spanish territories in 1767. Is that correct? Was the political tension prior to the general expulsion, and was it a cause of the general expulsion? Since I am unsure of the answer to these questions I am looking for help from the Catholicism WikiProject. Thanks bamse (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


"Purga" of four Illuminati in Angels & Demons: Fictitious or historical?

I apologize for asking a possibly idiotic question, but I'd like to know the answer and haven't found it anywhere else.
In the recent film Angels & Demons, one plot device is a "purga" in which four supposed Illuminati were branded and executed by the Roman Catholic Church, and the Illuminati are now ostensibly seeking revenge through parallel actions against four Catholic cardinals. Dan Brown is noted for "artistic license" with the facts. I haven't seen any info anywhere else on this "purga" and I've been assuming that Brown (or screenwriter Akiva Goldsman) invented it. Does anyone have any definite source on this one way or the other? (I posted this question to Talk page of Angels & Demons (film) a few days ago and no one's responded yet.) Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question when you stated "Dan Brown is noted for "artistic license"! : ) NancyHeise 03:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Template needs an admin to change

The Catholicism template (the yellow one, not the blue one) links to the page Ten Commandments. I wanted to change this to go to the featured article Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism but the template is locked so that only and admin can change it. Are there any nice admins roaming around here who would like to make the switch? Thanks in advance! NancyHeise 03:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Roman Catholic saints

I think it would be more convenient for the project and for readers if there was a page specifically listing Roman Catholic saints, as opposed to the current go-to page (list of saints) which is incomplete and by definition is supposed to list all saints. I think it would help more if there were more specific pages (e.g. a page for Roman Catholic saints, a page for Anglican saints, etc.).

Does the Vatican keep an official list of canonized people? Is there any kind of source like that, which can be observed for help trying to make a definitive list? 70.108.234.157 (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Mixed marriage"

A long time ago I inserted this information into the article titled mixed marriage:

The term mixed marriage originated in Roman Catholicism, where it refers to a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic. It may refer to:

In its present form, the page is a disambiguation page. Can someone deny or confirm that the Catholic Church is where the term came from? And, since this is, after all, Misplaced Pages, can someone supply a "citation"?

(My understanding is that the word "mix" came into being through the process of back-formation from the past participle, mixta, of the Latin verb miscere (but I haven't looked this up recently). The Latin origin of the word makes the assertion about the origin of this concept somewhat plausible.) Michael Hardy (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"Capital Punishment in Vatican City"

This article states Saint Ambrose encouraged clergy to execute people, but the article does not have a citation. In fact, Ambrose disagreed with the execution of a heretic by a "Christian" prince. Saint Ambrose also wrote: "God drove Cain out of his presence and sent him into exile... so that he passed from a life of human kindness to one which was more akin to the rude existance of a wild beast. God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another homicide." See Capital Punishment: A Balanced Examination by Mandery Rakovsky (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Christian debate on persecution and toleration

When it comes to the views concerning persecution and toleration, there was a very substantial intellectual shift within Christianity. Starting in 17th-century England, Christianity came to a full rejection of religious persecution and approved the concept of civil toleration. The Catholic Church, as well as many Protestant Churches, went further and have nowadays approved religious freedom; relevant for the view of the Catholic Church is declaration Dignitatis Humanae of the 2nd Vatican Council. Since this intellectual shift is quite important when discussion topics like the Persecution of Christians (which was quite often done by Christians), I wrote the article Christian debate on persecution and toleration for Misplaced Pages, using material that was already present. And now, some atheists and neopagans are apparently trying to deny that this intellectual shift ever occurred and are out to destroy that article. Help, and further comments, would greatly be appreciated. Zara1709 (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Folk saint

Folk saint has just been imported from Citizendium (via WikiProject Citizendium Porting) and is in need of improvement. Since it falls under this project's purview, thought I'd mention it here in case anyone's interested. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Religious response to ART

Hi, I'd like for one of the experts here to review what I wrote about the church positions on assisted reproduction here: Religious response to ART. I did my best but a check over or an expansion would be really useful. Thanks, Joe407 (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Rationalizing the use of "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic" in article titles

As many of you know, the title of the article Roman Catholic Church has recently been changed to Catholic Church. During the discussion of this change, it was agreed that the decision would be restricted to that article only so as to avoid getting mired into a free-wheeling discussion of all the many hundreds of articles that include "Catholic" in their title.

This is an initial attempt to identify the various groups of articles that have "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" in their title. In general, my proposal is to change all such articles to use "Catholic" only and not "Roman Catholic". However, I recognize that there might be instances where this might not be appropriate. Let's get it all out on the table and look at it and start making some decisions to rationalize the use of "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic".


Category:Roman Catholic Church

This is the top level category. I propose that we move it to Category:Catholic Church. In general, I propose that all subcategories that include "Roman Catholic" be changed to use just "Catholic" instead.


Category:Roman Catholic Churches

The organization of this Category:Roman Catholic churches category's subcategories is a bit muddled because Category:Eastern Catholic churches is one of the subcategories. IMO, a more logical organization is to have Category:Catholic churches be the top-level category with Category:Roman Catholic Churches and Category:Eastern Catholic churches as subcategories.

Category:Roman Catholic Church by country

This category has 102 entries. I propose that the category be moved to Category:Roman Catholic Church. Most of the subcategories are of the form Roman Catholic Church in X, e.g. Category:Roman Catholic Church in Algeria

I propose that every subcategory in this category be changed accordingly. Thus, Category:Roman Catholic Church in Algeria would be moved to Category:Catholic Church in Algeria. NB: This could be problematic if we need to differentiate between the Category:Catholic Church in X and the Category:Eastern Catholic Church in X.

There are many articles whose titles are of the form Roman Catholicism in X.

I propose that all these articles be changed to have titles of the form Catholicism in X


Category:Roman Catholics

In all likelihood, this category includes only "Roman Catholics" and not "Eastern Catholics". If this is true, we could arguably leave the category named "Roman Catholics". On the other hand, we could rename it Category:Catholics and leave it open to include "Eastern Catholics" as well.

Catholic Archdiocese of X vs. Roman Catholic Archdiocese in X

My proposal is to change all articles to use only "Catholic Archidocese of X" and not "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of X". This could be somewhat problematic if we need to distinguish between Roman Catholic archdioceses vs. Eastern Catholic archdioceses in the same city. I am not knowledgeable enough to know if this is a real issue or not. At the moment, there seems to be only one article of this type, "Eastern Catholic Community in Hawaii"

Catholic Archdiocese of X

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of X

Roman Catholicism in X vs. Catholicism in X

There are ten articles whose titles are of the form Roman Catholicism in X

There are also ten article whose titles are of the form Catholicism in X

Roman Catholicism in England redirects to Roman Catholicism in England and Wales

Catholicism in the Philippines redirects to Roman Catholicism in the Philippines

My proposal is to rename all articles whose titles begin with "Roman Catholicism in X" to be titled "Catholicism in X".

--Richard (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


I wholeheartedly agree, Richard. To do this properly, I think WP requires discussion on each page, which would take a lot of time. But, it would be worth it. I would suggest starting with Spanish speaking countries. In Spanish the terms "Iglesia Catolica Romana" and "Catholico Romano" simply do not exist, so to use those terms for them is to project English language issues where they do not exist. This is one approach anyway. --EastmeetsWest (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Exactly how did all this come about and how many people agreed to it? Sounds like a disaster to me.... real disaster... many people, myself included, will ONLY follow Roman Catholic issues and do not associate with other Catholic issues. And many of these churches say Roman on their doors... And please remember that we have a huge potential audience in the far east, India etc. And many of these people only feel comfortable with the church of Rome because their own churches are called "Roman Catholic church of Saint ABC" etc. If they are not sure if some doctrinal issue refers to Roman vs Eastern, they may not read through the whole article. This type of change will be a real dis-service to Misplaced Pages users.... Must stop now.... Take the case of Roman Catholic theology. Recently a single editor removed the word Roman from the content of that article with a few keystrokes. How can anyone be sure that some of those theological issues did not become incorrect" What proof is there that all that theology also applies to the Eastern church? As a Roman Catholic how can I be sure that as I read that article I am getting theology for the church of Rome and not the Eastern churches? If an article is written with significant effort over time, a sudden change may render the content inaccurate. With this type of rapid, sudden and less than careful change based on some naming convention claim valuable content that has been there for long may be suddenly rendered inaccurate. This train wreck must stop now... History2007 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Categories: