Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2014

Archive 2010

←

Archive 2012

Archive 2013

Archive 2014

Latin rite, Roman rite

Due to a current set of changes, I am quite confused by assertions of what is what, could preferably an univolved unopinionated editor please explain what and why the notions are being used. Before this becomes yet another edit war and or assertion of might is right etc... As far as I can tell there has been no discussion preceding the changes.

• [1] is an example.

For the sake of the project, clarity over something relatively simple like this needs to be clarified satusuro 01:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Elizium23#Disambiguation pages for more information. Here is what happened. I have been steadily replacing the ambiguous term Latin Rite with the specific terms Latin Church and Roman Rite for quite some time now, several months. Recently, I converted the redirect at Latin Rite into a disambiguation page, and the discussion ensued. I think if you read the articles I have linked you will find them most informative. Previous discussion is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2012#Latin Rite / Latin Church / Roman RiteElizium23 (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I am skeptical as to whether "Latin Rite" can properly be a disambiguation page at all; see WP:DABCONCEPT. bd2412 T 02:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Both eds involved in the issue - it would be very useful to see an uninvolved ed in the know on the matter - satusuro 03:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The trouble is that, in the huge number of changes involved, BD412 made the wrong choice. References to "the Latin Rite" are normally, perhaps always, to the particular church known also as the Latin Church, not to the various Latin liturgical rites that the Latin Church uses.

The trouble can also be attributed indirectly to this mistaken recent edit by Elizium. "Latin Rite" (capitalized) never, surely, means a Latin liturgical rite. There is no ambiguity about the expression "the Latin Rite". Indeed, Elizium may have taken terms such as "Ambrosian Rite", "Mozarabic Rite", "Byzantine Rite" to be references to particular Churches, but they refer instead to liturgical rites used by this or that particular Church. The Latin Church, known also as the Latin Rite (capitalized and always with the definite article), uses more than one liturgical rite (lower-case and normally without the definite article), and more than a dozen Byzantine particular Churches use one and the same liturgical rite, the Byzantine Rite.

Neither BD412's multitudinous changes nor Elizium's unfortunate change of a correct redirect to a mistaken disambiguation page obtained prior consensus. At the very least, they should all be reverted on the basis of WP:BRD.

The reason Elizium gives here for making a series of changes in recent months from "Latin Rite" to "Latin Church", namely an alleged ambiguity of "the Latin Rite" (capitalized), is invalid but, if the changes are understood as a matter of preference, they have seemed unobjectionable. However, those that produced "the Latin Church of the Catholic Church" need attention. More than a year ago, Elizium spoke of this phrase as "redundant and confusing on the face of it". There is no necessity to use so off-putting an expression. Esoglou (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Esoglou above. The changes are not necessary, but usually not objectionable. However, in the infoboxes of dioceses and archdioceses, the correct redirect is (now) to [[[Latin Church]]. The article on Latin liturgical rites was never intended here. Rwflammang (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, and that shows just how ambiguous the term is. The field in {{infobox diocese}} refers to a Rite, not a Church, therefore what was once linked to Latin Rite needs to be linked instead to Roman Rite. I have already cited discussion on the template talk about that unfortunate field. Elizium23 (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. The field in The field in {{infobox diocese}} refers to a Particular church, not to a Liturgical rite. (How could it? Are there any partucular churches in the west that are limited to one liturgical rite?) Therefore what was once linked to Latin Rite needs to be linked instead to Latin Church. Or rather, it should be linked to Latin Rite which should redirect to Latin Church, since they are the same thing. (I would, of course, have no objection to redirecting instead the Latin Church to the restored version of Latin Rite. Rwflammang (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It very clearly refers to a RITE! If it referred to a particular church then it would be named differently! Please see Template talk:Infobox diocese#Rite. Also, here are two WP:RS referring to the Roman Rite as "Latin Rite", I can provide more if you like. http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/liturind.HTM http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/chiesa-church-iglesia-19319/ Elizium23 (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your very gracious and forbearing reply. Rite, in the case you cite, means particular church. That is because, rite, like most other words, is polyvalent; it's meaning changes with context. In this context it means particular church, and not liturgical rite. Consider, in this case, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh. That dioceses is in the Latin Church despite some of its liturgies being celebrated, at least potentially, e.g., in the Benedictine or Dominican, or Sarum rites. So this diocese could hardly be described as being in the Roman rite, except, perhaprs, in the statistical sense. Yet the Diocese of Pittsburgh should not be confused with the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, which is described in the Annuario as being ritus byzantini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwflammang (talk • contribs)

The EWTN citation says blue vestments are allowed in the Latin Rite. Yes they are, but without regard to the liturgical rite celebrated, whether Roman or Mozarabic - or probably even others). In the other journalistic article, "Latin Rite" may be a way of referring to the language of the Roman Rite. Better stick to official documents. How do they normally use "the Latin rite" or "the Latin Rite"? Esoglou (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable secondary sources in preference to official primary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not think a journalistic article is at all on the same level as official Church documents for judging the precise meaning and usage of ecclesiastic terms. Esoglou (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: the Diocese of Pittsburgh example: the priests of that diocese are members of the Latin Church who are generally speaking limited to celebrating the ordinary or the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. Should a Dominican celebrate the ancient rite of his order in that diocese, he would be celebrating it as a Dominican under the provisions of Summorum Pontificum. His usage of the Dominican Rite does not have anything to do with the Diocese of Pittsburgh. Rite should always reference the liturgical rite rather than the particular Church. There are some dioceses (such as the Archdiocese of Toledo) that are biritual. This is an anomaly. Also, there is a trend by some to refer to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite as the "Latin Rite", which further complicates things. In my opinion, anytime it is clear that an article is referring to the sui iuris Church it should say "Latin Church" and any time that it is referring to the Roman Rite in general, it should say that, and if it is referring to the Extraordinary Form, it should either be changed to "Tridentine Mass" or "Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite" (the use of the latter might be an issue because that article is about Benedict XVI's usage of the phrase. I would suggest merging the two and deciding which title ought to be used, but that might be an entirely different discussion.) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, the "rite" field is and has been for some time linked to Byzantine Rite, which is a liturgical rite and not a particular Church. So are you saying that this is wrong too? Even though the Annuario says the same thing as Wikipedia? The Annuario appears inconsistent with other documents which use "rite" in a different way. I feel that it is easy to avoid confusion. Have both fields "rite" and "particular_church" and fill in the latter in preference to the former. If the rite is non-Roman then that can be noted as Byzantine or whatever else. And don't forget that {{infobox diocese}} is not solely describing Catholic organizations but those of other Christian ecclesial communities as well. Elizium23 (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with you. I was saying that rite should always reference liturgical rite, and not the sui iuris Church. Sorry if it became so long as not to be clear. Also, I would prefer the term "sui juris Church to "particular Church" since each diocese or eparchy is also a particular Church itself. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I apologize for not being clearer; I was replying to User:Rwflammang in his unsigned comment regarding the Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh. I would also support "sui_juris_church" or "sui_iuris_church" for the new field in {{Infobox diocese}}. Elizium23 (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Episcopal sees cannot properly be classified by the liturgical rite used within them. Milan has parishes in which the Ambrosian Rite is the one normally used and others in which the usual liturgical rite is the Roman. Priests of Braga all have the option to use either the Roman or the local liturgical rite: so of what rite is the diocese? Indeed, no diocese is of a liturgical rite. In particular, no diocese whatever is of "Roman Rite". One or more liturgical rites may be used within it, and it may even have stable parishes or at least churches in which the normal liturgical rite is different from that prevailing through the diocese as a whole. On the other hand, the episcopal see unambiguously belongs to this or that autonomous (sui iuris) particular Church. (By the way, I wonder if a preferable English expression would be "individual church" as in the translation of the Second Vatican Council's decree on the Eastern churches that has been placed on www.vatican.va.)

User:Rwflammang is right in saying that the Annuario Pontificio gives the official Latin name of the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh as (sedes) Pittsburgen(sis) ritus byzantini. It can also be said to apply the Italian word "rito" to a class of which that archeparchy is part. The part of that official publication on which the classification of autonomous individual churches in Wikipedia is (rightly) based is headed "Riti nella Chiesa" (Rites in the Church). The general classification divides "A. Rito Latino" from "B. Riti Orientali" and under the latter it lists (just a list, without details) what we perhaps consider churches rather than liturgical rites, even such "rites" as "Rito Slovacco" and "Rito Ungherese". These are grouped under the subheadings "Tradizione Alessandrina", "Tradizione Antiochena", etc. After that, the Annuario Pontificio gives, still under the general heading of "Riti nella Chiesa", a subheading "Prospetto della Gerarchia delle Chiese Orientali Cattoliche (Overview of the Hierarchy of the Eastern Catholic Churches), under which it lists the sees, classifying them as follows. The highest classification is by tradition: "I Tradizione Alessandrina", "II Tradizione Antiochena", etc. The next highest classification is by church: under "Alexandrian Tradition" it gives "Chiesa Copta" and 'Chiesa Etiopica". The next highest is by country. If a church has more than one province in the country, the suffragan sees are listed immediately after the respective metropolitans. Pittsburgh is given as a sui iuris metropolitan see under "Chiesa Rutena" (which has one eparchy and one apostolic exarchate elsewhere, not subject to Pittsburgh), under "V. Tradizione Constantinopolitana o Bizantina", which, as I have said, is under "Prospetto della Gerarchia delle Chiese Orientali", under "Riti nella Chiesa".

Whatever about the interpretation of the Annuario Pontificio, "Latin rite" is still used at an official level much higher than the Annuario Pontificio to mean the Latin church. TonyBallioni has mentioned a Dominican priest's right to use the Roman-Rite Missal in either its 1962 or its later form. (A Carthusian might be a better example than a Dominican.) That statement is based on Pope Benedict XVI's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of 7 July 2007 (of this century, not last), which says that priests of the Latin rite, whether diocesan or religious, may do so. Here, "Latin rite", in the singular number, clearly means the Latin church, not some undefined one of the various Latin liturgical rites that the priests use, but to which they do not belong as they belong to an autonomous church. Esoglou (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Latin rite is still commonly used to refer to the Latin Church even at an official level. At the same time, rite still has the liturgical meaning that it could be confused with (as I mentioned above, people have started referring to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite as "The Latin Rite", which has issues for a number of reasons, but that is another tangent...) To be more precise, I still think it is a good idea to have sui iuris Church listed, and then possibly something such as "primary liturgical rite". Changing "Latin rite" to "Latin Church" when it is being used to reference the sui iuris Church is not a bad thing and will simply lead to less confusion. While their are diocese that do have biritual priests, even within the Latin Church and within the various Latin liturgical rites, (arch)dioceses typically operate under a primary liturgical rite, with some dioceses, such as the Archdiocese of Toledo, having a notable right (in Toledo's case the Mozarabic Rite), which could also be noted. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This discussion began with regard to the changing of all references to the Latin Rite, which in context meant the Latin Church, to references to Latin liturgical rites. There seems to be consensus that this should be undone.

A related question arose about whether "the Latin Rite" is still in use to mean the Latin sui iuris Church. With one possibly dissenting voice, I think there is general agreement that this terminology is still in official use. This does not deny that other uses of "the Latin rite" are known also, especially at a popular level.

A more indirectly related question arose about infoboxes. Perhaps that should be a separate discussion. Esoglou (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, most of my comments above were in reference to how things should be listed in infoboxes, which probably does merit a separate discussion. I think your reading of the consensus here is right, and that Latin Rite generally speaking should be read as (and probably changed to) "Latin Church" in articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

When you come to a conclusion, drop me a note and I'll be glad to implement the changes across the group of articles that need changing. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

User:BD2412, on this point there is agreement. Nobody has suggested that the blanket change from "Latin Rite" to "Latin liturgical rites" was correct. All that can still be undone of that should be undone. Esoglou (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, Latin Rite redirects to Latin Church. I would prefer not to "fix" links to point to a redirect (or a disambiguation page), so should these be pointed to Latin Church? bd2412 T 13:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Although as Benedict XVI showed in 2007, "the Latin rite" in the singular and even more "the Latin Rite" in the singular is a correct, official term to mean the Latin sui iuris particular Church, I have no objection to systematically changing "Latin Rite" to "Latin Church" except where the result would be "the Latin Church of the Catholic Church". Esoglou (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is much of an issue with changing things to "the Latin Church of the Catholic Church", as I think it would be more precise and avoid possible confusion of "the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church", but I don't feel strongly enough on that point to contest it. I do think we have reached some sort of consensus that changing "Latin Rite" to "Latin Church" systematically is acceptable. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a problem with changing all instances of [[Latin liturgical rites|Latin Rite]] to [[Latin Church]] because some of these instances refer to the Roman Rite, and this is still a fixable situation where I can go through "What links here" and identify such cases and switch the link. If someone switches all the links to Latin Church and not to the redirect Latin Rite then we are left with one huge mishmash. If someone is going to switch back, then switch the links back to Latin Rite, because it is no longer a dab page, and when links appear to Latin Rite, then I can resolve the ambiguity. I do not disagree that official usage endorses the term "Latin Rite" and unambiguously refers to the Latin Church. I am not disputing official usage. I am telling you that widespread colloquial usage introduces much ambiguity. I further ask that the wording not be changed without looking at the articles. Many times we have the case of a WP:RS which refers to the Latin Rite, such as in the article Anglicanorum Coetibus. We must not change direct quotations nor prose which relies on WP:RS to say "Latin Church", they should say "Latin Rite" as that conforms with the source. If not a direct quote, we can link to Latin Church if this is the unambiguous meaning, but the wording should remain. So those are my feelings on an AWB job. Elizium23 (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up question. When I did the disambiguation run, there was a large swath of articles (probably more than 70% of the total) like Roman Catholic Diocese of Margarita, which have the link in an infobox after "Rite=". Is Latin Church the correct link for those? bd2412 T 03:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

There was some discussion above about whether the infobox entry for the particular Church should be "sui iuris Church", but I believe that as the current infobox stands, "Latin Rite" should be converted to "Latin Church". TonyBallioni (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I've changed about a third of them back to Latin Rite for now. When there is a clear consensus for these, I'll be glad to change them over to Latin Church, or whatever else is appropriate. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that all the changes that I initially made have now been changed back. If more needs to be done, ping me. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please observe WP:CRYSTAL

Just a quick reminder to all here to please observe WP:CRYSTAL when handling news from the Holy See. The systemic problem of putting bishops in their new posts before their installation remains, and the recent announcement by Pope Francis of 19 new cardinals resulted in a large amount of infobox fields and categories added in prediction of coming events before they happened. Kindly wait until the consistory to add these elements to articles about newly created cardinals. It is, of course, always permissible to write about the announcements in the article prose, describing them as news events with reliable secondary sources, but I feel it is inappropriate to indicate the new posts in article structures such as infobox, succession box, and categories until the event has actually taken place. I have even seen some bishops ordained before their time! Elizium23 (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of The Vatican Splendors for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Vatican Splendors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vatican Splendor until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article..

posted 23:09 7 January 2014 by Danny lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.50.222 (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of relevant discussion

This discussion - Wikipedia:NPOVN#Early_Popes_of_Rome_as_head_of_the_Catholic_Church_-_opinion_versus_fact - is relevant to this Wikiproject and was even partially discussed at this wikiproject here. Gold Standard 01:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at WP:NPOVN

Page: All Pope pages, especially pre-schism
Discussion: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Early_Popes_of_Rome_as_head_of_the_Catholic_Church_-_opinion_versus_fact

Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. Gold Standard 01:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Would you be so kind as to review this submission? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It already exists at its proper name of Syro-Malabar Catholic Eparchy of Melbourne. Elizium23 (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look at this one. Regards and thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

AfD: Neo-Catholicism

An article within the scope of this WikiProject has been nominated for deletion. - Cal Engime (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 26/02

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carl Allan Kemme. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Diario Romano

This is a very brief stub that seems like it could benefit from expansion if anyone wants to take a stab at it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that such a papally authorized publication exists in this century or even for by far the greater part of the last century. The term is now used for any publication about "What's on in Rome", as here, or for a politician's blog. More notable are the books that have been published under that title, such as this or this or this collection of poems by a Japanese ambassador to the Holy See or even this. Is a booklet that was published annually until 1908 and perhaps not much longer notable enough for an article in the 2014 Wikipedia? Esoglou (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be notable just because its publication was ceased at some point? The diario was published for a long period of time, at least since the 15th century. I added a reference to an exemplary edition from 1730 and an update-template as the article needs more recent information, specifically it is missing the information when the publication was discontinued. --Saint-Louis (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Vatican watcher

I've created a new article titled Vatican watcher. It's severely stubby. It lacks references and no other articles link to it. A lot more could be added. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a fairly narrow specialty in most English speaking parts of the world. In Italy and especially Rome it is much more common. The Italian term is "Vaticanista". --Dcheney (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I propose a redirect to Vaticanology which seems to be the most common term. --Saint-Louis (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC).

Valid bishop nominated for deletion

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valid_bishop.

I think the article needs work if it is to be considered a passable Wikipedia article, but the question of whether it should exist at all is what is being considered. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Somebody is removing images of the Popes

As noted in a discussion last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism/Archive_2013#What_the_heck_is_going_on Somebody has removed many images of early popes and replaced them with bland pencil drawings from a Victorian book from 1911. This editor often removes far older and more artistic frescoes, mosaics, and images from the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls. I can see using these pencil drawings where no better image exists, but I can't see removing the best available ancient art.

The 1911 pencil drawings are terrible by comparison: the artistic quality is low, they use historically inaccurate clothing, and the detailed facial features falsely suggest that we know what these men looked like, when in fact the details of the drawings are completely modern fiction.

The only possible argument in favor of using these pencil illustrations is that they are consistent, but it is a false consistency that erases the rich and artistic historical images.

On the talk page last year, the consensus was to revert these images, and I agree. But it never seems to have gotten done. Unless somebody feels differently, I'd like to get to work. Xanthis (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do. I only ever got around to reverting a few of these. Rwflammang (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I did several dozen before giving up - I think they are all done to 600 or so unless reverted. So please go ahead. I'm not sure the first lines, "head of the Catholic church" etc, were ever sorted out - see a previous discussion, here I think. Yes, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism/Archive_2013#.22Head_of_the_Catholic_Church.22 and other sections in last year's archive. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Roman Catholic XXX

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am calling an RFC for this, to establish consensus for a widespread change which I wish to make. Currently, there is a long list of articles such as List of Roman Catholic archdioceses and other List-class such as List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Europe that also contain information about Eastern Catholic Churches. This is incorrect usage, as ECCs do not term themselves "Roman Catholic" but rather "Byzantine Catholic" or "Maronite Catholic" or "Syro-Malabar Catholic" or, generically, "Eastern Catholic". This distinction is currently upheld well in the Category: namespace, where categories with "Catholic" in the name are general, while those with "Roman Catholic" refer to the Latin Church only and always have a counterpart "Eastern Catholic" or "[Foo] Catholic" for the ECCs. Therefore, we have a dilemma with the list articles in question. Should we bring these up to speed? The RFC follows. Elizium23 (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC

Regarding articles in Category:Roman Catholic-related lists: should Eastern Catholic entities be separated out into new articles, or should the existing articles be renamed minus "Roman" to bring them into conformance with consensus and categorization practice in Catholic Church-related articles? Elizium23 (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• When "Roman Catholic Church" was moved to "Catholic Church", I argued rather too strenuously against the appropriateness of the new usage for a work such as Wikipedia. Leaving aside my personal opinion, I fully accept the present arrangement. In this arrangement it is logical to use "Catholic", rather than "Roman Catholic", in categories related to that Church. It is not logical to use "Roman Catholic" to mean "Latin Catholic", since in unofficial use "Roman Catholic" is ambiguous and in official use it never means "Latin Catholic" as distinct from "Eastern Catholic". There should be no categories in which "Roman Catholic" is given the limited meaning of "Latin Catholic". Esoglou (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the categories there are lots of "Roman Catholic [foo]" that mixes Eastern Catholic stuff in, while there is also a lot of dichotomy with "Eastern Catholic [foo]" being separated out. So once this RFC closes I am going to seek more consensus to bite the bullet and go one direction or another. Either tar everyone with the same brush or separate out the Eastern Catholics into parallel structures. The status quo is a huge mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizium23 (talk • contribs)

If you did set out to separate them systematically, where would you put an article that specifically mentions both Latin and Eastern Catholics or indeed one that makes no specific mention of either? Esoglou (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Categories which apply to both would naturally have to be called "Catholic [foo]" without a qualifier, as exist already as well. Elizium23 (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

To give you an example of the existing stupidity, Category:Catholic bishops is parent to both Category:Eastern Catholic bishops as well as Category:Roman Catholic bishops, and each child has its own tree beneath. So far so good? Well, Category:Eastern Catholic bishops is a child of Category:Eastern Catholic clergy as well as Category:Roman Catholic clergy. There is no such thing as Category:Catholic clergy. Likewise, if we drill down from the level of Category:Catholics, we see Category:Roman Catholic saints and Category:Eastern Catholic saints; the latter is a member of Category:Roman Catholics and Category:Roman Catholic Church, and contains quite a number of pre-schism saints who are venerated in all 23 Churches! Yet we have a perfectly clean, separated hierarchy of Category:Catholic dioceses. There is little rhyme or reason to the status quo. I remember several discussions about reorganizing categories, one is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 5#Rationalizing the use of "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic" in article titles, and I am positive there was one, somewhere, later on, but I can't find it at the moment. We need consensus to move forward and I don't see a lot of people putting in two cents so far. Elizium23 (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A lot of talk, but no action. The talk you linked to provides a link to another discussion, perhaps what you had in mind. To get something done, there is need of someone like you. I think there is no contradiction between having a parent Category:Roman Catholic saints with a child Category:Eastern Catholic saints. But I disagree with having Category:Eastern Catholic bishops and Category:Roman Catholic bishops as parallel categories, treating the latter as meaning "Category:Latin Catholic bishops". As the tree stands, we cannot give Category:Catholic bishops the meaning of "bishops of the Catholic Church", since it includes two subcategories of bishops not of the Catholic Church, which may mean that we have to use "Roman Catholic". But the present arrangement treats "Roman Catholic bishops" as distinct from "Eastern Catholic bishops" in the same way as it treats "Roman Catholic bishops" as distinct from "Catholic bishops not in communion with Rome". Esoglou (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

So you object to parallel category trees, but what is the solution? Lump all 23 Churches under "Roman Catholic [foo]"? Many Eastern Catholics would bristle at being called "Roman Catholic". Split into 23 category trees, one for each Church? Unmanageable. Status quo? Chaos. What is your counter-proposal? Elizium23 (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Instead of 23 trees, why not two? Latin rite and Eastern rite. Rwflammang (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

As Rwflammang says, there is no problem with parallel categories, provided that "Latin Catholic" or "Latin Church" is used. But using "Roman Catholic" to mean "Latin Catholic", in contradiction to the Church's own usage, is wrong. That I see as certain. If "Roman Catholic" is unacceptable because of the sensibilities of some Eastern Catholics, and if "Catholic" is unaacceptable because of the sensibilities of some who say those not in communion with Rome are Catholics too, I can offer no solution for the top category. Maybe you can. I give up. Esoglou (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree about the "Church's own usage". Documents from the Holy See that read "Roman Catholic Church" for the communion of Churches are few and far between. Yet on the ground throughout the world, the distinction is common. The majority of Eastern Catholic parishes and dioceses invariably describe themselves as "Byzantine Catholic cathedral of [x]" or "Syro-Malabar Eparchy of [x]" or "Chaldean Catholic [x]" etc, and almost never "Roman Catholic". While a large chunk of Latin Church organizations describe themselves as "Roman Catholic". It is clear to me that the dichotomy is clear within the Church. I object to Rwflammang's wording as it conflates the distinct terms of "Church" and "Rite" as we have already discussed on the term "Latin Rite". Elizium23 (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Describing yourself as Chaldaean, Maronite etc. is not necessarily a denial of being part of the Roman Catholic Church. You can be both. Holy See documents that use "Roman Catholic" to refer to the whole Church are few, but they exist. Holy See documents that use "Roman Catholic" to refer to the Latin Church alone are nil. In spite of my hopes, action seems impossible and there appears to be no agreed cure for what you call the existing stupidity. Esoglou (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not mutually exclusive. There are many uses, as documented at Roman Catholic (term). I accept that the Eastern Catholic Churches are part of the Roman Catholic Church. But I propose that in usage, there is a distinction between the Roman Catholic Church, a noun, and Roman Catholic, an adjective. The former is unambiguously a communion of 23 Churches and sometimes, perhaps rarely, refers only to the Latin Church. The latter adjective quite often refers to Latin Catholic organizations and people such as dioceses, parishes, bishops, etc. I am sorry to say, but Esoglou simply does not get the culture of Eastern Catholicism or Orthodoxy. I am attempting to provide a balanced perspective, respecting the identification needs of both the Western and Eastern Churches. WP:NPOV demands that this be done. It is unnecessary POV to lump in EC articles with RC categories. I will point out that the current consensus for the naming of the main article, which is at Catholic Church and not Roman Catholic Church, is a clear mandate for reorganization of the categories accordingly. I will now notify that talk page of this discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Outside of a very self-conscience subculture of apologetical web sites, I have seen no such distinction made between the noun and the adjective. I resist canonizing the prescriptive (i.e., not descriptive) usage of such an insular subculture. It's not as if the Roman Catholic legal establishment were lacking the precise definitions needed for clarity. I propose sticking with the establishment's vocabulary in such cases. Rwflammang (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The Churches themselves use this terminology I am describing. Wikipedia would only be describing what is used universally by the organizations themselves. Elizium23 (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If Bavarians (who have a strong feeling of regional identity) typically self-identify as Bavarians, which seems to be the case, it is no denial that they are Germans. I wish you luck in getting some support for your idea that Wikipedia should classify Eastern Catholics as not Roman Catholics, but I believe you can have no hope of getting anything near majority support. Esoglou (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I propose the following:- if there is confusion between Church and Rite as suggested, why not classify the articles as Eastern Rite and Latin Rite categories. It should be noted that the title of the articles like Roman Catholic [foo] would have to be separately and individually discussed but as far as categories are concerned they can be classified by "Rites" instead of "Church". The Eastern rite category would contain all the articles which could not be labelled as Latin rite. Those which are unclear as to the rites could be put in "Catholic" or "Catholic [foo]"category. ~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 07:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wiesław Dawidowski

Dear editors: The above old abandoned Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable subject, and should the article be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

As an anchorman of a TV station, he is notable enough. I don't see why this article should violating NPOV. My Polish is non-existent, so I can't check the references. --Saint-Louis (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have postponed the deletion of the article for six months in case anyone wants to work on it. The article isn't written in sentence form, but I can fix that myself and add some sections. I don't speak Polish either, but I can see that two of the references are to the web sites of organizations to which he is closely connected. As a biography, the draft needs more references and inline citations, and a knowledge of the organizations in the Catholic Church (not to mention some Polish language skill) are needed to find the sources and to add them appropriately. Maybe I should leave a message at Wikiproject Poland as well, but I thought I'd try here first since the subject appears to be deeply involved in religious activities. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay the article is in mainspace now; I added some English citations, but likely there are better ones in German. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Questionable edits on census stats at Roman Catholicism in Scotland

An editor has been adding their own interpretation of Scottish census stats, or putting a different spin on interpretations given in sources, at Roman Catholicism in Scotland. Some of their personal interpretations may have a level of validity (though often they do not) but seem to be aimed somewhat at pushing a POV and when neither stated or implied in the sources are OR or SYNTH. Their understanding of the subject also seems somewhat lacking, for instance repeatedly confusing actual church membership with simply noting religious affiliation on a census form. Their mode of expression is often in need of copyediting or rephrasing. Some other eyes on the article would be appreciated. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to note, I've only just noticed that an edit conflict resulted in re-insertion of the dubious text, which I have now amended. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:John J. Myers

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:John J. Myers. Elizium23 (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The Church, the bride of Christ

The Church is traditionally known in terms of feminine gender. ἐκκλησία is a feminine Greek noun, as is the Latin and all the Romance languages. There is a problem with English, however. It lacks gendered words, and a very recent (Vatican II) trend was to neuter the Church and call her "it". This was corrected with the 2001 instruction, Liturgiam authenticam. Today in English the Church is officially, uniformly referred to as "she". Just read the Roman Missal. Now I asked this before, I think on Talk:Catholic Church and not much discussion was generated. However, I want to raise it anew now that I have read USS Iowa (BB-61). This dismays me that a whole Wikiproject can use feminine gender for its topic and yet we cannot. This is a matter of pride and self-determination. I can furnish ample reliable secondary sources documenting the fact that the Church has feminine grammatical gender, but it should be pretty clear to anyone. Now I wish to establish WP:CONSENSUS for change. Thoughts? Elizium23 (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Referring to a ship or the Church as "she" in English is a form of personification. I think that there are contexts where that personification is highly appropriate and others where it is inappropriate. I doubt if a rigid rule can be formulated. Esoglou (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"Ecclesia" as a personification in art is briefly covered at Ecclesia and Synagoga and is "she", but whatever official documents do, "she" for the church is not usual (or ever seen really) in everyday usage in the media etc, & would not be acceptable in WP for that reason. All ships are (supposed to be) "she", but most churches are no doubt happy to be "it" in English, & I don't think one can have mixed-gender types, at the choice of the subjects. All too confusing. Johnbod (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I meant personification in speech, not in art, as ships are sometimes (not always) called "she" in speech, but are perhaps never personified in art. Appropriateness depends on context. I think there is no need to outlaw a phrase such as "the Church and her children". (Others can surely think of better examples.) Esoglou (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Countries are traditionally referred to in feminine gender, but not on Wikipedia. It perhaps could be argued that modern American English has done away with this convention, but I do not believe that it should depend on context, I think a standard should be set (or rather, changed, because right now the standard is to use neuter.) Elizium23 (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you would normally say of any country that "her" population is X million. I see no reason to change the existing standard - while allowing "poetic" use of "she/her" in appropriate passages. Esoglou (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a standard imposed by a secular anti-religious status quo here, and not in deference to the Church's right to self-identify. The instruction Liturgiam authenticam came out in 2001 and is crystal clear about this preference. I am surprised that one who so often strives to ensure that the Church's viewpoint is correctly and proportionately represented here, is unwilling to give her support in this matter. Elizium23 (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The directive regards liturgical texts, which personify the Church by, for instance, calling the Church the bride of Christ. In fields such as statistics, about which the directive is silent, the Church is not personified. Esoglou (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Eucharistic miracle of Buenos Aires

Does anybody know reliable sources in order to create above-mentioned lemma? I'd be thankful for any feedback on the idea. Thanks a lot in advance,--Der Spion (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/St Xavier's College, Jaipur

Dear editors: The above old Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable school, and should the page be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Silesian School of Iconography

Dear editors: Here's another old Afc submission which will soon be deleted as a stale draft unless someone takes an interest in improving its referencing. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

WP Catholicism in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Catholicism for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Last call for responses to the interview questions. The interview will be published later this week. –Mabeenot (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, come on please - so far its only me! Johnbod (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Neo-Catholicism

Hi all, this is a courtesy notice that I added several maintenance templates to this article whilst on recent changes patrol. I've posted my justifications on the talk page (Talk:Neo-Catholicism#Maintenence_Templates_Addition) but I'm not qualified to truly judge some of details in the article so if anyone feels like taking a look, please do. Many thanks, CaptRik (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Cough cough - if any editors could have a look at this, it would be great! I've done some minimal work but its an area I know very little about - created by a new and knowledgeable editor who would be great to retain, if someone could come and help get rid of these big ugly tags that would be great! :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 19:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I doubt the term is notable enough to warrant its own article. It is basically used by traditionalist schismatic authors to describe conservative Catholics who are in line with the Holy See, in the context of American catholicism. I don't see how it can be notable enough. --Saint-Louis (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. "Neo-Catholicism" seems to be a word used by American (only) traditionalists as a label to apply to conservative Catholic writers not opposed to the Holy See, and that, if echoed by others, is accompanied by an implied "as certain traditionalists would say". However, I don't have the time or energy to see whether this "seems to be" can be backed up by reliable sources, and so I cannot touch it. Esoglou (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Caeremoniale Romanum...

...to be regarded as an article suggestion appearing quite important to me, yet something for the "real experts" so that I would like to bring it up for discussion here. Thanks a lot in advance for any feedback. Greetings,--Der Spion (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Catholicism At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BISHOP revision

Hi. I've started a discussion about revising the WP:BISHOP guidelines HERE. Please add your comments and invite everyone you think would be interested. Thanks! DBD 16:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church#Proposal to limit the scope of this article

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church#Proposal to limit the scope of this article. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Messy Christian saints category

Hello, I'd like to draw your attention to: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#Messy_Christian_saints_category. Could you have a look there and check if you're willing to contribute to the discussion? Thanks in advance, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

One-editor campaign

User:Robert Laymont is at this moment engaged in a one-man campaign of changing the image used for the tiara and keys symbol of the papacy and the Holy See. Is that OK? Esoglou (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you considered posting to his talk page? Elizium23 (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I considered, perhaps wrongly, that it was enough to ping him from here, and indeed the initiated campaign did stop. However, I will now post also on his talk page. Esoglou (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Esoglou and Elizium23, I didn't see this. You can revert my changes if you think the previous image was better (I know is a featured picture in Commons), but this one is more similar to the usual depiction of the keys, which is this [2][3][4] --Robert Laymont (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Madonna (entertainer) → Madonna

Requested move 8 at Talk:Madonna (entertainer).... In ictu oculi (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

San Pedro Sula cathedral and Roman Catholic churches in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala

Greatly appreciated if some of you want to expand San Pedro Sula cathedral, which I've just created as a stub. Most children coming to the Texas right now are from Honduras, and many are from this Honduras town, where gang violence is rife. It may be useful to create and expand more pages of Catholic cathedrals and churches in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. Most people in Honduras are Roman Catholic. It may also be good to create both Category:Roman Catholic churches in Honduras and Category:Mission Revival architecture in Honduras. Please reply on my talkpage if interested. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Vatican Library, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Evad37 [talk] 00:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Afd

There is an Afd on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitution involving Vatican City. Student7 (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC at MOS:BIO

I have opened an RFC on the question of appointment of Catholic bishops and the larger matter of inclusion of future jobs in infobox, list, etc. at MOS:BIO. Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Inclusion of future job positions in infobox, list, etc. Thank you! Elizium23 (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Help please, first Catholic article written

Hello all - I was browsing through WP:REQUESTED when I decided to pick a random article that look relatively interesting to research and create - I picked a papal decretal called Spondent Pariter- I found the sources a little confusing (especially on the name - is it called Spondent Pariter or Spondent quas non exhibent, different sources gave different names. Also is there a reliable translation of either?) and I would really really appreciate a review by someone more experienced. I hope my work was useful, it was requested at least by someone, and if it gets the thumbs up from you guys I'll submit it to DYK. Cheers, Acather96 (click here to contact me) 20:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

My first thought reading it through was that it seemed both concise and accurate, an assessment aided by the exceptionally clear writing. Browsing through the sources, my initial reaction was substantiated! As for the name, Ecclesial Latin documents tend to be named based on the opening line. From Walsh 1905 (page 5 of the pdf), "Spondent quas non exhibent" would be the exact opening line of the second paragraph, where as "Spondent Pariter" is the first words of the first and second clauses of the second paragraph. Both names would seem equally valid, based on the different conventions used. These appear to be nicknames, because at the top of the document is the title "The Crime of Falsification" ("De Crimine Falsi"); the nicknames are used to differentiate the various documents with this title. As mere nicknames, I don't believe they were ever authoritatively translated, as such a translation would render their differentiating function moot. "Spondent quas non exhibent [divitias]" from Walsh's translation, is approximately "Promises not Forthcoming" (literally "[They] promise [riches] which are not forthcoming"); "Spondent... Pariter" might be rendered "Promises [made] while [known to be false]" (literally "Promises... Also"). --Zfish118 (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Zfish118: Thank you for both your thorough review and kind words. I won't attempt a translation then if that is the case, thanks for clearing that up - do you think the article's current title is the most desirable one, or should it be changed? I have no opinion on the matter other than a preference for the most encyclopedic/professional look! I've nominated it at DYK now, fingers crossed - on a side note, do you have any idea how to fix the ISBN error in one of the refs? Cheers! Acather96 (click here to contact me) 11:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome :). Spondent Pariter is short and accurate, so I think it is fine. I am uncertain what ISBN error your refer to; possibly the error addressed here?. --Zfish118 (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments, advice, and assistance requested at Magdalene asylum

It has been brought to my attention, that there is currently an ongoing debate on the Magdalene asylum article. This debate is occurring with User:Signedzzz and revolves around the neutrality of the article as a whole, but primarily with the section Magdalene asylum#Catholic perspective and there appears to be no immediate solution. I am appealing to see if there are people with better knowledge within the project to comment on the situation and possibly provide a solution. I have discussed the issue on the talk page, but to no avail. Here is a discussion about prior concerns being raised about the issue, you can also see my own contribution here. I am further concerned by the tone and nature of Signedzzz's edit's and am looking for guidance. Please provide some assistance on this issue. Jab843 (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The name "Catholic reaction" seems more appropriate. For the record, the material in question has been moved into the Magdalene_laundries_in_Ireland, created as a split on August 23, 2014. --Zfish118 (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

World Congress of Families

World Congress of Families is having some major neutrality problems and can use some more eyes and extra love today. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Love probably does not include making unsubstantiated allegations on people's talk pages. JASpencer (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Like what is unsubstantiated? Elizium23 (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You simply made an edit on my page saying that I was making attack pages with no context about a page that I created seven years ago as a three line entry. This is disruptive and I want to sort it out away from the noticeboards before I have to report you. JASpencer (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop a moment to think here, did it occur to you that this was an automatic posting by the tool Twinkle, which I used to tag the page for deletion? I never intended to accuse you of anything. You were simply being notified that as the creator of the page it was a candidate for speedy deletion. I did not realize at the time that WP:G10 was only for brand new articles, and it didn't even cross my mind to check your talk page for the content of the warning. Now I have retracted the warning and speedy has been declined, does that help? Elizium23 (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does help, thank you. I've never used Twinkle so I thought that this was a drive by edit. Could be an idea to drop whoever maintains Twinkle a note on this as it is ripe for creating unnecesary argument. Even a note saying which article may have got the blood up a bit less. JASpencer (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I wonder if the Twinkle warnings also explain why Elizium is the only person posting warnings on User talk:Masioka's page. All those warnings make it look like Elizium has a special problem with Masioka, rather than that he's the only person using Twinkle to revert Masioka's edits. Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It's more like both. Elizium23 (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I recognize that you two have gone after each other, but I see only one warning from Masioka on your page, and several from you on Masi's. So it looks to outsiders like you really have a beef with Masi. But this may just be the result of no one else using Twinkle to revert (plus, as you point out, Masi doesn't edit other pages). So I'm wondering if the Twinkle warnings need to be softened, or if we need to get more people using Twinkle. I've been frustrated lately with how much vandalism I see that doesn't get a warning on the editor's talk page. Cheers, Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle makes it extremely convenient to drop warning templates but it isn't automated. What happens is when you use it to revert, the user's talk page will open in a new window/tab. Then you can use Twinkle and select your warning from a dialog and list. Yes it's true, often people who revert will not leave adequate warnings. I sometimes overdo it; there are a whole lot of IPs I have warned that have never come back to even see their warning much less make a second edit. I have apologized at ANI, and I do so here as well, for overuse of the tools in a very short period of time against a newbie. I violated WP:BITE, no question about it. Elizium23 (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Please don't canvass. This is not a neutral message and the article's relation to WP:Catholicism appears to be minimal, suggesting that the message was left with the aim of garnering support for a particular point of view. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you don't feel the message itself is neutral. I did. I also made a limited posting on all related Wikiprojects for balance; if I were interested in garnering POV support, I would not have pinged WP:LGBT, among others. Elizium23 (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Catechism of the Catholic Church citation template

Greetings,

I have developed a template to help quickly cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church (found here: Template:CCC), based on the citation style that has become common at the Catholic Church article.

The template takes the paragraph number, automatically generates a link to the online English version found at <www.vatican.va>. It also automatically formats the citation using the template:cite web internally, and also can display both a single paragraph or a simple range of paragraphs. It also automatically generates a reference name based on the paragraph or range, and will assign the same footnote to citations with identical paragraphs or ranges.

I have tested it, and have worked out most kinks, and documented a few workarounds, but I would appreciate anyone who can find the time to test it out and give me feedback. Thanks! --Zfish118 (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

For greater flexibility and reliability, as well as better consistency with other citation templates, Template:CCC must now be enclosed in "ref" tags (<ref>{{CCC|123}}</ref>), or an equivalent reference wrapper. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014 disambiguation help needed.

Greetings! The following articles relating to this WikiProject are among the most-linked disambiguation pages this month. Please help to fix the incoming links to these pages if you can:

• Saint Paraskevi: 14 links
• Saint Thomas: 14 links
• Saint Alphonsus: 10 links
• Saint Gertrude: 10 links
• Saint John of God: 10 links
• Saint Michael (disambiguation): 10 links
• Saint Omer: 10 links

Cheers! bd2412 T 20:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Templates: Catholic Church in Australia, Roman Catholic dioceses in Australia

There seems to be a lot of overlap between {{Roman Catholic dioceses in Australia}} and {{Catholic Church in Australia}} - the latter of which was recently added to Roman Catholic Diocese of Darwin. Should the two templates be merged? Mitch Ames (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I created the latter as an umbrella navbox for the entirety of the Catholic Church in Australia. The one which presently exists only for the Dioceses, Ordinariates and Eparchies is lacking in content. I'd personally support a merge of the older into the newer template. That being said, I would have an inherent conflict of interest as the template creator. I will bow to consensus. James ^{(T • C)} • 5:18 PM • 07:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

While the second one is certainly thorough, it might also be slightly excessive. The Cathedral subsection is not well organized; for instance, it is not immediately clear which Cathedral belongs to which diocese. Presumably, one could navigate to the diocese's page to find a link to its cathedral. There are also presumably hundreds or thousands of churches in Australia, and it would be very ambitious to list them all, and the resulting master template would become quite cumbersome. Thinning the list might result in an arbitrary selection. What might be work out instead could be a navigation template for each diocese, containing its cathedral, parishes, and religious orders, that could plug in above the master template. One could navigate through information about a particular diocese, and then use the master template to navigate to the root page of another diocese. The master template itself might be a bit more generalized by including links to nationwide ministries, religious orders, and the bishop's conference. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The Cathedrals are listed in order of Diocese. With respect to orders, there are those which have a Superior General, but which report to the diocesan or local bishop. Then there are orders of Pontifical Right, Opus Dei (a personal prelature) and various smaller orders. I will attempt to cleanup the layout as you are correct in pointing out that as it is, it is very clunky and not immediately clear. James ^{(T • C)} • 9:55 AM • 22:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that not all religious institutes are orders. Most are congregations or societies of apostolic life. Orders are large and hundreds of years old: I believe the last one to be founded was the Society of Jesus in 1540. Many so-called reliable sources get these things wrong. The best way to find out is by checking the institute's own websites. Elizium23 (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, within Australia we have the Immaculata Order. It's a small, cloistered order, but their constitution was approved by Archbishop Julian Porteous (when he was an Auxiliary Bishop of Sydney) and he presided over the solemn profession of vows of the Mother Superior and a number of other nuns within the order.

That being said, how would we possibly include the orders in the new navbox?James ^{(T • C)} • 8:10 AM • 21:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Synod on families

I was a little surprised to discover that there was no article on the synod on families currently underway, so I created 2014 Extraordinary General Synod of Bishops. It is very much a stub, so contributions are welcome. --Briancua (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

St. Josaphat Kuntsevych Controversy

IP 188.129.90.247 has been aggressively editing the article on Josaphat Kuntsevych, a canonized Catholic saint. After making several obviously POV attempts to edit the article w/o sources he has added one. Unfortunately the source is a polemically anti-Catholic website which I doubt passes WP:RS. Further a good chunk of the most recent edit looks like a copy and paste. That said, some of the claims may be legitimate and there are original sources quoted. Kuntsevych is a VERY controversial figure among Eastern Orthodox Christians. See the talk page. Currently I am unable to revert any of his edits due to 3RR. A look from other editors would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pope John XXIII#Inconsistent intros among popes who are also saints

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pope John XXIII#Inconsistent intros among popes who are also saints. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Interwiki links

I wanted to entertain a broader discussion here, as the talk page where this began is watched by fewer than 30 editors. In regards to Interwiki links, do people here feel that they should be used liberally within an article when the only alternatives would be no link at all, or a redlink? I feel personally that they are confusing and unnecessarily surprising. If an English-language reader sees a bluelink then he expects an English-language article on the other side. We should not presume to yank their attention to Italian here, and German there, and Spanish there, all within the context of the same article. But I will leave it up to WP:CONSENSUS here. Unfortunately the person who has added them is edit-warring to keep them in, has not responded to talk page requests or indeed ever participated in any discussion at all, and never uses edit summaries. So whatever the outcome, we could use some enforcement of it. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I use them. The {{ill}} is a red link with another interlanguage link in parenthesis. When a page is created in the English language Wikipedia, the foreign interlanguage link will not be shown. It provides more information than a bare red link. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I use English Wiktionary only. And not very often. I don't use foreign language internal links. They are confusing and not helpful IMO. They violate the rule of no imbedded external links and WP:USEENGLISH. The idea of a link is to provide the reader with more information. We assume the reader is English (may be second or third language. But we don't know what his/her first language is). Providing them with a foreign language article is unhelpful. It would seem deceptive to me. As an editor, I would rm it.

As a contributing editor, I would try to extract the footnote from the foreign language article and use it.Student7 (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Geoffrey (archbishop of York) nomination for Today's Featured Article

I've nominated the article Geoffrey (archbishop of York) to be considered for Today's Featured Article, nomination discussion is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Geoffrey (archbishop of York). — Cirt (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Style of address for non-English archbishops

2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 contends that all archbishops use the style "Your Grace". However, research proves that only bishops in the UK and Commonwealth countries such as Canada use this address; in the United States, for example, all bishops and archbishops alike use "Your Excellency". He is changing a lot of articles and providing sources which purport to support his position, however, many of those sources are British or Canadian so of course they would say archbishops are "Your Grace". I would appreciate wider discussion and resolution of this issue. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Elizium23 contends that only UK Roman Catholic archbishops use the style "Your Grace." I disagree, and have also provided multiple sources, including the Catholic Encyclopedia, which confirm my view. I have also tried to explain that while "Your Excellency" is widely used in the U.S., and since archbishops are still bishops, it is technically correct; it is also internationally acknowledged that Roman Catholic archbishops are properly styled "Your Grace." The fact that most in the U.S. are not versed in honorifics, doesn't make the error, no matter how widespread, the correct style. "Ain't" and "y'all" and "I seen," are also widely used. But they are still grammatically incorrect. I would simply ask, if any historical/factual information or basis exists to explain the curious claim that only American prelates - and specifically, only American Roman Catholic archbishops - are styled any differently than all their colleagues of the same rank around the world? And why just archbishops? When cardinals use "Eminence" everywhere, non (arch) bishops all use "Excellency" and the Pope is universally acknowledged as "His Holiness." There is consistency everywhere - but not here - and that is correct? As I said, I provided several reliable sources which support my position. But I'll welcome definitive counter sources. However, so far, Elizium23 has failed to provide any sources at all. The editor just wants to arbitrarily dismiss mine. Surely, that is not how this project proceeds? Thank you. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

While I hesitate to agree with Elizium23, I would suggest as possible sources: Ecclesiastical address, Excellency, and Style (manner of address). In all my years of working with Catholic Archbishops (the vast majority being American), I have never had one suggest the use of "Your Grace".--Dcheney (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

For starters, a cogent explanation though not in a WP:RS is here: Catholic Answers Forums. Now for the RS. [5]. Now to address the "sources" being added in support of the IPv6 editor's position. The first, Catholic Encyclopedia, cites a 1906 London source. I would suggest that this is both out-of-date and out-of-country and not accurate for the United States, 2014. Second "source" is WikiHow - not a WP:RS by any stretch; although it is bizarre that the IPv6 editor should use it as his "source" because it precisely says what he denies and supports my position. Third is a Maltese article calling a Maltese bishop "His Grace" - not valid support of calling American archbishops that. Fourth is a Canadian TV site regarding the installation of a Canadian Archbishop. Not a valid source for calling American archbishops that. In short, all of these sources are lacking, and not suitable for supporting the IPv6 editor's assertion. Elizium23 (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the Archdiocese of Omaha, Nebraska, which reads "His Excellency" for Archbishop Lucas. Elizium23 (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the Archdiocese of Mobile, Alabama, which reads "His Excellency" for Archbishop Rodi. Elizium23 (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09:, I hereby challenge you to produce one USA Archdiocesan website with a biography of an archbishop wherein he is styled "His Grace". @Dcheney:, might I inquire why you are reluctant to agree with me? Elizium23 (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your contributions, Dcheney. As I did in the articles, may I refer you to the following links where archbishops are referenced with the style "Grace": Catholic Encyclopedia, WikiHow, His Grace Archbishop Paul Cremona Visits U.S. Embassy. U.S. Department of State, Installation Mass of His Grace Richard Joseph Gagnon, Archbishop of Winnipeg. These are just some examples and they are valid, try as Elizium23 has, to attack them. I believe the U.S. State Department and Catholic Encyclopedia sources are pretty unassailable. The fact that the Encyclopedia dates to a 1906 source, only bolsters the argument that this style has a sound historical basis in fact. Regarding the claim that the Encyclopedia is "out of country," had Elizium23 bothered to actually read it before trying to attack it, the line: ""The Catholic Directory" (London, 1906) gives the following brief directions for forms of address, which, with the slight exceptions noted, may be safely taken as representing the best custom of the United States, the British Isles, Canada, Australia, and the British colonies in general" would have been readily apparent. It wasn't hard to spot. It was in the first paragraph under "English-speaking countries."

And the date of the U.S. State Dept. link is 2014. So unless Elizium23 can produce some other Encyclopedic entry, or other official ecumenical style guide or pronouncement, that post-dates mine, I know grasping at straws when I see it.

To specifically refute Elizium23's claim that the style is only used in the UK, please see here,here, here, here and here. Again, there are likely many more.

As to Elizium23's own links, they just show that the style "Excellency" is in use. But we know that. The question is: is it in correct usage? So rather than trying to play games, why isn't Elizium23 focusing on getting the correct answer - not just the one in general use? How about finding something that explains, justifies and/or authorizes this singularly different style usage in the U.S. alone - and for this particular prelate rank alone - but not in any other country, or for any other ecclesiastical rank? 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Also, while it is by no means official, it is of real interest that I found this edit from two years ago. John J. Myers is an American archbishop. But I find it especially interesting that the IPs post remained there, unchallenged, yet unsourced for 2 years, until I finally edited it yesterday. Again, who knows if it's true. But it would certainly be interesting to inquire of the archbishop's office regarding the veracity of the claim. And if it is true, what is the archbishop's basis for the preference. But that would violate WP:NOR. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD. Until reliable sources are presented that indicate that "Your Grace" is current United States usage, the claim that it is cannot be put in Wikipedia. Websites of present-day United States show use of "His Excellency". None shows use of "His Grace". What a Wikipedia, whether anonymous or not, asserts does not count. What counts is a pertinent reliable source. Esoglou (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Of the sources you cite, most are UK or other commonwealth countries (like Canada). Even the WikiHow article mentions explicitly "in some parts of Canada". I have found a couple of other references to Abp Myers preferring "Your Grace". As for the Malta event, I would note Malta was (is?) part of the commonwealth. It is also clear that the Anglican church uses "Your Grace" extensively worldwide. It seems to me that for US Archbishops (excluding Myers) that the term should not be used. --Dcheney (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• The question I asked was, where is the ecumenical ruling that designates special style rules for the U.S.? It's a reasonable question and no one appears to have any interest in answering it. The Catholic Encyclopedia, the U.S. State Department and several official websites of prelates who use the "Grace" style were provided. FYI, Malta, Singapore and Myanmar are all independent. You also noted that you've seen elsewhere that Myers prefers the style. But here's what we know for sure: we know some American prelates use "Excellency", we know other prelates use "Grace" and we don't know definitively which is correct. Perhaps both are. But in any event, it was out of bounds for Esoglou - while we were discussing this - to arbitrarily and unilaterally revert multiple sourced edits, replacing them with no sources at all.

At that point, it's pretty clear there is little interest in finding the right answer: just in getting the predetermined conclusion that you wanted. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• And regarding Elizium23's "challenge:"

You, were, saying?

Or did you honestly need more?

Now I wonder if Esoglou will at least have the integrity to self revert this edit. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I have done so gladly. Rather, I didn't revert to the invalid sources, but inserted in their place the good sources that you provided for Myers. I will do the same for any other United States archbishop or archdiocese for which you provide good sources. Esoglou (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

On a lighter note, what a pity people no longer write as in this letter! Although it isn't what I was looking for, I like it. Esoglou (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yet in the absence of any sources that you yourself provided, you removed multiple sources which I did. That's not "bold" editing. It's tendentious editing. Now that you have abundant reliable evidence that at least one current U.S. archbishop uses that style, you've lost any credible basis for questioning the facts presented in my other sources. It would be nice if you would acknowledge that as well.

And if period letters entertain you, these should do the trick. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You know that practice (it's really isn't a "rule") varies from country to country (think of "Right Reverend Bishop" in, say, South Africa, and "Most Reverend Bishop" in, say, the United States). Please excuse me for thinking that sources such as those cited in the following edits (many more could be added) are indicative of a general practice in 21st-century United States, even if one archbishop there personally prefers a different practice: Salvatore J. Cordileone; b) Timothy Broglio; c) George Joseph Lucas; d) Gregory Michael Aymond; e) Jerome Edward Listecki; f) Allen Henry Vigneron; g) William E. Lori. (The letters of Anne Boleyn to His Grace Henry lack the amusingly thick overlay of titles found in the 1847 letter published in the reputedly anti-Irish Tablet.) Esoglou (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

So, using your "logic", I suppose we shouldn't be using the Bible as a source either. Since, using your standard, it's "centuries out of date." Apparently in your world, all things must have an expiration date - even when they necessarily don't. Now if you had said that you found something later, which required a style change, that would have been one thing. But you found nothing. And you replaced it with nothing. So in the absence of that, your argument is just as capricious, arbitrary and ill-advised as... your actions. To say nothing of the other sources you removed, which - by your own rubric - were current. As to the question of Right or Most Reverend, this seems pretty clear: Most Reverend. As to the issue of the U.S. - again, using your "logic", all future sources on this project would have to be vetted as "country specific." Obvious nonsense. The purpose of the sources was to prove that the style was, again, in current use. Period. If you felt they needed to achieve more, then it was your responsibility to replace them with better sources that you felt did. It was not your place to remove reliable sources - which you never denied they were - only to replace them with nothing. That is also arbitrary and ill-advised. It also violates WP:UNSOURCED. But unfortunately, it is clearly consistent with your editing pattern. To wit: mass reverting those sources and replacing them with nothing - in the middle of our discussion about them - and violating WP:CCC - in the process. Was there some kind of fire in your world that compelled such precipitant action during the discussion? None that you ever bothered to identify. Because you didn't even have the courtesy to say you were going to make those reverts. Even when you knew we all were discussing them. That's not WP:BRD. Frankly, that's cowardice. Because you knew that at that moment your actions would very likely not have gone over very well. Even from editors who may have, by the end, agreed with you.

Finally, and I do mean finally, because this is clearly unavailing: both you and Elizium23 would be very well-advised to review WP:PROJ, as you both appear to have taken an undue and proprietary interest in these articles. Elizium23's topic concern below is a perfect example. "He's back" seems to be a favorite Elizium23 refrain, as though shock should be expressed when someone else has the temerity to contribute opposing points of view that fall outside of Elizium23's narrow and exclusionary canon. Much like the early screed I encountered about "a sedevacantist, heretical organization that does not represent Catholic teaching or the Church." As I said at the time, it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. As I also said, Wikipedia is a secular project, so source exclusions based on concerns about "a sedevacantist, heretical organization that does not represent Catholic teaching or the Church" have no place here.

Per WIKIPROJECT, you both need to be extremely mindful, and proceed as though you are well aware, that: "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." Just as you two would also be well-advised to review WP:TAGTEAM. Neither of you owns articles and your project does not imbue you with any extraordinary dispensation to act as though you do. Either alone, or in tandem, neither of you are the WIKIPOLICE.

Also, once again and not unpredictably, you moved the goalposts. You never specified what you found so amusing in your letter. Yet the moment I tried to contribute - suddenly, and after the fact - you defined the parameters to exclude my contribution. Gee, where have we seen that show before?! Regrettably, you demonstrate time and again that you are nothing if not consistent. But perhaps, moving forward, some small nugget from this colloquy and disquisition will sink in and some adjustments in behavior, however slight, may result. I don't find you to be a bad or unreasonable editor, Esoglou. In fact, I credit your dedication to this project. But I do find that you have gotten into a pattern of editing that runs afoul of some of this project's own policies. Comfort breeds imprudence. I also find that both you and Elizium23, your partner in crime, could go a long way toward being more inclusive of contributors, IP and otherwise, who do not belong to your little cabal. Perhaps, that's part of the reason why Dcheney expressed reluctance to agree with Elizium23 on the project page. Also perhaps, if you just remind yourself daily that this project is not your own little fiefdom, and working on it is a privilege: then in future, your judgment - and your actions - will be tempered accordingly.

Esoglou, while I have posted this at your Talk page, where you certainly have the right to remove it - I have also posted it here. So that the thoughts expressed will have more permanence; and may be referenced by yourself and other editors moving forward. Hopefully, that is useful. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:TLDR Elizium23 (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• WP:DUH 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor)

The search Excellency site:usccb.org shows "Your Excellency" is used. For example 2014 letter from Congregation of Clergy to Archbishop of Louisville. The search "Your Grace" site:usccb.org does not show that it is used. The search "Your Grace" archbishop site:vatican.va is used in some cases. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think there may be a question here not about the usage in non-English speaking cases, but perhaps a matter of the term "Your Grace" (specifically the "grace" part) having certain possible implications in the English-speaking world that as a matter of practice, although perhaps not policy. Alternatively, "your excellency," for whatever reasons, might simply be a matter of expedient usage in the English speaking world for some reason. That being the case, I might personally favor using the latter term in the English wikipedia as more or less a matter of course, but simply as a matter of expediency and to an extent for the apparently somewhat more common usage in English rather than of anything else. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Bishops of Csanád and Timişoara

All comments on the proposed renaming of the "Category:Bishops of Csanád and Timişoara" to "Category:Bishops of Csanád" would be appreciated here. Borsoka (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Catholic/Catholicism naming conventions

There are several articles that are confusingly named within "WP:Catholicism" and "WP:Christianity".

For instance, "WP:Portal:Catholicism" refers to only the "(Roman) Catholic Church", but the article "Catholicism" is about all the churches that practice similar beliefs. "History of the term Catholic" is further very similar to "Catholicism", although cover slightly different territory. While I do not wish to open up the Roman Catholic can of worms, I do wonder how these terms might be more consistently used within Wikipedia. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

First, the question of the WikiProject's name is entirely the concern of the wikiproject alone. Having said that, I wouldn't mind maybe seeing the project's scope to expand to include the Old Catholic and other churches not already covered by more focused groups, maybe as task forces or work groups. Regarding the article on the term itself, I am assuming it was spunout of the Catholicism article because it is separately notable in itself and maybe because it took up too much space in the Catholicism article. Believe me when I say that if we ever do develop our content on the Bible to a level consistent with that of the leading print reference sources, you are going to find a really incredible number of articles with very closely similar topics. In all honesty, I don't think that there is any real cause for consideration of any specific naming conventions here, as the articles do seem to be named, more or less, in accord with WP:COMMONNAME. The name of the wikiproject is beyond the scope of any naming conventions, although, like I said, I wouldn't mind seeing it expanded a little, and would be willing to assist in that if asked by the members of the project. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Surely not. Surely all projects need to have neutral names. StAnselm (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

No, actually, there aren't any real policies or guidelines about WikiProjects, which are officially strictly unofficial. That status as being unofficial gives them a bit of leeway. It obviously makes sense for the names to be informative, of course, and easily to understand, but not necessarily neutral. But, like I said, I wouldn't have any objections to expanding the group to include the Old Catholic churches and others, or, for that matter, for including all articles in wikipedia which have substantial articles in a print encyclopedia of Catholicism. Unfortunately, that actually is one of the few religious groups I haven't gotten together a list of encyclopedic articles for yet. John Carter (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

What would you suggest renaming this WikiProject to be? It could not be WikiProject Roman Catholicism, because that would appear to exclude the Eastern Catholic Churches. What about WikiProject Catholic Church, per the article of the same name? Elizium23 (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Elizium23: and @John Carter:: You are correct about the title of the Wikiproject, which I had intended only to mention as an interested party. I had mistakenly referred "WP:Catholicism" instead of "Portal:Catholicism", which is part of the "public facing" content. I have no issue with the group's title, which is outside of the content space of the encyclopedia. --Zfish118 (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Catholic Church might be a good name for the content portal; this would also match the "Series" template placed in the Catholic Church article and elsewhere; if this change were adopted, the Wikiproject may wish to change its names as well to match. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

(e-c) It would certainly be possible to propose changes to the content of the portal there, including perhaps a renaming of the portal or addition of some material in the rotation to that portal. But the talk page of the portal itself would probably be the best place to have such a discussion. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The start of the Western Schism-infoboxes at Pope Gregory XI-article

Before an edit-war will break out I will ask you here for advice. The Western Schism originated after the death of Pope Gregory XI. Urban VI was elected and took his residence in Rome. Dissatisfied cardinals chose Clement VII, who returned to Avignon. The popes got a somewhat equal support in the world.

My idea was to make this visible in the succession-boxes, without taking a stance on the ‘correct’ pope (see here . However, User:GoodDay prefers the official line of popes, arguing “Schism not highlighted in succession boxes of 'schism' era popes articles.” See here. Well, I believe that he origin of the Schism should be visible in the succession-boxes. After all, when a country splits in two, Wikipedia makes that visible as well. The same should apply in papacies, I think. But what do other users think? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, if an anti-pope is going to be added as a successor of Gregory XI, then one would need to add anti-popes into the infoboxes & succession boxes of Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VI, Gregory XII and Martin V, as the Western Schism ended in 1418. PS: Remember folks, the Vatican excludes these anti-popes from the papal line. That's why they're called anti-popes. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This would probably best be solved through an RfC. I can see, in some of the few cases where there were legitimate reasons for the "election" of the antipope and maybe less good reasons for the so-called "pope" that including both as successors in the succession-box of the previous pope might make sense. But those are probably rather rare instances and might best be addressed on a case by case basis. John Carter (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Tricky stuff. IMHO, the Western Schism template is all that's required on the 'Schism era' popes. Again, not sure why similar edits weren't made to the other pope infoboxes & succession boxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

GoodDay, thanks for your input, but I disagree. With your logic, we should include each North Korean president in succession boxes of South Korean presidents, which makes no sense. I would rather take an example on the Roman Emperor Didius Julianus-article. After he was killed, the generals Pescennius Niger in Syria, Septimius Severus in Pannonia, and Clodius Albinus in Britain saw themselves as successor. All three are included in the succession box. I think that is how it should be there, and at the Pope Gregory XI-article as well.

I know that the Vatican excludes these anti-popes from the papal line. However, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia; the last time I checked WP was not owned by the Vatican, so their views are not to be followed blindly here. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If you include the anti-popes (again, not sure why you added only to Gregory XI's infobox & succession box), then you'd be un-legitimizing Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, Gregory XII & Martin V. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I wrote only Gregory XI's succession box because the split happened after his death. And it is not me who is/was un-legitimizing those popes. It were the Avignon popes who were doing that to the ones in Rome, and vice versa. Look, if we were talking about the Star Wars-universe, I would comply to anything George Lucas says about it. But we are discussing real history here. The Vatican has no complete authority to the truth on that.Jeff5102 (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm still bewildered as to why the anti-popes weren't added to the infoboxes & successon boxes of the other 'Western Schism' popes. PS: Again, the template below, should suffice. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

.

(e-c)Part of the "real history" Jeff5102 mentions of who is and is not a "successor" to a position which is, officially, the leader of a clearly defined group is who that group counts as being in the official line. I don't see Lambert Simnel listed as a possible successor to Richard III of England, although as a pretender to the throne of England he would meet the same basic criteria that the anti-popes would. If we don't have dubious claimants listed in other official regnal succession boxes, there is a reasonable question whether they should be listed here. Probably the best way to get a good answer to this, like I said, would be to file an RfC and provide as much information or at least links to it regarding the matter as individuals who don't have a really good grasp of Catholic history will be able to examine all the relevant concerns and come to a reasonable conclusion. I might include such an RfC in the "Religion and philosophy", "Politics, government, and law," and "Biographies" categories myself, to try to get responses from the broadest number of people informed in those various topics. John Carter (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

In agreement. Your Lambert Simnel example is spot on. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The difference between Simnel and the Avignon antipopes is that the antipopes were recognized by countries like France and Scotland as the official pope for many years. Simnel was just a pretender for a few months, without ever having worn an official crown. I do believe that Didius Julianus and/or Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich of Russia (whose succession is disputed as well) are better examples. That said, an RfC would be a good idea.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

A Gallican pope is not the same thing as a pope. If, say for instance, China set up there own "Catholic" pope, he would still not be a pope but an antipope.

Well, would an anti-pope actually have to do anything? Like produce an encyclical which is still in effect (dogma)? Or are we just trying to judge claimants here, heedless of their impact on the church they are each claiming?

Americans once fought a war in which they elected governors when a royal governor was quite legally in residence. After the war, the royal governors were deposed and their acts denounced or ignored. Since the Americans won, their version of the war takes precedence. Alternately, we can ignore the Treaty of Paris (1783) as US-Centric and come up with our own succession chart.

If you don't like this analogy there are probably others where "pretenders" have had to yield to reality. There were not "two" (or more) lines. Student7 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that I state the obvious when I say that I see THREE lines in the chart presented by GoodDay. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Usage of the chart (only) in the bios of popes Urban VI to Martin V, is enough. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it might well make sense to raise this question at Template talk:Succession box, perhaps as an RfC, after the existing RfC taking place there ends. It generally is not particularly helpful to have multiple RfCs on the same page at the same time. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Sometimes two or more claimants can be included in a succession box, (like what happens in the William II of Holland-article), sometimes not. The question is if the Avignon Popes are important enough to be included in the succession box.

And another thing: GoodDay, why did you edit the info-boxes of (anti)-popes-articles so that they comply to your own opinion (like this one, this one and this one) before this discussion has ended? Those are exactly the edits as opposed to what I meant by "Wikipedia is not owned by the Vatican." At least you could have done was to wait for some consensus. It is not very constructive for this discussion, I must say.Jeff5102 (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I fixed up the anti-pope bios, as again they appeared to question the legitimacy of the popes-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I added Innocent VII, Gregory XII & Martin V to the anti-pope Benedeict XIII's infobox, because his claimed reign was 1394 to 1423. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW, have you noticed the name of the articles-in-question? They're (for examples) Pope Gregory XII & Antipope Benedict XIII - not Pope Gregory XII (Roman claiment) & Pope Benedict XIII (Avignon claiment). GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"Again appeared to question the legitimacy of the popes in question"? What do you mean? All I know is that you edited something, that was undisputed for four to six years. Just see the 2008 versions of Alexander V and Antipope John XXIII and the 2010 version of Antipope Benedict XIII. And now we are discussing the topic, you all of a sudden think it is time to change it? Why didn't you wait until the RfC was over? I started this discussion to avoid an edit-war. Please, don't let my efforts be in vain.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If you can get a consensus for what your want, then those articles will be reverted. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I see. So your changes will stand until I can reach consensus for the previous status quo. Quite an interesting method, I must say.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The title of "Pope" [in regard to the leader of the Catholic Church] has no meaning absent its recognition from the body that bestows that title. The group that elected the next undisputed Pope following these controversies also choose which of the past claimants recognize. Thus presenting the popes on the Catholic Church's list as the "official" Popes is the only neutral point of view; ONLY the Catholic Church can produce such a list. The external recognition of France or other of alternative Popes is immaterial. Information about the legitimacy of any "anti-Pope's" claims are of course welcome and necessary, as many have strong arguments for why they believed they were Pope. They may even have exercised some recognizable authority over the alleged temporal assets of the Papacy. One, however, cannot rightly say they succeeded as the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church if they are not on the list. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

For the most part, I have to agree with the above. I note that the Coptic Church also uses the term "Pope" for its head, so it cannot be said that the term is specific to the Catholic Church. The question is whether the Catholic Church is the only body which arose from the schism. At least in the short term, it wasn't. And theoretically the "real" Catholic Church could have died with the last of the anti-popes, with the remaining church effectively usurping the name. Theoretically anyway, and although I don't think that argument is necessarily made in this particular case I know it is at other points in Catholic history. I still think that the thing to do is wait until the current RfC at succession boxes is concluded, and then start a new one there, and, basically, put a solution and resolution of the question on hold until such time. In the meantime, of course, like I said, I would welcome anyone looking over the various encyclopedic reference sources relating to the papacy and seeing what specific titles they give their articles on the popes and anti-popes. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to "Pope" in a slightly hyperbolic manner; I could have said "Bishop of Rome" (but alas, the new Mormon Temple in has one of those as well! ;-) --Zfish118 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the same could be said of the "President of the United States" vs the "President of France." When I say "President" to a resident of either country, a different person comes to mind. An organization bestows validity on its selection. People for reasons of mischief have tried to get the President of the Continental Congress declared (retroactively) the First President of the US. But most historians aren't buying this. Student7 (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The end of the Western Schism-infoboxes at Pope Gregory XI-article & other articles

I've changed my stance & have agreed with Jeff's observations :) GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)