Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2019

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 2015←Archive 2017Archive 2018Archive 2019

Conclave participants-- thoughts

Hi all, I'm raising this here as it's been raised at WP:FLC twice now and I'd like to get a consensus amongst editors who edit on Catholic topics. Ravenpuff and I are probably the two editors most active on cardinal/conclave topics on Wikipedia. Their focus largely being modern cardinals/conclaves, and mine being historical conclaves. When I started a project to improve the coverage of 17th century conclaves, I discovered that many of them included lists sourced to self-published sources. I found this both disturbing from an RS perspective, but on top of that when redoing the article, I found them difficult to work with as an editor and as a reader I found the ones in existing conclave articles that were GA to be distracting, so I made the choice when redoing them to remove the lists and slowly rebuild them. The two completed examples I have are:

My question here is: is there a project level consensus to keep with the separate articles for conclaves and electors or would people prefer to merge. I am personally strongly opposed to a merge because I find it distracting and think it changes articles that should be about the election into a list about 60+/120+. I also have found them easier to maintain separate. While I prefer not to merge, and will engage in discussion here to that effect, I'm also open to a different consensus among editors who edit actively in this area since it really is a stylistic choice for a topic area more than anything else. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Could folks please review Miracle of Lanciano?

Could folks please review Miracle of Lanciano?

The article currently contains a number of editorial comments / questions that might be appropriate for an online discussion forum or a Wikipedia Talk page, but are not appropriate for a Wikipedia article.

Thanks - 189.122.238.134 (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

God in Catholicism and Catholic views on God

The first is a new editor by User:Oct13 and is totally reliant on the Catechism save for one citation. The second is much older. I don't think either are very good but in any case they are about the same subject. I'm not sure what to do about them. Doug Weller talk 11:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

And yet they don't really cover the same ground, most of the time. I don't really think the Catechism is a primary source in this sort of context; that would be Council pronouncements or Biblical quotes etc. At least the new one has refs, though the old one (split off in 2004 & little changed) can be said to have stood the test of time. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I’m generally not a fan of citing the CCC (there are usually better sources that say the same thing), but agree it isn’t primary. It just compiles previous documents and teachings and isn’t considered magisterial in itself. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not a theologian, so my understanding of the Catechism can be wrong. There are Catholic editors who know the Catechism better than I, I'm sure, so I recommend asking them for help. You can search the Catechism by paragraph here: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Or search for a Catechism topic here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/index/a.htm Or search for a word in the Catechism here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_FA.HTM Oct13 (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Catholic Church and homosexuality

There is a dispute at Catholic Church and homosexuality that people here may be interested in. There is a specific concern about what belongs in the lede, and also some issues around phrasing. Some outside voices would be appreciated. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Five Current AfDs

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Kao Se Tseien (2nd nomination) of ‎Nicholas Kao Se Tseien. Oldest Catholic priest. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

There are currently two articles relating to the subject of this project which are being discussed at AfD. They are Bishop Donald Sanborn and Most Holy Trinity Seminary. Interested editors are encouraged to review the linked articles and join the AfD discussions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

As of February 2019, there are two more: ALBOAN, a Basque Jesuit development centre involved in a variety of social works worldwide and also the Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice, Dublin.Jzsj (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Quality of source?

Hi all, hoping I might have some RS input--is catholic-hierarchy.org considered a source of sufficient quality for use in a BLP? The page in question is Silvio José Báez. The editor who added it is brand new and also have a COI (that they volunteered immediately) so I'm trying to make sure we dot all i's and cross all t's--without want to delete if I don't have to, lest I discourage a potentially useful editor. Thanks for any advice. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I won't comment on the substance of your question due to COI, but I'd be happy to answer any questions regarding that website. --Dcheney (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Dcheney, oh, got it! Thanks so much for replying! Well I think your COI disclosure (thank you so much, greatly appreciated) points me in the right direction--with a search, I see it's widely used, and for confirming exactly the sorts of basic details in question in the entry, so I take it it's a standard source in the WikiProject. Great. Thanks very much for the guidance and all your work! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:UGC, that website appears to fall within the definition of "user-generated content". The about page says the website is run by one man, David Cheney. So no, I don't think it is a reliable source for Wikipedia articles.PluniaZ (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe you can find previous discussions on this topic at Talk:Catholic-Hierarchy.org which contains the RSN references. --Dcheney (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both. For anyone following along, there's a lengthy and inconclusive (as far as community consensus is concerned) RSN discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_203#catholic-hierarchy.org. It seems to me that reasonable people may disagree; I personally do find that, given reliability and transparency with regard to where the material is sourced, it falls within the SPS exception for the work of experts. On the other hand, looking into this does remind me of the injunction: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer (emphasis in the original). Pretty unambiguous. So for the BLP I'm dealing with, it looks unfortunately like we'll need to find other sources (perhaps with the help of the site tho). Thanks all. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, on further review, although it is self-published it appears to be a reputable source, it just can't be used for WP:BLP. I agree with Innisfree987. --PluniaZ (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Catholic Church and Pandeism

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Catholic Church and Pandeism. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Category discussion based on non-sovereignty of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta

There is currently a discussion with WP:CONSENSUS based on a new, introduced premise of non-sovereign status of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which would mean deleting categories: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 20. PPEMES (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Priest/chaplain article deletion discussion

List of communities using the Tridentine Mass

I’ve started a discussion on Talk:List of communities using the Tridentine Mass regarding sourcing the items of the list. I’m looking for insight. MichaelTheSlav (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible consistory June 2019

Based on recent history, Francis will likely announce new cardinals on 19 May, with a consistory to be held 28 June. With the number of cardinal electors set to fall to 120 this month, and another 6 electors to reach 80 before the end of the year and 2 in the first half of 2020, we can expect at least 6 new electors, more likely 8 plus. And a few very hard-to-predict non-electors as well.

This would be a good time to create or review WP entries for prospective cardinals if you’re so inclined. Usually the announcement is followed by a slew of amateur edits. While those are always welcome, they generally contribute more when they are adding to an article that already has the basics rather than creating a new article.

With this in mind I’ve created entries for Francisco Ozoria Acosta (Santo Domingo) and Carlos Garfias Merlos (Morelia]], and I've expanded Angelito Lampon (Cotabato) a bit. Suggestions are welcome if creating a biography isn’t your thing. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

While I don't think June is likely (vs in the Fall), its also good to remember that the initial announcement (3 to 5 weeks before the consistory) does not make them a Cardinal. "Cardinal Designate" is probably the best term to use in that time frame. Details like the assignments of titles is rarely known before the consistory itself.--Dcheney (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
It’s never occurred to me to use anything in the way of a title before the consistory. And I don’t think I’ve seen anyone do that. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Just wait, there will be many premature "Cardinals" both on the lists and in the individual articles once the announcement is made. Normally the regular crowd will revert those fairly quickly. --Dcheney (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming Curial Reorganization

This is mostly to serve as a heads up. It appears that work under Pope Francis to reorganize the Roman Curia is close to completion. From the sounds of it, it will be a major adjustment with a good number of terms/entities being changed. It may happen as early as this summer lull (July/August). Again, there will be an announcement and release of the text, with a later effective date. I suspect a lot of questions won't be answered until the next Annuario Pontificio is released in Spring 2020.--Dcheney (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I see that some articles are already being updated as if the changes are official. They are NOT! The news stories are based on a draft that is being considered. It has not been finalized. It has not been approved. It has not been published and is not expected to be until late June 2019 at the earliest. --Dcheney (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Redirect all pages containing “Roman” that redirect to Catholic Church to Roman_Catholic_Church_(disambiguation)

The title is self-explanatory. I did not reach a consensus. For those that did not know I tried to do this myself and I misinterpreted a rule. Humble apologies for not asking properly. What are your thoughts on this?Manabimasu (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the reasoning? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Where did you not reach a consensus? Sounds like a bad idea. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I object to this change. There is no reason to do it. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Laicization

On Talk:Paul Shanley there are some editors suggesting we need to use defrocked when describing priests who have been dismissed from the clerical state. This is strange to me, because the Catholic Church has never used the term "defrocking" while the mainstream media loves to shock people with that word, which was made up by Protestants for a wholly different process on non-priests. WP:CONSENSUS is to use "laicization" for Catholic clergy, but the opposite is being argued by now. Your input is welcome as always! 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Defrocking is more narrow, if you want to be literal about it. If I remember correctly, there were different steps to the loss of clerical state in the past, and one of them was defrocking. The penalties were staggered to try to get the priest to come around. So the concept the term represents is Catholic in a historical sense, but it is not synonymous with the loss of clerical state. It would rather be a part of the "loss of clerical state procedure".--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Laicization is the correct word. "Defrocked" has no meaning in the Catholic Church. PluniaZ (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
In the older canon law, "defrocked" meant loosing the right to wear clerical garb. As said above, it was a lesser stage. It is not currently a penal category. Therefore, we should use "stripped of the clerical state", "reduced to the lay state", or "laicized" (there is not single official word or phrase in canonical literature). Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 08:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Clergy removed from office

Greetings, While doing Catholicism article assessments today I found category Clergy removed from office and thought to share here. I added to Marco Antonio Órdenes Fernández article (a former Chilean bishop). As additional articles are found, consider populating this category. I could not find any "Former clergy" category. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

That is a rather disjointed category - to the point that I'm not sure it is useful to anyone. Lots of clerics are "removed from office" but are re-assigned and in good standing. Currently it is a mix of folks from various churches with quite different circumstances. Dcheney (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

A mess at Criticism of the Catholic Church

Does anyone have time to look at the developing mess at Criticism of the Catholic Church? Recent edits are clunking up the article structure, adding multiple hatnotes, and then using those sections to spread the criticism throughout the Wikipedia. The structure is dreadfully unreadable, and there are mutliple sections with an abuse of the purpose of hatnotes, and it looks like unnecessary sectioning happening only for the purpose of linking elsewhere. The author should also become familiar with WP:MEDRS, and consider whether sections based on one source are really warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like a member of WP:Lutheranism has really gone to town on that article over the past month. It's a lot of new material to digest. If it's too much to go through it all at once, I would suggest making piecemeal revisions one by one until there is community consensus on how the article should be structured. PluniaZ (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't a bad article back here in February before one editor took it over and made unopposed changes that turned it into a series of useless section headings with no meaningful content. This came to my attention when one of those useless sections was linked to an article I watch; I have no intention of working to fix this mess, or even watching the article, but my recommendation would be to revert the entire mess. Because it looks like the purpose of those worthless section headings is not encyclopedic, rather to enable linking random bits of criticism across other articles, which is what is happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy entitles you to be WP:BOLD and revert to the previous consensus version of the article. The other user would then have to justify them. --PluniaZ (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with the claim that it was just one user. If you look at the edit history on Criticism of the Catholic Church you can see other users working over both old and new content during the last month. In other words, there was review of the new material, the reason the edits were unopposed was due to their merit. The recent mass revert was unwarranted; I have discussed this on the article talk page. As for the charge that the hatnotes being there merely to justify linking to other articles; that is not true. If you look at the edit histories, you can see I have only gotten around to integrating the article into the rest of Wikipedia recently; moreover I avoided adding links from other articles unless the Criticism article had decent coverage for the subtopic.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
These statements are not true, and anyone can see the article history, but that discussion is at the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
For the record, here is a list of editors who also edited during the period I was the main contributor to the article:
  • 67.209.197.210
  • 50.49.127.58
  • 2600:8800:1880:fc:5604:a6ff:fe38:4b26
  • Hyperbolick
  • 134.41.65.3 (vandalism)
  • Nillurcheier (reverted vandalism to my last changes)
You overran an existing consensus, and did so with only one supporter.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing

This situation has gotten worse, and needs attention.Talk page section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Was it really necessary to have separate articles? PPEMES (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Probably not. Mannanan51 (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I only stumbled upon this by accident; but it's nice when editors can work together to craft a coherent, concise article. Thanks to all. Mannanan51 (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. I think the article is in pretty good shape now. Thank you to SandyGeorgia for bringing this to the community's attention and to Mannanan51 for your extensive work in bringing this article up to shape. --PluniaZ (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Co-Redemptrix vs. Coredemptrix

There is a current proposal to change the present "Co-Redemptrix" article to "Coredemptrix". Not sure I care one way or the other, (although at first glance it looks like "Core Demptrix"), but if anyone does, there is a discussion started on Talk. "Speak now or etc., etc., etc. Mannanan51 (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC) P.S. Was apparently redirected from Coredemptrix in Oct. 2006. Mannanan51 (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Should Early African church merge with Archdiocese of Carthage?

Please consider Talk:Early African church. PPEMES (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Catholic Church, Catholicism, Independent Catholicism

I for one take for granted that if Catholicism redirects to Catholic Church and List of Christian denominations by number of members mirrors the state of affairs in a certain fashion, then shouldn't this be taken into account in other places, such as templates? However, opinions seem to differ. For exampe, some dissonance in terms of WP:CONSENSUS is indicated by edits such as this one. At that talk page, WP:BURDEN attributions are mutual. Moving on, an equivalent question would also pertain to the category tree - Category:Catholicism, Category:Catholic Church. It may be either way, but I'm mostly inquiring about the consistency. PPEMES (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you rephrase your question? It's not clear what you are asking. --PluniaZ (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I think PPEMES is referring to a particular difficulty in using the term "Catholic" to refer to non-Roman Catholic-recognized churches, now that we've made the switch from Roman Catholic to Catholic in most things. (One exception to this of course being the names of the Archdioceses, which are labeled Roman Catholic so we don't confuse them with Old Catholic or Anglican entities.) I don't see much of an issue with what PPEMES appears to be asking to do; the term Catholic can be complemented with Roman/Old/Liberal whenever there is a compelling reason to. These situations rarely come up because we don't often deal with both Roman and non-Roman Catholicism in the same template or article. When that is the case, yes, you must clarify which church you are talking about as "Catholic" alone is too ambiguous. You do not need to ask permission to do so. Also, there may be some templates and articles that have not been corrected from the "Roman Catholic" days, but no one needs to ask permission to fix them.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Priest's article up for deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fr_Dominic_Valanmanal--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Catholic Church and homosexuality

There is an effort underway to bring Catholic Church and homosexuality up to Good Article status. You are invited to participate. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Regina Caeli or Regina Coeli

There is a discussion about what to call this hymn. Please contribute to Talk:Regina Coeli. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

LifeSiteNews as a reliable source

A discussion is currently taking place at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_LifeSiteNews regarding the reliability of LifeSiteNews as a source for Wikipedia articles. --PluniaZ (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Biography of Theodore McCarrick

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Theodore McCarrick that may be of interest to this community. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

New article request

There are 11 Wikipedia articles that mention the Primacy of conscience. Most are Catholic, although some could be more general. At least one claims this is a Catholic concept. I am of the opinion someone here should start an article about it. I don't know much about it, having come across the term today for the first time, but it is not the same as Conscience clause (medicine).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking into this more, one use of this seems to be employed by the the Winnipeg Statement. So possibly this is more of a dissident or Reform Catholic thing.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Google ngram viewer results for this phraseEpiphyllumlover (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at Catholic Church and Pandeism?

It seems like Catholic Church and Pandeism could probably use the attention of some experts in Catholicism. It seems to rely very heavily on the opinions of a single source (the writings of Max Bernhard Weinstein), and a few brief mentions in others, who may not even be using the word to refer to a consistent concept. I already trimmed what looked like some obvious WP:SYNTH issues from it (combining mentions deism and pantheism to imply a statement about "pandeism"). I would appreciate if someone more knowledgable than I could take a look. Thanks. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I am of the opinion the article is good as is, but as the term is modern there is obviously a perspective involved in the history of it all. (Of course, "Abrahamic monotheist" is also a modern term, back-applied to the history of various faiths.) There is some overlap with Catholicism and Deism. It is not the same as pantheism, pan-deism refers to an interfaith or ecumenical aspect of deism.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
That article is a joke and should be deleted. Epiphyllumlover, frankly it seems like you are doing your best to insert Catholic bashing all over Wikipedia. Why do you frequent this project page when you are not a member, but are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Lutheranism? --PluniaZ (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Objection to creation of recent categories regarding the sexual abuse crisis

USER:PPEMES has created several new categories today that I find objectionable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ecclesiastical_passivity_to_Catholic_sexual_abuse_cases

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ecclesiastical_response_to_Catholic_sexual_abuse_cases

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cardinals_convicted_of_sexual_abuse

The first has a biased title and should be immediately deleted.

The second is duplicative of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Curial_response_to_Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_scandals and adds nothing that isn't already there.

The third category has only one entry, and thus isn't a category. --PluniaZ (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Ecclesiastical_passivity_to_Catholic_sexual_abuse_cases was intended to offer a more precise way of reflecting article content otherwise equivalent as seen in its parent category Category:Sexual abuse cover-ups, which has been around as such since 2014. To exemplify, Catholic Archdiocese of Boston sex abuse scandal and Sexual abuse scandal in Springfield in Massachusetts diocese could better be categorised in a more precise Catholic Church cover-up category rather than in the general Category:Sexual abuse cover-ups. As for instance Angelo Sodano, would you rather have the article categorised simply in Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals (generically reflecting its article content), or something at least a litte bit more precise? If you have suggestions of better wording for Category:Ecclesiastical_passivity_to_Catholic_sexual_abuse_cases and/or for Category:Ecclesiastical_response_to_Catholic_sexual_abuse_cases, feel free. Other than that, it might has been more convenient for third-party users to evaluate the categories in question should you have left the categorisation of them as created for category context. Now you stripped them to orphan categories. PPEMES (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
We already have a category for Catholic sexual abuse scandals: Category:Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_scandals. Pages involving the hierarchy can be included under the existing category: Category:Curial_response_to_Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_scandals. --PluniaZ (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Adding "alleged" to the beginning of the Ecclesiastical_passivity_to_Catholic_sexual_abuse_cases would be an improvement. Another thing is, who is going to maintain these categories? If PPEMES can find some supporters who can take ownership of the categories and properly maintain them when she is gone from Wikipedia, I would feel better about this. I am not convinced these and similar categories are properly maintained as it is. (PluniaZ knows that I've spent quality time looking for Catholic-related news and controversies on Wikipedia--My opinion there is still work to be done for anyone who has hours to kill and is good with categories. The exhaustive way to find things now is by searching for words and phrases on the search engine. The categories are incomplete. I am not currently intending to complete them.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Totally unnecessary, and the first is wildly problematic. How do you decide who's "passive"? It would require testing each entry to determine what someone knew when, and if they were "passive" or simply did not yet have enough to make a viable case. -Or, in the alternative, given how far back these claims go, did they understand it primarily as some treatable aberrational illness. (In at least a few cases, I think doctors cleared some individuals to go back to work!) -And I doubt any editor here is qualified to assess that. Adding "alleged" does not help. Manannan67 (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Are there two separate discussions going on, one here and one at "speedy"?Manannan67 (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I suggest that categories based on some conviction are also somewhat premature, in that in almost every case the defendant is likely to appeal. What then happens if the conviction is overturned? This gets back to the issue of "maintenance" raised above. Manannan67 (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
You are absolutely right that you don't really know, that is what the word alleged means anyway. This could depreciate notability, but it seems that WP covers a lot of "alleged" in articles. Not so much in categories.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion over moving Outline of Catholic canon law to draft

User:CanonLawJunkie/Outline of Catholic canon law was moved to draft, and there is a discussion about this choice at User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archive 25#Outline of Catholic canon law.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You are not a member of this project. You are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Lutheranism. Why do you keep posting here? --PluniaZ (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Theodore Edgar McCarrick RfC

A notification was posted about this same disagreement earlier, but there is an RfC currently open at the Theodore Edgar McCarrick article concerning the possible restoration of three disputed paragraphs that have been removed from the article. I invite interested editors to participate in order to help find a consensus. Display name 99 (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Link to the discussion: Talk:Theodore_Edgar_McCarrick#RfC_about_three_disputed_paragraphs. --PluniaZ (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move: Mass of Paul VI

Please see the WP:RM discussion at Talk:Mass of Paul VI#Requested move 27 June 2019. Elizium23 (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Bizarre merge discussion at Talk:Holy See

Look I think need some eyes at Talk:Holy See, who are proposing the merger of Diocese of Rome and Holy See. I find the arguments made such as the two are the same thing, so it does not make sense for the two to have separate articles which is clearly wrong. Also one editor is currently blocked, and another made their first edit there (User:Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite). All said I find it a bit bizarre and suspicious. If anyone like to have a look it would be appreciated. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Innocent Guz & Draft:Francis A. Arlinghaus

I rescued Draft:Innocent Guz from G13 deletion the other day. The subject appears to be Józef Innocenty Guz, a redlink in 108 Martyrs of World War II. Perhaps someone here would care to adopt the draft? ETA: Draft:Francis A. Arlinghaus might be of interest here too; he was associated with University of Detroit Mercy and served as president of the American Catholic Historical Association; it might have been submitted by a relative. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Greetings Espresso Addict - For both articles, I did some structural additions & created talk pages. Sometimes that will attract additional help. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, JoeHebda! Do you think either of the subjects is notable? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

A highly biased anti-Catholic article has just been created

An article purportedly about "Scandals of the Catholic Church" was created 2 days ago here:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_of_the_Catholic_Church

Its tone blatantly violates NPOV throughout the article. The article warrants high attention from this community. --PluniaZ (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I've tagged it and left a note on its talk page. It's so bad it might be a case for WP:TNT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I've proposed a merge - see Talk:Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church#Merge_from_List_of_scandals_of_the_Catholic_Church. But only the bits without mistakes. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Even though I created a similar page under Criticism of the historical Catholic Church (see above), I have to agree that the tone is non-NPOV, and that merging is the right thing to do here. To be fair to the creator of the new article, one editor suggested I create a list-version of the entire Criticism page at one point in the earlier discussion on the Talk:Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church page, so this article conceivably was created due to this unresolved suggestion (as I had never attempted it). If the article creator wanted to redo this list-style article removing the non-NPOV and used a different title, I might support it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, same guy: Persecution of Christians by Christians. A list of links. Someone else can take that on. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeeeah, that doesn't seem helpful (nor does the cited source in the lede appear to support the patently ridiculous statement). I can see that it could be something that could exist as either a) an article (with a source-supported organization/narrative and explication) or b) a category (I was expecting this to just be something that would diffuse an existing category, but surprisingly I don't see the relevant items categorized as religious discrimination or whatever), but obviously even in that case the nonsense would need to be removed (suuuuure the leggi raziali were about persecuting evangelicals; some of these were primarily political or military events that happened to have a religious divide, rather than persecution of one side by another, and we wouldn't have said the persecution went the other way had the other side won). We wouldn't really be losing anything in nuking it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Two categories under discussion

Participants of this WikiProject may be interested in reviewing three interrelated discussions on categories: Category talk:Catholic organizations, Category talk:Catholic denominations, and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_23#Category:Buildings_and_structures_of_the_Catholic_Church. PPEMES (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding deletions of trivial portrait photos in infoboxes of popes

Please be invited to: User_talk:Surtsicna#Please,_listen. PPEMES (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Relevant RFC

Is the addition to Catholic Church and homosexuality, of a statement to the effect that the Catholic Church believes that homosexual orientation can mitigate the sin of gay sex, appropriate? Please join the RFC here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Donald Wuerl RfC

There is an RfC open at the article for Donald Wuerl, the Archbishop Emeritus of Washington D.C., over whether or not content detailing his purported knowledge of sexual misconduct by Theodore McCarrick, should be included in the article.Here is a link to the discussion in case anyone is interested. Display name 99 (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

RM of interest

There is a requested move at Talk:Roman Colleges which could benefit from additional input. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

There appears to be some impression that "Roman" = "Pontifical", which I do not think is entirely accurate. Manannan67 (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Saints infobox

There is a proposal here [1] to merge the saints infobox w religious biography infobox. Thoughts, comments....? Manannan67 (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place at Talk:James_Martin_(priest,_born_1960)#Wikipedia_should_not_repeat_the_attacks_of_homophobic_bigots

This community may be interested in the discussion taking place at Talk:James_Martin_(priest,_born_1960)#Wikipedia_should_not_repeat_the_attacks_of_homophobic_bigots. --PluniaZ (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussions of interest

There are a number of discussions on Talk:James Martin (priest, born 1960) which may be of interest to the members of this group, in particular this RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Interrelated top categories and talks

Scopes, definitions, taxonomy, and raison d'être remain uncertain for the below categories:

A few questions:

  1. If Catholicism redirects to Catholic Church, what about raison d'être for Category:Catholicism?
  2. If Catholic denomination redirects to Catholic Church, what about raison d'être for Category:Catholic denominations?
  3. Should Category:Catholicism be categorised in Category:Catholic Church?
  4. Should Category:Catholic denominations be categorised in Category:Catholic Church?

PPEMES (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Interest on Category:LGBT Roman Catholic bishops

There is a discussion that may be of interest to this community at Category_talk:LGBT_Roman_Catholic_bishops. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It might be better to discuss in the parent category: Category_talk:LGBT_Roman_Catholic_clergy#Concerns_with_this_category --PluniaZ (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a proper venue called; Wikipedia:Categories for discussion for a discussion of deletion, merger etc..--Mark Miller (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Project coordination between projects for content dispute and LGBT label of Catholic Priest/s

Would it interest anyone here to coordinate between this project and Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies in order to help possibly form a consensus on disputed content at Theodore Edgar McCarrick that has become stuck. DRN may not be possible at the moment and perhaps this outreach between groups might at least move a stalemate. A copy of this message will be placed at the other project. Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Mark Miller, you misunderstand the nature of the dispute. The editors are not disputing whether McCarrick is LGBT. Epiphyllumlover (talk · contribs) made that edit recently, but it is unrelated to the content dispute that was brought to DRN. McCarrick has not publicly self-identified as LGBT, so in accordance with Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Sexuality, he simply cannot be placed in that category. --PluniaZ (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I am familiar with the content dispute. Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am listed at this project as an inactive member under my old account User:Amadscientist.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Well you mischaracterized it. We are not disputing the LGBT label. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
This is the second time you have made that accusation. Again, I have not characterized this at all. WP:ANI is thataway. Aloha.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
In the title of this section, you wrote, "content dispute over LGBT label of Catholic Priest/s". We are not disputing the LGBT label. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Good catch. That is meant to say "...and LGBT label of Catholic Priest/s" because you have the dispute as you have gone to three LGBT categories in an attempt to begin discussions and it all apears to be related for you at least.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I understand now. They are actually separate disputes, and the label issue isn't really a dispute anymore as I have read the relevant Wikipedia policy at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Sexuality and have amended the list of persons in those categories accordingly. If anyone objects to the changes I made, then we'll have a dispute! --PluniaZ (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Cool. And I don't have a problem with you just trying to advance resolution. I have no opinion of the content dispute either way.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Cardinal-Designates

Just a friendly reminder, Cardinal-Designates do not become Cardinals until the ceremony on 5 Oct 2019. It is appropriate to note the honor on their personal pages, but not on the main Cardinal pages. Titular titles will not be known until 5 Oct 2019. --Dcheney (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite

Hello, I have just become aware that Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite was redirected to Tridentine Mass. As anyone who knows the EF should realize, this is inadequate treatment, because the EF involves the celebration of all seven sacraments, not merely the Mass alone. I suggest we revisit this discussion, and improve coverage of the EF, as regards the implementation of Summorum Pontificum and Ecclesia Dei. Elizium23 (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

RfD of interest to this WikiProject

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 22#Laicization regarding a number of redirects within the scope of this WikiProject. Interested editors are invited to participate. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of devotees of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux

Some input, whatever it may be, would be appreciated.4meter4 (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

RM on changing article name from "Sacrament of Penance"

The proposal is to change the name of this article to "Sacrament of Reconciliation". the name which was given it by its original author and which agrees much better with the history of the sacrament as detailed in the article, or to Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation. Jzsj (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Holy Family Cathedral, Orange

The Wikipedia page for Holy Family Cathedral in Orange, California has been changed to Holy Family Church (Orange, California), but I can find no evidence that that change has been made. I am well aware that the former Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove has been renovated by the diocese and dedicated as Christ Cathedral in July. In such instances it is typical for the former cathedral to be renamed is some fashion "(Patron Name) Old Cathedral", "(Patron Name) Proto-cathedral", or "(Patron Name) Church". I know there are examples of each. The Diocese of Trenton (USA) recently added a co-cathedral in Freehold Township and the diocese's name didn't change, while the Diocese of Winona (USA) recently did the same and changed their name to Winona-Rochester. I realize there are different ways of dealing with the same or similar situations. My larger question is, does anyone know if the status of Holy Family in Orange has changed, and if so, is there a source that reports the change? The article's talk page has begun a discussion. Farragutful (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

Please see Talk:Jubilee (Christianity). (Maybe it should just go back to Holy Year.) Manannan67 (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there a "Time Lock" feature on Wiki?

Is there a way to "time lock" a wiki article? I'm looking at the John Henry Newman edit wars. Many are about changing him from "Blessed" to "Saint" and back again. We know for a fact when the ceremony is scheduled in Rome (at 10:15am local time on Sun 13 Oct 2019). Is there a way to disable edits (barring truly relevant new info) until then? (Such a feature would also be useful for new cardinals, upcoming bishop consecrations, etc.) --Dcheney (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:RFPP can be approached if vandalism/disruption is current. WP:THEWRONGVERSION applies here. Elizium23 (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Eyes on Taylor Marshall

Reports are that a Vatican IP address has been editing this article to POV push. Additional eyes would be appreciated. shoy (reactions) 15:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

There's definitely been a spate of disruptive editing. I've protected the page for two days, but additional eyes would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed article move

Please see the suggested renaming of Vatican Secret Archives. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move: Jonathan Morris (priest)

Jonathan Morris (priest) → Jonathan Morris (commentator). Please discuss: Requested move 29 October 2019. This is part of a larger question of what to do with his page; he's clearly no longer presenting himself as a priest, but we may not ever know when/if he's been "officially" laicized unless he chooses to make that information public. Jdcompguy (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for input on Featured Article Candidate

Any and all comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles H. Stonestreet/archive2. Stonestreet was a prominent Jesuit in the 19th century and the president of Georgetown University. Ergo Sum 17:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 23 October 2019

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

The result of the move request was: No opinions stated. I would like to see a firm consensus before moving a WikiProject. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism → Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholic Church – Now that Portal:Catholic Church has been renamed accordingly recently (see Portal talk:Catholic Church), should we evaluate this here again? PPEMES (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Today's article for improvement: St. Peter's Basilica

I have proposed that St. Peter's Basilica be added to the Today's articles for improvement list. The nomination is here. Input as to whether it should be listed would be appreciated. Ergo Sum 03:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Edits

Hello, I have become aware of a new editor, Lucs Rossi (talk · contribs), as well as 51.171.241.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who appear to have an axe to grind, and are employing copyright violation to load up articles with negative material. More eyes appreciated. Elizium23 (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, can you please provide examples of how I have an axe to grind and am employing copyrigjt violation? All edit and additional that I have provided are content fully supported by reputable sources. Just because you disagree with the content does not mean it isn’t factual, accurate and appropriate to be included.

Reminder: CatholicHierarchy.org is a reliable source

It often comes up whether www.catholic-hierarchy.org is a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. This question was discussed extensively, and the community's consensus is that it can be used. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_203#catholic-hierarchy.org

--PluniaZ (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move: Sacred Heart Preparatory (Atherton, California) to Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton

A request for comments has been posted on the Sacred Heart Preparatory talk page. Please add your thoughts, if you can. Ottoump (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Status of Underground Catholic Churches in China

This is a topic neglected in the Underground church article. What formal status do the underground churches have? In England, there was a formal structure for many years, even though Catholicism was illegal. Is there a similar mechanism in China? Are they recognized as dioceses? Are bishops given titular sees? It is a missionary territory? –Zfish118⋉talk 17:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure you will find any WP:RS on this. Inquiries about the underground church are usually turned down flat by people in the know, because this kind of knowledge is what gets people imprisoned, tortured, murdered. Elizium23 (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
There was an attempt to regularize the situation a few years ago, but little obvious progress since then. In general, Rome still recognizes the structures as they were in 1948 or so. --Dcheney (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Austin Anthony Vetter & Austin A. Vedder

Two pages, Austin Anthony Vetter & Austin A. Vedder, clearly both refer to the same individual who was recently consecrated bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Helena. Issue is I have no idea which page should be merged to which, as it is unclear what the target should be. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Added merge tags. Austin Anthony was created only the day before, but has one less tag, and one more citation. Also more complete name to avoid any confusion. Manannan67 (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Unless the RS are unanimously referring to him by middle name, the final page name should be Anthony Vedder because no dab is needed. Elizium23 (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not so sure, usually the middle names of American bishops are included in the article titled, such as Alexander King Sample, Raymond Leo Burke, Edward Bernard Scharfenberger, etc. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
No, we've been moving away from that, per WP:MIDDLE: Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised. Elizium23 (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Emeritus

Some may find interesting the discussion of whether or not Richard Joseph Malone, until recently Bishop of Buffalo, should be identified as Bishop emeritus. At Talk:Richard Joseph Malone. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Establishment dates

Invokingvajras (talk · contribs) has been sifting through the categories and adding "Christian organizations established in 19xx". It makes me wonder: what do we consider the establishment date of an (arch)diocese? Especially if it has been elevated from, e.g. an vicarate apostolic. Is it the establishment date of the first jurisdiction or the most recent? In the case of Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels (Los Angeles) it's labeled 2002, but really now, the cathedral parish is a pre-existing establishment, but here's the catch, in L.A. its territory was moved. So was it established with the edifice dedication, or before? And so on, and so forth: Is there a standard we follow here? Is it documented anywhere? Should we hammer out a standard consensus going forward? I hope it can be uniformly applied. Elizium23 (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

James Martin

Thucyd is using the James Martin (priest, born 1960) page as a platform to air criticisms from the ultra-conservative wing of the Church. His latest edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Martin_%28priest%2C_born_1960%29&type=revision&diff=929966328&oldid=928359867) may as well just be an advertisement for Father Dwight Longenecker's blog. Can a fresh pair of eyes please look at this and help restore WP:NPOV? --PluniaZ (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

No succession for auxiliary bishops

Hi, I have begun removing "succession boxes" from auxiliary bishop articles. There is no meaningful succession and no particular office an auxiliary holds in any particular diocese, so there is no reason to tag them with information-free "succession boxes". If anyone has an objection, I'd be happy to hear it, but I'd rather that we begin to remove them from the majority of auxiliary-bishop articles so that we free up some space at the bottom. It's valuable real estate! Elizium23 (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move_2

There is a requested move at Talk:Ursuline Sisters Daughters of Mary Immaculate that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help! PI Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent cases involving the denial of Holy Communion

Two recent cases involving the public denial of Holy Communion have made the news. I thought the best article in which to include them is Canon 915. Please see my recent edition there. Thucyd - this may be of interest to you. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Dean of the College of Cardinals

Today Pope Francis accepted the resignation of Cardinal Sodano from that position and using a Motu proprio he adjusted the office. It will still be elected by and from the Cardinal-Bishops but now for a 5 year term (renewable by the Pope) instead of indefinite. Note that is only for the Dean, no effect on the Vice-Dean/Sub-Dean. I've made a couple of quick changes in the relevant articles, but they need some more work. We should have the name of the new Dean in the next week or two (the holidays may slow down the process).--Dcheney (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Blue Army

Both Rome and the article agree that this is the former name of the WFA. WFA is accurate; BA may be more common (in America). What is anybody's preference? Please see Talk:Blue Army of Our Lady of Fátima. Thanking you in advance for your kind attention to this matter. Manannan67 (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

More requested moves

  1. Talk:Latin Catholic Archdiocese of Beijing#Requested move 12 December 2019
  2. Talk:Latin Catholic Archdiocese of Baghdad#Requested move 14 December 2019 Elizium23 (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Update: We could use more feedback on the Baghdad article. Its move request was just relisted. Jdcompguy (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism/Archive_2019&oldid=1045694190"