Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

vote for Moses to become a featured article

Vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moses so as too get Moses into a featured article Java7837 23:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Sacraments_of_the_Catholic_Church#Requested_move

There is a survey to determine whether to move Sacraments of the Catholic Church. You are invited to review this survey. --WikiCats 09:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was moved without process, and all I asked was for a revert. It seems strange that some people have a move now, poll later attitude. But if the poll supports the out of process move, so be it. I'd just urge editors in the future to poll first, move later.--Andrew c 13:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Move Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church

There is a vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church: A Vote on the Title of this Article on moving Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. You are invited to review it. --WikiCats 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

RCC vs. CC

  • Talk:Roman Catholic Church - should the article's name be changed to simply "Catholic Church". This debate has been going on for months now, and a vote/comment is underway. There are policy/guideline issues, and disambiguity and POV issues on both sides. Please, if you have the time, take a few minutes to review the past discussions and weigh in. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 16:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to resolve the Catholic/Roman Catholic debate

So far as I can determine, there are at least six archived pages of talk relating to the proper name of the page for the Catholic Church headed by the Pope. It is hard to imagine that this so-far endless discussion has not resulted in bad feelings on all sides. Regretably, no final resolution seems to be likely anytime soon if the same tactics are taken.

I would like to make a proposal which I believe might finally solve the core dispute which has led to this argument. I also note that I myself am in no way qualified to seek to "impose" this possibility on anyone, and am thus requesting that the majority of the rest of you involved in this discussion at least consider lending your support to this way of very likely resolving the current discussion.

As most of you will know, there is currently an election to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees ongoing. My proposal is that, come the end of this election, a special referendum regarding the name debate be held. Any and all editors who have taken part in the election, but only those individuals, would be eligible to vote to determine how this matter would be decided, including all those who claim no allegiance to any of the opposing sides. The decision reached would not be "final" in any real sense, but would resolve the question which has led to the current debate until some development which alters the current status quo takes place. Exactly how to determine what such developments would qualify could also be one of the issues involved in the vote.

I ask each of you to thoughtfully and, according to your own inclinations, prayerfully consider this proposal, and, if it is one agreeable to you, to help me in finding out exactly how to go about making this happen. (Hey, I'm kinda new here, OK?) Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 21:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


How about we name the article according to the guidelines. --WikiCats 12:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to see that done. The problem is there is serious argument about the guidelines. Some have proposed that the issue be mediated, and that might work too. But the argument about what page if any should be called "Catholic Church" is really getting out of hand, doesn't seem to be likely to end anytime soon, and is almost certainly decreasing the overall effectiveness of the wikipedia itself. On that basis, and the fact that the article is of a high degree of importance to the wikipedia itself, I think that this is an issue that might well be important enough for such drastic measures. Badbilltucker 18:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


The last survey on moving the article Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church was 29 in support and 25 opposed. This is a significant move in the direction of changing the name of the article. Wikipedia:Naming conflict describes how we address naming conflict issues.

It says: The three key principles are:

  • The most common use of a name takes precedence;
  • If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;
  • If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

To determine the balance of these criteria, editors may find it useful to construct a table like the following:

Criterion Catholic Church Roman Catholic Church
1. Most commonly used name in English ? ?
2. Current undisputed official name of entity ? ?
3. Current self-identifying name of entity ? ?
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.

The guidelines will resolve this issue. --WikiCats 05:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A Message From the Project Starter

To tell the truth, I had no idea that this project was even still going on. When I started it in November 2005, I didn't seem like anyone wanted to join. I soon gave up on the whole idea after no one joined. It was a huge surprise when I saw 75 other Wikipedians on this list. I would like to thank all of those that took the reigns of this project in my absence. For that, you get my gratitude and many will recieve Barnstars. Keep up the good work, and lets keep adding our Catholic input on Wikipedia. Trevor 20:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Thank you to you. --WikiCats 06:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII

Pope Pius XII is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 19:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


!!Attention!! INPORTANT

Please help the article The Truth of the Catholic Church please keep it from being deleted and please help revise it. this is the reason why iI created the article.

I created this article for the sole purpose of debunking attacks and critsisms against the Catholic Church. This article is not nessiarly an apolgetic site for the Church. But it's rather a site to debunk crtisisms against the Catholic Church. Such as Catholics worshiping Mary or Catholics worshiping statues and pitures. Were here to give facts, info, and history to defend the Church and debunk these attacks and and critsisms. This article does not and should not endorse or impose any Church or religion. This article does not and should not attack or crtisize any Church or religion. This article is for facts and facts only. Please do not I say do not delete this article. This article can be very useful for people to get the truth in a fair and balenced way without the site imosing their Church. Or without spritual advise or without the stance of somebody trying to convert somebody.

Each article page must itself be unbiased and neutral. There is no such thing as creating another page to balance out the overall tone. Pages named Controversies of So-and-so are fine, as it offers opportunity for both tones, whereas Criticisms of So-and-so and Refutations of So-and-so are in itself biased and not allowed in Wikipedia. Furthermore, entitling it "The Truth" is biased by virtue of its name, and will only bring it into an issue to be debated about. Wikipedia is supposed to be as neutral as is possible and not become the centre of debate itself. Hope this enlightens you. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 11:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, this has been replaced in due course with Criticism of the Catholic Church. If you are a calm, mature editor, this article needs your help. It is absolutely a hoot! Which I suppose is why some of you have kept away from it. Some of it is well-worded. Some of it is so bad, it's funny.
You may have to help the original editors word their criticism so it makes sense! That's the fun part. After you carefully parse the sentence(s), there may not be a whole lot left!  :) I've been marking sentences wholesale with <fact>. Lots of top of the head stuff. There's even religious spam. Everyone wants to take a poke and be given "credit" for it. Anyway, it's real easy to do, but it's taking up a lot of my time. It's a huge article. As I've been making changes, it's starting to attract a better class of critics! :) Whoops! They take longer to answer. Sometimes there isn't one! Or sometimes the church isn't saying anything different than anyone else! What then? Anyway, take a peek if you have a minute. Student7 (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

Wikipedia Assessments within AWB. Click on the image to see it in better resolution

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

  • Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
  • Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 12:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How'd I do?

Hey everyone, I am new to the project and to Wikipedia itself. I just wrote an article and I wonder if anyone could give it a look-see and tell me how I did, and how I could improve it. It is Kenneth E. Untener. Thanks! --Undead1 17:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a decent article to me. Thanks for the effort. -- Meyer 06:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Holy Prepuce

Holy Prepuce is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 23:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Necedah Shrine

I request that someone from this WikiProject review the Necedah Shrine article for its NPOV. There is ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. Royalbroil Talk  Contrib 15:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

New article needs Catholics' help

The Gospel (liturgy) article was recently created, by me, as a spinout from Gospel. This article is supposed to be about the readings from the Gospels used during Mass. As you can see, the Roman Catholic section is very small, and refers to traditional chants. This section in particular needs expansion, but feel free to work on other parts of the article as well! Thanks for your help.--Andrew c 01:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Existing pages to add to the project

There are many existing pages around which could be added to this project, I think. They include the pages of all catholic Scout or Guide organizations.

A few examples:

--Lou Crazy 01:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

New template for citing the CCC

I was surprised when I could not find a template for citing the CCC. So I created one: {{ccc1}}. This version works only for a single paragraph. This is my first template (not counting userboxes), so improvements and comments are welcome. I hope other editors find it useful. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I created a second template for citing whole articles of the CCC: {{ccc2}}. This can also be used for paragraph ranges. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

{{RC-stub}} sub-categories

The main Catholic Church stub type has been hovering either side of being officially "oversized" for some time now. A while ago, I proposed a Category:Catholic theology and doctrine stubs; I've now uploaded a list of candidates for same to User:Alai/RC-theo. If someone knowledgeable in this area would care to take a look, and either modify the list, or let me know, that would be handy. Also, what about a Category:Roman Catholic Church by country stubs type for the numberous "Church in Blahland" stub articles? Alai 23:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles for creation: help requested on potential move

At Wikipedia:Articles for creation#probabilism (Catholic moral theology) there is a suggestion that the existing article Catholic Probabilism may be misnamed, and it seems to me that a name such as Probabilism (Catholic moral theology) may be a better place to move the article to. However, I am unfamiliar with the topic and don't know if probabilism would be classified as an example of moral theology or something else.

In other words, I am looking for a recommendation of somewhere to move the article to, beginning with Probabilism (Catholic ...) but I need another opinion as to how to fill in the blank.

(Note: Tomorrow, the Articles for Creation entry will be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-11-19.) --Metropolitan90 05:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Justification article feedback requested

Hi all,

I would like Catholic input on the justification article, especially with regard to the first section, "Justification in the Early Church" (but also with the article in general).

The goal with the first section is to set the stage with basic factual information that becomes important in the later differences between RC, EO, and P theologies. I've had a spot of difficulty because a couple of anonymous-IP Wikipedians have made 'corrections' that have bordered on POVism -- copying parts of the "Catholic View" section into the "Early Church" section, e.g. In the interest of NPOV, and since I happen to be Protestant, I would like for knowledgeable Catholics to proof the section or article and give feedback or make corrections as needed.

Talk: Justification (theology) here.

Grace and peace, jrcagle 19:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Diocesan Infobox / work in progress

I am currently working on an "Infobox" for Catholic Dioceses - you can see the beginning work in progress on at my User page User:SkierRMH/Diocese Infobox. I have a couple of requests before I present this as a standard:

  • Need help with the formatting, especially of the headings for the categories (personnel, parishes, etc); and with the initial lines...
  • What should be included? And before anyone asks, every one of these numbers is publicly available in the Offical Catholic Directory. The list here is pretty comprehensive, but you can see that it's VERY long!
    • To start I've left the Bishop's name off - My next proposed project will be a box at the end of each page that's similar to the one at the end of each pope's page, that gives the predecessor - current - successor.
  • Regarding the picture, I thought the DIocesan crest would be most appropriate as the Bishops normally have their own page where that would be more appropriate.

Thanks for any feedback, assistance, that you can provide! SkierRMH 22:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi SkierRMH,
The Infobox looks good to start off with. I think we should decide what of the info you've included is necessary. For instance, I think the most relevant statistics are those on the number of religious, the overall population and info on the parishes. The rest, while interesting, is a bit too detailed IMHO. I think it would be relevant to include the bishop's name in the infobox, even if it is stated elsewhere, since it is one of the most common pieces of information sought about dioceses. It may also be useful to indicate the geographic region that diocesan is comprised of (ultimately, this is the point of a diocese, right?)
I agree about the crest - it seems appropriate. --03:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)... and m@
I agree with everything ... and m@ said. You can condense all that info. I would combine the "welfare" and "educational" sections into one "institutions" section where you can list the number of high schools, hospitals, etc. These are easier to keep up with. But if you include the "number served" it becomes too much information and also very hard to keep updated. Use your best judgment, but I would cut the infobox at least in half. --Hyphen5 07:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Some time ago I have created on already, and it is already in use in a few diocesan articles - see Template:Infobox Diocese. In contrast to your proposal I have limited myself to the most important facts only, IMHO infoboxes are good for a quick overview on the most important facts and should not contain too much data. The welfare or education numbers could be well made into a whole section of the article, where then also the most important schools etc. can be mentioned. We have quite a lot of diocese articles which are rather short in text, so your infobox would be way longer than the text area in those cases, and probably most fields would be empty as they cannot be found. I also tried to make that infobox work with not only dioceses, but also apostolic vicariates etc., and be capable of incomplete data - not all diocese have auxiliary bishops, sometimes the name of the cathedral is not easy to find. andy 09:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I think the infobox currently being discussed has much more to offer than the older example. I find a lot more information which is indeed useful in the new box. I agree with Hyphen5 that tbe Welfare and Education sections might be better combined. I also feel many of the later statistics in the box are going to become obsolete repeatedly. However, I would not be averse to keeping them in if a "last updated" date was included somewhere in the box. OBriain 11:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The question is - what is the purpose of an infobox? Is it the general container for all tabular data, or a quick overview on the most important facts? IMHO it should be the second - which does not mean that these additional info do not belong in the article, just putting everything in the infobox just makes the infobox unusable. Compare it with the infobox of countries - one could of course also add the Population pyramid, the ethnic groups and the religions into it as well, yet this are better placed into the demographics section of the article. The number of students, or the number of hospitals is rarely sought when taking a quick look at the diocese, however if someone is interested in the educational or welfare institutions of the diocese he could read the section giving these information with some additional text. To make them machine-readable (e.g. to automatically create a sorted list of dioceses by number of students in their schools) something like the proposed Wikidata comes to mind, or something like the Persondata template. andy 12:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Another voice saying that the infobox is probably too long, and actually contains too much information. The problem about the Welfare and Education numbers is a real one, as if included those numbers would probably have to be updated annually or so. Not saying it's impossible, but I don't think that it'll actually be done very often. However, if the numbers had a heading "through 200x" or whatever I wouldn't object to the inclusion of some of them. Also, I could see having two boxes, one for the official diocese structure (# of parishes, priests, religious, parishoners, and so on) and a second box for later in the article for the social service structure (hospitals, schools, and so on). I certainly favor the inclusion of the crest, and also think that including the name and rank/title of the bishop or administrator and the location of the diocese would also be important, even if there is a separate box for the succession, as the bishop is so closely tied to his diocese, and it is often useful to know up front if a given archbishop is also a cardinal. Badbilltucker 14:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that andy's infobox is good in the formatting department and has some relevant (albeit dry) information (e.g. area, rite, etc.) I think some of its fields should be condensed and added to the statistics of SkierRMH's infobox. Some of its element would improve SkierRMH's if incorporated. ... and m@ 21:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a problem with the "Welfare" section being too lengthy. You should shorten it by including "Number Assisted" in the same line as the type of welfare institution, such as "Catholic Hospitals (Number Benefited)".
Secondly, under "Educational", it's quite a problem when you want to define "High School" and "Elementary School", since you must be aware that many countries do use the same age groups for their mainstream education system. For example, like in Singapore, primary education is from age 7 to 12, while secondary education is from age 13 to 16. Furthermore, there is one Catholic tertiary (post-secondary) institution. Simply calling our primary schools as "elementary schools" and secondary schools as "high schools" is going to cause a lot of trouble when comparing infoboxes, and it might also give misleading indications to the state of education. And when you include the tertiary institution, can you imagine the confusion it will cause? What I recommend is that we do reform most of the "Educational" section, and reduce it to:
  1. "Primary Institutions (Students)"
  2. "Secondary Institutions (Students)"
  3. "Tertiary Institutions (Students)" - (if any)
  4. "Colleges/Universities (Students)"
  5. "Total Students"
  6. "Teachers"
    1. "Priests"
    2. "Religious Brothers"
    3. "Religious Sisters"
    4. "Lay persons"
And merge "Welfare" and "Educational" together to give "Institutions", too. Let's don't give away too much info. This is an infobox on a diocese, not a full article in its own right, though I understand it's tempting to make it look grand. :)
Many of the vital statistics seem misleading, "Received into Full Communion" and "Confirmations" seem to mean the total of people thus far, rather than any other meaning you intend it to be. Of course, Total Catholic Population disagrees with my assumption, but I have no idea what else those lines could mean.
Lastly, as a comment, while I think it might be a challenge getting figures to fill in all the fields to specific detail, it shouldn't be a problem so long as each member of the WikiProject takes the effort to at least manage the infobox of their own diocese. I don't mind doing so for my own archdiocese, do you?
With all that done, it can then be merged into Template:Infobox Diocese, with a few other additions, like year of founding. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 17:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
What is the consenus which to use either Template:Infobox Diocese, or Template:Infobox Roman Catholic diocese for RC dioceses? ant_ie 09:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, a third infobox, if you also count the proposed one. To me the problem seems to be there are several people working on diocese articles, but as they all work on geographically different areas they don't notice each other and thus do duplicate work. Apparently this WikiProject wasn't yet noticed by all wikipedians working with dioceses... andy 11:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad someone has noticed that we are not all monitoring the right pages enough of the time. I wish we could break off into national subprojects. We could still share among English speakers at a higher level. I'm not trying to exclude anyone, but trying to take in the world seems a bit much for Catholicism.
I like to have a lot of options in an infobox. The Oakland examples originally proposed look good. We need metropolitan in there. Right now metropolitan will point incorrectly to the archdiocese which many people think tells the rest of the dioceses what to do instead of being a large diocese themselves. (I'm not looking for a separate article on archepiscopal provinces just yet. I'm willing to wait a few years! But where you find that misconception, please correct it!)
I don't have most of the info in the box, but someone else might.Student7 11:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I just recategorized a few infoboxes. I think even the Oakland ones should be in a "test infobox" category so people can find them when the user is ready for comments. I admit he risks having them edited in his own sandbox! But no big deal if that happens. Right now I have lots of problems finding templates and infoboxes I need. I have to go crawling through other churches, parishes, dioceses, and countries to see what is going on. Please categorize early, particularly templates and infoboxes! Also, the more particular the category, the more useful. Better low level than high. Thanks. Student7 12:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The categories will of course help to find the template, but to me it seems to be useful to a sample article within this Wikiproject, giving the infobox, categories, applicable templates, all the sections one can think of, describe what to put in each section, and so on. The articles itself will then usually only have a subset of that outline - like a list of major churches cannot be found - or a special section only applicable in a single case gets added, but they will be at least easier to maintain, to write without forgetting important things. Shall we start with a Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Diocese outline? I have done some dioceses in Asia, so I can present the outline I created for myself there. andy 08:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds liker a great idea. I find Template:Infobox Roman Catholic diocese more appropriate than Template:Infobox Diocese as it can contain more information. ant_ie 10:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see that much difference in the content of the two, but of course prefer my own creation Template:Infobox Diocese - I left out the "established", did not know it has something like co-cathedrals, and also left out "location" and "territory" as it is better described in the text - instead I have put the country. I don't see why the pope or the name of the metropolitan bishop should be included in the diocese itself, IMHO it should only have the ordinaries directly assigned to the diocese, i.e. bishop and auxiliary bishops, not their superiors, the name of the ecclesial province/metropolitan diocese should be enough. But it should be possible to unify those two Template:Infobox Diocese and Template:Infobox Roman Catholic diocese while discussing the article outline. I only have real problems with the IMHO overloaded User:SkierRMH/Diocese Infobox, which has way to much content to be useful as a infobox. andy 11:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggest emphasizing, through nomenclature in the infobox, that the eccesiastical province is not the archdiocese, which many people seem to think. They are named the same/similar. While it is a nuisance to have to maintain the name of the metropolitan when it changes, at least it appears correctly to the casual reader. Student7 12:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now created Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Diocese, so we can move discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Diocese. And I've added the ecclesiastical province to "my" infobox template now as well, as well as the co-cathedral. Looking forward to hear comments about that outline. andy 15:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Addition to Lists of Patron Saints

Would it be helpful to have 2 sections on each of these pages:

  • The list of the Saint's name in alphabetical order
  • The list of the place/profession/illnes in alphabetical order

For those looking for the patron of XXX it would be an easier way to view the page! Let me know and I'll get it done... SkierRMH,02:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration not working!?!

For some strange reason, this WikiProject's Collaborations seem to have died down. Does anyone have any idea why this is happening? Was there some automated system that could not function when I did some formatting? Ariedartin JECJY Talk 10:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • There was no automated system. It was run by a system of volunteers. I don't have the time to work on it anymore, but if you do I highly encourage you to get it back up and running. --Briancua 23:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

help

im willing to help — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoniDb (talk • contribs)

Category:Religious leaders

The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 22:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Community ban of the Joan of Arc vandal

A vandal who has damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned. This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts. Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. DurovaCharge! 16:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed article

I'm mostly active in politics and election articles on Wikipedia currently, so I was wondering whether there wouldn't be more than enough information available to fill an article about the next papal conclave (especially since the current collaboration is papal conclave...)? What I'm thinking about was mostly sourced speculation on who would be papabile, a list of cardinals who would be eligible to vote, and so on... —Nightstallion (?) 16:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to doubt it, as by definition all of the information which might be included (names of candidates, eligible voters, etc.) would be subject to change between now and the time the conclave is actually called. Also, I think I heard somewhere that it is officially forbidden for cardinal-electors to even discuss the potential next election while there is a current pope, so I'm going to have to guess that the only thing that could be included would be unsourced speculation. Badbilltucker 18:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, all information will continuously change on Wikipedia, so I think at least a list of future electors should be no problem. I do recall some gossip in the media about Ratzinger only being an interim pope with a few lined up to become the next "serious" pope, though...? I think there should be some information available that could constitute an article on this topic. —Nightstallion (?) 22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Catholic minister

A discussion on the question of what is the proper topic of that article is going on at talk:Catholic minister. Michael Hardy 23:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Religion

The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary and past dioceses - categorization

I raised this issue with respect to Diocese of Hamar, which is a Lutheran diocese under the Church of Norway, but was - until 1536 - the seat of a Roman Catholic diocese as well. There is no direct connection between the two - the modern city of Hamar was founded in 1849 about a mile south of the medieval city. I think it would be misleading to equate the two dioceses, since they covered different areas, were set up under entirely different situations, and obviously are related to entirely different denominations. This applies to other dioceses in Norway and presumably in other countries where the Reformation became a crown edict.

My suggestion would be to set up a separate category called Category:Former Roman Catholic dioceses or some such term. And then I think that for example there should be an article called Roman Catholic diocese of Hamar. Perhaps someone more familiar with the terminology, etc., can propose the right wording? --Leifern 21:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Many Catholic dioceses that have ceased to be, for whatever reason, are now titular dioceses. There are, however, some that are not (at least yet). In cases where a diocese has become titular, the article on the titular diocese would be the obvious place for details on the diocese that once was. As for the others, lets see what other folks come up with.--Dcheney 01:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning: Deletion of all papal coats of arms

It looks like next to all papal coats of arms have been proposed for deletion because of the deletion of a template and a lack of information about sourcing for these images. Please go through Category:Images with unknown copyright status as of 29 December 2006 and other appropriate categories and add the needed information to prevent them from being deleted. When you've added the source, please also remember to add the insignia in question to the affected article(s) again. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 14:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus nominated for Article Improvement Drive

I recently found that our article on Jesus is the first page that appears when anyone does a Google search of the subject. It is currently, regrettably, only at GA status. On that basis, I would request any individuals who might be interested in helping to bring this article up to FA status to indicate their support for the article being chosen as the AID article at Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive#Jesus. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

lay cardinal

The number of pages linking to lay cardinal is rather small. If others should link there, please add the links.

I read David Kertzer's book The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara, and then saw the play by Alfred Uhry based (only a little bit loosely) on the true story. The play has Pope Pius IX (played by Brian Murray in the production I saw) explaining that a certain woman was a "....friend" [or something like that] of Cardinal Giacomo Antonelli, and then saying "He's not breaking any vows; he's a cardinal, not a priest." The audience laughed. I wonder how many understood that Antonelli was quite literally a cardinal and not a priest. (Of course, I don't mean to say that the audience was wrong to laugh at that statement....) Michael Hardy 03:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles about Popes

I may be restarting a discussion that has already happened, but it seems to me that a good 200 of the 260 articles on individual popes are of extraordinarily low quality. Nearly all of them suffer from too many quotations from Britannica and Catholic Encyclopedia without any context ("Innocent was supported by Girolasto and Cavatelli", whoever they are; references to theological debates that aren't explained; etc). They all need to be edited for style and tone so they don't sound like they were typed verbatim from a book written in 1899. A lot of them are stub-level, missing wikilinks, etc. Furthermore, very very few are tagged as part of this project, nor are they tagged as anything (many even have blank discussion pages).

I guess what I'm saying is there needs to be a mini-project to clean up these articles - they collectively seem to be the red-headed stepchild of this project and it would be nice of some diligent person/s could address them one by one. Thoughts? --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I will undertake this willingly. Thoughts and comments and discussions on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Loyola/Popes/ Loyola 12:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Assessing articles about Popes

Perhaps the members of the project can help me with a tagging problem I have. take as an example the article Anacletus or Pope Sisinnius. As is common with many of the early popes there is very little detail. In fact my primary source book on the popes (*Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes (Harper, 2000). ISBN 0-06-065304-3) contains 7 lines on Sisinnius and the Catholic Encylopaedia has 6 lines. Therefore these articles are very unlikely (barring some major archaeological find) to progress beyond what they currently contain. How then should the quality of these articles be assessed? I believe that stub and start are unreasonable. Even though they are complete (small as they are) and that would warrant an A quality seems a bit over the top. Would B be acceptable as a compromise? I would really value your thoughts on this. Discuss on this page or my Pope Worskpace Loyola 13:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Judaism versus anti-Semitism

I'm having an editing dispute over at what was once called Anti-Judaism and has since become, against my protests, Religious antisemitism. The move was decided upon via a hijack at Talk:antisemitism (rather than Talk:Anti-Judaism), and I've tried make various reasonable (I believe) arguments as to why this makes little sense, but I've made no headway. Most of the contributers at antisemitism seem to fall under the old saw "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" and seem completely unwilling to distinguish the teachings of the New Testament and the apologetics of the Church Fathers from what I would consider the real anti-Semitism of Luther, David Duke, etc. I've now been told that what Jesus was preaching was a form of "theological antisemitism". I'm continuing to work on the article anyway at User:Kendrick7#Anti-Judaism but once I present it, I'm just going to be accused of content forking I fear. Any support, moral or otherwise, would be appreciated. Pax vobiscum. -- Kendrick7talk 17:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least one editor agreed with me. I've added anti-Judaism to this project. -- Kendrick7talk 18:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, now [[Talk:Anti-Judaism|it keeps getting removed]] from this project, though in my opinion it surely belongs here, though it may evolve to cover more than minor aspects of Protestantism as I continue to work on it. -- Kendrick7talk 07:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Father Damien FAR

Father Damien has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles tagged as needing expert attention

Catholic guilt and National Catholicism have been tagged as requiring expert attention. Any such assistance in improving these articles would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Badbilltucker 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Organisation of Catholic dioceses

Here is a proposal for the organisation of Catholic dioceses. Tell me what you think!

MH au 07:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your proposal. What would be the actual content on the pages? For example, would the first page "Catholic Dioceses" list all 3,047 current jurisdictions around the world? What about historical dioceses? (5,000+) Titular dioceses? (2,180) Or would the top page(s) only list references to the sub-pages? --Dcheney 15:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not about building a single list of dioceses (that's discussed at Talk:List of Roman Catholic dioceses), it's about the structure right now under Category:Roman Catholic dioceses, the automatic sorting of existing articles. Most of the one suggested above is already implemented, in contrast to above there's a "dioceses by continent". The ecclesiastical province categories are only implemented for few countries, and IMHO are only necessary in case there are really a lot of dioceses in a country, for all other cases it'd be enough to mention the ecclesiastical province in a infobox in the article. andy 23:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps your proposal re: provinces is more appropriate but, in some cases, dioceses span more than one country - how should this be addressed? The inclusion of all Catholic rites is necessary -presently Eastern rites are separate. Also, it must be decided what the Western rite should be called - many cases use 'Roman' (should this be the form?). MH au 05:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Would like some help. I'm currently using Catholic Hierarchy Org to complete the diocese pages, where none exist. First, each country should have a list of Catholic dioceses along with each of the dioceses. From this list the BIG list, which has not yet been done can be completed with the diocesan structure. Second, they should have the list of Ordinaries, as well as general information on the dioceses. I have finished the Antilles Episcopal conference up to this point, but this is what needs to be done. Lists, and edits for Central America, particularly Mexico. Lists and edits and pages created for the majority of the South American countries, which is what I am working on now. Africa looks good, but Europe needs organisation into the country subcategories, let alone pages for the diocese and expanding the pages. Asia is about the same, while North America and Oceania look pretty good right now. It's a big project, but the best part is if folks take a small region they can work on that small region all to themselves. :) Please let me know if you would like to help and I'll show you what I have in mind. Check out the Catholic dioceses in the Caribbean to see where I would like ALL the diocese articles to be like. Benkenobi18 08:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Small request

Could someone put together an article on the Pro Ecclesia Et Pontifice medal? It is the highest award a non-cleric can receive in the Catholic Church, but it hasn't got a mention anywhere on Wikipedia (cept some Polish guy). Thanks, Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I second this request, but unfortunately lack the knowledge to write the article. However, when working on an article on the musicologist Mary Berry (a recipient of this award) I must admit to being disappointed that there was no article on the medal to which I could wikilink. Robotforaday 14:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Pro Ecclesia Et Pontifice started with some basic information. Loyola 11:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox for Churches

Is there currently an infobox for Churches/Cathedrals/Basilicas? I think such a thing would be helpful to clean up a lot of these pages. Thanks! --Daysleeper47 16:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I agree that an infobox is needed; it would help to clean up the pages and would give the pages a more organized, uniform look. Hey jude, don't let me down 16:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia and Project Catholicism

Currently there's a debate going on as to whether the Cathiolic Encyclopedia is fit to be accompanied in the Project Catholicism Template. See Template talk:Project Catholicism. JASpencer 22:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

History of the Papacy

I have embarked on a major expansion of the History of the Papacy article which was just a stub before I started working on it yesterday. I have attempted to keep the focus of that article on the history of the Papacy and NOT on the history of the Catholic church. This is, of course, a very difficult distinction to maintain since the histories of the Papacy and the Church are so closely intertwined. What I've been trying to do is to leave out anything that is more about the Church but not really that relevant to the Papacy. It seems to me, for example, that the work of most missionaries is an important part of the Church's history but not as important a part of the history of the Papacy. For this reason, I have left those out.

I seek your help in making these kinds of distinctions. I have, for the time being, left out the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Reformation. I am trying to decide how relevant these are to the history of the Papacy. They are, obviously, very important to the history of the Church. What should be said about these topics in the History of the Papacy article? Your thoughts on this question would be much appreciated.

Since writing this initial request for feedback, I have added information about the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Reformation. What I need now is feedback as to whether I have the right amount of information about each of these topics. --Richard 01:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also left out most of the 20th century because I ran out of steam. I plan to write something about the relationship of Pius XII to Hitler and Mussolini.

I've written a bit about papal relations with Fascists, the Lateran pacts of 1929 and the Reichskonkordat since writing this original request for feedback. Your feedback about these sections would be appreciated.

The role of John XXIII in convening Vatican II is also important. I also plan to write something about the relationship of John Paul II to the Polish Communist government and his role in helping bring an end to Communist domination of Eastern Europe. His role in reversing the modernist trend in the church is also important to document.

I've also added sections on Traditionalist Catholics and Sedevacantists because, although they are not very visible in the Catholic Church, they are a direct challenge to the authority of the Pope and therefore warrant mention in the History of the Papacy article. --Richard 04:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Have I left anything out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 09:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

History of the Catholic Church

I have to say that I was disappointed to find that the History of the Catholic Church article was a timeline instead of a prose article. As such, I think it should be titled Chronology of the Catholic Church. I would much prefer that an article titled History of the Catholic Church should be an overview that expands upon the history section in the Roman Catholic Church but provides a level of detail similar to History of the Papacy or History of the United States. What do you think?

--Richard 09:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic Humor

I have proposed moving/deleting the "Anti-Catholic Humor" section of the Anti-Catholicism article. I have provided my rationale on the talk page. User:Colin4C has objected to this proposal but I disagree with his reasoning. Please read the discussion on the talk page and register your opinion there. Thanks. --Richard 09:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


Page links to Crusaders

Believe it or not, rather then linking here or to a separate article about the participants of the Crusades, this un-ambiguated titled actually goes to an article about a Rugby team. Now unfortunately this means that many of the 200+ links that are actually meant to go to the Crusades article are linking there. Now there is a page move request to move the Rugby team article to one that actually makes a lick of sense and to have the Crusaders redirect to the Crusade's article but assuming that doesn't go through, it might be helpful to have some folks take a look at these misdirected links so we can get them pointing to a more appropriate article. 205.157.110.11 15:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Women's League

Currently I cannot find an article on the CWL. I would start one, but to be honest, I have very little idea of what they do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.128.198.223 (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

I've added Catholic Women's League as a stub. JASpencer 00:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention

Acclamation (in Papal Elections) in my opinion sounds a bit informal. I was perhaps wondering if Acclamation (Roman Catholic) or Acclmation (Election) would be a better title, but I wanted to get some input here. What is the disambiguation convention for Catholicism-related articles? Hbdragon88 03:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese language alliance

Is here anyone who speaks Portuguese? I am trying to gather some catholic friends to launch a WikiProject Catholicism in the Portuguese wikipedia. Can you imagine: Portuguese language world don't have even a Christian Portal at pt.wikipedia. That's said. Our Lad of Fatima, pray for us, pour Brazilians. Any suggestion would be must appreciated. Keep up with the good works. Thanks. Mauro do Carmo 23:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Heads up on Jocelin

Just to give a head up on the article Jocelin. It will appear on the main page on Saturday, so that I'd ask that some of you put the links which will appear on the mainpage ( see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 17, 2007) on your watchlist. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Category for discussion: Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer

I have nominated Category:Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. The category has only one article, its main page. Its one-and-only subcategory can be easily moved to its parent category. --Kevinkor2 05:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is closed. The result of the debate was delete. Thank you, Angusmclellan (talk · contribs) and all participants.--Kevinkor2 06:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Article in sore need of more watchers

The article De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) was created by a user who likes to include fairly questionable content, like a reference to "Peter, considered to be the first divine person by church of Rome." Moreover, the user in question believes that the New Testament was written by Petrarch in the 14th century AD, and that various books contain "very special meanings" in need of being decoded. (See further the deletion discussion for 62 of his articles that were deleted this morning.) I am burning out trying to single-handedly steer De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) towards being a sound and encyclopedic article, and I hope someone else can start watching the page. I have no agenda and would welcome editors with very different views from mine; the page just needs honest and experienced participants, period. (It might also be worthwhile to explore Doug Coldwell's other contributions.) Wareh 17:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Denomination

A user is removing Roman Catholic Church from the Denomination line in the Bishop template at David Beaton (a Cardinal and an Archbishop of St Andrews who died the Scottish Reformation of 1560). See Talk:David Beaton. He claims it is anachronistic. I don't take his arguments all that seriously, but it needs wider discussion because it could have implications across all pre-Reformation Bishop articles. 16:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Annibale Bugnini

I have recently delisted the article on Annibale Bugnini from the good articles list, for the reasons listed on the talk page. I hope to help try and rectify some of the serious problems with the article soon, as the reform of the liturgy is a topic I am seriously reading up on at the moment, but for now, I thought the only option was to delist immediately, as this article is some way short of the required standard as I understand it and have seen it applied in other topics. If some experienced editors from here would go over and have a look and try and address some of the concerns, that would be great. Robotforaday 03:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Cistercians

I have recently done some major edits to Cistercians (adding images, restructuring for chronological order, improving sources and expanding on Cistercian technology, etc.), and I feel this article would make a good GA with some work (if you forgive the redundancy). I would appreciate it someone would give an assessment of its present state, or provide some more footnote citation. Thanks. --Grimhelm 16:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

blacklist

I couldn't save content with reference to www.fish_eaters.com in a portuguese wikipedia. Is there somehow to take out from the blacklist the website http://www.fishe_aters.com ? At last for portuguese wikipedia. Thanks. []'s Mauro do Carmo 21:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Saint of the day

A proposal has been made on the talk page of the Portal:Saints for a possible daily update to at least some of the content of the portal. I think that this is a fine idea, but also think that I would want input from others as to which content to feature on which date. I have therefore set up a page for such discussion at Portal:Saints/Saint of the day for interested parties to nominate content related to individual saints they would like to see featured on the portal, and one which particular day, if one is preferred. I am here thinking particularly about possibly including individuals on the days of their feasts, if they have one. Any member of this project is more than welcome to make any nominations they see fit. Please feel free to make any specific suggestions there. John Carter 20:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Help needed creating cats for Catholic articles

The deletion of Category:Derived from Catholic Encyclopedia (see CFD) left many articles uncategorized. Those of us who are working on this list could use help on those articles that were previously categorized with as being from the Catholic Encyclopedia. As there's quite a backlog, thanks in advance to anyone who can chip in on this task by recategorizing these articles.--Fisherjs 18:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Diocese of London, Ontario vs Roman Catholic Diocese of London

The above is a duplication of articles that someone who knows the subject may want to tackle. Thanks! --Stormbay 00:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Merged to Diocese of London, Ontario, with the other one made a redirect. Robotforaday 03:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Catholic society stubs

This stub category's name seems a little anomalous, given that the corresponding permcat has a very different name, and the obvious scope for confusion between "RCC and society" vs "RC societies". I've suggested renaming, but I'm open to suggestions as to what to. See the nomination and discussion here. Alai 02:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Church" vs. "church"

I have altered the Roman Catholic Church article to reflect neutral language and proper English usage.[1] I have changed "Church" to "church", where appropriate. I have not altered quotations. I have not removed capitalization from church names, as it is proper usage. The lower case usage is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style and prevents any appearance of endorsing the Catholic Church as The Church. Be well!! Vassyana 01:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The article certainly over-did the big Cs before your edit, but I think you are overgeneralizing the CMOS's rule, which is:
8.106 Church 
When used alone to denote organized Christianity as an
institution, the church is usually lowercased. 
church and state
the early church
the church in the twenty-first century
the church fathers
Church is capitalized when part of the formal name of a 
denomination (e.g., the United Methodist Church; see other
examples in 8.105) or congregation (e.g., the Church of St.
Thomas the Apostle).
(The University of Chicago (2006), The Chicago Manual of Style Online 8.106: Church, retrieved 2007-05-09{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link))
In the context of this article "Church" may have been used simply as an abbreviation for "Roman Catholic Church", which is the one, unique subject of this article. Capitalization in and of itself does not imply any endorsement.
I will review the article and restore any capitalized Churches that refer specifically to the RCC.
If any passage "endorse" the RCC or otherwise violate neutral point-of-view, they should be reworded appropriately.
--Meyer 03:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I've finished my review and decided that in all of it's many uses, "the church" (the one of many Christian bodies that is the subject of this article) or "the Church" (proper noun shortening of "the (Roman) Catholic Church") read equally well, so I have left the capitalization as Vassyana edited it with only a few exceptions. --Meyer 04:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) submitted a question about this issue to the CMOS website. The answer came back that capitalization of "Church" was only apprpriate when actually used in connection with another word, as in "Catholic Church", "Methodist Church", etc. If you just use "church", even if referring to a specific organization, no capitalization is appropriate. -SESmith 05:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Which raises the question of whether or not the answerer-of-questions-submitted-to-CMOS-Online is as authoritative as the CMOS itself. --Meyer 05:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, take it for what it's worth. I'm just letting you know that the issue has gone beyond a simple reading of the text of the CMOS. -SESmith 05:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Thank you for reviewing my changes. I wanted to raise the changes here and at WikiProject Christianity to make sure the edit was acceptable. Thank you additionally for correcting the instance when I (in error) made it read "Catholic church" instead of "Catholic Church". Vassyana 05:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request: Christian Church

The Christian Church article has recently been rewritten. Peer reviews and ratings would be appreciated.

--Mcorazao 20:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

/*Peer review request: Secular Franciscan Order*/

Hello to everybody, I temporary classified the Secular Franciscan Order article mid-importance b-class. Peer reviews and ratings would be appreciated. Regards -- Katanzag 07:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

New project proposal

There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inter-religious content that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Vicariates and Deaneries

The nomenclature of the subdivisions of governance within a Roman Catholic diocese or archdiocese could use some attention. A hierarchy below the level of Diocese and above Parish seems to exist but not be well explained. Maybe dioceses are organized differently, but there seems to be something out there that deserves mention in Wiki. I've come across the terms vicariate and Deanery in my research of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Erie, for example, and the definitions I've found in Wiki don't explain what I'm seeing on Erie's diocesan web page and elsewhere. I'm having difficulties making internal links. The page on Apostolic vicariate is not applicable. The term episcopal vicar in the Catholic section of the article on Vicar general hints at the role of the vicariate. I've added some comments in this regard to the discussion page associated with the article on Vicar. Pat 10:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

bishop stubs

I set up an article on my (romanian byzantine rite) bishop which was definitely a stub. Since there seemed to be only one stub category for catholic bishops, I used the RC-bishop-stub tag, taking the intent of the tag to be a reference to the universal Church and not a "latin rite only" thing. After the stub tag got removed on that page (and apparently several others) I did some research and found the use of RC to be ambiguous with the term seeming to shift based almost entirely on context. The point of stub article tags is to bring them to the attention of interested editors. Having the eastern bishops stuck in the big pile marked "christian clergy" would seem to be counterproductive. Any thoughts? TMLutas 04:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger: "Christian Church" and "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"

I recently merged these two articles. There was an objection that was raised and a request was made to seek feedback here. Please offer commentary on the talk page, for or against.

--Mcorazao 03:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC) pp Johnbod 01:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Popes

I was wondering if it is a good idea for me to make a portal about popes?Bewareofdog 03:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Carlisle

Why is the Carlisle article tagged as part of this project is it only because its cathedral was originally catholic? Penrithguy 20:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sign of the Cross

The article Sign of the cross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) underwent a complete rewrite over the last few weeks that left it quite heavily biased. I have tried to merge older material back into it, but it now needs to be put back together. If anyone on this project has the time, could they, please, take a look at the article and improve it. — Gareth Hughes 15:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Italian cardinals

I think this category is so large as to need subcategories - please contribute to the discussion on its talk page. Neddyseagoon - talk 16:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Footer Template

I created an article footer template for articles concerning the Archdiocese of New Orleans The template {{Archdiocese of New Orleans}} is very large, but I like all the information in it. It would be great if I could make each section collapsable, but I am not sure how. I would love to hear your comments and ways that I could improve the template. I am not very good at html with templates, so any help in that area would be greatly appreciated! Staroftheshow86 18:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That is ambitious. It probably would be better if it were collapsible. Sorry I can't help with that.
You avoided this trap but most people assume confuse "archdiocese" with "province." Nearly all articles have them lumped together for now. Might change someday.
There are three other initiatives you might want to be aware of. There is a simple template I have made up for negotiating between dicoceses of an eccesiastical province. See Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Anchorage for example. And a more complicated one at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta. This too probably needs to be collapsed, if implemented. However, the author the larger one seems to have lost interest and not implemented it anywhere else. I chopped his down to size at the bottom of Roman Catholic Diocese of Pensacola-Tallahassee. Need opinions on all these ventures.Student7 22:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Had one more thought on the New Orleans template. It's a nice format. I think to be more useful to the average reader though, these should be listed by deanery (which are geographical) and not listed alphabetically by diocese. That is, putting "St. Agatha" next to "St. Augustine" is useful to us as editors but not to the user who is most likely looking for churches close to one church or the other. This is a pain to set up since there are generally 6-12 deaneries in a diocese. Maybe more in an archdiocese. Student7 18:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all your comments. I really like your idea about dividing it by deaneries....I think that would be a great way to help organize it. A major fear I'm having, is how large this template is going to get. New Orleans is a Catholic city, with a lot of churches. Right now I only have the churches listed that are within the actual city of New Orleans that have reopened since Katrina. When the rest re-open, the list will become even larger. Not to mention all the suburbs in the surrounding parishes that are part of the archdiocese. I could only imagine how big of a template this could be for a city like New York...or Rome! I don't even know if a collapsable template would be helpful in that instance.
I did have the thought to maybe list only "historic" churches...but in New Orleans, that's basically every church. And once again, I could only imagine what that's like in a larger city than New Orleans. Staroftheshow86 21:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that they all need to be listed. I think the trouble with the Atlanta one is that it is too large, besides not being an agreeable companion to the other templates we are considering.
Speaking of which, I get into trouble trying to insert more than one template. One interferes with the other. If you run across any way to be rid of this interference I would be happy to hear it.
Another thought (this gets even more complicated). Put all deaneries into the arch/diocese article, but only single deaneries at the local level with the option of (ugh) transfering to other deaneries. (Easy for me to say!  :)
A point on useability: Are article visits recorded? If so, I wonder if any of our current templates have helped increase useage. It is noteworthy that we are the only two discussing this!  :( Student7 22:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Just ran into a problem I will have with dividing the dicocese into deaneries. I either need an article for deaneries (very undesirable) to get "back" to, or a category:deanery (easier to set up if people go along with it) or have a selection of "dean of the deaneries" churches to step to in another footer. Is this making sense? It will confuse the user at first too. Sounded good on paper....:) More importantly, names alone are utterly useless, I need a place for each church as well as deanery (which may have a geographic term with it-like "Central"). So the template will read "Smallville:St.Mary's", etc. Otherwise it is useless. Student7 11:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Have a list made and readied for each of the dioceses in question. It's been done in a few of the Catholic diocese articles where substantial content exists to list the Basilica followed by links to the individual churches within the diocese. the idea being that each of these small tiny diocese stubs will act to draw a bunch of information together. For the overall organisation, make a new Category, "Roman Catholic parishes in the Diocese of XXX, and list pages for each of the parishes. This really isn't feasible anywhere except in Canada and the US, and maybe Australia, all the other areas are happy if they actually have diocese pages. :) Benkenobi18 09:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be so dense. Early in the morning here! Are you saying that the diocese navigational list would have "St. Margaret, St. Mary Magdalene, St. Mary of the Fields,..." etc. alphabetically though they are strewn throughout the diocese and a person in St. Margaret's has never heard of the other two churches they are so far away? This is true in the two dioceses where I spend most of my time. Maybe I changed the subject above and you were answering a different question? (I'm probably not awake yet! :)
In a parish in my deanery, here is a deanery navigational aid I used (at the bottom). Would have get back to the diocese, conceptually, to get to other deaneries. Can't do that now though! Example of Deanery navigational list Most everyone in the deanery has heard of the other churches Student7 12:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Richelieu

Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal Richelieu has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. DrKiernan 06:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Seems little interest in project management by tagging categories in this project - have scratched the surface - would appreciate any interested enthusiasts for this sort of process of bringing into focus the vast range of categories associated with this project to show their handd - as the resultant possible category tree can be very useful when reviewing the project - and keeping tag of rogue Cfd issues - SatuSuro 11:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Tanakh/Old Testament/Hebrew Bible categories

Some people may have noticed that most categories previously using "Old Testament" have been converted to "Tanakh" by a user, without I think much discussion. There is a discussion here which proposes converting them to use "Hebrew Bible" Johnbod 22:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Pope

Please lend any assistance you can against vandal Troy 07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s activities on the Pope article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Categorisation of ordinaries

How should ordinaries by diocese be categorised if the see is promoted from a bishopric to an archbishopric? I ask specifically for aid in the case of Archbishop of Luxembourg. Should all the office-holders be categorised in 'Category:Archbishops of Luxembourg', or should they go by a different formula (e.g. 'Category:Bishops of Luxembourg' or 'Category:Ordinaries of Luxembourg')? Bastin 13:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

.I've been listing all of the Ordinaries, which is the proper term of every diocese since the erection of the diocese. I have also, in the article concerning the diocese listed the times and dates when the diocese has been elevated. Just make a simple list of all the Ordinaries for the Archdiocese of Luxembourg and also write down the changes, so it is easy to follow the evolution of the dioceses. My current template is the "Diocese of Willemstad" which is in the Roman Catholic dioceses in the Caribbean category, if you want get and idea of what I have been up to. Benkenobi18 09:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see on this page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Organisation_of_Catholic_dioceses and Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Diocese.The more conssenus there is on a common RC diocese, the better. ant_ie 09:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Galileo Galilei FAR

Galileo Galilei has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Coat of arms of the Holy See (positioning of the cord?)

(thread copied from the talk page of WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology)

If anybody has knowledge about the specifics of the coat of arms of the Holy See, please help getting the details right on this image replacement request on WP:GL. In particular, it seems like we need to know if the cord should be tied around the keys or not. As far as I can tell, the blazon does not state this, and some of the images shown on FOTW seem to suggest otherwise, in particular the image of the arms a province near Avignon. Any help would be great. Valentinian T / C 19:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Vatacan shows two different images (one of them from FOTW and the flag from a FOTW member). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Both of those have the keys backwards don't they (EG. That's the Vatican CoA and not the HS's)? 68.39.174.238 21:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
According to the same page I cited, it is the arms for both the HS and the Vatican. I noticed the Pope's arms have the keys crossed. I am also confused. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(end copy) Valentinian T / C 09:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


Papal infallibility

Hello. I was looking at the wikify backlog, and I noticed that a section of the above article has been tagged as needing wikified since December, and is also tagged as containing original research. Frankly, it's a mess - so much of a mess that I didn't know where to begin with it (I was tempted to delete it outright, although it looks like parts could be rewritten or intergrated into other parts of the article). Does anybody else from this wikiproject have any ideas (or the energy to take action about it)? Robotforaday 22:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it probably mostly just needs scrapping. To be an acceptable article section, it would need to be demonstrated and sourced that (a) those questions had been commonly and notably asked; and (b) those have notably been asserted to be the answers to them. (It's not even acceptable to source commonly-held idea, source a piece of doctrine that seems to provide an answer to it, then put the two together - that's a synthesis, which is still classed as original research). I can't see that section becoming encyclopedic any time soon. As Robotforaday says, there may be parts which can be used in other forms elsewhere in the article, but I think the very idea of a list of 'common misconceptions' is almost unavoidably POV and OR. TSP 22:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I argued against the section when it was added (as well as a similar section in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis added by the same user), but didn't have enough of a consensus to keep it out. If a consensus develops here, I will collapse it into a much smaller section that just takes the points made in the section and presents them in a simple declarative manner. -- Cat Whisperer 23:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Hontheim

Discoveries and inventions by catholics

I tried to find somewhere consolidated information about discoveries and inventions made by catholic monks or in monasteries. There are so many of them (notation in music, for example). But there are not too much about it. Maybe it is relevant to create some systematized article or project on this issue.Ans-mo 11:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Archbishop-bishop

Anybody in the Project care to find some sources for the Archbishop-bishop article? It's going to be cut back dramatically without some. 24.4.253.249 06:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Abuse case article

The article Roman Catholic sex abuse cases is a particularly poorly-written article, with countless POV statements, unreferenced entries, and incorrect and potentially slanderous statements. Trying to deal with it is proving overwhelming for the few of us that try and monitor it. Any assistance would be appreciated. I question whether the article is appropriate as a topic at all, but it should at least be cleaned up. It is listed as part of the Wikiproject Catholicism. I don't know if it should be, but it's not clear to me how that decision is determined. Any input? --Anietor 00:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the below was unresponsive. I have copied the first paragraph into a alias sandbox if you want to work on this together. [2]. My thought is that this sandbox is for us only. If other people don't like it we can ask them to leave. It needs to be solid before trying to replace it as a lead paragraph, however. Your thoughts? Student7 01:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Long answer

I agree, basically. It's hard to discuss IF this should exist among ourselves. It's easier, perhaps, to discuss other headlines, the Duke thing, for example, to see how that transpired. There was an end to it, for one thing. But it was "in the news" and people wanted to read about it. I am an alumnus from a college which has had it's normal share of troubled graduates. Mercifully, we have had enough grads with positive careers to offset the others, but the troubled ones "need" and get their day. Some have full articles based on their infamy. I was more amused than dismayed. But again, there seemed an end to it.
Having said that, there is a biased tinge in the "abuse cases" articles. Let's contrast it with teachers, who have way more cases, 2.000 arrests each year. By contrast, there is an age bias, accused teachers tend to be younger. Smaller percentage of convictions (consistent with reluctant and unreliable juvenile witnesses. Also most felony cases of any sort don't result in conviction). 80% of priests that go to trial are convicted. They often plead guilty. We are going through the worst atheistic phase I have seen in this country. Along with the usual anti-Catholicism.
Turning these priests in during the 70s and 80s was unthinkable. It was against canon law. The accusing priest or bishop had no proof. It was possible that the accuser himself would have found himself stranded outside the church for violating canon law or "false accusation" in civil law. Homosexuality was regarded as a sin and therefore "curable." The victims then would have declined to testify, as they do routinely decline nowdays against teachers, or proved to be poor witnesses. The 70s were a sexually liberal time. Accusations of statutory rape were laughed at by prosecutors when brought by annoyed parents. The priests crimes were of a similar nature.
I think we have to recognize that child molesting is the "crime-du-jour" for the unthinking public. (Amazing that the VT massacre ever made it onto page one for a little while). I think it was "home invasion" in the 70s. Can't remember other decades right off. But the fad will pass as fads always do. Anyway, it's just people tastes however much it may dismay us. "The world is as it should be." I try to keep telling myself that. I do not know The Plan!  :) Student7 12:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sex abuse not confined to priests?

One hears that sex abuse is not owned by Catholic church. I have taken this for granted until I tried to document Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Massachusetts). For now, Geoghan and Shanley are way ahead. Student7 13:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What "tales" of the Bible merit separate articles?

There has recently been some discussion regarding which "stories" or portions of the Bible merit having their own articles. For the purposes of centralized discussion, please make any comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#What should have separate articles?. Thank you. John Carter 13:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review requested

Hi. Ruth Kelly is up for peer review here. Your comments are welcome. SP-KP 18:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Superior General of the Society of Jesus

Anyone know what credible scholars have said about Jesuit conspiracy theories(!)? I know there must be, but don't know specifics. Uthanc 09:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

In what time frame? As you know, the society was surpressed through the powerful Spanish because the Jesuits opposed enslaving the Natives in America. I suppose the Spanish had to drum up something more that it affected their pocketbook in order to accomplish this. 1767 or so? Is that the timeframe of which you are speaking? Student7 13:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Copied from the article - I was referring to these:
A number of conspiracy theories, not taken seriously by credible scholars, involve the "Black Pope". One such is the idea that the Jesuit Order has control of most of the secret services in the world including the CIA, the FBI, the KGB, the Mossad, the BND, and the SIS and have ordered and profited through creating wars and killing millions. Their motive is claimed to be the eventual rise of the "Black Pope" into the Anti-Christ. A firm believer in such theories is Jack Chick who claims that aside from their being the Pope/Anti-Christ's foot soldiers in the End Times, the Jesuits' Superior General was the Nazi's right hand man and that they were in fact allied with the SS in a bid for pagan world domination.
I believe this is nonsense. Uthanc 13:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe something on uncyclopedia can help.  :) A good topic for Anti-Catholicism article. I think I remember seeing something about Chick publications there. Student7 18:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Jack Chick is a well-known anti-Catholic cartoonist, not a credible source of scholarship. The.helping.people.tick 06:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Vatican City's Head of Government

I know that the Governor is the de facto Head of Government, but the Secretary of State is referred to as "regarded as being in charge of the political and diplomatic activities of the Holy See and is thus referred to as being the Holy See's 'prime minister'". I can't find a way to ask the State itself, so can anyone find a source as if th eSecretary is only regarded as such, or if he is the de jure Head of Government? Therequiembellishere 15:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Mother Teresa article

The Mother Teresa article is being hit pretty hard by a small but aggressive group of editors (border-line vandals) trying to basically trash the article, inserting unsubstantiated criticisms. It's a GA-rated article. A few of us are trying to deal with it, but it's becoming difficult. Any extra eyes and monitoring would be greatly apprecited! --Anietor 05:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Old Catholic Ministry

This article has recently been created, seemingly by someone acting in good faith but unfamiliar with wikipedia, judging by the citations and style. I have no knowledge of the subject matter myself, so I'm hoping that someone here will be able to have a look at it, possibly with a view to merging with Old Catholic Church. Thanks, Seth Bresnett • (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Naming of Dioceses

There doesn't seem to be a consensus on how to name the articles for the Roman Catholic Church. I would like to make a suggestion for a standardized format and get your comments. I lean toward using Roman Catholic Diocese of X. Often other denominations have diocese names that are exactly the same as the Roman Catholic Diocese. Some examples: Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh and Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, Roman Catholic Diocese of Makurdi and the Anglican Diocese of Makurdi, and the Roman Catholic, Ukrainian, and Armenian Archdioceses of Lviv. This fact would suggest to me that the best structure would be to have the following: individual diocesan pages with the denomination, disambiguation pages for Diocese of X where more than one denomination is present, and redirect pages where another denomination is not present. Npeters22 13:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Diocese where we are building consenus on this. I trust this will help with to answer your questions on infoboxes also. ant_ie 19:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Diocese Infobox Template

I have a few questions about the diocese infobox template. First, it does not seem to be appropriate for an archdiocese. Second, what is meant by "location", "territory" and "Population". I would assume territory would refer to the size (in km²) and I would geuss that location would refer to a description of the location of the diocese (the city, county, or other jurisdictions covered by the diocese). Would population refer to the total population of the diocese or only the population of catholics. Both are available on Catholic Heirarchy. Also, for "estabilshed", would this refer to the establishement of the preceeding apostolic prefectures and territories, or only the establishment as a diocese. In the case of an archdiocese, there is also the elevation to this status. There is also an "Infobox Diocese" that deals with some of these issues. Maybe the two infoboxes should be combined taking the best parts of each. Npeters22 13:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming Canadian Diocese Changes

Just a heads up - several adjustments to Canadian dioceses will be announced in the very near future. There will be one suppression ("Labrador City-Schefferville"), one name change ("Saint George's" will become "Corner Brook and Labrador"), and several will have territorial changes.--Dcheney 23:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I've made all the neccessary changes now - if I missed any reference please fix 'em :-) --Dcheney 01:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we delete this list

Some people are selective they would like to see only lists of their own domination, what do u think does this list warrant deletion or should we let it stay?[3]--יודל 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Charles II of England

Is under Featured Article review. Please help bring this article up to current featured article standard. Judgesurreal777 20:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Attention to Detail

I have often found many articles which do not fall under the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, but that do nevertheless concern the Roman Catholic church, misrepresent Catholic teaching. One example was in the article about Copernicus which implied that the RCC held dogma against heliocentrism. I have since discussed this with users on the talk page and have made the necessary corrections.

Also, I would like some opinions as to why in the Roman Catholic Church article there is such emphasis on the Second Vatican Council. Within the 2000 year history of the Church, for that council to be the only with it's own subsection seems to be a bit arbitrary, especially when one considers the effects the First Council of Nicea and the Council of Trent had on Christianity, and yet these are virtually passed over. Opinions? Guldenat 22:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that the article on Copernicus doesn't fall under the scope of WikiProject Catholicism? My opinion is that it does, since part of it concerns the Catholic church.
The Second Council is the most recent, so that may be why it has been given undue importance relatively to other events. This should be fixed one day. A.Z. 04:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about the councils, but the confrontation with Copernicus was mainly an anti-Catholic exaggeration produced by the Reformation. While, with the advantage of hindsight, it wasn't handled particularly well, it was hardly indicative of anything significant. The final result was mainly due to church politics.
Focusing on Copernicus is like presenting the Salem witch trials as typical examples of how Americans treated witches (or worse, conducted trials), despite the fact that Europe slaughtered millions, and Americans "only" slaughtered a dozen.Student7 11:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to fix it, but I am unsure about how to go about it. Would it be better to add more information about other councils, or to simply trim the information given concerning Vatican II? I'm not sure more info must be given about the other councils, since they have their own Wikipages already. It just really bothers me that other councils aren't so much as mentioned, and Vatican II, a council that issued no new doctrine, is given this sort of attention. I think A.Z. is correct that it is because that the council is recent, but the way it is on the Roman Catholic Church article, it makes it sound like Vatican II was not only the most important Church Council, but the only Church Council. I would appreciate help and someone with more experience than myself to assist in this matter. Guldenat 18:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Article move?

Altar server was just vandalised twice: first a blanking, then a major revision that deleted half the article. Upon my reversion, the user then moved the article to Religious Altar Boys. I don't know what your convention on this is, so please someone please either fix the problem or place a note on the talk page that this is in line with your policies. Nyttend 19:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Cardinal Kung Foundation

Cardinal Kung Foundation keeps an eye on Catholics in China. I added some references to Cardinal Kung Foundation, the material of which needs to be added to the article. The foundation's website also contains material that may be added to the article. Please take a little time to improve the article. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 21:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Brian Farrell (Roman Catholic Bishop) up for deletion

Are current bishops with a large number of articles about them notable enough by wikipedia standards? Bishop Brian Farrell is up for deletion here [4]. Nick mallory 06:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review of Bath Abbey

Would very much like some feedback on this, having completed a total rewrite, before going to WP:GA about it.--Vox Humana 8' 23:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Other than the lead not mentioning the country, which I fixed, it looks good to me. -- Meyer 01:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Adrian, Archbishop of York

Adrian, Archbishop of York (via WP:PROD on 1 October 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This archbishop is non-existant. It is fiction mixed with the bio of Adrian of Canterbury. -- SECisek 02:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country (8 October 2007 – 14 October 2007) No consensus

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin nominated for Featured Article Review

Shroud of Turin has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. PeterSymonds | talk 19:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Conchiglia

Conchiglia (via WP:PROD on 21 October 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Knights of the altar

Knights of the altar (via WP:PROD on 20 October 2007) Kept

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: three American Bishops

three American Bishops --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

God article

Is there a discussion regarding the inclusion of the God article within this project? It isn't now. Shouldn't it be? --Elliskev 17:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Same with Christ, Holy Spirit, Crucifixion, Christian cross, Virgin Birth of Jesus... --Elliskev 17:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Why don't you do it? freenaulij 22:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freenaulij (talk • contribs)

OK> I'll work on it tomorrow. I wanted to make sure that there wasn't some consensus to not do it. --Elliskev 23:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Styles and cardinals.

A somewhat minor note, but can't think of a better place to drop it off... I've noticed that quite a few cardinals are introduced as His Eminence (see [5]). As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes, this generally shouldn't be done. While arguably {{Infobox cardinalstyles}} should wikilink to His Eminence, it currently doesn't and this thus conveniently offers a fairly large list of cardinal articles which could use a bit of cleanup. I don't think I have the expertise to go through all of them, though, as from cursory examination there may be other things that need changing as well. (I was only usually able to restate the subject's name a bit more often and un-wikilink lone years.) SnowFire 00:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Many if not most uses of {{ infobox cardinalstyles}} in older articles were based on a general styles template, and include fields for "dipstyle", "offstyle", "relstyle" and sometimes even "deathstyle". These parameters are no longer used in the current infobox. f someone is going to be fixing articles for improper honorifics, perhaps uses of the infobox could be cleaned up, too. Gimmetrow 01:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Catholicism and Freemasonry article

This extremely divisive topic currently suffers from the problems which I believe all of us would expect to see in an article on such a divisive topic, a good deal of good, sourced, material, but serious problems regarding NPOV, etc. I would welcome the input of any editor who believes that they would be able to contribute to improving this article. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 22:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is now a nominee for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Any individuals who would be willing to work on the article would be welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter 19:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Pre-reformation GA's

I just added several pre-reformation GAs to the project page from your friends at wikiproject Anglicanism! -- SECisek 22:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

List of preachers

I have added a number of Catholic (and other) big-hitters, but I'm sure many important historical figures are missing - Spaniards & Italians especially. Any additions welcome, but the bar should be set high. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Move proposal for Cardinal

See Talk:Cardinal, where I have proposed giving the plain title Cardinal to what is now Cardinal (Catholicism) and creating a disam page for other meanings. Johnbod 16:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Portal catholicism in peer review

{{FPcandidates}}

It would be nice, if the members of the project could add statements.--Thw1309 (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Marian doctrines

I have worked up a Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church article - which is one of the suggested articles for the project. Xandar (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Post-abortion syndrome

There has been some recent contention on post-abortion syndrome, revolving numerous allegations of bias and the openly discussed (and implemented) purging of peer reviewed journal articles which go against the "consensus" view that abortion is benign and helpful to women. If anyone feels intrepid, I'd like to invite outside opinions on Wiki policy regarding reliability of peer reviewed journals and authors of peer reviewed articles, and on WEIGHTING and POV. The issue is detailed on the article talk/discussion page and in two versions of the base article, version 1 and version 2.--Strider12 (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Imperium needs better cites

Imperium "incorporates text from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913." However, it has no in-line cites and apparently no other sources, although edits have been made to this article by various authors over several years. I have no expertise in this area myself. Can anyone add good cites to this article? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible Catholic saint collaboration

For the purposes of centralized discussion, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints#Multiple saints collaborations?. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester

Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to everyone .Bewareofdog (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous category

Here's something that happens often enough. Pope Sylvester I has correctly been categorized as a doctor of the church. However, he is recognized only by the Armenian church and by nobody else. This leads to a peculiar, and by some people's reckoning, erroneous categorization. How finely to slice a category? I'm thinking that several categories need to exist at lower levels with religion-specific recognition of "doctor," to be rolled up into a higher level "doctor." I'm sure this happens often enough in many other areas. Ideas? Student7 (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Homiletics

Could I get some comments from this project about this discussion at WT:JEW? As it says, there are a number of inbound links to Homiletics that use the word in a Jewish context, although the article deals with the subject from an exclusively Roman Catholic perspective. At this point I'm thinking we should either have two articles or major additions to the existing article. I don't want to make those kinds of changes without hearing from someone here first. The talk page at "Homiletics" is empty except for a couple of templates. I brought it up here because I thought there would be more eyes on this page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism in Great Britain taskforce?

I'm interested in setting up a task force for Roman Catholicism in Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) as I feel these articles have been slightly neglected and it would be a good base to improve them. Does anybody have any advise on setting this up and would anybody be interested in participating with it? Many thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My best guess would be to post it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and leave messages on various talk pages relating to the subject. That's generally the best way to see if there is enough support. John Carter (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, I posted a proposal. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea, and I have put my name down in favour of the proposal. Robotforaday (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As per that page, however, it is generally best to see that there are enough people involved to justify the creation of a full task force, which is generally at least 5 people. Right now, this group appears to have only two individuals interested in joining it. I think it would probably be a good idea to wait until the full five or so have indicated an interest before really starting the group. John Carter (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Founder?

I was looking at theRoman Catholic Church article and noticed that in the infobox it says St.Peter was the founder of the church? I have been thought it was founded by Jesus not Peter. Can we do something about it?Bewareofdog (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have changed it; lets see if anybody takes exception. Robotforaday (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I won't change it, though it will doubtlessly be challenged by someone. Jesus had assumed that the Jewish people would eventually embrace his philosophy. He was Jewish and did not appear to have any intent to form a separate church (yes, "upon this rock..." but that was their local sect, not a brand new religion). I really think Peter should stay for that reason. Student7 (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The Catholic church's view of itself is that it was instituted by Jesus; see the catechism. Now, while there are reasonable grounds for scholarly debate about whether that is an accurate portrayal of history, it is what the church believes and teaches, and the article should certainly take account of that; to just say "Peter" in the infobox is therefore massively POV (as it basically implies that what the church teaches is untrue) Robotforaday (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I figured that there should be some consistency among catholic Christians at least. Russian Orthodox has the Apostle Andrew in keeping with their tradition. Church of England has (I would not have predicted this) Henry VIII! A number of them have no box. Lutherans don't. Lots of choices for boxes and many avoid the one used in RC Church, None for Baptists nor Episcopals or generic Orthodox, for example. Anyway, right now the RC article is alone. Unique!  :) Student7 (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, it depends what you mean be "founder". If "Jesus" goes in for one church, it probably needs to go in for all churches, as all view themselves as part of that church that Jesus founded; in which case it would be better just to remove the clause as it would have become meaningless. On an organisational basis, Peter seems more accurate; there was nothing that could be described as the Catholic Church during Jesus' lifetime, even if Jesus appointed Peter to found the church. TSP (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
But if we put Peter, then there are two problems:
1. The problem of logic. You say "even if Jesus appointed Peter to found the church", but this directly contradicts the wording that "On this rock I [as in Jesus] will build my church". Now, you can question whether by "my church" Jesus meant the Catholic church, BUT if we are saying that the Catholic church is the church of Peter (which is what you are suggesting), then it logically follows that the church of Peter WAS the church of Jesus according to that gospel account. (Of course, there is the question of the historical accuracy of scipture, which is a whole different can of worms).
2. The problem of POV: The Catholic Church claims that it was instituted by Christ (see the reference to the catechism I put above). Now, while some may find scholarly reasons to dispute that, if you simply put "Peter", that that implictly states that the view of this encyclopedia is that the Catholic church is making a false claim. Robotforaday (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying that the Catholic Church is "the church of Peter" (as distinct from the church of Jesus); it views itself as the church of Jesus, as do all Christian churches. In an organisational sense, though, it traces itself back to Peter: Jesus was not a pope, never went to Rome, and did not in life lead a body that could have been called the Catholic Church. This was all set up in response to Jesus' commands, but not really by Jesus. I don't think the two are incompatible.
As I say, we can put "Jesus" in; in which case we should do the same for all Christian churches, as they all consider themselves to be the church of Jesus and a part of the original church that Jesus founded; in which case we might as well remove the entry as it will have become meaningless. To put one church and only one church as being founded by Jesus is definitely POV. TSP (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
In this particular case, given the doctrinal concerns and outsider opinions, as it were, I think we might be best served by leaving that line blank, so that it doesn't appear in the template and we in effect remain neutral. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Count me in at least temporarily. I've footnoted the founder in the infobox. BUT, you can't have it both ways. I've changed the date to 30 AD and place to Jerusalem. The choices are 1) Peter, Rome and 50 AD or 2) Jesus 30 AD Jerusalem. I've found at least one other reference. Didn't seem appropriate to add unless challenged. Student7 (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops, you're quite right on the Jerusalem score; I should have noticed that when making the initial change. Robotforaday (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hello Fellow Editors, I am requesting feedback from other editors about some changes I recently made to the article Roman Catholic Church. I have been using the FA Islam as a guide to make a page that defines what the Roman Catholic Church is without cluttering the page with too much inflammable content that is already extensively covered in other Wikipages. The page has summaries of important events and Wikilinks to subjects like Catholic social teaching and Spanish Inquisition and the like. The references need work to make them in-line citations but I will get to them when I complete the content portion of the page. Please come take a look at the page and offer your non-POV comments about its content. I would like to work and make the page a FA but I do not have a reviewer who has a NPOV. The page will be stuck without one. Thanks.

See previous page before my changes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Catholic_Church&oldid=184675288

See present page with my changes here: Roman Catholic Church

Many thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Belgian College of Rome

Hello. Recently a link to Belgian College (Rome) was removed from Pope Leo XIII. I added the link back, hoping to either redirect or create an article, but was surprised to find almost no information about the subject - except an entry about Roman Colleges from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia on Wikisource[6] (see the section titled "Collegio Belga") That article mentions the "ancient monastery of Gioacchino ed Anna at the Quattro Fontane", but I am unclear if this refers to Santi Gioacchino ed Anna al Tuscolano. There is enough information in Wikisource to create a stub on this college. (But should it be named Collegia Belga, Belgian College, or Belgian College of Rome?) A 1903 copy of New Catholic World [7] mentions a rector named Mgr. Carlo de T'Serclaes, while Justin McCarthy's Pope Leo XIII (1896) refers to T'Serclaes as an "eminent ecclesiastic" and president of the college.[8] Are there any other sources for the existence of this college and is it still around today? Thanks for your help. —Viriditas | Talk 11:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cathedral of Our Lady of Peace

Article is very close to GA-Class, but requires inline citations. Some sources can be found in the external links section at the bottom of the page. Please take a moment to help improve this article. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 13:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Pope with unusual name

I added the following information below to the Pope Sergius IV article. I had come across this interesting bit of information in a book last night and saw it was not on the pope's entry. I just thought I would bring it to the attention of this wikiproject in case anyone knew more history about this Pope's original name. Remember (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

His birth name is believed to have been Pietro (Peter) Martino Boccapecora. This name essentially translated to "Peter Pig's Snout."Catholic Encyclopedia entry

Andreas Hönisch

I just started this, for the Scouting aspect. I know you guys have special templating, but not being Catholic, I don't know what all you'd want on there. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding project banner

I have noted how several articles relevant to Christianity have only the banner of more focused projects, several Christianity banners, or no banners at all on the talk pages. This makes it rather difficult for the Christianity WikiProject to keep track of all articles, as well as potentially reducing the number of editors who might be willing to work on the article, if only the more focused banner is in place. If I were to adjust the existing {{ChristianityWikiProject}} to include separate individual assessment information for each relevant Christianity project, and display the projects which deal with it, like perhaps the {{WikiProject Australia}} does, would the members of this project object to having that banner ulimately used in place of this project's one? It might help reduce the banner clutter, as well. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism/Archive_3&oldid=1140165018"