Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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

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

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

I have posted a message at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Colorado page as well, hoping that somewhere there might have some idea of the publication. It was published in Denver, right? I hope? :) John Carter (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know. I have had great difficulty finding anything out about this. The Archdiocese of Denver publishes the Denver Catholic Register now; I'm given to assume that the older reference is to the same journal. I've looked at the archdiocesan website, but IIRC there was no email link that seemed to lead back to the DCR offices. Mangoe (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOL!

Though I suppose I'm not actually "one of [these] chaps," I did find that the text you refer to was lifted verbatim from here.

So I went ahead and block-quoted that text, and added that reference to the article.

Cheers, —Wikiscient— 03:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, it is unfortunately impossible to change categories in that way. Also, I think the "Roman" might be added to differentiate from any of the other variant forms of Catholicism, like Old Catholicism, out there. Takiing that into account, the added "Roman" might be best kept. John Carter (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

John, I'm not so certain about that-when one hears somebody referring to a dissident sort, they inherently refer to a 'liberal catholic' or an 'Old catholic', in other words, with a qualifier. However, in the words of the Creed, there is only 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church'(all in capitals), and that is the Petrine Church. To use the moniker 'roman' seems to me to be a misnomer and discounts the other 20-some eastern rites that are also part of the 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church'. And the term, 'latin rite' also only refers to that part of the Church which is headed by the Bishop of Rome.

I think that the term 'Catholic'(in caps), without a leading qualifier, would perhaps be best to describe the Petrine Church in Rome.--Lyricmac (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The term "Roman Catholic" is not part of the Vatican's lexicon. "Catholic Church" is the always preferred and is used to describe all Catholic rites in communion with the Church of Rome. I'd actually like to see the U.S. bishops engage in a mini-campaign to educate the press (and even the Yellow Pages) that the proper way to describe Catholics is as Catholics, not "Roman Catholics." If they are willing to be sensitive to the preferred self-description of other groups, why not also in regard to Catholics? (By the way, even the Old Catholics have taken care to give themselves a new adjective "Old" to distinguish themselves from just Catholics who acknowledge the papal authority of the current Bishop of Rome.--GodBlessYou55 (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Due to the volume and timespan of contributions, a posted on Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests. — MrDolomite • Talk 13:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I though Episcopals considered themselves "Catholic." Not sure that is a small c or large which is important. Probably should change banner/project. Really not much choice. On the other hand not a lot of pressure to do so "instantly." Student7 (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Point in question - the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, called 'Eastern Catholics', are Catholics but not Roman. InfernoXV (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they officially are under the authority of the Pope, so they probably do qualify as "Roman". Having said that, I don't know that there are any particularly good articles (GA or better) relating to Old Catholicism, so, at this point, it's probably a bit of a moot issue, although it might arise later. I do think that there is a good question as to whether the scope of this project would include content relating to Old Catholicism or not, though. John Carter (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sed contra, the term "Roman" refers to the liturgical rite used by a church rather than its hierarchy. So, for example, the Maronite Catholics aren't Roman, but are in communion with the Pope. It any case, that's kinda a minor point...this article seems to want to talk about the concept of "Catholicism", but doesn't seem to know where to start, either. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Carter, objection! Eastern Catholics (myself included) do NOT consider ourselves 'under the authority of the Pope', but merely in communion with him. InfernoXV (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Church - and most media and scholars - use the term Catholic rather than Roman Catholic. Majoreditor (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's really not that hard. There is a Catholic Church, which includes some 23 Churches (no longer called "rites" after Vatican II), one of which is the Roman Catholic Church. All these Catholic Churches are in communion with the pope. Merely being in communion with the pope does not automatically make one "Roman Catholic." The current treatment of "Roman Catholic" as synonymous with "Catholic" is wrong ecclesiologically, and a simple look at the Catechism could clear this up. I'm amazed that it requires so much back-and-forth and people speaking from what they "think" or "remember" as a basis for debate. Why not just look it up? The current name of the entry is wrong. And that's not subjective, just a matter of fact!Ericstoltz (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed, I have now realised, after a message from another editor and another administrator and looking at various editing histories, that the same thing has happened mostly today but over the past week for almost all of the dioceses concerning the Roman Catholic church in England and Wales, and it has mostly involved the same two editors.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we have reluctantly concluded that all dioceses must have "Roman Catholic" preceding them even thought there might not be any specific ambiguity today with other dioceses (Anglican, etc.). If somebody can prove otherwise, I'd be happy.Student7 (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Where have we concluded this? If there's an ambiguity now (of current or previous names), then I see it, but unless we are to go peppering all Anglican dioceses with 'Anglican', and to prefix all other RC dioceses with 'RC' on the off-chance that some new diocese of the same name and a different church will be created in the future, then I don't. Give them their natural names, and add 'RC' only where necessary. The lede should say that the RC dioceses are RC, but I see no need, or consensus, to put 'RC' in the name. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Philip Trueman. Most articles on Anglican dioceses in the UK don't have the "Anglican" prefix. Why should Catholic dioceses in France be labelled RC Diocese of X, a name no-one is likely to input in a search. Xandar (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There has been considerable discussion on this topic, most recently at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Diocese_titles. Anglican Dioceses are certainly one situation, not only in the UK, but South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, etc. Other Catholic Dioceses are also a possibility, and I have encountered many situations where Dioceses of Armenian, Chaldean, Greek-Melkite, Maronite, Ruthenian, Syrian, Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankar, Ukranian rites and others overlap with Roman Catholic (Latin) Dioceses. Because of this, I suggest that we should create a diocese or Achdiocese page using the Roman Catholic (or other denomination) prefix "Roman Catholic Diocese of XXX", and then, if there are no other dioceses with the same name, create a redirect page "Diocese of XXX". If there are other dicoeses with the same name, you should instead create a disambiguation page with "Roman Catholic Diocese of XXX", "Maronite Diocese of XXXX", etc.Npeters22 (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In regard to the names of Anglican vs. Roman Catholic dioceses in the United Kingdom, use of either qualifier is unnecessary. When the Roman Catholic hierarchy was re-established in the UK in the 19th Century, an agreement was reached that no Roman Catholic Diocese would have the same name as an Anglican diocese. So, for example the Diocese of London is Anglican, and the Roman Catholic diocese based in London is called the Archdiocese of Westminster. Ericstoltz (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Not a bad idea - the questions would be whether there would be enough interested editors to make it viable in the long run and how it would be different from Wikipedia:WikiProject Vatican City, which I think already includes all the Popes and other articles related to the Vatican in its scope. The articles assessed for that project are also automatically assessed for Catholicism, so, in a sense, it already is a functional subproject. John Carter (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Even so I still think that a group of even just a few editors who dedicated themselves to one very narrow topic- i.e. Popes would be able to move through each page in that scope and pull each one up to a decent standard. It might fall into the scope of other projects this is true, but what it would hopefully achieve is gathering together active editors to work together and improve things section through section. As you know, we have many members of this wikiproject but how many are regularly active? If all those who were concentrated their efforts onto certain tasks we would see a good improvement- I would think. Also I don't see where Pope's falls into their subproject...Gavin Scott (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Done a couple. You might have warned me there were two of the Pollens - I did the father first, and you meant John Hungerford Pollen (Jesuit). Charles Matthews (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

you think I'd realised that? well done - do you think John Hungerford Pollen should be a hndis page? Dsp13 (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No comment on the rest, but sources can be both reliable and biased. --NE2 04:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the actual edits and reversions, it seems that what is going on is that Interactbiz wants to add a mention of some of the material from Edgardo Mortara to Pope Pius IX; that is, material relating to Pius's treatment of Jews. In my judgement, such an addition would be appropriate: the issue has been widely discussed by scholarly sources. There are, however, much better sources available than the one that Interactbiz was relying on (an NYT article). Looie496 (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Saints are by definition not living people (I think, please don't correct me if I'm wrong), and only one pope at a time is living. I'm copying this discussion to the Catholicism wikiproject, hoping to find knowledgeable editors there. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did this discussion take place Talk:Pope Pius IX? Gavin (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, though that would probably be the best place for it. the bio of living persons noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed a lot of articles relating to the catholic church(es) contain the "References" section before the "See also" section. I have been reversing these when I come across them ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6]), but I am not making a point of going after them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The featured list List of popes has been nominated for removal. You can comment here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd note that the list has been rated as "high importance" for this project, so it'd be good to clear this up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As I noted on the talk page for the list in question - there doesn't seem to be any disagreement about this list. It has had stable criteria for the last 3.5 years.--Dcheney (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

On a related note: when a Cardinal dies, the following is a list of entries that need to be updated: the Cardinal's personal entry; the entry for his last diocese/congregation; List of titular churches in Rome, List of cardinals, List of cardinals by country, College of Cardinals, and, if applicable, List of oldest Catholic bishops.--Dcheney (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

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

• • You can see a discussion of the subject above under Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Edit-warring_on_the_name_of_a_diocese.Npeters22 (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church (Detroit, Michigan)
• St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church (Waltham, Massachusetts)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul, Providence
• Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul (Providence, Rhode Island)

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

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