Saint Dismas Prison Ministry is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greetings, Today I tagged this article for "tone" and "advert" because I think it can be salvaged instead of deleted. Another consideration is it is included in Milwaukee Archdiocese navbox. Lastly, it needs more wikilinks to further integration in the encyclopedia. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk)13:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion
@The Banner: Please let's discuss this. These are not all primary sources and include at least one independent correspondent. As to the COI that must be established, not assumed.Jzsj (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Jzsj, I reverted your edits. Banner's version was fair and not promotional, whereas yours it not. You need to recognize your COI for Jesuit issues. You are back not even two days from a one-month block, and reverting the good edits of others. Are you trying to get yourself another block?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Let's begin by retaining the independent sources, then we can decide what is worth preserving from them. Just because the current president of an organization is a Jesuit doesn't mean it's a Jesuit organization, or that I have a conflict of interest in trying to improve this article on a Catholic organization. (The block had nothing to do with my editing, but I made a mistake in alerting to an article an administrator who had shown an interest in it.) Jzsj (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
A staff member and a correspondent for these Diocesan newspapers wrote articles which give valuable information about this national ministry. Why must you delete these sources from the article? The Saint Dismas Prison Ministry is not owned or controlled by those who are writing about it here: the Catholic Church is not like one big business, and Catholics don't have to agree on the merits of this ministry. These two sources meet Wikipedia standards as well as the unattributed Angelus ref that you have chosen to retain. Jzsj (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
But why must you take it upon yourself to remove these independent coverages, rather than letting others decide if there's anything in them that IS relevant?Jzsj (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Mention that it sponsors a national conference has been repeatedly removed. Is there any support for retaining this in the article, referenced to here (with other notices from around the country also available). Jzsj (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
The Catholic Harold's website states that it is owned by the diocese of Madison. Catholic sources are not necessarily unreliable, but I I don't think this newspaper has sufficient editorial independence to be cited in this article. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 15:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
I consider a statement like "we sponsor this" always as promo, no matter what organisation makes this claim. It rarely adds anything to the notability of the organisation. The Bannertalk16:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments9 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Oppose That article is not about organizations on the outside that support prison ministry. It is about what is going on inside the prisons. I suggest that the present article could be a bit longer if less scepticism was shown toward reports of its activities. Jzsj (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Oppose As of 19 May 2018, discussion result was to Keep so I don't see a need to merge this content into another article. While doing assessments on thousands of articles, I see some articles that are "short" or "small" and find nothing wrong with that for the WP encyclopedia. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment: Just a general comment about this since it doesn't seem that any consideration was given to the non-free use of File:SaintDismas.png in the main infobox of this article prior to it being merged. The file's non-free justification rested entirely on the fact that the logo was being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of this article (i.e. a stand-alone aritcle about the ministry); so, when the content of this article was merged into the two other articles mentioned above, the nature of the non-free use changed this making the previous justification for non-free use no longer valid. While it might be fairly easy to move text content from one article to another as part of a merge, the same can't be automatically assumed for non-free files which are also being moved. Non-free content use requires a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use and those which are missing rationales can be removed per WP:NFCCE; moreover, the post-merge rationale needs to be a valid one that meets all ten WP:NFCCP.Anyway to make a long story short, the file was flagged for review by a bot and was scheduled to be removed when I came across it. It turns out that the file is actually too simple per c:COM:TOO United States to be considered copyrightable and didn't really need to be uploaded as non-free; so, I coverted the file's licensing from non-free to {{PD-logo}}, which means it's use is no longer subject to WP:NFCC and can be pretty much used on any page now. Just for reference though, it's unlikely the way the file is being used in the two new articles would be considered justifiable per NFCC, which means it would've ended up deleted if it been too complex to be converted to public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
