Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2010

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 2005←Archive 2008Archive 2009Archive 2010Archive 2011Archive 2012→Archive 2015

Roman Curia Taskforce proposal

I propose some Wikipedians from WikiProject Catholicism form a Roman Curia Taskforce, the purpose of which is to better organise Roman Curia-related articles on Wiki. Half the articles are stubs and this is not good. Tell me what you think and God bless! CanonLawJunkie (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

New members

A number of new members have joined recently, so I'd like to encourage them to participate more fully in the Project. This page is the best one for any questions, suggestions, proposals and problems to do with all Catholic-related articles. If you are editing such an article, check whether it has the "Project Catholicism" tag on the talk page, which identifies the article as part of this project. If not, please insert it at the head of the talk page using the code: {{Project Catholicism}} Other useful tasks include suggesting new articles and improvements, rating articles on our quality stage, checking that articles are correct, and helping to find reliable references for articles. Xandar 02:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thomas More Article Request for Comment

There is a request for comment on the Thomas More article talk page, where an editor has inserted a piece, based on "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" suggesting that More revelled in torturing protestants. Can people with an interest in or knowledge of this topic, comment on this on the talk:Thomas More page. Xandar 23:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over article Anticlericalism and Freemasonry

There is well sourced material now in the new article Anticlericalism and Freemasonry which was deleted wholesale from the old article Catholicism and Freemasonry with very little discussion. What remained, after the deleted material, was moved into either Christianity and Freemasonry or Papal ban of Freemasonry. An editor is claiming that the new article Anticlericalism and Freemasonry‎ is just POV or and attack article and tried to blank the article altogether and redirect to an article without all the blanked material. The editor maintains that the article should be deleted. One editor suggested that the editor who dislikes the article nominate it for deletion, which hasn't been done...yet. While the article might have some problems, I don't think it should be blanked or deleted. Those with an interest in the matter might want to join the discussion or improve the article. Mamalujo (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the page. Basically I think the subject rates coverage in a separate article. Xandar 03:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Charles I

Hi,

Does anyone know if Charles I is venerated as a saint by the Catholic Church? --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, no. Charles I was never a catholic, though I think some high Anglicans (known as Anglo-Catholics), have made moves in that direction. Xandar 01:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
He is in fact the only official Anglican saint (other people are "heroes"), but not a Catholic one. Didn't you read the article? Johnbod (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Christian pilgrimage

This article is little more than a list at the moment. It seems an important subject that could do with some improvement such as adding a history of pilgrimage and of the concept itself. Volunteers?? Xandar 01:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Aquinas College, Perth

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Aquinas College, Perth/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Naming convention for churches?

Is there some sort of naming convention for churches with a specific patron saint? I don't know whether to name an article "St. Anthony Catholic Church" or "St. Anthony's Catholic Church", especially since some of my sources use one format and some use the other. Nyttend (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't give a reference. I noticed that the church in Rome is called "St. Peter's.." in Wikipedia. Unfortunately it is almost always said both ways in conversation. But the possessive appears most correct.
There are flukes. One church is officially called "The Conversion of St. Paul." So, naturally, everyone calls it "St. Paul's" (or St. Paul). Student7 (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Usually, the official name is without an apostrophe (although sometimes it does contain an apostrophe). Regardless of the official name, people -- in conversation -- usually add an " 's"; it seems to flow easier when speaking, especially when using just the nickname (e.g., St. Paul's) instead of the formal name (e.g., St. Paul Catholic Church). For example, one might say in conversation: "I am a parishioner of St. Paul Catholic Church" or "I am a parishioner at St. Paul's." Most people would not say "I am a parishioner at St. Paul." It doesn't sound right, especially since St. Paul is also a person (albeit deceased). The reason most official names don't include the apostrophe is that it is not a possessive use. The church does not "belong" to St. Paul. For example, in Naples, Fla., there is a church called "St. Peter the Apostle Catholic Church". Its name is not "St. Peter the Apostle's Catholic Church". Also, it's not "Our Lady of Perpetual Help's Catholic Church. The inclusion or non-inclusion of the apostrophe is an example of the confusion that arises when the colloquial usage differs from the formal, offical usage. Eagle4000 (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure? If so, that must be an American thing, and historically the churches were indeed the possessions of the saints - legally they belonged to them, & were administered on their behalf, usefully anticipating developments in corporate/trust law. I would always expect an apostrophe in UK English and translated European names, & I think the vast majority have them, though the formal names usually are in the form "Church of St Paul, Location". Ones that don't fit a possessive comfortably just use the name, as in "Our Lady of Perpetual Help". Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes. The possessive is key. You can say "The Church of Saint Paul", but this is normally abbreviated to "Saint Paul's", not "Saint Paul". Even "Our Lady of Perpetual Help" will usually be from "The Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Help." To do otherwise would be to name the Church as if it were the person it is dedicated to. Xandar 01:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
In my diocese in the US, I normally notice churches referred to as the parish which they serve. Also, my diocese refers to them individually as parishes, therefore I have been working on articles which refer to them as such. -- Alvincura (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I like Alvincura's idea of calling it a parish or community. But, a few years ago there were people objecting to articles on organizations, such as a congregation. So I made mine all "churches" as if the building itself were significant. Also note that tiny churches with a few members meeting in someone's home could now claim an article. So requiring a building is not a bad idea IMO. Student7 (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This seems very sensible to me. Perhaps we should quantify notability in this case, to get around the issue of home churches. There is an implication that a parish serves a significant community, either by size of congregation or association of geographic area. A guideline may be helpful. -- Alvincura (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Need some help expanding Roman Catholic Country Articles

I am trying to help expand 3 articles for Roman Catholicism in these 3 partially recognised countries. I thought who better to help than this project! Hope someone can lend a hand. But do remember that these are contested areas and information can be difficult to find, so its been a bit of a challenge. Do come to the rescue of these articles!

Many thanks in advance, Outback the koala (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This project was most unhelpful. Outback the koala (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Heralds of the Gospel

Can someone find a way to stop vandalism on this article? --94.37.172.194 (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The hunter1986 (talk • contribs)

A US diocesan template up for deletion

A US diocesan template is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_3#Template:Catholic_dioceses_of_the_United_States. Student7 (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That template is better set out than the other one, and also links the individual dioceses. However it would seem to be incomplete, with only about a quarter of the Archdioceses in the US listed. Perhaps that is why it hasn't been used. Can it be completed? Xandar 01:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I just revised the Wikilink for the title of the other template, so it now displays as: Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Provinces in the United States. The new link takes you to an already existing list of dioceses -- by province. This might eliminate the need for the diocesan template that is up for deletion. Eagle4000 (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ida Raming, Gisela Forster and Patricia Fresen

I translated today article of german writers, catholic theologian and teachers Ida Raming and Gisela Forster as South African writer, teacher and catholic theologian Patricia Fresen. GLGermann (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I need some help?!

I made links to saints like the life of st. Anthony and catholic feast days etc. from different sources and now I have been accused of linkspamming when I carefully linked every single wiki article to the specific page that was about the wiki topic. Anyone can see this clearly if he watches this manually for himself. I dont know what to do. I have followed the wiki rules perfectly?! Even admin seems to not even watched the pages but only removed my additions? Please help so I can continue adding info to wiki when I find works or articles that is about the different things. Peace.Humilityisfine (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I just did a search and found the following Wiki policy: Wikipedia:Spam #External link spamming. It might be helpful as you try to resolve this. Good luck. Eagle4000 (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, please see my reply to you here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Catholic social teaching

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Catholic social teaching/GA1. I have placed the article on hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I haven't had anything to do with that article up until now, but I'll try and take a look in the next few days. Xandar 02:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Invitation for comments - Capitalization of La Salle

Hi, I am trying to correct the spelling of the page for Saint Jean-Baptiste de la Salle, founder of the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools. His name is not correct as he is Jean-Baptiste of "La Salle", not of "la Salle". Because this is a matter of capitalization, I am unable to move the page and require an administrator to do this. As such, I have requested a move on the Talk page of the article here. I would appreciate any comments supporting the move (or otherwise). Thank you. -- S Masters (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC - prefixes in article title of Eastern Orthodox officials

An RfC is currently open (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#naming_convention_associated_with_Eastern_Orthodox_officials) regarding the appropriateness of having position titles in the article title of religious Eastern Orthodox officials. Commentary would be welcomed, as the WP:NCWC talk page has a low level of activity.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ammended: The proposal currently tables is to remove of all prefix religious titles, positions and/or honours from the article title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up and watchdog

Hi! I wonder, if anyone could have an eye on Alfred Seiwert-Fleige. There's some heavy POV-pushing, original research, sockpuppetry and else going on in that article. I'ver tried my best to keep the worst nonsense out, but I'm mainly working on de:WP and not here frequently, so it'd be nice if one round here had a look form time to time. If you have question, please contact me here (might be longer till I reply or at de:WP, this business round Seiwert-Fleige and Ralph Napierski (by now perma-banned in most WPs) keeps me on my toes a bit. Regards, --Papphase (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church reorganization proposal - comments welcome

A proposal has been made to restructure and shorten the article Catholic Church. Comments on whether or not the proposed changed should be implemented are welcome. Karanacs (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment removed as canvassing

I posted and edit here to try to help editors on this page understand what is happening on the Catholic Church page with regard to the notice above by Karanacs but my comment was removed by SandyGeorgia as canvassing. If anyone would like to know they are welcome to come to my talk page and ask me to clarify for them or they can ask anyone else on the Catholic Church page participating in the poll.NancyHeise talk 01:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Jacob Frank now a mascot for Wikipedia sister project Wikiversity

Hi, I'm developing Jacob Frank (an 18th-century Jew who developed his own religious movement called Frankism, and ultimately converted to Catholicism) as a mascot for Wikipedia's sister project Wikiversity. Wikiversity aims to be an online open school and university, and was also created to host original research. Because of its nature, it's open to educational resources in almost any format. Wikiversity's mascots appear on User talk pages when new Users are welcomed. In my opinion, the Wikiversity mascots could be used more fully as an opportunity to teach. The previously developed Wikiversity mascots lack intrinsic educational value. For example, they include a jack-o-lantern, a goat and twin babies not noticeably tied to anything else. In contrast, Jacob Frank is tied to a chapter of Catholic history that is relatively little-known and is probably interesting to some people who might not have heard of him beforehand. I'm also hoping to use his professed ignorance in real life and the Frankist doctrine of "purification through transgression" to introduce the Wikiversity policies of "Be bold" and "Ignore all rules" (Wikipedia has very similar policies with the same names). I would appreciate your going over to Wikiversity to provide feedback on the pages about the mascot: v:User:JacobFrank and v:Template:JacobFrank. The Template is left on new Users' talk pages; the Userpage is linked from the template and provides more information about Jacob Frank. Also, any ideas for other Wikiversity mascots? Thanks. --AFriedman (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate: Go review it!

St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao is a current FA candidate. So far nobody has supported or opposed the nomination. Please make your opinion known. Review Page Here ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 16:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church has opened to decide which of several versions of the article has consensus, and how best to develop it. Input is welcome. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Saint Louis Abbey

Hello. I have revised and extended the entry on Saint Louis Abbey. Could a project member review its rating in light of my changes? Mjinkm (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I will tag the article for peer review for you, and peruse it myself. At first glance, it looks really good. I'd love to enlist your help for another Benedictine monastery. -- Alvincura (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Refer to WP:PRV, Talk:Saint Louis Abbey for more info. -- Alvincura (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Carmelites

Does anyone know how to render the Spanish-language Carmelitas Calzadas in English? The Carmelitas Descalzadas are the "Barefoot" or "Discalced" Carmelites. These would be the others. - Jmabel | Talk 18:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

They are most commonly called simply "Carmelites". The more formal name would be something like the Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel.--Dcheney (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Correct, no need for a qualifier in English. Carmelites were the original, Discalced Carmelites branched off from them.--Dcheney (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


Franciscan protomartyrs

The article Franciscan protomartyrs could use some help - tone is very POV (possibly copied from a Franciscan website? - though I've not chased this up). Very much a stub - no info box, no details of when canonised etc. I've attempted some basic clean up (borrowing material from Berard of Carbio) and tried to categorise. However, not my area of knowledge, so would be grateful if someone from this project could take it on. Cje (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Our Lady of Covandonga

I made a page for Our Lady of Covadonga and its not alot and I need some help on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongie555 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone want to help Marie-Rosalie Cadron-Jetté prepare for Good Article Nomination?

Hi there. I've been working on Marie-Rosalie Cadron-Jetté (19th century Canadian Servant of God), currently a B class article, and I'm about ready to take it to Good Article Nomination. This will be my first Good Article nomination. If anyone would like to look over and improve this article in the next week (and, of course, afterwards) their eyeballs and judgement would be most appreciated. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 41 articles to be referenced. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

Hi. I have been working on this article for a few days. At first, it was serving as a redirect page to the article on a different IHM order in the eastern US. I think I've got all the different templates I need so far and I've been documenting my progress in the talk page. Could any interested project members check it out to rate its quality and importance as well as add any relevant templates I may have missed. Suggestions would also be extremely welcome. Thanks. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Popes (graphical)

I have nominated List of popes (graphical) for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Courcelles (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Need reviewers for a cathedral up for Featured Article

St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao is up for review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao/archive3. Its only had two reviewers and is awaiting a few others. It is a quick and easy read, showing how this cathedral, built by German missionaries, weathered the coming of the communists and the cultural revolution. Please check it out! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Expert help needed

A few sections in Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences have a seemingly inferior logic that perhaps affects a larger selection of subsections. Those interested who are proficient in theology, philosophy and logic, might give a helping hand by assessing relevant subsections and giving comment at the talk page HERE! Thank you for your attention, and otherwise happy editing! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic CFD

Hello, this is a notice for this WikiProject in regards to a current category for discussion. The categories Category:Roman Catholic Church and Category:Roman Catholics is currently nominated to be merged. Your comments are welcome, and the discussion can be found here. Thank you. — ξxplicit 05:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Self policing

Hi

I came across an editor who seems to be adding "Roman CAtholic" wherever they can as well as removing atheist

In the interests of accuracy (as I am not that informed on overly religious topics) and self-policing could someone examine the contributions the editor has made and try and limit the damage they are causing [1] [2] [3] [4] and [5] to name but a few

contributions [6]

I have already dealt with some, such as their trying to reverse history on the Cuba and Fidel Castro pages

Things such as changing several Orthodox Catholic to Roman Catholic may not really be acceptable

thanks

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Howdy need opinions at Talk:East–West Schism,

Yesterday I was invited to a Discusion at Talk:East–West Schism as part of a WP:3O,

I am now posting this to get wider opinion on the Dispute in Question from Relevant WikiProjects

Thank you for your time Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible subprojects

This group, of all the Christianity projects, probably has the largest scope, given the size and amount of material on Catholicism. As such, it is also one which might best benefit from the creation of more focused groups. A few that come to mind, if there are people interested in such, is maybe at least one for the particular churches (Maronite, Melkite, etc.), and, maybe, one or more groups relating to topics like religious orders, maybe a few regional subprojects, maybe by continent or country, maybe one on Catholic clergy of all sorts, and whatever else. Would anyone here have any interest in seeing more focused groups on Catholicism, and, if so, what kind would you like to see? John Carter (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the very low level of activity here, this doesn't seem very promising frankly. Most items above are people asking for assistance, which they seem usually not to receive. Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't actually disagree with the first part of the above comment, although I've filed a few responses on the Schism request. If there are people who are interested in these more focused topics, though, it might make it easier and more likely for them to get some sort of cooperation. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
What exactly would would a 'more focused group' mean for this project? Thanks.Malke2010 16:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean forming a group or subgroup within this project that would focus on one topic, like religious orders?Malke2010 17:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it would be within this group, probably, like maybe religious orders in general, maybe individual families of orders, maybe the particularly churches in general, maybe specific groups for individual particular churches within the Catholic church, like the Maronites, or whatever. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
That seems like a good idea. Members in the project do have their own interests within the Church. I'm interested in the Catholic education system in the U.S. and in the religious orders. Are you looking for help with a particular project or is there a subgroup you want to form? What is the outcome you are looking for?Malke2010 18:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
At this point I'm just looking to see if there is sufficient interest in some subprojects to maybe go about setting them up in the banner and such. You appear to be interested in Catholic education and the orders, both of which are honestly legitimate and broad enough for potential groups. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Isn't that sort-of what the Member List section of the project page for? (to list particular areas of interest).--Dcheney (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Dcheney, I think he wants a group of editors from here to work on a project he has in mind right now.Malke2010 01:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay to try anything, I guess. Participation in any Project is fairly light. Subprojects would seem to dilute that, but go ahead, if you like. Good luck. Student7 (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinions sought

Hi, Talk:Pope_Leo_XIII#Arbitration has an ongoing discussion on how the coats of arms of popes should be represented, and it can affect almost all papal symbols. Your opinions regarding how papal symbols should be represented in Wikipedia, in conformity with the Vatican website, or otherwise based on the designs of individual Wikipedia editors, will be appreciated. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems rather inappropriate to me that the tiara and keys are being used by this Project as its logo. It is a symbol of the Pope and should not be applied so haphazardly to the activities of this Project. Perhaps we could use simply the crossed keys, and forgo the tiara? Use a mitre or a motto scroll in place of the tiara? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Godesberg

The 1583 Siege of Godesberg has been nominated for Featured Article. The war resulted in the reaffirmation of Catholicism in the Electorate and the preservation of the balance between Catholic and Protestant Electors in the Holy Roman Empire. A sister article Cologne War has already passed FAC. The present nominee could use additional reviewers. auntieruth (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement at Rosary of the Holy Wounds

Hey everyone. There's a discussion going on at Talk:Rosary of the Holy Wounds#Name of article as to what the article should actually be named. These editors could use a hand, so if someone could stop by, that'd be great. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Pauline/Petrine privilege

Hi WikiProject Catholicism. Is there any reason why Pauline privilege has "privilege" with a lower case "p", but Petrine Privilege has "Privilege" with a capital "P"? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

John Rao

There's an AFD discussion for John Rao that you might be interested in. Chris (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for First Crusade now open

The peer review for First Crusade is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Dogma ---> Roman Catholic dogma

See Roman Catholic dogma. I changed the title of the article to set the initial "d" in "dogma" in lower case. The word is consistently written with a lower-case initial letter many times throughout the article, and WP:MOS clearly says one should not capitalize the initial letter of a word merely because it's in an article's title (and the same applies to section headings).

Most of the links to the article are probably from a template, which I have edited. When you click on "what links here", the links resulting from a recently edited template apparently don't get updated for something like 24 hours, so it will be necessary to check tomorrow to see whether further links need to be edited. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Update on the following day: Some of the links are fixed. Some are not, and there's a problem. Under "what links here" I find dozens of articles still linking to the version with the capital "D", which is now a redirect page, and I've clicked on a bunch of those and searched for the link and found nothing. Usually that means the link is from a template within the article. But I've searched the various templates and can't find it there either. I've tried both the capital and lower-case "d", and can't find it. Can someone find where these links are coming from? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Deacons witnessing marriages

In this edit I added the words "or a deacon". That is current Catholic Church practice. I think a lot of the information in the article is from the Catholic Encyclopedia published a century ago and is not up to date.

But I don't know all the details, so someone else should go through the rest of the article and emend it accordingly. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Papal coats of arms

Please see the end of the page on Talk:Pope Leo XIII, and if possible comment on the suitability of the papal coats of arms used within Wikipedia. This issue could affect all papal coats of arms. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Mysterii Paschalis

I have created a stubby new article titled Mysterii Paschalis, about the motu proprio of Pope Paul VI dated Valentine's Day 1969, in which he deleted many names from the Roman Catholic calendar of saints. Happy editing. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Saw that. Good idea.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Article for Deletion/and Articles for Merger

I've nominated Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer for deletion. The discussion is here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Catholic_beliefs_on_the_power_of_prayer.

Also, I've suggested that Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) be merged with Blessed Virgin Mary and Mary, mother of Jesus. The discussions for this will be on the talk pages, I believe it's the talk page of Blessed Virgin Mary.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant to add that Catholic devotions is in serious need of repair.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

And I saw there are 2 or 3 articles in Catholicism that you have not tagged yet as being pure OR. What happened? Just kidding... And my comments were on Talk:Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), an article which I advised you to read based on the comments there. History2007 (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Catholicism articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Catholicism articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)

This article is in need of work from other editors. I've tagged it appropriately for the original research and needing an expert on the subject. It's filled with fallacies. I think it should probably be deleted since there's already an article Blessed Virgin Mary that covers Catholic theology, although it too, needs a lot of work in that regard.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Update, I've tagged it for merging with Mary (mother of Jesus) since the other article on the Blessed Virgin Mary has already been merged there. And the article Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is a POV content fork. Please see the talk page on the Mary (mother of Jesus) talk page. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Would someone with an basic understanding of Mariology and how it relates to veneration, worship, etc. please comment on the following talk thread [[7]]? Others joining in on the discussion would really help undo a roadblock. Marauder40 (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As we both suggested there, the pope might be an authority on that topic, given that he has used the phrase "venerate icons" a few times - but who are we to decide if he is really "an expert". In Wikipedia, all are equal, after all. I also suggested that in case the opinion of the pope is WP:OR we should arrange a trip for a few Wikipedians to put a few WP:OR or WP:NPOV flags on the front door of the Papal Apartments. And I am hereby offering to buy everyone a nice coffee in Campo de' Fiori afterwards. But lunch is not offered. Just coffee. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Funny History2007. I wanted to say something like that but I wanted to keep it neutral so I didn't get accused of something else.Marauder40 (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is how the Catholic Church handles veneration. Council of Trent:

  • "Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be had and retained particularly in temples, and that due honour and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles who placed [Page 235] their hope in idols; but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent; in such wise that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear: as, by the decrees of Councils, and especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the opponents of images."

The article in question Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) does not mention at all that this is how veneration is to be handled and instead makes statements about 'veneration of images,' which gives the distinct impression that Catholics are venerating images. This, as all Catholics know, is the common non-Catholic view that is typically used to "prove" that Catholics are not Christians because of their "Marian worship." The article is a POV content fork and needs to be merged with Mary (mother of Jesus) and/or deleted. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't take the arguement to the Project page. Let the people read the thread and come up with their own ideas. Marauder40 (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Christianity portals

I am currently trying to get together some lists of articles relevant to each Christianity-related portal which could be used, at least potentially, to help bring all the extant portals up to Featured Portal status. The current, admittedly incomplete, list of articles, images, etc., relevant to each portal can be found at User:John Carter/Christianity portals. I also think that, at least in theory, we would probably best use a single article only in a single portal, and that we probably have enough articles to do that, although there might be a few exceptions. I would welcome input from anyone on the associated talk page regarding which articles and other materials they would like to see associated with which portal(s), any suggestions for additional portals or changes to existing portals, etc. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden

Vassula Ryden is a shocking article constructed from awful sources (mainly self-published) - if anyone has 30 minutes to spare... --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic views on Mary. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Merging Vatican City into Holy See

Someone has suggested merging Vatican City into the Holy See article. Please vote! – S Masters (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Catholic views on Mary AfD relist

Catholic views on Mary started out as a rename for the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) but now has new content aimed at the various views of Catholics regarding Mary, much in line with similar articles Protestant views on Mary and Islamic views on Mary. The original nomination for deletion did not gain a consensus. The article is marked for rescue, please take the time to look at the article first, and then visit the AfD. The relist is halfway down the page. Thanks. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Catholic_views_on_Mary Malke 2010 (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move of Mary MacKillop

It has been proposed that Saint Mary MacKillop be moved: Mary MacKillop → Mary of the Cross — Your views and vote will be appreciated. Thank you. – S Masters (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move of Mary (mother of Jesus)

It has been proposed that the article currently titled Mary (mother of Jesus) be renamed Virgin Mary. Your views and vote will be appreciated. Thank you. Xandar 23:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Need help on Category:Promoters of the Rosary

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 2#Category:Promoters of the Rosary; I've suggested renaming but the discussion has faltered for lack of participation. Mangoe (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Liturgical color for holidays

I have added a field for liturgical color to Template:Infobox holiday. Please feel free to use the field and add the appropriate liturgical colors to holidays/holy days/feast days. Inclusion of both the 1962 and 1969 rubrics for completeness would be nice. Thanks everyone! - Alvincura (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)

This article is nominated for deletion because of content forking. Interested editors should go here for the discussion: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blessed_Virgin_Mary_%28Roman_Catholic%29 Malke 2010 (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

AFD discussion: Peter Kearney

I am rather concerned that this discussion:

is focussing solely on the man's role in politics, and ignoring his significance in the Christian life of Scotland. Please contribute your thoughts. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Third Order of Saint Dominic

The text in that article ultimately mainly comes from (the older) Catholic Encyclopedia. It contains an apologetic description of the reasons for the military orders; implying that the church was under military threat from the cathars, and therefore had to defend itself against them by military means.

I'm sure this description does not coincide with the consensus view among modern historians. However, what I do not at all know, is, what the modern official view of the (Roman) Catholic Church is. I know that it has revisedsome of its actions against (or lack of defence for) non-catholics; but I do not know whether or not this includes its actions against e. g. the albigensians. Hence, it is hard for me to fix the bias in the article. For anyone with a better knowledge, it should be easy enough to correct the minor aberrations.

In short, there are three possibly different views, which could be of interest in desctibing the background for the military orders:

  • The perception of the situation at the time of te formation of the orders (and I do believe that a threat against the Church was perceived).
  • The consensus view of modern historians (and IMHO this is that the forces of the Catholic Church attacked the cathars to a higher extent than the other way around).
  • The official and/or consensus view of the modern Catholic Church (and I really have no idea what it is).

The first view, the historical, is the most important as background for the establishment of the orders; but it should not be described as plain facts, as the article now does. If you read the article without any other knowledge of the subject, you get a picture of a church in immediate danger of being annihilated by the armed forces of the dangerously militant cathars; and of the purpose of the orders to set up a valiant self-defence against this direct material threat. This is, mildly expressed, not the modern (secular historians) consensus view; but is it still the "official" view of the Holy See? JoergenB (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A lot above. Let me answer one small part only. Generally the victors get the "blame" for winning = "they tried too hard." So the Japanese after WWII, were just a bunch of friendly gardeners beat up by a militant US; the Irish just a group of harp-playing, friendly people who only wanted to to drink in their pubs in peace, after the English (finally after 5 centuries of trying) finally conquered them; after the battle to liberate Kuwait, all the poor Iraqis (poor Saddam?) wanted was a little Lebensraum. Anyway, it was marked on their maps as "theirs". Right! Frankly I'd rather be on the victors side and take abuse for centuries than be on the losing side and be forced to accept the dictates of someone else. I refuse to cry and throw stones when my side wins. As with any major historical change, if the Cathars had won, the world would be quite unrecognizable. It was touch and go for awhile. Student7 (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The Japanese definitely and efficiently stroke against the US marine forces at Pearl Harbor; thereby opening grand scale direct military hostilities. The Iraqians not only attacked but for a while conquered Quweit. Did the albigensians ever make any military attack on the Catholic Church? The only reference with any similarity of this that I can find is one assasination, suspectedly by an agent of a count with albigensic leanings.
If the albigensians made a (grand scale or minor) military attack, or even if there is known evidence for them to have planned such an attack, then information of this should be included in the article about them. If not, I do not understand the comparisons with Japan and Iraq.
As for the Irish, I am not sure that they ever threated England by military means. On the other hand, there was - according to our articles - an official sanction of a Normand-English attack on Ireland by Pope Adrian IV, with the intent of subjugating the Irish Church. This perhaps is more comparable with the crusade against the albigenses. If there was an actual or planned attack against England by the Irish, our articles and other sources completely forget to mention it.
Both the albigenses and the Irish defended themselves by military means, when hostilities broke out. This is not the same thing as attacking or planning to attack. Some Gaelic forces in Ireland at some stages - long after the first Normand invasion - attacked Anglo-Irish in Ireland. At a very much later phase (in the 20'th century), some Irish did make terrorist attacks within England proper; but I do not think that this is what you referred to.
I am not speculating about "alternative history". I'm asking whether the Catholic Church today to-day claims that there was a direct, material, military threat against the papal church from the albigenses; and if so, whether there is any reference for this. If there is such a claim from any other reliable source, this also is relevant. The comparisons with Japan and Iraq seem completely irrelevant. JoergenB (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
If you are looking for a 9/11 incident or a Pearl Harbor, the answer is "No," there wasn't a "modern" casus belli that would have survived a Geneva Convention overview. Those rules were not in effect at the time. Did the church "feel" threatened in a day, when you did not threaten powerful entities and expect to get away with it? Yes. You can't use modern analysis to fairly analyze old events. On the other hand, they seldom or never got to a 9/11 or Pearl, because they quashed dissidence before it got to that stage. We don't do that now. As a result, the percentage of "innocent" civilians that died in the 20th century from war, far exceeded that of the 13th. Student7 (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

USA Mission Dioceses

I was startled to discover that there were about 67 dioceses in the US labeled as "mission." http://www.catholicextension.org/links/ Shouldn't they be so labeled in their articles? Student7 (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I will so label them internally ("x is a mission diocese..."), if there is no objection. It is clear that they are different than regular dioceses. Student7 (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I do have to wonder about your statement "It is clear that they are different than regular dioceses." How are they different? --Dcheney (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
They don't have much money. They may have many "mission churches." Catholics are well epaced out demographically. Lots of driving for bishops. A priest in a Florida diocese was promoted directly to bishop of a western US diocese, probably a mission one. Even though there were auxiliary biships waiting in the wings. I thought this was strange and couldn't get an answer from anyone other than the priest was "deserving." Probably true, but not on a fast track. In the meantime, one of the waiting auxiliary bishops has been made bishop of a regular diocese. So IMO (no ref here) the mission dioceses are not as "desirable" as a non-mission one. The duties will be harder, money-raising will be a constant issue. However, they are eligible for funds from mission societies. Possible reference blog.would have to follow this up to use it
Refs of peripheral use Reno, Salt Lake City, Gallup, NM. Student7 (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2010

(UTC)

1000 mission diocese worldwide. Student7 (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
"They don't have much money" describes pretty much every diocese in the world. "They may have many "mission churches."" meaning what? Pretty much every diocese in the world that covers rural areas has "mission churches". "Catholics are well epaced out demographically." Again, this is true of pretty much every diocese of the world that either covers rural areas or has areas with low concentrations of Catholics.
As for the nonsense about the bishop appointments: its clear you don't comprehend the process. I would be utterly amazed if anyone turned down an appointment to be a bishop because it was a "mission" diocese.
Bottom line, the status as a "mission" diocese has little to no meaning in the USA. Yes, they may get some funds from various national and international groups - but so do most dioceses. The average Catholic in a "mission" diocese in the USA doesn't have the slightest idea that they are in one. It has zero impact except in regards to some fundraising.--Dcheney (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
No. This is official from the Society for the Propagation of the Faith. There are 1000 mission dioceses in the world, which is roughly half. But well under half in the US. It appears that many, if not most, of the mission dioceses refer to themselves that way. They do not appear to feel that it is a stigma. And no, regular dioceses must stand on their own and raise their own funds for their own projects no matter how "desperate" they claim to be. I suspect they are "encouraged" to "sponsor" a mission diocese. Ours does (outside the US).
While I have no way to reference church politics, I watched two perfectly good auxiliary bishops "passed over" for a see well outside our metropolitan province, in favor of a local priest. At the time, I thought it was a way of slapping the auxiliaries in the face. As one has since become a bishop of my diocese, which is well-off, I don't hold the "discipline" idea any longer. You are free to draw your own conclusions.
But all mission dioceses are able to get grants from various mission-oriented sources. And sponsorship, if they are lucky. Regular dioceses cannot. My local church raised $10 million over 5 years to recover from a natural disaster. I would guess that a mission diocese would be hard pressed to raise that kind of money.
Not quite clear on why you don't like it. Student7 (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
First, whatever your theory is regarding the appointment of bishops, I can assure you that whether or not a diocese is a "mission" is not a major factor in the selection of bishops in the USA.
Second, to repeat: The average Catholic in a "mission" diocese in the USA doesn't have the slightest idea that they are in one. It has zero impact except in regards to some fundraising.
I am not saying it can't be mentioned, but you seem to be suggesting that it is a fundamental characteristic of a diocese. In the USA, it is not.--Dcheney (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, quite fundamental. I have been doing research since first broaching the subject. All dioceses and certainly people in them, know they are in a mission diocese. They can write for grants and are encouraged to do so. Don't find that mentality in a well-healed diocese which is expected to fund everything.
My take on the appointment of the priest, "50" auxiliary bishops turned down the prospective appointment before they finally dug through the ranks and found a capable priest willing to spend hours on the road driving, a good percentage of the rest of his life. Large distances, a very low density of believers. Having said that, there are probably some mission dioceses that are more desirable than others. For example, a mission diocese might have been losing members and might have to be absorbed into another diocese. A threat to whoever takes over to try to reverse the problem.
Many of the "parishes" in a mission diocese are not called "parishes" but "missions." So in SLC and a few other parishes, you would have a regular parish or two, and dozens of missions around the diocese/state. Roughly half the congregations in mission diocese in the US are in a mission status. And yes, people in a mission church also know they are in a mission church. That is not concealed from them. Student7 (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
"Not concealed" isn't the same as "everybody knows". I've encountered people that didn't realize that their "parish" was actually a monastery (Roman Catholic) or a student center (Episcopal), including in one instance when this fact was actually printed on the street sign. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
As previously indicated, you clearly don't have any idea how the process of appointing bishops works.
"All dioceses and certainly people in them, know they are in a mission diocese." I don't know how a "diocese" knows anything. If you mean does the bishop know, then yes obviously. Do some people in the chancery know, yes, again obviously. But once again you seem to be stating that everyone (or at least the vast majority) in the diocese knows. And that is simply wrong. I would be amazed if even 10% knew. If someone is not directly involved in fundraising, then it has absolutely no impact on their experience of the church.
Oh, by the way, dioceses that are not "mission dioceses" in the US can and do still have mission parishes.--Dcheney (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Essay on describing Christian religion

There is an essay Describe a Christian religion posted for your perusal. As with all essays, if you justdon'tlikeit, that is fine. Just ignore it. If you think it is a good idea, your edits and discussion would be welcome. Student7 (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Need for Separate Catholic Wiki?

What are your feelings on the role of a potential specifically Catholic Wiki? It would have a "Catholic POV" and discuss the Catholic perspective on all topics, not just those that are explicitly related to Catholicism in the narrow sense. I think it is a coherent project, but I am concerned that it may be perceived as "competing" with coverage of Catholicism on Wikipedia or drawing contributors away from Wikiproject Catholicism. In my mind it would not be - both have their place. Anyway, if you are interested, I have initiated a discussion of a centralized Catholic wiki at a placeholder wiki, and I'd love to hear your thoughts either there or here. --Hugetim (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

My first feeling: easier said than done. Who is going to write and maintain it? It will soon go out of synch with Wikipedia. It may be a good idea in 5-7 years after Wikipedia has stabilized. As is there are many articles that need help. And until they are fixed, the new Wiki will not even be half-baked, it will be 1/10th baked. The real problem is that it is much more fun to start new things and hope that content will arrive by providence than fix things. But if you look at Marian Titles you will see that there are many red links. Is the new Wiki going to have more red links? I think we should fix red links, add references and expand articles such as Catholic devotions, Salvation in Christianity and clean up articles such as Christian theology to have a good "Catholic theology" item, before starting on a new, less than half-baked new project. The real problem is that good content takes work. And now that you are here, can we talk you into free work in fixing Catholic devotions please? It will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that it can be a temptation to start new things rather than work on others' projects. However, sometimes there is a need for something new. (Would an analogy to religious orders be helpful?) I looked at the Catholic devotions article you have been working on, and I feel it is a prime example of the need for a separate Catholic wiki. Frankly, I think the current Catholic Devotions article is too long and has too many extraneous details for a general purpose encyclopedia. A general encyclopedia article on Catholic Devotions should be concise and easily accessible to someone without prior knowledge of Catholicism (not to mention that it should incorporate criticisms by non-Catholics, according to the NPOV). The more detailed catechesis you seem to desire for the article would be more appropriate in a Catholic wiki.
By the way, in my vision, every page on the Catholic wiki would have a link (with some standard template) to any corresponding Wikipedia page. The Catholic wiki might draw more participation from Catholics active in blogs and the like than Wikipedia currently does - then those links could actually attract more knowledgeable editors to the Catholic pages on Wikipedia to keep them updated. Hugetim (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, anyone can do what they like, but please do not bet on my spending time on the new Wiki. I have enough things to fix here, e.g. Chaplet of Divine Mercy, Grace (Christianity), Roman Catholic theology, etc. The issue is the need for effort on content, so let me stop talking. Merry Christmas. History2007 (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with History2007. Between the time it takes to keep this site NPOV, unbiased etc. and my normal life I have very little free time for editing another site. There are other Catholic based Wiki sites already. I have seen a Franciscan Wiki site and a few other like it but none of them have the coverage, user, etc. that this site has. Since this is the site that many people start their investigation of things on, I think the most time should be spent on this site. Marauder40 (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree. In fact, now that you mentioned Franciscans, I should say that I have come to learn a lot about different subjects such as the impact of Franciscans by cleaning things up on this site, as debates start, more that I would have otherwise. I just finished cleaning up Nativity of Jesus and in the process figured out the impact of Francis on the image of Jesus: it started because of a discussion there. I would not have even thought of that topic had it not been because of the discussion. So the Wiki-debates sometimes help us learn. History2007 (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I learn things I never knew all the time on this site, even during the heated discussions. Yes Franciscans and St. Francis have had a large role in development of several aspects of the Church. But I am also amazed at all the work people like you have done on this site. I can't imagine where you get all your sources. I could write a lot of Franciscan articles but finding the RS to support it and putting it proper English tend to take way to long for me in the limited amount of time I get to spend on it.Marauder40 (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I love the Wiki-debates for bringing people together to learn. Whereas blogs seem to be a centrifugal force on the internet, driving people apart into various camps (though valuable for building community), Wikipedia forces people from different perspectives to talk to each other and attempt to reach consensus. (I think the centralized authority of the Church has the same benefit of uniting people that would otherwise segregate.) Hugetim (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Since many if not most of the most vicious disputes are essentially between liberal & traditionalist Catholic editors I don't think a separate wiki would work; it would probably end up strongly on one side of the fence or the other, which is not really ideal. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I strongly agree with your concern - that would be very far from ideal. But how do those disputes work out on Wikipedia? Couldn't the same process work on a separate wiki? My hope is that liberal and traditionalist Catholics would discuss and find mutually agreeable language for the articles. My vision is that the Catholic wiki could become prominent enough that it draws both of these groups into engagement. But I am trying to be open to this kind of criticism to avoid investing my efforts if the outcome I'm imagining is really unworkable. Hugetim (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Article needs attention

Look, I just came across Modernism (Roman Catholicism) today. I have no idea if one word in it is correct - no inline references and I do not know the topic. There is so much to fix here, there is no time to do anything new. I am not even going to try to read Modernism (Roman Catholicism) - until maybe in 2014. Wikipedia needs ref-check help itself, leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I've put some labels there. It definitely needs work. Not sure I am ready to Afd it though.Student7 (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I am generally against capital punishment, specially during Christmas, so probably no Afd. It is a notable topic, but the article needs work, as you said. History2007 (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I found that article a couple of weeks ago, by following links from sedevacantians, for whom this seems to be a crucial concept. Seemingly, a main sedevacantian claim is that a number of elected popes, including the present one, are open adherents of "the modernist heresy", and thus automatically have excommunicated themselves. I very much doubt that the implicit interpretation of modernism underlying this is shared by e.g. the present pope.
The sedevacantist interpretation seems pretty close to the one in Modernism (Roman Catholicism). In other words, I suspect that that article has a certain sedevacantist POV. JoergenB (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

ER List

In light of the above, how about an ER List for articles that have no references? Or one could view it as the "Unreferenced Olympics" and pick a winner. Let us add items below, along with a 1st prognosis, then gradually people may feel they have to fix them over time.

  • Predestination: Hardly any references, all mixed up. Not clear if any of it is correct, or has copyvio. The "Catholic dogmatic" view deserves to become Predestination in Catholicism so it is not lumped with Islam and Hinduism.
  • Roman Catholic theology not an ER candidate really but has clogged arteries. Has references, but is so long and piecemeal that it is even hard to bother to read it. And it is not at all clear that the section structure is representative. Needs to be compared to a few books on Catholic theology just for the section structure. But the consolation is that the arteries of Christian theology are even more clogged - although that provides little relief here.

Please add entries to the list above, a line at a time. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism/Archive_2010&oldid=1136053577"