Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Church of Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Catholic Church of Wikipedia

I think this thing (project?) is a bad idea. In particular, I worry about sectarianism, and the inevitable coming of the Church of Jimbo Wales of the Latter-Day Saints et al. and myriad Protestant denominations. Yes, the study of theology is marvelous; yes, this "project" might facilitate it in a backhanded way, but (Roman) Catholic theology isn't the only doxy out there, and (if we have one), we'd have to allow all that anyone has the energy to work up, in the spirit of NPOV. I fail to see how multiple "model theology" workspaces furthers encyclopedia-building.

At the least, this needs community approval. I know the heirarchy here is powerful with WP as well, but a bad idea is still a bad idea. To be clear, I don't accuse the page of being offensive (although I sympathize with that view to a degree, and I'm no Catholic of any kind). I think it is unhelpful in the building of the 'pedia, and highly problematic as precedent for future, similar unhelpful projects.

Could this be userified? Exist as a webpage, or at meta? Technical reason for deletion is simply the unencyclopedic nature of the project. 205.188.116.139 16:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Since there's plenty of humor in Wikispace, keep it. Radiant_>|< 19:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC), bishop, censor librorum and inquisitor.
• keep: This wry article is too good to be consigned to the deletionist trash heap. Ombudsman 03:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It isn't going anywhere as long as I'm around. I started it in my userspace, it was moved to the Wikipedia namespace by popular request, and I will move it back to my userspace if necessary. Then again, perhaps it should be deleted, I've been looking for a good reason to leave... -- Essjay · Talk 00:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --HappyCamper 03:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Terenceong1992 06:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as the people who actually use it want it. IMO the blasphemy should be toned down - that equating Jimbo Wales with G-d is not funny at all - even humour has its limits. Izehar 20:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is not slowing the project down, or offending anyone. Johann Wolfgang 01:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: It could offend Muslims - According to Muslims associating G-d with something or someone else is the sin of shirk (association). Shirk is Islam's unforgivable sin (far error as it is put in the Koran). Now I'm not Muslim, so don't take this on my authority, but you may want to investigate this, and make such amendements as appear proper. Izehar 17:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Its in the user namespace - untouchable--Ewok Slayer 01:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: this is not in the user namespace, and neither is the user namespace untouchable. Radiant_>|< 16:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Question: Why? Izehar 17:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
      • It began in Essjay's user space. However, it became so popular that I was moved. -- Psy guy ^Talk 23:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 02:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete- This article is completely unencyclopedic and is a model of pages that were put up for speedy deletion and deleted. Such as Anonymex. That article was a landslide deletion. There is no good reason to keep this article. All of the people that said to keep it are members of it and do not want their fun spoiled. Just because you attatched "Wikipedia:" to it doesn't make it good for Wikipedia. Those in favor asserted the positive, "This article should stay." I asserted the negative, now prove your positive. You can see on my User Page I am a Catholic. Don't let this interfere with my argument.--User:Anti-Anonymex2 20:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you have seen that it isn't an article? Titoxd^(?!?) 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. I would agree with Anti-Anonymex. This article is pure blasphemous dross and belongs in a catalogue of pseudo-humour rather than a popular Internet encyclopedia. To retain it would be offenseive to just conscience and to the licit purpose of this website.--Thomas Aquinas 21:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I feel this page is a ridiculous parody of the actual Roman Catholic Church. Whatever your stance on the Church, Wikipedia at least pretends to be objective. And anyone who hails Jimbo needs their head examined. GreatGatsby 21:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Although it's awfully silly, we have to remember that catholic does not have to always refer to the Roman Catholic Church; see [1]. BTW, I'm a WikiSecularist; Jimbo is purely my King and Commander-in-Chief. --Merovingian 22:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Woah! User:Neutrality named me Apostle of Alaska in the Really Reformed Church of Wikipedia?! --Merovingian 00:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. Str1977 22:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Humor. It's not an article—it's in the Wikipedia namespace, not in the main namespace—so there is no need for it to be encyclopedic. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, it would appear that User:Thomas Aquinas has left messages for all users in Category:Roman Catholic Wikipedians asking to come vote to delete this page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, so what. What's your point? Dwain 04:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The deletion pages are intended to be more about discussion and less about votes. In fact, that is the main reason why Votes for deletion was recently renamed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: to try to remove the idea that one could recruit several friends to help swing the vote and such. In general, soliciting people to come vote in a certain manner is frowned upon at best and the votes discounted at worst. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I'm breaking my Wikibreak just to vote on this matter. Remember, just because you don't believe in something, doesn't mean it is wrong or shouldn't exist. The intent of this was never to offend other religious groups. It was purely for humor. Acetic Acid 22:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong KeepI am a Roman Catholic Wikipedian and I see nothing blasphamous or heretical about this page. To be completely certain, I asked my parish priest for his opinion and he liked the idea of it. It is clearly listed in the Humor category. Catholicism is a perfect analogy for the structure of Wikipedia: Jimmy Wales created the site and certain people have been named to manage the site while he look over the site. Furthermore, CCW is encyclopedic in the humorous sense. The Latin and English "prayers" are accurate. The page was never intended to offend any Catholics. If it has, I apologize. -- Psy guy ^Talk 23:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This so-called article does not belong on Wikipedia. It is extremely offensive to practicing Catholics who take their religion seriously and it is totally unencyclopedic. I would also vote to delete any other pages that makes assaults on other religions and beliefs. It also breaks the NPOV rule. It is totally offensive to me is not funny! Dwain 23:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete As a practicing Catholic, I find this a mockery and highly offensive. Beyond that, I don't see in any way how it belongs at Wikipedia. Put on a different site. --Jakes18 23:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. I also do not think the texts and prayers are humorous, in fact they are too self-glorifying. *drew 23:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete this page is unencyclopedic. It's offensive, and it doesn't serve a purpose. Aside from that it may also confuse people looking for the Catholic Church. Chooserr
• Rename to something a little less confusing/controversial. Good thinking, Chooserr. --Merovingian 00:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This will only serve to a) rile controversy (understandably so) and b) lessen Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia and source of information. Not funny, either, IMHO. Paul 00:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Life's too short. No one will lose their faith because of this bit of humor. KHM03 00:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I am a Catholic, and I am not in the very least offended by this. It is a part of Wikipedia humor. For those who think it is an article: it isn't: Look at the page. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If anyone holds that this page should be deleted, let him be anathema! --TantalumTelluride 01:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and chill out folks - seriously if Catholicism can survive Dan Brown this won't shake it's foundations much. --Doc ^ask? 01:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Speedy Keep in fact, I'd close it myself if I wasn't the one who sent it to the wiki namespace. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As a Catholic, I find it offensive. I think it's so obviously offensive that I really doubt the sincerity of anyone who asks "what do you find offensive"? It doesn't matter if the participants in this Wikipedia "project" are Catholic or not. A Catholic respecting his or her own faith would not mock it. A person not of the Catholic faith who respects the religious beliefs of others and would likewise not mock it. A similar "project" based on mockery the Jewish faith or Muslim faith would not even be attempted because of the certainty of the public outcry against it. This is a double standard we are all familiar with. If the apologies for offending Catholics are genuine, then move the page off the Wikipedia. As a Wikipedia editor, I find it to be a liability for the Wikipedia to retain: this is a small safe harbor for making religious faith and in particular the Latin language prayers of the Catholic Church - silly (i.e. the alleged "hah hah" humor of the "project"). It says more about the Wikipedia and the original anonymous author of this "project" that it can possibly say about the Catholic Church. But if you think a keep it in the Wikipedia namespace vote is a big meaningful win for the first amendment, go for it. This is how the Wikipedia will choose to define itself and what subjects can find a home in the Wikipedia namespace. patsw 04:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP An an anon., I ain't eligible to vote here. Just want to point out that the word "Catholic" means "universal" or "for all", and it doesn't belong to the religious organization led by the Pope in Vatican City. And, Lighten Up ! --64.229.178.66 07:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I find it slightly amusing. Chill out religious people. AngryParsley ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG DELETE. I agree with 205.188.116.139, Anti-Anonymex2, Thomas Aquinas, GreatGatsby, Str1977, Dwain (Pitchka), Chooserr, Paul (PaulHanson) and patsw. I understand that there is a sphere of inside humor about Wikipedia, but I think that there should be a limit to that humor in order to preserve Wikipedia's integrity as a resource to be seriously considered. This non-article stretches that humor FAR beyond the limit that I envision. Also, having relatives in the Church and now being Catholic, I'm well aware of the tendency of Catholic humor to mock God and/or the Church to a greater or lesser degree. This is the most heinous Catholic "joke" to which I have ever been exposed. Perhaps this non-article is tolerable by Wikipedia standards, but serious Catholics should cast STRONG DELETE votes in order to indicate to the supposedly-Catholic Tdxiang what blasphemy he has committed here (and what blasphemy his priest friend committed in echoing support for it). Beware, brothers and sisters in Christ, for heterodoxy abounds! John Rigali 09:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: With this issue as with any other, we have ask ourselves whether it is compatible with the primary goals of Wikipedia. I echo many statements made above:

1) Will this enterprise raise or lessen Wikipedia's standing as a credible, universal source of information?

2) Are we willing to have a plentitude of other churches, assemblies, synagogues and mosques in the name of Wikipedia? If the answer is "yes"—that we'd be willing to have a Lutheran Church - Wikipedia Synod, a Young Israel of Wikipedia, a Sangha of Wikipedia, etc. (in which, for each, certain people are equated with the deity, or with chief religious leaders such as the Chief Rabbi or Mufti or Dalai Lama, Archbishop of Canterbury, etc)—and that absolutely none of these could reasonably be predicted to offend more than a tiny minority of people, then we can allow this Catholic Church. But we have to think seriously as to whether we'd want a proliferation of these things, for if we were to allow one (i.e. this one), we would have to allow all of them in the spirit of NPOV.

Additionally, Muslims are by no means the only group which sees "associating" other deities with God as impermissible. In fact, this clearly violates a core tenet of Christianity and Judaism as well (e.g. 1st/2nd Commandments). Now, as to whether humor on this subject per se violates these principles is different, but in actuality it will without a shadow of a doubt give the appearance of impropriety to many users.

Those who wish to use/retain it could, alternatively, move it back to user space.

Let's strive for a little more respect; we shouldn't sanction "chill out secular people" comments, either. --Dpr 09:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. I very much doubt if the contributors intended it to be offensive, because it's so common to make skits about Catholicism (without protest from Catholics), that people eventually stop realizing what they're doing. Just imagine if we took some Islamic prayers to Allah and rewrote them as prayers to Jimbo "for fun". Those who say that they're sorry if some people are offended, but that they intend to keep the page anyway, remind me a little of the Walrus, whom Alice originally liked better than the Carpenter because he cried while he was eating the oysters. But then she was told that he, in fact, ate more than the Carpenter. I will add that I have seen some of the other contributions from some of the members of the "Catholic Church of Wikipedia" in the last few months, and have been very impressed in some cases by the kindness and sensitivity that they showed towards Wikipedians who had personal problems or who were being attacked and humiliated. It makes me convinced that the article was not meant to be offensive, but it also makes me surprised that they can't see that it is. AnnH ^(talk) 09:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)