Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism

Archive 1: December 2005 – June 2006

Archive 2: July 2006 – August 2006

Archive 3: September 2006 – January 2008

Ensoulment

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)

Roman Catholic Church

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)

The Denver Register

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)

Expert

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

5 Cardinal-Deacons elevated to Cardinal-Priests

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)

Prophecy of the Popes

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

Black Madonna of Częstochowa

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

Abp. David Mathew

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)

Coordinators for the Christianity projects

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)

Roman Catholic Diocese of Knoxville

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.)

Free high-quality images for Catholicism

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)

Digital Patrologia Latina

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)

Peter Turkson

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)

Islam now bigger proposed for Main Page

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)

Coordinator?

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 Peer Review

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

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

Incarnation Catholic Church and School (Glendale, California)

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)

Blessed Virgin Mary

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)

Michael Dimond

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)

Christian debate on persecution and toleration and related topics

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)

Pope Stephen VII

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)

St. Peter's Basilica to FA?

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)

Category: Roman Catholicism in the United States --- Mistitled

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

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)

St Lawrence Church, Morden

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)

Corpus Christi (feast) needs your help

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)

Music

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)

Roman Catholic Church

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)

Diocese titles

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)

List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church

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)

Counter-Reformation

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

List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church - Second Discussion

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)

Catholicism or Roman Catholicism ?

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)

Roman Catholics in ODNB absent from Wikipedia

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)

Articles flagged for cleanup

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)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

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)

San Sebastian de Garabandal

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)

Edit-warring on the name of a diocese

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)

Saint-Fabrizio

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)

Project Taskforces

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)

culture of death subproject page

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)

Religious rating for Catholic colleges?

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)

Wanted pages: authors of common sources for the Catholic Encyclopaedia

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)

The Roman Catholic Dioceses of Wisconsin-the bishops

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)

Proposed deletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/NPOV

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 at FAR

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)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Catholic diocese

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)

Discussion from BLP noticeboard copied here as more appropriate

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

Popes and Saints - Special Treatment for Hagiographies?

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)

"See also" comes before "References"

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 articles have been selected for Catholicism

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)

GA review of Papal conclave, 1314–1316

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)

Roman Catholicism in Vietnam

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)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of popes

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

antichrist

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)

Please remove TFP from Catholicism

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)

Message

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)

Redirect inversion

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)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Great Britain task force

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)

international relations

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)

List of cardinals

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)

Diocecean Naming Conventions

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)

Catholicism and novels

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)

Charles Borromeo disambiguation

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)

FYI: New articles

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 Damian

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

Naming conventions

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)

Help

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)

Status of Medjugorje

Hi -- the article in question is newly created and not, I feel, encyclopedic. It's way outside my domain but seems to fall into the domain of this wikiproject, so I wonder if anybody is around who would like to take a hand with it? Looie496 (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs to be merged with Our Lady of Međugorje. The information, quality not withstanding, is in the wrong place. -- Secisek (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting template assistance

I have been doing a lot of work to update attribution templates on Wikipedia.

I think we should add the source category Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia to the {{Catholic}} template, by adding the code <includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia]]</includeonly> to the template. I cross-posted this message on both templates' talk pages.

If any admins out there feel like doing this, I thank you in advance. It may take some time for all the pages to show up in the category, due to system lag. If anyone here has any questions for me, let me know on my talk page. --Eastlaw (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability criteria for Catholic Media.

There's currently an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Order AfD going on to get rid of Christian Order which is a very conservative Catholic monthly based in the UK and in continuous publication since 1960. The (stated) argument seems to be that as Catholics are a minority in the UK and that conservatives make up a minority of Catholics then it can't be notable. Of course there may be an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, but ignoring that has the "Catholics are a minority, and so their magazines aren't notable" argument come up before and how has the argument been dealt with?

I'm looking for precedents on the argument and not responses to any anti-Catholic assumptions that may have come from the deletionists.

17:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

See below - about Una Voce. It looks like we're facing a massive attack by deletionists on the articles about traditional Catholic organizations, personalities (Michael Davies (Catholic writer)), etc. Hithlin (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking for help to improve Pastor aeternus

I was surprised to find that, while we have an article on Lumen Gentium, there was no article on Pastor aeternus. Instead, it redirected to Papal infallibility#Dogmatic definition of 1870. This didn't seem right so I created an article and put some basic information in it. I need help fleshing this out as I don't know much about the topic. --Richard (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Our Lady of America

An editor has expressed concern about the lack of sources for this article and has indicated that without improvement it may be headed for deletion. If anyone wishes to begin the needed improvements, please step forward! -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Una Voce

The information from the article Una Voce has been removed, and the article itself made to redirect to Tridentine Mass#Opposition to the latest revisions of the liturgy, which does not mention the Una Voce movement. It has to be mentioned that Una Voce is not about "opposition to the revisions" but about the preservation and restoration of the classical Roman rite, something in which it now enjoys the support of Pope Benedict XVI.

The deletion has been done under the pretext of "lack of notability". However, the International Federation Una Voce is the world's largest association of lay Catholics attached to the Tridentine Mass, having a history since 1964, present in more than 30 countries, including dozens of chapters in the United States, and recognized by the Holy See. The vast majority of independent sources (see Talk:Una Voce) provided in order to support this assertion has been dismissed by User:Hrafn because of being linked to web sites interested in the same matters as the Una Voce movement - i. e., traditional Catholicism, though in no way dependent on, or bound to, the structures of Una Voce. This does not seem to be a fair criterion of dismissal.

I would like to ask help in providing for the restoration of the original text as well as in improving the article.

Please see the talk page and join the discussion. Hithlin (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• The article is back with (apparently) undisputed sources. Good job.Chonak (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Query re: content

Got the following email in via OTRS, I lack the subject knowledge to do anything about it but hopefully you guys do.

---

At  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Face_Medal
In the second paragraph under The Image it is stated:
"Although the Shroud of Turin has been publicly displayed by Roman Catholics
at least since the 16th century (and perhaps before) the faint image of the 
Holy Face on it can not be clearly seen with the naked eye and was only
observed with the advent of photography. In 1898, amateur Italian
photographer Secondo Pia was startled by the negative of the image in his
darkroom as he was developing the first photograph of the shroud. The
happenstance by which Secondo Pia received the King's approval to attempt
the first photograph of the Shroud for an exhibition was unusual in its own
right. And Pia later said that on the evening of May 28th, 1898 he almost 
dropped and broke the photographic plate in the darkroom from the shock of
seeing the image of a face on the Shroud (for the first time ever) that
could not have been clearly observed with the naked eye."
However in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin under
the title Analysis of the Image as the Work of an Artist in the first
paragraph titled Correspondence with Christian Iconography it states:
"In opposition to this viewpoint, the locations of the piercing wounds in
the wrists on the Shroud do not correspond to artistic representations of
the crucifixion before close to the present time. In fact, the Shroud was
widely dismissed as a forgery in the 14th century for the very reason that
the Latin Vulgate Bible stated that the nails had been driven into Jesus'
hands and Medieval art invariably depicts the wounds in Jesus' hands."
Clearly if the image "can not be clearly seen with the naked eye and was
only observed with the advent of photography" the shroud could not be
"dismissed as a forgery in the 14th century for the very reason that the
Latin Vulgate Bible stated that the nails had been driven into Jesus'
hands."  Obviously they could see the image.

---

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Searching for Marcel Catholic Church in Abidjan

I would like to try and get confirmation that the Marcel Catholic Church exists in Abidjan, and that it has a Priest by the name of Rev.Partrick Bamba.

Help Please !

Jenny Uzzell e-mail: gorgeview@telkomsa.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenuz (talk • contribs) 15:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding project organization

Any comments regarding the structure and function of Christianity related material are welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum#Project organization. Be prepared for some rather lengthy comments, though. There is a lot of material to cover there. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus

Hi, this article is currently near the top of the wp:featured articles/Cleanup listing as it is in 5 maintenace categories: Articles needing additional references (Dec 2008), Articles with unsourced statements (Jun 2008, Jul 2008, Aug 2008, Feb 2009). Anyone finding time to make improvements would be appreciated, thanks Tom B (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Knights of Columbus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Category deletion proposed

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_13#Category:Apostolic_exhortations. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:56, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Recentism issues at Pope Benedict XVI and Judaism; assistance welcome

The Pope Benedict XVI and Judaism article is less than a month old and while has a good skeleton of sections present to flesh out, it suffers from serious recentism, apparently due to editorial focus on the Williamson fiasco. All eyes welcome with improvement of the page in mind. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin needs more cites

Shroud of Turin is templated as "within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism".
The article currently has a dozen or so statements tagged as "citation needed", which ideally we should cite or delete. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move Maundy Thursday to Holy Thursday

• 6 Apr 2009 – Move requested from Maundy Thursday (talk) to Holy Thursday; see discussion. --Boston (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Council of Paderborn is ultra-stub

Council of Paderborn is currently an ultra-stub, if anybody is interested in working on it.
(Also is in the present tense, which is probably wrong per WP:STYLE.)
I will not be working on this myself. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the tense. Needs work still. --Secisek (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Help with article title needed

I have requested that the Holy Week in Malta article be renamed since the article is about far more than Holy Week. (It covers most of Lent as well as Easter.) Please provide suggestions here if you care. — AjaxSmack 00:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Forty Hours' Devotion

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Forty Hours' Devotion, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06151a.htm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Forty Hours' Devotion and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Forty Hours' Devotion with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Forty Hours' Devotion.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Forty Hours' Devotion saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 12:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, may I ask why this was posted here? John Carter (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Motu proprio needs light rewrite for comprehensibility

Motu proprio is one of those articles based on the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, and I find it quite difficult to understand. Anybody have any interest in doing a light rewrite for comprehensibility? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you not understand? --RandomNumberSee (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Bishops

Excuse me, I'm a italian user, I need a information: does it exist a rule for a "right of presence in the encyclopedia" for Catholic Bishops? Winged Zephiro —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC).

Any bishop who is "notable" may have an article. Discussions at "Articles for deletion" have generally said that an archbishop (arcivescovo) or bishop who governs a diocese can be presumed notable by office, but it's not clear that applies to an auxiliary bishop (vescovo ausiliare). Gimmetrow 19:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible rename of Portal:Pope

I have to think the name of the above portal is a bit misleading. On that basis, I have proposed that it be renamed Portal:Vatican, or, potentially, Portal:Vatican City, to more accurately reflect the contents. The discussion for renaming can be found at Portal talk:Pope#Requested move. All interested parties are encouraged to take part in the discussion. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD of interest: Category:Cardinals_by_nationality

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_4#Category:Cardinals_by_nationality. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse: Catholic Church connection?

Re Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (recent news story in Ireland): The coverage of this that I'm seeing in the general press seems to emphasize that this is a "Catholic Church" issue. Our article hardly mentions the Catholic Church. We want to make sure that our article is NPOV and neither over-emphasizes nor under-emphasizes the facts. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Emeritus

Editing Cormac Murphy-O'Connor to reflect the fact he's just been replaced, the infobox doesn't look right. He's no longer Cardinal Archbishop, so that title doesn't work. But if the title's changed to Cardinal Archbishop Emeritus, it makes it look like his predecessor, Basil Hume, and successor, Vincent Nichols, were/are also Emeritus. The same applies in the case of Bernard Francis Law. It seems that the situation only gets tidied up when they die, and the whole Emeritus phase of their life is effectively wiped out, as for Jean-Marie Lustiger. Suggestions? Or other examples that handle the situation neatly? Bazj (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would assume that CMOC would be styled 'Cardinal Archbishop Emeritus' as that

seems the most logical title. Basil Hume died in '99 at age 76, in office, so he never had the opportunity to retire and assume emeritus status. If +Nichols were to retire without being awarded his red hat(most unlikely), he would be referred-to as the 'Archbishop Emeritus of Westminster'.

You are correct in assuming that, upon death, their biographies would refer to them as 'Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster'; the qualifier 'emeritus' would be

lost. At least, that has been my experience in reading about past prelates.--Lyricmac (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100%. The problem (as I see it, you may not see a problem) is:

Until yesterday the infobox on CMOC carried the title 'Cardinal Archbishop' and listed Hume as his predecessor. Which is true.

Now the infobox on CMOC carries the title 'Cardinal Archbishop Emeritus' and lists Hume as his predecessor. But Hume was never emeritus. And just as bad, his successor Nichols looks like he starts off as Emeritus.

I feel the infobox may need to be altered to handle an Archbishop's emeritus years separately from his in-post years. Bazj (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. Let me look at the infobox and see if there is a solution.--Lyricmac (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've had a crack, added an emeritus flag, and used it at CMOC. Bazj (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So did I, funny thing, I must have tromped on yours- see what you think.--Lyricmac (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The word "Cardinal" is not part of the official title of an archbishop of a diocese. For example one would say "Cardinal Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles," not "Roger Mahony, Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles." So when he retires, he would be"Cardinal Roger Mahony, Archbishop Emeritus of Los Angeles" or perhaps more properly "Cardinal Roger Mahony, Retired (or Former) Archbishop of Los Angeles" because he would no longer be archbishop of Los Angeles, but he would remain a cardinal. There is no such thing as a cardinal emeritus; cardinals remain so until they die, unless they are elected pope.Ericstoltz (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories untagged

I am not sure but it appears there is little interest in this project re project tags in category talk pages? Have been doing some and suprised by the lack of project tags on what I would have thought were important categories. SatuSuro 01:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I'm trying to get to them all eventually, for all the Christianity projects. I'm also trying to start a category tree list, so that we can know which might benefit from retitling. But by all means tag as many as you would wish. I would personally prefer the use of the {{ChristianityWikiProject}} template with the Catholicism parameters, because that allows them to appear on the article alerts section of that project page, but feel free to use whichever you prefer. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Dunbarton College of the Holy Cross

Just a heads up - I've tagged the article with your project. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 17:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI GAR notice

Pope Benedict XVI has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Roman_Catholicism_in_Mongolia

I have done a GA Reassessment of Roman Catholicism in Mongolia as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to need some work, there is a dead reference link and I feel that more could be added to the article. My review is here. I will hold the article for a week and I am notifying interested projects of the possibility that the article will be delisted if improvements are not made. Please address any questions to my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Pope categories up for deletion

I have nominated the smallest of the categories of Roman Catholic popes for deletion. Of the group nominated, the largest of the categories contains six individuals. Please feel free to take part in the discussion here. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Consultation on renaming article: Roman Catholic Church --> Catholic Church

Wikipedians at Talk:Roman Catholic Church are discussing the merits of changing the article name as such.
Roman Catholic Church → Catholic Church. Please share your opinions there. --Carlaude ^talk 12:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion of Jesuits from South America

User:Truthkeeper88 who is copy-editing the Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos article asked a question concerning the reason for the expulsion of the Jesuits from Spanish America in 1767 on this talk page. Quoting from there: From what I can tell the sequence of events was: 1. Political tension between Portugal and Spain over control of the region; 2. the general expulsion of all Jesuits from Spanish territories in 1767. Is that correct? Was the political tension prior to the general expulsion, and was it a cause of the general expulsion? Since I am unsure of the answer to these questions I am looking for help from the Catholicism WikiProject. Thanks bamse (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Purga" of four Illuminati in Angels & Demons: Fictitious or historical?

I apologize for asking a possibly idiotic question, but I'd like to know the answer and haven't found it anywhere else.
In the recent film Angels & Demons, one plot device is a "purga" in which four supposed Illuminati were branded and executed by the Roman Catholic Church, and the Illuminati are now ostensibly seeking revenge through parallel actions against four Catholic cardinals. Dan Brown is noted for "artistic license" with the facts. I haven't seen any info anywhere else on this "purga" and I've been assuming that Brown (or screenwriter Akiva Goldsman) invented it. Does anyone have any definite source on this one way or the other? (I posted this question to Talk page of Angels & Demons (film) a few days ago and no one's responded yet.) Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question when you stated "Dan Brown is noted for "artistic license"! : ) NancyHeise ^talk 03:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Template needs an admin to change

The Catholicism template (the yellow one, not the blue one) links to the page Ten Commandments. I wanted to change this to go to the featured article Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism but the template is locked so that only and admin can change it. Are there any nice admins roaming around here who would like to make the switch? Thanks in advance! NancyHeise ^talk 03:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Roman Catholic saints

I think it would be more convenient for the project and for readers if there was a page specifically listing Roman Catholic saints, as opposed to the current go-to page (list of saints) which is incomplete and by definition is supposed to list all saints. I think it would help more if there were more specific pages (e.g. a page for Roman Catholic saints, a page for Anglican saints, etc.).

Does the Vatican keep an official list of canonized people? Is there any kind of source like that, which can be observed for help trying to make a definitive list? 70.108.234.157 (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Mixed marriage"

A long time ago I inserted this information into the article titled mixed marriage:

The term mixed marriage originated in Roman Catholicism, where it refers to a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic. It may refer to:

In its present form, the page is a disambiguation page. Can someone deny or confirm that the Catholic Church is where the term came from? And, since this is, after all, Wikipedia, can someone supply a "citation"?

(My understanding is that the word "mix" came into being through the process of back-formation from the past participle, mixta, of the Latin verb miscere (but I haven't looked this up recently). The Latin origin of the word makes the assertion about the origin of this concept somewhat plausible.) Michael Hardy (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"Capital Punishment in Vatican City"

This article states Saint Ambrose encouraged clergy to execute people, but the article does not have a citation. In fact, Ambrose disagreed with the execution of a heretic by a "Christian" prince. Saint Ambrose also wrote: "God drove Cain out of his presence and sent him into exile... so that he passed from a life of human kindness to one which was more akin to the rude existance of a wild beast. God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another homicide." See Capital Punishment: A Balanced Examination by Mandery Rakovsky (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Christian debate on persecution and toleration

When it comes to the views concerning persecution and toleration, there was a very substantial intellectual shift within Christianity. Starting in 17th-century England, Christianity came to a full rejection of religious persecution and approved the concept of civil toleration. The Catholic Church, as well as many Protestant Churches, went further and have nowadays approved religious freedom; relevant for the view of the Catholic Church is declaration Dignitatis Humanae of the 2nd Vatican Council. Since this intellectual shift is quite important when discussion topics like the Persecution of Christians (which was quite often done by Christians), I wrote the article Christian debate on persecution and toleration for Wikipedia, using material that was already present. And now, some atheists and neopagans are apparently trying to deny that this intellectual shift ever occurred and are out to destroy that article. Help, and further comments, would greatly be appreciated. Zara1709 (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Folk saint

Folk saint has just been imported from Citizendium (via WikiProject Citizendium Porting) and is in need of improvement. Since it falls under this project's purview, thought I'd mention it here in case anyone's interested. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Religious response to ART

Hi, I'd like for one of the experts here to review what I wrote about the church positions on assisted reproduction here: Religious response to ART. I did my best but a check over or an expansion would be really useful. Thanks, Joe407 (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Rationalizing the use of "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic" in article titles

As many of you know, the title of the article Roman Catholic Church has recently been changed to Catholic Church. During the discussion of this change, it was agreed that the decision would be restricted to that article only so as to avoid getting mired into a free-wheeling discussion of all the many hundreds of articles that include "Catholic" in their title.

This is an initial attempt to identify the various groups of articles that have "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" in their title. In general, my proposal is to change all such articles to use "Catholic" only and not "Roman Catholic". However, I recognize that there might be instances where this might not be appropriate. Let's get it all out on the table and look at it and start making some decisions to rationalize the use of "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic".

Category:Roman Catholic Church

This is the top level category. I propose that we move it to Category:Catholic Church. In general, I propose that all subcategories that include "Roman Catholic" be changed to use just "Catholic" instead.

Category:Roman Catholic Churches

The organization of this Category:Roman Catholic churches category's subcategories is a bit muddled because Category:Eastern Catholic churches is one of the subcategories. IMO, a more logical organization is to have Category:Catholic churches be the top-level category with Category:Roman Catholic Churches and Category:Eastern Catholic churches as subcategories.

Category:Roman Catholic Church by country

This category has 102 entries. I propose that the category be moved to Category:Roman Catholic Church. Most of the subcategories are of the form Roman Catholic Church in X, e.g. Category:Roman Catholic Church in Algeria

I propose that every subcategory in this category be changed accordingly. Thus, Category:Roman Catholic Church in Algeria would be moved to Category:Catholic Church in Algeria. NB: This could be problematic if we need to differentiate between the Category:Catholic Church in X and the Category:Eastern Catholic Church in X.

There are many articles whose titles are of the form Roman Catholicism in X.

• Roman Catholicism in Australia
• Roman Catholicism in England and Wales
• Roman Catholicism in Scotland
• Roman Catholicism in Poland
• Roman Catholicism in Ireland
• Roman Catholicism in Fiji
• Roman Catholicism in Great Britain
• Roman Catholicism in Canada
• Roman Catholicism in the Central African Republic
• Roman Catholicism in the Czech Republic
• Roman Catholicism in Ukraine

I propose that all these articles be changed to have titles of the form Catholicism in X

Category:Roman Catholics

In all likelihood, this category includes only "Roman Catholics" and not "Eastern Catholics". If this is true, we could arguably leave the category named "Roman Catholics". On the other hand, we could rename it Category:Catholics and leave it open to include "Eastern Catholics" as well.

Catholic Archdiocese of X vs. Roman Catholic Archdiocese in X

My proposal is to change all articles to use only "Catholic Archidocese of X" and not "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of X". This could be somewhat problematic if we need to distinguish between Roman Catholic archdioceses vs. Eastern Catholic archdioceses in the same city. I am not knowledgeable enough to know if this is a real issue or not. At the moment, there seems to be only one article of this type, "Eastern Catholic Community in Hawaii"

Catholic Archdiocese of X

• Catholic Archdiocese of Salzburg
• Catholic Archdiocese of Paderborn
• Catholic Archdiocese of Cologne
• Catholic Archdiocese of Vienna
• Catholic Archdiocese of Pisa
• Catholic Archdiocese of Liverpool

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of X

• Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Paris
• Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Reims
• Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago
• Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York
• Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Milan
• Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lyon
• Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles

Roman Catholicism in X vs. Catholicism in X

There are ten articles whose titles are of the form Roman Catholicism in X

• Roman Catholicism in Australia
• Roman Catholicism in the United States
• Roman Catholicism in England and Wales
• Roman Catholicism in the Philippines
• Roman Catholicism in Poland
• Roman Catholicism in Romania
• Roman Catholicism in Scotland
• Roman Catholicism in Ethiopia
• Roman Catholicism in Spain
• Roman Catholicism in Nigeria

There are also ten article whose titles are of the form Catholicism in X

• Catholicism in China
• Catholicism in England
• Catholicism in the Netherlands
• Catholicism in Japan
• Catholicism in France
• Catholicism in the Philippines
• Catholicism in Germany
• Catholicism in Hungary
• Catholicism in Korea
• Catholicism in Nordic countries

Roman Catholicism in England redirects to Roman Catholicism in England and Wales

Catholicism in the Philippines redirects to Roman Catholicism in the Philippines

My proposal is to rename all articles whose titles begin with "Roman Catholicism in X" to be titled "Catholicism in X".

--Richard (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, Richard. To do this properly, I think WP requires discussion on each page, which would take a lot of time. But, it would be worth it. I would suggest starting with Spanish speaking countries. In Spanish the terms "Iglesia Catolica Romana" and "Catholico Romano" simply do not exist, so to use those terms for them is to project English language issues where they do not exist. This is one approach anyway. --EastmeetsWest (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Exactly how did all this come about and how many people agreed to it? Sounds like a disaster to me.... real disaster... many people, myself included, will ONLY follow Roman Catholic issues and do not associate with other Catholic issues. And many of these churches say Roman on their doors... And please remember that we have a huge potential audience in the far east, India etc. And many of these people only feel comfortable with the church of Rome because their own churches are called "Roman Catholic church of Saint ABC" etc. If they are not sure if some doctrinal issue refers to Roman vs Eastern, they may not read through the whole article. This type of change will be a real dis-service to Wikipedia users.... Must stop now.... Take the case of Roman Catholic theology. Recently a single editor removed the word Roman from the content of that article with a few keystrokes. How can anyone be sure that some of those theological issues did not become incorrect" What proof is there that all that theology also applies to the Eastern church? As a Roman Catholic how can I be sure that as I read that article I am getting theology for the church of Rome and not the Eastern churches? If an article is written with significant effort over time, a sudden change may render the content inaccurate. With this type of rapid, sudden and less than careful change based on some naming convention claim valuable content that has been there for long may be suddenly rendered inaccurate. This train wreck must stop now... History2007 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think for the countries with "Roman Catholicism in" titles, it would be better to have it as "Catholic Church in". - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

But the content needs to be very carefully modified first to be sure that it refers to the whole Catholic church and not the Church of Rome only. Else this type of "few keystrokes" change will create errors in content. If you have an article about "business law in California" and change the title to "business law in the US" the content may become incorrect. Yes, California is part of the US, and acknowledges the US president and congress, but an article on US businesslaw needs to be totally rewritten. It is not just a name change.

Actually, I am amazed that I have to spell this out in so much detail, but I will do it anyway, because this "name substitution game" has prompted some users to go about on a search and destroy mission for the word "Roman". That must stop.

So to make things clear, as an example, let us assume that there is a country called Bureaucland and that there is an existing Wikipedia article called "Roman Catholicism in Bureaucland". Assume that the article includes the following 4 facts:

• In 1912, 47.5% of the population of Bureaucland was Roman Catholic.
• In 2004, 61.5% of the population of Bureaucland was Roman Catholic.
• The first Roman Catholic church in Bureaucland was built in 1621.
• There were 673 Roman Catholic churches in Bureauclandin 2005.

Furtheremore assume the following true facts which were not included in the article, because the article was researched and written about the Church of Rome. The facts not included are:

• In 1912, 7.5% of the population of Bureaucland was Eastern Catholic.
• In 2004, 9.5% of the population of Bureaucland was Eastern Catholic.
• The first Eastern Catholic church in Bureaucland was built in 1579.
• There were 37 Eastern Catholic churches in Bureaucland in 2005.

Now, change the words "Roman Catholic" to Catholic and see what happens. You get a set of "completely false" statements.

Is this clear?

And the situation gets even more serious when complicated doctrinal/dogmatic issues are involved.

In more general terms, the change from "Roman Catholic" to Catholic amounts to a movement up the Ontology structure. Indeed the Wikipedia category structure is itself an Ontology. A predicate asserted about a specific node within an ontology is hardly likely to be valid as we move upwards within the Ontology structure. So statements given as examples above are likely to fail as we generalize above Roman Catholic to Catholic. I do not want to get carried away writing about the obvious technical issues of containment in hierarchies, etc. But I think the simple example above should illustrate that one can NOT just change a few words in a few minutes without introducing serious errors into valuable content. Is this clear? History2007 (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The above contention has a few problems. They include the fact that it seems to assume that the phrasing will be changed in each and every instance in wikipedia, which to the best of my knowledge is (1) contrary to what we have already been told, and (2) such an incredible amount of work that, frankly, I doubt anyone would ever do it. It also seems to assume that whoever or whatever is doing the changing would basically pay no attention to the content around the term, which I believe is also unlikely to happen except in the rather minimal amount of cases we might" already see from people making ill-advised edits in general. So far as I know, the discussion was about changing the titles of articles, and the assumption that there would be uniform changes across the board, and that whoever might make such changes across the board anyway would not take into account how the language is being used. So, yes, while it is clear, I think it is operating, at least in part, on an error of logic almost equal to that it seems to be arguing against. I can and do see how "Roman Catholic" or similar terms could reasonably be used in article content as indicated, and I don't think that I've seen any clear evidence to date that blind changes of that terminology are being anticipated.

Bringing it back to the point of the matter about which this thread is nominally about, which is about changing titles of a few articles. I do not see how instituting those changes would necessarily keep content regarding Eastern Catholic churches (or, for that matter, Traditional or other Catholic churches) from being included in the articles, if there is sufficient reason for there to be such content. In a few cases, it might not be particularly reasonable to have separate sections, or, in some cases, even mention explicitly certain statistics regarding Eastern Catholic churches. If it were to be the case, which it is not, that there were a total of 25 Maronites in Canada, I cannot see how that would have a separate article in any event. It is also possible that such information might be removed from an article regarding Catholicism in Canada, but at least in such instances I don't see how there would necessarily be any loss of content because of the change to what probably seems to at least some as being the more "inclusive" title. John Carter (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well John, first you are right that it would have been unlikely for people to make that kind of dramatic change all of a sudden. But on August 11, 2009 user EastmeetsWest made "exactly" that kind of sweeping change to the content of Roman Catholic Mariology, removing every instance of the word Roman from that article. That rendered many statements in that article as inaccurate. I reverted that, but that trend seems to be spreading to other articles, where the word Roman is being metaphorically persecuted. So the suggestion to make a few changes has had far reaching consequences. Secondly, you are right that it would be a tremendous amount of work to check what statements have been rendered inaccurate by simple name changes. So the issue is more serious than it may seem at first. Cheers History2007 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

History, your Bureaucland example above also seems to confuse the terms Roman Catholic and Latin-Rite Catholic. They are not the same, of course, and the comparison you make (RC v. Eastern Catholic) is a false one (I attribute no ill intent on your part!). It's a distinction between Latin-Rite and Eastern-Rite Catholics, both in communion under the umbrella of the Catholic Church (aka Roman Catholic Church). You do still raise a valid point regarding a need for vigilance, however. I suspect that the confusion between RC, EC, Latin-Rite, Eastern-Rite, Catholic, Roman Catholic, etc. has caused more than a few errors in various articles. So instead of avoiding any changes to the status quo, we should take this opportunity to check the various articles for accuracy, specifically correct terminology, and where appropriate, change the title. It certainly should be a case-by-case analysis, and not something done with the click of a button or implementation of a bot program. --anietor (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, regardless of the terms, as you correctly observed Anietor, my example shows that if an article title is blindly changed errors come in. My logic about ontologies and lable changes is inherently correct... I used to be a logician... Cheers. History2007 (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Anietor, I am not sure on what authority you are speaking, but Eastern Catholics are not members of the Roman Catholic Church. We are not Roman Catholics. We are members of the Catholic Church. Rome had nothing to do with the development of our liturgies or our ancient theology. Roman Catholic is not the same as Catholic. RCC and CC are two very different things. I speak as an Eastern Catholic.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I just realized there is a parallel discussion of this topic here as well And user Taam expressed EXACTLY what I was trying to say:

"the new article name means that I can no longer be sure what the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome now teaches whereas the previous title makes it clear."

It is clear that these sudden name changes create ambiguity and lack of clarity on what specific churches teach. Period. History2007 (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I know some Eastern Catholics do not like being referred to as "Roman Catholics." However, as they are in communion with the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, and are part of the Roman Catholic Church. When referring to the Catholicism of both Eastern Catholics and Latin Catholics, I would believe it would be appropriate to call it Catholicism. The Roman Catholic Church, or those in communion with the Roman Pontiff, includes Eastern Catholics and Latin Catholics. --Minimidgy (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Er. While you are up.... The Catholic Churches in the US are all categorized correctly into their local diocese, then categorized correctly into their local province which in turn is categorized into "Category-Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States." They, of course, are already higher than that level and should be rolled directly into Catholic Church of US or whatever (there may be more than one and one may already be correct). If we are contemplating a change, it might be easier to correct this directly at that time. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Catholic Churches" in this context. If you could clarify that a little? John Carter (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

For example, in "Category:Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Province of Miami", it rolls up to "Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States". This is okay at a lower level. Okay for the Archdiocese of Miami to roll up to "dioceses in the United States" but wrong for an ecclesiastical province to roll up to a diocese. The terminology is wrong. Okay for the provinces to roll up (have as the next higher category) "Catholic church in the United States." My point is that provinces are not dioceses. Dioceses are provinces. Provinces are comprised of dioceses. (I wasn't really trying to mess up your discussion here just wanted to put in that point if everything is going to have to change anyway). Student7 (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and you didn't "mess anything up". It does make sense that the categorization for achdioceses should be separate and potentially "higher" than that for regular dioceses. I'm in the process of making a category tree of all the relevant categories to Christianity, with the intention of straightening up the categorization that I find once I'm done, and the point you raise is a very relevant and material one. I'm not sure when I'll be done, but I will make a point of trying to include such in the final proposals, provided that there are multiple provinces in a country or the province's boundaries are different from the national boundaries, which there aren't in all cases, or other matters which might in rare cases appear as well. Thanks for the tip. John Carter (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You are of course aware that an archdiocese is not a province: it is one of the "dioceses" (in the more general sense of "diocese") that constitute a province. With some very few exceptions (dioceses that have the rank of archdiocese without heading a province), archdioceses are metropolitan archdioceses and head an ecclesiastical province because its bishop (again in the more general sense of "bishop") is the metropolitan archbishop of the province, with some extremely limited rights with regard to the other dioceses in the province (see canons 435-437 of the Code of Canon Law). So there is no need to separate archdioceses from other dioceses. There is need to separate ecclesiastical provinces from dioceses of whatever rank. Lima (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Picked a bad example, I guess. Yes, for this purpose, archdiocese and diocese are identical (actually for almost any purpose, but anyway...). Taking the "Diocese of Orlando", instead - it rolls up into the Ecclesiastical Province of Miami. What I am trying to do here, is stop the province from being rolled up into "US Catholic dioceses." It is fine for the archdiocese and diocese to be rolled up into US Catholic dioceses. It is the province that is superior to the diocese/archdioceses which should be rolled up into "US Catholic Church" or whatever. Thanks for pointing out the possible ambiguity. Student7 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Canon is not the Bible

Just an important fact I thought needed to be stated.Cosmos0001 (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If you could indicate where the comment might be relevant, it would of course be useful? John Carter (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Reassessment of Lope de Barrientos

Lope de Barrientos has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move of Catholic Church to Roman Catholic Church

There is a discussion regarding a proposed move of Catholic Church to Roman Catholic Church. This is motivated by the complaints of some editors that the recent move of Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church was done out-of-process and without adequate consultation of the "wider community". Please express your opinion at Talk:Catholic Church#Requested Move --Richard (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Papal conclave, 1492

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:Papal conclave, 1492/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. You are being notified as the talk page has a banner for this project. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic writers category

Some might be interested in this discussion about whether artist like James Joyce should be included in the category: Category_talk:Roman_Catholic_writers#Writers_.22informed_by.22_Roman_Catholicism. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for new article: Catholic Church during World War Two or something like it

This discussion is copied here from Talk:Catholic Church because I think it deserves a project-level discussion. We might choose to create one or more articles to cover the relevant topics and it would be good to have a wider discussion before charging off and creating new articles willy-nilly. The original discussion can be found here. --Richard (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Might it not be better to create a Catholic Church during World War Two or Catholic Church during the 20th century article and just have a smaller paragraph here? The subject is certainly one to be explored, however, as it stands it leaves the article open to much recentism (either the neutral or polemical anti-Catholic version). When we're dealing with an a instiution which should be considered more on the basis of centuries, rather than decades. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe there are already numerous smaller articles on the subject, perhaps too many already. I do not agree that we need a shorter paragraph. The event was probably the most major event of this era and warrants more space, especially when we have to include criticisms and all POV's to meet Wikipedia policy. I think the section is comprehensive while also being concise. NancyHeise ^talk 09:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with NancyHeise and agree with Yorkshirian with respect to the section on WWII being too long. The problem is not solely with length but with the fact that it is too detailed and too argumentative. This is not the article to have those arguments. There are many other places to get into the details of these kinds of arguments. This article should summarize the sides of the debate without attempting to decisively and conclusively resolve the debate (which is not really Wikipedia's role anyway). --Richard (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The section now hows enough detail to merit its own article. Majoreditor (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC criteria require the article to be comprhensive, NPOV and mention notable controversies. We might be able to trim some of the JPII stuff as it is a bit long but I would rather keep it for now and let it be considered by the peer reviewers. I am keeping stuff like this because it is important to let everyone see it and come to consensus when we are ready for peer review. That is how the article has persistently progressed through all previous peer reviews, FAC's and mediation. I am not opposed to trimming, I have already done it several times in the past only to add more info as FAC reviewers complained that it needed more not less. That was the overwhelming response on all the FACs and which could be considered a long, ongoing consensus for a longer article. NancyHeise ^talk 02:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, an obvious example of how the FAC process is seriously broken... the problem is that every Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to see more information on a particular topic gets to hold the FA status of the article hostage to his/her demands. Without meaning to cast aspersions on Nancy's yeoman efforts on this article, this article is increasingly approximating a camel (you know, a horse created by committee). --Richard (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian's suggestion consists of two parts: (1) create a new article and (2) shorten the text in this article. I support both parts but, if we defer to Nancy's recommendation, the second part will have to be postponed for now.

So, let's look at the first part. We should first take note of the fact that there are already articles on History of Christianity, Christianity in the 20th century and Christianity and antisemitism. We also have History of the Catholic Church and History of the Papacy. So what new articles should we add to this mix?

--Richard (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So here are some possibilities...

Chronologically organized

Roman Catholicism in the 20th century or Catholic Church in the 20th century

Of course, this suggests that we would have similar articles for other centuries starting with the 11th century (1054AD being the start of the Great Schism).

Catholic Church during World War Two

This leaves open the question of how to deal with Reichskonkordat and Mit brennender Sorge.

Topically organized

Catholic Church and Nazi Germany

Catholic Church and Nazism

These suggest a separate article for Catholic Church and Fascism

Then, there is the question on whether there is a need for Catholic Church and antisemitism as separate from Christianity and antisemitism. Such an article would allow a more in-depth treatment of the charges of antisemitism leveled at Pope Pius XII.

Thoughts?

--Richard (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It is my sincerest hope that Nancy and others do not think that my saying the current section is too long is in any way a criticism of their extraordinary efforts regarding this article. I can and do see that it might make sense for there to exist multiple articles on the history of the Catholic Church over time. Henri Daniel-Rops wrote I think a five- or six-volume history which had to be broken up into two paperbacks per volume, so there is a fairly clear precedent for such. That being the case, the question under discussion would be what the scope of each of these articles should be, and whether the basic subject of the Catholic Church World War II, its prelude and aftermath, is sufficient to merit its own article. My guess here, and I acknowledge it is a guess, is yes. Part of our purpose is to reflect the mateial available from reliable sources, and I think there are a sufficient number of works dealing with the subject of the Church and World War II to merit such an article. I think there are already articles on each of the significantly involved countries in the war and the war, and I think the Catholic Church is probably a large and significant enough party to merit such an article as well. John Carter (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I like Richard's suggestion of new articles, both chronologically (e.g., Roman Catholicism in the 20th century or Catholic Church in the 20th century, and "similar articles for other centuries starting with the 11th century") and topically (e.g., Catholic Church during World War Two, Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, Catholic Church and Nazism, Catholic Church and Fascism, and Catholic Church and antisemitism (separate from Christianity and antisemitism)). Eagle4000 (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nancy's work is to be commended. It's a good thing when a section of an article reaches enough critical mass to be spun off. Heck, many Featured articles are "The History of..." or some other flavor of daughter articles. So yes, I think it makes sense to create a new daughter article. My gut tells me that this shouldn't be a mojor problem at FAC; most of the regulars there are reasonable fellows. Majoreditor (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My only reservation about the above statement is that "commended" strikes me as being, well, insufficient, really. "Praised" is probably a better word. And I tend to think that the FAC people would think that the comments here requesting the spinout would be sufficient basis for them to accept it. John Carter (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have, for the time being, decided against the title Catholic Church during World War II because almost all the material that is being "spun out" is about the relationship of the church to Nazi Germany and so I feel the article title should be titled Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. I decided against Catholic Church and Nazism because Nazism could be considered to have survived Nazi Germany in the form of neo-Nazism and that is getting out of the scope that I want to deal with.

Also, two of the most important events (Reichskonkordat and Mit Brennender Sorge) did not technically occur "during World War II". As to Nancy's comment about the number of existing articles, I have discovered Pope Pius XII and Judaism and Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust. There is a lot of overlap here between those two articles and my proposed scope. However, those articles focus on Pius XII rather than including the period between 1931 and 1939 when Pacelli was elected Pope.

I want to tell the entire story from roughly 1931/1932 when the Nazis were rising in power until they were defeated in 1945. Accordingly, I have created Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. At the moment, the article is almost entirely copy/paste from other articles. A lot more work will be needed to turn this mess into flowing prose. Your assistance would be welcomed.

--Richard (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Canonizations by Pope

I've proposed Category:Canonizations of Pope Pius XII for deletion. Please contribute to the discussion if you have an informed opinion one way or the other. -choster (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in New England

I already finished articles about parishes founded by Polish immigrants in New England (78 parishes listed in above table) as the first part before I start write articles about all Polish parishes in USA.

But the same day, all of them had been marked up for deletion as not notable. Discussion is in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph Parish, Norwich. I need your opinion to write other, similar, articles in line with the Wikipedia, which are part of Polish and Polish-American history.

--WlaKom (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Further discussion "Are the parish in USA is notable or not" is on: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 15#St. Joseph Parish, Norwich.

--WlaKom (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Reassessment of Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Names of the Catholic Church

During the mediation over the "official" name of the Church, I created page with the idea that it might be developed into an article unto itself someday. I lost enthusiasm for the project partly due to the fact that is seemed there would be endless dispute over the article text.

However, now that the dust has settled somewhat, I thought I would bring this page to the attention of fellow project members and ask for feedback regarding whether there is a legitimate article topic here.

I admit that having an article titled Names of the Catholic Church seems really strange to me. However, so much information has been dug up from a wealth of reliable sources that I think it's a waste not to make it part of our inventory of articles.

The "proposed article text" at the beginning of the page is a zeroth draft. I am not wedded to any specific wording and will welcome suggestions for improvement as long as they are in consonance with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS.

Comments?

--Richard (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be a worthwhile endevour. However, I feel a bit burned out on the topic after the last few months of discussion. Majoreditor (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The page looks pretty good as is. Give me a few days to review what I can get before offering any additional comments, but I like what I see so far. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism in Somalia

I appreciate interventions in the Roman Catholicism in Somalia article. Moslem Somalis are creating some problems. Sincerely.--LittleTony (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why this merits a separate article though many of the African countries have one. This is a one-diocese country in a land which today has insufficient Catholics left alive to form a decent-sized parish. Merging this article into the diocese makes sense to me. Student7 (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your intervention in the article, Student7. Many moslem countries have the same small amount of catholic followers (or even less, like in the Arabian peninsula), but they are all worth to be included in an encyclopedia like ours. That is what makes worlwide renowned Wikipedia. Furthermore, the somalian diocese has been receiving so many "shots" (guess from whom...) in the last years and so needs help in any way: even with most articles possible in our wiki.--LittleTony (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)