Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism

Categorization and defaultsort

I please someone to have a look at this discussion.

I've categorized a great number of WP articles into categories like "cardinals created by Pope..." or "Saints canonized by Pope...". But I didn't change the related template:defaultsort where it wasn't setted by the suggested surname order. Therefore, some elements in the related categories aren't ordered by surname.

Are they correct? Do I have to correct their defaultsort manually or it is possible to do so through a somesort of bot? The problem existed before my last edits, given that defaultsort template controlled how the WP title was indexed by all the categories it contains. Hope someone helps.

FLRC

I have nominated List of extant papal tombs for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanmosa (talk • contribs) 03:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Images in Pope's infoboxes

I was surprised to see that there were so many articles of popes that did not have single image in their infoboxes, let alone articles, despite the fact that there were in excess of 20 images in their Wikipedia Commons categories. I started adding images but and editor has quickly reverted them, claiming that these images are "worthless" and that there is a well established consensus regarding this issue. There were two discussions that I could find on this topic (see here and here), but these had more to do with adding poorer quality images to already existing ones, not claiming that all these images were "worthless". Generally speaking it is accepted that images can improve and articles quality, and it seems odd to me that none of these images are deemed suitable. Obviously most popes did not live at the time of photography, so it is generally accepted that images of them and other medieval are not entirely accurate. Tagging the editor who reverted (@Surtsicna:). Inter&anthro (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Inter&anthro, please see #RfC on non-contemporary images of popes. Surtsicna (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC) --Link to Archived Discussion

@Surtsicna: so correct me if I'm wrong, but your basically saying that any non-contemporary image of popes should be removed? What's the point of having a bunch of pages in commons if not a single one is quantifiable? That sounds a bit harsh to me. Could these images be used elsewhere in the article? Inter&anthro (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

No, of course he is not. The Rfc decided that in particular these two sets of totally imaginary low-quality 19th-century images were WORSE THAN NOTHING. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

So basically all of these images are not suitable? Inter&anthro (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Especially the early ones - they were apparently made after 1823, & where there are more or less contemporary portraits they copy these, so do have a genuine likeness. For example Pope Paul III is based on the famous portraits by Titian, and one by Sebastiano Del Piombo. But then we will almost always have the original portraits (or similar ones) which are much superior. The earlier popes are just made up. They are all very low-res poor-quality images too - most about 45 kb, which is pathetic. So effectively, yes - avoid. Possibly some late-medieval popes where they use an original that Commons doesn't have might be acceptable, as a last resort. Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Johnbod, if you don't mind I have just one more question. You say that there will usually be more original portraits available, but my question is are there and if there are are they suitable as well? In this edit I added an image from coomons that was not associated with the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls, but it was reverted anyway too. Are images like that from manuscripts also suitable for some of these pope articles or are they also inaccurate? Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not from a manuscript, but is a hand-coloured print (19th-century). We don't seem to have any genuine portraits of him. I think nothing is best. Actual medieval manuscript images are probably usually not real likenesses either, in most cases, but are less objectionable, to me anyway. Johnbod (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Btw, a crop of this image of his tomb should be added to Pope Honorius IV, currently with no image. Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Catholic churches by country has been nominated for discussion

Category:Catholic churches by country has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Benedict XVI

Saw some news reports today suggesting that H.H. is in generally poor and declining health at age 93. While I hope he lives to be 100, the fact remains that at some point he is going to be called home. When that happens it is all but certain his passing will be nominated for a blurb on the main page at WP:ITNC. As a long time regular at ITN, I am pained to say that after looking at his article it would be very unlikely to be posted to the main page in its present condition. Referencing in particular is problematic with many unsourced claims and entire paragraphs lacking a single citation. Anyhow, just passing along a friendly heads up that this is coming and the article is currently not up to scratch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Catholic propaganda

The disambiguation page Catholic propaganda could benefit from the attention of someone knowledgeable about the topic. It's not clear me to that either article listed is about, or contains much discussion of, anything that's commonly known by that name. Neither article uses the phrase, and the articles that do use the phrase use it to mean quite different things. But it's also possible I'm missing something. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like the search results are using the phrase in the sense of "propaganda that is Catholic or aligned to Catholic interests". The dab creator appears to have added the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on the assumption that evangelization is per-se propaganda, a decision which is probably out of the remit of the humble dab page editor. I could see linking Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Propaganda_during_the_Reformation#Roman_Catholic_reaction_to_Protestant_propaganda, or Counter-Reformation (the latter has a whole book on Counter-Reformation propaganda in its reference list), but on another hand, it's highly likely that people who might search on this are searching for any of several topics. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (now know as the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples) was frequently known as "The Propaganda" before the name change, and probably still is in some quarters. Manannan67 (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The Latin name for "Propagation of the Faith" is "Propaganda Fide" Dcheney (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Your input is solicited on a proposed merge at Talk:Catholic teaching on homosexuality! Thanks, –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Alexander VI

The legacy section reads like a revisionist apologia and completely ignores historical consensus. It's been tagged for several years and really needs some attention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholics has been nominated for discussion

Category:Roman Catholics has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Manabimasu (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic prayers has been nominated for discussion

Category:Roman Catholic prayers has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Manabimasu (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Catholic Charismatic Renewal in England

This draft was declined, but I'm not sure I agree with the decline. I don't know whether there are enough sources to write an article specific to CCR in England. Thoughts? Should this be moved to mainspace? Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Error has no rights

I came across the article Error has no rights at DYK, and the original contributor is objecting to what I think are routine additions of text from the same sources already used in the article. I'm not too much of an expert in this topic, so I'd like to have some more perspectives on this. You can check the edit history and talk page for details. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Black Catholicism

I'm in the early stages of updating pages related to Black Catholicism (the unique history and expression of the faith among African-Americans), and I would love for it to be integrated with this project somehow. I'm new to Wikiprojects (and, while not new to editing, still learning how to be a decent/good editor), but I am wanting to expand and improve my Wiki skills.

I plan to create a "Black Catholicism" page later today, and will go from there. I would love to create a Black Catholicism series unto itself, but I'm not sure if that's couth or called for. I also don't know how to do it. Lol

Anyway, good to be here and I hope other editors will join in as they are able! natemup (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Just hit on this: not many active RC editors, African-American or not! I see you haven't yet created this page, and suggest you call it "African-American". The term "Black" is now in disfavor from what I hear. I'll help with this once I finish the Pope Francis consolidation. Jzsj (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Didn't realize there were so few! This project immediately made me think there's a ton... Anyway, the page is still in draft stage (Draft:Black Catholicism), but "Black" is almost certainly the correct term (source: I'm Black 😁). "African-American" is a very common moniker for the people group (and I did put it in the heading), but "Black Catholic" has been the most common term for African-American Catholics for several decades. natemup (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Short descriptions

We have thousands of dioceses, thousands of bishops, and thousands of other miscellaneous articles that qualify for a "shortdesc". They probably already have one from Wikidata. There's been a project on now for a few months to import and override those on Wikidata and put the shortdesc here on the English Wikipedia. Here's my question: are we going to standardize them? What information should we put in them? What information should be left out? How long should they ideally be? Should they all follow a common template for similar topics? Thanks for any input you have. Elizium23 (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Pope Francis

In the process of paring down the article on Pope Francis, the question arises of whether to greatly trim the Pope Francis#Ecumenism and Pope Francis#Interfaith dialogue sections or to create a separate article for them. It seems to me that there is very little here that could not be said of the previous popes. Please comment at Talk:Pope Francis#Page needs trimming or possibly further splitting. Jzsj (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done by User:Jzsj 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Neocatechumenal Way § Introduction

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Neocatechumenal Way § Introduction. Elizium23 (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox encyclical

Template:Infobox encyclical has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox apostolic exhortation. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Catholic vs Roman Catholic

The use of the term 'Roman' in the English language dates back to anti-Catholic England and was used as derogatory as 'Popish' to deem the Catholic Church as a beast of Rome rather than a universal institution. Indeed, it is not used in other languages of Catholic countries, and indeed it is used less frequently even today in the English speaking world.

Should 'Roman' be removed from pages such as Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lyon, since it is not the official name, nor is it used by Catholics?

For articles where there is conflict due to other Cahtolic dioceses, such as Diocese of Chicago, the 'Roman' Diocese should be renamed to the more appropriate 'Latin' Diocese, since that is the liturgical rite, or default to no qualifier at all.

Eccekevin (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the general usage has been that "Roman Catholic" denotes someone or something of the Latin Church, as opposed to "Syro-Malabar Catholic" or "Byzantine Catholic" of the Eastern Catholic Churches. There is lots of consensus and discussion behind this. See Talk:Catholic Church archives. Elizium23 (talk) 04:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and I mentioned that. But it is a misnomer in many ways. IN that case, it should be the 'Latin Archdiocese' of Chicago, not Roman. Let alone that many non-Latin Catholics make up the Archidiocese of Chicago, for example. Eccekevin (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Eccekevin, except that if you take a survey of the official websites and materials of dioceses, they self-identify as "Roman Catholic Diocese of XXX". Non-Latin Catholics are not members of the Archdiocese of Chicago and not under jurisdiction of the Archbishop. Elizium23 (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It depends. Non-Latin Catholics can easily just attend a Latin Mass and never attend any of any other rite. And I just looked at the website of the AD of Chicago, and could not find any mention of the word Roman. In reality, it is only used in English and has its roots in Anglican anti-Catholicism, hence why it is used rarely nowadays. It is also incorrect since many Catholic institutions and individuals do not necessarily see themselves as Latin Catholics, but as Catholics.

As outlined in the page Roman Catholic (term), such term is rooted in anti-Catholicism, like its synonyms 'Popish Romish' and 'Romish Catholic', and was invented by Protestants to deny the idea that the Church of Rome had universal reach. Eccekevin (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

So what? Please read about Reappropriation. Elizium23 (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself recognizes that the correct term is the Catholic Church, and not Roman Catholic Church, since indeed the latter is a redirect. Eccekevin (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Eccekevin, Wikipedia recognizes that they are both correct and the more inclusive term is "Catholic Church" because it includes all 24 sui iuris Churches. "Roman Catholic" on Wikipedia is typically used for the Latin Church only, and it is for this and many other reasons that the article remains at "Catholic Church". The article can only be in one place at a time, and the redirects provide other, valid, names for it. There is nothing wrong with using "Roman Catholic Church" on Wikipedia. Please stop removing it. You are believing #fakenews. Elizium23 (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTBROKEN, "Roman Catholic Church" is a valid link target, and your attempts to "remove redirect" are not appreciated Elizium23 (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

But the onus is on you do explain why it should use a redirect instead of a direct link. For example, non-Enlgish church buildings, exist in countries where the term 'Roman Catholic' has never been used and the Catholic Church is the only church that is references as Catholic. Using the term Roman is unnecessary, imprecise, and unofficial. Eccekevin (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Eccekevin, WP:IDHT WP:IDHT WP:IDHT Elizium23 (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23: let me start afresh. I am sorry if you see my edits as disruptive, they are all in good faith. I started by trying to start a discussion here. I am not your enemy. I am a contributor of this project and my goal is to enrich Wikipedia, particularly on this topic. You'll see in my history that I have been a productive user. I recognize and admire your work on Wikipedia and on this project in particular. I am sorry if I offended you. I truly believe that the term RC, which is anti-Catholic propaganda, has and is being misused. In particular, it is a term that solely exists in English because of Anglican and English protestant propaganda and I simply wanted to start a discussion on whether it should be indiscriminately used every time instead of the more accurate Catholic (in particular in countries where this term does not nor never existed). Once more, I believe we are friends, not enemies. Sorry if you see this as confrontational, I apologize for my role in making it so. Eccekevin (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

RFC

Should "Roman Catholic" be changed to "Catholic", and in what cases? Elizium23 (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

As the user that gave start to this discussion, I'd like to lay out my thoughts. I'd like to thank Elizium23 for initiating this RfC. To begin with, it's useful to read the page Roman Catholic (term). This terms extist solely in English (which does not per se disqualifies it) but reminds us that it harbors views and sentiments of the Catholic Church that come from cultures that are not historically Catholic. In this sense, this term is an exonym. It is also important to remember that this is not an official term, and the Catholic Church as an institution describes itself as 'One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic' Church and those are the only official terms. Roman is indeed a post-Reformation adjective that was born in Protestant circles to deny the universality of the Church and make it local in character. Synonyms were Romish, Popish, Papist, etc... The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not contain the term "Roman Catholic Church", referring to the church only by names such as "Catholic Church".

That said, the term has a history of its own and as pointed out by Elizium23 it could be a case of Reappropriation.

So when should it be used on Wikipedia?

Dioceses? The standard right now it to call all Latin-rite Dioceses as 'Roman Catholic Diocese of X'. But this is technically incorrect. The Annuario Pontificio and all official publications omit any qualifier at all. Cupich is the Archbishop of Chicago, not the . Indeed, GCatholic, an excellent resource, uses the technical term of 'Matropolitan Archiocese of Chicago' while it has qualifier for non-Roman rite dioceses (Syro-Malabar Diocese of Saint Thomas the Apostle of Chicago http://www.gcatholic.org/dioceses/diocese/ztho2.htm). If you wanted to separate it from other Catholic dioceses with different rites, the technical term is Latin Archidiocese, not Roman Archdiocese, since it is a diocese part of the Latin Church.

Individuals: Most Catholics refers to themselves as such, without a qualifier. In particular, this is true for non-English speaking Catholics.

Institutions: Many institutions, such as schools, universities, or hospitals, are affiliated or owned by the Catholics Church. But not being themselves liturgical institutions, the distinction between Latin rites and Eastern rites is meaningless. Indeed the page List of Catholic universities and colleges in the United States is appropriately names, but many institutions it lists are called 'Roman Catholic'. In here the term Roman has no specific or technical term.

Church buildings: while Church buildings do have a liturgical rite, once again the 'Roman' is not the accurate term for such rite. Calling a church building, especially one not in the UK or USA, 'Roman Catholic' in incorrect and confusing. For example: the Italian San Giorgio in Braida, Verona is defined as having the denomination as: Roman Catholic. Not only is this not the technical term, but it is a redirect to the page Catholic Church. Why not skip the redirect and link directly to Catholic Church? Especially cause the term Roman has no meaning in Italian context.

A better way is, in my opinion, what other wikis due (for example the Spanish or Italian wikies - not coincidentally from Catholic countries): they have denomination: Catholic Church (or just Catholic) of Roman Rite, if needed. This is often omitted because it does need clarification, or because the diocesan attribution also covers it.

In common speech, the term Roman Catholic is used far less than it used to be, also owning to the emancipation of Catholics in America, and the fact that the terminology is less dictated by the Protestant majority.

Eccekevin (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You are correct in some part interpreting the usage of the term. As such it is perhaps a method for enwiki to distance itself from the source; not a bad thing? It can be interesting to discuss this. I would like to add, it is not unique to English. Here is just one example from the relatively small Catholic Church in Norway, where they take 5 to discuss the term, and not distancing themselves from the term, rather cement the meaning in history of the Catholic Church. (Reappropriation) As such it is interesting to document the history of the term to understand the Catholic Church relation to the term. Regarding the redirects, can you please provide the examples as that list article is quite long. I think I agree about Diocese, but please be more clear about the rites as it is quite technical Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ ^•♪talk _{♪• look} 20:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Perpetual virginity of Mary § NPOV discussion: Arguments and evidence

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Perpetual virginity of Mary § NPOV discussion: Arguments and evidence. Elizium23 (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

RfC on "People of Praise" article

I've constructed an RfC about an unresolved conflict on the "People of Praise" article if anyone wants to take a look at that. Novellasyes (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Overdone categories

Please could somebody knowledgeable about the subject clean up the parent categories of Category:African-American Roman Catholic clergy? This is one of the worst cases of WP:OVERCAT that I've ever seen outside article space. I don't know which should be removed per WP:DIFFUSE, or kept per WP:DUPCAT. I've done one, to begin with - content categories must not be placed inside themselves. Also notifying Natemup (talk · contribs), who created the cat. Recent edits to its subcategories (African-American Roman Catholic bishops and African-American Roman Catholic priests) should also be examined. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)