Talk:Catholic Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Should this material really appear on a page in the article namespace? Maybe we can move it elsewhere and make it an external link:

Due to its public-domain status, the Catholic Encyclopedia can be incorporated into any work, and has also been incorporated into Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles which derive from a Catholic Encyclopedia article should bear this message:
 This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domainHerbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "article name needed". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton. 
The message can be added by inserting {{catholic}} in the article.
A list of such wikipedia articles may be found on this special page.

Public domain status[edit]

I'm not an expert on intellectual property law but I think that this sentence is not accurate

"Due to its public domain status, content from the 1913 edition can be incorporated into any work, as long as an individual does not try to pass off articles or information from the encyclopedia as his or her own."

I'm not sure if the above sentence is accurate because it merges legality (copyright violation), acceptable practice for an author (what a publishing house will accept) and ethical behavior.

I do not believe there is anything that legally proscribes me from using "articles or information from the encyclopedia" as my own. If I take an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia and put it into a self-published tract or on my personal website, there is no one with legal standing to sue me for doing so.

Now, I'm not saying this would conform with Wikipedia policy. After all, if I DID try to pass it off as my own work, then it would be considered Original Research and unacceptable for that reason.

I'm going to remove the "as long as..." bit.

--Richard 18:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Missing encyclopedia articles[edit]

You can help! The Catholic Encyclopedia is part of the Missing encyclopedic articles project to ensure that there Wikipedia has adequate coverage of relevant topics in other encyclopedias.

Text Corrupted?[edit]

Please note the end of the Intent section:

"...In particular, it predates the Second Vatican Council, which introduced significant changes in Catholic practice. We do the Devil's work, not God's. All through History we have murdered innocent people. In order for you to understand, you have to research the past. The Roman Catholic Chuch is against God not For God.

Jkorttx 21:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[1]; [2].-- 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted redundant statement[edit]

I deleted the following text: "On issues that divide Catholicism from other Churches and Protestant ecclesial communities, the text consistently presents matters from the Catholic point of view." This is redundant because the article says just few lines above "The encyclopedia was designed to serve the Roman Catholic Church, excluding information which has no relation to the Church and explaining matters from the point of view of the official Catholic doctrine". Caballaria 13:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, it's this fact that led me to question the reliability of the Catholic Encyclopedia as a source under current Wikipedia policy. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 20:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

New Advent[edit]

What's up with New Advent site? Alone Coder 15:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

subject-the sheperds of Arcadia in the context of MONT SEGNEIUR and the authenticity of the virgin Mary —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Paragraph on removal of Catholic Encyclopedia from libraries in some random city is unneccesary. I'm removing it.

Well, I would, but obviously another anonymous random citizen of the United States feels that their opinion is greater than mine, just because they signed up to Wikipedia. I'm sure all their formal training and experience as a professional encyclopedia editor gives them the right.....Wikipedia you've done it again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia available on Google Books[edit]

The ones available on Google Books has the advantage of being error-free from transcriptions as well as being easier to read than the scans by Catholic Answers when the zoom feature is used. Volumes : 1: [3] 2 : [4] 3 : [5] 4 : [6] 5 : [7] 6 : [8] 7 : [9] 8 : [10] 9 : [11] 10 : [12] 11 : [13] 12 : [14] 13: [15] 14: [16] 15: [17] 16 : [18]

Supplement I, Vol 17 of the 1922 supplement is available here: [19]

Supplementary volume of 1918: [20] --Iakj 1 (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting, but not worth mentioning on the Wikipedia page, as the entire set of 1913 volumes is available on Wikisource: s:Catholic Encyclopedia . John Vandenberg (chat) 00:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What's good about this is that it is scanned so there is no transcriptional errors. It's easier to read than the recently scanned Catholic Answers scans. But I guess google books don't appear to non-US residents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iakj 1 (talkcontribs) 22:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It also provides the Wikipedia editor with an opportunity to check whether the on-line text omits any of the printed text. --Wetman (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Online Supplement Coverage?[edit]

There is an ongoing project to include new articles on a variety of topics, under the aegis of the Gage Pub. Group. Several have recently been e-published. I don't see any reference to that work here; is it somewhere else?. (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)