Talk:List of Jesuits

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

This list needs to be alphabetized. Anyone up for a boring and thankless task?--Mantanmoreland 15:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Somebody started sorting it by given name and now it is out of control.Lestrade 21:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Please add Father Victor Badillo, considered the father of Philippine amateur astronomy, and after whom asteroid 4866 Badillo was named.

Steve Wozniak? A Jesuit? (These guys my friend, you just can't tell...LOL...--Oracleofottawa (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC))

Another thankless task?[edit]

It appears to me that this list and another one, Category:Jesuits[1], really should be melded. Anyone up for a tough slog of a task? Phil 20:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nahh. Lists and categories have different purposes. Lists allow for context and information that categories can't. I have put a merge note on List of Jesuit scientists though.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with T. Anthony. Religion and Science is an important category. Keep 'em separate--Firefly322 (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Also agree with T. Anthony: preserve this list as separate. BSVulturis (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It Was an Honor..(learned a ton..)[edit]

Done and Done!! I put in a centered top and tail piece so the page would look illuminated like a Medieval document. Sort of a photo album of God's one percenter's LOL...--Oracleofottawa (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This list should stay and sub lists should be created. This master list shows the Jesuits in Historical context. There are few organizations that have been around near 500 years! These guys have seen country's and empires come and go.. Love them or hate them they are an absolutely astounding and admit it an inspiring lot.--Oracleofottawa (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Some clean up[edit]

Since this article seems to have an active Talk page, I thought I'd run some things by the active contributors. Basically, I'd like to do some cleanup on the article, but would like to justify the changes I plan on making, in light of Wikipedia guidelines.

  • I am going to un-link the word "Saint" in front of the Jesuits who are canonized; it simply doesn't need to be linked every time it appears. Moreover, I am going to attempt some standardization of the names in the list. See WP:OVERLINK, WP:LIST, and WP:NAMES.
  • Also, I am afraid that the tone of the list is a bit too "devotional". I appreciate the attempts to make it attractive with graphics, but Wikipedia is not a personal website—it's an encyclopedia. For that same reason, I am afraid that the phrases "Ad maiorem Dei gloriam...inque hominum salutem" and "Amen" at the beginning and end of the list ought to be removed. I hope this won't be taken the wrong way, but formatting an article like a prayer book violates Neutrality guidelines.

In short, the changes won't be extreme, but I thought a rationale would be a good move. — AlekJDS talk 20:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason I linkedSaint was for visual reasons... Remember that there are billions of people who use this (or will someday use this..) that do not know what a saint is... Also, respectfully, tone brought many people here.. you just killed the page views... Also the American users will not be impressed about the Joseph T. O'Callahan picture and Medal of Honor ribbon being erased... You don't have anything against Great Americans do you? I suggest a roll back?--Oracleofottawa (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps you are right.. Somebody could have learned something by accident.--Oracleofottawa (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if you're upset about some of the changes I made. I believe I have good reason for them, and that they're in line with Wikipedia policies. I'll try to address some of your concerns. (1) First of all, linking is supposed to be appropriate to the article. According to WP:LINK, "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words." Maybe a single link to "Saint" will be appropriate, but fifty of them won't be more helpful than one, and readers could infer the meaning of that word simply by navigating to the articles in question. (2) In regards to the "tone" of the article, how do you know that it attracted people? You say that my removal of the overtly religious material "killed page views" (which fluctuate day-to-day anyway), but Wikipedia is not an website that exists for the proselytism of religious viewpoints. The purpose of this page is to be an encyclopedic list of Jesuits, not a martyrology or memorial (WP:NOTMEMORIAL). (3) Lastly, the reason I removed the picture of Joseph T. O'Callahan is because the quality of that image was quite poor (I found it difficult to tell which person was him, or what was going on); if you disagree, feel free to replace it. I certainly didn't remove it because I "have anything against Great Americans". And I removed the Medal of Honor image because that belongs in his article, not on a list.
To wrap up, let's keep in mind that individual authors don't "own" articles on Wikipedia. For the relevant policy, please see Wikipedia policy for What We're Not Here to Do and WP:OWN. However this discussion plays out, I think we can have it in a civil way (e.g., without jumping to assumptions about my motives). — AlekJDS talk 05:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please READ the O'Callahan article... The picture was of him giving Last Rites to a wounded man on the USS Franklin on his one very busy day..(This was after leading 700 sailors up several deck levels through fire and smoke in the dark saving them all from certain death.) The picture is clear. The chances are the Jesuit is the guy with the cross taped on his helmet! It is from news reel footage.(Perhaps the most famous of WWII.) You can watch it on You-Tube.. It is one of the most moving stories of the Jesuit Order. Considering the near Ivy League school you claim to have went to I would have concluded you would have been familiar with it. Also don't you think that maybe we should have one picture of the orders founder? At the top? (where it was?) I know he was just a poor foreigner and of no count.. But to leave and enlarge the Dulles Photo! Ouch! And with his and / or his relatives connections to the world despised CIA... Alekjds I don't think the come back is going so good.... Ponder this Al.. When Saint Ignatius Loyola founded the Jesuits Spain occupied the position that the United States of America occupies today..

I understand that Wikipedia is anEncyclopedia but is there any rule that says it must be ugly to look at? Also I truly resent the claim that I own this article. I was just the only one that seemed to care about building it, a big difference.. I also detect by your choice of what images that remained a definite subtle bias, which alarms me somewhat... As always in these unseemly clash's I will retire and allow you the last word.. (These things can be trying and they are a sign to move on.)--Oracleofottawa (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a compromise can be reached here. I actually hadn't ever seen the footage of O'Callahan, but we can replace Dulles' picture with his if you think it will lend some more objectivity to the article's choice of pictures. (And the reason, just as a side note, that I enlarged Dulles' picture was so that all the images of the page would be of uniform width.) While the picture of him administering last rites might be iconic, perhaps the picture of him with Pres. Truman, being awarded the Medal of Honor, might be an even better choice—what do you think about that? In any case, I do agree that the picture of St. Ignatius should have remained, but I wanted to make room for the Jesuits navigation box to be uncluttered at the top of the page. Jean de Brebeuf can be removed to make room. I'll effect these changes, and let me know if they're satisfactory. — AlekJDS talk 14:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Done! You are a good and reasonable user Al. It looks fine. Please balance the deserving grinders(ie the O'callahans and the Delps..)with the all power full..(ie Edmund A. Walsh's..) Spend any amount of time here you can become quite attached to the legends..Not being too devotional but it has become a special page and it deserves the best of our attentions.--Oracleofottawa (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)