Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Catholicism / Canon law (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Emblem of Vatican City.svg
Última Cena - Juan de Juanes.jpg
General information
Main project page talk
Christianity WikiProject talk
Members talk
To-do list talk
Assessment talk
Canon law Task Force talk
Collaboration talk
Strategy talk
Terminology talk
Project category talk
Catholicism Portal talk
Project templates
Project banner talk
Footer navbox talk
Popes navbox talk
edit · changes


The usage and topic of Latin is under discussion, see talk:Latin -- (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

remote Visiting scholar for DePaul University[edit]

Mass page-move effort underway[edit]

FYI, Danbarnesdavies (talk · contribs) is currently moving a large number of pages based on his interpretation of the WP:MOS. Included among them are clergy articles handled by this WikiProject. Elizium23 (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

There has been and will be no "mass page-move effort". I have simply moved a few pages — as and when I have come across them — where the subject's WP:COMMONNAME was something other than the article's title. Anyone is of course perfectly free as always to revert as part of the WP:BRD cycle. There is no need to raise an alarm as if something is under attack; we're all in collaboration here! Dan BD 21:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Jean-Marie Speich[edit]

Hi All,

This article has been largely written by an author who by their own admission has a close association with the subject. I have added a COI template and brought this up on the talk page. As I am no expert on this subject area I would appreciate it if someone would take a look at the article and decide if it warrants some fixing up. A new account was created today who has been repeatedly removing the template and who is acting suspiciously like a wp:sockpuppet. Only edits are to this article. Thanks in advance Paul  Bradbury 11:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: I read Jean-Marie Speich article (this version) and talk page (this version). You seem to be complaining about someone who has been contributing since 2007 and has edited other articles and not "Only edits are to this article". While the article does not look controversial to me, the cited sources might not support some of the content. I think it could be improved by adding content about what makes him notable beyond being an archbishop and career diplomat (both of which are notable). For example, did he write anything notable? He does not seem to be a controversial person. From the citations I have searched and improved, the article does need verification. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@BoBoMisiu: Thanks for taking a look at it, there were two issues I was referring to, the potential COI was around the fact the the user who wrote the article was self identified as an associate of the subject which is a clear violation of WP:COI, the edits may be unbiased but it needed looking at especially since the talk page indicated disagreements with other users. The second issue was that the COI template was being removed without being looked at by another account that had just been created and the only edits made by the account to date were to this article and my talk page. This is suspicious activity. Not being a subject matter expert I was just asking for a review to ensure balance. Thanks for the help. Paul  Bradbury 10:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Pbradbury: Sorry, I didn't see the user talk pages stuff. I was assumed you were writing about a different editor. Are you saying you think Northern Lights 2000 is WP:SOCKPUPPETing or WP:PROXYING for either Sulbud or Otherwise, Northern Lights 2000 didn't contribute much.
As I improve more references, I see that {{COI}} should be on the page. I will add it later today. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@BoBoMisiu: Hi sorry for the delayed response. Yes it appears to me that it was a possibility, the english used in responses was similar and the account Northern Lights 2000 was only created to remove the COI I placed from what I can tell, however after warnings desisted, so no big deal now. Thank-you for your work in reviewing this article. Paul  Bradbury 22:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Task Force Proposal[edit]

I propose the creation of an Archdiocese of New York task force. There are many articles that could use cleanup/expansion and far more that need to be created (e.g. churches/parishes within the archdiocese). Moreover, the archdiocese is very large in reality and notable in the eyes of Wikipedia so as to warrant a proper presence on Wikipedia. I have undertaken what I can but I am just one editor and the amount of work to be done is much larger than I could ever complete. Any there any other editors who would like to contribute to the formation of this task force? Ergo Sum 02:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Greetings @Ergo Sum:, The past winter months I worked on (21:11, 10 February 2015‎) and created the Template:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York so I do understand your concern of the numbers of articles involved. One of my motivational sayings is Divide and conquer. So the only guidance I can offer is to focus on improving existing articles first. Also, be aware that not every church/parish/school of the archdiocese can be considered notable per Wikipedia standards just because the archdiocese itself is notable.
I do like the idea of a task force creation, although being new (since March 2014) to Wikipedia I have no knowledge of the correct procedures. Perhaps another more expert editor could help. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@JoeHebda I want to thank you for your contributions, especially the creation of the aforementioned template. I find it a very helpful addition pertinent articles and I have made a few rather minor contributions to it myself. I am somewhat new as well and am only familiar with some of the task force creation procedures. I would much prefer to have the assistance of an experienced editor. Would you be interested in helping with the task force should it ever get off the ground? Ergo Sum 14:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum:, When I constructed the NY archdiocese template, most of the work was done offline using Notepad++ plain text editor. As I recall, I built & posted each of the subsection templates (ordinaries, churches, education) one at a time; then the archdiocese template last. So my suggestion would be to use this same template to drive the updates. While the amount of work may seem to be overwhelming, remember that Started is one-half done! At this time, I am focused on doing WP Catholicism article assessments (and improvements, especially biography) there will be updates included for some of the NY Ordinaries (Bishops) included. On my talk page I have a little To-do list that includes Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles as the top priority. It helps keep me on track.
Good luck with the task force formation. You might like to check out Wikipedia:TASKFORCE for more info. JoeHebda (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
A cautionary tale: There used to be Task Forces for each state. They were semi-inactive. A veteran Wikipedia pushed through a method of making each state force a subset of Project United States. See, for example The alternative, IMO, is to stay here or use the "lead" Archdiocese of New York article for discussions. The latter may annoy some people but so what?  :( Student7 (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge similar articles?[edit]

Greetings, First of all, this subject is outside my area of expertise. While doing WP Catholicism assessments, I noticed these similar articles.

Today, I see there is a fourth article.

While each article is comprehensive and stands on it own merits, I am wondering if there might be any way of Merging these two:

  • Catholic abuse cases
  • Catholic Church sexual abuse cases

At this point I have not posted this question to any of the article Talk pages since I thought the discussion might begin here. Being somewhat new to Wikipedia (16 months) I have never done any article merges although I have seen the topic discussed occasionally at Teahouse and Village Pump. I am asking for input and help from more experienced editors. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@JoeHebda: Oh that is a giant knotted ball of twine that will take forever to separate into its individual threads. There is a {{Copied}} on the pages and the intention was to have Catholic abuse cases to include non-sexual abuse content and to have Catholic sex abuse cases for the larger sexual abuse content. For a months, I am reading background for the editing the papal primacy cluster of articles: Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, Historical development of the doctrine of papal primacy, and the Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy. It takes time to sort through the existing references, verify what is in the references and articles, and to plan what to move where. I suggest you start by looking at the existing references, improving them and seeing what is sourced in common. I have found that at times what I read is not what is represented in the articles so I mark it up with various inline templates (which I keep organized in a snippet manager) such as {{citation needed span}} and add to the talk pages. I usually don't change article quickly but give others time to respond. Don't try to organize it all in your head. I suggest you really understand how the senses of various terms about this topic are used. For example, although some people disagree with me, I think even the definitions have been shifting over the last few years – for example, read both Wiktionary:Talk:pedophilia and Wiktionary:Citations:pedophilia where I documented a criminal sense of pedophilia, but wiktionary administrators deny that the definition of pedophilia includes such a criminal sense at all and include senses that seem to imply it is generally a kind of victimless internal feeling that excludes a relationship to external criminality. I disagree with them – based on the actual usage of the word on the citations page – but that seems to be the current community consensus on wiktionary and so it is excluded from the entry page. The term sex abuse is also used in different ways. Everything about this topic is, for me, like a giant knotted ball of twine that has many conflated not clearly defined threads. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC) (the Jewish Encyclopedia) and WP:Reliable sources?[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are (the Jewish Encyclopedia) and WP:Reliable sources?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Try Not too bad for the time. too terse and a bit slipshod IMO. On the other hand, the Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 manages to skip that! seems objective enough. Hard to tell on an article by article basis, but seems okay if you can't find anything newer.
Same with newadvent/Catholic encyclopedia. I've had good luck with information there generally. But as often as not, there's something newer. There's been a huge number of theological degrees granted since then which means a lot more eyes and perception and use of modern language. There was sort of a task force to convert Catholic Encyclopedia articles to Wikipedia. I did one. It was a lot of work and dozens of people worked on it after me and created a pretty good article. I doubt that 20% survived, and none of that "intact!" Student7 (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


Request for comment: Is Faith healing a form of pseudoscience and should it be labeled as such either in the article or by assignment of category pseudoscience? Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion at Talk:Faith healing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Caritas International[edit]

The article Caritas (charity) was deleted by an admin due to its promotional content and reliance on only primary sources. He had tried to improve it, but later thought to delete the whole article. I was trying to disambiguate some links when this fell to my notice. Since this is a notable institute, I talked to the admin about it and have reinstated the article as Caritas International and done some minor editing. One example of a similar institute is the Red Cross. But whether this article can be made to be inline with the Red Cross article? I would request interested editors to improve the article especially by using third party sources. ~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 09:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody interested?~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 06:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Pope Francis' visit to the United States created[edit]

FYI, article Pope Francis' visit to the United States created and could use more content. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this really worth an article? Especially since it hasn't happened yet, and we don't know if it will have any lasting significance. Argyriou (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, why would it be more notable than any of the other overseas visits? StAnselm (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, we have Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the United States. But I think I agree. It is Wikinews or something. And WP:CRYSTAL as I write this. Journalism, not encyclopedic. Both should be nominated for deletion. (notify me if you nominate!  :) Student7 (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Catholic saints[edit]


  1. It looks as though edits to List of Catholic saints made in October 2013 by and maybe other IP addresses were incorrect. For instance see or (if I'm reading these correctly) which makes it appear that the editor mistook proposals for canonisations for actual canonisations. Can this please be confirmed.
  2. Is this separate page really needed at all? Should this just redirect to List_of_canonizations?

Thanks, -Hydronium Hydroxide (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is a real problem with these types of articles. I have been struggling with addition of future events to such pages as List of people beatified by Pope Francis and there is a reliance on web pages such as the ones you mention, which are in no way WP:RS. The article you mention is a mess. I would almost suggest WP:TNT. We cannot merely redirect to List of canonizations, because so many saints are pre-Congregation and were canonized by popular acclaim and not by a formal process. Any master list of saints would necessarily duplicate what is in the Roman Martyrology. Likewise for Eastern Catholic saints, you would want to include the Synaxarium. Frankly, I am not sure why we need a "master list" article at all when navigation by category is available. We even have Category:Lists of saints. So what purpose does a woefully inadequate and incomplete list serve? Elizium23 (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@Hydronium Hydroxide: yes, you are correct. For example, the 1993 page on shows that a diocesan inquiry of María Belen Guzmán Florit was opened in 2001 and not closed by the diocese – she is not a saint according to that. The content added in this 2013 edit by (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is not correct. I am guessing, by looking at the IP user's contributions, that the user may not understand English very well. I also randomly checked 1999 page on and picked Maria De La Concepciò D’oleza Gualde Torrella there. From there I followed the link to which labels her a servant Of God and not a saint. The content added in this 2013 edit by (talk · contribs · WHOIS) incorrectly lists her as a saint. I think the entire page is tainted and not reliable. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian thinkers in science (2nd nomination)[edit]

Discussion likely of interest to this WP - article could do with some attention if kept --  14:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a WP Catholicism newsletter?[edit]

Greetings, While doing a few minor updates to WikiProject Catholicism/Members subpage, I see it mentions about a newsletter. Members will receive the project newsletter automatically. To unsubscribe, add yourself to the list here. Wondering if this is boilerplating from WP startup and can be removed? Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Inactive members on /Members subpage[edit]

Greetings, Today I moved a few members (from top of list) into a new Inactive members section. This is the same as a section I saw on another WikiProject. Once these moves are completed, it should be easier to find & communicate with active editors. While that other WP used inactive for 6 months for determining active vs. inactive, I extended it here for one year of no Wikipedia edits. If there are no objections within the next week, I plan to continue with the remaing member moves. Any discussion of this change is welcome. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Me likes. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 08:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
On the /Members subpage, I added a link to a bot generated Active editors list. I found this on another WP and thought it would be helpful here as well. JoeHebda (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank Joe for the Link. But it displays a grim picture. Only twelve active editors? ~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 08:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Top part is for editors and discussions meaning activity on our WP Talk pages, vs. the second section shows active editors on the WP. So this wikiproject articles are actively being updated and improved. Cheers! JoeHebda (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Please see the WP:RM at Sacrament of Penance & Reconciliation (Catholic Church) (yes, I botched the move revert and RM is now necessary.) Elizium23 (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move: Pope Francis[edit]

Please see the WP:RM currently with minimal participation at Talk:Pope Francis' visit to the United States. Thank you and God bless! Elizium23 (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)