Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2013

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2010 Archive 2011 Archive 2012 Archive 2013


Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexually active popes (2nd nomination) Elizium23 (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Acts of reparation

In Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 15#Category:Acts of Reparation the question of capitalization is being addressed; however, this led to a review of the acts of reparation article itself. I'm having serious doubts that this is a specific thing unto itself; it looks to me as though someone took a bunch of similarly named prayers and decided that they were a particular type of sacramental. I can find no evidence that anyone else thinks this way. If we could get some experts to come to the article/talk page and address the issue of sources which talk about this as a category I would appreciate it. Mangoe (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


Prelest (a Russian/Orthodox term for spiritual delusion) is a new article by a new editor that has at least some obvious issues of neutrality (WP:NPOV) and reliable sourcing (WP:RS). For example, the section on "Prelest and saints of the Roman Catholic Church" includes St. Francis of Assisi, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Ignatius of Loyola, and St. Thomas à Kempis among those who were guilty of being in delusion and self-deception. It would be helpful for some knowledgable editors to separate the wheat from the chafe in this lengthy and well-cited (but not necessarily well-referenced) article, as I don't know where to begin. First Light (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

clarity about chorbishops?

Wikipedia's article titled chorbishop is unclear about the question of whether a chorbishop in the Maronite church is or is not actually a Catholic bishop. That's not something that should be uncertain. (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears that they occupy a somewhat halfway-between office in the Maronite Church, and it would therefore not be appropriate to try and apply the term "Catholic bishop" to them in most cases. Why should it not be uncertain? The Maronites have a history and patrimony separate from the Latin Church, so it is natural that there should be some things that do not exactly synchronize with the Western understanding. Elizium23 (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

New article Papal conclave, 2013

FYI, with Benedict's resignation, I have started the article on the next conclave. Canuck89 (what's up?) 11:43, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Papal conclave articles

The Category:Papal conclaves articles which have infoboxes (20th & 21st century conclaves and 1800,1513,1492,1294) all directly code their infoboxes instead of transcluding them. this causes variances in display, and should have an infobox instead of direct coding. Can someone clean this up? -- (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

New infobox created -- {{Infobox papal conclave}} -- (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


The Lent article has a {{refimprove}} tag on it, which makes it ineligible to appear on WP:Selected anniversaries/February 13. I realize this is last-minute, but apparently the maintenance tag was just added recently. It appears this should be a relatively easy task, so hopefully someone can fix it up in time. I would do it myself, but I know barely anything about Catholicism/Christianity at all. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Papal conclave, 2013

It would be great if someone could help me fix whatever needs be fixed about the article on the next papal conclave. If anyone can suggest an alternative hook, that would be very appreciated as well. The article appears to be great DYK material and it would be a shame to waste it. Thanks, Surtsicna (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Legal Immunity of Benedict XVI

There is a discussion regarding whether legal immunity or possible prosecution is relevant in the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. It seems that us few editors in the discussion are going in circles. Could a few please add their comments as to its relevance? The section is Talk:Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI#Legal Immunity but it is already about two screens down to the end of the discussion. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 13:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

papal task force

perhaps it would be a good idea to put together a task force of sorts, a group of editors , to go around and update the numerous listings for the pope's name, once the new pope is elected. Aunva6 (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You might want to consider making a list of the articles that will need to be updated beforehand. (I did something similar regarding when a Cardinal dies.)--Dcheney (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a template to use instead: {{Incumbent pope}}. This can be updated in one place and reflected in all articles at once. Please consider using it where applicable. Elizium23 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
well, for example, there are quite a few pages on orders of knighthood, where the pope is listed as the... grand master (not sure what the actual term is, but whatever). I haven't checked if any use the template, but that is quite a few articles right there. Aunva6 (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Roman Pontiff Emritus

Pope Emeritus, should this be a separate article from Papal resignation? (see talk:Papal resignation) -- (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

New banner for Catholicism portal

The old Catholicism Portal banner

Ladies and gentlemen, we need a new banner image for the top of Portal:Catholicism. The current one has Pope Benedict XVI prominently displayed, and so is no longer the best option. If we go with a timeless banner, this problem will be avoided the next time the Holy See changes from occupied to vacant (or vice versa). So, are there any image editors on the project who are willing to come up with a new banner? Gentgeen (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi, you guys probably know more about the issues on how this project may relate to this discussion than I do, so comments will be appreciated. I may stop watching that page after a while anyway, if you guys want to watch it. Thanks. IcarusVsSun (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI, Papal resignation and Papal conclave, 2013

Is there a way we can get these articles consistent? Pope Benedict XVI doesn't have the Pope's retirement date (February 28, 2013) in his infobox 'yet'. Papal resignation continues to have Benedict XVI re-added to the 'resigned popes' table before February 28, 2013 gets here & Papal conclave, 2013, puts out that the popes resignation is pending February 28, 2013. Can we please bring Papal resignation in-line with Pope Benedict XVI and Papal conclave, 2013? GoodDay (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Your position is noted, but as I've said a few times (and you have completely ignored), Benedict XVI has resigned, in the past, when he said the words "I renounce." Does anyone other than GoodDay disagree with this? (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, You are reading it out of context. He did not say "I renounce.", the sentence does not end there. He said, "I renounce ..... in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant ....". Which means before 28 February 2013 the see WILL NOT BE vacant. So he is still the pope. At least till 28 February --Jayarathina (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm aware of the full statement, and that he's still pope at the moment, but he still said "I renounce", which means he has resigned. If he were to pass away before the effective date would it not still be accurate to say he was a pope who resigned? I realize this will all be settled in a few days but maybe showing some agreement will help to avoid petty edit wars about similar situations in the future. (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
If Benedict had died before 20:00 of February 28? his resignation would've become null & void, since the Holy see would've become vacant before it was scheduled to. Gregory XII would've remained the most 'recent' pope to resign. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I need help at Papal resignation. I'm trying to update the fact that Benedict XVI resigned February 28, 2013. However, an editor keeps reverting to the 'past tense' version of Benedict annoucing his pending resignation on February 11. Furthermore, the editor continues to argue that the Pope resigned Feb 11 & not Feb 28. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

footer template colors

can we please nix the blinding yellow of the footer templates? it is overly gaudy, and really takes the focus away from page content. also, they are insanely bright, and hurt they eyes, even in a bright room, let alone someone reading wikipedia in a darker room. it's worse than a pure white web background. please use a different color. perhaps a darker, more golden yellow, if it must be yellow. i'm changing them to the standard purple-gray for now. Aunva6 (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

nixed them for you. I felt immediate action had to be taken, so WP:IAR. Aunva6 (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
And I reverted your changes. The colors were used in the templates for a long time before now and no one raised any objections I can find. Changing all of the templates to a neutral color scheme should be thoroughly discussed and agreed on by the editors. Also, I don't find the colors to be bright, maybe it is just you or your monitor.Joshbunk (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I put an RfC on the pope template. there were several other users complaining as well. Aunva6 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Article alerts, someone might want to switch this on by adding it to the bot's project list like Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Article alerts. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

St Aloysius Church, Glasgow

Dear editors: The article about St Aloysius Church, Glasgow is marked as a stub. Can someone please check to see if it is ready for an upgrade? It looks good to me, but I am not knowledgeable in this area. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Coronation of Pope Paul VI.jpg

file:Coronation of Pope Paul VI.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Write about your church

I'm thinking of getting a project together to encourage new visitors to write about their parish church. For many people it's probably the first new article they will create. There are quite a few common issues that articles about Catholic parish churches face, so it may be an idea to get them into one place. Do other people think that this would be useful and if so where should it be based and what items should it contain?

JASpencer (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

  • It should contain reliable, independent, non-local secondary sources that explain why their particular parish is notable. There are hundreds of thousands of Catholic parishes in the world, supposedly there are 19,081 in the US. Abductive (reasoning) 14:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
But it's that sort of advice that people need. JASpencer (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

We need input at that article, concerning his numbering as the 265th pope. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Michael Owen Jackels#He remains bishop of Wichita until his installation

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Michael Owen Jackels#He remains bishop of Wichita until his installation. Elizium23 (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Temporal": article?

Following through on excellent suggestion to come here for discussion on possible stub or article re "temporal"—i.e., "Temporal punishment and eternal punishment" inclusive of "temporal punishments during lifetime" before Purgatory—relating to WP article Indulgence. [CCC nn. 1472-3, 1478-9, 1498]

"...either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory." n. 1472

See my Talk Page: Disambiguation link notification for April 17 for relevant info and options I've considered, and editor JaGa's suggestion of possible inclusion of "Temporal punishment" as sub-section of a WP article "but which?".

--Espresso-con-pana (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Holy Father/Pope

Editor Pol098 (talk · contribs) is systematically going through articles removing all reference to "Holy Father" and replacing it with "Pope" and citing WP:NCCL. Unfortunately, NCCL is an article title naming convention guideline, and therefore only governs article titles, not mentions in articles. In my opinion, Holy Father is a perfectly valid name for the Pope and can be retained, especially where it can be explained by a piped link: Holy Father. I suggest we do not remove all these mentions. Elizium23 (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I can see where replacing Holy Father with Pope is acceptable, when the context isn't a quotation. Examples: The Pallium was placed on the Pope, compared to "The Pallium was placed on the Holy Father". GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The common name is "Pope" not "Holy Father". Readers are for more likely to know what "Pope" means then they are to know what "Holy Father" means. Unless there is some reason (such as a quote) to use "Holy Father", we should use "Pope" not "Holy Father". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed a few of these edits on my watchlist. It depends on the type of article and how many times the "Pope" is referenced. If he is mentioned repetitively and in the type of article only those interested in Catholicism would be reading, I think the name should vary so it doesn't sound flat. A friend who wrote for a Catholic publication (National Catholic Register) told me that they consciously rotate "the Pope," "The Holy Father," "Pope Francis," and "Francis" when he is mentioned multiple times in an article so that it sounds better. You will notice this is standard practice in Catholic publications and blogs if you look for it. We can assume that the type of person who would be reading this understands the names are interchangeable. If on the other hand, he is mentioned once or a only few times on a general interest article, I think a policy that we call him the "Pope" is a good idea (although I don't see it as a necessity). That is the name he most known by and those reading such articles are less likely to realize the names are interchangeable. An example article where mixing names would help: Funeral of Pope John Paul II has "Pope" 55 times (55 more times with "Pope John Paul II" for a total of 110) yet no "Holy Father" aside from quotes and the navbox - in such a case, I think replacing some with "Holy Father" would make it a smoother read.>> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 13:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
We can't assume that the reader knows that "Holy Father" means "Pope". How does mixing names make the article sound better, or a smoother read? Assuming that the reader knows that Holy Father means Pope does nothing but make the article a more confusing read. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I've tried to cut down on the usage of Pope, via pipelinking Gregory XII & Celestine V, at the Benedict XVI article. However, I was always reverted. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
We are writing for a much broader audience than just Catholics, who are familiar with the phrase "Holy Father." This isn't the Catholic Encyclopedia. If "Holy Father" is used, at the minimum it needs to say "(another name for the Pope)" with the first usage. First Light (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Just popping by for a moment to note that there is an analogous situation at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles#Islamic_honorifics, and I have seen in articles, such as Arabian horse (where I watchlist) that we periodically have people going through and adding or deleting honorifics such as "PBUH" that get added to the use of Muhammad's name from time to time. So, if it is useful here, I'm noting it. I will say that another analogy would be the word "President," where there really are no real good synonyms that aren't nationalistic or jingoistic, (e.g. "Leader of the Free World", for example) so one simply needs to figure out where to use the person's name versus their title, versus a simple pronoun. So I guess that I'm grammatically with those who say not to use "Holy Father" as a mere synonym. First Light's suggestion of a parenthetical is very clunky wording, though if there is a wikilink, Holy Father could be used on first reference, maybe...except that it links to a dab, and given ambiguous meaning, I'd be prone to disfavor it in general. Montanabw(talk) 17:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Responding to First Light and Emmette Hernandez Coleman: Repeating a term too many times gives a flat reading. I have seen a few comparisons of Wikipedia vs. Other Reference book and they seem to repeat that Wikipedia tends to have a flatter style although it is factually equal or superior.
I think that writing standards in use in publications of the same category as the specific WIkiproject are valid places for ideas on specific WP:MOS issues like this. Those reading more specific articles on Catholicism would have enough general / Catholic culture to understand this. To give a totally random example: Ray Odums uses DB for Defensive Back the first time it appears because nobody would have found this page unless they were understood such basic Football culture or did random article roulette. Pipe wikilinking it the first time and varying seems like the best option. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 16:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the need to write in a less flat style, but we can't expect all of our readers of Catholic specific articles to be more Catholic and more understanding. "DB" is a poor example because it's widely used in popular media, whereas "Holy Father" is not, as far as I can see. We need to look at how the mainstream press treats this usage, not other uses. Looking at a couple of random examples, the New York Times[1] calls him "Pope Francis" in the first instance and "Francis" in later mentions. The Los Angeles Times [2] is similar. The Guardian[3] uses "Pope Francis" in the first instance and then seems to alternate between that and "Francis" in order to get the variety that people here are seeking. I also see in my Thomson Gale Encyclopedia of Religion that they also don't use "Holy Father" in their Pope articles, though they don't even use "Pope" in the title of their articles about popes. Wikipedia should be written for a general audience, much like the examples that I show, not for a Catholic audience. First Light (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The Fox News coverage of Pope Francis's election clearly used "Holy Father" on multiple occasions. The article Funeral of Pope John Paul II, which I had cited above as overusing "Pope", has "Holy Father" 3x in quotes: 2 by Cardinal Ratzinger and 1 by Tony Blair. I can only assume that if Tony Blair thought most people would not understand "Holy Father" he would have used another term. Those are just two examples that come to mind right away.
I think discussing here how many people know what "Holy Father" means may not be too fruitful since all of us on WP:CATHOLIC should know what it means. (I admit that I may not be the best since I am a WP:HOBBIT on Catholic-related topics, I live somewhere English is the 2nd language, and 95% of my friends are serious Catholics.) I propose that we ask a general question to editors outside WP:CATHOLIC on something like Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)‎. I would formulate it "When you hear the word "Holy Father" do understand that this means the Pope?" followed by an explanation of why we are asking. What would be the best general forum to post such a question on. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 10:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I do not think "understandability" should be at issue here, at all. This is an encyclopedia and a Wiki. Any term that an editor thinks may not be immediately understood can be wikilinked for explanation. That is why I suggested the piped link in my original post. Elizium23 (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I have to point out that in some conservative Protestant traditions, "holy father" is God. The title for the Pope is understood, but not accepted as a Universal title. "His Holiness" is also an honorific applied to people such as the [{Dalai Lama]]. Montanabw(talk) 22:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course, understandability by itself shouldn't be an issue. But we should cover this the same way that reliable sources do, which is in a neutral manner and which also is in a manner that their readers will understand. And they don't seem to use Holy Father at all, or perhaps rarely. First Light (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know about how rarely "Holy Father" is used. Obviously it's used less than "Pope" but I just searched Google News to give me some kind of idea. Here's what I came up with (specifically Catholic publications skipped): NBC News (april 10): [4]; Christian News Wire (April 11 - Protestant not Catholic): [5]; Irish Times (March 26): [6]; The Grand Rapids Press (Yesterday): [7]; Several quoting the Vatican press office statement that the "Holy Father" is praying for the victims in Boston (now if they thought people would either fail to understand or be offended, they would not use it on a statement like that); Albany Tribune (April 17): [8]; several talking about Borgia (TV series) using "Holy Father"; Global Post (April 15): [[9]]; (April 15): link removed since blacklisted; Daily Bhaskar (April 14): [10]; Big News Network (April 16): [11]; Agence France-Presse; (April 14) [12]; The Harvard Crimson (April 12): [13]; etc. I doubt that these taken as a whole would be considered pro-Catholic (In fact, the Daily Bhaskar story is promoting a decidedly uncatholic position). I think that its use proves that A. People understand it, and B. it can be used without breaking WP:NPOV. I still agree with the general idea that "Pope" should be used more.
One final thought: since nobody is arguing to change quotes and many use it in quotes, wouldn't it create more confusion for these quotes if it were absolutely avoided outside of quotes? >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 13:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"Holy father" shouldn't be used anywhere (except in quotes and very specific instances, like when explaining which honorifics and styles of address are used for popes), just like articles should never use "His holiness", "Her Majesty", "Imperial Highness", "His Lordship", "The Reverend", ... It is a POV introducing honorific. MOS:HONORIFIC is quite clear on this. Fram (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You missed the point. The discussion is not about writing "The Holy Father Benedict XVI" it is about whether it can be sued as "The Holy Father" just as the article Queen Victoria might say "The Queen" at certain points where it is obviously refing to Victoria. We had a mix of "The Pope" and "The Holy Father" when one editor unilaterally decided that WP:NCCL about naming articles "Pope X" means that the subsitute word can only be "Pope" and not "Holy Father" (and as you point out MOS:HONORIFIC which repeats this for full names). Neither policy speaks of simply using their title to replace their name (although for presidents, kings, popes, etc. this is done throughout any article of any size to avoid reader fatigue). >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 14:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I just take the spirit of the MOS instead of the letter. It isn't acceptable to write "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II said ..." in an article, and it is equally unacceptable to write "Her Majesty said...", where it is obviously referring to Elizabeth II. "Holy Father" is not a title, it is a style of address, a honorific. Articles can switch between "The pope" and "Francis I" (or Benedict XVI or whatever), just like they switch between "Obama" and "The President", or "The Queen" and "Elizabeth II". This isn't an argument to use "Holy Father" (or "Her Majesty") as well. It should be avoided wherever possible. Fram (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The equivalent of "Her Majesty" is "His Holiness". "Holy Father" is tough because it fits more in "The Queen" or "The President" but we already have a more common "the Pope". I have almost never heard "The Holy Father Benedict XVI" in English (although it is common in Spanish & Italian). I don't want to make the final judgement call on it being WP:NPOV (read my user page). >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 17:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I would say that using a name is still much better than referring to a pope as one of those titles. Barack Obama's page only refers to him as "the President" one time. If we are picking between one or the other, Pope would be more appropriate for a general encyclopedic entry. Dreambeaver(talk) 16:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I think we agree that in most cases "the Pope" is to be preferred to "the Holy Father", My point was that referring to him as "the Holy Father" should not be prohibited or edited out on a massive scale. Some editors claim that the spirit of WP:NCCL and MOS:HONORIFIC indicate it should be avoided. That was the original question and there does not seem to be consensus. As an example of where "the Holy Father" could be used, the 2nd paragraph of Funeral_of_Pope_John_Paul_II#Rite_of_Visitation is 106 words and contains "the Pope" 4 times and "John Paul II once - it would be better English style to switch one "the Holy Father". One editor unilaterally decided that "Holy Father" should never appear outside quotes for the stated Wikipedia policies above. I disagree but until we have consensus, I am following WP:STATUSQUO. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 10:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd still argue that the Holy Father is not generally appropriate. It caters too much to Catholics and not to general readers of these entries. Dreambeaver(talk) 18:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree—inappropriate, and also completely unnecessary. First Light (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Changing of multiple articles about popes

Would someone mind looking at the changes that Unixbytes90 has made to a large number of articles about popes? This is a brand new editor, and while his/her changes look authoritative to me, I have no idea if they are improvements or (subtle) vandalism or something else. Thanks. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This is directly related to the RFC that is still running above and has not achieved consensus, so the appropriate move is WP:STATUSQUO until close of RFC or consensus is reached. Unixbytes is actually only undoing changes that happened before, but no edit is called for until we reach consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, hm, I see he is doing some pronunciation work too, I can't comment on whether that is constructive or not. I am only talking about adding "Pope" back in to the lede sentences and the infoboxes. Elizium23 (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

User boxes and navboxes

I have just added some navboxes I've made to Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism. I was wondering if anyone could help me with more navboxes such as Domincans, Jesuits, Franciscans, etc.

On a separate note, there does not seem to be a repository for Catholic Userboxes. The gallery for Religious userboxes (User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion) seems to lack Catholic, and almost lack Christianity. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 15:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the userboxes are on a sub-page User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion/Abrahamic#Roman Catholic. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 15:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Roman Catholic priests, section

I had some concerns regarding a new section in the article on Homosexuality and Roman Catholic priests. Some of the material removed may have a place in the article, or possibly in related articles but not, I would say, in the form it had been presented or with such prominence in the article. Those involved in this project may have a view. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Papal article consistency

Point 1: There is no consensus to remove the honorific "Pope" from the lead sentence. A related discussion here was closed recently with concensus "against changing the naming convention for articles about Roman Catholic popes, and also specifically against applying the naming conventions for European sovereigns to Popes." Point 2: There is consensus that the construction "Pope {name} was the head of the Catholic Church from ..." can be used to address the issue of redundancy. Point 3: There is consensus that the name field in Infobox Christian leader should omit the honorific "Pope". Bede735 (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We need to stream line the papal bio articles. Many of them use pope in the intro, but not all of them. Some don't use pope in the infobox heading, yet some do. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This matter was brought up on the Benedict XVI talk page in the thread titled "Inconcistency with use of 'Pope' in lead and infobox". Thanks for mentioning it here, GoodDay. :) -- (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
This question is still ongoing. Please see discussion at User talk:Bede735#Papal intro consistency and User talk:GoodDay#Pope article edits. Elizium23 (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC on Papal article consistency

  1. Should the lead sentence of articles about popes begin with "Pope {name}" or should the honorific "Pope" be omitted?
  2. In order to prevent redundancy, where many articles have previously said "Pope {name} was Pope of the Catholic Church..." should we instead use the term "Bishop of Rome" or "Supreme Pontiff" or "Roman Pontiff" or something else?
  3. Should the "English name" parameter of {{infobox Christian leader}} include the honorific "Pope", or should the separate parameter "honorific-prefix" be used?
  • These questions should be answered with clear consensus before we begin (continue) to edit over 250 separate articles on popes. Elizium23 (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


IMHO, 1) The lead sentence start with (for example) "John XXIII, ...", 2) If we go by just the name, then we can continue with "...was Pope of the Catholic Church...", however we 'can' you "Bishop of Rome" for those who weren't called pope, during their reigns & 3) Either is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. use either as appropriate. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 22:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
What do you agree with? We should not be using either "honorific-prefix" or "English name"; the way the template is designed, we should be using ONLY "honorific-prefix". If you are talking about (2) instead of (3) then please say so. Elizium23 (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
May we have a visional example or link examples for #3? I need to be certain of what's being proposed. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I was using the English name field instead of the honorific field. The visual result to the infobox is the same. See Pope Stephen III. Bede735 (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I am in the process of restoring the "Pope {name}" convention to the lead sentence per WP:LEADSENTENCE. The honorific was removed within the past few weeks. I conveyed my concern to the editor and he indicated he would not revert my changes back to the long-established convention. Regarding question 2, the minor redundency is preferable to replacing the unambiguous common noun "pope" (linked), which references all of the pope's titles, not just "Bishop of Rome", "Supreme Pontiff", and "Roman Pontiff". Regarding question 3, is there a reason to omit the honorific? Many of these popes have names in common with several other saints, kings, emperors, etc. I see no reason to omit the honorific, which removes ambiguity and connects the infobox title to the article title and first mention in the lead sentence. Bede735 (talk)

It should be "Pope [name]..." per WP:LEADSENTENCE. There is no good reason to deviate from the guideline. -Rrius (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There is currently ongoing discussion regarding if "Pope" should be included in the Title of the article as well. It might be good to try to centralize these discussions, since they seem to be getting at the same basic issue... that is, do we treat "Pope" as part of the person's name, or do we bring it into line with other articles concerning heads of organizations. For example, we don't call Obama's article "President Barack Obama" and we do not call him "President Barack Obama in the lede either. This convention is standard for ALL other articles (The Title is not treated as part of the name) except for Popes and Patriarchs... and I for one don't see why this particular religious position gets a special dispensation (Seems like an WP:NPOV issue to me). ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment - IMO from an encyclopedic and secular perspective, any of the "pope" articles should start with "Pope (name),..." with "Pope" wiki-linked and continue from there. Pope has its own article that's well done and goes into all the detail that is being questioned or suggested. Lets solve the situation by just removing it entirely. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you show an example of other encyclopediae what include the word "Pope" as part of an article dedicated to one of the Popes? ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Other encyclopedias are irrelevant. We're discussing consistency of a series of articles on Wikipedia. I don't see a need or justification to include the title/status/position in the article title, but its relevant in the context of the lead. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
They're not irrelevant at all, they serve a valuable guide for us as we make style decisions. If we want to be an encyclopedia, then we should follow the same standards that other encyclopedia follow. ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree, the manner that reliable sources (including encyclopedias) treat the name is more than relevant, it's what we should be using to determine the correct name of an article and the name of the pope. Regarding having the word "Pope" be a wikilink, we don't wikilink any of the bold words in the lead sentence. Our Manual of Style explains why, at WP:Lead: "Do not place a link within the bolded title, even if that seems to provide a graceful way to link to an appropriate context-setting topic. Bolded links look neither like bolded text nor ordinary links, and appear jarring." I also don't understand the fascination here with trying to be consistent. We should be calling them just as reliable sources do. First Light (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
First, I was unaware of the MOS policy on not placing links in the bold part of the lead. Thank you for enlightening me, its appreciated. Its unfortunate and I feel it would solve the issue, but I understand the policy. As for consistency, personally I'm in favor of it simply because of the diverse nature of the editor population. WP:BRD almost guarantees that articles will be edited in "new and creative" ways so I'm not worried about stiffling contributions, but I think guidelines and consistency are important to maintain high quality with regard to grammar, article tracking, references, and overall ease of readability.
With regard to other encyclopedias, especially those in print, as well as dictionaries, thesauri, and such, I do not consider them sacrosanct. Furthermore, I feel they should checked and cross checked simply because once something is incorrect in print, its incorrect in perpetuity. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
That's fine if you feel they should be checked and cross checked, that doesn't mean that we should not emulate them. Our place on Wikipedia is NOT to create something new, but to emulate the style of other encylopediae and report the content that WP:RS have reported. ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Our place on Wikipedia is to adhere to its policies. Emulating other encyclopedias is not a policy that I aware of. Are you confusing paraphrasing with emulation? Are you familiar with WP:BOLD or WP:BRD? As a policy it would seem to invite creativity and invention. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


Point 1 - lead sentence & Title

Strong Keep The lead sentence and title make most sense as "Pope John XXIII" etc. since that is how they were known. They changed their name to "Pope X" and not just "X" from whatever it was and Wikipedia respects name changes in general. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 14:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, they don't change their name to "Pope X." Pope is NOT part of their name. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

They choose their name and "Pope" is automatically added. If I say "Conon" barely anybody knows of whom I speak. while if I say "Pope Conon" you understand he is the head of the Church of Rome a while back (still most need Wikipedia to tell them it was from 686-687 AD / CE). Some Popes are known with or without "Pope" but others only with "Pope", so consistency says have all with "Pope". >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 08:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, I lean towards excluding Pope, but I'm more interested in haveing all 266 bio articles consistant. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Strong Oppose, we have at least one instance now of an article where this becomes a WP:BLP issue. Benedict XVI is NOT a Pope any longer, so to call him that creates false information in the title and lead. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

All of Francis' predecessors are no longer pope. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, but there is a difference between someone who died in a position and someone who holds another position prior to death as Benedict XVI. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
All 266 articles must be in sync. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm simply saying that there IS a difference between Benedict and the other Popes who died rather than abdicate. ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Don't forget Gregory XII, Celestine V and a few others :) GoodDay (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Who would not qualify as "the other Popes who died rather than abdicate" because they abdicated. ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep the "Pope {name}" presentation in the lead sentence, consistent with WP:LEADSENTENCE: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence". The common names of popes, reflected in the article titles, is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME: "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." If you omit part of the common name ("Pope"), you introduce unnecessary ambiguity and end up with odd lead sentences such as, "Linus was Pope ...", "Fabian was Pope ...", "Mark was Pope ...", etc. Retaining the common name in the lead sentence and following existing MOS guidance is the best way of assuring consistency: "Pope Mark (died 7 October 336) was pope from 18 January 336 to his death." Variances in a specific article should be worked out by the editors working on that article, per the MOS. Bede735 (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME Seems to rule out "Pope Benedict XVI" in favor of "Benedict XVI" since the example it gives is "Bill Clinton" vs "President Clinton." Reliable English-language sources refer to "President Clinton" much more than the refer to "Bill Clinton" but President is NOT part of his name, it is a title. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME sates that the title should be "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." as far as I can see, that would include "Pope." This is more clear with Pope Francis than Pope Benedict XVI since nobody else has ever been called Benedict XVI but plenty have been called Francis. As well, when we get to historical Popes before the 20th century, they are almost always used with "Pope" in reliable sources, at least the first time they appear in the source (they can be shorten later just like the first time an article will say "Bill Clinton" then use "Mr. Clinton"). If we want consistency in the article titles, the only way to do it is with "Pope" since some need it and others have both forms commonly used in reliable sources (for example, Pope Benedict XVI and John Paul II appear commonly in both forms). >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 08:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - I've been reading this, don't know why, and was looking at your manual of style for biographies, and all other pertinent info on the subject of popes and opening paragraphs, it clearly shows that "pope" is a title, not part of the persons name, and all other articles start out as "John Does" is "Title" of blah blah blah. We say in a conversational way Pope Francis, Pope Benedict, President Obama, President Mitterand, Queen Elizabeth, King George, yet none of these Titles are part of their name, we just use the title first like Mr. Dr. Father. We don't start all articles with "Mister John Doe was a Blah Blah Blah...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talkcontribs) 22:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Keep. It's in line with WP:LEAD and is how popes are commonly known. Andrew327 16:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep per keepers, though I'm not sure we should need a rule either way. Consistency is being over-valued by some in this discussion. The case of the very early Popes in particular might sensibly be handled differently - calling the 1st & 2nd century figures Pope is arguably POV as even Catholic historians are dubious that the special role we mean by "Pope" existed then. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Generally, titles are not included in the person's name in the lead sentence for other individuals, even if they are usually included when referring to the person in day-to-day conversation (see Bill Clinton and Henry VIII of England). Unless the title of pope is unique, then it probably shouldn't be included where others aren't. Since the name assumed by the pope is retained following their death or resignation of office (Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is a perfect example of this), it seems independent of the title. While I'm not too much of a stickler on consistency, "Pope X was pope..." sounds redundant enough to merit a modification of the lead sentence. Chri$topher 13:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Two other editors voted to remove Pope from the common name in the lead based on the arguments presented in the discussion at WT:NCCL#Pope_as_part_of_the_name. One of the two in fact suggested we should "centralize these discussions, since they seem to be getting at the same basic issue." Two weeks ago an administrator closed that discussion, writing, "Consensus is against changing the naming convention for articles about Roman Catholic popes, and also specifically against applying the naming conventions for European sovereigns to Popes." This discussion (point 1) should focus on MOS: and not misapplying the conventions used for royalty or presidents. The specific guidance for this discussion is WP:LEADSENTENCE: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence". Bede735 (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Definitely a legitimate point, and I will agree that it negates some of my argument above (namely that the conventions for European sovereigns can't be applied to articles about the pope), but that discussion seems to be about the naming convention for the article, rather than the convention used in the lead sentence. The page for WP:LEADSENTENCE gives reducing redundancy as a legitimate reason to avoid repeating the title of the article verbatim, though, and I think that applies here. Chri$topher 23:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose,(edit conflict) to keep consistency with other biography articles, althought some include the title before the name, most do not. As such articles about popes, cardinals, and other members of the Episcopate, should follow the common practice where their title(s) are listed after their name.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
According to the MOS:, all biographies should not follow the same naming convention—specifically, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) should not be applied to popes and clergy. According to MOS:HONORIFIC: "Clergy should be named as described in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy)." Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy) states, "For popes, whether Roman Catholic, Coptic, or otherwise, use the format "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". Popes of Rome should not be linked with their episcopal sees; Rome is understood." The specific guidance for this discussion is WP:LEADSENTENCE: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence". Bede735 (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

 • Oppose. Per WP:SOVEREIGN, actually. I think you've misinterpreted the guideline.

  1. According to WP:SOVEREIGN, "These following conventions apply to European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire ..., because they share much the same stock of names.". Since the popes do use a stock of names that overlap with other monarchies, their titles must be disambiguated the same as other monarchs. Names like John Paul II may be unique enough, but Francis I, Gregory I, John I, Leo I, etcetera are not. See Papal name.
  2. Popes are not "kings of a people, rather than a country". They lead a worldwide church, but are only sovereigns ofVatican City. The "kings of a people" provision does not apply.
  3. "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" does work. Remember Rome is not the country/state, Vatican City is. It would be "Benedict XVI of Vatican City", not "Benedict XVI of Rome".
  4. " some cases the title rather than the state is followed, including: [e.g.] Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor ..." This would result in "Benedict XVI, Pope".
  5. 'Article titles are not normally prefixed with "King" ... In a few cases consensus has been reached that the country can be omitted ... Elizabeth II (rather than "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom") and Napoleon (rather than "Napoleon I of France").' "Not normally" does not mean not allowed. Per WP:NOTLAW, consensus can override the default in unusual circumstances.
    — User:Sowlos

If it is already been decided only a month ago, why are we discussing it again. I think this dsicusion is uneeded WP:TALKEDABOUTIT.

  • I believe that the reason why this doesn't fall under WP:TALKEDABOUTIT is because this discussion isn't so much about naming conventions as it is about the means of reproducing the article title in the lead sentence. WP:LEADSENTENCE holds sway here, and consensus is needed to determine how to apply it. I would prefer to see the lead sentences changed, but regardless of the outcome, I think that this discussion is legitimate since it deals with a unique subject. Chri$topher 00:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You're right, the lead sentence was not talked about. As far as I see, redundancy can easily be avoided with something like "Pope John Paul II (big list of appositives) was the head of the Catholic Church from 1978 until his death in 2005." Or as it is right now "John Paul II (big list of appositives) reigned as Pope of the Catholic Church from 1978 until his death in 2005." That isn't hard. I prefer the previous option to the status quo but I don't see any major issue with the status quo. Choosing either should not affect the title since WP:LEADSENTENCE states "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form." I think that dropping part of the name since it is in the grammatical predicate would fit in this norm. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 09:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think your first alternative lead sentence offers a good resolution:
Pope Alexander II (Latin: Alexander PP. II, Italian: Alessandro II; died 21 April 1073), born Anselmo da Baggio, was head of the Catholic Church from 1061 to 1073.
It keeps the common name intact, removes the redundancy, and addresses previous comments about the general use of "pope" among all bishops during the first centuries of the Church, before it was used as a formal unique papal title. The term "head" can be linked to the Pope article for clarity. I'm interested to hear what other editors think about this. Bede735 (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Seems to work pretty well, at least as far as I can tell. There shouldn't be any confusion about the term "head of the Catholic Church", given that it's pretty much just a phrase synonymous with "pope" now and actually provides a description of the office prior to the modern title. It deals with the redundancy issue, while still preserving the more common name. I'll change my comment to support this, actually. Chri$topher 14:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Point 2 - other titles

The other title should be mentioned somewhere; I suspect a section at the end would be preferred to the lead sentence. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 14:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

By having Pope per point #1, it makes "was pope of..." sorta redundant, but I'm guessing it would be more contentious at point #2, to attempt changing pope to Roman pontiff. Meanwhile, we can change it to bishop of Rome, for those popes who weren't called popes during their reign. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Alternate papal titles should not replace the word "pope" in the lead sentence when used to denote the office. They can be added in the body of the articles. The term "pope" defines these subjects (per WP:LEADSENTENCE). Their notabilty is linked to that term, not to the term "Bishop of Rome", for example. Pope Francis as Bishop of Rome is the spiritual leader of 2.4 million Catholics in the Diocese of Rome; as pope he is the spiritual leader of 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide. The title "Bishop of Rome" is insufficient alone in communicating the nature of his office, his function, his responsibilities, his authority, etc. The title "Supreme Pontiff" denotes the office, but is this title commonly recognized by non-Catholics? Bede735 (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Bede735 has good points here. I believe we should not worry over much about redundancy and simply state, "Pope John Paul II was Pope of the Catholic Church..." in the lede sentence. Is it really that horrible to mention the word twice when it is so important? Elizium23 (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
It reads odd, as would "President Barack Obama, is the 44th President of the United States". GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Not really, when you consider that there are other types of popes, so saying that Pope N was Pope of the Catholic Church is in contrast to saying that Pope Shenouda was Pope of the Coptic Church. Elizium23 (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
"N was Pope of the Catholic Church" and "N was Pope of the Coptic Church", is best. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Point 3 - infoboxes

For point (3) we should only be using "honorific-prefix". Elizium23 (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw your comment and started using the honorific-prefix field, which was not present in the infoboxes. I will make the change to the earlier infoboxes. Bede735 (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment This just seems like an attempt to create an MOS style guide for the project that cannot be applied to the article itself with the consistency your are desiring. It cannot enforced in any real manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest we exclude Pope, from the infobox heading. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The honorific-prefix field of the infobox should be used for the honorific element in a pope's common name. Bede735 (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Move to close this discussion. Point 1: There is no consensus to remove the honorific "Pope" from the lead sentence. Point 2: There is no consensus to replace Pope with another papal title in the lead sentence. Point 3: There is consensus that the English name (or name) field should omit the honorific "Pope". Bede735 (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not! The very fact that there is no consensus means we should not close the discussion. Beyond that, there are more people numerically right now (who have put their comment in the survey) who say it should be changed. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion (cont'd)

I wish we could come to a consensus. At the moment, the papal bios are inconsistant again. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I just finished making 70 reverts to an editor who was rapid-fire removing "Pope" and "Saint" from the lede. The reverts are in accordance with WP:STATUSQUO. I have warned and invited him - JamesReyes (talk · contribs) - to this talk page for discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The RFC seems to have stalled. GoodDay (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I was just summoned here by the RFC Bot. Pope is a title given through an election so I'd suggest including the name and clarifying that they are known for being the Pope. I can't find anything on names that are bestowed upon someone after taking a position and I apologize if I missed anything on this in earlier discussions. Dreambeaver(talk) 17:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
GoodDay - Consistency is not that important. Please stop going on about it. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to close (2) this discussion. Point 1: There is no consensus to remove the honorific "Pope" from the lead sentence. A related discussion at WT:NCCL#Pope_as_part_of_the_name was closed recently with concensus "against changing the naming convention for articles about Roman Catholic popes, and also specifically against applying the naming conventions for European sovereigns to Popes." Point 2: There is consensus (no opposition) to use the construction "Pope {name} was the head of the Catholic Church from ..." to address the issue of redundancy. Point 3: There is consensus that the English name (or name) field should omit the honorific "Pope". Bede735 (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History of Roman Catholicism in France

The History of Roman Catholicism in France article seems to have some serious problems in terms of copyediting/language, wikifying links, NPOV, etc. If any motivated wiki editors can find the time, some work on that article would be greatly appreciated. Additionally, if there are any specialists on the Medieval French church, France in the Middle Ages#Religion and the Church is in need an overview, equivalent to what can be found at England in the Middle Ages. Thanks! - NYArtsnWords (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Irish bishops

At Category talk:Irish bishops#Reorganisation necessary I have proposed a reorganisation of the articles and subcategories of Category:Irish bishops. Comments there are welcome. jnestorius(talk) 11:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Canon Law project

Hey all, I was just working with another Wikipedian on the Canon Law project, and after talking with them, I was wondering if anyone here would be interested in taking in the small project as a task force of this project. If anyone is interested, let me know, and I'll start moving it over. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

As much as I like it as a separate project, it is very small and de facto inactive, so it would probably be prudent to convert it into a task force of the parent project. Hopefully more members of WP Catholicism will take interest. Since it will be a taskforce of WP Catholicism, we should omit "Catholic" from the taskforce title (i.e. "WikiProject Catholic canon law" to "Canon Law Taskforce"). Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 15:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"Pope" vs "pope"

Is there a policy on capitalizing the word "Pope" since I have seen different uses. All seem to agree that it's capitalized as part of a name. When it is used in place of the full name but clearly has an antecedent earlier in the article such as Pope John Paul II, I think it should be. I am not sure about when it is used in general to refer to the office, for example "All offices in the Roman CUria are appointed by the Pope / pope." Yahoo Answers and Wiki Answers seem to agree with this but it is not universal in articles. Do we want to implement this? >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 10:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As you noted, the term should be capitalized when part of the name or when used as a proper noun in place of the full name of a specific pope. When used as a common noun to denote the office, it should not be capitalized. So in your example above, I would write, "All offices in the Roman Curia are appointed by the pope," because "pope" is referring to the office, and not a specific pope. I would also write, "This month, the Pope appointed Fr. Carballo to serve as secretary ..." because in that context, "Pope" can only refer to Pope Francis. The distinction between proper and common noun usage of the term "pope" is not consistent across articles. Bede735 (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree. It is no different from King, Queen, President, and Ambassador in this respect. But no, WP articles do not treat any of these correctly all the time, by a long shot. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

GAR of Ursuline Convent Riots

Ursuline Convent Riots, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. This article has been bannered as falling within the scope of this project, and its principal editor is not very active. -- Magic♪piano 22:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Papal article consistency redux

So the discussion above seems to have been concluded just as its policy is making itself felt out in the street. Someone recently described Callistus, a third century bishop of Rome, as head of the Catholic church. This is not only an anachronistic title, but would have been felt by Callistus' contemporaries (and many today) as blasphemous. Jesus Christ is head of the catholic church. This policy needs to be re-thought. The recent change to Callistus I needs to be reverted. Rwflammang (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The general term "head" is linked to Pope, which is unambiguous in its definition. The same sentence links to Catholic Church, which is also unambiguous in its definition. The term "head" is not being used as a title. The general term "head" or "spiritual head" or "earthly head" is commonly used in reference to the pope. For example, the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia wrote, "The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17." The term "leader" or "spiritual leader" is also used to convey the same thing. The word "head" was suggested to address a redundancy in the lead sentence. It could be replaced by "Pope", but I recommend we leave the current convention in place for a few months and allow other editors to comment. Replacing the term with "Bishop of Rome", however, is not appropriate in the lead sentence for reasons covered in the discussion above. Bede735 (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know of any evidence of the bishop of Rome being called the head of the Catholic church in the days of Callistus I. The phrase is anachronistic at best, and the claim violates WP:NPOV at worst. Rwflammang (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
How about if we just use the phrase "really great guy" instead? Or does that violate WP:PEACOCK? Elizium23 (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for not spotting this earlier discussion. Rwflammang is making the same point I was trying to make. We can split hairs about what "head" means in terms of traditionally construed ecclesiology. But that is not the same as using "head" in an NPOV sense. The simple fact is that this use of "head" could be contested, both from a secular and religious perspective, so it's not NPOV. Slac speak up! 10:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Metropolitan archbishop in infobox diocese

Should we retain or remove the field metro_archbishop in the {{infobox diocese}} infobox? Farragutful (talk · contribs) has been removing the field in many of these, with the rationale that "archbishops have no direct leadership authority in the suffragan sees and should not be listed as "Leadership" in a suffragan see. They preside at the meetings of the provincial bishops, but primarily function as the diocesan bishop of the archdiocese. ..." I think his main objection is that the metropolitan archbishop is listed under "Leadership". Perhaps it would be useful to change the {{infobox diocese}} fields to make it clearer that the metro archbishop is not a "middle manager" in the hierarchy, but I don't think it is at all useful to be removing it altogether like Farragutful is. (Keep in mind that this infobox is used for other Protestant ecclesial communities and Orthodox eparchies as well as other sui iuris Catholic Churches in the Roman Catholic communion.) Elizium23 (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As long as the metropolitan church is listed, I have no objection to removing the metropolitan bishop field. It seems redundant to have both. Ditto for patriarch and pope, both of whom are leaders of one diocese, their own. Rwflammang (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
That's not true at all. The jurisdiction of the Pope of the Catholic Church "is ordinary and immediate over all the churches and over each and every member of the faithful". In a very real sense, he is bishop of every diocese, not just of Rome. As for the Eastern Catholic sui iuris Churches, "By the name Eastern patriarch, is meant the bishop to whom belongs jurisdiction over all bishops, not excepting metropolitans, clergy and people of his own territory or rite, in accordance with canon law and without prejudice to the primacy of the Roman Pontiff." Therefore Popes and Patriarchs of the Catholic Church are very much required to be displayed in the infobox of its constitutent dioceses. As for the makeup of other Churches, I am not so knowledgeable to say. Elizium23 (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
You have misread me. I did not say he had no jurisdiction, I said he is not the leader. An admiral has jurisdiction over all the ships of his fleet, but he is not the captain of every ship in his fleet (or even of any ship in his fleet). Rwflammang (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
He is considered part of the leadership of the Church to which the diocese belongs. Elizium23 (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
True but not relevant. He is not leader of the diocese, unless it is the diocese of Rome. Rwflammang (talk)


file:Pope-leo-xiii-01.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

image:Pope-leo-xiii-01.jpg has been renominated for deletion, for the same reason. -- (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"Head of the Catholic Church"

I don't wish to revisit any arguments in relation to uniform style guides across papal biographies (I had a quick look at the discussion above). But I think it's problematic from an NPOV standpoint to describe every single pontiff from the 1st to 16th centuries inclusive as "head of the Catholic Church". You could make the claim from a theological perspective that a unified entity that could unambiguously defined as "the Catholic Church" existed over all that period and the pope was indisputably its head; but you can't make that argument necessarily from a historical perspective. Papal authority was recognised to varying degrees over varying places in sees that might well consider themselves in communion with "the Catholic Church." Put simply, the position of the Bishop of Rome vis-a-vis the other Patriarchates was in practice very different in say, the fourth century compared to the fourteenth century. It's a matter of little difficulty to call a post-Reformation pope "head of the Catholic Church" because in practice there is no ambiguity about what entity is being described. That's not, however the case in earlier centuries when the See of Rome's primacy was quite unevenly acknowledged without the breech going so far as a formal schism. I don't have any firm view on what a better alternative to "head of the Catholic Church" but for the earliest few centuries of popes surely a reconsideration is in order. As for say, Linus or Peter - it's a stretch in terms of secular history to be able to describe these as "head of the Catholic Church" when an episcopal hierarchy was very much in its infancy. Slac speak up! 10:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The relevant title before the 5th century is bishop of Rome. This is the pope's oldest title, and the title from which all of his authority derives, since it is the diocese of Rome which holds the primacy among the many particular churches, in both Early Christianity and in the present day Roman Catholic Church. It also has the distinction of not violating WP:NPOV. Rwflammang (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed! Slac speak up! 10:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Please have a look at this submission whenever possible. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that Louis Pasteur, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 07:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Father Shtjefen Gjecovi, old photo.jpg

image:Father Shtjefen Gjecovi, old photo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


The article Eucharist has just been moved to Lord's Supper. Please see discussion at Talk:Lord's Supper (disambiguation)#Requested move. Elizium23 (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Unacknowledged internal copying and problems with citations

There is a guideline called WP:PLAGARISM which has a section called "Copying within Wikipedia" and also a more detailed guideline called Copying within Wikipedia. A few years ago before it was widely known that it was a copyright violation to copy text from one article to another without giving credit this was widely done.

I have recently come across some articles that have problems because of this. The editors who did the unacknowledged copies did so without copying across the long citations (references) in the references section along with the text and the short citations from the body of the artilce. The result is that there are a number of articles about the Roman Catholic Church or sections of articles with information copied other articles that do not carry full citations for that information.

Making a global search on "Franzen 397" and "Franzen 362" returns the following article:

  • History of the Catholic ChurchYesY contains both long and short citations. Ambrosius007 (talk · contribs · logs) added "Franzen, 397" (15:37, 9 August 2008), and "Franzen, 362" (17:13, 10 August 2008) The two long citations for two different books by Franzen cited as short citations by Ambrosius007 were added with an edit made at 08:48, 14 August 2008 gives these two references:
    • August Franzen, Remigius Bäumer, Kleine Kirchengeschichte, Herder, Freiburg, 1988 (quoted as Franzen)
    • August Franzen, Remigius Bäumer, Papstgeschichte, Herder, Freiburg, 1988 (quoted as Franzen, Papstgeschichte)
    • [NB: The first, Kleine Kirchengeschichtebook, may be published by Herder-Taschenbuch-Verlag, 1988 ISBN 345108577; the second, Papstgeschichte, may be published by Herder Verlag GmbH, 1988, ISBN 3451019248]

These articles also have Franzen 397 (sorted chronologically)

These article does not contain "Franzen 397" but do contain "Franzen, 362" with no long corresponding reference in the references section along with many other similar short citations for other authors:

Contains "Franzen 350" on an image with a similar image and citation on

Although I do not mind helping fix these problems this is not a area that I usually get involved with and so I would appreciate it if someone or some others would take the lead in fixing these problems. -- PBS (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus FA candidacy

The Knights of Columbus article was at one time a Featured Article, but was removed. I've worked on it some more and renominated it, but it hasn't generated much attention or even any comments. If you want to check out the article, and then it's nomination to either support it, or make suggestions to improve it, I would appreciate your time. --Briancua (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Church as Bride of Christ

This is a sorely neglected topic that needs the attention of one or two content creators. I first came across the lack of coverage in a discussion at Talk:Catholic Church but I noticed that even the main article Bride of Christ lacks a Catholic POV. What needs to be addressed is the Church's own theology of herself as Bride of Christ in relation to Jesus the Bridegroom. There is plenty of documentation and solid sourcing to be had out there. The scriptural underpinnings are clear, and there are thorough references to this teaching in both the Catechism and the Catholic Encyclopedia. I will have more free time in the coming weeks, so if nobody else wants to jump on this, I am willing to take a look and make an attempt, although I do not often write content. Elizium23 (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I had noticed that - give it a go. Ecclesia and Synagoga touches on it & really needs more on Ecclesia by herself, which is closely related. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immaculate Conception Of Saint Joseph

We need some knowledgeable input on this supposed theological notion. I've never heard of such a thing and can find no evidence for it, and the article is written as a theological argument. But this is far outside my expertise. Seyasirt (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lipa.png

image:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lipa.png has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Knights Grand Cross of Justice of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George

Category:Knights Grand Cross of Justice of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:New scheme for Bishops in Ireland

Category:New scheme for Bishops in Ireland, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Here is the proposal:

Liz Read! Talk! 01:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

What the heck is going on

First off, I have noticed many of the popes images are being replaced by a bland pencil drawings, and at the same time "pope" is being replaced by "Head of the Catholic Church". First, I see no reason to replace the colored images with these black and white ones which are often inferior in most respects sometimes even portraying anachronistic vestments. Second, Head of the Catholic Church does not make much sense in a historical perspective, also same with calling Bishops of Rome "Pope" when they were not using that title. It seems the whole conversation started when someone complained the pope articles were inconsistent, yet they have to be inconsistent unless you want it to be inaccurate. You don't call for example a Bishop of Cologne "Archbishop" before they were given that title! One person says "Bishop of Rome" does not show the power and authority. What do you mean, the link to "pope" is already in the article! (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

One more thing, the editor changing everything to "Head of the Catholic Church" is linking the debate above as his authority to do so, yet I cannot find in that debate a consensus to call all the popes "Head of the Catholic Church" nor to change the images to these pencil drawings, so can someone please point out where it is because I mostly skimmed the parts about wether to start the lead off as "Pope X" (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Examples please. I'm not going to look through every pope to see what you are talking about. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, just look at almost any of the early popes. For example, Pope Urban I. His portrait before this mass editing of pope article was this:

then, after the anachronistic editing changing the lead to say "head of the [roman] catholic church", the same editor also would change the portrait for many of the pope articles. so, here is the current urban I portrait now:

In what way is this superior to the former portrait? This editor did not even ask for consensus, and his edit simply says "Added a picture" when he does this. Go to the list of popes article, and you can see all those popes portraits. Those are the old ones that were used, since this editor seems to have not wanted to change the portraits on the list of popes article. Almost all of the popes up until Pope Innocent I was changed, that is, almost half of the pope articles. This was not for "consistancy" if that is his excuse he did not even mention, seeing as he left random pope articles with their old portraits. These changes should be reverted, especially since some of these pencil drawings don't even have historically accurate vestments in the first place. Sorry about my IP, I am on my wireless internet laptop at the moment75.73.114.111 (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree, go ahead. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I have done everyone up to Pope Callixtus I (before Urban I). Those Victorian pictures are truly dreadful and should all be removed, and the wording restored. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I reverted Pope Urban I and Pope Pontian but stopped because on Pope Anterus the current picture is very similar to the previous one. I am more interested in knowing what the source of those images are, and would consider integrating them into the page. Otherwise, I liked the image of Pope Urban I and it reminded me of the papal portraits from the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls. Would it be possible for us to standardize all the papal images with those icons? Example Tradereddy (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed on both, John. I find it curious, that the so called "motion" to change the heading was attempted closed by the editor who did these changes, but the close failed because no one supported the close except for him based on no consensus. Then, he simply motioned to close again and since no one responded he closed and made a consensus out of barely any votes and it was archived. Also, Tradereddy, I am certain that the older portraits for the articles were mostly yes, taken from the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls. Here is a gallery of a few of them on wikimedia. I do not think though they could be put in every pope article though, I don't think everyone would prefer them especially as popes started having official portraits and pictures. But I would restore these portraits in a heartbeat over these new ones that were just put in. As to Pope Anterus, there is ;p but anyway, perhaps it should be for now to just change them back to before the great replacing of pope portraits. (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it is a very bad idea to standardize even the portraits of the early popes, let along the later ones who have actual likenesses. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Council of Cardinals

This morning Pope Francis gave a name to the gang of 8 Cardinals that he named in April to help him in the governance of the universal Church and to draw up a plan for revising the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus (on the Roman Curia). The name "Council of Cardinals" is hardly unique, but someone might want to at least start an introductory article on it.--Dcheney (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Minor basilicas

Following on from a discussion here, is there a definitive list of minor basilicas anywhere? This one (and a number of others in the category) make(s) the claim without any corroboration; some central source (or a list page with such sources) would be helpful in substantiating these claims.
Also, are there any naming conventions for them? Should they be referred to throughout in the text as basilicas, or is "church" sufficient for general use? Do we have a set pattern for article titles? Most in the category simply have the saints name/dedication as title; otherwise the examples I’ve given here would meet the ordinary guidelines. Does the project need anything different? And when should they be used? The major basilicas seem to have it in the title; the minor ones general don't, so far.
What does anyone else think? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

No naming conventions please, just follow Commonname, which mostly won't include it. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for replying; I kind of thought that might be the case. On the other matter, it turns out there’s a list of basilicas already, though I feel some checking coming on. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Our Lady of Guidance

Dear RC experts: The above article is about to be deleted as a stale draft which about the same subject as Our Lady of Guidance. I have moved the references to the existing article. Is there any useful content to be rescued before the article disappears? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation help needed.

Greetings! A large number of names of saints actually lead to disambiguation pages, which list various saints by that name. Please use all of your knowledge help fix these links, so that they point to the intended target. A list of the most heavily linked-to pages is below. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Magdalene asylum

I'd be glad of some help please, in editing Magdalene asylum for neutrality. A student is apparently working on it as a class project to a tight deadline, and has been inserting a great deal of opinion, along with a combination of good and poor sourcing for many of the assertions made. This article appears to have had a history of disputes over neutrality. Thanks. Ruby Murray 09:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Key article needed: Administrative divisions of the Catholic Church

I tried to create one at User:Piotrus/sandbox#Struktura_administracyjna_.C5.82aci.C5.84skiego_Ko.C5.9Bcio.C5.82a_katolickiego, using pl:Podział administracyjny Kościoła katolickiego, but I gave up. The terminology is too difficult for me, and the source ([14]) doesn't always correspond to the pl wiki article. Please note that the existing Global organisation of the Catholic Church does not address this, and the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church focuses on people, not organization.

The reason I would like to see this list is so that we have a framework for articles about administrative divisions of Catholic Church in given countries. Pl wiki has detailed articles on those topics (see here), we don't seem to have any. We have some sections like Roman_Catholicism_in_Poland#Hierarchy but they are not developed as well as they could be. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we have articles on metropolises?

Further, we do not seem to have any list of categories of metropolises. I wanted to stub the Polish metropolises, but we don't seem to have a structure for those articles. Pl wiki has articles for all Polish metropolises, see Kategoria:Polskie metropolie katolickie (category) and Szablon:Metropolie katolickie w Polsce (template) through I note it doesn't have articles for non-Polish metropolises. Still, if dioceses are notable, I'd assume that the larger administrative unit, the metropolises, are so as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Feast day listed at Redirects for discussion


I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.--Jayarathina (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Peter MacMahon

Hello Catholicism experts! Here's an abandoned AfC submission about a bishop that just needs a little improvement to be ready for the encyclopedia. I have added some sources. Would anyone like to work on it? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

List of cathedrals in Vatican City -- a viable article?

Would it be appropriate to have a page titled List of cathedrals in Vatican City even though there are no cathedrals there? The page would explain that St. Peter's Basilica is not a cathedral, and the cathedral of the Diocese of Rome, which includes Vatican City, is the Archbasilica of St. John Lateran in Rome. The reason I'm proposing a page to list an empty set is that it's a set that people might expect to exist. Note that Vatican City doesn't appear in the template below:

... because the template is set up to only include Vatican City when there is an applicable article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

don't let's bother ... Johnbod (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Better to redirect it to the list of cathedrals in Italy, which begins "This is a list of cathedrals in Italy, including also Vatican City and San Marino". That resolves the redlink while sending readers to a page that obviously gives what they're looking for. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

New article for founder of religious institute

Greetings! I recently started an article on the founder of the Oblates of the Virgin Mary, Fr. Bruno Lanteri. I am a novice seminarian in the institute. We (Wikipedia) previously only had information about him in a few biographical notes in the Congregation's article. I opened with some facts about him that I thought immediately established notability, following the Biography guidelines; there are plenty of scholarly works completed by members of our institute and also by non-Oblates, and I have already cited a variety. I am also taking the orientation of Saint articles as this develops (currently Venerable), rather than a simply historical/biographical approach.

My question is: is this a good direction? What resources might I use as I (and any of my willing confreres) continue to develop the article? I got no response at WP:SAINTS. Any editors willing to stay in touch over the coming months to follow this? Thanks! Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 17:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Should Category:Anti-Catholicism in the United States be depopulated?

Can anyone here offer an opinion as to whether any individual or group has ever been theologically opposed to Catholicism in the U.S.? I'm getting a ongoing and repeated push back by a handful of users at Category:Anti-Catholicism in the United States who, rather than send the category to WP:CFD, keep trying to add a "policy" to the top of the category essentially insisting that it be emptied.[15][16][17][18] Reverting them has become a lonely task, as they keep claiming to have "consensus" even though I've repeatedly pointed out that I do not consent to their rather screwy world view. -- Kendrick7talk 12:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

They are correct about the standing consensus and your personal disagreement isn't sufficient to change that. Some time ago, a large discussion about "bias" categories (anti-Catholicism, antisemitism, racism, homophobia, etc.) was held in order to try to establish a consistent standard for how to treat these categories, since due to various systemic biases operating on Wikipedia, it was a huge terrible BLP violation to mark some people with some biases but perfectly okay to mark other people with others. (eg. it was basically okay to label a Muslim person as antisemitic, but not a Christian person, no one could be categorized as homophobic or Islamophobic, anti-Catholic or antisemitic bias got shunted into "criticism of Catholicism/Judaism," etc.) Neither a consensus for categorizing or a consensus against categorizing is a perfect solution - both have their problems - but consistency is itself a positive good - the problem is that we've been falling off just as we fell off before, where it's okay to label everyone and anyone (eg.) antisemitic but God forbid any other bigotry be categorized. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with being opposed to a system of thought. So what we are dealing with here is essentially anti-intellectual concern trolling. I don't think we should put up with it. Per WP:CCC is anyone with me? -- Kendrick7talk 01:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
However, much of anti-Catholicism isn't actually "being opposed to a system of thought" (ditto on the other biases). –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 12:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Catholicism also under attack

So the same stooges are also insisting that no one ever, alive or dead, belongs in Category:Anti-Catholicism worldwide. I'm trying to hold down the fort here, but if no one on this project thinks this matters, I'll go ahead and give up the ghost. :( -- Kendrick7talk 01:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Kendrick, you seem to be taking a battlefield mentality, and are continually imposing changes even when those changes are reverted. The community has already ruled on this issue, in 2011, and up till now, that consensus has not changed. If you think there is scope for a change, then the proper course is to put together a broad-based RFC that includes all of the bias categories and tries to sort out in what ways and under what conditions can organizations, people, or media be included in these categories if they are considered to be anti-whatever - e.g. anti-catholic, anti-protestant, anti-muslim, anti-jewish/anti-semitic, anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-xxx. Trying to just solve this one category at a time will lead to inconsistency and an absolute mess, it's better to do it all at once and get a broad consensus. Perhaps consensus has changed, but you have to ask the broader community.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Yup. CCC, but changing it one category at the time is the whole problem that the RFC two years ago was intended to solve. Do another broad discussion. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 12:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Jean-Marie Speich : hagiography?

Hello everybody,
sorry for my english, I come from the french WP and I’m not very fluent in your language.
I notice more things wrong on the english article Jean-Marie Speich, a french bishop from Alsace.

I tried to improve the biography by supress lot parts of the original article (I hope I didn’t something wrong), but I ask here your point of view for this article : what shall we do now? how improve the article?

Best regards, --O-Mann (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Saint Arthur of Glastonbury

Does anyone have access to any reliable sources about Saint Arthur of Glastonbury. The article we have seems confused and unsupported.— Rod talk 11:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)