Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Saints WikipediaWikiProject Saints is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Archives

Archive 1 (Template talk), Archive 2 (Assessment talk), Archive 3 (Contentious issues talk), Archive 4 (Individual Saint talk), Archive 5 (General talk)
Archive
Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page


[edit] Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Saints WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one (new) for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist like this one automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 04:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As the importance categories haven't been populated yet, I've quickly drafted my own list of articles of high importance (important for varying reasons) in order to start a discussion. Please take a look at it and feel free to make amendments and additions and discuss your reasoning here. --Spondoolicks 11:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I'm sorry I missed the fact that you had already started using the bot - you hadn't when I set up the table a couple of weeks earlier! I'm adding a link to your bot table from the above listing. I also notice several points of confusion about importance - by all means contact me on my talk page if you want help, I was partly involved in setting this up. Generally low-importance is kept for more specialised articles like Early life of Saint Frederick (maybe interesting to a person studying saints, but too specialised for most readers), and top-importance is reserved for REALLY major people like Saint Paul. In practice, though, only specialists in the field (such as yourselves) can make the call - there may well be saints that might be regarded as little-known => low importance. Thanks again, Walkerma 21:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I am a great admirer of both St Magnus and Aidan of Lindisfarne (I'm a Northumbrian). Could you tag those as articles for this project? Thanks! Walkerma 21:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

I just wanted to let you know that the Biography WikiProject has been reorganized and we wanted to see if you guys were interested in merging with us? We've reorganized it so that it's more like the Military history project with task forces for the specialized areas. One of the task forces we could create could be Religious figures-- by merging with us and becoming a task force, you wouldn't lose anything! You'd keep your same page here, it would just be redirected to Religious figures task force (which we'd create) and you would continue as before, except that instead you'd also gain the benefits of being part of a larger project. We would give you a parameter to our Project banner (religion-task-force=yes) and a note would appear that says the article is a part of that task force (see example on military history article), plus having peer reviews and collaborations, and being able to grade articles by class and importance so that the articles can be part of the WP:1.0 project and much more... Let me know what you think! If you are interested, you need to add your name to the task force vote we're currently having plange 16:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • WHy can't you just link it under the See also? --evrik 15:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)




[edit] Saints' days

This project should coordinate with WikiProject Holidays to establish and promote a convention for the titles of various saints' days. There is variation such as Saint David's Day and St George's Day. -Acjelen 19:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I like this idea. How do we do this? --evrik 15:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

For those who are interested in the Catholic calendar of saints, I have moved this listing from its previous incarnation as the Novus Ordo calendar of saints. It is a good listing of the General Roman Calendar, but has a suspicious heading: "General Roman Calendar slightly augmented on unassigned days." I am guessing it needs some cleanup. Also, I think it is a good idea to make it richer by including national and regional saints' days as long as they are indentified as such. I dont think it necessary to confine the list to just those on the general calendar. Many of the most popular feasts to celebrate are national or regional in nature (such as O.L. of Guadalupe). A calendar without her, in my opinion, is bare. --Vaquero100 11:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National saints

Are national saints = "saints"? For example, Eric IX of Sweden is a national saint, and was even the patron Saint of Sweden through the middle ages, but was never recognized as such by the Catholic church. Yet, he is in Category:Swedish saints. What are the requirements to be a saint? And should we differ between national saints and Catholic saints?

Here are two "Swedish" saints that as far as I know where never canonized, but were regarded as saints in Sweden:

Fred-Chess 12:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here

Way back, local Espicopacies beatified people from their area, and had them ratified by the Bishop of Rome. This developed into Canonization. I am note sure in this instance if they were ever formally canonized. Dominick (TALK) 16:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Formal canonization by Rome is only relevent with regard to Roman Catholicism. I don't believe the current Pope is going to advance the causes of Charles I of Great Britain and Nicholas II of Russia; I am equally sure that that lack of recognition by the Vatican matters not one whit to the Church of England or Russian Orthodoxy. As a matter of fact, I don't think the Anglicans or the Orthodox give a rat's zinger about pronouncements from Rome, and consider them as binding on them as the U.S. Congress considers Acts of Parliament on them. Even within the RC Church, a lot of saints got "grandfathered" when Rome took over canonization authority, and I think (correct me if I'm wrong) only a few got "de-haloed" as it were much later on (St Christopher of the Dashboard springs to mind). As for inclusion, I believe the criteria - for Christian saints at any rate - is that they are recognized by some Christian body as being a saint, either by formal canonization, public acclamation, a church named after them, etc.

Oh, and as for national saints, there may be a difference of opinion over just who is a nation's patron; it should be indicated just by whose authority a saint's national patronage is claimed (i.e., national cultus, local church, Rome, etc). --SigPig 06:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Catholic Encyclopedia articles

I'm in the middle of categorising missing Catholic Encyclopedia articles, and as part of that I've put red links from the Catholic Encyclopedia that relate to Saints. I hope that this will be useful, if you see already done please redirect the articles.

Wikipedia:Catholic_Encyclopedia_cat_Saints

JASpencer 19:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I only hope we write our own and not port those articles over. Those articles are already available, and we need to be more critical and inclusive. Geogre 02:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)




[edit] Collaborations

The article Paul of Tarsus was nominated for GA. I have been doing the review and failed the article. This article is in need of a collaborative effort as the issues i'm noting on its talk page shouldn't be the burden of one or two individuals. Gnangarra 14:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Does he count as a Saint? Wouldn't he be an apostle, and fall under WikiProject Apostles or something? Or to put what I'm saying another way, shouldn't we be trying to work on the obscure Saints rather than the famous ones that get hundreds of edits a day even without our intervention. Clinkophonist 00:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hehe.. the new news .. st paul isn't a saint!!! who said so Maltesedog 21:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Anglicanism

A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated: WikiProject Anglicanism. Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles. If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up. Cheers! Fishhead64 06:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal

Our portal is being neglected (I've caught it up to July). --evrik 20:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Saints category

I've been doing a lot of work moving articles from Category:Saints into their country in Category:Saints by country, and I've created a lot of new country cats (Category:Syrian saints, Category:Ugandan saints, etc). I've run into a problem with some of them, for instance saints from Asia Minor... I started Category:Byzantine saints for people from there, but people from earlier than Constantine I were not Byzantines. I thought about starting a category for "Turkish saints" (Turkish as in people from Turkey, not just Turks), but that still leaves the question of people from Constantinople, which was Greek until it was captured. Any thoughts?--Cúchullain t/c 22:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I also want to start a category for saints from the Holy Land (which would include, obviously, a very large percentage of the earliest saints) but I can't decide what to call it... I think "Palestinian saints" would just invite trouble. "Levantine saints" is too broad, and "Saints from the Holy Land" doesn't sound right. I'd appreciate some input on this, because it's a category we definitely should have.--Cúchullain t/c 22:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I created the category Saints from the Holy Land. I can't decide what to do with the Asia Minor articles, so I'll let someone else worry about it.--Cúchullain t/c 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic saints

There is a discussion Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 16#Category:Roman Catholic Saints about whether to merge the new category Category:Roman Catholic Saints into the main Category:Saints or divide that category to diferentiate saints venerated in one tradition from those in another. Input from people familiar with the issues and actively working in this area would be very welcome. Eluchil404 17:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Maltese Blesseds

I plan to write out fully-pledged articles for the all the Maltese Blesseds in the following weeks. These will include those beatified in 2001:

spellings in Italian [Maltese]. links are to the Italian biographies by the Vatican.

I would also like to include any other ones. I remember there was a sister who was beatified long ago but I cannot remember the name nor find her icon.

I already have onboard a number of other Maltese editors who will contribute. I would like to ask anyone interested in helping in this coordinated effort to drop me a message on my Talk page.

└ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 17:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this page Floriana#Religion? I would suggest using their English names, as is the practice of the church. Pope John Paul II spoke at Publius Square during his two visits to Malta, and on his second visit held the beatification ceremony there for three Maltese: [1]

[edit] A Question of Notability

I just joined the project today and am eager to start putting the WikiProject banner on relevant talk pages. I am a bit stumped as to the workings of the Assessment system, though. "Low" importance is listed as: Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the field of Saints, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic. Saints Jerome and Junipero Serra were both listed as "low" importance, but I can't imagine these two were included "primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic." Do they not at least qualify for "mid" importance: Subject contributes to the total subject of the Saints WikiProject. Subject may not necessarily be famous ?

I ask only because I need to rate all the new banner recipients, and if Jerome is low-importance, I shudder to think what poor Gerald of Mayo will be. Any advice?--TurabianNights 17:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and started adding various English, Cornish and Irish saints to the Wikiproject, ranking both importance and article status. I'm basing my rankings more on the idea of "the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the article (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it)", which is expressed in the paragraph above the explanations of the rankings. I feel this is certainly a more useful measure than the rather vague "not particularly notable or significant even within the field of Saints" - notability is a Wikipedia virtue, and I doubt we really have many pages on saints who are truly insignificant or unremarkable. I've thus placed most local saints in the "low" category (e.g. Benignus of Armagh), since the chances of their being looked up specifically are rather low. Was it okay to redefine "low" like this? It seems useful to me, but I'd love to have some input from more established project members.--TurabianNights 23:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Articles for Deletion: various

Editors may want to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas (mythology) (not for the [{Douglas (mythology)]] piece, but for the co-nominated articles Lasair, Inghean Bhuidhe, and Latiaran. If these are included in any reliable calendar of saints, I'll be more than happy to withdraw them from the nomination on the understanding that WikiProject Saints will sort them out. Thanks ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I completely missed this debate. C'est la vie. --evrik 20:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lutheran Calendar of Saints

The Lutheran Calendar of Saints I feel, could be improved by having the months placed in boxes like on the Calendar of Saints (Anglican Church of Canada) page. I feel it would make the page look and feel more organized. If anyone could do that, it would be greatly appreaciated (for I do not know how to do so). Thank you. --Josh777 03:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist

Is there an article for this feast? I have not found one on Wikipedia, because it is on multiple calendars and seems like an important date. If there is one could you refer it to me for the Calendar of Saints (Lutheran) page, and others. Thank you, --Josh777 03:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

Could an admin move Hippolytus (writer) to Hippolytus of Rome? The parentheses are unneccessary.--Cúchullain t/c 00:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds like a good idea. --evrik 15:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gloriole.svg

An SVG version of Image:Gloriole.png now is available; I've replaced it into your templates shown here, but the actual saints articles use {{portalpar|Saints|Gloriole.xxx}} so it is beyond my scope to replace them all. Let me know if you have any troubles with the file. Blessings -- nae'blis 04:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rating for St Leopold Bogdan Mandic

The Article, Leopold Mandić, has been extensively expanded (by myself) and i believe it is definately not a stub. We need to give it a new rating. THE MILJAKINATOR 06:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Okay. --evrik 15:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homoeroticism and pederasty

[edit] Sebastian

There are some serious homoerotic problems with St. Sebastian. A gay section has been edited by me to clean it up, but it would be better to source it, and remove the rumor and innuendo. Dominick (TALK) 12:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Noted. --evrik 14:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pelagius of Cordova

User:Haiduc insists on inserting allegations of pederastic rape. --evrik 01:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dominic Savio

I suspect someone should check over Dominic Savio for accuracy. Were fake hall passes really a problem in Italian ecclesiastical schools over 150 years ago? --Scott Davis Talk 12:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It might help to know that that info was put in by the user who started the article, and that said user is currently blocked indefinitely (for what, I don't know)... --SigPig \SEND - OVER 13:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • huh? The article was started by an on user ... wasn't it? --evrik (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to Encyclopedist or one of his socks? I don't know if he was the anon who started the article, but he is blocked. At any rate The line has been there since the article was created, but it does sound like a joke. Does anything similar appear in the sources about the saint?--Cúchullain t/c 19:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The same text appears in Don Bosco Technical Institute, Tarlac and was also pasted in by an anon editor, but not obviously associated with Encyclopedist. --Scott Davis Talk 01:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Turkish saints up for deletion

Someone has nominated Category:Turkish saints for deletion at WP:CFD. I object strongly to this, as it is consistant with the other categories in Category:Saints by country. Please contribute your thoughts.--Cúchullain t/c 23:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The category needs to be cleaned up first, and then we can see if what's left is worth keeping. At a casual glance, most of them predate the Turkish conquest of Anatolia and therefore weren't "Turkish" by any reasonable definition.
But it's a problematic category anyway. Does one include, for example, a New Martyr of the Turkish Yoke who considered himself Greek, spoke Greek, lived in what is now Greece, but was at the time Ottoman territory? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I know it's problematic, but there's really and truly no better way to do this. All the other country categories include both people from the modern country and from the territory that preceded it. As I brought up over there, it's consistant with the other country categories: "French saints" includes saints from Gaul; Canadian saints includes saints from before there was a Canada, etc. Annoyingly, "Turkish" has two definitions, both someone who is Turkish ethnically and someone who is from Turkey, be they Kurds, Jews, Greeks, etc. (by this definition, Yoke would in fact be Turkish). We really need a category for people from the area now called Turkey; the main cat Saints was choked with the likes of Saint Nicolas Basil the Great, and Margaret the Virgin. Additionally, there are a few strickly Turk-Turkish saints; I'm working on an article on Ahmed the Calligrapher. If anything, the category needs to be either kept and renamed, or kept and have most of the articles moved to a new cat with a new name.--Cúchullain t/c 00:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
See my comment on the CFD page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prayers in infobox (again!)

(Discussion was started in Template talk: Infobox Saint then copied to here to carry it on)

I would suggest that the section for a "prayer by the saint, or a characteristic prayer to the saint" should be removed. Having this section makes editors think it needs filling and often this means that an arbitrary prayer attributed to the saint is given undue prominence by being included in the infobox. This is causing unnecessary friction in a number of articles where some editors are adding prayers (for the good reason that there is a space in the infobox to do so) and others are removing them (for the equally good reason that it makes it look like wikipedia is actually encouraging veneration of the saint rather than merely reporting facts).

There are prayers specifically prescribed by church authorities to be used in veneration of particular saints but these can very easily be mentioned in the article text if needed, as can any particularly notable prayers penned by the saints themselves. Putting it in the main text gives more scope for explaining context as well. --Spondoolicks 14:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I say keep the pryaer box ... but encourage people to not put a really long one there ... --evrik (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
If there's a choice of prayers, why highlight one by putting it in the box? It makes it look like it's one of the fundamental pieces of info about the subject like name, DOB, etc. As Atilios tried to say in the John Bosco talk page, it would be strange to have a random selection of a poet's work picked out and placed in the infobox and it seems to me to be the same here. Anything you want to achieve by putting a prayer in the infobox can be achieved better by putting it in the text and adding more information. --Spondoolicks 18:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I put this into the template because it existed in the original infobox. There was actually an extended discussion of this on the project talk page, whether to include it in the infobox or not, that predated the creation of the template. The consensus (more or less) was that they were OK to include since they were illustrative of either the saint's spirituality or of how a faith community venerates the saint, but that to be useful for either purpose it must be attributed. This is why it does not display if the attribution field is not filled in.
I have come to be of two minds on the subject and therefore don't feel strongly about it either way. Perhaps it would be worth inviting wider participation in the discussion by re-opening it on the project talk page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I just had a look back at the discussion you mentioned (in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints/Archive3) and much of it seemed to be about whether prayers should be included full-stop and I don't think the specific problems of having them in the infobox were sufficiently addressed. I'm copying this discussion to the project talk page to carry on there (and I hope it doesn't get as messy as last time). --Spondoolicks 21:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
No, not specifically, but the infobox was the context of the discussion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the discussion drifted. Let's try to keep to the point this time. --Spondoolicks 22:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
If I pray to St. Anthony can we LOSE this discussion? I am sure he would not mind losing something for someone for a change... Dominick (TALK) 21:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Lest I be accused of being unhelpful, I think that we include it in the infobox and have done with it. There are simple cultural, historical, and literary value in including a simple prayer. The anti-religeous editors will always try and remove it. I simply think our energy is better spent elsewhere. Dominick (TALK) 23:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that infoboxes are for placing individual facts and do not allow for any context. The prayers are being removed by people because they are placed without context and therefore it is unclear what they are there for. Putting them in the main text instead allows you to explain how it exemplifies some aspect of the saint's beliefs or whether it was prescribed by the church authorities or whatever other information is needed to put it into context. The trouble is that there are a number of different reasons why a prayer can usefully be put into an article, none of which can be explained if you just plonk it into the infobox. That is why they are causing revert wars and totally unnecessary friction. It is not religionists versus anti-religionists. --Spondoolicks 10:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There are some editors who will object to the prayers no matter where they are placed. --evrik (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes but that's not what this discussion is about. --Spondoolicks 18:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone comes up with some good reasons in the next few days why this section of the infobox should remain, I suggest we just get rid of it. --Spondoolicks 16:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, always ready to play the devil’s advocate, I would say that there is a very good reason to include a prayer there: there where it cannot be contextualized or explained. The motive for including a prayer—preferably in a bad translation and without a very plausible citation, but don’t worry: choose a random merely pious site and and the prayer will probably be rubbish enough—is to say: “If you are not prepared to get down on your knees now and repeat these words, meaning what you say, and understanding that if you do not really mean what you say you are going to Hell, then you will probably find that the rest of this article worthless.” There are a lot of interesting articles in Wikipedia and it’s very useful to be given the hint (since [4]) that Wikipedia is not the place to look for an un-biased account of Saint Peter. I can look elsewhere, or I can choose a different subject. Yes a prayer in the infobox is a very useul hint. ;) [Did I really wink?] [Yes I did.] —Ian Spackman 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
OK I had my fun in my last post. But think infoboxes. If I were a mountaineer writing about K2 I’d probably want to find somewhere in the infobox to say: ”This is one hell of a fucking mountain”. If the infobox included an awesomness factor I could avoid profanity and just enter 5.73 billion percent. But I can’t do either. And, hang on, I am a royalist and I want to include the second verse of God save the Queen into the Lizzie II of England Box. But I am denied the opportunity. And the Fidel Castro article doesn’t give me the opportunity to indicate in his box how adorable he is. WTF? Does Wikipedia have to be so bland? Well, yes it does, really. It’s just an encyclopedia. Dull, but useful. (Or so we hope.)—Ian Spackman 01:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Except on the talk pages.
Well, it doesn't seem as if anyone is speaking up for them at this point, and I'm non-committal about them. One advantage of the infobox template is that the relevant arguments can just be removed from it and they will no longer be displayed; actually cutting them from the articles can be done at leisure. I'll make the cut in a day or two if there's been no controversy here in the meantime. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Lawrence vandalism?

Could somebody take a look at Saint Lawrence. I know nothing about the subject, but some of the things stated in the Martyrdom section seem likely to be vandalism. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] Prayers

The prayer matter seems to be contreversial. OK, I can agree that an "example" prayer can be illustrative. However, Aloysius Gonzaga contained THREE prayers, and also rather long. What is this, a prayer book?!?! --Attilios 13:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a bit much. I notice that for some recent RC saints, their articles are rather more hagiographic than are tolerable under NPOV. I take this to be another example of that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marguerite Bourgeoys

I believe that this article is beyond stub status, (my opinion). It could use a good image of the lady in question if someone is interested. Happy edits! Stormbay 23:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Saints_7d1b.html"