Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints/Archive3

The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

I am a little suspicious about the changes he made to some the Saint pages, especially Philip Neri, I suggest you check them out.--Hailey 20:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• William_of_Montevergine is probably a bigger issue. He did more work there and is very likely to have made errors of fact or errors of judgement which he would be very happy to see corrected. —Ian Spackman 20:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• I am not happy with a lot of Ian's edits as well, especially, the removal of the prayers from the infoboxes without vetting it on the project page. evrik 21:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • WikiProjects don’t own pages and their policies are not binding on editors. It’s hardly in the spirit of Wikipedia to ask permission every time one wants to improve an article. —Ian Spackman 11:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oh yeah, why an edit war on [torture]? evrik 21:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • To be perfectly honest, I was slightly drunk but didn’t realize it at the time. I had also become a little over-agitated at the almost uniformly abysmal quality of the articles on the Italian saints which I had been working through, and at the fact that recent edits seemed to be making them worse not better. Pefectly childish behaviour on my part, for which I apologize. (I’m glad that as wars go, it was a brief one.) —Ian Spackman 11:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• I just reverted his edits to the Charles Borromeo page. Should we take some action on this? -- evrik 22:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, perhaps some thought should be given to your unexplained reversion of that page. I thought that my edit was quite in accord with your project’s entirely sensible policy that: “In order to maintain a NPOV, it is essential that information concerning a particular saint as a historical person was separated from information about the veneration of this person as a saint in a given religious community or denomination.” Saints are of course very various, and no structure can cover all instances. But Borromeo is a significant historical figure and there seemed every reason to apply the standard structure. I moved the ‘saint box’ into the new cult section, again in accordance with your policy. Comments anyone? —Ian Spackman 11:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• I just reverted some of Ian's work here. --evrik 16:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• I just reverted some of Ian's work here. --evrik 18:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Why does Ian hate Saints so much? 63.164.145.85 18:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Has anyone else noticed the word appearing alot on the saints pages? --evrik 22:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Probably me, again. What is wrong with the word cult? It seems to be the one most commonly used in serious writing on the subject. But I am no expert and have no strong feelings on the matter: if you can improve on it, go ahead.

In the study of saints, even within those churches that honor them, the word "cult" is used by long tradition. It does not refer to what is now commonly meant when "cult" is used. Dogface 15:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly. Thanks. —Ian Spackman 16:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In order to distinguish and prevent this kind of misunderstanding, I tend to us cultus. The meaning is precisely the same, but it signals the reader that I'm employing a term of art and that they should recognize that it might have a specialized meaning. It costs two letters and tends to turn away the more naive questions, so I figure it's worth it. Geogre 21:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Catholic hatred on the part of Attilios

Two things, did anyone else see this gem of a quote?

"WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR PRAYERS. GO IN THE CHURCHES TO LOSE YOUR TIME IF YOU HAVE [1] It was left in several places.

I got this almost illiterate note on my user page:

--evrik 03:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any anti-Catholic hatred, though that note could sound such (when I wrote that I was simply tired by removing all these prayers from articles... and sorry for the "illiterate", I'm Italian). As you can see, I also improved style in ALL the Saints articles from which I removed the prayers, as they were very badly written, usually. I also wrote numerous articles about Catholic churches in Rome, so nothing again Catholicism, but much against silly things in encyclopedias. I simply think that the presence of prayers can sound offensive here to many users (me included): my opinion is that they make the articles hagiographic, a bit fanatic, and very very POV. From what I can see, further, these prayers have no literary and historical value. In no encyclopedia I know prayers are included, if not for rare historical matters. Try to mumble about this and let me know. Attilios

Infantile outbursts like your "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR PRAYERS" vandalism on an article--not even on its talk page, only prove that you care nothing at all for the quality of Wikipedia and instead are using Wikipedia as a place from which to promulgate and enforce your personal agenda upon everyone else. Were you honest about your claims, you would never have engaged in your blatant vandalism in the first place. Since you were caught out in vandalism, and a defacement like that can be nothing other than vandalism, you now try to back-and-fill, making up excuses. Dogface 15:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey! It was not vandalism. "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR PRAYERS" was always commented and did not result on the article! IMHO, there are so blatant reasons to remove the prayers that I did it (maybe too) boldly, but it was not vandalism at all. Ok, it could look infantile but in that moment I was raging for the edit burden to remove them from ton of articles... uff!! Attilios

The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Please you need to revise a bit the scope about prayers in the infoboxes. They ARE NPOV, undoubtably. There's no room for them in an international, multicultural and impartial encyclopedia, as they could sound much as propaganda to many of the users here, if not provided with some literary or historical contain by themselves. Attilios 22:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Saints, themselves, are not NPOV. Not all flavors of Christianity recognize the existence of saints at all. Therefore, you are merely demanding that all mention of saints and the category be deleted from Wikipedia. Dogface 15:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think you mean non-NPOV. NPOV is the standard. But the fact of the existence of a prayer, much like the fact of the existence of a saint, or the fact that miracles are attributed to his intercession (note it's the attribution by some faith community that's an NPOV fact, not the miracle itself), I must insist is germaine to the topic.

The text of the prayer is itself "literary or historical cont[ent]", and some attribution or context is invited by the infobox as it stood. So I'm reverting. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. Prayers in a literary or historic context are NPOV. Thanks! --evrik 03:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't agree. Prayers are totally POV. Attilios 07:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, you're demanding that wikipedia foist out a single irreligious/anti-religious attitude under the guise of NPOV. The plain truth is that you have indulged in vandalistic outbursts. When those failed, you now pretend to care about NPOV. If you had cared about NPOV, you'd never have indulged in your previous behavior. Dogface 16:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Don' agree aboslutely. I hate vandalism. But I can understand that in your view your prayers are valuable. That's out of discussion and I respect it. But this should be a neutral encyclopedia. What you should understand is that they should offend other people of other religion working here. You should understand that the presence prayers could OFFEND me, ok? What would you think if you were Jew and I filled infobox of SS people with excerpts from Mein Kampf? Open to discussion, anyway. Attilios 16:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so you're merely intolerant and censorious. Golly, the "offend" you. Did you demand that the Mohammed cartoons be censored out? Wikipedia is not edited around the offenseoversensitivity of a specific -ism, not even atheism. If the Mohammed cartoons deserve to stay in Wikipedia, then the various prayers to saints deserve to stay in Wikipedia. Likewise, if the prayers and cartoons must go, then everything on evolution must go, since it is offensive to Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians. We must maintain neutrality, after all. Dogface 20:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Blaaaaaaaahhhh!! All this stuff has disgusted me. Your arguments are captious, as usual with religious matters spoken by Christian people. Science is based on consensus, through appliance of the scientific method, of at least millions of equilibrate scientists from all the world (many of which, of Christian confession). Can you define "equilibrate" and "NPOV" fanatic people want to impose to the rest of the world a "truth" taken from a book written from 3000 to 2000 years ago? Talking with religious people can be utmostly stressing: they start with an idea and won't change it not even if a new Christ descended there on Earth again. Why don't you start to think that doubt, sometimes, can improve your life and make you better? I continue in my idea that prayers are largely propaganda, and total unrelevant, but I will let them stay. Are you all happy now? Personally, I would be tempted to ask you to remove all my style edits on these childishily and POVishly written Saint articles. Bah! But thank you, after all, at least for your polite behaviour. Attilios

• I posted comments at the village pump. --evrik 15:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Attilios doesn't put his case very diligently (nice godwining, btw), but I think he means to say that the infoboxes should not be turned into tools of liturgical instruction. If there is a prayer associated with the saint notable enough to have its own wikipedia article, I see no reason not to link to it from the infobox. If there is a notable prayer associated with the saint, I honestly see no reason to include its full text in the infobox (which should give a succint factsheet, not a florilegium). It will be enough to discuss the prayer in the article body. dab (ᛏ) 18:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That's the fourth person declaring his opinion against the presence of prayers. I'm mumbling how many people must express before you start to consider about your idea. Attilios

ARGGHH! now evrik apparently started to post invitations to this talk page corner on user talk pages. Like mine! I denounce any implication, and join these that described this as Generally a Bad Idea (or similar) above, and below, and everywhere. --Francis Schonken 16:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

It was the established operation of the WikiProject Saints to have a section in the info box on a sample prayer. Some editors have been recently been attacking this in the individual articles.

It is my belief that prayers in a literary or historic context are NPOV. I can understand that some may consider the inclusion of a prayer to be hagiographic, but freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.

There is a 3RR about to happen on a number of these articles. I am trying to be philosophical about this, but don’t want to yield the point when what is happening goes against the consensus and borders on vandalism.

It is my understanding that if an editing disagreement occurs that the status quo, in this case leaving the prayers in place, holds until it is resolved. I encourage you to comment on this.

--evrik 15:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please list examples. A wel known prayer, like the Prayer of St. Francis, can be NPoV, from that perspective. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Who are you addressing, and I am missing your point. --evrik 16:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am asking you to give me an example of an edit warred page please. My point is in support of the idea of including a well known prayer, as an example. An exhortation to pray on a saints page is not what I am advocating. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any POV problem with reporting devotions that followers of a particular religion offer to religious figures, provided there is no suggestion that WP is endorsing (or dis-endorsing) such devotions. I don't think evrik's remark about "freedom of/from religion" is helpful in this context, though; religious freedom of whatever sort is not the issue here, but rather WP policies on neutrality.

OTOH I think there may be a POV problem in having a "Saints" WikiProject that's only about Christian saints. Perhaps it should be renamed to Wikipedia WikiProject:Christian Saints, or else expanded to cover saints from other religions (such as Islam). --Trovatore 16:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• anyone is welcome to join, and if it is limited to Chritians then maybe we should recruit more people. --evrik 16:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit==>If any wikipedians are interested in working to expand the project beyond Christian Saints, they are welcome to propose the changes. --evrik 16:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• • No, that wasn't my point. Of course non-Christians can comment on Christian saints. The point is that there are figures called "saints" by religions other than Christianity. If the name of the project is to stay as it is, then it should include Islamic saints as well. --Trovatore 16:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is untrue. "Saint" is a purely Christian title. Other religions have honored figures known by titles that may be translated as "saint" for English-speaking readers, but the native titles for these figures are in fact something else in every single case. A truly NPOV treatment of these figures from other religions would use the correct titles for them, and not "saint". (i.e. "tzadik" for Judaism, "wali" for Islam, "bodhisattva" for Buddhism, etc.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the comment goes to the center of the issue. Advocating removal of prayer, from those who are the subject of prayer is a contradiction. I don't add the prayer to St. Gabriel to every telecommunications article, or a prayer to the Blessed Virgin on the abortion page. We are dealing with a reliegeous topic. If you read Saint you see it deals with all saints. This project is open to all people. It is not limited to one faith or nationality. Most here are Christian or Catholic, but membership is not restricted to Christians or Catholics. It never was restricted. You are making a false accusation. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I may not edit an islamic saint article, but I don't have a problem with it's editing. If others can help contribute, great! Dominick ^(TALK) 16:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• (removed personal attack WP:NPA) I said nothing about restricted membership. That was evrik's interpolation. --Trovatore 16:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You said, "I think there may be a POV problem in having a "Saints" WikiProject that's only about Christian saints" This is a false premise. I never interpreted this project as meaning Christian only. You made the assumption, and it was colored by your own prejudices about those who also edit christian topics on wikipedia. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The following is a direct quote from the "Scope" section, prior to evrik's recent edits:

This WikiProject aims primarily at standardizing the articles about people venerated by some Christians as saints or the blessed and making sure that they maintain a NPOV.

So no, I made no assumptions. --Trovatore 17:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Quote the whole thing. --evrik 17:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You made the error is assuming that "primarily" is the same as "exclusivly". They are not. I can't think of anyone who read the saints page would make the assumption that the wikiproject would reject those who only wanted to edit islamic saint articles. I think you were looking for some way to find fault with those who edit christian topics. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you have a chip on your shoulder. I have no interest in finding fault with those who edit Christian topics, or with Christians, at least per se. It appeared to me that the project was equating "saint" with "Christian saint"; that was all I was saying. How that got twisted around into a question of excluding members, as opposed to a question about the scope of articles covered, is a mystery to me. Descriptions about projects are naturally stated in terms of articles covered, not the sort of editors involved, and that was what I (and the scope section) were talking about. Look at how convoluted you've made your second-to-last sentence, to make it about editors instead of articles. --Trovatore 21:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Prayers might be regarded as NPOV in a neutral article on the topic, just as discussing political fund raising would be neutral in an article on the topic, or an invitation to a marriage would be relevant and NPOV as a sample in an article on the topic. Putting individual prayers in individual pages is POV because it seems like an invitation to an action and therefore pushing a POV. Similarly showing a website fundraising for Hillary Clinton's presidential bid on her page would be POV as it would seem to inviting donations, but would be NPOV as an example on a page on how politicians fundraise. Pope John Paul II, for example, was a champion of the Rosary. We can quote the Rosary on the Rosary page, but we cannot put the Rosary at the end of JP II's page, without it appearing invitational and so POV.

If a prayer is quoted on a saint's page, it needs neutral contextualisation. Simply posting a prayer is an absolute infringement of NPOV. We cannot put a leaflet saying "Join the Democrats" on the page on the US party, or simply out of context show such a leaflet with such an invitation. Links that are invitations, not contextualisations, are routinely removed as spam. But contextualisation in a neutral manner of a prayer would be extremely difficult in an article on a saint, without appearing to go into irrelevant information best kept elsewhere. That is why prayers are best kept in a separate page. A link to a prayer could be put in the external links of the saint page. Once it is contextualised as, say "an example of a prayer to Saint 'X'", rather that just "Prayer to Saint X", then it meets NPOV criteria. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for other faiths, but for Orthodox Christians, about every saint has at least a troparion and a kontakion; these are short hymns or prayers addressed to the saint, typically less than a dozen lines. Including just the troparion would in most cases serve to document how they are regarded or what about them is most valued. This would be the chief encyclopedic value, appropriate to the infobox. If the saint also has kontakia, akathists, or other forms of prayers written to them, these would be better linked to elsewhere. If Catholic, Muslim or other saints have similar "topical" short prayers, I would recommend including them in a similar fashion. Wesley 19:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has started a number of articles on saints, but who does not pray to saints themselves, I tend to see the prayers as more Wikisource or Wikiquote material that probably should be linked to rather than placed on the saint's page directly. It isn't like you are inviting the world to revise the prayers: putting the prayers on encyclopedia pages does just that. If a prayer is a noteworthy quotation from the saint, or the saint has written well known poetry in the form of prayers, this belongs in the article — but in text, not an infobox.

There is also the knotty question of copyrights. (sigh) I suspect that many prayer texts were composed within the copyright period, but back when sanity still reigned in the field and it wasn't imagined that the authors would object to their circulation in a new format. Any devotional texts that get uploaded to Wikisource should be certifiably public domain per Official Policy. Researching the bibliographic record of devotional texts, and tracking down their original authors, may be a daunting task even for the interested. Smerdis of Tlön 20:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't like you are inviting the world to revise the prayers: putting the prayers on encyclopedia pages does just that. This strikes me as a non-sequitur. The kontakion to, say, St. Tikhon of Moscow is what it is, and putting it in an article invites no one to change it.

These prayers are composed and promulgated by local Churches for widespread use. I have never heard of a single instance of copyright being asserted in these cases. As opposed to lengthy translations of complete services carried out by translators working in a professional capacity. An individual prayer from the only English-language Menaion I know of may be (at least) fair use; to distribute whole services to saints, which is not even remotely being contemplated here, would not.

I don't think Jtdirl's example is very apposite. To quote the Rosary in an article about JPII is clearly an irrelevant intrusion. Were he canonized, it would on the other hand be quite relevant to include a standard, officially promulgated hymn to him. (If such things exist in the RC church; I'm not certain. Such hymns almost always do exist in the East.) Having read his post more thoroughly, I think I agree with him, and that some context must be provided. But I note that the infobox invited contextualization in the space for the prayer. This ought to be corrected on an individual basis, but that's not a reason to exclude them completely. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Who wrote the prayers in question? If they're historically recognized prayers I'd say they could be included. However, putting a prayer on the page for no reason doesn't seem to be a good idea. With that said, I don't see how a prayer is anymore POV than the fact that Saints are being referred to with the word Saint in the title of the encyclopedia article. AlexPlank 00:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually looking at Saint Rita, an article that I started long ago, I think the prayer looks out of place. I don't know what that means but I think a link to Wikisource with the prayer would be better. AlexPlank 01:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

First my bias - I am not a Catholic and not religious for that matter :-) I plan to join in this Wiki Saint project and read all the hub-bub about the prayers in the info box so I went and took a look at the one on the Saint Rita page. The thing that makes it look someone what out of place is there lacks a context for the reader to understand why it was included. If it said something like "This is a prayer associated with Saint Rita..." and then document the prayer people would feel less like the article was a promotional brochure for Catholicism. I am in favor of a prayer being included if it has a direct relevance but I think it should be presented in a manner that is informative (here is a prayer attributed to St. ____) and not instructive (let us all bow our heads and pray...). My unsolicited $.02 Mr Christopher 22:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am religious, and I don't want any online source saying my prayers for me. Prove to me that the prayer in the box is a prayer by the saint, and there is some justification. Otherwise, this is just Wikipedia trying to encroach on a diocesan website's area or get into the Guideposts territory. An intercessory prayer in the box is a triple offense against NPOV and encyclopedism. First, it is specifically Catholic (as all other churches reject the intercession of saints). Second, it was written by a hagiographer or some 20th century priest and so isn't special in any way -- isn't encyclopedic. Third, it violates the general NPOV by endorsing a manner of religious expression. These things are as out of place as anything can possibly be. If you want to put a prayer under "examples of intercessory prayers" and stick it on the danged talk page to the article, I won't mind, but it has no place on the project otherwise. Geogre 11:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's quite wrong to assume that people writing about or reading about saints are going to be Roman Catholics. I'm extremely interested in hagiography, both in literary terms and historical terms. Given that the saintly outnumber the saints, the reception of a saint's tale tells us much about an historical period. For example, the tales of the virgin martyrs show up obsessively at a given historical moment. Why? Tales of counter-Reformation saints propagate less well. Why? So how wise is it to put a Roman Catholic prayer in the box...and this is supposing that boxes are a good idea in general. Geogre 03:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You're correct when you say "it's quite wrong to assume that people writing about or reading about saints are going to be Roman Catholics." So why are you assuming that the prayers are necessarily Roman Catholic?

But I'm afraid I can't make sense of your objection here. You're very right that the reception of a saint's tale tells us much about the historical period. A characteristic prayer to the saint, such as the kontakion or apolytikon in Eastern Orthodoxy, which for most saints of the second millennium would have been composed right around the time they were canonized, can give us some of that information. Such a prayer can also tell us much that saint's veneration, which isn't well covered in articles that otherwise are the most NPOV. Personally, I find it difficult to write about a saint's cult or attributed miracles in an NPOV way. A prayer can convey some of that even if a well-written section on the above subjects would be preferable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I explained above why I "assume" that the prayer is RCC. It could, of course, be Greek or Syrian Orthodox, but all Protestant churches reject intercession of saints, and therefore any prayer written by a 20th or 19th century source is going to be a serious infringement of NPOV. Also note that I said, above, that a prayer by the saint is great, and I will extend that to say that a prayer appended to the calendar at the time of canonization would be great. However, that requires citation and explanation, and not just slipping the homily into a box slapped onto the page or sticking it on, without context, at the end of the article to aid us in our devotions. The prayers I've seen are most emphatically not composed by the saints and not demonstrably historically associated with the time of canonization or sourced to the Golden Legend or other historically active document. Instead, they are plastered in from sources that came centuries, if not a millenium, away from the saint, appear without citation, just float in from a 20th century priest. This is like putting a wrist watch in King Tut's tomb and telling us that we can learn much from the radium dial as well as from the cartouches. We can, but not about the same subject. Geogre 12:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'd like to apologize for the crankiness in my tone, above, but it seems to me that we need to be especially careful when writing about religious subjects. I hope we all do practice our faiths or our searches, but let's not get the hagiographies so tarred by the brush of enthusiasm that the entire project is untennable. Geogre 14:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with your original reply, actually, and didn't find it particularly cranky. Are there that many unattributed prayers attached to the infoboxes? If so, how can we do a better job of forcing attribution? TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The best thing is probably to remove them when we see them, I guess, and just make sure that we're sane about it -- neither removing prayers by the saint nor ignoring "nice" prayers without attribution. The Benedict Joseph Labre article that has engendered the weird question about the illustration (end of page) has, mysteriously, a common prayer stuck in the box. I'm no fan of boxes altogether, and they surely have no priority over their absence (i.e. one editor's love of them isn't more important than another editors dislike of them, so there is no "it must stay" or "it must go" to it), and I imagine a day when people are sticking boxes on saints like they do now with porno starletts, where, no joke, they list blood type. This in case one needs to give the starlett a transfusion during sex or in case one finds only AB Negative women/men attractive. The box stuff begins unstable and goes crazy pretty quickly. If I see an unattributed prayer on one of the saint lives I've written, I'll delete it from now on. Originally, I had just been too weary and sick of these battles to mess with it. Now that I see that general consensus on this project page is either against prayers or at least against ordinary prayers, I feel bolder. Geogre 02:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to start WWIII on Wikipedia (especially not if the matter is already settled), but I just noticed on the history tab of Benedict of Nursia that the prayer was removed. I checked the user out, and he had removed a large number of prayers from many of the saint pages Ian Spackman's edits. Should someone readd them, or has it been decided to omit them? It appears standard template policy to add them on the WikiSaints Project. Please let me know on my talk page. JBogdan 02:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

See my reply on your talk page. In a nutshell, prayers need to be attributed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Category:Saints born into the monied classes - Hey Ian, mind explaining your intent? --evrik 22:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. One of the interesting things about saints (and an attraction to atheists like me) is their extreme variousness: you can be poor, you can be rich, you can be perfectly stupid, you can be the greatest scholar of your time. You can be obviously mythical or absolutely historical. In some special cases you can even be pre-christian.

But if you glance through any book of saints you notice that that there have been certain things which have helped in drawing yourself to the Vatican’s attention, apart from any particular qualities of your life. No surprises: Popes don’t claim omniscience, or to be able to spot and canonize (or approve the popular cult of) everyone saintly. Being Italian (nearby) helps. In what is now the UK (where I live) being a Celtic princess seems to have been distinctly advantageous. Generally, in the early days at least, being a king was helpful. Later on, if you were going to be a martyr, you were probably best off being murdered in Japan. But having money and power often helped. That worries me a bit: it reminds me of the British honours system. Does any of that make sense to you? ±Ian Spackman 02:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It also helps to be a man, ordained, a prolific writer, and a martyr. The reason is simply because such persons are more likely to be known by and of importance to a larger segment of the church. A poor woman, illiterate, a housewife, may be the second holiest person ever to have lived, but who would be likely to know about her? Her friends and neighbors, yes, but who else? The canon of saints can never be taken as intended to represent all the holy people, but only a few representative ones, and generally the more notable ones. --Sean Lotz 11:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

I'm glad serious work is being done on saints. However it seems that far too many of the articles are littered with POV terminology and frankly tabloidesque language that is more in keeping with children's religious hagiographies than a neutral encyclopaedia.

[edit] Examples

[edit] In Francis Xavier

• He "sprang from an aristocratic Basque family of Navarre". Sprang??? Taboid language that can't be used in an encyclopaedia.
• A nobleman "He poured his heart out to Francis Xavier". More POV emotional language.
• "Thus intrigued, Xavier baptized Anjiro." Presuming to read the emotional reaction of someone by calling them "intrigued" is completely POV.
• "Then due to displeasure at the unchristian life and manners of the Portuguese, which impeded proselyting work, he went forth once again into the unknown Far East." That sentence states that (a) the life and manners of the Portuguese was "unchristian", a POV statement in the absence of a quotation or citation, (b) again implies motive that a neutral writer cannot imply with the unsources word "displeasure", (c) uses yet more unencyclopaedic hagiographic language with the words "went forth once again into the unknown Far East".
• "although all examinations from the time of his death til now have been thoroughly documented, giving credence to the belief that the incorruptible body is evidence of a miracle." A neutral encylopaedia simply cannot say anything gives "credence" to belief of evidence of a miracle. It can say "the lack of decay is seen by religious believers as evidence of a miracle" because it doesn't say or imply that it is true or untrue, just that something leads some people to believe in something. That is as far as can be gone under NPOV.
• "St.Francis Xavier accomplished a great deal of missionary work". An NPOV encyclopaedia cannot make an unsourced statement of that as fact. It has to say who says that, and give citations.
• "He had high qualifications as missionary: he was animated with glowing zeal; he was endowed with great linguistic gifts, and his activity was marked by restless pushing forward. His efforts left a significant impression upon the missionary history of India, and by pointing out the way to East India to the Jesuits, his work is of fundamental significance with regard to the history of the propagation of Christianity in China and Japan" - complete POV from beginning to end.
• "Since the Roman Catholic Church responded to his call, the effects of his efforts reach far beyond the Jesuit order; the entire systematic and aggressive incorporation of great masses of people on broad lines of policy by the Roman Catholic Church in modern times dates back to Xavier." editorialising that is incompatible with NPOV.

[edit] John Bosco

• "His mother was for it, but Antonio, now head of the family, was opposed." More tabloid language that reads from a ladybird book on saints for the under 10s.
• "Bosco liked to gather other children, entertain them with magic, jokes and stories, and teach them Catholic catechism (something like Sunday school)" Yet more of it.
• "He would do this by becoming a priest they could approach easily, not like the cold, standoffish clergy he had known." Ditto.
• "He zipped through the lower grades and eventually graduated with honors in 1835." Zipped Who wrote such rubbish???
• "Because of all their disorderly racket, the Marchioness spared her girls the distractions by terminating Bosco’s employment at the Rifugio." Unsourced opinion.
• "Don Bosco and his Oratory wandered around town for a few years, getting kicked out of several places in succession." Getting kicked out. Who wrote this???
• "There were zealous priests like Don Cafasso and Don Borel" Zealous priests - POV. You can't write that without sources in an encyclopaedia.
• "no tender with the Church, but anyway fond of the value of Don Bosco’s work" But anyway fond??? Who wrote this? A kindergarten teacher???

I could go on. Every saint article I have looked at seem to be all written in this way, with POV statements, loaded language, tabloid language, and worst of all no sources whatsoever for the statements, the accounts, the chronologies, etc. I thought reading the rock music pages that they were bad (full of music press clichés and hyperbole) but the saints articles are so dreadful they are funny. They could hardly be less encyclopaedic. Hagiographic stories full of loaded language and "isn't he a cool hero" tones may be all very well in POV publications, but they are not an option on Wikipedia or any encyclopaedia, where the requirements are neutrality, objectivity and sources, not opinions, hippy language and hero worship.

Frankly, as encyclopaedia articles, those in the series I have looked at stink. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully. I have to wonder if some of these aren't copyvios, or cut and paste from PD hagiographic sources like the Catholic Encyclopedia? Much of the phrasing doesn't exactly roll off the tongue naturally for modern writers.

I sympathize to an extent, even though I've only written one such article myself. It can be difficult to express why someone might have been canonized without descending into such language. It's possible, but it requires the greatest care. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit I suspect copyright violations also. A lot of the language seems a curious mish-mash of the old, the hagiographic and the downright strange. It is like bits and pieces were assembled and sort of merged together in a rather clumsy, inconsistent way. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Fear,

I rather think that you may be missing the point. Perhaps you have been reading the random words introduced on the left-hand bits of the articles by people among whom are sceptics, atheists and (according to Evrik, this page’s worshipful abbot) even Italians. Well that may be racist, but let’s not be too politically correct: Italians are Italians. Obviously their contributions cannot be taken seriously. No, the point of Wikipedia’s treatment of saints is to include appropriate prayers. They are not at all difficult to find as long as you focus on the right-hand side of the page, the bottom bit. Unless (as one has to admit in the the case of Mr Bosco) the contributor was drunk, the bottom right bits are almost certainly prayers. As such they make it perfectly clear that the subject of the article is outside history. Aquinas an important philosopher? Fuck off—he was a Saint just get on your knees and pray to him. You’ll feel better. San Bernardino da Siena an an extraordinary historical figure? Get a grip: he is a Saint. Prayer is all that matters. Focus on the bottom right bit of the Saint Box. You will feel better. —Ian Spackman 15:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)