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 and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on 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, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Saints Portal
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

[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


Contents

[edit] vote for Moses to become a featured article vote

Vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moses so as too get Moses into a featured article Java7837 23:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[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] Assessment

I have been assessing the importance level of saints articles, and have put together some notes (I thought it might be a bit too long for this talk page). It would be helpful to me if those with an interest could check them out and reply. -- Pastordavid 02:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sidebar?

Anyone know how to create a sidebar, like this one, which we could use to provide links to all the project's secondary pages directly from the top of the main project page? John Carter 18:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Um...No, but I'd be willing to take a crack at it. Give me a few days to tinker with it and see what I can come up with. Good idea by the way. -- Pastordavid 19:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Sidebar is there ... also doing some other maintence, rearranging, etc on project pages. -- Pastordavid 15:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Update

I have done some general updating of the main WP Saints page (unrelated to the current discussion about the scope of the project). Have a look around and see what you think -- If you see a problem, please fix it. Hopefully, this will make things a little easier to navigate. -- Pastordavid 16:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Can anyone here make an ad?

Template:Qxz-ads/All shows a variety of advertisements for various WikiProjects. Lord knows we could probably use one as well. Unfortunately, purty much everything (including basic spelling) is pretty much beyond my own abilities, so if anyone else feels qualified to make one for this project, or maybe for the Christianity projects in general, Religion projects, or basically anything else that might increase the traffic to this page, please feel free to do so. John Carter 16:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Qxz, the user who started those ads, left in just the last few days (I was actually getting ready to ask him just such a question). unless I'm mistaken, Azatoth helped Qxz on some of those. I think he'd be the next person to ask. -- Pastordavid 16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Qxz, the user who started the ads, is now User:Gurch, he's created a ad for one of my wikiprojects. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 18:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saint of the day

A proposal has been made on the talk page of the Portal:Saints for a possible daily update to at least some of the content of the portal. I think that this is a fine idea, but also think that I would want input from others as to which content to feature on which date. I have therefore set up a page for such discussion at Portal:Saints/Saint of the day for interested parties to nominate content related to individual saints they would like to see featured on the portal, and one which particular day, if one is preferred. I am here thinking particularly about possibly including individuals on the days of their feasts, if they have one. Any member of this project is more than welcome to make any nominations they see fit. Please feel free to make any specific suggestions there. John Carter 20:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for letting us know. --evrik (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation styles

I often run into the same sources when looking for citation for stub-level saints articles. Since I found myself looking up the same styles over and over again, as well as tiresomely checking back to copy-paste old "ref" formats, I started a Notepad list of styles for particular sources. While redoing my user page a few days ago, I thought it would be more convenient to make a user page for myself with these styles, in case I run into a sourceless saints article while not at home. So I thought I'd share it with you all: Saints citation styles for commonly encountered sources.

A few caveats however: first and most importantly, these examples are all for specific articles. You would have to modify them appropriately in order to use them correctly. It would be a good idea to use Wikipedia:Citation templates in conjunction with these, in case there are additional appropriate fields to be included. And secondly, remember that this my user page. These styles for are my personal reference. You may not like them, in which case you may continue to use whichever style of citation you please. However, if you find a problem with one or have an issue or concern, please, do bring it up to me on the citation styles talk page. Thanks. I hope these are useful. Alekjds talk 21:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Very helpful, thanks. It is worth noting, on a similar topic, the change in citing ancient sources in the last 40 years. Since much of the material we use is PD, it contians the older format for citation of ancient sources: Title in Latin, book and chapter in roman numeral, regular numbers for lines. For example: Adversus Haeresies, II.IV.2. However, the modern scholarly standard is to refer to the english title, and use regular numerals; thus: Against the Heresies, 2.4.2. Just a little reminder to all. -- Pastordavid 21:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Gnostic saints

Just saw this category, which seems to possibly be related to the project. Any opinions as to whether they should be included or not? John Carter 14:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering we have included a few Cao Dai saints in the scope, I personally wouldn't imagine that adopting a few articles that do already overlap with our previously established "orthodox" Christian base would hurt. I would support. Alekjds talk 06:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, considering the revision of the Portal:Saints recently, we might want to reconsider removing the Cao Dei saints as well. Personally, I have proposed again that there be a work group of Biography to deal with the majority of the non-Christian religious figures, but it has so far gotten rather little support. If such a group ever does get established, I think then we could reasonably limit ourselves to those parties included in specifically Christian lists of blessed people or those included in Christian liturgical calendars. John Carter 19:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
If that were possible, that would be ideal. Alekjds talk 21:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed.Murcielago 02:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prayer revisited

I think it might be a good idea to try to add the "official" prayer (or, in some cases, one of the "official" prayers) to the articles within the scope of this project to the majority of the pages of the individual saints. Certainly, in some cases we may have very little hard data to go with, and these prayers will often contain at least a hint of the reason the person(s) was/were declared saints in the first place. We might even (potentially) be able to add a "prayer" section to the portal. I think our biggest problem would be in trying to find some non-POV introduction which would make it harder to object to its inclusion. One suggestion, just to get discussion started:

  • "The (church) has recognized (person) as a saint. It has also created the following liturgical prayer indicating what it believes to be the individual's "qualifying" characteristics: ...."

A very rough draft, but if anyone can think of any way to "polish it up" to make it more generally acceptable, I personally would love to see it. John Carter 14:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Before I am accused of bad faith I will highlight this edit of mine. The proposition seems to me to be a thoroughly bad idea. (Which means, of course, that the idiot whom I will not name—but think saints project and total idiot and you might just guess who I mean (certainly not User:Warlordjohncarter)—will now do his best to challenge my every edit to the length of a river or the depth of a lake.) Oh my god! —Ian Spackman 15:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The specific cases I'm primarily thinking of are cases when the majority of the hard data we have is "(person) was killed by Diocletian", and there are a lot of them. In many of these cases, the prayer, if it dates back near the person's time, might contain something about the person which may not have survived in any other form, perhaps a reference to some data which isn't otherwise substantiated, for example. But, certainly, I would only think the addition would be called for in cases when the article would otherwise be short or lacking in details or when it may not be otherwise clear why the person is regarded as a saint in the first instance. Albrecht Dürer comes to mind as an instance of the latter. And, yes, in some cases, Theodora and Justinian I come to mind here, to perhaps indicate that some of their actions which might be objectionable to one church (like maybe killing heretics) might make that person a saint to one of the other churches, perhaps the one that ordered the killing. Also, there is a precedent in wikipedia for such inclusion, as indicated earlier, as indicated on the John Andrews (Medal of Honor) page, where the text for his secular Medal of Honor citation is included verbatim. However, clearly, in some cases, like Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Mary (mother of Jesus), when their status as saints is generally fairly well known and understood, there I think such inclusion would probably be both redundant and possibly unnecessarily lengthening, particularly if they have several feasts. John Carter 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Having look through the archives at the old debates about this, I really think that this might not be the road we want to go down. It seems to me - as a general idea - to not be the worst thought; but in the particulars it is a real can of worms. I think of examples, even with my own tradition: Do we use the new ELW prayers (ELCA) or the new TLH (LC-MS), or do we use the older but still widely used LBW or LW prayers. And that's just among the Lutherans, then you start to consider: is it the Orthodox or Roman Catholic prayer, etc, etc, etc (not to mention the people who think that all prayers are to POV to be included at all). It seems to be edit wars just waiting to happen.
Perhaps the following might work as a suggestion. We make no "general rule" about the inclusion/exclusion of prayers, but a statement to the effect of: Where a prayer adds relevant information to the article about a saint - either about his/her life or cultus - it may be included, along with a direct explanation of relevance. -- Pastordavid 16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I can go with that. And it would make sense that if one specific prayer contained more info than another, that would be the one chosen. I do think that it would included in the "Veneration" section of the article, if anywhere. John Carter 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't generally like including primary sources in their entirety, be they song lyrics, poems, prayers, etc.; that's what Wikisource is for. I doubt very many articles will benefit from including an entire prayer, why not just discuss the prayer and its relevance without including it?--Cúchullain t/c 05:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The Saint award

The Saint Barnstar
Award to a project who have done exemplary work on Saints!!!! Keep up the great work everybody!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 10:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC))
So, anyone have any ideas what we do with this? :) John Carter 14:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Haha, group barnstar. We could put it on our Members page I guess. Alekjds talk 17:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You know, I hadn't even thought of that. Good idea. John Carter 18:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Saints Star Award
The Saints Star Award.
Well, of course there is already a saints award. I'm guessing that Mr. Blofield either did not know that, or wanted to make his own. The conversation above centers around what we should do with the award after having gotten it. Alekjds talk 21:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Whatever you want. ;-) --evrik (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that but you guys deserve it anyway!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 18:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Redundancy

In the same vein, I just noticed that we have pages for Saint Cyril, Saint Methodius, and Saints Cyril and Methodius. Does anyone one think that we could merge these? As I think that neither is particularly notable individually, maybe making the page for both of them the one that remains? John Carter 14:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, given that their lives almost completely overlap (they have the same feast day and everything), I think that a merger to the SS. Cyril and Methodius page is warranted. The naming convention would probably demand that we change it to "Cyril and Methodius," I imagine, although perhaps that would not be necessary. Alekjds talk 17:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
If you check out the talk pages, such a merge has been proposed before, and met a fair amount of opposition. I think you could get such a proposed merge to work, but I would get some folks from the Greek orthodox tradition on board before proposing it. -- Pastordavid 18:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a point there, as Methodius survived sixteen years longer and became a bishop. Maybe we could propose merging Saint Cyril and Saints Cyril and Methodius, leaving Methodius, who did some other things later, a standing page as is? John Carter 18:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • ehhh leave it be. --evrik (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Vincent Ferrer

In AutoWikiBrowsing through Category: Dominicans, I happened to noticed that the article for Saint Vincent Ferrer is extremely underdeveloped and contains multiple POV claims (phrases like "converted sinners", etc.). I rated the article as high importance (Ferrer is a major saint, after all), and tagged it. The purpose of bringing this to your collective attention is that I would like to begin to really improve this article, sort of along the lines of a "article improvement drive" such as is featured by Project Catholicism (that's an idea, by the way, we could think about having something like that once a week or something, depends). Anyone who would like to jump aboard, please do so. Alekjds talk 04:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Alex, check out our Collaboration page (it is linked to on the navigational template. Feel free to make suggestions for the next collaboration, I was probably going to change it out sometime in the week to come. -- Pastordavid 05:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, well, didn't see that. Thanks. Alekjds talk 04:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration

The new WikiProject Saints Collaboration is up for this month. Help us to improve this article, and make suggestions or voice your support for our next collaboration. -- Pastordavid 16:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An idea about feast days

It was brought up a while ago on Portal:Saints about how we could organize a liturgical calendar schematic for presenting saints articles on the Portal page. My idea is that we could have a category for each feast day of the year. Of course different churches have different feasts for the same saint, but this could be representing by naming the categories thus:

  • 1 January feast days (Western)
  • 1 January feast days (Eastern)
  • 1 January feast days (Coptic)

Et cetera. Also, we could have a little nav box on the "body" of each category page, with something on it like...

Roman Catholic liturgical calendar
January 1 - January 2 - January 3


You know the drill. There's probably a more efficient template for that. Anyway, that's my idea. I acknowledge the tedious downside of manually completing this task (plus, what, creating 600-900 new categories if we want to fill out the Orthodox and Coptic calendars as well as the RC?), but I do think that it has many advantages. Alekjds talk 01:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As an alternative, maybe just creating an individual page for each day of the year, with divisions for the individual traditions/denominations? Because, unfortunately, there have been a number of saints who either have different feast days in different calendars, have multiple feasts in the same calendar, and/or have had their feasts moved and/or discontinued, and the amount of categorization involved in doing all of this might be rather excessive. John Carter 02:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There's already a set of articles for the Orthodox Church calendar that has been extensively filled in. See Eastern Orthodox Church calendar. TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I am well aware of them. I also know of articles on several of the individual Calendars of saints. For what little it might be worth, I think the articles referenced by User:Csernica above may at some point, given their short length, be combined into one larger and more detailed article, and that perhaps a single page listing all the known observances by Christian denominations, Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and whatever else, might be the best way to ultimately go. Said articles will have substantially more content, and will stand a much better chance of ultimately reaching Featured list or some similar status. John Carter 14:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You know, I was just looking at those same articles (the Orthodox calendar by day articles) and thinking the same thing - that they need to be compressed to at least by month. There are plenty of examples of what the liturgical calendars "by denomination" look like, and I think, as John noted, that there is a chance for some of these to wind up being pretty decent articles. The articles that are "by date" are just too limited to ever be particularly useful. Pastor David † (Review) 15:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. If the day-by-day articles are too short, then I can't help but feel that monthly articles might be too long, especially if we're going to be exhaustive. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I was actually thinking of a day by day article, but one article showing the observances of all the churches. Not individual articles for each of the various churches. John Carter 19:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) That sounds good, too. Let's try this: individual day articles, covering all traditions - John, could you put together a test one of these in userspace (i have an empty sandbox page if you need it). As to the many orthodox "by date" pages, I will try pulling together a "by month" one in my userspace as well (it will take me a couple of days, I'll post here when I've got it). That way, we can all see what we are talking about. -- Pastor David † (Review) 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally like the "day by day" approach (per John Carter's suggestion), since I think month articles would become ridiculously long, but of course both should be considered given their merits as discussed above. Alekjds talk 23:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is sensible. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This is an early attempt at what one of these might look like. I acknowledge that they would probably have to be changed on an annual basis (taking into account movable feasts and the differences in calendars), and that a lot of information isn't included yet. But it at least gives an idea of what the final draft might look like. John Carter 14:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That looks good (you have gotten much further on your example that I have on mine :)). Would you mind if some of us jumped in and did some editing on the example? Pastor David † (Review) 18:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. John Carter 20:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles I of England FAR

Charles I of England has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What does Saint mean?

There is a discussion at Talk:Saint very similar to the discussion we had here a while back about what "saint" means. It would be helpful to have some additional input. Thanks, Pastor David † 15:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request article name change

The page Adrian of Nicomedia previously had no separate content relating to the wife of the subject, who actually survived him by some time, Saint Natalia. Given that there is now at least some content relating specifically to Natalia in her time after Adrian's death, I believe the page's name should be changed to Adrian and Natalia of Nicomedia. Comments? John Carter 14:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Be Bold. Go for it. Pastordavid 15:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration

It is time for changing out our Project Collaboration article. Currently we have three candidates for next months collaboration. If you have a suggestion for what might make a great collaboration, or would like to voice your support for one of the others, please visit the Collaboration page - a new collaboration will be posted in a couple of days. Pastordavid 15:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mother Teresa is our current collaboration. Pastordavid 15:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amator/Amadour

I have turned the old redirect page Saint Amadour into a separate page regarding the alleged hermit of Rocamadour. Please review this page for its content and that of the companion page Saint Amator to determine which content you think belongs where. Thank you. John Carter 18:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sidonius Apollinaris

Why has Sidonius been assigned to be a part of the Eastern Christianity series? Sidonius was a Latin westerner (and while important for the history of his times, hardly important in the history of the Church). Djnjwd 21:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically, because he is recognized as a saint, and has a feast day, as indicated in the article. This is not to say that other projects may not also be able to state that he is relevant to them, but by placing the banner on we will also be able to (eventually) add it to our list of watched articles, and try to prevent any vandalism. Also, in time, as things develop, it is my hope that all those who are regarded as saints will in some form or other be included in the content of the Portal:Saints. But, to do that, we have to know which articles are relevant to the project, and adding banners seems to be the most effective way of doing so. We are not however in any way trying to say that our interest in the article would be greater or lesser than anyone else's who might add similar banners later, just that the article in question is relevant to us. Also, as we have some access to information regarding the subject which might merit inclusion, such as biographical content, I hope that in time we will be able to help add significantly to the content of the article. However, as the person who probably placed the banner, I want you to know that neither I nor the project have any intention of "pushing" content relevant to our specific project, but rather working to improve the article in as neutral and non-biased a way as possible. John Carter 21:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your long and helpful reply. I don't disagree with the Saints Portal having an interest in Sidonius. Maybe I asked the question in the wrong place, but what appears to the reader is the Eastern Christianity infobox, and it was the appropriateness of the "Easternness" that I was querying. Djnjwd 22:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I added that, so I couldn't respond directly. User:LoveMonkey seems to have added that. That editor is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, so you might be able to get a better answer there. John Carter 22:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again, I'll querit it there.Djnjwd 23:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current Collaboration

Our current collaboration has just been awarded GA-status. Congratulations to all who helped out! More work is still needed, so stop on by Mother Teresa, and let's see if we can't reach FA. Pastordavid 17:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Paul Josef Nardini

Paul Josef Nardini PAUL JOSEF NARDINI (1821-1862), Diocesan Priest, Founder of the Franciscan Sisters of the Holy Family Mallersdorf, Mallersdorf Abbey, venerated at the 19th December 2005 and beatified at 22th October 2006 by Pope Benedict XVI at the cathedral at Speyer, see: [Biography]

I'm taking the above as a request to create an article on the subject, and am doing so now. John Carter 15:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
yes, thank you i also did a request [here], but i thnik this project is the right place.89.52.62.152 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, let me know what you think of it. It could use additional sources, but it's a start. John Carter 19:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
very well done, thank you. i found some other sources : about the beatification [here], [here], [here] and [here] and another source of his biography [here], and this story about a visit to Mallersdorf [a pdf-file]. Maybe you could also add a picture of Nardini from the german wiki page [german wiki]89.52.122.19 14:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
[this] might be interesting too

[edit] Bishop Henry

Article about Bishop Henry has been largely rewritten. It had previously GA status from WikiProject Saints. It targets FA now (sometime in the future) so all review help and other assistance is appreciated. --Drieakko 15:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added this article as a proposed collaboration for our project. Pastordavid 14:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Article has now been updated and almost fully referenced after help from User:Pastordavid and peer review by User:The Psychless. --Drieakko 05:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Nominated now for FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bishop Henry. --Drieakko 07:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Passed! Thanks for all who helped to get it through. --Drieakko 13:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration

It is time, once again, to change out our collaboration. Our last collaboration, Mother Teresa, was raised to GA status. Please consider dropping by the collaboration page to vote for this month's collaboration, I will select a new article for us sometime late tonight or tomorrow. Pastordavid 14:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

One of the articles in the scope of our project is a featured list candidate. Please express your opinion. Pastordavid 17:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Litany of the Saints

The article above is a candidate for being transferred to Wikisource. If anyone can supply information beyond simply the quotation, it would be greatly appreciated. John Carter 00:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Version 1.0 articles

The version 0.7 release of wikipedia is slated to have about 3,000 articles. I believe that the articles in our scope, and relating to Christianity in general, are woefully underrepresented. The Virgin Mary had not been included to date, and Moses still isn't. I would greatly appreciate any nominations for inclusion in the next release version below, based on either their importance or their quality. Nominations of Start class can be made on the basis of great importance, B class or higher on the combined bases of quality and importance. Thank you. John Carter 00:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Franciszek Gajowniczek

I just added an article to this project... it's not on a saint, but upon an individual for whom a saint sacraficed his life. If this is inappropriate, please let me know.Balloonman 01:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that he probably shouldn't get the banner, but am honestly not sure. Thoughts? John Carter 16:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Depending on the verdict, he would need to be added as a DYK for 7/7/07. Franciszek Gajowniczek's notability is derived via St Maximilian Kolbe as he was a crucial figure in the act of charity that lead to Kolbe's cannonization. (His later notability was established as a guest of the Pope when Kolbe was declared Blessed and again when he was Cannonized.) So the question becomes, is the focus of the project on Saints/Blessed or does it expand to those crucial people/places/events that are involved with the saints? If the former, then he doesn't belong. If the later, then I would argue he does belong. But I'm not familiar enough with the focus of the project to know.Balloonman 21:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization of Protestant "saints"?

I notice that the individuals commemorated in the calendars of saints of the Anglican and Lutheran calendars have not yet been necessarily added to the various subcategories of Category:Saints by country. Do the rest of you believe that they should be included in those categories or not? John Carter 13:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to think about that one. I certainly think it makes sense, but we have had resistence to any category or banner with the word "saint" in it on the pages of those commemorated on Protestant calendars. Let's see if anyone else jumps into the conversation. Pastordavid 15:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current Collaboration

Our current Wikiproject Saints collaboration, Bishop Henry, is listed as a Featured Article Candidate. Please voice your opinion about the article. With the current collaboration already up as a FA nom, I will probably change out the collaboration article a little early this month - right now Saint Peter looks like it will be the collaboration. Pastordavid 15:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger of Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War into Spanish Civil War

It has been proposed that Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War be merged of into Spanish Civil War. I don't really think that's appropriate because, although somewhat related, the former is a saints article and the latter is an article about the war where the martyrdoms took place. The discussion can be found here. Also related and proposed for merger, which I think is another bad idea, is the article Red terror (Spain) which is discussed here. Mamalujo 23:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Anglican saints

One of the individuals commemorated in one of the calendars of the churches of the Anglican Communion is Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Ms. Stanton was a rather pronounced atheist, which might make calling her a "saint" as per the current category amusing to some people. How would the other members of the project feel about creating a separate Category:Anglican heroes (or something similar) to include those individuals included in the Anglican calendars of saints who were not counted as "saints" by the church before the division of the church by Henry VIII? It would create another category, but it would also be a bit more accurate. Also, should the new category take the place completely of the present Category:Anglican saints or not? Personally, I'd say yes, but that's just my own opinion. John Carter 15:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Would the church consider her a saint as such, or more of a "commemorated figure" on the calendar? Supposing the latter is true, I would support the creation of a new category (dunno about the name "Anglican heroes", though I can't think of a better one), and since it seems that most if not all of the articles currently in Category:Anglican saints seem to be in the same vein, I personally agree with the new category taking the place of the old one. It would evince a more nuanced understanding of what these commemorated Anglican figures really are, since I can't see Stanton's article having a "Saints" infobox in it. Alekjds talk 20:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to leave the cat, and just not use the saint infobox. But ultimately, it would probably be best to let WP:Anglicanism decide what to name the cat (I think they are active). Pastordavid 20:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
That project has been contacted. They haven't made any sort of concrete response yet, though. John Carter 20:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template for multiple martyrs

I've noticed a need for an infobox for specific use in articles that cover multiple saints. These are typically groups of martyrs, such as Eighty-five martyrs of England and Wales, or Martyrs of Japan. The usual required parameters, etc. are not sufficient for these special articles, and the "Title" field not necessary.

For your inspection: Template:Infobox Martyrs (already implemented on the 85 martyrs article). I welcome suggestions, as my template creation abilities are novice at best, and there may have been certain parameters I've overlooked. Alekjds talk 22:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Your infobox works well. I've used it for 108 Martyrs of World War Two and Martyrs of Gorkum. I'll put a link on the project page so others can find it. --Bwpach (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for input on Portal:Saints

The time to update the portal is approaching. Anyone who has a particular item they'd like to see in the portal for next month should indicate as much by Friday. Thanks. John Carter 17:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Peer review

I am seeking peer review of a recently created article. Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Calendar of saints (Anglican Church of Southern Africa)/archive1. Thank you. John Carter 15:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Identify a saint

Can someone identify the saint in this image Image:Italian breviary c. 1380 women.jpg? I would like to update the info in the Commons. Thanks. - PKM 19:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV question on Athanasius of Alexandria

I have some serious concerns regarding the neutrality of the article above. Please see my comments justifying that statement at Talk:Athanasius of Alexandria#POV, and contribute any comments you think appropriate. Thank you. John Carter 19:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mother Teresa article

The Mother Teresa article is being hit pretty hard by a small but aggressive group of editors (border-line vandals) trying to basically trash the article, inserting unsubstantiated criticisms. It's a GA-rated article. A few of us are trying to deal with it, but it's becoming difficult. Any extra eyes and monitoring would be greatly apprecited! --Anietor 05:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Saint Maurice#Request for Comment:Image in Infobox about which image of the subject should be used in the infobox. Any comments are welcome. John Carter 22:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New peer review of Saint Patrick

Hello. I've opened a new peer review request for Saint Patrick. It's at Wikipedia:Peer review/Saint Patrick/archive2. Any and all comments will be much appreciated. Thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War nominated for deletion

The article Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War has been nominated for deletion. The nominator maintains that it is a POV fork of the Spanish Civil War article. I think that argument is entirely without merit since the former article is a saints article and contains matter which is a separate subject and does not belong in the article on the war. If you would like to participate the discussion is taking place here. Mamalujo 19:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chronological list of saints

I've recently gone through the chronological lists of saints and converted the tables to wikitable format. I have the feeling that the tables are incomplete or inaccurate. This would be a possible task for someone from this project to work on. Psychless 02:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "completeness", I personally have no doubt whatsoever that they aren't complete, consiering the thousands of saints, beati, etc., out there. I know personally that there are several thousand listed in various reference books which I know aren't included yet. Regarding accuracy, accuracy is a big issue in the purported lives of several of these people, many of whom are recorded as having been involved in events which many/most of us consider extremely unlikely. I can try to work on them, but no guarantees on when I'll get to them. Any help from others would also be greatly appreciated, particularly regarding referencing the information included. John Carter 13:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

For article on Saint Moses the Hungarian. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saints Sergius and Bacchus

There is currently a discussion at Saints Sergius and Bacchus over including mention of an artist and an image he made. The discussion is over portaying the saints as a gay couple; this interpretation is notable in and of itself, but I don't think the artist and his image are. Further, I dispute the fair use claim of the image - it's copyrighted, and a free equivalent is available. Anyone want to weigh in?--Cúchullain t/c 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harriet Tubman

I notice Ms. Tubman is listed on the talk page as being under the purview of this WikiProject. Was she officially canonized by the church? If so, when? More information would be greatly appreciated, as I am beginning work to make it an FA. – Scartol · Talk 22:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

She is included the Calendar of saints (Episcopal Church in the United States of America), and the Category:Anglican saints. Inclusion on any such church calendars is considered basis for inclusion in the scope of this project. However, if you are asking whether she was ever formally canonized by the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches, I would have to say that as she wasn't a Catholic the chances of that happening are nil. John Carter 22:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting. Thanks for the information – I'll try to work it into the article. Cheers! – Scartol · Talk 17:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New saints added to GA list

The following have been guided to GA in the last few months and have been added to the project GA list:

--SECisek 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment St. Leonard

I would appreciate your comments on Talk:Leonard_of_Noblac. An anonymous user wants to add content about how St. Leonard is venerated in a particular episode of a popular TV series.imars (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category for deletion

I have proposed Category:Decanonized saints for deletion here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 28. It is a long-time problem category that can't be fixed any other way beyond deleting it. Please weigh in with your opinions.--Cúchullain t/c 22:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Money for writing, chicks for free

The above contest has been started which will give five people who have done the most article improvement US$100. each. Several of these articles fall within the scope of this project, including Abraham, Albrecht Durer, Augustine of Hippo, Benedict of Nursia, Columba, and several others as well. The full list is Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Articles. Granted, the paraphrase of the Dire Straits title above isn't all directly relevant to the contest, particularly the last half, but I figured it might get a few more of you to look at this comment. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New award being given out to projects

I'm not sure how many of you know this, but I think that right now this project is one of the few that has ever received an award or barnstar as a project. I mention this because there is a new triple crown award specifically for WikiProjects, at User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle#Special edition WikiProject triple crowns. Each of these awards will be specifically made for the winning project. Many of you know that I haven't actally written even a single GA myself yet, so I'm not particularly useful in this regard, but if any of the rest of you can point out articles that you have written which might qualify this project for that award, I'd love to see the project get one. Please include any qualifying information below, and if we've got enough I'll try to submit it. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've got a regular 3x crown, which relates to the project. If four other editors have 3x crowns on the project, we qualify for the special wikiproject edition. Pastordavid (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually the project level award is intended to foster collaboration. So if several editors collaborate on the same GA and FA, they can each qualify as long as they each contribute at least 10 citations (please provide diffs so I don't lose my hair verifying the submissions). The only thing that needs to be unique to each editor is the DYK. Best wishes! It'd be a really interesting thing to Photoshop an award for you. DurovaCharge! 20:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saint RfC

There is an RfC concerning St Edmund the Martyr. A single-purpose account named user:EdChampion is insisting that Edmund is the/a Patron Saint of England. If you have not done major work on the article, please comment on this if possible here. -- SECisek 21:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Julian of Moraime

I am trying to see if I can find out any information about a Saint Julian of Moraime in Galicia, Spain. He might also be described as San Xiao de Moraime. Where should I look?--Filll (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Holweck's "Biographical Dictionary of the Saints" is probably the best source for rough information. Other than that, maybe any of the other encyclopediae of saints, or the Vatican records, or the local church history of the area. I think there still are several thousand who haven't had articles created yet, and I don't know how much info these directories might ahve, but it's the best simple answer I can come up with. Hopefully, one or more of them will have additional references. John Carter (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple saints collaborations?

One of the difficulties in dealing with a collaboration for a project like this one is the rather difficult scope of the project. We effectively deal with a section of the content of five distinct WikiProjects, WikiProject Anglicanism, WikiProject Catholicism, WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, WikiProject Lutheranism, and WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, as well as some additional content within the scope of our parent WikiProject Christianity. As a result, parties interested primarily in one branch of Christianity, from any of our related faith-specific projects, might have less interest in working on an article relating primarily or exclusively to some other faith. I wonder what you all might think of changing the collaboration from one monthly collaboration to five simultaneous collaborations, one relating primarily to each of the five traditions above. At least initially, I think there are probably 50-100 articles that are going to be very important to more than one tradition, and that we might get more input this way. I have also taken the liberty of contacting the projects mentioned above for any input they might like to give on this matter. I would think, rather than monthly, we might permit a collaboration to remain until and unless it receives, say, at least a GA nominataion. I would welcome any input, positive or negative. If the response were to be positive, I would think that we might be able to start sometime in January with the multiple concurrent collaborations. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with dropping the monthly idea, but I think we should try to work on the 50-100 or so common articles before setting up separate colabs. Is St Paul GA? How about St Augustine? St John? St Thomas? St Ambrose? There are many saints that everyone would like to see go to GA. -- SECisek (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that's more or less the intended reason for the proposal above. My real intended purpose was to make it the case that all five collaborations would be nominated for GA (or, potentially, FA, as the case may be), before new collaborations begin. The reasoning is partially due to articles like Mark the Evangelist, Athanasius of Alexandria, and others where the subject is an extremely significant figure in the history of the Oriental Orthodox Church and Christianity as a whole, but one who would still very likely not be among the first ones proposed. Then, when all five collaborations (or maybe more, depending on how many other churches, like the Arian church, declared individuals saints) have reached their intended nomination, new articles would be nominated for all five groups. Doing it this way would permit each related project to maybe concentrate on their own chosen nominee initially as those articles are developed, but still hopefully draw a bit more attention to the others. And I do think actively involving the other projects to this degree might help speed up the improvement process. John Carter (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Soren Kierkegaard

Why is Kierkegaard listed under the featured saints articles? I cannot find him listed by a saint by any religious denomination--and in fact he was an outspoken critic of structured Christian churches. Chevalier3 (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically, he is included because he is included in the Calendar of Saints (Lutheran). You'll note Elizabeth Cady Stanton, an atheist, is included as well. The reason for her inclusion is her being named in the Calendar of saints (Episcopal Church in the United States of America). Because they're included on these calendars, they are relevant to the project, and I hope that should either article ever be challenged on the basis of quality or other content matters, we will be as involved, fairly and objectively, as any other related group. Right now, I myself am probably primarily involved in the Biography project more than Saints, unfortunately, and I can say that it is our purpose to improve or maintain the quality of all articles relevant to our group fairly and objectively. It serves our purposes no more than anyone else's to try to lay undue emphasis on "our" content, and in neither of the cases above is or should the content relevant to their position on a calendar be overemphasized. The same is true of several similar characters, as well. However, we like having FAs and the like to show off on our portal too, and we want to keep as many as we can at that level. I hope that answer is sufficient and acceptable to you. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article Nomination

I thought you might like to know that Liturgical calendar (Lutheran), an article within the scope of this WikiProject, is now a Featured Articel Candidate. Please express your opinion. -- jackturner3 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ignatius erroneous disambiguation links

Could someone with more knowledge take a look at Ignatius, an editor went through in October and changed the links around, likely trying to improve the look but made the father of a Korean link to Ignatius of Loyola by wfying a reference to a Saint Ignatius, it's a list of saints, so they're all Saint Ignatius, but I have no idea where the article should be going or if it actually exists - nor if any errors were made to the other links. Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked the external links for the Korean guy, and found that the person's full name was Ignatius Kim. Updated the Ignatius page accordingly, that should take care of this one. I didn't check the other links, they could still use checking. Wesley (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you find anything to confirm that Ignatius Kim was a Saint? His son, Andrew Kim Taegon was canonized in 1984, but the only outside references to Ignatius Kim that I find, indicate that he was beatified in 1925 but make no mention of canonization except with respect to his son. See, e.g., other lists of saints do not name him at all even in articles about his son. Even if he is notable, if he's not a saint, we shouldn't list him under Saints should we?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I note that the article Korean_Martyrs reports that they were all canonized in 1984 in Seoul (including Andrew Kim Taegon, but it doesn't provide a reference and I don't find this on any of the sites I searched except for Saint Andrew Kim Taegon. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding project banner

I have noted how several articles relevant to Christianity have only the banner of more focused projects, several Christianity banners, or no banners at all on the talk pages. This makes it rather difficult for the Christianity WikiProject to keep track of all articles, as well as potentially reducing the number of editors who might be willing to work on the article, if only the more focused banner is in place. If I were to adjust the existing {{ChristianityWikiProject}} to include separate individual assessment information for each relevant Christianity project, and display the projects which deal with it, like perhaps the {{WikiProject Australia}} does, would the members of this project object to having that banner ulimately used in place of this project's one? It might help reduce the banner clutter, as well. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I like the idea. --evrik (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming Conventions and links

Hi, My question is regarding naming conventions. I was editing Cainnech of Aghaboe and thought that i would link from other pages where he is mentioned (such as Kilkenny) where he is referred to as St. Canice. There is a redirect from St. Canice to Cainnech of Aghaboe but should the kilkenny page use the link [[Cainnech of Aghaboe|St. Canice]] or [[St. Canice]]. Maybe it makes no difference but if there way a best practice it would be helpful; and maybe this is a silly question but anyway,thanks Okeeffe.christopher (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally, it's preferable not to link to a redirect page, but rather to the article page itself. So, in this case, depending on how you want to do it, you could do "Saint Cainnech of Aghaboe", "[[Cainnech of Aghaboe|St. Canice]]", os any similar variation. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks. Okeeffe.christopher (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
At the same time it is generally preferable not to change redirects into direct links, per WP:R2D, and it is particularly meaningless to do so by using a piped link.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ailbe and Ailbhe

I have suggested that Ailbhe be merged into Ailbe, because they appear to be the same person. I know little or nothing about this area, so pls can someone with relevant expertise take a look at this? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. John Carter (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

I just wanted to let this project know that Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints/Assessment is not working correctly . When you click any of the links to view the pages nothing is there . Bewareofdog 00:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Digital Patrologia Latina

May be of interest: there is a digital edition of Migne's Patrologia Latina available, along with a whole lot more material at www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/_index.html which may be of interest. In Latin of course. Someone (probably) associated with that project has been adding links to the relevant articles. Seems unobjectionable to me, but this has caught the eye of the ever-vigilant spam monitors, and here we are. This could be usable for inline cites, for further reading sections, to create bibliographies for Medieval Latin religious writers, etc. Hope this is useful resource, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinator?

It has probably been noticed by most of the editors who frequent this page that there is often a pronounced degree of overlap between the various projects relating to Christianity. Given that overlap, and the rather large amount of content we have related to the subject of Christianity, it has been proposed that the various Christianity projects select a group of coordinators who would help ensure the cooperation of the various projects as well as help manage some project related activities, such as review, assessment, portal management, and the like. Preferably, we would like to consider the possibility of having one party from each of the major Christianity projects included, given the degree of specialization which some of the articles contain. We now are accepting nominations for the coordinators positions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. Any parties interested in helping performing some of the management duties of the various Christianity projects is encouraged to nominate themselves there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Much to my surprise, the period for the factual elections of the new coordinators has started a bit earlier than I expected. For what it's worth, as the "instigator" of the proposed coordinators, the purpose of having them is not to try to impose any sort of "discipline" on the various projects relating to Christianity, but just to ensure that things like assessment, peer review, portal maintainance, and other similar directly project-related functions get peformed for all the various projects relating to Christianity. If there are any individuals with this project who are already doing such activities for the project, and who want to take on the role more formally, I think nominations are being held open until the end of the elections themselves. And, for the purposes of this election, any member in good standing of any of the Christianity projects can either be nominated or express their votes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should Project include people who are not Saints?

I have noticed that the WikiProject Saints include people that are not canonized Saints, such as Thomas Merton and Pope John Paul II. Should these stay in here or be removed? --Minimidgy (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

They should stay. The difference is a matter of including those who have been declared servant of god, venerable, or beatified by the Roman Catholic church. Their standards for "sainthood" are rather stricter than those of some other churches, and the standards of some of those other churches are roughly the same as those "lower levels" of sainthood in the RC church, and, in the interests of fairness, people who are recognized at any of those levels is included as well. So are any other individuals celebrated in any recognized Christian liturgical calendars. John Carter (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saints?!

I'm just curious how angels qualify for saints? And how do people expect to write a biography for then, what with not being actual people.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Tradition is the answer to both questions. -- Secisek (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Tradition?! But saints get canonised! And it does not answer the second question of biography ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Many saints are are seen as such without undergoing a Canonisation process. Many Roman ones are pre-congregation. Anglican and Orthodox saints are named such by local authorities, not a canonisation process. Many saints (including the angels) are considered such because tradition has always named them such. All three major episcopal branches (Orthodox, Roman, and Anglican) agree on this. A biography of an angel can be written based off what has traditionaly been recorded about them, just as many "real life" human saints must rely on tradition for their bios. This is still valuable info so long it is presented as "traditional" and not as "historical". -- Secisek (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the trouble is that many (most) of the angels are Biblical in origin and are completely outside of the Christian tradition! In the Jewish tradition they are incorporeal--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not correct to say that they are "outside the Christian tradition". In the Jewish tradition some of them are physical and the same can be said for Islam. Their percieved physical nature is irrelavent when discussing tradition portrayals anyhow. -- Secisek (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are outside the Christian tradition because they predate it! They were incorporated into Christianity, but substantially changed. They are never corporeal in the Jewish tradition. The corporeality is very relevant because they are depicted as human beings in the Christian tradition, but not in the Jewish tradition. I'd say this is very different.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus is a prophet in Islam and the second person of the trinity in Christianity but to suggest that they are not the same figure is incorrect. Very different views, indeed, but the same figure nonetheless. -- Secisek (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That may well be, but we are not talking about Islam. Saints and angels have different categories, they are different concepts and differently conceptualised, and it seems to me they need separate articles.

Did you read the link I provided? These are not seperate categories, angels are a sub-category of saints. Do you think in all the years the Michael article has existed nobody has noticed this "oversight"? St Michael the Archangel is a saint and an angel. You are arguing this from a misunderstanding of the terms as they are historically understood. Perhaps sub articles Michael in Judaism or Michael in Islam could be spun off, but seperate angel and saint articles on the same "man" do not make sense. -- Secisek (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tradition is basically the answer. Presumably, those angels which did not fall are morally perfect, and thus qualify as "saints" in that way. Also, for what it's worth, there is the separate manner of whether they are included in any Christian liturgical calendars. Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and maybe some of the others are. As they tend to be named "Saint" X in those calendars, it is reasonable to categorize them as saints, because they meet the criteria for inclusion, being both called "saint" and being included in at least one Calendar of Saints. John Carter (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for the past participation in editing or not of the articles that deal with archangels and angels, but the fact is that in Judaism they are archangels, and are not a subcategory of saints, for which there is no similar concept at all. Therefore at least in one faith the angel and the saint are not one and the same. The tradition is therefore all Christian, and therefore the article is not written from a neutral point of view. It seems to me that the best way to solve this is to retain the archangel article as one that represents the tradition of Judaism where the concept and term are derived from, and to create a new article for Saint Michael as a Christian saint where the tradition for that term is derived from. This is more evidently the way to go because Judaism does not have the concept of "fallen angels" as does Christianity.

The reason I suggest this is because I am planning to expand the article Jewish angelic hierarchy, and as you see the angels there are somewhat in a different concept to Christian saints--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't mentioned which article you're talking about here yet, so we can't really answer you. Please specify. John Carter (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I started the discussion in Michael (archangel), but it really concerns Category:Archangels and Category:Individual angels where they are sourced from the Tanakh. It seems strange that the Saint Michael (disambiguation) is fro Saint Michael, and all the articles are referring to the saint, but the main article is Michael (archangel)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
And just what exactly is your propossal? For what it's worth, I can't see creating a separate article for Saint Michael the archangel, as that describes substantially the same subject, and there isn't any particular need to separate them. Regarding the articles on angels in Judaism, there might be a bit of a problem there. I only say that because with the exceptions of I think Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael, and maybe a very few others, all of them incorporate text relating to both the Jewish tradition from which they derive and the later Christian tradition. As the Christian conception pretty much includes the entirety of the Jewish conception, barring I imagine a very few cases where Jewish content relating to the subject was developed after the life of Jesus, I honestly can't see the problem. If you're objecting to the categorization, if the article includes content relating to the subject, then it is clearly a relevant category. That isn't to say that other categories can't be used as well, if they deal with separate matters, and being both a saint and angel are basically separate matters. What are your specific proposed alterations to the other articles? I haven't seen a clear statement of what you're proposing yet. I certainly can see having the Category:Archangels be differentiated. Alternately, considering that there are, to my knowledge anyway, only occasional references in the New testament to them in the NT, much of that information could be included in an article rather than a category. But it would help very much if you were as specific as possible. If you're really discussing matters relating to the Category:Archangels, you'd probably want to move the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity, considering that subject is a matter of interest to all of Christianity. Also, considering at least Gabriel is mentioned in Islam, we'd probably want the input of WikiProject Islam as well about any proposed changes. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


You are also incorrect when you state "The corporeality is very relevant because they are depicted as human beings in the Christian tradition, but not in the Jewish tradition. I'd say this is very different.-"

The Jewish Encyclopedia states,

“ Though superhuman, they assume human form. This is the earliest conception. Gradually, and especially in post-Biblical times, they come to be bodied forth in a form corresponding to the nature of the mission to be fulfilled—generally, however, the human form. They bear drawn swords or destroying weapons in their hands—one carries an ink-horn by his side—and ride on horses (Num. xxii. 23, Josh. v. 13, Ezek. ix. 2, Zech. i. 8 et seq.). A terrible angel is the one mentioned in I Chron. xxi. 16, 30, as standing "between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand." In the Book of Daniel, probably written 165 B.C., reference is made to an angel "clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz: his body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in color to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude" (Dan. x. 5, 6). It is an open question whether at that time angels were imagined to possess wings (Dan. ix. 21). ”

Furthermore, the tradition of fallen angels not only exists in Judaism, it was the basis for the Christian Islamic beilef. Jewish scholarship describes, "Fallen angels (were) progenitors of hosts of evil spirits and seducers of men to crime and vice. Still, they were finally subjugated by the power of heaven, and punished by the archangels Raphael and Gabriel, and consequently a knowledge of their names would enable one to control them. Azazel was the leader of the rebellion, and the chief debaucher of women; and his place of punishment was in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, by the rocks of Bet Haduda where the scapegoat was cast down: this shows the legend to be of ancient Judean origin (compare with this the reading of the chapter on incestuous marriages on the Day of Atonement, and the song of the maiden in Ta'anit, iv. 8). According to the other, Samiaza, or Samḥazai, is the chief seducer. He forms the center of rabbinical groups of legends (see Grünbaum, "Z. D. M. G." xxi. 225248). As the story is presented in Enoch, the two rebel leaders, when they take the oath on Mount Hermon to subvert the rule of heaven, have each ten chieftains and one hundred angels at their command. But the punishment they receive at the hands of Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel does not altogether annihilate them. Uzza (Samḥazai) and Azael (Azazel) still betray the secrets of heaven to King Solomon as they did in Enoch's time (see Jellinek, "B. H." ii. 86; compare with "B. H." v. 173). Some angels were afterward guilty of betraying divine secrets heard from behind the curtain (, Ber. 18b), and were, therefore, expelled from their positions (see Gen. R. l., lxviii.)."

Let us not pretend the major interpretation are as far as you would have us believe. --Secisek (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC) --18:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1521&letter=A&search=angels

[edit] Bernard of Clairvaux

Bernard of Clairvaux needs a review before a GA nomination. Take a look, please. -- Secisek (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Question of Style

there is a straw poll underway at Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church#Capitalization_of_.22Church.22 regarding the style guidelines for capitalization of church bodies. Pastordavid (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of articles needing cleanup

We now have a list of articles which have been tagged by this project with one or more cleanup tags at Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints/Cleanup listing. Please feel free to do any work you can to address the existing problems there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup listing, feedback

Roughly a month ago, I created a cleanup listing for this WikiProject. I have now updated the list with a new data snapshot of May 24. Also, the list format has slightly changed.

On this occassion, I would like to ask you for feedback about this kind of listings. (I am currently evaluating whether it makes sense to offer them on a larger scale.) Did you find the listing useful for your project work? Does it reasonably lead you to articles that you can clean up? What could be improved about the content or formatting of the list?

As a side note, if the listings are too long when generated for the entire project, I can also generate them for individual workgroups, which might be easier to handle.

Please leave your comments at User talk:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)