Talk:List of exorcists

More Exorcists

I have two other Exorcists, Father Vincenzo (Chiesa San Martino ai Monti in Rome) and Francois-Marie Dermine that would be wonderful to add to this page. Their contact information is listed below. Also, may I add exorcists that are performing exorcisms in the United States. Some of them have websites and help people remotely or via email. I am wondering if we can also add an U.S. Exorcists Section. There are those residing in the U.S. that perform exorcisms. Since this page is a list of exorcists, it would be nice to see exorcists that are performing at this time included. Is this possible if I do the research for it? Also, how do I add a page section for new exorcists? (As in, link to a page for that particular exorcist)

CHIESA SAN MARTINO AI MONTI (THE CHURCH OF SAN MARINO AI MONTI) ITALY, ROME ROMAN CATHOLIC EXORCIST

LOCATED NEAR CHIESA SANTA MARIA MAGGIORE VIA LIBERIANA, 27

FRANCOIS-MARIE DERMINE PAROCCHIA S. DOMINICO VIA ZAPATA 3 60191 ANCONA TELEPHONE: O7120211 CELL: 3490723440 EMAIL: fm.dermine@tin.it

An exorcist who specializes in experiences that seem Universal in nature. I was recommended to him by Father Vincenzo, who maintained that Francois-Marie Dermine requires an introductory e-mail first. Please respect his wishes.

Yes, a section on American exorcists would be useful. To add a section type the section heading in highlight it and then use the capital A button which will make the text a new section heading. Otherwise look under the heading on this page "More Exorcists" to see how it looks using the minus sign. Dwain (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Jindal added to list.

I found some interesting articles on this topic about Bobby Jindal. tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/bobby_jindals_dance_with_the_d.php cenlamar.wordpress.com/about-cenlamar/lamediawatch/bobby-jindal-the-story-they-dont-want-you-to-read/ newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1294-jindal

Notability?

I'm unsure if this article is actually noteworthy enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, given that it's little more than an arbitrary - and limited - list. However, I'm willing to help out with expanding the article if it would help with establishing some notability and provide some meaningful content. Please don't hesitate to ask if I can be of such help.

On a side note, it's good practice to sign your messages on talk pages such as this. You can do this by simply typing ~~~~ immediately after your message. Please also try not to include any email addresses in your messages, as they can be picked up by spam bots. Thanks. KaySL (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I Second a vote of review on Notability here, given that the article states every priest prior to the Second Vatican Council would have received this title. Is the goal to list every catholic priest?Dkriegls (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• The list is noteworthy and frankly the only one of its kind on the internet. The subject matter is notable and interesting. Most of the people included in the list are notabl people in their fields and already have articles. A list is actually a different entity than an article, but it is good an provides a service by grouping people who have similar attibutes in one place where people can find others and browes throught them. An article on exorcism would be where the subject is discussed. And an article on the individuals would discuss those people. This is not the only list on Wikipedia. Dwain (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Should not be deleted.

This list should not be deleted. It is of interest and is the only list of its kind online. Definate keep. Dwain (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dwain, please read WP:PROD. I consider your removal of the proposed deletion tag to be in bad faith because you did not address the WP:Notability issues stated in the deletion proposal. Your text change was un-cited and provided no greater clarity on the matter from a reliable/independent source. The point you make about it being the only such list of its kind online only highlights that fact that this information is not notable and consists of original research in violation of Wikipedia policy. For reference, "of interest" is not a sufficient inclusion criterion for Wikipedia articles. This list may very well meet Wikipedia inclusion criterion, but none have been presented here. Instead of protesting, I suggest you do some research and find a reason this list meets WP:Notability. May I suggest starting here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists). I thank you in advance for continuing this discussion in good faith. Dkriegls (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your insulting remark. Just because you don't agree with my reasoning does not give you the right to suggest my following of the terms on the tag as a bad faith edit. I suggest you read good faith. I noticed you started articles about family members and included yourself in the articles, now that is bad faith, and just because one person felt that this was "okay," doesn't mean that that is. The reason I bring up these problematic issues is because here you are citing authoritatively about Wikipedia policy as you go around breaking it elsewhere. Again, your conclusions and reasoning is questionable and your insulting accusation of a "bad faith" action on my part quite insulting. I will thank you in advance not to attack me like that again. Thanks! Dwain (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dwain, I've decided not to press this issue any more. I've reworded the intro using your text from the Catholic section, so that the whole page has a more clear inclusion criterion. It may meet the Navigation criterion for lists now, but I suggest you buff it up with some reliable/independent sources discussing the matter. Dkriegls (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

:After writing the immediate above, I see you've posted a response during the interim that I interpret as highly emotional. My intent was not to attack you, but to cite you for not addressing the WP:Notability issues raised with the deletion tag, and making a unilateral decision to remove the prod with no discussion. This was not a matter of me disagreeing with your "reasoning", because you made no reference to notability. "of interest and is the only list of its kind online", did not address that issue. The issue still stands, but I believe that there are likely independent/third party sources out there that could justify this list. I suggest not attacking an editor back as a means to aggrieve a perceived attack, it only leads in a downward spiral. I was cited for the violations you mentioned, made aware of the policy, and have not violated it since being made aware of it. There are a lot of policies on Wikipedia and we both are likely to fall short of one or two again in the future.Dkriegls (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dwain, sorry if you felt insulted. The issue is passed and this page should be reserved for discussions of the list. Dkriegls (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)