This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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. evrik21:48, 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 Spackman11:54, 28 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 Spackman11:54, 28 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 Spackman11:54, 28 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. Dogface15:59, 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. Geogre21:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
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:
Bernardino da Siena
I removed back the prayer. I think you should reconsider weel the thing on the Wikiproject about saints, or what (don't know well). It is undoubtably NPOV material, as well as totally not relevant. Attilios22:53, 27 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. Dogface15:58, 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.
Prayers are NPOV
Latest comment: 18 years ago44 comments15 people in discussion
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. Attilios22:57, 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. Dogface15:55, 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)
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. Dogface16:01, 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. Attilios16:14, 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. Dogface20:35, 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
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 Schonken16:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Preventing an edit war on the saints
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.
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.
anyone is welcome to join, and if it is limited to Chritians then maybe we should recruit more people. --evrik16:48, 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. --evrik16:56, 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. --Trovatore16:50, 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)
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.
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. --Trovatore21:19, 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. Wesley19:18, 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 Tlön20:31, 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. AlexPlank00:57, 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. AlexPlank01:01, 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 Christopher22:06, 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. Geogre11:24, 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. Geogre03:44, 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. Geogre12:00, 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. Geogre14:06, 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. Geogre02:54, 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. JBogdan02:24, 11 September 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 Spackman02:55, 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 Lotz11:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Quality of saints articles poor and full of POV
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
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.
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.
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.
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 Spackman15:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Prayers in infobox (again!)
Latest comment: 18 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion
I would suggest that the section for a "prayer by the saint, or a characteristic prayer to the saint" should be removed. Having this section makes editors think it needs filling and often this means that an arbitrary prayer attributed to the saint is given undue prominence by being included in the infobox. This is causing unnecessary friction in a number of articles where some editors are adding prayers (for the good reason that there is a space in the infobox to do so) and others are removing them (for the equally good reason that it makes it look like wikipedia is actually encouraging veneration of the saint rather than merely reporting facts).
There are prayers specifically prescribed by church authorities to be used in veneration of particular saints but these can very easily be mentioned in the article text if needed, as can any particularly notable prayers penned by the saints themselves. Putting it in the main text gives more scope for explaining context as well. --Spondoolicks14:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
If there's a choice of prayers, why highlight one by putting it in the box? It makes it look like it's one of the fundamental pieces of info about the subject like name, DOB, etc. As Atilios tried to say in the John Bosco talk page, it would be strange to have a random selection of a poet's work picked out and placed in the infobox and it seems to me to be the same here. Anything you want to achieve by putting a prayer in the infobox can be achieved better by putting it in the text and adding more information. --Spondoolicks18:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I put this into the template because it existed in the original infobox. There was actually an extended discussion of this on the project talk page, whether to include it in the infobox or not, that predated the creation of the template. The consensus (more or less) was that they were OK to include since they were illustrative of either the saint's spirituality or of how a faith community venerates the saint, but that to be useful for either purpose it must be attributed. This is why it does not display if the attribution field is not filled in.
I have come to be of two minds on the subject and therefore don't feel strongly about it either way. Perhaps it would be worth inviting wider participation in the discussion by re-opening it on the project talk page. TCC(talk)(contribs)21:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I just had a look back at the discussion you mentioned (in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints/Archive3) and much of it seemed to be about whether prayers should be included full-stop and I don't think the specific problems of having them in the infobox were sufficiently addressed. I'm copying this discussion to the project talk page to carry on there (and I hope it doesn't get as messy as last time). --Spondoolicks21:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Lest I be accused of being unhelpful, I think that we include it in the infobox and have done with it. There are simple cultural, historical, and literary value in including a simple prayer. The anti-religeous editors will always try and remove it. I simply think our energy is better spent elsewhere. Dominick(TALK)23:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The trouble is that infoboxes are for placing individual facts and do not allow for any context. The prayers are being removed by people because they are placed without context and therefore it is unclear what they are there for. Putting them in the main text instead allows you to explain how it exemplifies some aspect of the saint's beliefs or whether it was prescribed by the church authorities or whatever other information is needed to put it into context. The trouble is that there are a number of different reasons why a prayer can usefully be put into an article, none of which can be explained if you just plonk it into the infobox. That is why they are causing revert wars and totally unnecessary friction. It is not religionists versus anti-religionists. --Spondoolicks10:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Unless someone comes up with some good reasons in the next few days why this section of the infobox should remain, I suggest we just get rid of it. --Spondoolicks16:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, always ready to play the devil’s advocate, I would say that there is a very good reason to include a prayer there: there where it cannot be contextualized or explained. The motive for including a prayer—preferably in a bad translation and without a very plausible citation, but don’t worry: choose a random merely pious site and and the prayer will probably be rubbish enough—is to say: “If you are not prepared to get down on your knees now and repeat these words, meaning what you say, and understanding that if you do not really mean what you say you are going to Hell, then you will probably find that the rest of this article worthless.” There are a lot of interesting articles in Wikipedia and it’s very useful to be given the hint (since [2]) that Wikipedia is not the place to look for an un-biased account of Saint Peter. I can look elsewhere, or I can choose a different subject. Yes a prayer in the infobox is a very useul hint. ;) [Did I really wink?] [Yes I did.] —Ian Spackman00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
OK I had my fun in my last post. But think infoboxes. If I were a mountaineer writing about K2 I’d probably want to find somewhere in the infobox to say: ”This is one hell of a fucking mountain”. If the infobox included an awesomness factor I could avoid profanity and just enter 5.73 billion percent. But I can’t do either. And, hang on, I am a royalist and I want to include the second verse of God save the Queen into the Lizzie II of England Box. But I am denied the opportunity. And the Fidel Castro article doesn’t give me the opportunity to indicate in his box how adorable he is. WTF? Does Wikipedia have to be so bland? Well, yes it does, really. It’s just an encyclopedia. Dull, but useful. (Or so we hope.)—Ian Spackman01:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Except on the talk pages.
Well, it doesn't seem as if anyone is speaking up for them at this point, and I'm non-committal about them. One advantage of the infobox template is that the relevant arguments can just be removed from it and they will no longer be displayed; actually cutting them from the articles can be done at leisure. I'll make the cut in a day or two if there's been no controversy here in the meantime. TCC(talk)(contribs)03:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Prayers
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The prayer matter seems to be contreversial. OK, I can agree that an "example" prayer can be illustrative. However, Aloysius Gonzaga contained THREE prayers, and also rather long. What is this, a prayer book?!?! --Attilios13:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's a bit much. I notice that for some recent RC saints, their articles are rather more hagiographic than are tolerable under NPOV. I take this to be another example of that. TCC(talk)(contribs)03:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Clarification - Notability
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Question: what constitutes Notability when dealing with a saint? Has the wikiproject already addressed this question, and if so where? If a saint who is observed only locally notable? What about a saint about whom very little info is known beyond name/date? I only ask for clarification as to what extent and how WP:BIO and WP:N are applied to saints, and to see if the topic has been approached here before. Thanks -- Pastordavid20:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it has, having looked over the archived talk pages. Actually, I tend to think that it is kind of a non-issue for saints. The impression I got is that any saint or group of saints who are included in a dictionary or encylopedia of saints automatically qualify on that basis. As someone from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedia articles, I get the definite impression from the article pages that any subject that has an entry in an encyclopedia automatically qualifies as significant. Presumably, any such directory of saints including more than simply the name (like in Martyrs of Uganda, for instance) would on that basis qualify as significant. The same general rule seems to apply to all encyclopedic entries. John Carter21:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
I noted two of the three listed saints of this religion have already had the project banner laced on their pages, so I added it to Victor Hugo, the third saint, as well. I note that Lê Văn Trung is refered to by the title of Venerable on the Ngô Văn Chiêu page, although I have no way of knowing whether that title is honorable or formal. Also, I note on the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 15#Category:Christian saints, that it was suggested that those who are currently classified as "saints" of other faiths be referred to by the specific internal name, be it Bodhisattva, Arhat, Sant, Avatar, Alvar, Tzaddik, Wali, etc. Do the other members of this project believe it would be a good idea to rename any categories these individuals might be placed in and perhaps add those new subcats to the Category: Saints, and, also, would they like to see the scope of the project expand to include them? John Carter22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I think we have more on our plate than we can handle as it is right now ... I wouldn't really want to add more. Most of our membership, tools, language, and guidelines are geared for Christian saints. This would have to all be reconsidered. -- Pastordavid19:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
No disagreement here about trying to add too much to the project's plate. However, we do have the problem of the Cao Dai saints being added to the project by others. I note that there has been a proposed work group for the Biography project to deal with religious figures. Should we perhaps try to maybe encourage the development of that work group, which would probably be a bit better at dealing with the subjects of non-Christian "saints"? John Carter15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It's true we've got a lot to handle, but this is something that needs to be taken care of. Perhaps we should change our project name to "Christian saints" to make our focus clearer, and encourage the bio project to take care of the non-Christian saints in the way John Carter suggests.--Cúchullaint/c21:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - for issues of clarity, because many/most of us members are probably less than qualified to address matters of holy people of other faiths. John Carter16:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Request for clarity - I applaud your desire to refocus the project, but consider: a saint is someone who cares more about the whole world than himself (just as a patriot cares more about his country than himself or a "family man" cares more about his family than himself. I don't know for sure that only Christians have shown this level of love, and I hesitate lest "we Christians" become "too proud of ourselves". But I'm glad you asked for the straw poll, because now we are focused on the scope of the project, and that's always a good thing. --Uncle Ed02:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
As noted above, I believe that the various categories for "saints" of other faiths would probably be best renamed to use the word actually used by those faiths, whether it be Avatar, Alvar, Wali, or whatever. Certainly, I would have no objections to seeing biographies of holy people of other faiths given the same sort of treatment as Christian saints. However, I do note that many of us, myself included, are not particularly qualified to work on articles relating to Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, or other saints, generally because of comparatively less knowledge about the religious background of these individuals. Also, I would really question whether those other faiths would want to use the same infobox as the Christian saints. For such biographies of holy people, I think it might work better if task forces within the WikiProject(s) for that specific religion were created to deal with them, as those editors would likely know more about the other subjects relevant to the biographies than the predoniminantly Christian editors in this project do. John Carter14:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - the project is chiefly oriented around Christian saints, and the title should be clearer. --Grimhelm16:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Other religions appear to have adopted the term "saint", possibly because there is no other synonym in English. Sort of similar to "Church" (<Greek "Lord's {house)"); originally a Christian term, now used by the Church of Satanism, Church of Scientology, Wiccan Church of Canada, etc. --SigPig |SEND - OVER17:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, as I said above (now below). We can't ignore the articles for non-Christians who are considered saints. The only other option is to change the scope of the project to include them, but we have a great deal on our plate already.--Cúchullaint/c17:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support -- I agree, the vast majority of the world knows the word "saint" in association with Christianity. I think the change is justified.--Lord Balin18:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I note that the "oppose" votes fall into two groups: a small minority that wants the scope of the project to include non-Christian saints, and a larger group that claims there are no non-Christian saints. I think the second group is just wrong, and the fact that there are so many more of them than the first group seems to make the first group's project unlikely to happen. --Trovatore09:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Given the current actual focus of the project, "Christian saints" is much more appropriate. Also, renaming it this way allows WPs to form for "Buddhist saints" or "Muslim saints" (I don't know what the special names for these would be), and without having to deal with the encumbrance and possible POV issues of the articles being policed by a slew of people mostly interested in Christian hagiography. Alekjdstalk16:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, saints are christian virtually by definition; usage in application to non christian holy figures is so rare and controversial that "christian" can be regarded as redundant. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)17:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, I don't see the point in limiting the project. In addtion to those mentioned by our Martian brother/sister below, there are Sufi saints and Jain saints as well.-E. abu Filumena18:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. "Saint" is a word coined by English-speaking Christians, from an Ecclesiastical Latin term applied to people in its currently understood sense exclusively by Christians until relatively recent times Then it became misapplied by bigoted English speakers who didn't want to take the trouble to learn what words (generally not cognates for "saint") natively used by different religions for their memorialized holy people. "Muslim saint" or "Jewish saint" makes as much sense as "Christian wali" or "Christian tzadik". At least some Muslims and Jews would certainly be offended by such usage, as I'm offended by the converse. (Neither "wali" nor "tzadik", nor the Hindu "sant", Buddhist "arhat" or "bodhisatva", etc. are cognate with the basic sense of "saint". TCC(talk)(contribs)22:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I wasn't trying to indicate that there was a virtual identity between terms of various religions, and my apologies if that impression was given or received. However, those terms were the ones referenced in a previous discussion cited above, and I was only including them on that basis. The fact that there are such pronounced differences between the various faiths, as well as for the various terms they use, is to my eyes one of the best reasons to try to separate out the various biographies of holy people, so that editors who have knowledge about the specific details of the various religions are the ones who contribute to those biographies. As noted above, my own comparative lack of knowledge of many of these subjects I think disqualifies at least me, and possibly several other editors, from competently working on biographies of holy people from other faiths, whether they erroneously occasionally use the word "saint" or not. John Carter14:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. "Saint" does have a specific meaning within Christianity; other faiths typically have other names for their revered religious figures. Common usage doesn't justify the change. Even though many books are referred to as the "Bible" for this or that subject, we still have a plain "Bible" article. There should be a simple 'see also' section for religious figures in other religions that might seem superficially similar to Christian saints. Wesley22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Let`s keep it as it is. It will do us all good to realise there are people who have achieved a kind of sanctity from other religious traditions than our own...Andycjp23:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
OpposeThe term comes from the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, where it is used to refer to all the holy people of of God. This is our own (wikipedian) definition of Saint ([3]). I think that the term Saint is directly related to Christianity. Any other use of the term is borrowing from us (christians) and therefore they should have to make any amendments of clarity.Rowlan09:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. The subject of saints exists here as a supercategory that while a strong majority of Wikipedia saints are Christian, there is still a negligible existence of other saints here to merit breakaway wiki-projects at this time. I think the current Saints Project should be all-inclusive for now. --MerkurIX(이야기하세요!)(투고)02:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. After having read through the arguments for both sides, I agree that "Saint" is an exclusively Christian term, so the title of the project should be kept, and the focus redefined to reflect the exclusively Christian nature of what a "saint" is. Alekjdstalk19:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Merkurix. There's no need to be exclusive, let's handle all saints for now. If it gets to the point that some other group of non-Christian saints has enough critical mass to warrant a separate WikiProject, then they can be split off as a child WikiProject in the future, but I don't think it's a big enough problem that we need to separate things out right now. --Elonka19:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment As Pastordavid said above, "Most of our membership, tools, language, and guidelines are geared for Christian saints". This would have to be changed to treat the non-Christian articles in the way they deserve, and this would take time and effort when we have a lot to deal with already. The only reason we've been able to put it off for so long is the dearth of articles on non-Christian saints.--Cúchullaint/c18:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we have contacted the Biography project for the purposes of encouraging the creation of a religious figures work group. One had in fact already been proposed there earlier. We have, however, yet to receive any response. If you want to encourage such a group, please leave a message on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography page. John Carter18:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I asked; I'm sorry if I was not clear. If we create another project called "Christian Saints", where will the Saints of Non-Christian religions go? If there are sub projects based on denomination "Sufi saints" for instance, I would support it. However, I would not support saints of Non-Christian religions claiming the title "Project:Saints" while Christian Saints are pushed off into a subset of the same project. --Mike Searson19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Edit to Add...I see there are categories already for Non-Christian Saints...I would probably support this change if "Project:Saints" is removed altogether and the projects are by denomination/faith, etc.--Mike Searson19:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Will we be changing Categories like Category:French saints to Category:French Christian saints? (if this change is made?) --Polylerus19:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment To explicate my oppose vote above a bit further, I also contend that "saint" violates WP:NPOV since it assumes that the word and its sense "holy" is and ought to be normative for all religions, when this is certainly not the case. For Muslims, "wali" is short for "waliullah" which means "friend of God". Jewish "tzadik" are "righteous". Hindu "sant" means "one who knows" and is cognate more with "sage" than the "saint" it superficially resembles. "Bodhisattva" means "enlightened being". "Arhat" means "worthy one" to Hindus, Jain and Buddhists; the last apply it almost exclusively to the Buddha himself. None of these denotes "holy" even if they imply it, and I strongly believe it's incorrect to use it merely for our own linguistic convenience. TCC(talk)(contribs)22:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. That is why I believe that the articles dealing with people from other religions should not be handled by the members of this project. As stated above, I would have no objections to, and probably actually welcome, the projects relating to other faiths to actively work on the biographies of relevant parties, as they would be more likely to know more about the subjects. Also, please note that the only category I created was the Category:Non-Christian saints, and that I only put those articles of individuals who were already classified by others as saints in it. Again, I would welcome seeing the projects related to other religions take up those articles instead, and leave us to those which deal with the faith tradition the majority of the editors of this project know best, which seems to be Christianity. John Carter16:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And I was with you right up until the part where you pull out the rule book to support your POV. Well, I guess it's our point of view, but still . . . . . . . . . ....... let's have this discussion without the rules, okay? Carptrash22:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
If you can give a good reason why we should apply a Christian label to people in other religions, where those religions do not use a label of the same meaning themselves, I might change my mind about that. But otherwise, does it not impose a Christian (or at least a Western) POV to do so? TCC(talk)(contribs)22:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Reponse - Personally, I myself question why and how these people of other faiths were categorized by the incorrect word "saints" in the first place, as it is a misuse of the word. However, I really don't think it should be the job of this project to attempt to define how and when the word can ever be used in wikipedia. If we were able to change the content of the Saints article, as well as adding the word "Christian" to the project's name, then I think that we would probably be able to reduce the chance of this discussion happening again. And, again, I personally think it would be best if either the Biography project made a workgroup for general religious figures or the projects of other specific faiths created biography task forces to deal with individuals those faiths consider whatever is their approximation of "saints", to eliminate such discussions as this ever taking place again. John Carter16:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not a misuse of language, it's the normal evolution of language that the meaning of words shifts to encompass related new concepts. See e.g. corn in BrE (where it means any cereal, but originally did not include maize, which was unknown in Europe) and AmE (where it now nearly exclusively denotes maize). Or engineer (how many software engineers have anything to do with engines?). I'm certain a linhuist could give a lot of better examples. --Stephan Schulz16:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: It really depends on what the scope of the project is. If it restricts itself to Christianity, I see no reason not to rename it. If it is about all peple considered Saints by some religion (and there is plenty of evidence that these exist above), leave it. --Stephan Schulz09:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Considering the points brought up above, perhaps we should first sort out the content of the main Saint article before considering the scope of this project. --Grimhelm15:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Response - If I felt at all competent to do such editing, I would do so myself. Maybe we could contact the members of the projects for specific religions for their input regarding the content relating to individuals from their traditions? John Carter16:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Totals to date 12 support the change, 9 oppose the change, 2 are neutral. I don't know enough to know whether that is sufficient to support the proposed change or not. Please advise. John Carter18:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Compromise
I would say that there is not enough support for a name change, we are pretty evenly divided. However, given the comments that accompanied peoples votes, perhaps the following would work as a compromise:
Keep the name the same.
Explicitly define "saints" as we deal with them as a Christian concept (there is nothing that says our definition, for sake of the scope of our project, needs match Saint).
Let other faiths handle those who would be equivelant to saints in the way that they deem most appropriate.
I like it. The only thing I might consider adding would be maybe changing the Saints article to more explicitly reflect the evidently serious differences between the words used by other faiths and the word "saint". I could live if that didn't happen, though. John Carter19:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm down with that. Though I don't know that the "saint" article needs changing- we're an encyclopedia, not a dictionary- as such we should strive to record topics and list them under a recognizable name, rather than try to record names and then list all the various definitions of that name. In other words, rather than trying to shift the focus of the "Saint" article to make it include every possible use of the term "saint", we should instead focus on the concept it already deals with (i.e. extraordinary dead Christians), and perhaps add another section redirecting the reader to appropriate articles for individuals of other cultures also called saints. Similarly, our article on African Americans doesn't talk about every American who happens to have roots in Africa just because the name might imply it, it's about a specific ethnic group.--Cúchullaint/c05:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
What I was thinking of might have been along the lines of "for roughly equivalent people in Hinduism, see alvar and avatar", or something like that. That way, readers would know that there is information about such people on wikipedia, but at different pages. John Carter14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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.Balloonman01:43, 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.Balloonman21:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Categorization of Protestant "saints"?
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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 Carter13:56, 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. Pastordavid15:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. Mamalujo23:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
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 Carter15:08, 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. Alekjdstalk20:24, 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). Pastordavid20:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. Mamalujo19:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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?--Cúchullaint/c20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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 · Talk22:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)
Saints?!
Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion
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)
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.
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)
\(caint) 17:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)