Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints/Archive5

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

The "patron saint" concept simply is not part of Orthodox Christianity. The vast majority of Saints are simultaneously "patrons" of nothing and of everything. The whole "patron saint" system is primarily a Roman Catholic invention with little credence outside of the Pope of Rome's followers. Dogface 23:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Sure, but that's of interest to say that, traditionally, the Roman Catholic church has considered such or such saint to be a patron saint for certain activities. This is not an endorsement that this is really true, or that such this concept applies outside the Roman Catholic church. David.Monniaux 13:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • "Patron Saint" is very much part of Orthodox Christianity. We (Orthodox Christians) all have our Patron Saint based on our Christian name. Also, as Orthodox monk's are tonsured they change their name and Patron Saint as required.
    • This response illustrates my point quite nicely. The Western-style "patron Saint" is so foreign to Orthodox Christianity that when an Orthodox Christian claims that we have "patron Saints" he refers to something utterly unlike how the West uses the term. Yes, we have individual Saintly patrons as Orthodox Christians, but they are not "patron Saints". Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco is my eldest son's patron, but St John is not "The Patron Saint of <foo>", where "foo" is a specific activity or profession. To explain to my fellow Orthodox: When a Westerner uses the term "patron Saint", the meaning usually means that the Saint is specifically concerned with a particular profession, activity, or condition. While a few Orthodox saints might be so associated, in general, this is not the case. We Orthodox have Saints as individual patrons, which is different from the "portfolio patron" practice of the West. Dogface 19:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Biography portal

I've created Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Biography to see if anyone else thinks it's a good idea and would be willing to participate. It's still just a rough sketch of an idea. Matt 01:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, why is it that the bible clearly says that those who believed in, and followed Jesus Christ, were called " Saints!"

Why is it that we don't follow what the bible teaches, rather than the spin good intentioned religious persons place upon it?

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

[edit] Non-Christian Saints

Are there any wikipedians interested in expanding this project to cover Non-Christian Saints? --

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

[edit] Consultant

Just dropping in to offer my services as a consultant should anyone require them. -- Essjay · Talk 03:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] List of Saints

[edit] new list

I started a List of canonizations, as a place to put a list of dates and RC saints. Needs fleshing out, but its a start (and provides a needed navigation tool thingy) Morwen - Talk 22:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Saints

Could be come a featured list if done right. As a start how about adding the Pope than canonized the Saint and the year they were canonized to the list. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to reiterate the reply I added to Talk:List of saints, while I agree that some historical context would be useful I don't think these particular items would be for the best. Not all saints were canonized by a Pope of Rome. For that matter, many saints weren't canonized at all. Approximate date of death, if known, might be more appropriate. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Decanonized saints

I think there's a problem with this category, or at least its name. Most of the entries have been removed from it (only a few by me). Even the category summary says its supposed to contain articles on saints who have not actually been decanonized, but whose feast days have been removed from the calendar. Some of the articles (Saint Sarah) deal with people who were never even considered saints. In the very least the category should be renamed to more clearly reflect what's supposed to be in it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Defrocked? De-winged? De-haloed? How about "Saints who have been removed from the Calendar of Saints"? I think it's a good category to keep, but I agree it's poorly named; my suggestion may be mildly better, but still strikes me as awkward. Then again, a lot of category titles strike me as awkward. --SigPig 07:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Invitation

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

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

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

[edit] Saints' days

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

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

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

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

[edit] National saints

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

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

• Saint Botvid
• Helena of Skövde

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Catholic Encyclopedia articles

I'm in the middle of categorising missing Catholic Encyclopedia articles, and as part of that I've put red links from the Catholic Encyclopedia that relate to Saints. I hope that this will be useful, if you see already done please redirect the articles. Wikipedia:Catholic_Encyclopedia_cat_Saints JASpencer 19:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Saints category

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

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

Well, I created the category Saints from the Holy Land. I can't decide what to do with the Asia Minor articles, so I'll let someone else worry about it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, a bit digressive, but I have a question about category saints from the Holy Land. On Wikimedia Commons, some one claimed my discategorization of St. Paul of Tarsus from this category and reverted my edit. In my understanding he was from the Asia Minor, and not from the Holy Land (Palestine), even if he spent a long time there. How do you think about it? --Aphaia 07:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I can see him being included in both Asia Minor, his place of birth, and Palestine/the Holy Land. Certainly, his connection to the Holy Land is a matter of more than a little importance to the subject, and it seems reasonable to me that an outsider might find having him included in that category as well useful. John Carter 13:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for constructive suggestion. I'll bring it back and try to make a compromise. -Aphaia 09:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Roman Catholic saints

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

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

[edit] Articles for Deletion: various

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

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

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

[edit] Lutheran Calendar of Saints

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

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

[edit] Gloriole.svg

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

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

[edit] Project Directory

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] "Middle" Calendar of Saints?

Hello! I've been researching the Calendar of Saints for a computer program I work on in my spare time. I noticed we have an article for the Traditional calendar (Pre 1955-1962 reforms) and one for the modern calendar (after 1962). The Traditional article says that some Catholics still use that traditional calendar, but more commonly use the version completed after 1962. Unless I've misunderstood, that means there is a calendar between the traditional and modern ones that is in use but we don't have an article for it. I also can't find one online after doing some searching. Could anyone provide information on it? {This is the statement, from the Traditional Catholic Calendar article: This calendar, or, more commonly, the further reform of 1962, is still used by traditionalist Catholics. } Thank you, Liastnir 03:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Portal:Saints

I've done a little work to the above portal to put some content on autorotation as some other portals do. I'm also going through all the articles in the category to see if there are any more Did you knows and the like. But I would greatly appreciate help with the Quotes and News sections, as I have a feeling that they need to have their content acquired through means I don't currently know about. John Carter 21:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Saints identified and distinguished

Dear WikiProject Saints, there is some confusion regarding some Saints and New Testament figures bearing the same name. Some seem to be identified or distinguished without consistency. The main issue I am referring to is the different James (but Jude/Judas is also a problem).

My suggestion is to have one article for any person appearing in the sources under a single name and to note the further identies in the articles. Re the Jameses that would mean having an article on James the Great, James the Just, James the other Apostle and James the Less. The problem is that currently, the other Apostle James is found under Saint James the Less.

I have created an article solely on the James the Less mentioned under that name and place it under James the Less, and stripped down Saint James the Less (I also did some much needed clean-up in this article) to the biblical personage of James, son of Alphaeus, including of course later traditions referring to this Apostle. A better place would be James, son of Alphaeus, but I didn't want to do this without having raised it here.

Another issue is the naming of these Saints. Should we include the term "Saint" in those article names? Is Saint James the Great really the best name for him, especially since his epithet actually means the Greater or Major (as opposed to a Minor) and not the Great (Magnus).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See my reply on your talk page and the Saint James the Less talk page. Pastordavid 16:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your questions on Wikiproject Saints: James the Less is almost universally identified with James of Alpheus. It is the minority opinion that links James the Less with James the Just (the brother of Jesus).

As for Saint in the article title. I have actually been moving articles away from that, per naming conventions for saints. However, the apostles might be worth keeping Saint in the title, as the few exceptions mentioned in the naming conventions. I say your choice - put it on the article talk page, and handle it the way you see best. Regardless, Saint James the Less and James the Less probably need to be merged.

As for James the Great, I don't know that that is the best title for him. I would actually go with James of Zebedee myself, since that is how most people know him (e.g., James and John, sons of Zededee). Hope this helps and doesn't just muddy the waters. Pastordavid 16:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I just re-read your question. I agree. Lets go with articles for (1) James the Great (whichever title), (2) James of Alpheus, (3) James the Just, and (4) James the Less. Then have (4) explain the various identifications with 3 & 2. I would be consistent across the four in the use of "Saint" in the titles (all or none). Pastordavid 16:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pastordavid (and whoever it may concern),

thanks for your replies, which I have moved here to keep the discussion in one place.

To address the easy things first, I think I would opt for leaving out the Saint from the article titles, for brevities sake. Certainly not because it conflicts with my POV - I think all these are saintly men. As for the Apostles that sound too short then we could include Apostle in their title (just as Matthew already is titled "Matthew the Evangelist").

Now, I agree with your proposal in the second posting. Actually, I would prefer to make the "John, son of Alphaeus" the main article for the Apostle, despite him being frequentl called "Jacobus Minor" in tradition, as this is his biblical name whereas the "Minor" only comes in through the identification with the son of Mary of Clopas. However, because of this naming in tradition, a workable alternative would be to proceed from the article James the Less and have first a section purely on his being mentioned in the NT (what the JtL article currently does) and then deal with the identification and then with the tradition about the "merged" saint. The remaining problem is the Apostle template: whom shall it link to?

I never was happy about having James the Less and Saint James the Less. My initial plan was to have James the Less and James, son of Alphaeus but I drew back from that, thinking it too big a change (not the least because of many redirects) to do on my own.

As for the name of the more famous Apostle James, I would opt for "James, son of Zebedee" too, as that is his name (and this would nicely correspond with a main article on "James, son of Alphaeus", if we decide that way. It we must chose a "Jacobus Major" name, I would prefer one that includes a comparative unless "the Great" is really really really the universally used expresseiion in English speaking countries.

One more thing: I think titles should say "X, son of Y" (even if the sources only say X of Y) unless there is a real doubt about this (as with the Judas Jacobi or Mary of Clopas).

Oh, and another one regarding the identification. The one between the son of Alphaeus and the son of Mary of Clopas basically universally sipped into tradition (also because we know nothing about any of the sons of Mary of Clopas) despite the difficulty about the father's names. The identification with the brother of the Lord only came later (though I think Papias already has it) and was only partly accepted. So from the perspective of common views it is not the choice to identify A with either B or C but to identify A/B with C or not. However, if I may state my personal view, I think that James the son of Mary of Clopas and the brother of the Lord may be the same (because of the peculiar form of the name in Mark) - I say may be, I haven't thought this through to the end yet - while I personally would reject the identification of Alphaus with Clopas and their sons with each other. But that's just my view and not what the articles need to present.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if I can cover everything:

• I agree, leave "Saint" out of the title.
• Four Articles: Zebedee, Alpheus, the Just, and Lesser.
• I agree on the qualifiers for the article names: "son of Zebedee" and "son of Alpheus"
• In my opinion, put the "apostle info" in the Alpheus article, as that is the NT designation - cross linking in the Lesser article should clear this up
• Have the Apostle template link to wherever the "apostle info" is at.
• The article on "the Lesser" would basically cover the dispute over who is meant, with cross-links to the main articles.
• I would need to look over the info more to agree or disagree about Clopas.

If you need help fixing re-directs on one of these articles, leave me a message. I should be around. Pastordavid 18:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. Agreed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed this thread. This same problem came to my attention last night, and I pretty much just threw my hands in the air over it. I think the confusion over the exact identification of certain figures is at least partly because they differ across traditions, usually relying on the word of different Church Fathers as authoritative. These should IMO be explicitly described in the articles rather than in the passive voice as is now usually done.

The rest of this looks good to me. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Interesting things on other pages

There is currently a discussion at the talk page for Saint Methodius about whether the article should be moved to Methodius, Apostle to the Slavs per naming conventions, or stay as Saint Methodius as the most well-known name/title. Input would be appreciated.

At the Christianity talk page and the Roman Catholic talk page there is a discussion going about the use of the Category "Christian denominations" and sub-cats. -- Pastordavid 22:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Categorization

We already have a few categories for specific kinds of saints like Category:Doctors of the Church, Category:Papal saints, and the like. Should we try to extend the number of such categories or not? And, if so, where? I personally think some of the big grouping (martyr, for instance) would probably be virtually useless, but something like Category: Abbess saints might be a bit more useful. Other opinions? John Carter 17:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Renaming of Anglican saints category

It has been suggested that the Category:Anglican saints, be renamed, for the purposes of accuracy, Category:Saints and Heroes of the Christian Church in the Anglican Communion, or some similar name, as that name more precisely reflects the name of the source. Thoughts? John Carter 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There is now also a discussion of renaming the Calendar of saints (Church of England). Please go to the talk page there to take part in the discussion. Thank you. John Carter 23:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Similarly at Talk:Calendar of saints (Church of England) there is a proposal to rename that page as The Commemoration of Saints and Heroes of the Christian Church in the Anglican Communion or similar. If there support to rename the category, the next stage is Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. --Golden Wattle ^talk 23:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Backlog

FYI:
There are currently backlogs in Category:Saints articles needing infoboxes (about 340 articles) and Category:Saints articles needing attention (about 66 articles). -- Pastordavid 21:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There are also many, many more which haven't been tagged as such yet, said the bringer of bad news. John Carter 14:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll work through a few of them. Majoreditor 02:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] List of saints

If all the names are added to this list, it will quickly become unworkable. How would the rest of you want to proceed? I would suggest breaking it up by the existing listed churches, so that we would have instead a List of Anglican saints, a List of Eastern Orthodox saints, etc. John Carter 00:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Article in sore need of more watchers

The article De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) was created by a user who likes to include fairly questionable content, like a reference to "Peter, considered to be the first divine person by church of Rome." Moreover, the user in question believes that the New Testament was written by Petrarch in the 14th century AD, and that various books contain "very special meanings" in need of being decoded. (See further the deletion discussion for 62 of his articles that were deleted this morning.) I am burning out trying to single-handedly steer De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) towards being a sound and encyclopedic article, and I hope someone else can start watching the page. I have no agenda and would welcome editors with very different views from mine; the page just needs honest and experienced participants, period. (It might also be worthwhile to explore Doug Coldwell's other contributions.) Wareh 17:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)