Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints/Archive3

message: It has been proposed that for the purposes of clarity this project be renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian saints. Please indicate your opinion below. John Carter 16:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *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 Carter 14:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *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 Carter 18:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * 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 Searson 19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * 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 Searson 19:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably not. Although the :Category:Indian saints, which has more non-Christians than Christians in it, looks like it is a headache of that sort waiting to happen. John Carter 19:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *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 Carter 16:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 Carter 19:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would support this proposal. And yes, something does need to be done about the Saint article.  --Grimhelm 22:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--Cúchullain t/c 05:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Carter 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.--Cúchullain t/c 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible renaming of Project? 

message: *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 Carter 16:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *Oppose - there are no non-Christian saints. Maybe Saints should be a sub-category of :Category:Holy people. Christian saints is a tautology. - Kittybrewster 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *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 Carter 14:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: *evrik (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral

message: *Comment - please note the already extant :Category:Cao Dai saints, :Category:Sikh saints, :Category:Non-Christian saints and :Category:Hindu saints for evidence of use of the word in other contexts. John Carter 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *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 Carter 18:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * 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 Searson 19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * 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 Searson 19:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably not. Although the :Category:Indian saints, which has more non-Christians than Christians in it, looks like it is a headache of that sort waiting to happen. John Carter 19:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *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 Carter 16:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 Carter 19:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would support this proposal. And yes, something does need to be done about the Saint article.  --Grimhelm 22:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--Cúchullain t/c 05:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Carter 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.--Cúchullain t/c 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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.
Thoughts? -- Pastordavid 18:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Carter 19:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would support this proposal. And yes, something does need to be done about the Saint article.  --Grimhelm 22:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--Cúchullain t/c 05:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Carter 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.--Cúchullain t/c 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: 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)
thread_title:  What does Saint mean? 

message: I just added an article to this project... it's not on a saint, but upon an individual for whom a saint sacraficed his life.  If this is inappropriate, please let me know.Balloonman 01:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing that he probably shouldn't get the banner, but am honestly not sure. Thoughts? John Carter 16:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on the verdict, he would need to be added as a DYK for 7/7/07.  Franciszek Gajowniczek's notability is derived via St Maximilian Kolbe as he was a crucial figure in the act of charity that lead to Kolbe's cannonization. (His later notability was established as a guest of the Pope when Kolbe was declared Blessed and again when he was Cannonized.)  So the question becomes, is the focus of the project on Saints/Blessed or does it expand to those crucial people/places/events that are involved with the saints?  If the former, then he doesn't belong.  If the later, then I would argue he does belong.  But I'm not familiar enough with the focus of the project to know.Balloonman 21:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Franciszek Gajowniczek]] 

message: I notice that the individuals commemorated in the calendars of saints of the Anglican and Lutheran calendars have not yet been necessarily added to the various subcategories of :Category:Saints by country. Do the rest of you believe that they should be included in those categories or not? John Carter 13:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to think about that one.  I certainly think it makes sense, but we have had resistence to any category or banner with the word "saint" in it on the pages of those commemorated on Protestant calendars.  Let's see if anyone else jumps into the conversation.  Pastordavid 15:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization of Protestant "saints"? 

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

message: One of the individuals commemorated in one of the calendars of the churches of the Anglican Communion is Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Ms. Stanton was a rather pronounced atheist, which might make calling her a "saint" as per the current category amusing to some people. How would the other members of the project feel about creating a separate :Category:Anglican heroes (or something similar) to include those individuals included in the Anglican calendars of saints who were not counted as "saints" by the church before the division of the church by Henry VIII? It would create another category, but it would also be a bit more accurate. Also, should the new category take the place completely of the present :Category:Anglican saints or not? Personally, I'd say yes, but that's just my own opinion. John Carter 15:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the church consider her a saint as such, or more of a "commemorated figure" on the calendar? Supposing the latter is true, I would support the creation of a new category (dunno about the name "Anglican heroes", though I can't think of a better one), and since it seems that most if not all of the articles currently in :Category:Anglican saints seem to be in the same vein, I personally agree with the new category taking the place of the old one. It would evince a more nuanced understanding of what these commemorated Anglican figures really are, since I can't see Stanton's article having a "Saints" infobox in it. Alekjds talk 20:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion would be to leave the cat, and just not use the saint infobox.  But ultimately, it would probably be best to let WP:Anglicanism decide what to name the cat (I think they are active).  Pastordavid 20:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That project has been contacted. They haven't made any sort of concrete response yet, though. John Carter 20:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Anglican saints]] 

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

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

message: I notice Ms. Tubman is listed on the talk page as being under the purview of this WikiProject. Was she officially canonized by the church? If so, when? More information would be greatly appreciated, as I am beginning work to make it an FA. – Scartol · Talk 22:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She is included the Calendar of saints (Episcopal Church in the United States of America), and the :Category:Anglican saints. Inclusion on any such church calendars is considered basis for inclusion in the scope of this project. However, if you are asking whether she was ever formally canonized by the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches, I would have to say that as she wasn't a Catholic the chances of that happening are nil. John Carter 22:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting. Thanks for the information – I'll try to work it into the article. Cheers! – Scartol · Talk 17:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Harriet Tubman]]

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Should Project include people who are not Saints? 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I can't speak for the past participation in editing or not of the articles that deal with archangels and angels, but the fact is that in Judaism they are archangels, and are not a subcategory of saints, for which there is no similar concept at all. Therefore at least in one faith the angel and the saint are not one and the same. The tradition is therefore all Christian, and therefore the article is not written from a neutral point of view. It seems to me that the best way to solve this is to retain the archangel article as one that represents the tradition of Judaism where the concept and term are derived from, and to create a new article for Saint Michael as a Christian saint where the tradition for that term is derived from. This is more evidently the way to go because Judaism does not have the concept of "fallen angels" as does Christianity.
The reason I suggest this is because I am planning to expand the article Jewish angelic hierarchy, and as you see the angels there are somewhat in a different concept to Christian saints--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't mentioned which article you're talking about here yet, so we can't really answer you. Please specify. John Carter (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Saints?!