Talk:List of lay Catholic scientists

message: Should 'lay' be removed from the update? Formal definition of 'lay' is pertaining to an informal, non-professional understanding or involvement, while many on this list would indeed be described as working professionally in a scientific area of study. If it is a major concern perhaps a sub-section should be created to note those from the list that couldn't accurately be described as professional scientists.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.173.119 (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In Catholic context, "lay" means not ordained as bishop, priest, or deacon. Anyone who is not clergy is lay, including monks and nuns. If we were to change it to a list of Catholic scientists, it should also mean a merging of this list with the one for Catholic clergy scientists. Which might be a good idea as there is no real point in distinguishing between cleric and lay for a list about scientists. Protoclete (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Title Update?

message: I plan on deleting the comments on this page as they are six years old and no longer pertinent. Also, the article has changed from a redirect to a fully functioning page. I will wait to delete the old comments until October 15, 2011 to see if anyone disagrees.Akasseb (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk page posts are archived, not deleted, but I'm not sure why you'd want the short comments above to be deleted/archived though.—Machine Elf 1735 07:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Two reasons: 1) the discussion is nearly six years old, and 2) the information is no longer pertinent as this is a fully functioning page rather than a redirect.Akasseb (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For this length page, archiving is really not needed yet. LadyofShalott 15:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page post delete/archive

message: The mathematician d'Alembert is said to be a known unbeliever in the article on him.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.15.120 (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  d'Alembert 

message: The Galileo section of the lede reads like an apology for the Catholic church (and this is a somewhat cleaned-up version):
: Yet, the Galileo affair has come to typify the Church's relationship with science. John Henry Cardinal Newman has referred to the Galileo affair as the "one stock argument"[8] against the Church. The standard treatment of Galileo as a martyr for science has been overturned by modern historians, however. Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems was removed from the Index of Forbidden Books in 1835, and his theories have been celebrated by popes and churchmen alike, with members of the Jesuits personally verifying many of his observations.[9] Galileo encountered trouble when he presented heliocentrism as fact rather than theory, when he lacked the necessary proofs to overturn long-standing dogma.
William M. Connolley (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galileo 

message: A given Jesuit scientist might technically belong on all 3 of these lists: List_of_Catholic_scientists,List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists, and List of Jesuit scientists. One list is enough, with subsections in each list so readers can easily get to the other sub-lists. I suggest we split these lists, and put all the Jesuits in the Jesuit list, the non-Jesuits in the roman catholic cleric-scientist list (with a sub-section that links out to the Jesuit list, obviously), and leave the list of catholic scientists to be just lay people (again, with sections for jesuit priests and non-jesuit priests that link out to the relevant lists). A quick look at these suggests that there is a lot of dual/triple maintenance resulting in (currently) inaccurate lists all around. Let's normalize this database, or at least this little corner of the database. We could even turn this article into a disambiguation article, and move the lay people to List of Catholic lay scientists, but it's not really necessary - use of summarystyle here should be sufficient.
Note: to be clear, what is suggested is changes to two articles:
# place all Jesuits from this list into the Jesuit list
# place all non-Jesuit priests from this list into the cleric-scientist list
# From List of Roman Catholic cleric-scientists, remove all the Jesuits and move to the Jesuit list.
The result will be much more maintainable, as everyone will have one spot in this little triplet of lists - thus more accurate lists over time for the users. If you want to get really fancy, we could even transclude those sublists here. I'm not sure if that works well or not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any particular reason why the articles couldn't be merged? I would have thought it makes more sense to keep the material in one place; that's by far the easiest way of making sure there isn't duplication of effort. Does it really matter that much if someone is a cleric scientist, or a Jesuit? Surely that information could be added as a note to the list entry? --Merlinme (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: that's another option - a list, perhaps sortable by denomination and job (or lay).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a single list with the relevant information given in that list would certainly be my preference. Having three such close lists strikes me as a recipe for duplication of effort and inconsistency with where people are listed. --Merlinme (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

text: One single list is needed for all clerics.  Has anybody thought this through?  There were Benedictines writing on theoretical science for nearly a millennium before any Jesuits wrote about science.  Let's say somebody wants other lists for Benedictines, Franciscans, Jesuits, and so on:  fine, but don't take those names off the general list.  Jesuits are Roman Catholic clerics, except for Jesuit brothers; brothers aren't clerics, strictly speaking, any more than sisters are.Francvs (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it seems that there has been no agreement on a split, indeed there's some feeling for a merge. I don't personally think a split would help, either, and could happily go along with a merge if that's the decision. I shall therefore close the (very old) split proposal now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Based on the near consensus here, I decided to merge the List of Jesuit scientists into the List of Catholic churchmen-scientists. Without the knowledge of the discussion here (open for 3 years), another editor reverted the merger. I am now making the proposed merger known here and at the other articles in question. FYI: I have been the main editor of the List of Catholic churchmen-scientists, and a contributing editor to the List of Jesuit scientists and the List of Lay Catholic scientists. Once the merger is finalized, we can have a discussion about the possibility of doing another merger of the List of Catholic churchmen-scientists and the List of Lay Catholic scientists; for now, the incremental approach seems prudent.Akasseb (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It escapes me who authorized you to make all this mess. Besides, you removed well-known catholic scientists on the list showing no clear knowledge about. Please, do the same with muslims distinguishing between sunnis, sciites and so on. It would be helpful the intervention of some administrator here.--Pra1998 (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It escapes me why you have written this here. No scientists have been deleted in an absolute sense. Rather, all the of the churchmen-scientists were removed from the List of Lay Catholic scientists because of double counting (they are all on the List of Catholic churchmen-scientists). Also, I have a vested interest in making sure this is done right: all of those scientists were originally added by me (take a look at the edit history). I am also the main contributor to the List of Catholic churchmen-scientists. Furthermore, beyond my history with these articles, I have a deep knowledge about the historical relationship between the Church and science (I've been studying it for a decade) as well as a graduate degree in theology.Akasseb (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fine for me. Apologize.--Pra1998 (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

text:  Well, as I said back in January, I'm happy to support a merge, as long as it's done carefully. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split/Merge proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on List of Catholic scientists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.zenit.org/article-29971?l=italian
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Looking through the list of people, most (if not all) seem to be Roman Catholic, rather than Catholic. Is this a list of Catholic scientists, or Roman Catholic scientists?
Though as this is just a list of articles, I'm not sure why we need it all; wouldn't it be simpler, to just have a category?
If there's no reference for living people on this list, isn't there a WP:BLP issue? Nfitz (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Bias? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of lay Catholic scientists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121110101439/http://www.csupomona.edu/~nova/scientists/articles/cori.html to http://www.csupomona.edu/~nova/scientists/articles/cori.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071130213538/http://www.cicero.de/97.php?ress_id=6&item=2223 to http://www.cicero.de/97.php?ress_id=6&item=2223
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130215164324/http://www.catholicnews.com/data/briefs/cns/20121023.htm to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/briefs/cns/20121023.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.austindiocese.org/newsletter_article_view.php?id=7177
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified