Category talk:Roman Catholics

Category Usefulness?

So something like one in 6 biographies in Wikipedia will appear here? – Kaihsu 18:02, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous category. What does it take to be categorized here? Just baptism? --Saforrest 03:28, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

And it shows again anglocentrism of en.wikipedia : such a list should include nearly all French, Spanish, Italian, etc. personalities before XXth century. Where are Bossuet, Claudel, Cervantes, most of the kings, writers, etc. of those countries with catholic tradition ? gbog 18:14, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

I agree this category is silly. And unmaintainable. Does anyone know how to start a CFD process? 23skidoo 30 June 2005 21:35 (UTC)
Categories for deletion Well, you start there...
I have to agree with all of the above ("ridiculous", "unmaintainable", etc). As noted, if this category were to be correctly applied, it would capture an incredibly wide net of bios. This type of generalist categorisation is not appropriate - consider in comparison to a (notional) category for "Left-handed people" or (even worse) "White people"! (How ridiculous would that be?) Per User:Eoghanacht below, unless the categorisation is specifically relevant to a persons life/work/focus, then blanket categorising anyone who's been baptised is beyond useless.Guliolopez 03:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree too, categories of people based on religion (apart if its relevant to their work) are irrelevant, same thing for sexual preferences --Khalid hassani 14:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Manner of Use

I do not think this category is ridiculous, just perhaps prone to misuse. It is very useful as a root for logical subcategories such as clergy, theologians, monks, notable laity, saints, etc. Yes, it is seems silly to add a link to this main category to biographies for people who were/are Catholics, but who are not notable for reasons associated with religion. But misuse in some instances should not lead to deletion of the category as a whole. My 2 cents. --Eoghanacht 14:18, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

I think this category is fairly useless, unless it is limited to people of "religous importance". We could easily create a "meat-eater's" category and a "blondes" category, but they gain us nothing. So the question is, how does one define "notable for reasons associated with religion"? Turnstep 13:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt I would place an individual in this main category. Again, its main use should be as a home for subcategories, for example maybe one for "Catholic artists." As for my concept of notability, I will pose this hypothetical example: I would not include a landscape painter who happened to be a devout Catholic in that subcategory, but I would include someone who started an artistic movement that sought to represent contemporary theological developments or mystical movements through paintings. Another example: if there is a category for "Catholic politicians," I would include JFK because he was notable for being the first R.C. American president. I would not include Henry IV as his religion does not seriously contribute to why he is worthy of a wikipedia entry. — Eoghanacht talk 13:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategory for Catholics who repudiated the Church

Do we need a subcategory for Catholics who have repudiated the Church? By that I mean making a declaration orally or in writing that although being baptized into the Church, they reject the Church, hold the Church in contempt, etc. in a manner that is not disputed and not limited to one teaching (i.e. abortion, remarriage after divorce, etc.) patsw 16:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No membership lists

I thought that the RCC keeps no membership lists and that the only way to leave the church is by excommunication for e.g. heresy or apostasy or schisma. In others words, everyone who was born in a Roman Catholic family and was baptized is still a member, even if s/he became president of an atheist society, unless formally excommunicated which happens only rarely. Please check de:Kirchenaustritt for details. The policy of the RCC makes maintaining this category very difficult. May be we should make a category for category:Practicing Roman Catholics (both living and dead). I mean, there is a huge difference between lapsed catholics who have affiliated with other religious groups and practicing catholics who advocate their faith. Andries 10:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC) (amended)[reply]

Eastern-Rite Catholics

Shouldn't they go under Category:Catholics rather than this cat? Kevlar67 03:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only for people for whom their membership is a defining characteristic

I will remove people for whom their membership is not a defining characteristic. See pending. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_23#People_by_former_religion . Andries 14:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Is it really necessary that only Roman Catholics whose notability was influenced by their religion be awarded this category? I added many users to the Category Irish Roman Catholics, only to have them removed by the user Domer48 on the grounds that their Catholicism did not affect their notability. Personally I believe whether you're Catholic or Protestant affected literally everything in post HenryVIII Ireland. Some clearer explanation would be appreciated. Thanks. -RiverHockey 19:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was only 3 to date, that you added, I removed them because their Catholicism did not make them notable. In addition, the ones you added them to, were Irish Republicans. Irish Republicans considered the religious tags applied to the people of Ireland was a cause of division, and there for sectarian. Have a look at the link provided above this discussion, and we can leave it at that. --Domer48 08:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, I see that the link above goes to a "no consensus" discussion. Do you want to leave things as "no consensus"? Also, it sounds to me like you are providing grounds for notability when you say "Irish Republicans considered the religious tags applied to the people of Ireland was a cause of division." The.helping.people.tick 11:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Irish Republicans considered the religious tags applied to the people of Ireland was a cause of division." Yes, they want to get rid of them. Their religion, was not what made them notable! WHAT is the point of these cats? The discussion mentioned, raises this issue. Now unless there is a valid reason to apply them, they should not be added. --Domer48 12:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One is either a Roman Catholic or not, the category should either be applied to all Irish Roman Catholics or eliminated entirely, no matter what ones ideology. And also, Catholicism has been a means of Irish Nationalism as well as a source of persecution since Henry VIII. Ofcourse there were exceptions, ie. Wolfe Tone, etc. But the majority of Republicans are Catholic or come from a Catholic background. The condemnation of religious tags was sanctioned as Catholics usually bore the brunt of it. A Republican's secular demands does not belittle the fact they might be a Catholic. Personally, I don't care if the category remains or not, but it should either be applied to all or none. Its a difficult task and rather ambiguous determining if religion played a role in ones notability or their motivation towards such achievement. -RiverHockey 15:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category should be eliminated entirely, if you want my personal opinion, and I would vote that way if you propose it for deletion. It is not a "difficult task" "determining if religion played a role in ones notability or their motivation towards such achievement." If it was of major importance, it would be in the article. "The majority of Republicans are Catholic or come from a Catholic background." How do you know that? If you "don't care if the category remains or not," what are you putting it on articles for then? --Domer48 17:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that most Republicans/Nationalists are either Catholic or come from a Catholic background, as Ireland itself was a Catholic nation. There were many Presbyterians in the United Irishmen, led by Wolfe Tone, and later there'd be figures such as Parnell. But, asking how I know if the majority of Republicans come from a Catholic background is absurd. If it were not for Protestant settlers (English/Scottish plantations) a War of Independence would never have been necessary. I don't care if the category remains or not, but as I said previously as long as it remains it should apply to all Irish Roman Catholics. That's why I add it to articles. All or none. -RiverHockey 14:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's inclusion criteria on this very page as you are aware. It isn't "all or none", it's per the inclusion criteria. One Night In Hackney303 14:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a difficult task at all. The category is best applied to religious figures, that way it serves its purpose which is navigation. Categories are not for labelling people by religion. One Night In Hackney303 18:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But, there are already seperate categories for Irish Roman Catholic Priests and Bishops. -RiverHockey 19:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well put the cat up for deletion? Whats its purpose? I'll support its deletion if you put it up. --Domer48 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you are born in a Catholic Country does not automatically make you a Catholic if their catholicism is relevent then add but not otherwise. BigDunc 14:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really so? I recall only adding the category to practicing Catholics.... -RiverHockey 14:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a ref to prove that they are practicing Catholics or are you just assuming. BigDunc 14:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can give references, but most of the articles already stated they were Catholics, for example I added it to Patrick Pearse as he converted to Catholicism in 1870. Domert removed it as he claims it had nothing to do with his notability. I believe the category should apply to all Irish Roman Catholics whether or not their Catholic faith was an influence. I would not add such categories based on assumption. But, I suppose I'll add the category for strictly religious figures as having an 'edit war' is pointless. -RiverHockey 21:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that RiverHockey, I mean it, fair play. Regards --Domer48 21:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I can see your point but do you not think that their religon should have been a notable part of the article and not just a buy product for want of a better word. BigDunc 21:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Religion, I feel like the holy trinity. [1]. All we need now is User:Breen32 to show up. Check the link RiverHockey to get the irony. --Domer48 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the notability guidelines, shouldn't the same rules be applied to Irish Anglicans, etc??? -RiverHockey 15:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This whole discussion is absurd. If someone is a Roman Catholic then they should be added to this category, end of discussion. This is "Roman Catholics", not 'Roman Catholics noted for being Roman Catholics' or 'Roman Catholics figureheads'. The one qualification is that the person is a Roman Catholic, that is a Catholic from Ireland who is in communion with Rome.

The official guidelines are as such:

  • The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
  • The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

So if you want to play it exactly by the book then you must acknowledge that being notable for being an Irish Roman Catholic is not the only path to this list. Is anyone on the planet notable for being an Irish Roman Catholic? May I also remind those involved that common sense is needed on Wikipedia.--EchetusXe (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you EchetusXe, you are the voice of reason! -RiverHockey (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East-West Schism

There is an additional problem with this category. I first noticed this when I noticed that some early monarchs of Bohemia were categorized as "Roman Catholic monarchs". However, is it ahistorical to describe anyone as a Roman Catholic prior to the Schism of 1054? Bohemia was converted to Christianity by missionaries from the Byzantine Empire. PatGallacher (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalizing the use of "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic" in article titles

Please see my proposal here. --Richard (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about Roman Catholics

Should Category:Roman Catholics be merged to Category:Catholics? Manabimasu (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  1. (a) Yes
  2. (b) No
  3. (c) Other-please specify

Threaded discussion

WP:RFCNOT. Please raise a WP:CFM. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]