Category talk:Priests

category renaming proposition

Proposition from wikipedia talk:categorization of people to rename this category to category:priest(esse)s - or is that too unpractical?

• Note that "Wicca" would not end up in this category (for the same reasons as up till now "imams" are excluded by the category definition).
• Antiquity had quite some women whose function now generally is translated to "priestess" (see also priest article that explains that two different groups of ceremonial people are now translated as "priest", which implies "priestess" if they were a woman - which was not all that exceptional in antiquity).

I disagree -- priest(esse)s is extremely ugly. "Clerics" would be the appropriate neutral-gendered word. But ofcourse "Clerics" would be a reference to all religions so I'm suggesting a wider reorganization of categories -- Let's create a category of "Christian clerics" and at the same time let's place Popes and Cardinals in it as well. It's inappropriate after all (Roman-Catholic biased) after all that Cardinals are on the first level under "religious leaders" while Eastern orthodox bishops are several levels down.

"Priests" isn't a very sane category if it can at the same include e.g. priests of the ancient Pharaohs and the Russian Orthodox patriarchs, but *not* the Imams or Rabbis. So let's ditch it in its entirety. Aris Katsaris 20:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Clergy might be even better, especially if what goes into the subcats is essentially the heirarchy of a religion. Category:Clerics is fine, but it could well end up with a bunch of Dungeons and Dragons-related material (and based on the title, its inclusion would make some sense), which to me would be even more insane than Category:Priests as described above. -Seth Mahoney 03:12, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

It won't be the hierarchy of a religion, but rather people in it, in various subcategs as separated by their dogmas (Eastern Orthodox priests and Roman Catholic priests is for example currently at Category:Priests That's not hierarchy of religion). And my suggested category was "Christian clerics", which couldn't be confused with Dungeons and Dragons-related material. "Clergy" seems to me to be a bad choice, because then we'd have articles about the structure of the church as a whole (it'd be the equivalent of a category named "priesthood") -- we are however now talking about the categorization of *people* instead. Aris Katsaris 03:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What I was getting at when I used the phrase "heirarchy of a religion" was just that each subcat of Category:Clerics or Category:Clergy would contain the religious heirarchy for that religion. Clerics and clergy mean almost the same thing - a cleric is a member of the clergy, and would include (for Catholocism, for example) priests, bishops, cardinals, etc. I don't see the need to reduce the category to only include Christian clergy members, though. -Seth Mahoney 00:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I keep on feeling that we're talking about two different things. When you say that "each subcat would contain the religious hierarchy for that religion" what do you mean? I want the subcats to contain people, not "religious hierarchies". I

If you create a category named simply "Clerics", I will create a subcateg in it that's "Christian Clerics" (which would also be a subcateg of "Christanity"). It simply makes good organization sense, to have clerics of Islam in one place, clerics of Christianity in another, other clerics elsewhere -- that's what meaningful categorization is all about. Aris Katsaris 01:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Right, so we would have the Category:Clerics (or Category:Clergy). In that category would be any appropriate "clerics (or clergy) by religion" categories (though I think it a good idea to categorize by religion - like Eastern Orthodoxy, rather than by religious group - Christians), and in those categories would go categories on the appropriate offices (eg: Category:Popes), in which would go all the articles on popes. If there aren't enough articles to justify the creation of a subcategory they are just entered in the parent category (if there aren't enough articles on, say, cardinals, they just go in Category:Episcopal clerics - or clergy). That's all I'm talking about when I say "religious heirarchies". In the end, the heirarchy is made up of the people in it, which I think means that in the end we are pretty much talking about the same thing. -Seth Mahoney 02:06, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

The "categorization by religion" is a given. For example I've already created "Eastern Orthodox priests" and everyone can go under that, bishops and patriarchs and whatever. I don't see anything wrong with grouping together all the categs about sects that consider themselves to be Christians though, same way that I don't see anything wrong with grouping together the categs about sects that consider themselves to be Muslims. Aris Katsaris 02:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The problem is basically this: are Catholics Christians? Yes if you're Catholic, probably no if you're a fundamentalist protestant. Jehovah's Witnesses? Yes if you're a Jehovah's Witness, probably an emphatic no followed by "they're a cult!" if you're not. Mormons? Just like JW's. Bahá'í? Christian Scientists? Unification Church? The Great White Brotherhood? Branch Davidians? If you present them all as Christians, you're pushing a POV. If you present some, but not all, as Christians, you're pushing a POV. Additionally, I don't think that it makes sense to put bishops and patriarchs and cardinals and popes under Category:Priests. -Seth Mahoney 19:48, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

The problem you mention would in that case already exist in the categorization scheme of Wikipedia. Because Category:Christian_denominations *does* include Roman Catholicism, *and* Jehovah's witnesses, *and* Mormons (in the Restorationism subcateg). I don't think that Bahai have ever called themselves Christian. Aris Katsaris 20:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Then the problem I mention is already present. Back to Category:Clerics vs. Category:Clergy - I think clergy represents the heirarchal structure that will be present in the categories. Further, in the Wikipedia article cleric, it says: "...especially one that has trained or ordained priests, preachers, or other religious professionals", which is less inclusive. It doesn't, I suppose, make much difference either way in the end, though I think that before we go ahead with things we should get the input of the people involved in clergy and the other religious categories. -Seth Mahoney 03:35, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

As far as whether or not Jehovah's Witnesses are to be included in Category:Christian denominations, you might read here: Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and here: Talk:Non-Christian perspectives on Jesus. -Seth Mahoney 21:29, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sitting down to categorize an Episcopalian priest, and scratching my head. Reverend Billy Graham is a Christian leader, but there's not catchall Protestant category that I see. I vote for a generic clergy or clerics category. The existing scheme doesn't make sense. Willmcw 00:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Work being done elsewhere?

At this point it strikes me that there may be a WikiProject or another religions talk page where this is being discussed, and that we may want to include people involved with the articles on religions in this decision. -Seth Mahoney 00:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Priests by nationality

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_3#Priests_by_nationality. – Fayenatic London 16:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)