Talk:Ignatius of Loyola/Archive 1

Archive 1

Metro statio

I think it's fun that a Metro station is named after him, but wouldn't it be more important to mention that the great Jesuit church of St. Ignazio in Rome is named after him? Dunnhaupt 18:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nov 9 Reverts

I just reverted Edgar181's changes to this page. He had reverted a previous edit that was in fact constructive.

Comments?

Chad 21:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Anima Christi

I removed the Anima Christi from the infobox. It was not written by Ignatius[1]. That is a common misconception. See Anima Christi for more information. Chad 23:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How about the Prayer for Generosity? Uthanc 10:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I like that one better. Add it! Eclectek ^{C T} 16:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Rating

Moved up to B-Class. I would suggest using in-text citations of your references, and ask someone less familiar to come in and look the article over for POV issues. -- Pastordavid 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Genealogy

• Proposed by Ingo11 as new section
• Removed from the main page by Pastordavid.
• Put in the talk page for further discussion.

IMHO, it is worth inserting as a separated page but references & sources are missing. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's taken from : Villoslada, Ricardo García "San Ignacio de Loyola. Nueva biografía", Editorial BAC, Madrid 1.st ed. 1986, 1066 p. Ingo11 (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you have the ISBN code? Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

ISBN 8422012677 or ISBN 9788422012672 for original Spanish edition. I know Italian translation: Sant’Ignazio di Loyola, San Paulo Milano 7ed. 1997, 1206p. ISBN 8821520048 Ingo11 (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Lope de Oñaz (~1180)
  ├ García López de Oñaz (~1221)
     ├ López García de Oñaz
        wife: Inés, dame of Loyola – unit of families (~1261)
         ├ daugther: Inés de Oñaz y Loyola (~end of XIII c.)
            husband: Juan Pérez (related)
            ├  Jaun (Basque - Lord) Juan Pérez
            ├  Gil López de Oñaz
            ├  other 5 brothers (see – battle of Beotibar)
                 Beltrán Yáñez (vel Ibáñez) de Loyola, son of Jaun Juan (+1405)
                 wife: Ochanda Martínez de Leete from Azpeitia 
                     ├ Sancha Ibáñez de Loyola
                     |  husband: Lope García de Lazcano
                     |  married: 4 III 1413
                     ├ heir: Juan Pérez de Loyola (d. childless, heirdom for Sancha)
                     ├ Maria Beltranche
                     ├ Elvira
                     ├ Emilia
                     ├ Juanecha
                              Juan Pérez de Loyola, son of Sancha Ibáñez (+ in Tolosa)
                              wife: Sancha Pérez de Iraeta (+1473)
                                 ├ Don Beltrán Yáñez (vel Ibáñez) de Oñaz y Loyola (+ 23 X 1507)
                                   Doña Marina Sáenz (vel Sánchez) de Licona (+ < 6 V 1508)
                                   married: 13 VII 1467 r.
        	13 children:
1. Juan Pérez de Loyola (+1503 in Naples)
2. heir – Don Martín García de Oñaz y Loyola (1477 – 29 XI 1538)
              wife: Magdalena de Araoz 
              married: 11 IX 1498
    * – order uncertain
*. Ochoa Pérez de Loyola
*. Juan Beltrán de Loyola
*. Beltrán de Loyola (+ < 14 XI 1527)
*. Hernando de Loyola (+ in Panama, New World)
*. Pero López de Oñaz y Loyola (priest, + < VII 1529 in Barcelona)
*. Juaniza (vel Joaneiza) de Loyola, wife of Juan Marínez de Alzaga, notary from Azpeitia
*. Magdalena de Loyola, wife of Juan López de Gallaiztegui, notary from Anzuola
*. Sancha Ibáñez de Loyola
*. Petronila de Loyola, wife of Pedro Ochoa de Arriola
*. Maria Beltrán de Loyola, wife of Domingo de Arruado
13. Iñigo López de Loyola (< 23 X 1491 – 31 VII 1556)

How Iñigo was transformed into Ignacio?

• Interesting discussion copied from the talk page of Society of Jesus

See articles

VERD, Gabriel María, SI, El "Ínigo" de San Ignacio de Loyola , Archivum historicum Societatis Iesu, 45 (1976) p.95-128

VERD, Gabriel María, SJ, De Inigo a Ignacio. El cambio de nombre en San Ignacio de Loyola , Archivum historicum Societatis Iesu, 60 (1991) p.113-160

From the summary: "That St. Ignatius of Loyola's name was changed is a known fact, but it cannot be said that it is widely known in the historiography of the saint - neither the characteristics of the names Iñigo and Ignacio nor the reasons for the change. It is first necessary to make clear the meaning of the names; they are distinct, despite the persistently held opinion in onomastic dictionaries and popular thought. In Spain Ignacio and Iñigo are at times used interchangeably just as if they were Jacobo and Jaime. With reference to the name Iñigo, it is fitting to give some essential notions to eliminate ambiguities and help understand what follows. This name first appears on the Ascoli brome (dated 18 November 90 B.C.), in a list of Spanish knights belonging to a Turma salluitana or Saragossan. It speaks of Elandus Enneces f[ilius], and according to Menéndez Pidal the final «s» is the «z» of Spanish patronymics, and could be nothing other than Elando Iñiguez. It is an ancestral Hispanic name. Ignacio, on the other hand, is a Latin name. In classical Latin there is Egnatius with an initial E. It appears only twice with an initial I (Ignatius) in the sixty volumes of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. This late Latin and Greek form prevailed. In the classical period Egnatius was used as a nomen (gentilitial name) and not as a praenomen (first name) or cognomen (surname), except in very rare cases. The author describes the change under three headings: names, facts, and reasons. The most important conclusion, perhaps unexpected, but not unknown, is that St. Ignatius did not change his name. That is to say, he did not intend to change it. What he did was to adopt for France and Italy a name which he believed was a simple variant of his own, and which was more acceptable among foreigners. That Ignacio ended up replacing Iñigo does not change his intention. If he had remained in Spain, he would have, without doubt, remained Iñigo." --Ingo11 (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• How do we incorporated this information into the web page? Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy about the Date of birth

Although the "official" date of birth of St Ignatius is Dec. 24 1491, there are been controversies about the date of birth of St Ignatius.[2]

• Most authorities agree that it was in 1491. The Baptismal records of the parish of Azpeitia only began in 1537.

French wikipedia states "According to the Autobiography, this date would be 1495. But if one believes his nurse questioned by the investigators of the Company after his death, it is indeed 1491. This correctnes of this date is confirmed by the fact that he signs in 1507 the acts after the death of his father - the legal limit of signature being fixed at 16 years. - Lacouture T1 p. 15."

• Dec 24 is also under discussion. Some researchers proposed the date of October 23 (see discussion on Genealogy and Wikipedia Polish).

I could'nt find references on this. Is it worth incorporating this controversy in the article? If yes, how? Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In a fundamental opera: Monumenta Historica Societatis Iesu (t.1 Fontes Narrativi de Sancto Ignatio, Rome 1943 (sic!) p. 14*-24*) Pedro Leturia argue that Ignatius was born before October 23, 1491. Compare also: Pedro de Leturia, S.I., Estudios Ignacianos t.1 Estudios biograficos, Instit. Hist. S. I., Rome 1957, p. 55-68.

How does it come to this conclusion?

Do you have ISBN codes? Thanks Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

They have not ISBN, I suppose.

Has been found an authenticated deed from Azpeitia, dated 23 October 1505, with witness of Inego de Loyola. Requirement for this role was done 14 years, under Spanish and Guipúzcoa low, that’s to say Ignatius was born before October, 23 1491. Ingo11 (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

From this times it is indisputable that date berth, December, 24, is false. Lack however more precise details about birthday.Ingo11 (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I found an interesting discussion in Google Books. Have a look at Idígoras Tellechea, José Ignacio (1994). Ignatius of Loyola: The Pilgrim Saint. Chicago: Loyola University Press. p. 45. ISBN 0829407790. Do we incorporate this information to the main page? Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheeeeese

Can I just ask why on the page itself it says that Ignatius was leader of the Jesuits". who invented Cheeeese", and why it doesn't appear on the text to be edited (and so can not be removed)?--DaviMurph (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Patron saint of... edit reverts

User 76.212.156.255 recently added unsourced information to the article here. I reverted it, and the user undid my revert. I will once again remove the unsourced information. I will not let it stay without a citation. See what wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales has to say on the issue here. Area edited is below, with unsourced additions in bold. Eclectek ^{C T} 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Saint Ignatius of Loyola, also known as Íñigo Oñaz López de Loyola (before 23 October 1491[1] – 31 July 1556), was the principal founder and first Superior General of the Society of Jesus, a religious order of the Catholic Church professing direct service to the Pope in terms of mission. Members of the order are called Jesuits.

The compiler of the Spiritual Exercises and a gifted spiritual director, Ignatius has been described by Pope Benedict XVI as being above all a man of God, who gave the first place of his life to God and a man of profound prayer.[2] He was very active in fighting the Protestant Reformation and promoting the subsequent Counter-Reformation. He was beatified and then canonized to receive the title of Saint on 12 March 1622. His feast day is 31 July, celebrated annually. He is the patron saint of Gipuzkoa & Biscay, as well as of the Society of Jesus.

USER 76.212.156.255 ANSWERING THE ECLEKTEK :

-Dear friend Eclektek : 1st) Saint Ignatius of Loyola is the patron of BISCAY(=BIZKAIA=VIZCAYA) as well as the patron of Guipuzcoa=Gipuzkoa . 2nd) He is not the patron of Araba(=Alava) . Araba,Bizkaia and Gipuzkoa are the 'Autonomous Basque Country or Euskadi '.But Saint Ignatius is not the patron of Araba(=Alava) ,so he ,unfortunately ,is not the patron of 'Basque Country or Euskadi' nor any other 'Basque Country'. Thanks a lot ,and the next time ,instead of talking about wiki rules and stupid things ,you should have more documentation in order to avoid to write incorrect information or notable lack of information. Thanks a lot : Iñaxio Gure Patroi Aundia ,nahiz betor luzifer deabrua utzirik inpernua ,zure soldaduak dirade aingeruak ,..,Garaitu ditu zure kompañiak etsaiak ¡¡¡¡¡

This is very easy, 76.212.156.255. Find a reputable source for the information you added, cite it in the article, and the information can stay. I didn't make up this rule. Once again, this is official policy as seen in WP:BURDEN. This is how Wikipedia works. Please don't add the information again without a citation. Thanks. Eclectek ^{C T} 18:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion on this matter and have reached my limit on reverts. Please let me know how this should be handled. An administrator may be helpful. Eclectek ^{C T} 18:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My 3O response: Source it, or it stays out. Verifiability, not truth. IP editor, if you need help citing a source that you have--be it book or website, feel free to drop me a note on my user page. Jclemens (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

patron of Guipuzcoa and Biscay and not Alava ,unfortunately

For Eclectek: I think the following information could help you and demonstrate what I said before :

You can check the official calendar ,published in Boletin oficial of each one of the three territories  of Autonomous community of Basque Country,in the followings:

-Gipuzkoa=Guipuzcoa ---> 31 st July : Holiday :Saint Ignatius of Loyola ,is the patron of Guipuzcoa:

                  https://ssl4.gipuzkoa.net/castell/bog/2007/10/29/c0711660.htm

-Bizkaia=Vizcaya=Biscay---> 31 st July : Holiday :Saint Ignatius of Loyola ,is the patron of Vizcaya:

                   http://www.bizkaia.net/lehendakaritza/Bao_bob/2007/11/20071109a219.pdf#page=97

-Araba=Alava ----> no holiday in 31 st of July ,because Saint Ignatius of Loyola is not the patron of Alava (The patron of Alava is 'San Prudencio' celebrating holiday in 28th of April :

           http://www.euskadi.net/r33-2288/es/contenidos/informacion/5907/es_2296/adjuntos/CALENDARIO%202008%20ALAVA.pdf

Thank you . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.156.255 (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty hard to follow, but it looks like synthesis. Is there any page, preferrably in English, which explicitly says he is patron saint of here, but not there? Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In english ,saint ignatius patron of Gipuzkoa and Bizkaia

   For you Mr.Jclemens ,      

     From the following internet adress :
                 http://www.turismoa.euskadi.net/contenidos/informacion/s11_folletos/en_s11/folletos/cultura/cultura_ing_fiestas_verano.pdf

Just Behind 'La Blanca Festivities' picture you can find this paragraph :

Towards the end of July, we come to the fiesta of St. Ignatius of Loiola, patron saint of Gipuzkoa and Bizkaia, involving one of the most solemn processions in the country. The day after St. Ignatius, on August 1, the local and provincial authorities, the Lehendakari (President of the Basque Autonomous Community) accompanied by local authorities, the clergy and citizens come from all over to attend the solemn acts in honour of the Patron Saint

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.156.255 (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jclemens"

More patron related for jclemens & eclectek

http://www.turismoa.euskadi.net/s11-12375/en/contenidos/evento/0000027022_m1_rec_turismo/en_27022/27022.html

You can read in the seventh line of the paragraph ,on picture's right side, the following:

San Ignacio, patron saint of Bizkaia and Gipuzkoa.

Thanks.It's the last proof .I'm getting so bored about the question .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.156.255 (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed spaces to make comment above legible. Eclectek ^{C T} 02:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Tone

Hey all, I'm at work right now so can't help out, but even as a product of a Jesuit high school, I think the tone of the article needs improving - some inappropriate first person, tangents on the Ludolph work, "arguably", things like that. umrguy42 14:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Loyola-logo.gif

The image Image:Loyola-logo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Loyolaseal.gif

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict regarding the source of "Loyola"

In reading the article, specifically the section which mentions the etymology of Loyola, the information directly contradicts itself. It first makes a claim that Loyola comes from Lobos and Olla, then refutes it. What is the right info? Samwisep86 (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the offending text:

The Loyola family name comes from the Spanish phrase lobos y olla (wolves and a pot), as they were known to be of extreme wealth as to be able to feed wild wolves.[15].Because 'Loyola' is basque language word and not spanish language one .'Loyola' as 'loy = loi ' means 'mud' in basque and 'ola' is also basque used in many other basque lastnames as Mendiola(Mendi-ola),Bernaola(Berna-ola),Arriola(Arri-ola),Olazar(Ola-zar),Olaberria(Ola-berria),Olazabal(Ola-zabal),...; And ultimately, Iñigo was from basque 'Oñaz' family ,that are known in the long history of basque country,specifically before Carlist wars, as enemies of other basque family the 'Gamboa's. It is not true that the Loyola family name comes from the spanish phrase "lobos y olla". It is a basque name. The meaning of this in spanish can be "lodazal" or "pastizal", it would be "mudland" or "pastureland" in english.

The Lobos y Olla 'derivation' is a transparently false folk etymology. The refutation is most likely correct. The name can be explained within Basque, and the supposed Spanish explanation (with no motivation for the missing /b/ or the /ll/ changed to /l/ (these are different sounds that do not change into one another)) is an impossiblity based on Hispanophone ignorance of Basque. I am removing the assertion. Kjaer (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth!

Which is it: "before October 23" (main text) - or "December 24th" (th data below the portrait)? It's not the first time I've seen such a discrepancy in Wikipedia, BTW, and it's darn irritating.

• • • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.98.121 (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The "official birth date" is December 24th. However, the latest investigations have shown that this date was incorrect and suggested that Ignatius was born before October 23. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • • There is no 'official birth date'. Let it be said - and written - once and for all that we do not know the exact date of Ignatius of Loyola's birth. Much research has been done on this, but without definite conclusion. The year is most probably 1491 (though this is also questioned, but only by a few). Zerged (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Importance of this article- WikiProject Catholicism and Project Saints

I am surprised to see that I of L's article is of low importance in the WikiProject Catholicism and mid in ChristianityWikiProject. How's that possible?--Karljoos (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Family Line

I'm not really a historical, biographical, or what ever you like to call it editor; but I've seen family trees on Wikipedia which seem to use syntax. The one currently on this page is confusing and the syntax ones look much better in my point of view. If it is way too big you can use the show/hide option. I'd do it myself but I have absolutely no idea how. Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 13:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you got some examples? Akerbeltz (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead inconsistent with WP:LEAD

The lead is not written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article, but it should be per WP:LEAD, e.g., the 1st sentence includes participles as third and fourth introductory verb that makes it is unnecessarily convoluted. The 2nd sentence does not explain that the Jesuits are a part of the Catholic Church that is not so obvious to everyone and seems to be in violation of the WP:LEAD requirement that the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at — but not explaining — important facts that will appear later in the article. The verb become seems to be used excessively and poorly. The pronoun where refers to Counter-Reformation as if it was an area, and as it is used in legal questions in court appeals. The verb was is used twice in the very short 3rd sentence. Etc., etc.

Then Akerbeltz and Connormah revert my edits arguing that:

• 00:34, 5 February 2010 Akerbeltz (Undid revision 341991994 by 71.247.231.74) style was fine before
• 20:41, 6 February 2010 Akerbeltz (revert, you're distorting grammar and meaning)
• 02:26, 8 February 2010 Connormah (Undid revision 342611892 by 71.247.231.74) rv, grammar was okay how it was
• 06:05, 8 February 2010 Connormah (Undid revision 342642057 by 71.247.231.74) it is fine how it is.. Why do you see te need to change it?.

The answer is that I see the need to change the lead, because of my capacity to see. Some people see more than others. Not seeing a need for change (or anything else) is not a good-WP:FAITH argument proving that everything "was [is] fine", "was okay". A lack of a good-WP:FAITH arguments is not helped by the following personal remark "You're clearly not a native speaker of English" and the given by both of them and not very applicable warning to mind WP:3RR:

You're clearly not a native speaker of English - which is fine, but I would urge a little more caution when arguing about style or making (on the face of it) rather hasty changes that sound better to your ears. Akerbeltz (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hence, since Wikipedia is for everyone including non-native English speakers, the articles should be written clearly (WP:Manual of Style#Clarity) in plain English (WP:UPE) easy accessible to non-native English speakers too for Wikipedia is not a tutorial of English. Isn't it, please? --71.247.231.74 (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The expression "turn into" implies that he, well, shape-changed. A caterpiller can "turn into" a butterfly or a kitten into a tomcat but you simply cannot use that expression in that sentence you keep trying to change. And please be mindful of WP:3RR, you're coming close to edit warring. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, please don't continue to revert. Another friendly reminder of WP:3RR, also. The Simple English Wikipedia is for stuff like this. As mentioned above, you're distorting the meaning, and grammar. Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What about improving the lead instead, please? --71.247.231.74 (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed changes are ungrammtical, repeat, ungrammtical. That's why you keep being reverted. It may be that the lead needs rewording a bit but you're changes were not grammatical or indeed clarifying. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Akerbeltz, would you be so kind to clarify your above sentence" you're changes were not grammatical? When you replace you're with its full form you are, your sentence becomes: you are changes were not grammatical! Don't you find it ironic, when someone possessing that kind of skills remarks about grammatical mistakes by others... please...? If you see a grammatical error, just do fix it... in good faith... instead of using it as a pretext (unethical) to revert the edit in violation of Wikipedia's rules prohibiting it. Did you know that Joseph Conrad was not a native English speaker? On the other hand, being a native English speaker does not guarantee ability to produce logical, intelligent, meaningful or concise sentences. Don't you agree, please? --71.247.231.74 (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh run along and bother someone else and just remember that you can get blocked for edit warring. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I propose the following as the 1st par. of the lead (people are not things):

Saint Ignatius of Loyola (...) was a Spanish knight, a hermit and a deacon, who founded the Society of Jesus and became its first Superior General.[2] Ignatius and the Jesuits were major Catholic figures in the Counter-Reformation as the Church worked to reform itself from within to counter the theology of Protestantism. After the beatification in 1609, Pope Gregory XV canonized him on March 12, 1622. The feast day of Ignatius is celebrated on July 31. He is the patron saint among others of soldiers, the Society of Jesus, the Basque Country, the provinces of Guipúzcoa and Biscay.[3]

Please, talk.--71.247.231.74 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand 71.247.231.74's comments about English. Certainly English Wikipedia's use is not restricted to native speakers of English. However, that does not mean that it should not be written in correct English, that is to say English which a literate native speaker of English would accept. Unfortunately 71.247.231.74 does not seem to accept that some of his/her writing is not such proper English. For example, in a comment above we have "Wikipedia is not a tutorial of English. Isn't it, please?", which is simply not what English says. Then in the editing of the article we see "a Spanish knight, who became a hermit" replaced by "a Spanish knight, who turned a hermit", which again is not what English says: it prompts the question "who was this hermit that he turned, and where did he turn him to?". Then we have"Ignatius and the Jesuits became major figures in the Counter-Reformation" replaced by "Ignatius and the Jesuits were an arm of the Catholic Church" and later, after this was reverted, by "Ignatius and the Jesuits were a Catholic arm in the Counter-Reformation". Apart from the strange English (what on earth is a "Catholic arm"?) this is not just about changing the English: it seeks to remove the statement that Ignatius Loyola and the Jesuits were major figures. The editor seems to think that his/her edits are about rewriting the content in plain English, but in fact he/she is replacing perfectly sound English with clumsily garbled English, and also making changes to the meaning. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As me and several other people have tried to explain before but he insists on edit warring instead... Akerbeltz (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, what about your good faith, please? You miss the point of editing, which is to improve the article(s)... in good faith. What about other parts of my editing that improved the lead? Everybody makes mistakes, but it is not a good reason to persistently revert edits claiming previous errors or justifying it by "<sigh>" and without any good faith attempt to understand the intention. You pointed my mistakes. So, what? There are no entitlements to editing. Even people who make mistakes are not barred from editing. You do not like something coherent, but not perfect stylistically or grammatically, you can improve it in good faith, but not repeatedly revert.

Collins COBUILD provides:

"6 An arm of an organization is a section of it that operates in a particular country or that deals with a particular activity.

[e.g.] Millicom Holdings is the British arm of an American company. N-COUNT: usu sing, usu N of n = wing"

"7 Someone who is referred to as a figure of a particular kind is a person who is well-known and important in some way.

[e.g.] The movement is supported by key figures in the three main political parties. N-COUNT: with supp"

Hence, how the Jesuits could be a figure since they were not someone (a person), but something... in any language; welcome to formal logic! But the Jesuits were section of the Catholic Church. Hence, they can be called a Catholic arm in English per Collins COBUILD... and in any other language I know. Got it?

Webster's Dictionary says:

"tutorial n. 3 a system of instruction containing exercises, information, etc., as in a training manual or computer program, for individual self-study"

Anyway, please, try to be more constructive... in good faith. I will improve the lead with or without your help the same way I did it for Phenomenology (philosophy)... using my poor English.--71.247.231.74 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a EFL class but I will point out to you that language is much more complex than can be contained in a dictionary and there are many occasions when you will just have to accept the judgement of a native speaker that something is ok or not ok even if it's not in the dictionary. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

71 (if I may call you that), you say: "You pointed my mistakes. So, what? There are no entitlements to editing. Even people who make mistakes are not barred from editing." That's correct, of course, and no-one is suggesting you should be barred from editing. Someone pointed out your mistakes, and now they can be fixed - which is obviously a good outcome! I don't think anyone intends it as a personal criticism of you. You also say "You do not like something coherent, but not perfect stylistically or grammatically, you can improve it in good faith, but not repeatedly revert." Well, if your change has unfortunately introduced a mistake, then reverting to the previous version is improving it. If there are other specific improvements you think you've made (or want to) then by all means suggest them here and editors can discuss them. But on the issue of improving the style of the English, I think Akerbeltz may be correct: sometimes one just has to accept what native speakers do or don't see as acceptable language (for example, "...an arm of the organisation" is fine as you say above, but "...were a Catholic arm..." sounds very wrong to me). I certainly appreciate that that's frustrating sometimes but that's how it is: I'm currently learning Dutch and although my teacher's ax experienced linguist, her answers to my questions tend to be "that's wrong because no Dutch person would say it" as often as they are "that's wrong because of the following well-formed rule". Such is life. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Phenomenology (philosophy) article is hardly a shining track record of your edits, given the number of times you were reverted there... Akerbeltz (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Akerbeltz, too bad, but what about even more good faith (WP:FAITH)?

Olaf Davis, I agree with you except for: (A) "if your change has unfortunately introduced a mistake, then reverting to the previous version is improving it" for introducing a mistake easy to correct (e.g. grammatical or stylistical) may be improvement over illogical or primitive in general text; (B) "suggest them [specific improvements] here and editors can discuss them" for self-explanatory edits do not need anything more than just good faith; (C) my edits are not only about poor style (repetitions of the predicates become and is) and unnecessarily convoluted, but also about the murky content and a lack of a basic characterization of Loyola even as Catholic - all inconsistent with WP:LEAD. "Catholic arm" is incorrect, because they were an arm of the Catholic Church, hence "a Catholic... of the Catholic Church" is incorrect. If "Catholic arm" is intended as "Catholic arm of the Counter-Reformation" then "arm of the Counter-Reformation in the Counter-Reformation" is incorrect as well. Ergo, "an arm of the Catholic Church". I suggest:

Saint Ignatius of Loyola (...) was a Spanish knight, hermit, priest, and theologian, who in 1534 founded the Society of Jesus (Jesuits), and became its first Superior General in 1543.[2] The Jesuits emerged during the Counter-Reformation as a reaction of the Catholic Church against the theology of Protestantism. Loyola's devotion to the Church can be summed up in Rule 13 of the Jesuits' "Rules for Thinking with the Church" by him: "I will believe that the white that I see is black if the hierarchical Church so defines it." After the beatification in 1609, Pope Gregory XV canonized him on March 12, 1622. The feast day of Ignatius is celebrated on July 31. He is the patron saint among others of soldiers, the Society of Jesus, the Basque Country, the provinces of Guipúzcoa and Biscay.[3]

Please, talk.--71.247.231.74 (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Reads like it was written by a 14 year old in a school essay, not an encyclopaedic article. Clarity is indeed called for but there is nothing objectionable about a sentence with a subclause. Get over it. Akerbeltz (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Akerbeltz, although he may be wrong, please AGF. Comments like 'written by a 14 year old in a school essay, not an encyclopaedic article' I think are a bit going over the edge. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, my apologies. Akerbeltz (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Akerbeltz, exactly! All is written in simple sentences accessible to not sophisticated readers... 14 years old who may also want to know about Loyola in Africa, Spanish dominant areas of USA, etc. There is the sophistication while retaining simplicity - quite difficult to master - consistent with WP:LEAD, which provides that: "[t]he lead [...] should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article". Wikipedia is not only for people like you.

Only an elite of native speakers of English can edit the Phenomenology (philosophy) article and a few can make its lead consistent with WP:LEAD. It stays as I proposed. You do not know who anonymous editors are. Look how much more substance about Loyola I proposed in place of the irrelevant info about the Church. The proposed 1st par. synthesizes not only his life, but also the character (missing before).

14 (and most of 20-100) years old have no capacity to synthesize. They do not know what minimum info is sufficient and in what order to achieve a relevant sum... and how to put it in simple sentences. What about being a bit constructive? Humility (WP:AGF) never harmed anyone. --71.247.231.74 (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

71, while the comment itself was inappropriate, what you're trying to do is appropriate on the Simple English Wikipedia but not necessarily here. Here, we try to be clear, but not by aiming for the lowest common linguistic denominator. This has nothing to do with you being an IP editor, that's totally irrelevant to me. Since anyone can create an account, you never really know anyway whon you're dealing with in real life. It simply so happens that what you keep trying to do to the lead of this particular article is not a good idea. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Akerbeltz, my edits do not aim "for the lowest common linguistic denominator". I have added important content, while not increasing the text volume, and shifted its focus. In other words, I made the 1st par. of the lead more encyclopedic, i.e. - per Collins COBUILD - more "full, complete, and thorough in the amount of knowledge or information ... (= comprehensive)" while retaining simplicity. Please, WP:AGF a bit more. It is you, who called my attempts to do so as "distorting [...] meaning" (see "*20:41, 6 February 2010 Akerbeltz (revert, you're distorting grammar and meaning)") repeated all over above.

My edits are not as primitive (you imply) as for Simple English Wikipedia (using only 1000 words), but simple to be accessible also to 14 years (and up) old who know many more words, but are not proficient in getting complex language structures, which are unnecessary in the encyclopedia at all. Have I not simplified the lead of Phenomenology (philosophy), it would remain inaccessible to the most people knowing all the words used. Elaborated language structure do not belong in the lead according to WP:LEAD. Accessibility and compactness are the requirement. None of them were present in the lead before. A famous NY lawyer David Boies argued for Gore (vs. Bush) in the US Supreme Court using the simplest English possible. You could believe the Justices knew English. Simplicity follows floweriness. It is more difficult to express matters simply and shortly then in a convoluted way. Please, WP:AGF a bit more. --71.247.231.74 (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You can't use AGF as an excuse for everything you do. I am not the only other editor who has pointed out to you that you're edits distorted the meaning. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely and 100 % I have distorted the insufficient meaning and form... to make them more comprehensive and simpler respectively (and consistent with WP:LEAD)... I try to tell so from the begining. Yes, that is just all about my effort. Please, WP:AGF a bit more. --71.247.231.74 (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm tuning out of this debate - I only have it on my watchlist because it gets vandalised a lot but actually rarely get involved in the content. Asuming that other editors who are more involved in the topic also keep an eye on this page, I shall leave you guys to sort out this particular issue and simply keep an eye on vandalism. All the best. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I see that you were clearly trying to help the article through your changes, but some of them, unfortunately, distorted the grammar, and word flow. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they were, and I fixed them in the last proposal above in bold(face); "word flow" is a very enigmatic term - please, be more specific, so I will fix it too. The progression of the description seems to be fluid. Sentences are simple and extend previous ones while adding new details. The text is dense and sums main points of the life in a clear overview. Please, indicate, which changes are inferior to the previous version, so I will improve. --71.247.231.74 (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Since there is nothing specified as objectionable to be improved, I am going to replace the 1st par. w/ the proposal above in bold(face). --71.247.231.74 (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

...and I finally had time to do so and to fix the rest of the lead, though my IP address has changed to the following. --162.83.224.243 (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ratings!

The founder of the CHURCHES appears as the current example of a Saint of "mid imporatnce" on the "importance rating scale". Who does these ratings?

--Amandajm 00:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC) For what it's worth, I was shocked by the rating myself. For Christianity probably, but for Catholicism?? I'd say for Catholicism he is pretty High Importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Citations Needed

This page was drawn to my attention recently. Kudos on the work done to provide a helpful Wiki article. It does need to be carefully sourced and cited. For instance, refer to Martin Luther as an example of a article that has been continuously sourced and cited in response to requests for this kind of thing. It has resulted in a stronger article. Thanks. Ptmccain 22:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC) easier to read info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.138.9.1 (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ignatius as Confessor

In the Infobox, Ignatius is flagged with the title "Confessor," but is this true? I've never heard of him being officially declared to be a Confessor of the Church and there's nothing about it at newadvent.org/Catholic Encyclopedia.

Can anyone verify the accuracy of this, or should it be removed?

Jonathan Stott 15:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjstott (talk • contribs)

Article has a very Pro-Catholic slant, and ignores major features of Loyola's life

For example...Loyola was a vigorous member of the Inquisition, and tortured and killed many, many opponents of the Catholic Church. Why is this not mentioned? Why, instead, is he described as having "a powerful and respectable legacy."...? Only to those who are ignorant of the facts. Loyola attempted to ASSASSINATE Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V. Nothing is mentioned! Nor is there mentioned a single word about the fact that Loyola essentially invented the concept of the Secret Police. Nothing.

This article is full of myths, such as the "miraculous conversion" story, as well. This article is nothing but a Catholic propaganda piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timber72 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Timber72, please do add relevant information, and sign your comments, that will help to add credit to your contribution to the wikipedia. Your contributions are interesting and can add to gain insight into his personality and enrich the info available, as well as avoiding that an article becomes a panegyric. However, your info can come across as controversial as you know, so do add info as detailed as possible, verified please, and keep it constructive. Regards! Iñaki LL (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

July 24, 2014 edit to Early life

I'm explaining my edit here because changes to this article "are subject to review". At the part about "Gentilhombre", somebody tried using a bunch of markup to link to sections of the Spanish and French versions of WP. It didn't work, and instead, a whole section was excluded, while the remainder of the paragraph was left in bold. Please see the "before and after" versions before making any reverts. - ^theWOLFchild 06:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

WP Catholicism - Class B assessment / GA nomination?

Greetings, Today I added the B-checklist. Afer Class-B is completed, wondering if this article can be nominated for GA class? Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"...devotion to the Catholic Church..."

From the article: "Loyola's devotion to the Catholic Church was characterized by unquestioning obedience to the Catholic Church's authority and hierarchy."

This is a loaded statement, even if it is quoted from another source. It is speculative. Whether or not Loyola questioned the Church is known only to him. This is worth noting because it gives the layman the very false impression that St. Ignatius was a pawn who either lacked or did not exercise the ability to think for himself, when in fact he was one of the most free-thinking Saints of his era. St. Ignatius did in fact wrestle with the question of founding a religious order for the very reason that he was concerned that the Pope might impose rules curtailing their new ideas. In addition, Loyola was not born a pious Saint, but over time forged himself into one after a period of youthful debauchery. So again, to put forth a statement in the first paragraph that diminishes his free spirit and sense of individual purpose serves only to sell him short and is a disservice to the reader.

Anthonym7009 (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.196.233 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2012‎

The secular legacy of Ignatius Lopez de Loyola

This article is seriously lacking in a section on the "secular" legacy of Ignatius Lopez Loyola.
You should start with mentioning important institutions and places that are named for him.
To get you started on that, in the United States there are five prominent colleges that are named for him, and I will name them roughly. You can work out the details: Loyola of Maryland, Loyola of Chicago, Loyola of Los Angeles, the Loyola University college of medicine in Chicago, and Loyola of New Orleans.
The best thing to say is that I have lived in the metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, Baltimore/Washington, AND Chicago, and I know how hellishly confusing that it can be. (I had to work in the word "hellish" one way or another!) There are also other Loyola Colleges and Loyola Universities in other countries, on several continents. 47.215.183.159 (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Convert?

Was he from a family of Jewish converts? Clean Arlene (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Loyola colours

Give the details of colour palette 103.78.166.154 (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Death in the section about his conversion

It says he died on the 11th of September 2001? Clearly this is wrong. 86.25.16.169 (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)