Talk:Saint John's Seminary (Massachusetts)

	Christianity Low‑importance
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism Low‑importance

Saint John's Seminary (Massachusetts) is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Catholicism task list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Low-importance).

I am working to develop this article and improve it. Much more info and polishing is need. Feel free to join in. Frostandchill (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your contributions. Please be careful to avoid adding material of a merely promotional nature, or "newsy" trivia not important enough to be suitable for an encyclopedia.
  talk) 23:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Also, please use independent published third-party sources as much as possible, rather than relying heavily on the school's own publications. --
  talk) 23:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks Frostandchill (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This site is a work in progress.... I've done a lot of updating today and it's a big improvement from what it was just yesterday. Frostandchill (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not convinced of that. Most of the new material is fluff copied from the SJS website, not simple factual material documented from an independent source. Also, cutting out the photo "Gallery" is not obviously an improvement. --
  talk) 00:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Let me drop my objection about the Gallery, since you've preserved the photos. Thank you. --
    talk) 00:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Yes, content still needs to be improved I agree. This will take time. Frostandchill (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your note, Frostandchill. Although the persons named have achieved a certain level of accomplishment in their fields, Wikipedia's concept of WP:Notability is a little different from the concept of professional reputation and achievement. It requires that the person himself be the subject of coverage in third-party publications. I expect this is probably true of some of the persons mentioned, but perhaps not all. I think the list of "notable visitors" is really not worth adding: one-time visits by distinguished scholars and bishops are a good thing, but they don't tell us anything substantial about SJS itself, so they are not very important for the article.
  • Chonak, You need to understand that visitations by bishops and scholars to the seminary are not made based upon whims. These visitations are major events usually and often coincide with internationally recognized conferences such as the Celibacy conference at SJS last September 2009. So they are substantial and if elaborated provided vital information about SJS and its current status. Also, you refer to WP:Notability, but you also haphazardly deleted clearly notable persons that fit the standards of this site. The wikipedia standards you refer to give no specific indication for deleting these notable theologians, faculty, and alumni. In my humble opinion, I don't think you really know too much about St. John's Seminary besides what appears in publications owned by the New York Times which really don't give the best, most accurate, or up to date accounts about this seminary. Frostandchill (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Rather than disputing about a past edit, let me encourage you to make contributions. The article is far from complete and material from additional published independent sources would be of value. Although I found fault with some of the material you added, I
      talk) 17:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• One needs to think of this as an encyclopedia article, and understand what a reader looks for in an encyclopedia article: established facts of importance; nothing of a transitory or news-oriented nature; nothing promotional; no unattributed statements of opinion (even favorable). Some more basic sections of the article need work. The history needs to be expanded, including a description of the campus' changing extent over time. The turbulent 1960s and 1970s should be addressed. A list of the seminary's rectors should be included. A list of notable alumni (and there are probably many) is a good idea. --
  talk) 19:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Romanus Cessario meets the specific criteria for notability for academics (
    talk) 01:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]