Talk:Father Damien/Archive 1

older entries

 * Please do not convert ss.cc. (uncapitalized) to SS.CC. (capitalized) as the lowercase is the proper form of identification for this particular religious order
 * I've done some cleaning- mostly removing attributions for uncontroversial points, and grammar fixes. Markalexander100 03:01, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I've added a treatment of the famous criticism of Father Damien by Rev. Hyde as someone requested. --Gerald Farinas 17:49, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Good work, thanks! Markalexander100 01:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * A featured article. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:57, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

Request for references
Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:45, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

One of the references has come under scrutiny for accuracy and "Artistic License"
According to this Maui News article, the book “The Colony: The Harrowing True Story of the Exiles of Molokai" has come under fire for taking artistic liberties and improper useage of references, plus accusations that some folks at Kalaupapa never wanted to be mentioned in the book. Seeing that this book has been cited in the references section, I now question if some information from this book has somehow been intergrated into the article itself and has "poisoned" the article as such.--293.xx.xxx.xx 08:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue has been written about in this Honolulu Advertiser story, which found the allegations of "artistic license" to be without merit. Though Father Damien occupies only a limited spot in "The Colony," the notes and bibliography sections of the book provide a valuable resource for researchers interested in the priest's life.

See below. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Source Book possibly not Factually Accurate, Removed from Sources
The Book The Colony: The Harrowing True Story of The Exiles of Molokai, by John Tayman, has come under scrutiny that the author has taken artistic license to various parts of his book and misappropiated references. Due to this, coupled with anger by surviving residents of Kalaupapa, the book will be removed from the list of sources untill further proof can be made that the book is factually accurate and all disputes have been resolved. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sunlight at San Francisco
I doubt that this is of any importance being that this is an article about Blessed Damien, but there was a story from March 1937 in the Hearst San Francisco Examiner about how when Damien's coffin was brought to the docks for transport back to Belgium--he had been exhumed from Hawaii--a ray of sunlight allegedly broke through the sky and landed on the coffin! Quite a story, though perhaps not cogent to the article. Great nonetheless. Another, which is related to the process of his canonization is entitled "Church examines Damien's miracles", from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin dated March 29, 2003. It relates to a "Mrs.K" who was allegedly healed of a form of lung cancer after visiting the former grave of Blessed Damien in Hawaii. Interesting article for those of us Catholics who struggle with belief! Great wikipage so far, though. Does service to a great man of God.

Venerated by
I left the reference to Father Damien being venerated by Anglican Churches as there as several shrines in the Anglican/Episcopal world dedicated to this incredible man, whos history of ministry is to this day a great comfort. For one example view the "Damien Chapel" in this church in Hollywood, USA.

Leprosy contraction and death
Damien's own contraction of leprosy, and his subsequent death from it, is highly pertinent and shows the lengths to which he was willing to go in his service. Why is this not mentioned in the article? Softlavender 22:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any empirical evidence that Damien had what is now known as leprosy? As we understand it now, at least 95% of humans are not susceptible to leprosy infection.  Further, leprosy does not frequently cause death directly.  His diagnosis was made because he was unable to feel boiling water on his feet?  It's possible that he had leprosy induced neuropathy, but I'd bet that repeated immersion in boiling water is also not good for nerves.173.8.220.209 (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Image
Wikipedia has gone to great lengths to find good pictures for articles about evil dictators like Idi Amin and Pol Pot. Why does this article use such an uncomplementary picture of Father Damien? --Folklorum (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that Wikipedians are biased against Fr. Damien and that they support Idi Amin? Furthermore, I doubt he'd care. Gavin Scott (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The picture is, obviously, from late in his life and demonstrates the facial disfigurement that resulted from his contraction of Hansen's. It is likely that it - or one very akin to it - was the model from which the statues of him in HI and DC were fashioned. The idea that a complimentary photo would be more evocative of his 'saintliness' - which I sense is the underlying thought - ignores the fact that the man is honored for what he did, one effect of which was to become afflicted by a disease that was notable for casting its victims in a less than photogenic appearance. Sainthood ain't necessarily pretty. Irish Melkite (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Medical Journal
The Hawaii Medical Journal, 2000 Oct contains the article used as evidence during the Father Damien inquiry. The title of the article is "Complete spontaneous regression of cancer: four case reports, review of literature, and discussion of possible mechanisms involved" by W Y Chang. Here is a citation: Spontaneous regression or remission (SR) of cancers has been defined as the disappearance of the malignancies without any treatment or with obviously inadequate treatment. Four case reports are presented. These include a case of pleomorphic liposarcoma with bilateral lung metastases, a case of recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus following esophagectomy a year earlier, a case of a squamous cell carcinoma of the scalp, and a case of a ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma with an emergency right hepatic lobectomy but with some gross cancer remaining in the left hepatic lobe. The literature of SR of cancers was reviewed and various mechanisms possibly involved in the disappearance of the cancers were discussed. Although immune modulation has been stated to be the most likely process causing SR, other mechanisms, such as genetic therapy, withdrawal of carcinogens, infection, fever and vaccine roles, apoptosis, antibody, antiangiogenesis and maturation mechanisms, withdrawal of therapy, natural killer activity, endocrine, hormonal, and pregnancy factors, and prayers or psychoneuro-religious participation were also mentioned. Induction and inhibition of malignant protein expression and repair of gene damage may prove to be the more important processes in cancer regression. It was also pointed out that the pulmonary metastases of the liposarcoma and the recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus may be the very first cases of their kind to be described and that it is rare indeed to find 4 cases of SR's in a solo practice. Finally, it is likely that SR is rarer than previously believed and that the incidence may be one in every 140,000 cases of cancer rather the one per 60,000 to 100,000 cancer cases as earlier thought. There can be no doubt now. Journal Reader (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The phrase "also mentioned" does not help. Also the statistic about the rate of spontaneous remissions is not profound enough to warrant inclusion. Monticello Fellow (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Error in Reference
The current reference 8 in the article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=563316&in_page_id=1811 contains an error. It states that the healed woman in Hawaii "prayed for healing at his graveside in Molokai, Hawaii" but as we know, Father Damien's body was moved to Belgium in the 1930s. We can't control what they print, but perhaps we should not use that reference any longer. Repentance 23:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * His hand was returned to Hawaii; and his original grave is still there, even if his remains are mostly not. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Father Damien Miracles
The article states "In April 2008 the Vatican ruled that Father Damien was indeed responsible for several miracles attributed to him." Is there any documenation for the existence of "several" miracles? I have only seen two mentioned in other sources. One is associated with the Hawaii Medical Journal case, documented above (which now has some concerns associated with it). The other one I am aware of is Sister Simplicia Hue of France in 1895 recovering from intestinal illness. Are there really more cases, amounting to "several"? Queasy Rider (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * changed "several" to "two" miracles in the article. Monticello Fellow (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Then we should describe the evidence for the two miracles in the article. Bebopadopoulos (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Father Damien's Faults
Robert Louis Stevenson's defense of Father Damien is appropriately included in this article, but Stevenson also included a graphic list of Damien's faults. Some of Stevenson's surprising descriptions of Father Damien (gained from his questioning of Kalaupapa residents over several days) were that Damien was "shrewd, ignorant and bigoted", "grumbling", "essentially indiscreet and officious", "domineering in all his ways", "incurably unpopular with the Kanakas (Hawaiians)", "destitute of real authority", and wrote of Damien's "lack of control" and of his "slovenly ways and false ideas of hygiene". Stevenson also wrote that "his boys laughed at him", "he must carry out his wishes by the means of bribes". An amazing contrast from the same author. Full text at http://www.fullbooks.com/Father-Damien.html  Journal Reader (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good find. The article needed some balance.  Sister7 (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oy, Stevenson actually replied to the charges Hyde had made that Damien was "shrewd, ignorant and bigoted". And when the other above criticisms are read in context (the way Stevenson wrote them in), they don't come across as negative as Journal Reader puts it. So, to remedy that, I chose to quote him more fully. Uthanc (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit introduces problems of its own. You deliberately left out the statement from Stevenson that he gained his information about Damien by questioning Kalaupapa residents over eight days and seven nights. You deliberately stated that Protestants were the ones critical of Damien, and left out Stevenson's statement "I was besides a little suspicious of Catholic testimony". Of course, we have not yet gotten into the documented statements that Damien died from pneumonia (for which he refused treatment), rather than from leprosy (only 5 years after contracting it). The article reads like a fairy tale now. Why not just tell the truth? Journal Reader (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You deliberately left out the statement from Stevenson that he gained his information about Damien by questioning Kalaupapa residents over eight days and seven nights. - This is in: "Prior to writing his treatise, Stevenson stayed in Molokai for eight days and seven nights, during which he kept a diary."


 * I cut "I was besides a little suspicious of Catholic testimony; in no ill sense, but merely because Damien's admirers and disciples were the least likely to be critical. I know you will be more suspicious still; and the facts set down above were one and all collected from the lips of Protestants who had opposed the father in his life." for reasons of brevity. Shall put it.


 * Not concerned with the manner of death. I don't see how that's relevant to this particular issue of representing Stevenson accurately.


 * "Reads like a fairy tale?" "Tell the truth instead?" I'm only letting Stevenson speak for himself. Uthanc (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Documented Damien's imprisonment of a patient, his exaggerated claims of his own strength and importance, and Catholic mythmaking for recruiting and raising money. Journal Reader (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeking Source info for Sister Simplicia Hue, France, 1895 Miracle
I have been unable to find detailed source info for the Sister Simplicia Hue, France, 1895 miracle. A google search shows only two Honolulu newspaper stories that mention it very briefly:

"The Catholic Church's process of making a saint has evolved through the centuries from a time when legendary heroes and martyrs were accepted without much verification. On June 13, 1992, Pope John Paul II approved an 1895 cure as a miracle as required for Damien's beatification, the step before canonization. In that case, a French nun, Sister Simplicia Hue, 37, was dying of a long intestinal illness. After she began a novena to Father Damien, symptoms of the illness disappeared overnight on Sept. 11, 1895. She lived for 32 more years. Her story, and the cause for Damien's sainthood, languished without attention for decades, in part because of politics in the Sacred Hearts religious order, which wanted its founder to be named a saint first." "Another event associated with Father Damien had already been accepted by the Vatican as a miracle. In 1895, a nun in France named Simplicia Hue was cured of a debilitating intestinal disease after praying for Damien's intercession." and the Hawaii Catholic Herald story which contains only: "On June 13, 1992, Pope John Paul II approved the 1895 cure of a Sacred Hearts Sister in France as the miracle needed for Father Damien’s beatification. In that case, Sister Simplicia Hue of France began a novena to Father Damien as she lay dying at age 37 of a lingering intestinal illness. The pain and symptoms of the illness disappeared overnight on Sept. 11, 1895, and Sister Simplicia lived for another 32 years." Are there any better references than these? Rocky Roady (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have looked for something substantiative to support this also, and there does not appear to be anything. Just brief newspaper articles and dramatic pronouncements in the catholic newsletters, but no evidence.  Did Sister Simplicia Hue keep a diary?  What medical documentation was generated at the time?  Is the problem that we don't have enough faith?  Journal Reader (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Another Disturbing Miracle Contradiction
http://starbulletin.com/2008/07/04/news/story... "She underwent surgery a year later. A tumor the size of a fist was removed from the side of her left thigh and buttock."

http://starbulletin.com/2003/03/29/news/story... "She had absolutely no treatment, not even a diet."

Bebopadopoulos (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Father Damien Miracles While Alive?
Were there any miracles performed by Father Damien while he was alive? Were any lepers cured? Monticello Fellow (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought about that too, a believers should ask himself this question, a man who devoted his life to leprosy, and contracted it himself, I'd think that if there was an afterlife with the possibility of affecting earthly life then this man would want to do more than curing a tummy ache and cancer, it's not as if leprosy does not exist anymore! Perhaps there's a learning curve and cancer is easier than leprosy :) Belgianatheist (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently, Father Damien can only cure Catholic women, who do not have leprosy, who pray to him, and only after he has died. Medieval Superstitions (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Medieval Superstitions (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For any organization other than the Vatican, the evidence for even one miracle by Father Damien, living or dead, is completely inadequate. In the case of the French nun, there is nothing at all.  In the case of the Hawaiian woman, the evidence is circumstantial at best, but is full of deliberately misleading statements, exaggerations, and omissions.  Modern mythology at its worst. Born Again Skeptic (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If the Muslims made claims of miracle cures after praying to a dead Imam, we would look at them as fools. If the Mormons made claims of miracle cures after praying to dead Elders, we would laugh at them.  If fundamental Christians made claims of miracle cures after praying to a dead minister, we would think they are being childish.  Here we have a Wikipedia article that perpetuates the Catholic claims of miracle cures after praying to a dead Priest.  It has the same validity and reproducibility as the Groundhog Day myth. Freedom from Foolishness (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But don't other religionists already think Catholic veneration of saints is foolish, laughable, childish, not to say diabolical? Uthanc (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * GroundHog Day has been the subject to more rigorous analysis than the Father Damien Miracle claims.

Groundhog Day proponents state that the rodents' forecasts are accurate 75% to 90%. A Canadian study for 13 cities in the past 30 to 40 years puts success rate level at 37%.[6] Also, the National Climatic Data Center reportedly has stated that the overall predictions accuracy rate is around 39%. Care to speculate on the success rate of praying to Father Damien? Theodore Jupiter (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A little clarification with regard to saints and miracles: The Catholic Church does not teach nor beleive that saints perform mircales- only Gold can do that. Petitents pray to those they beleive are in heavan to ask God to intercede on their behalf; a mircale is an indication that the saint asked God to intervene and thus is in heaven. Catholic sainthood is not a degree endowed by earthly institutions but an indication that one has been revvieded into heaven.Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't Fight It
My advice is to let it go. Some hyperbole is inevitable in these cases. The high standards make some of this necessary. Friend of the Process (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your point about the bar being set too high. But that does not justify making up miracles where none exist.  The world has changed.  It is much easier now to verify the truth.  Artificial Color (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wikipedia's purpose is to document facts: fact-the Catholic Church believes in miracles; fact-the Catholic Church requires that two miracles be attributed to a candidate for sainthood before he/she is beatified; fact-the Catholic Church has deemed two reported instances in which prayers were directed to Damien to have resulted in miracles; fact-the Catholic Church has determined, in accord with its own standards, that Damien therefore satisfies the requirements for beatification; fact-the Catholic Church has beatified Damien.

Wherefore, it gets documented. A debate as to whether miracles are miraculous has no particular place here, except insofar as some verifiable source raises questions vis-a-vis the miracles attributed to Damien.Irish Melkite (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is beneficial, for a growing segment of educated readers, to document these claims and conclusions by the church, and the shocking lack of standards and evidence. The church "requires" two miracles for sainthood, which forces them to recognize their star performers by creating or endorsing myths like these miracle cures after the saint has died, rather than by an "Outstanding Achievement Award", "Person of the Year", "Legion of Merit", etc. which are accepted methods of recognizing the legitimate deeds of a person while he or she was alive.  We will probably have editors like the one above for several more years, who can't allow themselves to see the manipulation and deception.  At the very least, it is important to document here that most people no longer believe such fanciful mythology, and have the ability to recognize manufactured evidence.  Artificial Color (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article should be about the life of Father Damien, not about the Catholic church. Savanna Montana (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We have an obligation to not just repeat unverified claims pertaining to life or death issues in Wikipedia articles. There are still people who believe these things literally. Two recent cases of dead children after the parents prayed for cures rather than seeking medical attention: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341869,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343148,00.html Some sort of disclaimer or alternate view would be a good idea, rather than just allowing these unprovable claims to be repeated here. The Biggest Lie Ever Told (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this disclaimer:

'WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE Wikipedia contains articles on many medical topics; however, no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained or cited in an article touching on medical matters is true, correct, precise, or up-to-date. The overwhelming majority of such articles are written, in part or in whole, by nonprofessionals. Even if a statement made about medicine is accurate, it may not apply to you or your symptoms.

The medical information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a medical professional (for instance, a qualified doctor/physician, nurse, pharmacist/chemist, and so on). Wikipedia is not a doctor.

None of the individual contributors, system operators, developers, sponsors of Wikipedia nor anyone else connected to Wikipedia can take any responsibility for the results or consequences of any attempt to use or adopt any of the information presented on this web site.

Nothing on Wikipedia.org or included as part of any project of Wikimedia Foundation Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a medical opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of medicine.'

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer"

How is that? SoundsRight (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This one is better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS OR ILLEGAL. Rocky Roady (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tombstone Differences
In the two photos of Father Damien's tombstone (1889 and recently) in the article, it looks like they have different words on them. What was the original inscription? Knurled Knob (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Cancer Survival Rate in Hawaii
"People with cancer in Hawaii are more likely to survive the disease than people who live in other states and even some countries, according to an international study." http://starbulletin.com/2008/07/20/news/story03.html This does not follow the line of thinking which predominates the Father Damien article on miracle cures. In addition to the fact that the statistical rate of spontaneous regression or remission is measurable, that the woman in question "underwent surgery a year later. A tumor the size of a fist was removed from the side of her left thigh and buttock" and did not as original stated have "absolutely no treatment, not even a diet", we now learn that the survival rate of cancer patients in Hawaii is higher than in other states and some countries. Yet some people still believe that health, weather, financial problems, etc. are solved by praying to dead priests. Most have been repeatedly told this kind of superstition all their lives. That is unfortunate but understandable. What is not understandable is how some of the media and encyclopedias still perpetuate unfounded myths without looking at the actual evidence. Seriously, in the year 2008, what percent of the population actually believe that cancer can be cured by praying to Father Damien? What is that belief based on? Is there room in this article for the statistical information cited above? Trying Again (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes there is. Done.  Lanai Primate (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is the work of the devil. Creating doubt in people's minds. Faithful Believer (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand you disappointment, but you should not demonize me for reporting the facts. Trying Again (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * &ldquo;what percent of the population actually believe that cancer can be cured by praying to Father Damien?&rdquo;
 * &mdash; Dunno. Do you ? Do you have any idea of how many people go see a healer when all else fails ?
 * &ldquo;What is that belief based on?&rdquo;
 * &mdash; Faith. For example, faith that the creator God has power over the whole universe and its workings, including disease and death. Besides, should you be a non-believer, certainly you have a notion that faith alone can accomplish some remarkable feats.
 * And no, you did not just report the facts, you threw in a few extras. --Jerome Potts (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm could someone help...
I have read through the article, I would say its neutrality is fine- it doesn't claim miracles are real (it makes it pretty clear that its the Catholic Church's claim that Damien has carried them out) There are one or two bits I would change mind you but, overall its a good article!

Then I ready the talk-page...all this stuff about whether or not the miracles are real or not- that is not for Wikipedia to decide and is certainly not even relevant to this article!

So, could someone please explain what all this discussion about whether or not the miracles actually happened or not have to do with this article? All that seems notable is the Catholic Church believed they did happen and that some people dispute it...that is the only neutral way of delivering the article...so why this long drawn out argument? Gavin Scott (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the neutrality is satisfactory. Updated the citation for the July 4, 2008 newspaper article.  Calm down everyone. Bebopadopoulos (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tagged the remaining "File Not Found" references that Gavin overlooked during his review. Gavin: please try to be more impartial (your user page shows that you are "Roman Catholic all the way") so if you are going to tag one reference that documents holes in the miracle cure claim, you should have tagged the other two that do not. Lanai Primate (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ignore that accusation of my being biased in this case, if you do doubt my ability to contribute to this article in an objective sense then please feel free to leave me a comment on my talk page. Anyway, back to the article- I did not actually look through the references otherwise I would have removed the ones that led nowhere. It was actually by chance that I clicked on what was Ref 9 and found it led nowhere. I have looked over the rest of the references and found they do all indeed lead somewhere. Looking back over the article I come across the sentence "Father Damien is known for his love of and ministering to people with what was then widely known as leprosy, forced by government-sanctioned medical quarantine, living on the island of Molokai in the Kingdom of Hawaii." First off, the sentence doesn't make sense. Should it not read Father Damien is known for his love of and ministering suffers of the disease leprosy who had been placed under a medical quarantine on the island of Molokai, just off of Hawaii. Then there is the issue of "his love of" is that really necessary, is there even a ref to prove he did "love" them? In the Service at Kalaupapa section there is a quote from Bishop Maigret, do we have evidence for this quote? There is also allot of "it is stated" and "people say" but who are these people and where is it stated? There are allot of issues to be addressed here, however I do not think neutrality is one of them. Gavin Scott (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the way this appears to me. This person has hundreds of posts in mostly pro-Catholic issues on Wikipedia, and described himself as "Roman Catholic all the way".  He objected to discussions of "all this stuff about whether or not the miracles are real or not".  He deleted one reference which pointed out an inconvenient truth about a miracle claimed by the Catholic church.  He "did not actually look through" the other references which were not critical, even though two of those "led nowhere".  When this was pointed out, politely, he immediately portrayed himself as a victim.  He is probably not a bad person, but likely accepts these miracle cure myths as divine truth, and wants to stop any blasphemy that they are just modern superstitions. Looks Like, and Quacks Like A Duck (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please concentrate on the responses I made to the article. Gavin Scott (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let it go. Assume good faith (no pun intended).  Life is short.  Bebopadopoulos (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, back to the article. I like to think we have a good NPOV article infront of us however there are still several sourcing problems. As you will have all seen I have inserted the and {who}} warnings where appropriate. Gavin Scott (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The use of multiple accounts
It's become increasingly clear to me that this talk page is overrun with single-purpose accounts and sock puppets, each of which make a few edits to this talk page and related articles (most notable Prayer and Catholicism-related articles) before disappearing. Even assuming good faith, the contribution patterns of these users make it obvious that some if not all of them are being operated by a single individual.

Although Wikipedia allows the limited use of multiple accounts, this level of activity greatly reduces the signal-to-noise ratio on this talk page and hinders normal discussion leading to productive collaboration. To this end, I (and the editors of this article) would appreciate it greatly if this kind of activity stopped.

Just to clarify, I'm not here to punish--if the socking stops voluntarily, I have no reason to use the tools. If it doesn't, then I have no problem with employing checkusers, protection, and blocks to prevent further disruption if necessary.

Please feel free to ask if you have any questions. -- jonny - m t  08:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

C Class
The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach B Class standards. It should meet the six B-Class criteria:

-The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as is not required, but the use of tags is encouraged.

-The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.

-The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.

-The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.

-The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.

-The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

I feel the article needs far more citations. It is largely unsourced. -- Secisek (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that the only issue? Please consider the non-inline dead-tree references when grading articles also.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A "B" class article should nearly be able to take a credible attempt at GA. It might not pass, which is why it is only "B" class, but it should be close. This article would not have a chance at GA without more in line citations, look at the bio part. The bio part also needs expansion. The text is so light in places that the pictures destroy the format.


 * I am a member of both the Saints and the HI state project and I will see if I can add any thing. I would suggest moving facts out of the lead into the body and then rewriting a proper lead when the article is nearing GA class.-- Secisek (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Count me in. If anyone needs help with anything, please contact me. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Name
Question about naming conventions: Why is the article titled Father Damien, while articles like Mother Marianne Cope redirect to Marianne Cope? Which is the correct convention? Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Father Damien is far and away "the name that is most generally recognisable" per WP:NCP. Any other suggested titles? -- Secisek (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section 27 January 2008
-Original Message- From: [edited]

Just a note to let you know that there needs to be some clarification regarding Wikipedia's section about Fr. Damien. On page 4 of 8, in their section about the Canonization process for Fr. Damien, their statements, with references from your articles, were confused &/or erroneously quoted. The errors and confusion start on the second paragraph, 3rd line.

Wikipedia mixed up 2 different events: (1) the primary liposarcoma of Mrs. Toguchi's left hip resected on Jan. 09, 1998, and (2) the pulmonary metastases (spread of the cancer to both of her lungs) discovered eight months later, on Sept. 03, 1998, but untreated. The primary cancer of the left hip was resected on 01/09/1998, but the pulmonary metastatic liposarcomatous masses, discovered 8 months later, were NOT treated, even though chemotherapy was strongly suggested to her. As you know, Mrs. Toguchi refused all treatment and instead prayed to Fr. Damien.

Wikipedia should be notified of their erroneous statements, a confusion resulting from the 2 references taken from the Star Bulletin articles of March 29, 2003 (reference 14) of and July 4, 2008 (reference 13).

Perhaps, if you do not wish to do so, you can instruct me as to the method of correcting their errors.

For the sake of accuracy in reporting, I would appreciate your thoughts regarding this matter.

HAPPY NEW YEAR OF THE BOAR. Dr. [edited]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.223.245 (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC) name and email address deleted as a courtesy to protect from spammers and search engines, they remain in the edit history. 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION about the "Complete and Permanent Spontaneous Regression of the Metastatic Liposarcoma of Mrs. Toguchi"
I am not quite sure how the confusion and erroneous statements made in the second paragraph of the section on the "Canonization Process" can be corrected.

The editor of that section actually had contacted me when it was pointed out that the patient had a resection of the "primary" cancer of her left hip on 01/09/1998. But the metastatic pulmonary liposarcomatous spread, discovered 8 months later on 09/03/1998, in both ofher lungs, when follow-up chest X-rays were taken, was NOT treated.

These lung metastases are the cancers that DISAPPEARED WITHOUT TREATMENT. The patient attributed this remarkable unique event to her prayers to Father Damien for intercessional help.

Perhaps the editor could correctthis section as he was guided to the original scientific paper published in the October 2000 issue of the Hawaii Medical Journal. In case one of the article, it was clearly pointed out that there was a primary cancer and, 8 months later, there were metastases. Hopefully, he will correct the fallacious and misleading sentences of the second paragraph.

Walter Y. M. Chang, M. D. 02/01/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.223.245 (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the links above no longer work, here is the complete text of the Honolulu Star Bulletin Article that quoted Dr. Chang Saturday, March 29, 2003

Church examines Damien’s ‘miracle’

Doctors are unable to explain a woman's delivery from cancer

By Mary Adamski madamski@starbulletin.com

"It's a miracle." Even in this age of science, it's a common expression. It's a sign of hope and faith in the divine, or at least a nod to the notion that humans aren't in control of everything.

But "miracle" is not a determination that a medical professional or even an ecclesiastical authority is likely to be comfortable in making.

Nevertheless doctors and priests began meeting this week in a formal tribunal in Honolulu to scrutinize a possible miracle. The question before them is this:

Mrs. K, of Oahu, had cancer in both lungs in September 1998, a diagnosis established by biopsy and X-rays. She postponed treatment while she made a pilgrimage to Kalaupapa to pray for healing. At the grave of Father Damien DeVeuster, the 19th-century missionary to leprosy victims, she prayed that he would intercede with God on her behalf. A month later, an X-ray showed that the malignant mass had shrunk, and within five months it disappeared. The cancer has not returned. Was that a miracle?

Mrs. K believes that it was. She wrote to Pope John Paul II about it, setting in motion a process in the ponderous bureaucracy of the Catholic Church. Her point was not to seek personal attention -- indeed, she has prevailed on church and medical folks to protect her privacy. Her desire, like that of Damien's myriad fans around the world, is to have the cure officially accepted as a miracle.

That is the final requirement for the church to canonize Damien as a saint. The priest, who died in 1889 of leprosy after serving Kalaupapa residents for 16 years, was declared "Blessed Damien" by the pope in 1995.

The retired educator was 69 when her journey of healing began. She told her story this week to the tribunal convened by Honolulu Bishop Francis DiLorenzo. Her devotion to Damien is rooted in family history; one of her grandparents was sent to the Molokai peninsula that was the place of banishment for Hansen's disease patients until the development of sulfone drugs led to the end of quarantine in 1969.

'''Her story of faith has extraordinary scientific backup. Her case of "spontaneous regression of cancer" was documented by Dr. Walter Chang in the October 2000 edition of the Hawaii Medical Journal. In technical language backed up with X-rays, Chang described the case for his medical peers, commenting only briefly that the inexplicable cure "was attributed, by the patient, to the intercession of Father Damien."

"She had absolutely no treatment, not even a diet," Chang said in a recent interview. The Honolulu surgeon said he was "a witness to this remarkable event," but the word miracle is not in his vocabulary. His article explored possible scientific bases for spontaneous regression in this and three other cases. He wrote that he had never heard of spontaneous regression in this particular type of lung cancer.

"The doctor's report brings credibility," said the Rev. Joseph Grimaldi, who was named by the bishop to head the investigative committee. "There was no scientific explanation for her cure."'''

The panel will interview other medical specialists, as well as family and acquaintances of the woman for insight into her faith and devotion to Damien. Sitting with Grimaldi are the diocesan chancellor John Ringrose, a layman and canon lawyer; Dr. Philip Jones, a non-Catholic physician who has worked at Kalaupapa; the Rev. Robert Maher, a Capuchin priest; Netty Peiler and Kathy Sniffen as notaries.

The 4-year-old case got charged with a new urgency last year by the interest of the international religious order to which Damien belonged. The Rev. Emilio Vega Garcia, who is stationed in the Rome headquarters of the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, is in Hawaii to prod the process along in his role as procurator. Local Sacred Hearts Sister Helene Wood was commissioned vice postulator.

Chang said he has already compiled Mrs. K's medical records, which Vega Garcia presented to Dr. Franco DeRosa, physician and professor at the University of Rome. "He saw the evidence and said it was solid evidence," said Chang. "But as I comment in my report, it is difficult if not impossible to prove connection between prayer and cure."

The local tribunal will be expected to make a judgment about the religious aspect. Not only are they asked to determine if the reported cure was extraordinary in nature and occurred without any possible medical or scientific explanation, they are also expected to venture an opinion about whether the person cured had a particular devotion to Damien that corresponded with the change in medical condition.

"It is like the pope calling and asking these Hawaii people, 'What do you think about it?'" said Vega Garcia.

The priest from Rome said he will urge Hawaii residents to get involved in the grass-roots sainthood cause. "When I was in Kalaupapa, I told them, 'You have to write to the Holy Father.' It is important to communicate in this way that there is interest in Father Damien."

There are at least 800 sainthood causes already pending before the Vatican's Congregation for the Causes of Saints, which will receive the local report and set it for further scrutiny by theologians and medical professionals.

"Everything could be simplified if people manifested interest," Vega Garcia said.

"I think Father Damien has a difference. In the whole world he is known."

That is a fact that is underscored each day at Kalaupapa. At least two dozen visitors make the trek to the remote spot daily, said the Rev. Joseph Hendriks, Catholic pastor at the settlement. "Last week, 29 people from Tahiti walked down from the pali, and 14 people were here from Japan. I talked to a student from Zimbabwe and a man from Iran."

Grimaldi said: "There is already a great deal of respect for Father Damien around the world. A lot of people believe in his power.

"The church is very slow when it comes to the extraordinary," Grimaldi said. "It will be slow in declaring this a miracle ... to be sure this is a reality.

"The church emphasizes that holiness is achieved through ordinary means of life. God works through us in ordinary ways. It's much harder to go day in, day out, following the way of the Lord."

The Catholic Church's process of making a saint has evolved through the centuries from a time when legendary heroes and martyrs were accepted without much verification. On June 13, 1992, Pope John Paul II approved an 1895 cure as a miracle as required for Damien's beatification, the step before canonization.

In that case, a French nun, Sister Simplicia Hue, 37, was dying of a long intestinal illness. After she began a novena to Father Damien, symptoms of the illness disappeared overnight on Sept. 11, 1895. She lived for 32 more years.

Her story, and the cause for Damien's sainthood, languished without attention for decades, in part because of politics in the Sacred Hearts religious order, which wanted its founder to be named a saint first.

If you are Dr. Chang, welcome to the talk page. We are glad to have you. Please consider contacting the Honolulu Star Bulletin to post a retraction or clarification. Do you see how "She had absolutely no treatment, not even a diet," Chang said in a recent interview. was later found to be misleading? Do physicians treat people or illnesses? Do you want to encourage patients to disregard physician's advice in favor of praying? The newspaper quote was reprinted and used as proof of a miracle. Why did you wait so long to correct it? Do you have any comment on the quote by the president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Richard Schilsky, a University of Chicago cancer specialist? The case report for the claimed miracle cure in Hawaii was reviewed by the president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Richard Schilsky, a University of Chicago cancer specialist. He found that it's "highly likely" that the lung had already been seeded with liposarcoma cells when her original tumor was found. Schilsky said it isn't clear that all three lung growths were cancer, since only one was biopsied, and pointed out that there are several reasons people get small inflammatory nodules in the lungs that might resolve spontaneously. Dr. Richard Schilsky noted that "The point here is that the primary tumor was treated," and that could have helped her immune system control any remaining cancer in her body. Thank you again for posting here. Kahawai (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

An important distincton between a primary cancer and lung metastases or spread.
Thank you for the invitation.

I did not read the Wikipedia article until Jan. 23, 2009, but responded immediately in an attempt at clarification. You must excuse me as I do not usually read Wikipedia. Thus, that is the reason for the interval between the Wikipedia article and my response.

In an attempt at clarification, there is an important DISTINCTION to be made between the "PRIMARY" liposarcoma of the patient's left hip and her LUNG METASTASES. These are 2 different sites, events, time, and matters. My patient had her PRIMARY pleomorphic liposarcoma of her left hip resected and radiated in Jan., 1998. At that time, studies showed no tumor masses in her lungs. Her chest x-ray was read as "normal".

On Sept. 03, 1998, 8 months later, follow-up studies showed 3 rather large rounded pulmonary masses, interpreted as cancer SPREAD from her primary. The most accessible and biggest of these was biopsied on 09/17/98, and it showed the same vicious pleomorphic liposarcomatous cells that had been seen in the primary cancer of her left hip.

Mrs. T. was strongly advised to undergo chemotherapy for her cancerous spread. But, she calmly refused, and chose to pray on Molokai.

On October 02, 1998, without any treatment, x-rays showed that her lung masses had regressed, and had become smaller. Subsequent imaging studies, including CT scans showed steady regression and finally, about 8 months later, in May, 1999, they disappeared completely. All subsequent studies have revealed no further evidence of her former metastases. She has remained cancer-free for 10 years WITHOUT ANY THERAPY, "NOT EVEN A DIET".

All of these events had been well documented in my scientific article entitled "COMPLETE SPONTANEOUS REGRESSION OF CANCER, FOUR CASE REPORTS, REVIEW OF LITERATURE, AND DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE MECHANISMS INVOLVED", published in the October, 2000, issue of the HAWAII MEDICAL JOURNAL.

The Star bulletin article is correct. It seems that there was a misinterpretation of the 2 different Star Bulletin articles as there was no distinction made between the PRIMARY CANCER and the METASTATIC PULMONARY CANCERS. The former was resected, but the latter "had absolutely no treatment, not even a diet". This may have been my failing in NOT emphasizing the difference to the Star Bulletin writer since we were always discussing the lung metastatic tumors, and never the primary cancer, which was not the issue.

There is some uncertainty as to what the question: "Do physicians treat people or illnesses?" mean. People are treated for their illnesses.

Of course, patients should listen to their physician's advice, esp. if the advice is good. And, of course, they should pray if they are religious. They are not mutually exclusive.

The newspaper's quotations and reprints were not used as "proof of a miracle". But there are excellent documentations, physical evidences, imaging studies "before and after" the regression, biopsies, histological slides of the primary and metastatic cancers, multiple consultations and reports by the many physicians involved in the case that have recorded and followed the "complete and permanent spontaneous regression of the metastatic pulmonary liposarcomatous masses. These consultant have been other oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, and surgeons.

A former president of the American Cancer Society was asked by the Vatican to review this case, which subsequently was examined by a tribunal, then by 5 experts from the Univ. of Rome. All have agreed that this has been a remarkable case.

This physician makes no claims or connections to a "miracle". It is just that I have been indeed lucky to have had the good fortune and honor of being a witness, recorder, and reporter of 4 different remarkable events described in the October, 2000, issue of the Hawaii Medical Journal.

The reports of these cases would meet a significant portion of the description of what is a "miracle" in Webster's dictionary. They have all been remarkable, rare, if not unique, inexplicable events, contrary to the laws of nature or of medicine, and, if you are a "true believer", attributable to a supernaural cause. For the "true skeptic, these were all "random coincidences or random events", like being hit, while standing in Hawaii, by a snowball thrown by someone in Vermont.

Dr. Schilsky's comments were interesting. He knows that most physicians would say that it is standard medical practice to usually biopsy only the most accessible tumor mass, usually the largest, in the lungs no matter how many there are, if they all look similar. To biopsy more, unless there is a compelling reason, is considered unnecessary, even excessive and meddlesome. Furthermore, why take unnecessary risks and possibly cause problems such as a pneumothorax when the answer was so readily furnished from the first biopsy?

Yes, the other 2 lung masses could possible be inflammatory. But several excellent radiologists were of the opinion that these "cannon-ball-like" masses looked like the biopsied-proven left hilar metastasis, and were highly unlikely to be inflammatory.

It is a common belief amongst physicians that metastases are usually "seeded" by the original or primary cancer. But, because they are just "seeds", imaging studies do not pick up these "seeds", until these cancerous spreads are big enough to be seen, usually a centimeter or more. Doubling times vary and so for Mrs. T., the 6 month follow-up studies showed the 3 lung masses that had spread or "seeded" to both of her lungs.

Yes, the primary cancer was treated. But why did the metastatic lung masses grow so large during the 8 month period if the immune system was "controlling the cancers in her body. Why did the immune system allow the tumor masses grow from "seeds" to "cannon-balls" if the immune system is in such control?

In my scientific paper published in Oct. 2000, there is a discussion in some detail about the immune system. Immunological processes are stated in the medical literature to be the most likely cause for spontaneous regressions of cancers. But studies have shown that genetic mechanisms may be as important or perhaps more so in the correction and repair of gene damage, and inhibition or preevention of the abnormal protein expressions.

Since I have great respect for Dr. Schilsky, I will say that his comments are also valid.

Walter Y.M. Chang, M.D. 02/08/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.223.245 (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

typo errors
There are several typographical and consequently spelling errors in my script above. You must excuse me for these errors as I am a poor typist, having learned only recently when I retired. Prior to retirement from surgical practice, I was fortunate to enough to have had an excellent typist/receptionist/office nurse who performed all these mundane tasks, including editing, for me.

W.Y.M. Chang, M.D. 02/07/09

Possible Photo Caption Incorrect
The photo labeled "The leprosy patients of Molokai gathered around Father Damien's grave in mourning." may be incorrectly captioned. I have seen the photo in an old publication that indicates that it was actually taken at a gathering for a holiday such as the 4th of July, and has nothing at all to do with mourning. I do not have the name of the publication with me now, but will attempt to locate it. Note the iron fence. Photocaption (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Photocaption (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Photocaption (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it. The source listed on the image page is definitely wrong, so there may be some issues to be explored. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about Saint Damien's attribute
An attribute is usually a physical object of some sort that can be an emblem or symbol, but Saint Damien's attribute is listed as "leprosy". I'm not sure "leprosy" works as an attribute. Kenatipo (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Modern saints don't need "attributes" because we have photos of them. I say we should remove "Attributes" from the box at the top right of the page. Do I hear a second? Kenatipo (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No Protestants caring lepers?
I read in a site that no Protestants preachers were caring the lepers in Hawaii, whyle this Catholic saint was alive. Is this correct?Agre22 (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)agre22
 * It is not correct. At least, not if Anglicans count as Protestants - they were certainly active during Fr Damien's lifetime (and to some extent due to his example). --Paularblaster (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Formally" or "Formerly"?
From the lead of the article--"Saint Damien of Molokai, SS.CC. (Dutch: Pater Damiaan or Heilige Damiaan van Molokai; January 3, 1840 – April 15, 1889), formally Father Damien, born Jozef De Veuster, was a Roman Catholic priest from Belgium and member of the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary". Is Father Damian the formal name or did it meant to say he was fomerly know as Father Damien before canonization?Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe "formal" is correct. Since he was a Catholic priest, the formal address would be "Father so-and-so".  Someone with an ordinary family name, say John Smith, would formally be called "Father Smith".  But Damien was a monk before he became a priest; and he gave up his original name to take the religious name of Damien.  So when he was later ordained, he did not have a family name, so his formal appellation was "Father Damien". Fumblebruschi (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Name change
Does anyone think the page should be moved to Saint Damien of Molokai? --Kevin W. 17:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. He is best-known as "Father Damien", thanks largely, I suppose, to Stevenson's famous letter.  He has been known as "Father Damien" for 120 years, and has only been "Saint Damien" since the day before yesterday, so I think we'd want to wait a good long while before making such a change. Fumblebruschi (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Fumblebruschi is right in this case, the person in question is known as "Father Damien, not primarly "Saint Damien" although he is 'promoted' know. But maybe this will change after years, we will see. By the way: this is not intended as voting, it's just a discussion. After the discussion you can start the voting by following the right procedure. Demophon (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin's original suggestion. Regardless of how long he has been known by either, the title "Father Damien" is now incomplete -- if not actually inaccurate. A few minutes of Googling didn't help me figure out if the title of Saint supplants the title of Father. But as Wikipedia is based on citable facts -- not familiarity or comfort -- it seems to me that it should be changed. -- Boradis (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirects from Father Damien will not change, so I see nothing wrong with a move if that is the most appropriate and accurate naming convention for Saints. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strike that. Naming_conventions_(Western_clergy) appears to discourage such a move.  Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Kevin if Kevin is suggesting a move. Page should be moved to Saint Damien of Molokai so long as people searching for Father Damien are re-directed to the new page. He's not Father Damien any more. Kenatipo (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. He isn't known as Saint Damien, and as such, we keep the current name.  That's what the naming conventions guidelines say and that's what WikiProject Saints/Style Guidelines explicitly states.  You can see this for yourself merely by perusing the Saints by nationality categories.  These types of moves simply aren't made. Viriditas (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you're mistaken. He is now known as Saint Damien of Molokai by at least a billion people in the world called Catholics.  At what point in the future will the WikiGods decide that he is no longer known as "Father Damien"?  Kenatipo (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do yourself a favor and read the previous comment before replying. Wikipedia naming conventions only support using "Saint" in the article title if that is the most common name.  It isn't and we don't use it.  Please give me a list of all articles that have had their names changed based on your argument.  Looking at the Saint categories, I see none.  This is a secular encyclopedia, and we do not change titles based on what the Church does or does not do. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Viriditas, I may have spoken too soon. After reading the naming convention guidelines, you are probably correct.  I have a real problem with the guideline, however.  It makes it way too easy for people to disrespect the Saints by altering their names.  I haven't checked it out yet, but, I read that of the 12 Apostles, only St. Peter and St. Andrew still have their correct names.  The Saints naming convention guideline should be changed.   Kenatipo (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion, what would you Wikipedians think if the introduction is changed as: Saint Damien of Molokai, SS.CC. (Dutch: Pater Damiaan or Heilige Damiaan van Moloka), born as Jozef De Veuster (January 3, 1840 – April 15, 1889), more commonly known as Father Damien, was a Roman Catholic priest.... etc? Would that be not better? The title is alright I think. Notice, this is just a suggestion in a discussion, not a voting. Demophon (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I really think this is the least of our problems. The article is in terrible shape and needs serious expansion and sourcing in several key areas. Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

tree
“…the same Pandanus tree where he first slept upon his arrival on Molokai.”

I thought it was a Hau tree … --Jerome Potts (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Legacy
Removed refernces to shelters, clinincs, societies using Fr. Damien's name- there are a lot of them with no real connetion to Damien other than to have similar missions.Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Calendar
Any news on whether a memorial will be added in the General Roman Calendar? I know he has a day (May 10) on the US liturgical calendar, but I'm wondering about a world-wide day. Rwflammang (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Quote needs reliable source

 * Father Damien arrived at the secluded settlement at Kalaupapa, where Bishop Maigret presented him to the 816 lepers living there as one who will be a father to you, and who loves you so much that he does not hesitate to become one of you; to live and die with you.

I haven't been able to find this quote in any biography, but I'll keep looking. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Categories
To whoever keeps adding Category:Belgian Americans and Category:American Roman Catholic saints to this article: Please stop. Damien was neither. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It might help if you explained why not (e.g. "Hawaii only became part of the U.S. after Fr Damien's time, so he might be regarded as a Belgian Hawaiian but not as a Belgian American"). --Paularblaster (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained in the edit summary, but anyone wishing to add the categories has the burden of proof. Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, you probably know that he was recently canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, so he is a Roman Catholic saint, and his placement in Hawaii more or less qualifies him as "American" by residence, if not descent. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that is true, John. Perhaps you could explain a bit more, with sources if possible? Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please clarify. You don't see how what is true. If it about the canonization, that's in the end of the canonization section already. If you're talking about the "Roman Catholic" aspect or the "American" aaspect, the Catholic church only canonizes Roman Catholics and he clearly was one. If you mean the "American", then I should hope you realize that the categories are intended to link related articles, and his presence in what is a US area would qualify him as being a "related article", as the place where he basically proved himself a saint is now part of the US. I don't think we have a separate category on Hawaiian saints. If you were questioning the use of American as opposed to Belgian, I could see how he might actually qualify as both, and have both categories used. But that wouldn't rule out the inclusion of it. And I believe the relevant source is the categorization guidelines, which in this case include WP:COP. John Carter (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * John, look at the thread title and discussion. It is about categorization, not canonization.  Damien was not American nor did he live in America.  Could you explain with reliable sources, why you are trying to categorize him as an American saint?  I am willing to be convinced, but I don't see what Wikipedia policy has to do with this discussion.  It would help your argument if you could show me other non-Americans who are also part of these categories. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * John, we know he's a saint; we know he was Belgian; but Hawaii was only in any sense "American" from a decade after his death, when the U.S. suppressed "the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people". But presumably you consider him "American" on the same grounds that René Goupil and Isaac Jogues are already in the Category:American Roman Catholic saints? That they worked and died in what is now the U.S., even though it wasn't the U.S. then? --Paularblaster (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict x2) The guideline linked to is about categorization, if you look at it. Actually, it does appear that Kamehameha IV and his wife are both considered Anglican saints, so there would be some basis for establishing a Category:Hawaiian saints. You appear to be contending that as Hawaii was not yet part of the US, he should not be included in that category. You might have a point, but I don't know enough about existing categorization schemes of pre-statehood Hawaiians to honestly say that it is one that is generally followed. And Polarblaster is correct about the territory in question now being (and presumably staying) US, even though it wasn't at the time. I think Herman of Alaska, who died well before Alaska was part of the US, and similar articles are included for the same reason. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Hawaii part of North America? According to an unsourced assertion on Americas it is, but I cannot find any evidence that is true.  My understanding is that Hawaii is part of Oceania. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As opposed to simply making these argumentative responses to the statements of others, perhaps you would like to indicate what your own preferences are? John Carter (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry? You must be reading something into my comments.  There is nothing argumentative about what I have said. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)