Talk:List of fictional clergy and religious figures/Archive 1

Merging "friar" and "monk", as they are the same thing. Some monastic orders use "friar" vice "brother" as a term of address. Also removed Alvis, as he would be considered a deity, not clergy. --Mitsukai 19:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Monks as such really aren't clergy unless they're also ordained. This is fairly common in Roman Catholicism, but not in other Christian traditions. Nevertheless this is a useful place to list them, but since in the West they so often are ordained they'd almost all be listed under Priest and not Monk. I therefore suggest that monastic priests be listed under Monk because otherwise the category isn't terribly useful. (In most recensions of the Robin Hood tales, for example, Friar Tuck is a priest.) Csernica 20:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yup, aware of all that. I figured that since the list was initially created in layman's terms, that would be the best way to go.  Glad to see I'm not the only one who was thinking that. --Mitsukai 20:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the article could be "List of fictional clergy and religious" (with a redirect from "List of fictional clergy"). Note also, that, with the exception of a few women in Anglican religious orders, nuns are not clergy. another possibility is separating nuns into "List of fictional nuns" with a link from this page. Rockhopper10r 22:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, "List of fictionaly clergy and religious" is probably the best way to go. I'll make the change.  --Mitsukai 01:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is good. Csernica 02:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I think, for the most part, "ministers" should cover all Protestant clergy. Titles are very inconsistnet among denominations. Rockhopper10r 03:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * For the most part, yes. But often in the Protestant "fringe" of faith healers and tent revivals, you run across preacher-type figures that aren't really clergy in the proper sense of the word. I think "ministers" should be reserved for the clergy and some other label should be used for the others. Csernica 03:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand why my correction re: the priest in Poseidon Adventure was reverted. In the movie, at least, he was quite clearly depicted as a defrocked Catholic priest who was in hot water with his bishop. Carolynparrishfan 18:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * it wasn't reverted. You put it in the wrong location, so I moved it to the correct one.  It's still on the page, just in the order we agreed to use (listed alphabetically by last (or superhero name if that's better known), then first if last not available, then description if neither is available.--Mitsukai 08:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Religious media figures
I'm not sure there would be a need for this heading, as most of the people listed there are of one Christian denomination or other (or could be placed in other, if needed). --Mitsukai 19:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not an easy call. The thing is that not many of them function as we would normally consider clergy to function.  That is, they are primarily media figures  and don't really engage in any pastoral activities other than their broadcasted preachings. (Think Jim Bakker, Jerry Fallwell, Gene Scott or Pat Robertson.) Yes, most of them are Protestant Christian, but one would hesitate to call them ministers even if they've been formally ordained. I added one odd case where the character was an itinerant faith healer who did tent revivals, and since he wasn't properly speaking a minister I added the heading "Preacher".  Perhaps some of the "Media Figure" types would fit in there.  I really can't say, since I'm not familiar with many of those listed here. Csernica


 * We may want to change the example of a "religious media figure" then, as at least that is wrong. Bishop Fulton may be known mostly for his television, but his primary duties during that time was that of head of the Diocese of Rochester. Perhaps maybe using someone like Jim Bakker or such might be a better idea, IMHO.  Additionally, changing them to "Preachers" or (the term I've heard more often) "Televangelists" might be a good idea as well. Maybe even "Preachers and Televangelists"? --Mitsukai 02:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That could work, although you wouldn't call Bp. Sheen a televangelist, or a preacher really. Actually, I think he's a bad example of this class. As you say, he's primarily an Episcopalian bishop, and only secondarily a media figure. Csernica 02:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Change made. Listed now as Televangelists. --Mitsukai 03:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, okay.... Except they're not all televangelists. Csernica 03:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe split up Televangelists and Preachers, then? --Mitsukai 03:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. On relfection there really are three categories here.  The original, Religious media figures, ought to list people who are mostly known for writing books, pamphlets, opinion pieces, and maybe an occasional TV or radio appearance.  TV isn't the focus of their ministry, but they use it to promote whatever it is they're promoting.  Like, for example Bp. Sheen. Now, Televangelists had been lumped in here, but that really wasn't right.  They are ministers or preachers whose primary ministry is their TV or radio activity.  If they do the things that religious media figures did, it's secondary to their TV show.  Third could be "Preachers", although there might be a better word for them.  These would be people similar in style to Televangelists but without the broadcast coverage.  Of the two I recently added, Ray Porter is a Televangelist and Jonas Nightengale fits the third category, whatever we call it.  I'm not familiar with the others so I can't categorize them.  (I read Good Omens a loooong time ago and can't recall a "Marvin" character.  Since it takes place in England, which is not known for its televangelists, perhaps he really was a media figure.  But that's just a guess.)


 * You might want to consider using : for indents. All those bullets look kind of odd. Csernica 04:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Tried it, but the system just didn't love me for some reason. ^_^;;;  Seems to work fine now, though.  --Mitsukai 13:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sheen was actually an RC bishop, see Fulton Sheen. I noticed him referred to as an Anglican above. Carolynparrishfan 18:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

List Order
Trying to come up with some rational ordering isn't easy here. Sometimes last names or first names aren't available. Christian monastics frequently don't use their family names, but this isn't a hard-and-fast rule. Japanese place the family name first, but this isn't always how a character's name is known to English speakers. I don't even want to get into the various permutations Chinese names can assume. I suggest we list by:
 * 1) Family name when it's available or customarily used regardless of given order
 * 2) Christian or personal name when no last name is available or customarily used
 * 3) Place associated with the title when only a title is available
 * 4) Pseudonym when this is how the character is generally known, for example, Nightcrawler or perhaps "Jii-chan" from InuYasha.

The religions themselves should probably be listed in alphabetical order but with "Other" placed last. Offices within each religion I think are best placed in either ascending or descending order of authority -- it really doesn't matter which, but we should pick one and stick with it. Csernica 03:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Ascending order for rank sounds fine to me. I've been putting the Japanese names in Western Order, because that seems to be the Wiki standard (if necessary, then put kanji and traditional Japanese order afterwards).--Mitsukai 03:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Stupid Question Time
Do we (or are we already) placing "semi-fictional" (ie, fictionalized version of historical persons) clergy and religious on this list? I've noted a couple names I thought might fall into the category and wanted to make sure. --Mitsukai 16:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I would consider a fictionalized version of a real person to be a fictional character. I can't think of a clergyperson of the top of my head, but an example would be Matthew Harrison Brady from Inherit the Wind, a fictional version of William Jennings Bryan. At any rate, I'd say to consider them fictional for purposes of this article.Rockhopper10r 17:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair. There are numerous characters in (for example) the anime Samurai Deeper Kyo that are based on historical people; the miko Okuni was one.  Just doublechecking so we have a universal standard here. --Mitsukai 18:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Unspecified/Pre-schism
I have added this category to accomodate an new entry I wanted to make, but it could also be used for Christian clergy prior to the rise of the modern divisions in the church. "Prester John" wasn't clearly identified with Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Nestorianism or any actual historical group, so he fits here. So might fictionalized versions of, say, the apostles or some early bishop like Polycarp who might equally be "claimed" by any number of modern groups. Csernica 23:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Breaking down "Protestantism"
Okay, I've been digging into seeing if we can more closely define the clergy mentioned in the Protestant section. As we do, though, a thought came to mind. Do we want to have "stragglers" hanging around? By that I mean the following.

For example, as you'll have noticed, I placed Chaplain Tappman in the Baptist section. At present, he's the only one there. Do we want to do this for the rest of the denominations (for example, a cursory look showed that there was only one Methodist, one Calvinist, etc.) and thus have a dozen microsections (thus adding to the clutter on the page) or do we want to keep them grouped as Protestants until we have a certain breakout number (eg, one stays, two or more get their own section)? --Mitsukai 17:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I moved Baptists under "Protestantism". Unlike Anglicans, there is no doubt here. Also, the title used for their clergy varies somewhat, between "minister" and "pastor" (never "priest"). I've opted for the more neutral "minister". I've also added a section under Protestantism for Lutherans. Lutherans use the term "pastor" more or less exclusively. In Lutheranism, "pastor" is used roughly the same way "priest" is in Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism.Rockhopper10r 19:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's the thought on that: would Baptists be considered Protestant? After taking a quick look at the Baptist and Anabaptist pages, it sounded to me as though they were a different branch of Christianity, not Catholic/Orthodox/Reformist/etc.etc.etc., which is why I placed them seperately from Protestants.--Mitsukai 19:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Generally, all Western churches that trace their roots no further back than the Reformation are considered Protestant. Anglicans are often excluded, because the Church of England as such existed before the Reformation at which time it broke communion with Rome.Rockhopper10r 19:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Somewhat connected with this, I think the "Televangelism" category should go. It looks like a relic from before the article categorized the list by religious group, and not everyone in it is a televangelist anyway.  I'll be getting rid of it directly.  I'm going to change "Ministers (various denominations)" to "Nondenominational/Other" and put those I'm unsure of there.  They can be recategorized by anyone who knows better.
 * Incidentally, I notice Wolfwood is listed under Protestant. Is he really? I've never read Trigun, but in general anime and manga have real hazy ideas about Christianity and don't portray it at all accurately.  Has he ever been positively identified as a Protestant, or should he be "Unspecified"? Csernica 21:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The anime just refers to him and Chapel as Christian priests. Oddly, though, the manga does refer to him as a Protestant (no denom given) "priest" but that he's also called Chapel the Evergreen.  In the anime they're seperate characters, so I listed them as such.--Mitsukai 15:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

A General History of the Robberies and Murders Of the most notorious Pyrates
Isn't this book considered to be non-fiction? If so, then none of the people it mentions can really be listed here, since they're not fictional. Csernica 18:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The book is considered non-fiction, but the location of the Pirate Democracy is considered to be legendary at best; completely fictional at worst. There is also some evidence that the priest in question was an invention of the author.  Overall, it's a disputable entry, and if worst comes to, I don't see a problem with it being removed from the list. --Mitsukai 19:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Nah, might as well leave it in if it's doubtful. At the very least he might be highly fictionalized. I know the book was "spiced up" and isn't completely factual, but I just thought I'd raise the issue anyway. Csernica 19:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Fictionalized real people
Oscar Romero was indeed a real person, but so are several others on this list who were presented in more or less fictionalized form in some dramatic production. Exactly how fictionalized do they have to be before they're fictional enough to be placed here? (See "Stupid Question Time" above.) Csernica 03:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I would give it broad interpretation, personally. If they're used a character in a work of fiction, that would work for me.  While I would prefer that they be at least a minor character, anything beyond a reference/cameo would suffice, I think.  In short:
 * Pope John Paul just mentioned in a scene - no
 * John Paul pictured in a scene standing next to Nightcrawler - probably not
 * John Paul promoting Nightcrawler to Bishop of Westchester, NY - yes
 * John Paul turning into SuperPope and fighting the forces of evil - most definitely.--Mitsukai 03:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I would say that to be truly fictionalized, a person must be turned into someone else entirely. A name change is usually a good sign (see the Matthew Harrison Brady example above). This is what I meant earlier when I gave that example. A biopic is not fictional enough. There are any number of real-life clergy who have been the subject of films. To include them would be the equivalent of listing them in a list of fictional characters because they had been the subject of a book-length biography. To use another non-clergy example, George and Martha Washington are the subjects of Mary Higgins Clark's novel, Mount Vernon Love Story, a work of fiction to be sure, but neither George nor Martha would be considered fictional characters. Now, if she had written the novel about a couple clearly based on the Washingtons, but called them Henry and Sarah Wessington, then they would be fictional. As for JPII, I would not consider him fictional in any setting, although "SuperPope" would be different enough (again, a different name) to qualify. Clear as mud? Rockhopper10r 04:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, but here's the rub. Take the Okuni example I gave as well.  The historical figure Izumo no Okuni was a miko whose place in history was the creation of kabuki.  However, in fiction (games, manga and anime), she's more often portrayed as a betsushikime, a fighting miko who uses magic and weapons.  The name's still the same, just the person herself is fictionalized (and sometimes, only semi-fictionalized).  But by your criteria, I wouldn't be able to use her.  Which is why I think it's more a matter of how much of a fictional presence they play in the work rather than  a simple name change.--Mitsukai 05:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the standard should be flexible for the genre in which the person appears. I'm not a fan of manga or anime (those big eyes kinda creep me out), but I know that they have very different conventions from those of conventional Western literary forms. Appearing in an English-language historical novel or a biopic does not make one fictional, because the Western standard is to try portray a person either as lifelike as possible or at least to the point that the audience would find it believable. Even the mystery novels that portray historical figures (such as Elizabeth I or Groucho Marx) as detectives attempt to portray the persons in them in a millieu very much like the ones of real life. Manga and anime do not have the same constraints, which is one of the reasons for their popularity: they represent a reality which is more realistic than Western fantasy fiction, but is not constrained by Western conventions of "realism". To use the Oscar Romero example, he was not portrayed in the film as not being particularly different from what he was in real life, because the film was in a genre that attempts to reflect "real life".Rockhopper10r 14:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not just manga/anime that do it. Eiji Yoshikawa's novels Musashi and Taiko are historical novels, but Yoshikawa embellishes the books' protagonists quite a bit; ironically, the manga Vagabond (based on Musashi) is a lot more factual and true-to-life than the book is.  I would actually list Miyamoto from the book before the manga (disclaimer: I've already listed two completely fictionalized characters from the manga, who were amalgams of several RL personages).  However, I would probably list Toyotomi Hideoshi from his appearance in CAPCOM's game Onimusha, where he's portrayed as far different than in Taiko and clearly fictional.  Overall, though, I do agree that we should be flexible, but we're probably best to be flexible on the individual work vice the genre.  And if the source of Oscar Romero is a biopic and not intending to be fictional, then it's probably best left out.--Mitsukai 15:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Even the mystery novels that portray historical figures (such as Elizabeth I or Groucho Marx) as detectives attempt to portray the persons in them in a millieu very much like the ones of real life. Manga and anime do not have the same constraints, which is one of the reasons for their popularity: they represent a reality which is more realistic than Western fantasy fiction, but is not constrained by Western conventions of "realism". I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that. It's a mistake to think of manga or anime as single genres in themselves; there's as wide a variety in subject matter and matter of presentation as live-action films.  A great example: Osamu Tezuka who created Astroboy and Kimba the White Lion also produced a manga on the life of the Buddha that stuck close to the traditional accounts in the essentials while adding a few characters for storytelling purposes.  When it comes to more recent historical figures, if you look at something like Rurouni Kenshin the real people such as Saito Hajime and Okubo Toshimichi are fictionalized to exactly the same extent as your Queen-Elizabeth-as-detective example.  You just can't make the generalization you have.


 * I added Oscar Romero because all film characters, even those in biopics, must be fictionalized to some extent even if an honest attempt is being made to portray them accurately. We simply don't know much of what goes on in a person's private life, and these details have to be made up.  If that's not fictional enough then so be it, but then there are a number of other cuts that need to be made here. Csernica 20:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an argument here, but let me explain where I'm coming from. I apologise if I made an over-general statement. As I mentioned, I am not a fan of manga or anime and am not at all familiar with the examples above. The article on fictional characters has the following:

Characters as Historical or Biographical References

''Sometimes characters obviously represent important Historical figures. For example, Nazi-hunter Yakov Liebermann in The Boys from Brazil by Ira Levin is often compared to reallife Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal, and corrupted populist politician Willie Stark from All the King's Men by Robert Penn Warren is often compared to Louisiana governor Huey P. Long.''

''Other times, authors base characters on people from their own personal lifes. Glenarvon by Lady Caroline Lamb chronicles her love affair with Lord Byron, who is thinly disguised as the title character. Nicole, a destructive, mentally ill woman in Tender is the Night by F. Scott Fitzgerald, is often seen as a fictionalized version of Fitzgerald's wife Zelda.''

These are examples of what I would consider fictionalized people and this is what I thought was meant all along (again, I'm not familiar with the manga/anime characters in question). As for biopics, although they are fictional, they are intended to represent a true story. A film was made about the life of the Singing Nun, but she would not be fictional. The nuns in The Sound of Music, although they represent the sisters in the convent in Salzburg in which the historical personage of Maria Kutschera (later von Trapp) was a novice, the characters as they stand in the musical and film are fictional characters and can be included. Maria, on the other hand, although portrayed in a highly fictionalized story, would, to my thinking, still be a real person. For the most part, I would say that if such a person actually existed, then they should not be considered fictional. Again, this is in general. I can see making exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

Still friends? The three of us have built this list up wonderfully over the last few weeks!Rockhopper10r 21:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I can see where you're coming from, and I can see Csernica's POV on this. I think that it probably should be handled on a case-by-case/contextual situation.  I have to agree that I wouldn't list Andy Kaufmann (based on the movie Man on the Moon, even though points about it were fictionalized), but I might consider it based on the REM song, since that one's a little more open to interpretation.  At the same time, I would use Musashi Miyamoto based on his treatment on Yoshikawa's book (as listed above), but not on Inoue's manga (which treats him more realistically than the book).  So it would be a case-by-case basis, I think.  And we've done a great job on this list, so don't think this is a showstopper or anything.  We just need to figure out a happy medium.  ^_^ --Mitsukai 22:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly upset or anything, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. (And if I haven't been adding to the list as vigorously as I have been it's because I'm out of the obvious ones and they're occurring to me less easily.)  I brought this up as I did just to get some clarity since we were obviously using different standards.  I think we're all on the same page now.  (Although I think Maria von Trapp herself might have disagreed with you on how fictional the character of the same name of stage and film is!) Csernica 06:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Multiple References
Okay, I don't know how much this is going to pop up, but how do we want to handle multiple references? By this, I mean cases where a fictionalized historical figure might pop up in more than one work by different author, or unrelated works by the same author. To beat the Okuni example again, I suggest the following:


 * Izumo no Okuni
 * as "Okuni Izumo" in Samurai Deeper Kyo
 * as "Okuni" in Samurai Warriors

Again, I don't know how often this would occur other than the above example, but considering that one has already appeared (Father Callahan) it might be good to address this now.--Mitsukai 12:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Real vs. Fictional religions
Yup, I've caused yet another mess. ^_^

I've started to break down some of the heiarchy of fictional religions (for some of the more complete ones or those that have several representatives in the article) and wondering if that's going to get a little unweildy. Should we continue like this, fold it back into other/unclassified, or break them off into "List of clergy and religious figures of fictional religions"?

I realize the third option could pose some problems, since some religions might be too vague to wonder where they are (eg, Eleosha the colonial priestess from Battlestar Galactica - is her religion real or fictional, though based on real? Personally, I'd vote the former). Just some thoughts to stay ahead of the whole mess as the list gets larger and larger.--Mitsukai 20:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I would wonder just how many fictional religions there are that are so well-defined and well-populated that they really merit seperate headings. My feeling is there aren't really enough to justify it, but that's just a feeling.  Perhaps it's worth letting the category sit for a while to see how many entries it gets, and then decide.


 * Of course, the problem is exactly one of how to decide whether a religion is fictional in many cases. Suppose there's a science fiction story that includes some hypothetical future Christian Protestant denomination: real or fictional?  Your example is a good illustration too, although I'd come down on the side of fictional in that case myself. (And there's bound to be controversy over this kind of thing, which is perhaps something to consider.) Csernica 20:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't think there'd be a major rush on it, but just figured to stay ahead of the curve on this one. In any case, I'm sure it will bear out as it happens.--Mitsukai 00:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Final Fantasy?
Fascinating though the detailed description of Yevonism is, it seems to be adding a large amount of descriptive material to a page that's otherwise a list of names, and relatively few actual names. Can we move the descriptive stuff elsewhere, and trim down the material on this page to names alone? I'm loath to act unilaterally here because other, more experienced editors evidently know quite a bit about the setting. AlexTiefling 14:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur. The entry should mainly give names and perhaps a brief description of each rank (since most don't know about it).  Aside from that, anymore more detailed should be on the Yevonism page.--Mitsukai 15:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Laity?
I suppose I may have acted over-hastily, but to include anyone on this list who evinces any religious belief, to the point of including a category for "Laity", obviates any purpose this list might have IMO. "Religious figures" was added to the name of the article so as to not exclude unordained monastics such as nuns. I admit I am not familiar with the character mentioned. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, here's the thing: I'm not sure where we can put people who work for the church but are not of the cloth, and laity describes that. In the case of Sion, she's an alchemist for the church, though not a nun (I suppose you could call her a religious sister, but unlike monk, the deliniation isn't as vague).  However, her affiliation with the church within Tsukihime is well documented, and if you had seen the character without knowing what she is, you could easily mistake her as a nun from some (very) esoteric order.  I was also using the modern definition of laity as described over in that article as "In the years following the Second Vatican Council the role of the laity in the Church has been greatly expanded to include lay ministers of various kinds. Also, as a result of the priest shortage, members of the laity have had to take on some of the roles previously performed by priests."  I do understand the concern, however, of getting off-base on this, but there are likely some laity in other fiction that do play a significant role due to their religious beliefs.  But I would think that as long as they have an official church affiliation within the boundaries of the story, it would be acceptable.  However, ultimately, it's up to everyone on this article to decide that.--Mitsukai 22:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC) Strike that.  I just realized she could easily go in Unspecified.  My bad.--Mitsukai 22:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, on that Vatican II decree, that still doesn't make laity clergy. The laity is, by definition, everyone in the church who is not clergy.  A "Laity" category means you could put absolutely any Catholic character at all on this page which, as I said, defeats any purpose it might serve.
 * Catholic laity may serve in some capacity where priests or deacons used to serve exclusively, but as extraordinary ministers, which means they're exercising a function not really proper to them. There are limits: laity can't preside at the eucharist, for example; there still must be a priest. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, went and did some digging. You're right on that, and I should have realized that myself, sooner.  Oh well, at least that's been resolved.--Mitsukai 03:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Only issue I can think of on Catholic laity is the Third orders. This is a centuries long established tradition where people are laity, they can marry and such, yet at the same time members of a religious order. I'm not sure if there are many Third Order characters in fiction though. What I know of members some of them could kind of fit though. I've heard of cases where they essentially live in something like a monastery with their spouse and children. There's also things like Opus Dei supernumeraries confusing things still further.--T. Anthony 08:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)