Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Porto, Portugal

History section
The material in the History section, copied from encyclopedias, ends in 1907. What happened in the last 110 years? Anything?? I don't think this can ever become a "B" quality article without more footnotes and the last century of history. Surely something can be gleaned of the activities of the last score of bishops.

--Vicedomino (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The crimes of cut-and-paste (cont.)
When you cut-and-paste, it is a good idea to read what you have done. Consider, for example, the following: "In 1879 Américo was created cardinal and on his death the present (1911) Bishop, António Barroso, an ex-missionary, was transferred from the see of Mylapore to that of Porto"

That was fine for the Catholic Encyclopedia in 1911, but Barosso is no longer the present bishop. Editorial judgment must be used.

--Vicedomino (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

History section, again
An unreferenced recitation of bishops, one after another (which is duplicated in the List of Bishops), does not constitute a history of the diocese. There is almost nothing about what these bishops did while they were bishops, or about how the diocese related to the general Portuguese context.

And, I repeat, several such paragraphs are unreferenced.

Did Porto have anything to do with pilgrimages to Compostella? How did Porto react to the sensational revelations down at Fátima? Did the diocese send anybody to WWI or WWII?

--Vicedomino (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

History: Removed problematical sentence
The following sentence has been removed from the article: "In 1373 or 1375 John succeeded and supported the lawful popes in the Great Schism, and the John I of Portugal against Castilian claims."

The identity of John is unclear. It is not clear who "the lawful popes in the Great Schism" were. The language is unnecessarily POV; all three sides believed that their popes were lawful popes, and it took the RC Church centuries to make up its official mind as to who was legitimate and who was not. The phrase "and the John I of Portugal against Castilian claims" is ungrammatical and unclear as to what is meant by Castilian claims (to what?). As the sentence is written, it might well be assumed that "John succeeded" is the same person as John I of Portugal.

--Vicedomino (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)