Draft talk:Congregation of Teresian Carmelites: Difference between revisions

 

Line 98: Line 98:

::::::This historical account, combined with the UCA News report’s documentation of the congregation’s current status, shows a consistent, long-term pattern of significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources.

::::::This historical account, combined with the UCA News report’s documentation of the congregation’s current status, shows a consistent, long-term pattern of significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources.

::::::I am confident that these two sources, when examined in their full context, demonstrate the notability of the Congregation of Teresian Carmelites as a distinct, historical, and modern entity [[User:Desertstorm1000|Desertstorm1000]] ([[User talk:Desertstorm1000|talk]]) 22:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

::::::I am confident that these two sources, when examined in their full context, demonstrate the notability of the Congregation of Teresian Carmelites as a distinct, historical, and modern entity [[User:Desertstorm1000|Desertstorm1000]] ([[User talk:Desertstorm1000|talk]]) 22:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

::::::: I’ve given you what opinions I can, and some tools and further resources you can use to make your case. I am going to mostly bow out at this point and let others weigh in, unless I find something new that bears mentioning.

::::::: One thing that isn’t clear to me and you could ask further about, is to what extent is the non-[[WP:INDEPENDENT|independence]] of sources published by Carmelite publishers a factor that detracts from establishing notability? I.e. ideally, you would like to have completely independent, scholarly works about the congregation; perhaps by some religious studies professor at a recognized university. It is not at all surprising that various Carmeite-related publishers have published the most about the Congregation, and so the question is, given that [my impression is that] there appears to be very little independent comment about the Congregation, can the non-independent works that are a bit longer be used to establish notability, or not? I would lean towards ‘not’, otherwise every little religious splinter in the world would become Notable off their own publications, and that would turn [[WP:INDEPENDENCE]] on its head. You can use those non-independent publications per [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] for certain things, but only *after* notability has been established.

::::::: If you wish to compile the relevant Sanmiguel pages into a pdf or other attachment and email it to me through the ‘Email this user’ link on my user page, I will look at it. Other than that, that’s about it for me on this topic. I will continue to monitor this page (therefore, ping or other [[WP:NOTIF|notification]] is not necessary) but I don’t plant to be back unless there is something really new to look at. I wish you luck with your Draft! [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 00:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization

This draft is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

The draft “Congregation of Teresian Carmelites” was last updated with the following in mind:

• **References:** Reliable sources are included; duplicates and formatting issues cleaned. Inline citations added to support every statement. Independent sources included where possible.
• **Neutrality:** Written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone; promotional language avoided.
• **Structure:** Standard headings (History, Division, Charism and Apostolate, Legacy of Mother Eliswa) with clear, readable sections.
• **Images/Infobox:** No images included yet to avoid misattribution; infobox factual.
• **Readability:** Grammar, spelling, and flow reviewed; paragraphs concise.

Suggestions for additional independent sources are welcome. Thank you for taking the time to review!

— Desertstorm1000 (talk) 20 August 2025, 15:55 (UTC)

• Comment (08:58, 20 August 2025 UTC, 331dot): “Sources need to be in line next to the text that they support; see Referencing for beginners.”
• Decline notes (if any) should remain here for transparency.

Roman Catholic women’s religious institute founded in Kerala in the 19th century

• Please review inline citations and overall neutrality.
• Independent sources are particularly encouraged.
• Any further suggestions for readability or structure are welcome.

You need to click the blue submit button rather than repeatedly deleting it. Theroadislong (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has considerable overlap with Discalced Carmelites and (founder) Eliswa Vakayil. Section § Bifurcation of the congregation at the latter article explains how a prior congregation split in two, creating the Congregation of Mother of Carmel (CMC)’ and the ‘Congregation of Teresian Carmelites (CTC)’ (this draft). Even if all four are GNG-notable, I question whether the content supports four separate articles to cover the topics. I suppose this is a question that is independent of Afc review on this topic (although I am not very up on Afc process) but I see a possible [multi-]merge on the horizon. Mathglot (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been fully rewritten after the last decline. Promotional or essay-like language has been removed,
neutral tone ensured, and inline citations from reliable and independent sources have been added.

Thank you for your time in reviewing. Desertstorm1000 (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Subject: Please review Draft:Congregation of Teresian Carmelites[reply]

Message: Hello, I have been working on a draft for the Congregation of Teresian Carmelites and would appreciate it if a member of the WikiProject could review it. I believe the draft meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article and would like to get it published. Any feedback on how to improve it would also be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Desertstorm1000 (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Desertstorm1000, you wrote me at my Talk page asking for a review, and mentioning that you had requested the same from users @Pbritti and Peaceray:. Please do not fragment discussion by asking the same thing of multiple users. Your question to me was:

Could you review the draft and advise if it’s ready for mainspace or suggest improvements?

and I would just say that Pbritti anticipated your question and answered it before you asked, in their draft decline notice. Namely, it is a question of Notability, which has not been demonstrated. After reading the page on Wikipedia:Notability, do you have questions about that policy page, or do you need additional explanation about why this Draft fails the criteria explained at the Notability policy page? Mathglot (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am enmeshed in repairing the edits an IP editor who indiscriminately removed red links & also removed maintenance templates without resolution. The number of edits to be reviewed are in the thousands, & it is taking me a while. I thus will not be able to review this draft, at least anytime soon. Peaceray (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message, Mathglot (08:17 UTC, September 13, 2025). I’m sorry for contacting multiple users and will keep discussion here. I’ve read Wikipedia:Notability and added sources like The Hindu, LiCAS News, Global Sisters Report, Aleteia, UCA News, and Devdiscourse to Draft:Congregation of Teresian Carmelites to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG. These cover the C.T.C.’s history, organization, and activities. Could you please explain why the draft still fails notability and suggest specific improvements or sources? I’d really appreciate your guidance. Desertstorm1000 (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping note: new top-level sections are for new topics; downgraded the heading here to H3, to make it a subsection of § Note to Reviewers. This is a halfway measure, as actually responses should simply be posted inline and indented; please see WP:THREAD, including the portions on Indentation and the Reply tool. Mathglot (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and to follow up and clarify my previous comment: you are of course welcome to solicit feedback, and if you want to attract a specific small number of users, you can do that in two ways:

• write your message on the Talk page where you expect the discussion to take place, and include in your message a {{ping}} template listing the usernames of the editors you wish to WP:NOTIFY; or
• write your message on the Talk page where you expect the discussion to take place, and then write one message on the User talk page of each editor you wish to notify, with a heading something like, ==Discussion at Talk:Slobovia==, and one brief, neutral sentence like, “Your feedback would be appreciated at [[Talk:Slobovia#Flag colors]]” and sign it with WP:4TILDES.

It is up to the creator of a new Draft to demonstrate why something does meet Notability, and as soon as you do that successfully, it will pass Afc review. Regarding your question why it still fails Notability, and given my assumption that you have now read the WP:Notability policy page, I think the best thing to do is to turn the question around, and ask why you think it does meet the Notability policy requirement. If experienced reviewers think it does not, as is the case here, and you think it does, there is probably a gap in your understanding of Notability policy, and if that is so, then I don’t see how you can fix the Draft, as an understanding Notability is a precursor to being able to fix it. Your description of why this Draft meets Notability will help me and other editors see what your understanding (or misunderstanding) of the policy is, which may enable us to better help you. Mathglot (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mathglot,

Thank you for your feedback. I understand the concern about notability. I have added reliable sources such as The Hindu, LiCAS News, Global Sisters Report, Aleteia, UCA News, and Devdiscourse, which cover the history, organization, and activities of the Congregation of Teresian Carmelites (C.T.C.). These sources provide independent coverage of the congregation’s founding, apostolates, and notable figures.

Could you please clarify which aspects you feel still do not meet the notability requirements? Any specific guidance or examples of sources I could add would be very helpful. I want to make sure the draft meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria before resubmitting.

Thank you for your time and advice.Desertstorm1000 (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s interesting, but not exactly the information I was seeking. So let me restate my question, because I don’t think I was clear. Can you please list three sources below (and only three; pick your best ones), and for each one, describe not what they say, but how much. For example: “1: Goose, Mother (1895) talks about the Three Little Pigs in four of the eighteen chapters of the book, including almost all of the 23 pages of chapter five. 2: Grimm, Jacob (1812) mentions pigs in passing mentions on page 98, 123, and in two sentences on page 189; it also appears in the Index.” What I am going for here, is evidence of significant coverage of the topic in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Mathglot (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clear guidance, Mathglot. I understand that the key is to demonstrate significant, independent coverage. I’ve selected three sources that I believe accomplish this.

As the Congregation of Teresian Carmelites is an organization that originated from the Third Order of Discalced Carmelites (TOCD) which was founded by Mother Eliswa Vakayil, its history is deeply intertwined with hers. The following sources demonstrate significant coverage of both the organization and its founding.

=== The Three Sources ===

1. “Indian Catholic nun moves closer to sainthood,” UCA News (2025). This source is a full-length, in-depth news report. It details the history of the congregation, its social mission, its founding, and its current organizational size. The article provides significant coverage by detailing the organization’s current scale (209 convents and 1,500 nuns) and its founding purpose, establishing its notability as a modern, active entity.
2. “New venerable is first Indian foundress of a women’s congregation,” Global Sisters Report (2025). This article provides a detailed historical narrative that spans the foundress’s life and the establishment of the congregation. It is a dedicated, full-length feature that places the congregation in a historical context as a pioneering institution. The report provides significant coverage of the founding and early activities of the organization, linking them directly to the foundress’s life.
3. Sanmiguel, His Excellency. Three Century Kerala Carmelite Mission 1656-1975. pp. 72–74. This source is a dedicated, scholarly work. it provides a detailed account of the mission on at least three pages (pages 72–74), with specific sections focused on the founding of the congregation. The book provides significant coverage by offering a comprehensive, historical record of the organization’s origin and development, which is considered a high-quality source for establishing notability.

Desertstorm1000 (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree with your assessment. Here is what I found:

1. UCA News is entirely about Vakayil and not the order. The article never mentions anything called precisely the “Congregation of Teresian Carmelites”. They do have this one sentence: “She founded the first indigenous Carmelite religious order for women known as the Third Order of Discalced Carmelites in 1866. It was later renamed as the Teresian Carmelite Sisters.” and three sentences about the congregation’s activities and numbers. Other than that, the article is about Vakayil only.
2. GSR: I was not able to retrieve this. There is no archived copy of it in the Internet Archive. I did a search for the article on the GSR website, and one page came up, but it is their other report about Vakayil from April, not this one. Is it possible you misspelled the url? When was the last time you retrieved this, perhaps it is still in one of your browser tabs, and you can fix the url.
3. Sanmiguel: The citation lists pages 72–74, and I have requested a quotation to see what you found there. I tried an in-book search for “Theresian” and turned up this on page 61:

   There are six congregations of women: Mother of Carmel, Theresian Carmelites, Apostolic Carmel, The Carmelite Sisters of St. Teresa–Ernakulam, Holy Angels Carmelites–Trivandrum and the cloistered Carmelites.

That counts as a very brief passing mention. Other than that, I do not see anything relevant in this source, but perhaps you can expand on what you found on page 72.

Based on this, I see no significant coverage in any of the three citations you chose. If these are the best sources available, then I do not believe that the topic passes the threshold of notability. If you disagree, you should explain why, with reference to WP:N. Mathglot (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have added a § Further reading section with citations to two books (or reports, or brochures, perhaps; the longer one is 54 pages) about the Teresian Carmelites. No promise that these are related to the Draft topic, as the page Teresian CarmelitesTeresian Carmelites redirects to Discalced Carmelites, a 29kb article which does not mention India at all, but that certainly doesn’t mean they aren’t related. Per OCLC, neither publication is available at any library worldwide, so you may have to contact the publishers directly, or perhaps the Vatican, for access. As a long shot, you could place a request at WP:RX. Mathglot (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mathglot,

Thank you again for your patience and for your thorough review of the sources. I have since been able to verify the content in both the UCA News article and the book by Sanmiguel. I believe the full context of these sources provides a more compelling case for notability.

The UCA News and Global Sisters Report Articles

Regarding your point about the articles being entirely about the foundress, I would respectfully disagree. I have confirmed that the Global Sisters Report article is an identical, syndicated copy of the UCA News piece. While the title focuses on the beatification, the body of the text provides significant coverage of the congregation itself. For example, the article states:

“Vakayil made the social and economic emancipation of women her congregation’s priorities. The congregation set up schools and training centers to offer education and livelihood skills to thousands of women. It also runs facilities to support orphaned and abandoned girls. Today, the congregation has 209 convents and about 1,500 nuns working in different parts of the world, including India, America, Africa, Germany, Italy, and England…”

This section provides clear, significant coverage of the congregation’s core mission and its current global scale, which I believe satisfies the notability requirements for a modern, active organization.

The Sanmiguel Source

I also appreciate you requesting a quotation from the Sanmiguel book. I have obtained the relevant pages, and they provide a dedicated, multi-page history of the congregation, not just a passing mention. The text provides a detailed account of the congregation’s founding and, most importantly, documents its canonical separation in 1890 and the establishment of its own Mother House.

The book dedicates an entire section to the topic, titled “ARTICLE VI The Congregation of Teresian Carmelites.” It states:

“With the division of Rites in Malabar in 1887, a similar division was effected in the religious houses… By an Order from the Holy See on Sept. 17th 1890 the Latin Sisters had to leave the convent and its property… Thus the present Mother house of the Latin Congregation, St. Joseph’s Convent, began to function in Verapoly with its seven members forming the community.”

This historical account, combined with the UCA News report’s documentation of the congregation’s current status, shows a consistent, long-term pattern of significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources.

I am confident that these two sources, when examined in their full context, demonstrate the notability of the Congregation of Teresian Carmelites as a distinct, historical, and modern entity Desertstorm1000 (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve given you what opinions I can, and some tools and further resources you can use to make your case. I am going to mostly bow out at this point and let others weigh in, unless I find something new that bears mentioning.

One thing that isn’t clear to me and you could ask further about, is to what extent is the non-independence of sources published by Carmelite publishers a factor that detracts from establishing notability? I.e. ideally, you would like to have completely independent, scholarly works about the congregation; perhaps by some religious studies professor at a recognized university. It is not at all surprising that various Carmeite-related publishers have published the most about the Congregation, and so the question is, given that [my impression is that] there appears to be very little independent comment about the Congregation, can the non-independent works that are a bit longer be used to establish notability, or not? I would lean towards ‘not’, otherwise every little religious splinter in the world would become Notable off their own publications, and that would turn WP:INDEPENDENCE on its head. You can use those non-independent publications per WP:ABOUTSELF for certain things, but only *after* notability has been established.

If you wish to compile the relevant Sanmiguel pages into a pdf or other attachment and email it to me through the ‘Email this user’ link on my user page, I will look at it. Other than that, that’s about it for me on this topic. I will continue to monitor this page (therefore, ping or other notification is not necessary) but I don’t plant to be back unless there is something really new to look at. I wish you luck with your Draft! Mathglot (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]