Talk:Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Information about this edition
Edition: Digitalized edition from
Source: all volumes have links to scan indexes; other sources are and (see also Wikisource:WikiProject Catholic Encyclopedia Upgrade where links to are available by article)
Contributor(s): illy, Riccardo
Level of progress: 97% complete

Automatically uploaded (except illustrations); pages needs checking for upload errors, source errors, unformatted/missing table data and missing illustrations. For further status information:


Wikipedia templates:

  • Citing Encyclopedia articles: {{CathEncy}}
  • Citing Encyclopedia articles (verbatim notice): {{Catholic}}
  • Poster for Encyclopedia articles: {{CE poster}}

Wikisource templates:

  • Header for article pages: {{CE13}}
  • Linking to Encyclopedia articles from author pages: {{CE link}}
Proofreaders: Saint Wiki I

Supplements (not included here)[edit]

  • Volume 17: Supplement I (1922) (Source)
  • Volume 18: Supplement II[1]
  • Volume 18: Supplement III[2]


  1. Published in nine loose–leaf sections (1950–1958). Each article was in a separate set of pages to allow them to be merged alphabetically. The copyright, by The Gilmary Society, does not appear to have been renewed.
  2. Volume 18: Supplement III. 12 February 2016. Retrieved 10 September 2013. 

Status Table[edit]

See below for information on columns.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
C D E F G H J L M N O P R S B Ta Te Th Ti Tl To Tr Wa We Wi A I K Q Ts Tu Tw Ty U V Wh Wl Wo Wr Wu Wy X Y Z

Old Status[edit]

OK. Here's the status. I've added sections A and Z on the main page. This is just temporary to get links and pages in place. I've started adding the articles in the Z category. If anyone would like to join in see my User page. - illy 21:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Sources[edit]

It appears that the notes that were on the index were added by the person who produced the New Advent site, and would therefore count as being under copyright. I'm therefore removing them all. I've discovered another site with the text ([1]) that appears to suit this project better. - illy 17:22, 01 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another source is here already in wikiformatting. They say it is the 1907 but list the source as the New Advent site. So I don't know if that will help you or not. --BirgitteSB 00:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks. I'll have to look at this more closely, but it may save me a lot of time. - illy 16:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status 8 June, 2006[edit]

I've discovered that the index entries from the New Advent site leave much to be desired. I've started double-checking them again the index from Catholicity and altering as needed. I started with the sections that I'd already converted to links. Therefore I've finished the following:

  • Aa, Ab, Ac, Ae, Af, Ah, Ai, Aj, Ak, Ao, Aq, At, Au, Av, Ax, Ay, and Az (still have Ad, Ag, Al, Am, An, Ap, Ar, and As to complete)
  • All of I
  • All of K
  • All of Q
  • All of U
  • All of V
  • All of W (including non-linked sections)
  • All of X
  • All of Y
  • All of Z

Once I complete these I will go back to convert to links, adding pages, and add article text. The current plan is I'll double-check versus Catholicity as I convert sections to links. - illy 21:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status 9 June, 2006[edit]

Finished checking the index entries for A. Have now done all sections that have already been converted to have links. Will now continue with other tasks. - illy 16:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status 13 June, 2006[edit]

I'm creating a set of status labels to be added to the alphabetized sections to keep track of progress. They are:

  • (1) Needs Prep for Links - Needs lines converted to *[[\|text on line]] format.
  • (2) Needs Links - Needs links to this page on the lines converted to real links, with text swapped as needed around commas.
  • (3) Needs Index Entries Proofed - Needs links checked against the source ([2]). Check the page name that the source index goes to and correct name and/or link if neccesary. Convert index link to a "X -- see Y" if it goes to page with completely different name.
  • (4) Ready for Articles - Ready to add empty articles.
  • (5) Ready for Article Text - Ready to add text to articles.
  • (6) Finished - All done.

I'm adding a table above to keep track of progress. - illy 19:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could be able to mass-upload every article of[edit]

with basic automatic formatting (such as header and footer) and index pages, can you please say me if it is acceptable? If it is so, i will need some to assure i will not upload wrongly formatted pages... --Riccardo (better it) 22:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main page name[edit]

Main page name Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 should be Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), right? --Riccardo (better on it.wikipedia) 18:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


ordering of pages with roman numbers (II, IV, XIX) is wrong (see Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Pope Adrian I). I will fix them... --Riccardo (better on it.wikipedia) 11:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images are not uploaded by default, we must first check their copyright, pages with images:

--Riccardo (better on it.wikipedia) 16:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tables (<table><tr> etc... ) are not uploaded correctly, often source in does not include them, they must be written by hand in correct wikicode --Riccardo (better on it.wikipedia) 15:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC) --Riccardo (better on it.wikipedia) 15:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eberhard Wächter (painter) is shown as being born on 29 February 1762. This year was not a leap year in either the Gregorian or Julian calendars.

There's a typo in this entry: the date of Juan Andres' conversion to Christianity is given as "1587," but he actually says it was "1487," at least in the 1652 English translation of his book; if the chronology of his life really fits with the fall of Granada and the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, the earlier date has to be the right one.

I have updated Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Juan Andres to 1487; this article is from [3], and is not the same person as w:Juan Andres. John Vandenberg 03:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheked pages[edit]

I managed to check for easy-to-see (open page, look at it, watch it, close it) errors Volume 1 and 2, now I'm going to upload remaining volumes without contemporary check, page names should be correct, so nothing too bad should happens... it there will be (I hope not) massive errors, I could easily reupload them --Riccardo (better on it.wikipedia) 18:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 3 has been checked, others are being uploaded now, we are already at letter P --Riccardo (better on it.wikipedia) 11:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Is there any reason why the author for each individual article appears as "multiple editors" when many, if not most or all, articles have an attributed author at the foot of the page? Eclecticology 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books &[edit]

  • 1918: Supplementary volume, containing revisions of the Articles in Canon Law According to the Code OF CANON LAW OF PIUS X PROMULGATED BY POPE BENEDICT XV: Google

analysis of[edit]

The OCE at is running on MediaWiki, and I was able to create an account and login.

OCE:Eduard von Steinle doesnt have our error that was fixed here

Meletius of Lycopolis has the text that was missing here.

Arbogast, Saint (Gaelic Arascach) doesnt have the spelling mistake that was on our edition.

Burse doesnt have these spelling mistakes.

Since it is the May, the Month of Mary, I decided to look at the article The Blessed Virgin Mary and compare it to the Wikisource article and to the scan of the original text that you have located on Google. The content in the Wikisource article differed from the article, which was mostly idential with the Google scan -- the Wikisource article appears to be only a portion of the originial article: the article must have been divided into smaller articles due to size. However, there were a significant number of OCR transciption errors between the article and the Google scan. The most obvious errors were related to foreign terminology, for example the foreign letter "i" with the "cap or carrot" accent mark was rendered "t", the German "u-umlaut" was rendered in some instances as "u", "u-umlaut", or "ii". In many cases the accent marks are not rendered by the letters appear otherwise correct. One example is the Latin word "Maris" was rendered "Maxis". There were several instances of English terms also incorrectly rendered. In the case of this article -- I haven't examined others, the Wikisource version is more reliable, but contextually incomplete. While there are certain errors that are corrected on the OCE site, there are many other errors that have been introduced. I hope you find this information useful. --Saint Wiki I 22:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the history of the pages[4], two uploads have been done, and for the most part the second revision of each page is identical to the first. Recentchanges doesnt appear to work, but even if it did, it couldnt be used to find what changed between these two uploads. Of course there will a few pages that are different - I think a bot would be required to find which pages were modified in the second upload. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Blah reports "You have requested an invalid special page. / A list of valid special pages can be found at Special:Specialpages." But Special:Specialpages reports "This page does not exist." John Vandenberg (chat) 04:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Byzantine Empire is missing all of the images which have been added to our copy by User:Saint Wiki I; instead it has garbage, probably output from an OCR engine.
As far as I can see, all of the pages on are missing the bibliography section.
Note that the Images all have a horrendous watermark on them, and their "Legal" pages are essentially w:copyfraud. I would email them and tell them as much, but they are putting scans online, so I feel a little conflicted about it. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their "Legal" pages are not w:copyfraud. The copyright statement is ambiguous as to whether it applies to the entire site or just to Catholic Answers' enhancements. More interestingly, the site has a User License which precludes the wholesale downloading of site content. This is essentially identical to the approach taken by Lexis/Nexis. If you do not want to be hampered by their user license restrictions, do not use the OCE site. unsigned comment by (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2008.

While there legal statement is ambiguous, they are dancing on the line of copyfraud. If they dont want to be accused of copyfraud, they should clear up their legal statement. Lexis/Nexis restrictions are based on well tested aspects of contract law; a "user license" on a website is not an acceptable form of contract in my opinion. I did not sign it; it does not affect me. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"they are dancing on the line of copyfraud"

Not true provided they have unique content and/or data organization/presentation features (which they appear to have).

"Lexis/Nexis restrictions are based on well tested aspects of contract law"

So the OCE user license which mimics Lexis/Nexis would also be "based on well-tested aspects of contract law", no?

"a 'user license' on a website is not an acceptable form of contract in my opinion."

But that is precisely what controls Lexis/Nexis usage. And fortunately, an individual's "opinion" of contract law is not controlling. Case law would be needed to back up such an opinion.

"I did not sign it; it does not affect me."

Yes it does. There are many contracts that we as individuals "do not sign" but still affect us. An obvious one is a "shrink-wrap" software license. Indeed, most "contracts" are not signed. An "acceptance" through use is still an acceptance.
If we want to operate to the highest standard, we should honor their terms. Again, if anyone does not want to be hampered by the OCE user license restrictions, do not use the OCE site.
Lexis/Nexis is a proper contract between two parties, and the exchange of money for service cements the contract - there can be no doubt that the user is aware that Lexis/Nexis has conditions of use. Now... please note: that the OCE legal papers are more overreaching than even Lexis/Nexis, which does not pretend to own the documents/images, it adds a watermark in an unobtrusive manner, and it does not prevent redistribution. Lexis/Nexis primarily prevents large scale redistribution.
Shinkwrap licenses are on shaky ground, but even there the party opening the wrapping knows that they have a "license", and they have made a purchase (an action) without seeing the license. Clickthrough licenses are also OK, because the user must make an action before continuing. There is no clickthrough process for OCE - anyone can access their material. OCE is claiming that this image is protected, however the reality is that w:sweat of the brow doesnt give OCE new copyright, and anybody can access that image without agreeing to the legal documents on the OCE website. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent gaps[edit]

I work on the English Wikipedia project to merge in the CE. For general considerations we're looking at, see w:Wikipedia:Merging encyclopedias. As it says there, WP work throws up various issues related to Wikisource: titles that have some error or infelicity, also apparent gaps (Wikisource version is not where one would expect). These cause a broken link from the {{Catholic}} template we use. For the moment I'll just list these on my User page here, as they come up. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Ezzo, using this pagescan. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template for linking to articles[edit]

A rough template {{CE Link}} has been generated to link to articles in this work from Author pages, and the like. eg. {{CE Link|Alcuin}} gives ...

Which edition exactly do we reproduce here?[edit]

Sorry for me being confused and asking, but what source exactly are we reproducing here? Which edition, which set of scans, which set of transcriptions? The Wikisource title is "Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)", so its obviously an edition of 1913. says : The Catholic Encyclopedia (TCE) was published in 15 volumes between 1907 and 1912 by the Robert Appleton Company. In 1913 the publisher, renamed as Encyclopedia Press, Inc., released a new edition. A year later (1914) a comprehensive Index was released as Volume 16. This Original Catholic Encyclopedia (OCE) site holds the complete 16 volume set with the original text of all articles (~11,500) faithfully preserved.

So, there are two editions, the first 1907-1912 (TCE), then a 1913 "new edition" which might be an identical 2nd edition, warts and all, or an updated and edited version that differs? The 1913 edition, plus the 1914 Vol. 16 index, is dubbed Original Catholic Encyclopedia (OCE), and scans are provided to proofread the text. And to make things more interesting, there are two supplements issued in 1918 and 1922 (see section on Google & Archive above), but these seem not to be in the scope of neither nor wikisource.

I'm asking because I've stumbled over differences in content in Vol. 4, which stem either from different editions, or were tampered with. For example, how is Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Nicolaus Copernicus supposed to begin with, with regard to the differing spellings "Kopernik" or "KOPPERNIGK", and "Torun (Thorn)" or "Thorn"?

While KOPPERNIGK[5] appears in old (1480s) documents (which were written in the German language of the time and area) of the Prussian city of Thorn, the spelling Kopernik was promoted by Poles in the 1800s. "Torun" (actually Toruń) is the Polish name of the town which was transferred from Germany to Poland in 1920. The texts and scans at seem to reflect the edition of 1913 and the pre World War I situation, while and could represent another, later edition, reflecting post 1918 changes both in borders as in American perception towards Germans and Poles. Or, possibly, the transcriptions are not faithful to the source. (BTW: the supplements of 1918 and 1922 [6] [7] had no news about Copernicus, as far as I can see). --Matthead (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you spotted the iceberg, but need I remind you of how much of Project Sourceberg (to use the original name) is below the surface. My short answer to which one we should host is "both". Not only that, we should also have a mechanism to highlight the differences. The important thing about the Copernicus example is not which edition is correct, but that they differ at all. (That the supplements make no mention of Copernicus is to be expected; it was not the purpose of the supplements to revisit all these disputes.) It would not surprise me if Newadvent and Catholicity had sought to modernize the content, perhaps to make it more consistent with the 1967 NCE. Are there any scans anywhere to support the Newadvent and Catholicity versions? There is one big problem when we host scans, and that is the tendency to complacently treat those scans as definitive versions of the work in question, ignoring the existence of alternative versions. The Catholic Encyclopedia is not the only work where this comes up, and reconciling versions of multi-volume works is a tremendous amount of work. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the article according to the OCE scan. Also, there are sources given in the scan, which none of the transcripts include. Is that intentionally omitted, or a limitation of the OCR software which may overlook small print?--Matthead (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that our earliest contributions for the Catholic Encyclopedia were borrowed from New Advent, and these sources were intentionally omitted, not by us but by them. Most of the early stuff on Project Gutenberg, likewise, did not attach much importance to proper sourcing, which is why I tend to discount much of it from being reliable sources. At a certain stage that was an acceptable practice; now it can only be used as fill until better sourced material can be found. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Letter E missing[edit]

As I understand Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Volume 5 should contain "Volume 5: Diocese-Fathers of Mercy", and thus all articles starting with E, like Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Ezzo mentioned above. Yet, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Marie-Marguérite d'Youville is followed by Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Bl. Peter Faber, skipping the whole of E. I was looking for Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Ermland (, but it is was not there, and neither under the alternative names Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Ermeland, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Varmia, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Warmia. It's not a matter of faulty links, as search does not find it either. I've created the article, and updated the Index page to list the two articles beginning with E. --Matthead (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: What's the policy on obvious spelling errors and misprints, like "Teutontic" instead of "Teutonic"? Correcting them, or not?

They should not be corrected, though adding (sic!) will be a warning to those who believe that they are just correcting our own typo. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can see what happened with this diff. For some reason the index page for that volume had a major edit that removed stuff. I think that may explain why people think the CE is done when it isn't. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving ahead[edit]

To get the rest of the CE done, I've posted a list at User:Charles Matthews/CE Completion and initial progress on creating the remaining articles, which come out at about 3% of the total. It is clear by now that the initial postings have quite a number issues with them. I shall be following the OCE at to avoid the arbitrary features of what is up at New Advent. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Known issues include: incomplete articles; need to add Greek or Hebrew text; inconsistent titling; order of articles as in previous/next is often out of line with the original volumes; numerous articles just missing (that are not in the big gap around letter E); reference sections omitted in many cases; subdivision of articles. Some of these have only come to light by comparison with The Making of the Catholic Encyclopedia (authors and article listings, not 100% accurate itself). Charles Matthews (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is now one volume of page scans posted, more to follow in time. I propose to start Wikisource:WikiProject Catholic Encyclopedia Upgrade to migrate discussion about what to do in the new situation. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request to add volume information[edit]

I have put in a bot request to add volume information to the headers of those articles which are missing it. See Wikisource:Bot requests#Volume information for CE1913.

I have also tentatively asked for a bot to fill in any missing contributor field. If you know of a central table of contributors, please post it to the bot request so that the bot operator can asses the complexity of adding a contributor field.

-- PBS (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing photographs[edit]

I think I noticed that some photographs were missing in looking over the article on California. In looking at the original scans there were photographs of missions and churches etc. These don't show up in Wikisource, or in any other transcription I've seen, but the usual practice in Wikisource is to include them. California wasn't the only article where this was true. Library Guy (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the text is mostly in the state where it was left by the initial bot postings; which mirrored a digitisation of quite low quality available elsewhere on the web. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loop detected[edit]

It looks like one of the alternate links above has actually copied from here, or from the source of our copy. Article "Canticle_of_Canticles" at has the same mistakes I just fixed here. More telling is that the copy at has none of these errors.

And appears to be a dead link. Shenme (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]