![]() |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Interfaith controversies subsection
I'm moving this here so that interested editors can modify it or discuss how to make a subsection for this article:
- Interfaith controversies involving the Catholic Church have concerned relations with the Anglican Communion, Eastern Orthodoxy, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism.
Question
So far, I have tried to very briefly indicate areas of criticism or dispute without attempting a long discourse, but providing a link to a Main article which covers the subject more comprehensively. Thus, the substantial trimming.
Where is the line drawn distinguishing between "Criticism" and "Controversy" (both forms used in the split articles)? Is it a matter of how much umbrage is reported in the media? Is there, or should there be, a distinction drawn between garden variety doctrinal issues and the pope allowing the Tridentine form in order to pacify those Catholics who are fond of the traditional mass and thereby inadvertently insulting Jews because the same liturgy for Good Friday includes a less than sensitive prayer for their conversion? Input, opinions welcomed. Mannanan51 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- I wondered the same thing. Criticism may be informal, or even one-sided, but controversy always has at least two sides, and usually formal. The term is often used in the Catholic Encyclopedia and other historical sources to describe formal disputes between religious parties. A controversy can contain criticism(s), though.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Redirect/Merge made without consensus
I am of the opinion this redirect from the corruption article was unjustified; this had been discussed prior to the move and had the approval of four editors and the input of one other.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- The five-way content split which you did of text from here was not as discussed (a two-way split was discussed), was not necessary, was not done carefully, resulted in SIX unreadable articles, and merging content back to this main criticism article is appropriate.
As an added bonus, Mannanan51 is actually carefully re-writing the content rather than just dumping indiscriminate, unorganized, uncited and poorly written text throughout the Wikipedia, so that's a win. We now offer Wikipedia readers actual criticism articles, rather than six unreadable unorganized walls of text. If similar occurs again, I will be requesting a topic ban.
A look at the progress so far:
- 14:08 9 Mar, this article before Epiphyllumlover's work
- 18:48 12 Apr, the result to this article of Epiphyllumover's work including a hatnote farm
- 02:14 28 Apr, and an example of an article created by an Epiphyllumlover split, using transclusions
- 02:16 29 Apr, another sample of an article created by an Epiphyllumlover split, using transclusions
- 2 May sample of progress so far; work still ongoing, but a readable, sourced, and better written article.
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- What specifically is the problem? You, yourself, placed the banner on the page indicating that it needed "to be cleaned up or summarized". I am doing both. ...and I quote: " I don't know exactly what the Criticism of the Catholic Church page will look like when the split is completed, but you are welcome to start now if you like." So I did. Three separate editors have indicated that the split you initiated was at the very least "problematic". Other observations were "dreadful", "misleading" and "laughable". Given that the Catholic church is a rather large, ancient institution there will no doubt be a good deal with which one could take issue. Much of the excessive text was disorganized and immaterial. This is not the place for lengthy, incoherent dissertations. All that is needed is a brief description and a link to the appropriate Main article. In fact, IMHO that is the best approach in order to be as realistically comprehensive as possible -and it does not require discussing some elderly bishop who may have passed gas someplace. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
From my Talk page:
- The cleanup banner was for the main page, not this one. I just had a thought: If you support me moving the corruptions page to community draft per the comment made by Hyperbolick (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC) (and later restated on his talk page), I will withdraw my objection, both here and on the talk page. (The page would need to come out of draft via the formal process this way.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- It would seem a bit more appropriate if you would direct your comments to the Main page, as (1) it keeps discussion in one place, and (2) there may be other users who would have some views on the matter. Thank you. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Mannanan51 (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- to clarify, the existing merged content could stay on the main criticisms page even if the alleged corruptions page is moved to draft.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- As I've stated, you have not evidenced the neutrality or objectivity or concern for encyclopedic content to be writing anything about the Catholic Church anywhere on Wikipedia: just my opinion. You also seem to be of the idea that consensus is formed on editor talk pages rather than article talk pages. Mannanan51 gives you good advice to please discuss your article proposals on article talk where we can all review them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Move to draft would be a very good step. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- As this page only has 32K bytes, there is plenty of room for bona fide observations, and they can be posted here for discussion. Mannanan51 (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Move to draft would be a very good step. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- As I've stated, you have not evidenced the neutrality or objectivity or concern for encyclopedic content to be writing anything about the Catholic Church anywhere on Wikipedia: just my opinion. You also seem to be of the idea that consensus is formed on editor talk pages rather than article talk pages. Mannanan51 gives you good advice to please discuss your article proposals on article talk where we can all review them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- to clarify, the existing merged content could stay on the main criticisms page even if the alleged corruptions page is moved to draft.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Excuse, I fail to see where consensus was established for carrying out the article forks, though? PPEMES (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- On this page, the comments by Hyperbolick (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC) and OlJa 00:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC) [that is, Oldstone James], combined with several comments by Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard#What_to_do_about_Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC on. With myself, that was a count of four editors in favor of the six-way split with five new articles. Additionally, PluniaZ gave input about the page names on this and the Christianity noticeboard pages. Although PluniaZ did not say he approved of the split, he gave input which I heeded, and did not object. Lastly, on the Christianity noticeboard page, Sandy Georgia later stated, "Splitting the article was fine (I believe it was my suggestion)"--that said, I think this user preferred splitting it off to a smaller number of articles instead of six, but I am unsure of this. Additionally, the comment here by Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC) suggests splitting the article a different way. Following this, I did each of the articles one-by-one. (I summarized my posts on this page for organization, leaving on the mention of the first one (comment: Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC).) There seemed to be no objection as to my method (heavily reliant on transclusions, which on controversial topics helps to alleviate concerns about POV; since the transcluded portions, often leads, from other articles have (hopefully) been written in a neutral manner and evaluated by many editors over a period of years. The flip-side of this is that formatting could have been better, and some sections had bad flow). Only when I had finished the last article did other users object.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- The fundamental issue is article quality. The number of different articles is of secondary importance. I reviewed the page that was ultimately redirected here (Alleged corruption in the Catholic Church) and its content was of absurdly low quality, as anyone can see from its edit history. With the edits that Mannanan51 has made to this article, its quality has greatly improved and been condensed such that the need for the previously discussed article split is no longer necessary. There is plenty of room to make quality improvements to this article without creating new articles that are just copy-pastas of unedited text. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- If we incubate in draft, there would be time to generate non-transcluded text. As for quality, three other editors (none represented in this discussion) thanked me for edits involving the split articles, and two separate editors (none represented in this discussion) completed new-article reviews on the five articles before I published them. They were rated as Start class, which disappointed me. Of article's I've created in the past, the highest initial rating I've gotten is a "B".--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- At the time the split was agreed to, this article was of absurdly low quality, and the articles that were created were also of poor quality. The quality of this article has greatly improved since then, such that I no longer see the need for any split. I propose that Modern criticism of the Catholic Church and Criticism of the historical Catholic Church be redirected here. It is frankly absurd to have three different articles on this topic. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- I went through Modern criticism of the Catholic Church and removed all of the material that did not contain substantiated criticisms of the Catholic Church. There was very little content left that was not also covered here, so I changed it to a redirect to this article. I will also take a look at Criticism of the historical Catholic Church and see if its content can be merged back here. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- If we incubate in draft, there would be time to generate non-transcluded text. As for quality, three other editors (none represented in this discussion) thanked me for edits involving the split articles, and two separate editors (none represented in this discussion) completed new-article reviews on the five articles before I published them. They were rated as Start class, which disappointed me. Of article's I've created in the past, the highest initial rating I've gotten is a "B".--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- The fundamental issue is article quality. The number of different articles is of secondary importance. I reviewed the page that was ultimately redirected here (Alleged corruption in the Catholic Church) and its content was of absurdly low quality, as anyone can see from its edit history. With the edits that Mannanan51 has made to this article, its quality has greatly improved and been condensed such that the need for the previously discussed article split is no longer necessary. There is plenty of room to make quality improvements to this article without creating new articles that are just copy-pastas of unedited text. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, and to the extent there ever was any, it did because the content created was dreadful. Twice. Now the problems have been addressed. We now have encyclopedic content, where you provided two versions of something indescribable.
WP:LISTENing is a problem here; please read it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have changed Criticism of the historical Catholic Church to redirect to this page. The only content left was a discussion of Catholic actions in the Balkans during WWII. If the community thinks that is worthy of inclusion it can be added to this article. --PluniaZ (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Although consensus can change, it is unlikely that the process is currently working as it should given that most editors don't want to be used as an example of what happens to you if you express the wrong thoughts. This is why draft is useful, as since it is not published there is not so many emotions flying around. Perhaps the two or three editors who contributed prior to the 14 April mass revert would even come back.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have changed Criticism of the historical Catholic Church to redirect to this page. The only content left was a discussion of Catholic actions in the Balkans during WWII. If the community thinks that is worthy of inclusion it can be added to this article. --PluniaZ (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Merge from List of scandals of the Catholic Church
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the merge request was: consensus to merge. (non-admin closure) PluniaZ (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
A terrible new article, full of mistakes & mostly as POV as its title. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support as nom. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support The "List of scandals..." is a POV train wreck that would require a massive rewrite to meet our guidelines. Not worth the trouble. If somebody wants to just blank and redirect it that would likely be acceptable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support The "List of scandas..." violates NPOV from start to finish and seems to have been created as an end run around the recent discussions that fixed similar issues with this article. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Qualified Support I tend to agree with Ad Orientem for a blank and redirect. Most of this stuff is covered in more detail in other articles, making this list at the very least superfluous, and ( ...supply any adjective of your choice). (n.b., the brand new Persecution of Christians by Christians is another waste of space.) Manannan67 (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Redundant; other articles are suitable about specific subtopics when their sections are too large for the main article. —PaleoNeonate – 07:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I know this probably isn't the correct venue, but it's the same editor and the same problem. God in Catholicism is a mess of synthesized non-sequiturs and IMHO should be blanked and redirected to Catholic Church#Nature of God which in comparison is not only concise but coherent. Manannan67 (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support. PPEMES (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support I agree that that article is redundant to this one.gnu57 09:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Scandal is different from Criticism tho, no? Hyperbolick (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, but a) people criticise scandals, and b) most of these are not really scandals - eg the Crusades. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, but a) people criticise scandals, and b) most of these are not really scandals - eg the Crusades. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The Opening Paragraph Needs to be Reworded:
The opening paragraph of this page is a horrendously worded inflammatory opinion piece that bears no resemblance to the actual content:
- The Catholic Church has been subject to criticism throughout its history for its beliefs and practices.
Subject to criticism by who? This sentence needs to cite sources.
- Criticisms of the Catholic Church's religious beliefs and practices have often led to breaks with other Christian groups, such as the schism with the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Protestant Reformation.
Where the formation of these other groups based upon criticism of the Catholic Church's beliefs and practices or were they political disputes that used religion as a post or pre-text? This sentence needs to cite sources.
- The Catholic Church has also been criticized for its active efforts to influence political decisions, such as the Church's promotion of the Crusades and its involvement with various 20th-century nationalist regimes. More recent criticism focuses on alleged scandals within the Church, particularly alleged financial corruption and the Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandals.
Criticized by who for what political decisions? The Church's promotion of the Crusades sentence conflicts with what this post actually states about the crusades, which was that the most of the crusades were actions taken by sovereign states, not by the Church itself. This section needs to cite sources.
Suggested New Opening Paragraph: Over the span of its existence, there have been a number of sustained criticisms against the Catholic Church. These criticisms have concerned its magisterial teachings and its activities outside of the sphere of dogmatic theology.
Wiki Comic Relief (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)