Talk:Rerum novarum

message: Lack of a Critical Section.
There is no section of criticism in the article. For example, it can be argued that the concept of a "fair wage" is meaningless - and if this "fair" wage is declared above what supply and demand would produce, then it means unemployment. Also, as the late W.H. Hutt pointed out in the "Strike Threat System"  - unions and collective bargaining are not an "alternative" to state intervention as they rest upon it (otherwise an employer would hire other people when a "strike" is called and the para military practice of "picketing" would be treated as obstruction of the entrance or exit of a place of business) and that collective bargaining tends to lead to mass unemployment. Also the astonishing rise (yes rise) in the living standards of workers was obvious by 1891 - Pope Leo XIII writes more as if wages and conditions of work were still as they had been in the 1830s or 1840s.2A02:C7D:B5E6:6400:AD2B:A9D:173E:AEDF (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

message: "Anglican clergyman with evangelical leanings, and brought a sensibility to the modern Catholic Church that had its origins in the work of John Wesley" -I'm thinking that might have a point of view problem.  I place this here to see if any of the writers of this article wish to change their work before I attempt. gren
:This page has obviously been vandalised. As I'm not a registered user I cannot revert the vandalisms. The  template now places the page on deletion requests instead of being just an alert - so I cannot use that to raise the alarm. What to do?  --157.157.209.20 23:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Radically leftist, yet opposed socialism" would be more accurate and meaningful. Opposing socialism, communism, and the Manchester capitalism made it a bit unusual.--T. Anthony 04:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "The encyclical and its impact" section is pure propaganda. There are numerous biased claims, a few of them are that it states that the book "refuted" the claims of socialists, and the section says, "While individual positions or statements have been debated, the work was remarkable as a summary of many issues raised by the industrial revolution and modern democratic societies." The vast majority of people disagree the basic claims of the encynical (or at least large sections of it), not only indivdual statements. This article also fails to include critism of it and its assosication with fascism. 72.139.119.165 18:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the section NPOV now, but work could still be done on it. 72.139.119.165 01:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: When Pat describes himself w/ what sounds like this phrase, this term, to which element does he refer, please?
 hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ Patrick_Joseph_Buchanan ]] 

message: This document wasn't the first expression of that fact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: God on the side of the poor

message: Shouldn't the bolded translated title also be italicized even though it is not the actual Ecclesiatical Latin title but rather a translation?  75.216.205.78 (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: "Rerum novarum" does not mean "On the New Things"!  To translate "res novae" by "new things" is like translating "hot dog" into French as "chien chaud."  "Res novae" is a fixed phrase or idiom meaning (to quote the Oxford Latin Dictionary) "constitutional changes, revolution."  That is what it has always meant in Latin, and that is how Leo is using it here: "Rerum novarum semel excitata cupidine, quae diu quidem commovet civitates..." is rendered (in the Wikisource translation) "That the spirit of revolutionary change, which has long been disturbing the nations of the world..."  It should be translated "Of revolution" if it must be translated in the first line of the article.  I am not going to make the change myself because I can foresee the Wikiwar that would ensue and I have no stomach for it, not to mention no desire to spend my time monitoring this article and talk page.  But I'm putting it here so that anyone who cares about the actual meaning of Latin, as opposed to what you get by looking things up word by word in a beginner's dictionary, and cares more about this article than I do can have a go at correcting it. Languagehat (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "Of revolution" is misleading—that could imply revolution is the topic of the encyclical, which it isn't, it's just the first two words.  That's why I wrote "if it must be translated in the first line"; it doesn't make much sense to translate the first two words out of context. Languagehat (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it.  The article is about the entire encyclical so just translating the first two words, out of context, is not necessary. Especially given the problematic/misleading nature of the translation. SQGibbon (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of title 

message: Here are proposed edits to the article, to its name  and to the first paragraphs .
Welcome any thoughts on them.
Would like to submit the final edits on Tue 11-15-16.
This is my first Talk post.
frank435
R
 Rerum novarum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Down loaded 12 November 2016 at 9:20 ET
Includes 10 November 2016  edits by  AndyFinkenstadt
1-change article name
from” Rerum Novarum” to “Rerum Novarum Introduction” or
 “Introduction to Rerum Novarum”
(no preference for either one ,please indicate yours)
  (reason-more accurate as to what article is about and more compliant with wiki guidelines)
2-paragraphs changes 
Rerum Novarum is considered a foundational text of modern Catholic social teaching.[6]
(reason - moved from latter paragraph to first statement b , informs user upfront of the notability of the encyclical  ,relevancy of this article and encourages them to read more)
Rerum Novarum (from its first two words, Latin for "of revolutionary change"[n 1]), or Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor, is an encyclical issued by Pope Leo XIII on 15 May 1891. It was an open letter, to "patriarchs, primates, archbishops and bishops(31) , concerning Catholic doctrine on the Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor”(2), that addressed the condition of the working classes.
This article is intended to provide an introduction .to the encyclical, providing  some insight into its purpose ,scope ,depth and  the actionable information the encyclical provides.
(reason-provides user with the intent ,purpose of the article, make it  more compliant with wiki guidelines and encourages them to read more)
Further information can be obtained about Rerum Novarum ,for example , from other wiki articles and the english version ,downloadable  using  the Vatican site link in this article.
The English translation is approximately 14000 words with 64 numbered paragraphs. This article references 15 of the  64 numbered paragraphs.
(reason- from MS word counts and my counts ,more accurate  and transparent as to scope of article is about and more compliant with wiki guidelines)
Rerum Novarum  discussed the relationships and mutual duties between labor and capital, as well as government and its citizens. Of primary concern was the need for some amelioration of "The misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class."[5] It supported the rights of labor to form unions, rejected socialism and unrestricted capitalism, whilst affirming the right to private property.
Rerum Novarum is considered a foundational text of modern Catholic social teaching.[6] 
Many of the positions in Rerum Novarum were supplemented by later encyclicals, in particular Pius XI's Quadragesimo anno (1931), John XXIII's Mater et magistra (1961), and John Paul II's Centesimus annus (1991). Frank435 (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name change and changes to first paragraphs