Talk:Chinese Rites controversy

message: Was it the Dominicans or the Franciscans? -- Error 01:44, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Dominicans?

message: What does it exactely mean, that some even pretended that the Church declared Confucius as a Christian saint. Who? European intellectuals in China, Jesuit missonaries in China, some intellectuals in Europe? Some men/women of importance? Gugganij 28 June 2005 22:30 (UTC)
:I think it was missionaries working in China, but I don't remember where I got the idea from. --Error 29 June 2005 00:06 (UTC)
::I don't think anybody declared him a Christian saint, strictly speaking. But I have heard the anecdote that (Portuguese) Jesuits maintained he is, or is probably, saved, which, then again, is essentially the same thing. According to the anecdote, they were called to stop doing so by (Spanish) Dominicans, to which they replied: "Confucius is saved, which cannot be said about the King of Spain." --84.154.100.159 (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Confucius as a Saint

message: Just stumbled upon this page, and don't have time to fix this properly, but the passage
::It was related to larger controversies between the two orders
Appears after only one order (Dominicans) has been mentioned. From reading some of the rest of the text it seems to me like the other order is the Jesuits, so I suggest the above sentence be rewritten to explain that. --Cotoco 08:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "two orders" 

message: Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 22:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: This article does not meet 2a or 3a of the WP:WIAGA. This article needs a massive expansion and more sources. Until this is done, it cannot be a GA article. Z1720 06:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delist

message: I try to improve this article, with the aim to make it GA again, by cleaning up the problematic texts and adding reliable sources. The below are the problematic texts removed from the previous version. --(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng) 16:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: To improve

message: It is false that when America was colonized and later evangelized, Catholicism or Christianity was implanted "umodified". It was so much modified that indigenous practices continued under the disguise of Christian rites. Examples vary and remain up today, like the Day of the Death in Mexico.
Christian faith had to be blended also to many of the Native American´s vocabulary and customes. Not for nothing in Mexico (where I am from) almost every chapel or church from the XVI century is over an indigenous temple or ruins. The reason? The native Americans still went to pray to their monoliths, so, the missionaries buried those monoliths under the church´s grounds or crosses in the patios so the people went to the church and "hear the word of God"
--201.141.135.50 (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ereased part of EARLY CUSTOMES 

message: We are told that Spain and Portugal used force in America. Nothing is said about the use of force in the same area by England.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.253.253.219 (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Told 

message: I have just removed the following short section from the article:

Pope Clement XIV dissolved the Society of Jesuits in 1773, on the issue over Jesuit accommodation policy; in particular, the 1773 decree did not accept that Chinese Rites can be placed on equal footing with Europe and Christianity.
This does not warrant a action of its own, and the claim that the main reason for suppressing the Jesuits was the rites controversy is incorrect as can be seen by reading the papal brief referred to, Dominis ad redemptor. Mccapra (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissolution of Jesuits 

message: The current title makes no sense. "Chinese Rites" is not a title or proper name: they're just the traditional rites of the people of China. The controversy itself could be a proper name but we seem divided about this. There's Investiture Controversy, Archpriest Controversy, and Antinomian Controversy but Osiandrian controversy, Vestments controversy, Essjay controversy, Engagement controversy, Easter controversy, &c. Perhaps the best thing would be to keep this page similar to the Great Rites Controversy, but the caps seem more natural there. — LlywelynII 03:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you google it it's clear that the article is using the generally-accepted Englueh language term.Mccapra (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  With respect, you obviously either didn't Google or didn't grok what you saw there. You would've seen the first page of responses tends to either "Chinese Rites Controversy" or "Chinese rites controversy". Moreover, going to Scholar shows that absolutely no one careful and knowledgable at all is using our capitalization on their first six pages of results, despite the usual tendency of Wiki articles to pull at least some usage their way. Finally, it's a grammatical issue and MOS issue regardless of what mistake may have been more common in the past. (Not that the current mistake actually is very common in general, let alone among scholars.) — LlywelynII 23:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: There's more detail (with sources) at Francois Noel, the page for one of the Jesuits who attempted to argue the last round of the controversy before the papacy. In particular, the page currently suffers some  w/r/t to the Chinese response. It was much more thoughtful, drawn out, and justified than "they got mad" and Maigrot in particular needs to be called out both for his influence and for the extreme ignorance he displayed of the issues involved, when tested on them.
Apart from the lack of this treatment bring the GA status into question, the attempts to introduce more detail about Maigrot currently in the article seem to have some grammar issues. — LlywelynII 23:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Article expansion

message: We hear that America was conquered by Spain and Portugal. This is partly true, but Britain and others are not mentioned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.217 (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-sight 

message: This article jumps from 1737 to 1939 without discussing what happened in between. Was the ban on Christian missionary activity and the Roman Catholic Church ever reversed following 1737, and before the end of the Qing Dynasty? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Was the Qing Dynasty's ban on missionary activity ever reversed?