Talk:Catholicity/Archive 4

message: Dogface, your edits of September 21, 2004 seem to be aimed at promoting POV, not removing it.  "Rome claimed an authority" captures the fact that Rome said it, and that it is not 
necessarily true just because Rome said it; is there any actual reason to change it to the less neutral "Rome 
alleged special authority"?  Did you realize that your edits put the same information twice into the sentence that follows?  The sentence already said that the church of Antioch was older than the church of Rome; why was it necessary to add that information a second time after an mdash?
In short, I question the necessity and wisdom of these edits.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think the article is much more NPOV than it used to be (when it was pure catechism a while back). However a hang-over seems to be that all the external links are Roman Catholic. Can anyone propose appropriate links to other groups calling themselves "Catholic"? --BozMo|talk 13:31, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it may be true that this article has been less NPOV than it is now.  The point that I'm making which that doesn't address is that the edits I mentioned (changing the factual "claimed" to the slanted "alleged", for example) are a step in the wrong direction, away from NPOV.  I think they should be changed back.  Of course, if someone has a defense of these edits, that shows how they fit with NPOV, please bring it up here.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, sorry. I wasn't defending the alleged bit etc which I completely agree is not NPOV. --BozMo|talk 11:02, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I changed "alleged" to "claimed," as the world "alleged" carries with it an implied value judgement.  The article provides enough information that readers can make their own judgement, without us leading them there.  I can see placing additional emphasis on St. Peter having founded the church at Antioch, since the church at Rome claimed special authority derived, in part, from St. Peter.  It might read better, though, if that sentence were broken into two sentences.  SWAdair | Talk  03:56, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remember NPOV 

message: The article says:
:All of the preceding groups, excepting non-Anglican Protestants, consider themselves to be fully and completely Catholic. Each of them, excepting the Anglicans, considers itself not only to be completely Catholic but to be exclusively Catholic, even if a different group happens to use the term "Catholic" in its name.
I would normally understand the statement that a church is "exclusively Catholic" to mean that it is Catholic and excludes all tendencies that conflict with Catholicism.  That means the same thing, as far as I can see at this moment, as "completely Catholic", but whoever wrote the above obviously thinks "completely" and "exclusively" mean different things.  The words after the phrase "exclusively Catholic" make me suspect that what is meant is that each of those groups claims that only it is Catholic and the others are not.  If that is what is meant, it need to be rephrased to make it clear. Michael Hardy 20:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter's relics were found again recently at St Peter's Basilica, Paul's mortal remains were given to Oswy, King of Britain, by Pope Vitalian in AD 665 according to Bede in Ecclesiastical History from Vatican library sources. Endomion 03:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Language in need of clarification by rephrasing

message: I've removed the following material, from the "Additional reading" section:
 1 Brief organizational history of the Christian Church :
  http://www.freivald.org/~jake/church-history/index.html
  http://catholicity.elcore.net/MacCaffrey/HCCRFR_TOC.html
 2 Evolution of the term "Catholicism" :
  http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/whycath.htm
  http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/What_Catholic_Means.html
  http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/cath.htm
 3 "One, holy, catholic, and apostolic"
  http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/chmark.htm
 4 The Roman Catholic Church
  http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/roman.htm
 5 Other Catholic groups [Jesus established only One Church]:
  http://www.catholicapologetics.net/apolo_46.htm
and from the "External links" section:
  http://www.traditionalromancatholicism.com/saintsonthedogma.html
  http://www.traditionalromancatholicism.com/thechurchofchrist_2.html
So far there has been no discussion of the content of these links and no word on whether they reflect a consensus viewpoint or a disputed POV (with the note of "Jesus established only One Church", the latter seems more likely.)  They should be added back in only if and when regular contributors can check their content and see which they are; if they contain information we would not accept as NPOV in the article itself, we should mark the link accordingly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed external links 

message: The merge notices must come down.  Catholic, Catholicism and Roman Catholic Church are separate ideas that can stand alone as separate articles.  The problem we find is that these articles have overlapping information.  The solution is not to merge them but to rewrite the articles correctly so that pertinent information is found in the article it belongs to.  Further discussion on Roman Catholic Church.  --Gerald Farinas 04:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge notice 

message: I don't like the following phrase:
"Most of the Roman Catholic Churches share certain essential distinctive beliefs and practices. The Anglicans differ among themselves on these matters."
"Most of the Roman Catholic Churches share" is wrong. It is all of the Roman Catholic Churches" or most "catholic Churches".
It must be decided whether the beliefs section is supposed to be give the Roman Catholic beliefs (as the title parantheses suggest) or on a broader scale (as the inclusion of Anglicans suggests).
Str1977 08:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Beliefs

message: I removed "as the worlds' largest Christian denomination" from "Catholicism as the worlds' largest Christian denomination, has two main ecclesiastical meanings, ...".  This phrase assumes the second definition, i.e. that the term is really referring to the Roman Catholic Church. -- Chris 02:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  first line assumes 2nd definition 

message: I have reverted Chanting Fox's revertion of an anonymous editor's definition of the Eucharist. The version added in by the anonymous editor does reflect general Catholic beliefs on the topic. The version put in by Chanting Fox does not. It isn't a matter of POV but an accurate representation of Catholic belief. In so much as it is POV at all, it is the POV of the organisation being described, not the person who did the edit. The only inaccuracy was in the distinction over adoration and worship, which is something strongly associated with Roman Catholicism and less strongly with general Catholicism. I have changed the wording of that line to reflect that. FearÉIREANN(talk) 20:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eucharist 

message: We are having trouble editing traditionalist Catholic. We need more eyes to look and check, and please comment on Talk:Traditionalist Catholic. The issues are clear there. I would like a definition that includes anyone who thinks about restoring elements of Catholic practice, and another view is a person who thinks it should only be those who attend Tridentine Mass exclusivly. Please read and comment. Dominick 14:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditionalist Catholic 

message: I have set up the pages History of the Papacy - for a general overview, rather than the individual popes, Interreligious relations - the equivalent of International relations, and Women as theological figures to all of which contributions are welcome.
Jackiespeel 17:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for information

message: See the Summa 
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/500803.htm Malachias111 18:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Confession to laymen as a sacramental (not a sacrament)

message: The list of links on this article appeared greatly excessive, so I removed a bunch:
*Catechism of the Catholic Church
*Eternal Word Television Network  A Catholic Broadcast Organization
*About.com Christianity - Catholicism at About.com
*Topical search engine for the Catechism of the Catholic Church
*Catholics United for the Faith   An orthodox/conservative Catholic advocacy organization
*Catholic Answers (catholic.com) Catholic Apologetics
*CatholicCulture.org Various resources
*Biblical Catholic Apologetics
*Catholic Online  A Catholic web portal
*The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church Information about bishops and dioceses
*Fish Eaters: The Whys and Hows of Traditional Catholicism the traditional brand of Catholicism
*Roman Catholic Mission- T.C.I Catholic Church in the Turks & Caicos Islands.
*About Catholics  Information about specific beliefs
*American Catholic | Update Your Faith | FAQs About Catholicism
*Nazareth Master Catechism: Aquinas, Trent, Baltimore, Pius X, CCC
*myCatholic.com — A customizable Catholic web portal.
As per WP:EL, links should be included to:
# Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one.
# Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of an article. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.
# An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media, should link to the actual book, musical score, etc. if possible.
# On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link.  The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other.  One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view.
# Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference.
# Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.
Many of these links appear to my untutored eye to duplicate what would more properly be an internal "see also" link (e.g. Catholic Answers (catholic.com) which should simply be a Wikilink to Apologetics; this is not to prejudge whether this link would be worthy of inclusion in Apologetics).  
Input appreciated. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Catholic encyclopedia is a public source that is readily available. The CCC is a source that describes what Catholicism is, a single view, but it should be sources from a authoritative source, like the USCCB. There no plurality of viewpoints there, as far as offical Catholic opinion. Now you are right about people having a personal "catholic" definition, but that isnt the topic at hand, and his contention that the links should be under appropriate articles. Catholic Answers is a apolegetics organization not an arm of the Church. Dominick (TALK) 17:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Another PoV attack. I guess you told me, anonymously. Dominick (TALK) 17:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Careful, the Anglican Communion also believes in "one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" :-)
:OK, how's the para at the top?  Will that do? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I would rather worship like the Catholic Church actually does, rather than what I think the Church did or should have done before. It is the reason why we have a living hierarchy. Look if you are going to snip little PoV quips, then take it to other forums, or have the guts to sign your name. Dominick (TALK) 17:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. Thanks to you Lima, there is an RfC this person can troll me on, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dominick. Put your comments there please. Dominick (TALK) 14:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic vs. Roman Catholic 

message: I have been working on the Forgiveness article. Would someone be willing to take a stab at adding a Catholicism heading under the "Religious and spiritual views of forgiveness" heading in that article and trying to concisely state Catholicism's view on forgiveness?  Any help would be appreciated.  --speet 04:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 08:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for help on Forgiveness article 

message: My objection is only provisional.  I do not understand what it is about.  If no one else objects in a reasonable time, please consider this objection withdrawn.  Lima 18:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should have explained.  User:MrMister moved the page to User talk:Catholicism (an invalid location, as there is no Wikipedia user called 'Catholicism'), then copied and pasted the content back.  The result of this was that the content was identical; but the entire edit history was lost (which I think violates the GFDL, which requires that we preserve a record of who made which contribution).  Unfortunately, the additional edit (moving the content back) means that this page now has a 'History'; so the Move function can't be used to move the page (with its history) back again.  An admin needs to delete this copy of the page so the old one, with the edit history, can be moved back here. TSP 18:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem.  I was also a bit surprised when the template for requesting that a page be moved back turned out to be a speedy deletion request; but apparently that's how it's done. TSP 11:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion