Talk:Ecumenism

message: There is a section that lumps the "Eastern" and "Oriental" Orthodox churches together. I'd like to remind everyone that these are distinct churches. So distinct, in fact, that if we had to lump churches together, it would arguably make more theological sense to lump the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox together, and put the Oriental Orthodox in a separate section (I don't advocate doing this!). Editors should be careful not to jump to sloppy conclusions based on the mutual use of the word "orthodox" by these churches. 184.175.14.142 (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: An important point. From a western perspective, at least three, sometimes four, distinct communions and churches get lumped together as "Eastern Christians": The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and Eastern Catholic (sometimes). Worth be consistently clear on the distinctions. Protoclete (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern and Oriental Orthodox section 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Maybe an good photo to illustrate this article? --Flor!an (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Someone added statements about ecumenism being a general phenomena, rather than a purely Christian enterprise.  This is A) wrong and B) completely unsupported in the text below and I have removed it.108.90.117.6 (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Christian aspects removed

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ecumenism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120415002847/http://catalystresources.org/issues/303balmer.html to http://catalystresources.org/issues/303balmer.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130208120345/http://news.yahoo.com:80/pastor-apologizes-role-prayer-vigil-connecticut-massacre-021918940.html to http://news.yahoo.com/pastor-apologizes-role-prayer-vigil-connecticut-massacre-021918940.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Either the uncited claims in the Anglican section need to be sourced, or they need to be removed. There have been minority split movements but they are far in the minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.9.245 (talk) 21 December 2015‎
:I agree that the sentence as it currently stands seems like a significant overstatement at best. Moreover, even if that were not the case, it is barely peripherally relevant to the article. I have removed it. Graham (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adding a  so its easier to gloss over. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious Claims about the Anglican Communion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ecumenism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020125091106/http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/patriarc.htm to http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/patriarc.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929054409/http://www.demokratizatsiya.org/bin/pdf/DEM%2012-3%20Pridemore%20.pdf to http://www.demokratizatsiya.org/bin/pdf/DEM%2012-3%20Pridemore%20.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0604186.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411015820/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ecumenism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070711105453/http://www.cloverdalebooks.com/CloverdaleBooks/MiddleEastEcumenism.html to http://www.cloverdalebooks.com/CloverdaleBooks/MiddleEastEcumenism.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: My removal of the Popular culture section has been reverted by . IMDb is not a reliable source and popular culture content requires reliable third party sources. I will remove the section again, unless this discussion reaches some other outcome. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: I've recently tagged this article for having multiple issues that need resolving. Namely, these are general copyediting, verbosity of language, and condensing - three that roughly fall in the same ballpark. Let's go through them one by one.
Copyediting - Basic things. Tone, repeated wikilinks, style of writing. General and non-specific cleanup that anyone could have a go at.
Verbosity of language - there are a lot of points in this article that read like an essay written in the context of the reader already understanding the subject. Not everyone is going to read and fully understand the topic of every Wikipedia article, but this should be because of the subject at hand - not because of the way the article is written. 
For example - the article Galaxy is a Featured Article. I don't understand everything written in that article, but that's because I'm not very good at Science. It's not because it's written terribly - it's a Featured Article, meaning that the opportunity to understand the article subject is there. I just don't have the smarts for it.
I hope this reasoning makes sense - the point I'm trying to get at is that you have to write a Wikipedia article essentially from the ground up, like the reader has absolutely not a clue what Ecumenism is before they hit the page. Currently, this article does not do this. I had to search on google for what ecumenism is, because the very first sentence used to read like this:
The term "ecumenism" refers to efforts by Christians of different church traditions to develop closer relationships and better understandings.
The article's subject can be as nuanced and complicated as you want, but the article still has to be written well.
Condensing - I have a feeling there are too many section headers in this article, but I could be wrong. What I don't feel wrong about is the fact that the information in this article could be heavily condensed and far better organised.
Someone with a greater interest in this subject needs to have a stab at this article, as I couldn't focus for more than one section before my brain started turning into molten cheese. I hope this explanation of the tags makes sense, and I hope that someone takes the opportunity to have a go at improving this article. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple issues tag on this article 

message: I think we should delete the "Historic divisions in Christianity" section as it is beyond the scope of this article. Important links could be included in the "See also" section. Editor2020 (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of section? 

message: It appears that there may be two typos in section 1 of the block quote from The Discipline of the Evangelical Wesleyan Church. Specifically, I surmise that the passage "The scriptural references, as alleged proofs favoring this doctrine, may be showing to rest upon an assumption in each case that the Word of God will not substance" should read "The scriptural references, as alleged proofs favoring this doctrine, may be shown to rest upon an assumption in each case that the Word of God will not substantiate". However, I cannot find the cited work online. Does anyone have access to it? Ps8v9 (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typos in the block quote from The Discipline of the Evangelical Wesleyan Church?