Talk:Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • The proper form of identification for this particular religious order is ss.cc. (uncapitalized) so please do not change the initials to capitalized form -- User:Gerald Farinas

The article doesn't explain what "ss.cc" means. Is there something to link to? func(talk) 03:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I added a sentence explaining them, but I didn't want to go into double initials indicating plurals in Latin. Incidentally, I don't know if it is necessary to include them whenever the order's name is mentioned; at least, this is not the form used by any of the external links included in the article. choster 07:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

hope you don't mind; I added 'of' to the explanation of ss.cc. which corresponds with the grammatical form and also the use after names (Bro. N cc.ss. = Bro N. of the Sacred Hearts)

'most ... but ...' to 'more .... than ....'[edit]

I changed "Nowhere in the Pacific Islands did the presence of Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, ss.cc. most inspire its people but in the Kingdom of Hawaii'" to "Nowhere in the Pacific Islands did the presence of Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary more inspire its people than in the Kingdom of Hawaii" as this is better English. If you meant, though, that the Congregation did not inspire anyone anywhere in the Pacific Islands EXCEPT in Hawaii, revert to the original and remove the word 'most'. 140.184.192.117 17:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

not NPOV?[edit]

why is the neutrality of this article questioned? there is nothing on the talk page that indicates this....140.184.192.117 17:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing NPOV warning[edit]

I have worked on this article attempting to remove some of its church language and somewhat preachy style. It is, after all, an article about a Catholic religious order and so it does use a lot of Catholic words but that is rather unavoidable. No one has indicated why the neutrality of the article is questioned. I have the intention of removing the warning in the near future unless someone can indicate why it is there. I have read several other religious order foundation stories and this one is certainly no worse that the others. Kiddo54 (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed[edit]

No one has stated why the article must remain in the Not Neutral category. I stated that I intended to remove the Neutrality Warning on 19 December. It is now a week later and I have removed the warning. I have endeavoured to be fair to all that may want to state why the article is not Neutral. Feel free to put the warning back - but please state why you are doing so. Kiddo54 (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)