Talk:Catholic Church: Difference between revisions
→Image: new section |
|||
Line 169: | Line 169: | ||
:::::::::: I mean, "full communion with the Holy See" is a good Catholic phrase, but I can definitely see why 'headed by the Pope' would be an easier concept to get readers to the article they're looking for. [[User:Achowat|Achowat]] ([[User talk:Achowat|talk]]) 16:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
:::::::::: I mean, "full communion with the Holy See" is a good Catholic phrase, but I can definitely see why 'headed by the Pope' would be an easier concept to get readers to the article they're looking for. [[User:Achowat|Achowat]] ([[User talk:Achowat|talk]]) 16:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
== |
==Org Template== |
||
While very obviously good faith, the organizational template added has several issues. For one, Jesus as founder is far from uncontroversial, and no single source could be adequate for such a bold claim in a template. Two, there is no "official" website for the "Catholic Church". There is no single (earthly at least) corporate entity known as the Catholic Church. I would be more accurate to describe it as hundreds of local entities, all obedient to the Pope. The Vatican.va is the official website of the Pope/Holy See. --[[User:Zfish118|Zfish118]] ([[User_talk:Zfish118|talk)]] 19:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{Infobox Christian denomination |
|||
Why was the image of the Vatican replaced with the coat of arms of the Holy See? --[[User:Zfish118|Zfish118]] ([[User_talk:Zfish118|talk)]] 19:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
|name = Catholic Church |
|||
|image = Coat_of_arms_Holy_See.svg |
|||
|imagewidth = 100 |
|||
|imagealttext = |
|||
|caption = [[Coat of arms]] of the [[Holy See]]. |
|||
|main_classification = |
|||
|orientation = [[Catholicism]] |
|||
|theology = |
|||
|polity = |
|||
|governance = [[Roman Curia]] |
|||
|structure = |
|||
|leader/moderator = |
|||
|leader = [[Pope Francis]] |
|||
|fellowships = |
|||
|associations = |
|||
|area = Worldwide |
|||
|website = http://www.vatican.va/ |
|||
|founder = [[Jesus Christ]] |
|||
|founded_date = [[1st century]] |
|||
|founded_place = [[Jerusalem]], [[Judea (Roman province)|Judea]], [[Roman Empire]] |
|||
|separated_from = |
|||
|parent = |
|||
|merger = |
|||
|separations = |
|||
|hospitals = |
|||
|nursing_homes = |
|||
|aid = |
|||
|congregations = |
|||
|members = 1.25 billion<ref name="Vatican stats">{{cite web|title=Vatican statistics report church growth remains steady worldwide|publisher=National Catholic Reporter|date=2 May 2015|url=http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/vatican-statistics-show-modest-steady-church-growth-worldwide|accessdate=1 July 2015}}</ref> |
|||
|ministers = |
|||
|missionaries = |
|||
|temples = |
|||
|primary_schools = |
|||
|secondary_schools = |
|||
|tax status = |
|||
|tertiary = |
|||
|footnotes = |
|||
}} |
Revision as of 19:17, 22 October 2015
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Catholic Church article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56Auto-archiving period: 15 days |
Catholic Church has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: April 4, 2015. (Reviewed version). |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Catholic Church was copied or moved into Catholic views on Mary with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 27, 2007. |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Catholic Church article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56Auto-archiving period: 15 days |
Toolbox |
---|
Small error?
>Catholic social teaching emphasises support for the sick, the poor and the afflicted through the corporal works of mercy and the Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of education and medical services in the world.
Shouldn't this be "non-governmental" as it's an adjective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.224.62 (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Why is 'church' being left ambiguous?
Can anyone summarize the reason for this? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's not ambiguous at all in my view. Most people understand that the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian church; some think it is the only church, some think it is one of many churches and some don't think it is a church at all. What do you think is so ambiguous about this sentence? Anglicanus (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- church, the link, is ambiguous. That's not good for the readers. Why can't it be disambiguated, or de-linked? Please don't make this more complicated than this basic question. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've corrected the link from a disambiguation page to Christian denomination but the wording remains as "church" and not "demomination". It would have helped if you had mentioned that the previous link was to a disambiguation page as the word "church" was not really ambiguous in itself (except that it could also mean a building which is a place of worship). Afterwriting (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- The edit history makes it clear I was trying to disambiguate the term. Thanks for the fix. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've corrected the link from a disambiguation page to Christian denomination but the wording remains as "church" and not "demomination". It would have helped if you had mentioned that the previous link was to a disambiguation page as the word "church" was not really ambiguous in itself (except that it could also mean a building which is a place of worship). Afterwriting (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- church, the link, is ambiguous. That's not good for the readers. Why can't it be disambiguated, or de-linked? Please don't make this more complicated than this basic question. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Removal of criticism paragraph in intro
I just removed the intro section's paragraph on criticism of Catholicism, bringing the article into line with the pages for other faith groups. Correctus2kX (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, you're going to need a better argument for removing the paragraph than that. You're removing an informative, useful paragraph on the basis that other articles don't have one - that isn't good enough. I'm reinstating the paragraph until a decision is made here. -- Hazhk (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Albeit the most obvious and harsh criticism has been from Protestants, perhaps that should be mentioned? Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
State and religion section
The new "State and Religion" section is a welcome addition. However, it has lacks explicit references to "WP:Reliable sources", and could be improved with added references to secondary sources, as well as line or paragraph numbers for quotes from the primary sources (the Vatican documents). --Zfish118 (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is also an ambiguous date given "1986", is ("the Second Vatican Council's Declaration of Religious Freedom (1986)"). Is this a typo referring to 1968, or date for a document written in 1986 that references Dignitas Humana? --Zfish118 (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
"Predominantly in English-speaking countries"
I could not find support for this assertion in the source given, which is on Google Books. Elizium23 (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Redirections in the head
@Sundayclose: Regarding this edit. There is already lots of information in this article. Why does the above have to be specified as such? Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- An "about" note is for someone looking for another article who may not want to read this article. The words "broad term about specific traditions of Christian theology, liturgy and spirituality" quickly tells them they can find information about that term at Catholicism without having to read Catholic Church. Wikipedia is written for the reader, and the information makes it easier for the reader. That's worth the extra 11 words that you removed. Sundayclose (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I guess some limitation ought to be in that bar - if not, why aren't further elaborating with detailed specifications? Well, logically, statements in the head bar should be minimal as to let the article be about what the article is about. To the level of having every single word in that bar well-motivated. Are you phrase really motivated? Perhaps from a perspective of implied criticism, bit of like a warning statement. Other than that, I wouldn't agree with you. I guess we need other people's opinions. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't mean to be insulting, but is your native language English? I understood very little of your last comment. But if you and I disagree about the "about" note, I do agree with you that we need more opinions before making your change. Thanks for your discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, then I believe I made myself understood. Please excuse my language. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry but you didn't make yourself understood. Let's wait for more opinions. Sundayclose (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm of two minds about this, but I feel the current hatnote is sufficient. Think of a reader coming to this page looking for Catholicism#Distinctive beliefs and practices (a section that's not covered here that one might reasonably come to this page looking for). After reading a paragraph that this article is only about that church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, the reader's next stop is Catholic Church (disambiguation) (already linked) and from there she can easily find Catholicism. WP:1HAT tells us that it's preferable to link to one dab page than to individual articles listed on that dab page. Achowat (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- So, let's talk about specifics. I suggest re-writing that hatnote to say: "This article is about the specific institution led by the Pope. For other uses, see Catholicism or Catholic Church (disambiguation)." This keeps (a) the gist of current hatnotes, (b) replaces "Holy See" with "Pope" (which is more accurate since it is the man that has the authority not the jurisdiction and which as least as well known as and probably better known than "Holy See"), and (c) removes link to Roman Catholic Church which I think we can move to "Name" section.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Better. Why not: "This article is about the church headed by the Pope. For other uses, see Catholic Church (disambiguation) or Catholicism or ." Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- So, let's talk about specifics. I suggest re-writing that hatnote to say: "This article is about the specific institution led by the Pope. For other uses, see Catholicism or Catholic Church (disambiguation)." This keeps (a) the gist of current hatnotes, (b) replaces "Holy See" with "Pope" (which is more accurate since it is the man that has the authority not the jurisdiction and which as least as well known as and probably better known than "Holy See"), and (c) removes link to Roman Catholic Church which I think we can move to "Name" section.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm of two minds about this, but I feel the current hatnote is sufficient. Think of a reader coming to this page looking for Catholicism#Distinctive beliefs and practices (a section that's not covered here that one might reasonably come to this page looking for). After reading a paragraph that this article is only about that church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, the reader's next stop is Catholic Church (disambiguation) (already linked) and from there she can easily find Catholicism. WP:1HAT tells us that it's preferable to link to one dab page than to individual articles listed on that dab page. Achowat (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry but you didn't make yourself understood. Let's wait for more opinions. Sundayclose (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, then I believe I made myself understood. Please excuse my language. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't mean to be insulting, but is your native language English? I understood very little of your last comment. But if you and I disagree about the "about" note, I do agree with you that we need more opinions before making your change. Thanks for your discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I guess some limitation ought to be in that bar - if not, why aren't further elaborating with detailed specifications? Well, logically, statements in the head bar should be minimal as to let the article be about what the article is about. To the level of having every single word in that bar well-motivated. Are you phrase really motivated? Perhaps from a perspective of implied criticism, bit of like a warning statement. Other than that, I wouldn't agree with you. I guess we need other people's opinions. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Org Template
While very obviously good faith, the organizational template added has several issues. For one, Jesus as founder is far from uncontroversial, and no single source could be adequate for such a bold claim in a template. Two, there is no "official" website for the "Catholic Church". There is no single (earthly at least) corporate entity known as the Catholic Church. I would be more accurate to describe it as hundreds of local entities, all obedient to the Pope. The Vatican.va is the official website of the Pope/Holy See. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Catholic Church | |
---|---|
Orientation | Catholicism |
Governance | Roman Curia |
Leader | Pope Francis |
Region | Worldwide |
Founder | Jesus Christ |
Origin | 1st century Jerusalem, Judea, Roman Empire |
Members | 1.25 billion[1] |
Official website | http://www.vatican.va/ |
- ^ "Vatican statistics report church growth remains steady worldwide". National Catholic Reporter. 2 May 2015. Retrieved 1 July 2015.
- Wikipedia good articles
- Philosophy and religion good articles
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- Old requests for peer review
- Selected anniversaries (March 2007)
- GA-Class Christianity articles
- Top-importance Christianity articles
- GA-Class Catholicism articles
- Top-importance Catholicism articles
- WikiProject Catholicism articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- GA-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles