Talk:Confraternity of Christian Doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

POV[edit]

I hate to do this but...

"What is quite striking is how many 20th and 21st century American Catholics who have attended CCD, or whose children attend or have attended CCD do not know what the abbreviation "CCD" stands for, including the many teachers of it."

This sounds like an assumption or opinion to me.Chaz 20:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I knew what it stood for when I was a kid and had to go.... "Central City Dump". Yeah, we didn't like it. 98.206.219.98 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

CCD discussion[edit]

well.... my opinion is the same. i work with a few Roman Catholics who had no idea whatsoever what CCD stood for. i'm not a Xtian and i knew. eeeeeek! what's this world coming too?

p.s. maybe it's the Illuminati taking over. hehehehe


The wording on the page (as of 26 April 2006) is not exactly as stated above, so perhaps the author edited it in response to the comment. The "what is quite striking" part might be opinion, but that many children and adults of the last several decades did not know what "CCD" meant is not. It hardly seems a point worth arguing. I came to this discussion specifically to find out why there were all sorts of warning banners at the top of the article--I find them a bit annoying and misleading. How does this issue get resolved so they can be removed?

I agree. I don't exactly see why that warning has to be there. When something said the article was not neutral, I thought it was promoting the organization or something. Who can decide on this?

--Chkiss 02:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the POV-check tag since we have nothing here about what is being challenged. I also removed the clenaup tag (though there are still a few more redlinks than I'd like). If opposed we can restore the tags but it looks OK IMHO. RJFJR 03:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Citations and Sources[edit]

One word. Sources.

Yes, while I know that the writers likely knew what they were talking about. And most (85%) of the article fits in with the NPOV policy. To someone less almsgiving in regards to Wikipedia articles or a reader who believes it to be POV.... I suggest that people start getting sources for this article fairly ASAP.

However, I'll do some work on gathering sources myself in a little bit. Nateland 00:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)