Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Orthodox Church criticism of Catholic Church based on doctrinal differences not represented[edit]

In fact, no Orthodox view appears to be presented in the article at all. Why not? They arguably have been at odds for the longest time, certainly longer than any Protestant faith, and would add an important angle to this article. 21:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AprilHare (talk • contribs)

The Sacrifice of The Mass[edit]

I have added a sub-section on the Sacrifice of the Mass as this is (was) by far the most common criticism of the Catholic (meaning Western and Eastern Latin and Orthodox rites) Church by Protestants. Dismay at distortions around the sacrifice of the mass was one of the driving forces of the Reformation from the Lutheran, Calvinist and CoE sides and I think it should be included, even though anti-Catholic Evangelicals these days tend to focus much more on the cult of Saints, purgatory & c. Duprie37 (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latin & Hocus Pocus[edit]

The statement: "During the Reformation the Protestants almost totally rejected the use of Latin as "hocus pocus", seems little more than hocus pocus itself. I think this statement needs to be totally revised. It was the dogma of transubstantiation that Reformers considered "hocus pocus", that phrase likely being a corruption of the Latin words for consecration of the Host: "Hoc est corpus meum". The Reformers denounced the insistence on Latin in the Mass as being more or less repugnant to the idea of common public worship - seeing as no one could understand any of it and thereby denying the laity the edification of the liturgy, how could anyone benefit from it spiritually or in any other way? There is very little to suggest that the use of Latin in the Mass was seen by Reformers as some kind of "magic". Duprie37 (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not deleted the statement (heeding warnings at the top of this page) but have added a citation from the BCP about the use of the vernacular to at least give some substance to the magic ;) Duprie37 (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think more statements of "Hocus Pocus" should be added. Exorcism should be criticized in the article. --Atheisty (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you read the bible? Or merely just accept past criticism as postable material? You are not critisizing the Catholic Church, you are Critisizing GOD! Holy communion is a tradition of the last supper, if you have ever read Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, you would clearly see that Jesus asks us to do this in rememebernce of him..Tradition he asked to be carried on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.75.199 (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Past comments[edit]

Cripes! You'd think that some comments would still be around. Purging all of them into the archives at once seems counterproductive IMO. Student7 (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ordination of Women[edit]

Of course, no Christian community allowed women to be ordained from the year zero to the mid-nineteenth century. See cf http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401804578.html and dozens of others. So the statement "Catholic church has always excluded women from the clergy" is a bit disingenuous IMO, since the same statement can be made of all other churches up until that time. Student7 (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it. It seems to me that the more accurate criticism is that, "Like the Orthodox Church and some Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church continues to exclude women from the clergy although the Anglican Communion and many Protestant denominations began ordaining women to the clergy in the 20th century." How does that sound? --Richard S (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, it's pretty much "when did you stop beating your wife?" The onus is on the churches to explain why on earth they are sticking to tradition, when these churches have a history of sticking to tradition. The paragraph should read "Most denominations of Jews, Christians and Muslims did not ordain women until the middle of the 19th century. In the 21st century, the Catholic Church, along with other traditional churches maintains that position while the others have changed. They have been criticized by modernists for not changing."
The "continues to exclude" is intended as a pejorative, suggesting that they are troglodytes for not changing. This is WP:POV. Student7 (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is POV! This is an article entirely about POVs.
I also do not understand what you mean by "the onus is on the churches..." We need not fully justify either side. We can explain their position but we need to do it as an outside observer not as an apologist.
I think we are of the same mind here. Let us work together to come up with the best text. How about something along the lines of
Like most other major religions, the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have traditionally restricted positions of religious leadership to males. Beginning in the middle of the 19th century, some branches of Judaism and some Protestant denominations have ordained women as well. The Catholic Church has been criticized for continuing to reserve the ordained positions of deacon, priest and bishop for men only. Other Christian churches such as the Orthodox, some Anglican churches and some Protestant denominations also maintain this position.
--Richard S (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "most other major religions" statement neglects the fact that there were priestesses in numerous pre-Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 01:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds good (npov) to me. Thanks for suggesting it. Student7 (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, there was ordination of women pretty early on in the Church. Deusveritasest (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deusveritasest, can you expand on this? I know that there were Deaconesses but are there examples of women as priests or bishops? Or even as presbyter/elder? --Richard S (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the deaconesses in that statement. That is sufficient to prove the OP incorrect. Deusveritasest (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deaconesses then, assisted in the baptism of women: disrobing, re-robing. Their functions were therefore different from those of men. "Ordaining" per se, may not have been necessary nor occured. Student7 (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is quite clear that the deaconesses were ordained. Deusveritasest (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I was wrong.
Having said that, The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says that "the deaconess gives no blessing, she fulfills no function of priest or deacon." Not sure when this quote is from, but the suggested change above should then read, "...ordained to the priesthood." I don't know how to reword this to exclude the top position in an organization that doesn't believe in priesthood. We were trying to use "ministry" here, but it seems to have been conflated (in English. Might not have that problem in Greek or some other language) with all ranks of ministry, from sexton to sacristan to the actual person with the Master of Theology. The Catholic Church today has hundreds of thousands of women "ministers." They are not ordained, but perform many of the duties described in ancient texts. Student7 (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The women today are formally "certified/authorized" by their bishop to perform these duties with probably a lot more ceremony than the ancient church ever had, constricted by travel as it was. Student7 (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doctrinal Dispute[edit]

Should the fact that many Catholic beliefs are possibly contradicted by doctrine be on this article? Examples include Jesus having siblings, the three separate personages of the God-head, the communion not intended to be a physical manifestation, etc. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loofus5 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bite. Their beliefs are doctrine by definition, so there can be no contradiction, thus no "fact". I am not sure what your examples are examples of, especially since some of them have nothing to do with the Church or it's beliefs/doctrines. Could you clarify? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should be more specific. Should the fact that many have interpretation-of-doctrine disputes against the Catholic Church be documented in the article? --Loofus5 (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be a good idea, because you would open up a big can of worms to be covered in a single article. You have many "high order" Protestant churches that agree with most of the Catholic doctrine, but have problems with different doctrine. Then as you move farther and farther from the "high order" churches you have different degrees of what people disagree with. A High Order Anglican will have totally different disagreements from a Southern baptist, which would have totally different views from a LDS person. It would be better to address those issues (beyond what is currently included) in seperate articles. Marauder40 (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I concede. --Loofus5 (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celibacy[edit]

A sentence reads, in part, "is criticized for differing from Christian traditions issuing from the Protestant Reformation". Sorry? The Protestant Reformation was in the 16th century. This tends to imply to a careful reader that it was the Protestants that deviated from "Christian tradition." The rest of the sentence about the Orthodox, is more on the money. But this is kind of funny, actually. It really needs some kind of editorial attention or maybe deletion. Consider breaking the sentence up? The Orthodox comparison is clear, so that could stand alone. Student7 (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Papal Infallability[edit]

An IP editor added a section on Papal Infallability. I removed it for multiple reasons. One it was uncited. Two it was incorrect. Papal Infallability has not only been invoked twice and if they want to go that route they need to clarify it a lot. Three, it was not very encyclopedic. Four, this is just supposed to be a summary of the linked in article. If the original editor or another user wants to clean it up they can. Marauder40 (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see in the time it took me to write my post you have said somthing here. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 13:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. You still have not said what part do you think needs citing.
2. You still have not said what part do you think in "incorrect."
2.1 What do you think need clarification with "Papal Infallability has not only been invoked twice"? How is it not clear?
3. How is it it is "not very encyclopedic"?
4. Why would this even be "a summary of the linked in article"-- much less "just" "a summary of the linked in article"?
I can see this approach isn't any more civil then the section below. If you look at the article it says "Main: Papal infallibility, thus the section is supposed to just be a summary of that article. If you look at that article you will see the following. It has been a long time since I took elementary math, but the following seems to be more the two times:

"The clearest example (though not the only one[3]) of the use of this power ex cathedra since the solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I on July 18, 1870, took place in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics. Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctam of 1302[4][5], Pope Eugene IV in the Bull Cantate Domino of 1441[6][7], and Pope Pius IX in the Papal constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 1854[8][9] have all spoken "ex cathedra."[10]

Based on your STRONG defense of this incorrectly worded sentence I assume you were probably the IP editor. As I civiliy said if someone wanted to fix they problems they could.Marauder40 (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marauder40[edit]

User:Marauder40 seem so sure that a pargraph of info on papal infallibility has some incorrect facts-- or maybe he thinks facts on both the pro and con view are incorrect-- that he has removed them twice, but cannot be troubled to identify any of the so-called incorrect facts-- so that it/they can be discussed or sourced. Assuming that he still cannot be bothered to post and clarification-- does anyone else want to weight in on the subject or on what to do with Marauder40? şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 13:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about looking in the section above this one? I think this entire section violates WP:CIVIL. Marauder40 (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And do you think that you treated me "with consideration and respect" by ignoring the questions/request in the edit summary on my restoration? Do you think that you treated me and the first editor "with consideration and respect" by removing all the text when it is dubious-- to say the least-- that it could all be considered incorrect. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 13:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I treated you with respect. I reverted the issue by the IP editor the first time and put what my issues were. After you re-added it I then wrote on the talk page what the issues were. That is the essence of WP:BRD. Which person is ignoring WP:CIVIL here? Marauder40 (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Catholicism category?[edit]

Exactly why is this in the Anti-Catholicism category, when that category specifically discusses prejudice vs (Roman) Catholicism?Allens (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This commenter did not have the right to speak and was silenced.

Easter[edit]

The article speaks of the Christian Church (which was the whole church back then; no separation) melding Pagan dates into Christian ones.

Easter is a bit clearer than most holy days. It was "three" days after Passover, which floats. Jewish and Christian (and Orthodox, doubtless) float differently. Pentecost was "40 days" after that for both Christians and Jews. The rest, Christmas, for example, replaced some pagan holiday, I suppose. Maybe Easter is not the best example?

By the time the council formally established a date for Easter, it had long since given up trying to convert Jews on a mass basis. Referring to Jews as "pagans" seems counter-historical. Student7 (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this still seems poorly selected as criticism of the (entire, not just Catholic) church. A better choice would be the Feast of the Circumcision or Epiphany (holiday) or Christmas. These days were deliberately selected out of thin air, pretty much, to replace pagan holidays. Name a religion that does not have a ritual celebration of spring. Probably the church should be criticized if they didn't designate Easter as a holiday! Would make more sense! Student7 (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus' traditional practices[edit]

In response to the statement that Jesus condemned tradition, the following was added:

"However, Jesus himself celebrated traditional Jewish festivals (Last Supper/Passover (ref)[1](endref), was presented at the temple (ref)[2](endref), was buried according to tradition,(ref)[3](endref), created a traditional prayer, the Lord's Prayer,(ref)[4](endref) and lived and preached as did most Jewish rabbis, traditionally."

This was removed, the editor stating that Jesus did not state why he performed those traditions. This seems to say that "we don't care what Jesus actually did. We only care what Jesus said." This seems counter-intuitive. There is a saying, "Don't do what I do, just do what I say!" But it is intended as humor or sarcasm. Why shouldn't we "care" what Jesus did? He gave no reason, he just did it! Was he intending that his followers not be "good Jews?" There is nothing to indicate this in the gospels. From a Christian pov, Jesus was the "last Jew." An observant one. A performer of tradition at every opportunity. What is wrong with reporting action? Or is the editor suggesting that Jesus was a hypocrite, performing tradition while slyly suggesting to his disciples not to? All Christians agree that there is such a thing as "meaningless" observance of religious practices; this is discouraged. That he condemned "all" traditional practices is in dispute. Student7 (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Student7, what you have here is a (poor) criticism of Jesus. This doen't belong here. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 07:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
???
The questions is, "Do actions speak louder than words?" The answer I have so far is "No, words trump actions. Don't do as I do; do as I say!" Student7 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph should stay (I gather the idea is to demonstrate that Jesus was a practicing Jew, as shown by his actions), but it needs much better references. Personally I wouldn't accept those websites, though I agree with the thought being expressed. PiCo (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the article, I now think that the entire article should be deleted - it's just a collection of junior high school debating points. PiCo (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right about this particular paragraph/subsection. But it is considered very Protestant, for example) to criticize the Catholic Church for using "traditional" practices and rites, which used to be called "Papism" by those dissenting from those traditional practices. So it seems to be reasonable to me to address this criticism in some manner, somewhere in this article. Student7 (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual abuse controversy and convictions[edit]

I enhanced this section with a list of convictions. It's not only controversy. They convicted some of these monsters and threw them in prison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.127.29 (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable secondary sources for facts added to the article. News articles will usually suffice. Elizium23 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/29/rev-fernando-lopez-lopez-_n_887324.html BOOM there's one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.127.29 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reloads Bazooka BOOM http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/17/ireland.abuse.abroad/index.html?iref=allsearch
This is not a battlefield. This is about improving article. There is a major issue related to weight for including this information. Is there any reason these two cases have any more weight then any of the other cases? The information in that article already has enough weight in view of the 2000 year history of the church. This is best left for the page Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country.Marauder40 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is hardly complete without at least a *few* references that show that it's not just a "controversy" but a series of "convictions" affecting the church. I put a list of convictions in, and that was nuked, so I cited a few of the worst cases, and those were nuked. Should I make a new section? People are criticizing the catholic church because priests are being CONVICTED of sodomizing little boys. How can you defend not listing that on this article? What specific format, or phrasing will allow the truth to remain here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.127.29 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about criticism of the catholic church. A conviction, however bad, is not a criticism.Farsight001 (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section about homosexuality and a "gay subculture" is not encylopaedic and the sources it quotes are not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. I suggest this is deleted if no decent sources are provided and the wording is not clarified. 193.60.182.89 (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the first reference which is clearly a blog-like site. The second reference is not that easy to evaluate. Someone ought to take a look at it. Supposedly from a psychiatrist, but if so, then WP:PRIMARY? The site they claim it's posted on may not be refereed. But it does bear checking out. Student7 (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

In section Clerical celibacy it is inaccurately claimed:

Confessional Lutherans, claiming the Bible as the only authority in all matters of Christian doctrine[dubious – discuss], criticize the tradition of forced celibacy

AFAIK all confessional Lutherans adher to the Augsburg Confession that deals with lots of stuff beside the Bible, for example the uncritical adherence to the Apostles Creed, and the Nicene Creed, which are generally believed to not originate in the Bible, but to have developed later on. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 20:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim Fest[edit]

Fest is mentioned in the article, with no clear statement that he was in the German Army in 1944 and parts of 1945. The claim that he thought that he would be conscripted into the SS seems to come from Fest himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti-spammm (talk • contribs) 16:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Criticism of the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Criticism of the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Criticism of the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Criticism of the Catholic Church. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Criticism of the Catholic Church. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of the Catholic Church. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Criticism of the Catholic Church. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Criticism of the Catholic Church. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ordination of women[edit]

This section spends too much time on the Church's official claims and not enough time on contrary positions, and it is the contrary positions which are supposed to be the focus of this article (it's labeled CRITICISM of the Catholic Church for a reason!) The section is therefore POV. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 01:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it went on too far! Since it annoys both of us, maybe it's okay!  :)
Name a church with a current woman pastor that is successful. How about a Fortune 500 company? In Protestantism, selection of a woman pastor is a kiss of death for that church. Maybe in business too. There are women more competent than men, but maybe not in all fields equally.
It all seems ERA to me. ERA is an American PC initiative and has nothing to do with religion. It is secular. Student7 (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scripture and Tradition[edit]

In Catholicism, Sacred Scripture is not a subset of Sacred Tradition. Rather, these two sacred transmissions are complements, working together and inseparably in a mystic harmony which forms the whole of the apostolic revelation. What Tradition proposes, Scripture bears witness to. What Scripture teaches, Tradition affirms. This idea is so, so critical to Catholic thought! I am grossly disappointed you have its defense surrendered to these Protestant terms! The footnote source, "The Ten Commandments", is decidedly partisan. I refer you to CCC, sec 80-90, in which it is clarified. Briefly, the Apostles entrusted the sacred deposit of the faith, the depositum fidei, to the whole of the Church. The two elements of its transmission, "flowing out from the same divine well-spring", are inseparable, and neither is greater nor lesser than the other. Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it was put down in writing by ancient authors (generally acknowledged to be first or second generation Christians) by the power of the Holy Spirit. Sacred Tradition is the means by which the entire Word of God, entrusted to the Apostles, is passed down through the ages to successor generations. Neither Scripture alone, nor Tradition alone, can stand. One does not subsume the other. Authentic interpretation of both is provided by the Magisterium of the Church, the living teaching office appointed by Christ and likewise passed down through the ages by means of apostolic succession. "All that is proposed for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith." Quotations from CCC, drawing on Dei Verbum 9-10, the 18 Nov 1965 enunciation of the Second Vatican Council. I would be honored to have you use some of these words in the next rewrite of the paragraph. Genehisthome (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to want use to throw in another quote that does not clarify in and of itself, but you fail to propose a partiular wording change to improve what you see as defects in the current text. Start there and with citations to back it up and we can see better what you wish to clairify. tahc chat 21:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what passage are you objecting to? Believe it or not, none of us know the article by heart. Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scripture and Tradition, Part 2[edit]

I was going to only remove the mention of Martin Luther from this section, feeling that a discussion about his reasons for antisemitism did not belong here. However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that this was only one of many references that did not support the claim and that the remaining section should be completely reviewed.

The citation noted here...

"Catholic mass and services are traditional and therefore the Protestants argue that the traditions are Pharisaical.[12]"

...does not criticize the Catholic Church. It is a single person's thoughtful interpretation of the noted passage in Matthew. On reading that interpretation, I could not support it as being a critical statement against the Catholic Church, though it may discuss the reasons to beware 'tradition' as is the claim in this section.

Further citations in this area are just noting the similarities between what action Jesus took and the Jewish faith but still do not contribute to the claim that "protestants and other biblical scholars" have this mass criticism.

I believe this section violates the WP:NOR statement: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources."

Based on this, I believe this entire section should be deleted unless true citations showing criticism, rather than just divergent theory, can be found.

Because I feel the entire section should be deleted, rather than just a tiny portion, and because I am brand-new, I offer it up for discussion prior to making the change. (At the suggestion of a long-time editor, if there is no discussion in a timely manner, I will perform the said change.) StefanijaSili (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Slovak regime[edit]

The Vatican may have had a choice in the Balkans. Of course it would support the anti-Communist side, which (unfortunately for the Vatican) were the Nazis. They really had no other choice in Slovakia. There was no "choice b." If they failed to support it, they could expect to have the church persecuted and the churchgoers villified. They would lose national rights. As Stalin pointed out, the pope has no "divisions" (of troops). They were neutral deliberately so they could support members on both sides.

I think stating they supported the puppet regime in Slovakia is a canard, in affect. So what? Student7 (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting lengthy non-scriptural material to support questionable point[edit]

Material in "Scripture and tradition" cites several somebodies claiming that Paul said to follow the gospels and his epistle, not tradition. Great! Except the New Testament hadn't been written yet and wouldn't be for decades. And wouldn't be canonized by the church for centuries. "Oral tradition" plus Paul's letters are 'all the early church had!

Editor needs to use quotes in cites and summarize whispy argument.

While we are at it, point two says "the Apostles determined the canon." Ha! I wish. The gospels were written "according to ...." by their disciples after the apostle died. It's what the disciples could remember! Not only did the apostles not directly determine what the gospels contained, neither did they participate in what was ultimately accepted by the church long after their deaths.

At one time, The Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache were considered for inclusion, both ultimately rejected upon due consideration by the Church Fathers.

Ttestaments were, of course, stand-alone books (scrolls), ultimately bound into a single book many centuries later. Student7 (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statements are not presented as fact, but only as what some "apologists" say. Is their presence in the article justified as letting the intelligent reader see how baseless such criticisms can be? I am only asking, not stating.
"Ttestaments" is obviously a mistyping (perhaps through inadvertent deletion of inadvertently highlighted text) for something like "The individual books that much later were put together as the Old and New Testaments". Esoglou (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the second question. Yyes. A Ttypo!  :) Student7 (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good reply. :-) Esoglou (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Foreigness" and "sovereignty" critique[edit]

The question of "sovereignty" has formed the basis of critiques of Catholicism through history, but was not much mentioned in the article (ie various societies or leaders have objected to a religion headquartered in a foreign country). I am building a new section to address this. Ozhistory (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding to the article, please don't rewrite the lead without first obtaining consensus. Your changes were a major rewrite. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have blanket reverted a lot of cited material (unfortunately with a false tag of SPA, and an irrelevant claim about "criticisms of criticisms" when there were none). But you have not only deleted changes to an inadequate introduction, but also deleted separate edits adding cited (and I would say non-controversial) content under the existing "Ideological criticisms" section. Please explain to us the nature of your objections, as I personally am at a loss. Do you mean you don't agree with the criticisms therefore they can't be here, or do you mean you are not aware of such criticisms having been made? Ozhistory (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit history speaks for itself. I have no need to respond other than to ask that you not change the lead without obtaining consensus. I find your other edits very constructive. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel you have "no need to respond", then I am afraid I will have to consider you a disruptive editor and carry on accordingly. The purpose of your deletions is now becoming clearer - you wish to keep the page non-neutral. I will therefore tag the page as such. Ozhistory (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist critique[edit]

The article makes no mention of Marxist or communist critiques. An anonymous editor is blocking these necessary additions. Ozhistory (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not let you rewrite the lead without input from others so I am blocking necessary additions? I think not. Learn to gain consensus or expect to be reverted. I removed the tag on the article as its intent was disruption, not to improve the article. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revert, damage too much to fix[edit]

I have reverted from this to a March 10 version, which is the best I could find before considerable damage was inflicted upon this article. The impression is of an article that was intentionally damaged so links could be made to other articles, even when there is no content. The article had been converted to an almost list of sections with multiple hatnotes and no content. MY suggestion for the editor who did this is to consider creating a separate list article; an article should have content--not a hatnote template farm. A list of criticisms of the Catholic church is perhaps what you intended. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The remaining subsections without commentary could have eventually been given commentary, or individually removed had they failed to progress. In other, words, just because it isn't perfect doesn't justify a mass-revert.
Moreover, a great deal of well-referenced material was removed without adequate justification, including sections without any "See also" or "Main article" links. My main intention was not as alleged above. Anyone who cares to check edit histories can see that I did not add "See also" links on other articles to this article until relatively recently. Moreover, I would be just fine with removing any specific ones if they are inappropriate. I propose that we go back to 19:30, 12 April 2019‎ 67.209.197.210, add a TOC limit as was done today, and trim the word "Criticism" from section headings to avoid duplication.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m with Epiphyllumlover on this. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and it is mostly the baby at that. Reverting on this level removes material nobody could object to the acceptability of. Restore it and make objections more selective. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I began by trying to repair, and found the damage too much. (Sample) Who is going to fix that mess if restored? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An example of where I am open to consensus on individual topics would be the edit on 06:41, 21 March 2019‎ by 2600:8800:1880:fc:5604:a6ff:fe38:4b26 . I had added material about the recent controversy on annulments that this user found inappropriate. If you follow the content, you can see that I respected the divergence and didn't go edit warring. If there is something specific in the article that offends, you, name it. Then we can move the subsection to the talk page to discuss improvements to it (or removing it).
This article is a bit of a microcosm of Western civilization culture wars. No matter what the Catholic church does on many issues, it will be criticized. Including both criticisms allows one to see the controversy. For example, on the subsection on Paganized Christianity, there are some who think that Catholicism is too paganized, some who think it is not paganized enough, some who think influences from pagan culture have been helpful (such as the discussion covered in the Regensburg lecture article), and at least one aspect (caste in India), where the Catholic Church has been criticized on modern ethical grounds for being too Hindu.
Complicating matters with criticism here is the perceived legitimacy of the criticism. As you go down the hierarchy, criticisms become perceived within the Church as less legitimate. In general, an Archbishop or a Cardinal can say things that a bishop or priest can't say without repercussions. This article as of right now doesn't distinguish between internal and external criticisms. I gave thought to separating them, only to realize that the dissident Catholic groups' criticisms cannot be separated from the modern ethical or left-wing political criticisms. If anyone here feels strongly on separating the criticisms by legitimacy I would be interested to know what you think.
In some cases, popes have apologized for things in the past which non-Catholics were critical of. It is important to include the apologises in that it puts the modern-day Catholic Church in the position of criticizing the past.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:HATNOTERULES, it is an accepted Wikipedia community standard that hatnotes should be used "only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind." That is clearly not the case with the hatnotes that were pumped into this article. I agree with the revert. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The flipside with the hatnotes is that this a guideline, not a policy. If you would rather, many of the hatnotes be removed and instead material from the article hatnoted could be included into the article. If you do that, the article could get much larger. I am okay with that; but I don't know how everyone else feels about it. [that is; would a hybrid fleshed out article with lists for less important material be better or worse than a completely fleshed out article?] Also, notice that I had gone through and deleted many hatnotes as I improved the article. Just because I included them doesn't mean I thought that was the final, best way to do it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through and made a list of changes I made which could be considered "pro-" Catholic, in an attempt to help interested persons understand my attempt to make the article balanced:
  • Qualifying the criticism on the vow of stability as being from "some activists" rather than being from a more credible source, or making it non-attributed
  • Mentioning Connecticut Raised Bill 1098, often considered Anti-Catholic as the article on the bill shows
  • Adding referenced content that a 2010 study failed to locate any atheist Catholic priests.
  • Describing Allegedly egotistical art patronage as "Allegedly"
  • Describing the alleged bribes as "alleged" because they haven't been proven
  • Describing the decline of papal power as alleged, because again, this is probably a POV thing. (It is more undisputed that papal power declined between 1500 and 1870, however after that it is probably more a matter of dispute.)
  • Describing Luther's characterization of the Thomist form of disputation as being "alleged"
  • Including the Patrick J. O'Connor issue over water, a topic which many people would see as the Catholic Church being treated unfairly.
  • Being more nuanced with my label of how Eastern Orthodox view Catholic sacraments/lines of ordination than even the article I linked to.
  • Discussing reforms made in the 1983 code of canon law on excommunication
  • Discussing reforms made in 1970 concerning longstanding (and even still today, incorrectly repeated) claims about children being required to be raised Catholic in mixed marriages.
  • Discussion of the statue in Konstanz, Germany as being historically inaccurate. It is biased against Catholic history
  • Inclusion of the "Blanket apology" at the beginning of the historical section
  • Use of the term "Roman" when the situation requires it (such as in the subsection on organizations not currently considered to be Roman Catholic), but usually using the preferred term "Catholic"
  • Avoiding the topic of sex abuse as much as I thought I could reasonably avoid it, as it is better covered in other articles. The real anti-Catholic types can be expected to push this issue hard. Notice that I didn't. Discussion of many of these less grave controversies could lead the reader to think better of the Catholic church (or at least part of it), not worse.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, but the problem here is unrelated to whether you are pro- or anti-catholic (although your position makes itself obvious). The problem is one of grossly damaging a Wikipedia article, regardless of your POV. I see you defending your edits but offering nothing to include a remedy for the damage done to the article--and fixing it will take quite a bit of effort. Are you willing to put in the same amount of effort to correcting the article as you did to damaging it over the last few months? You made this claim, which is false; this was all your work. You have been editing Wikipedia for a very long time; where did you get the idea it was allright to make a hatnote template farm out of what was once an article? Have you done this to other articles? Again, if you want to recover valid additions you made to this article, feel free to do the work; for others to correct the damage in your version would take huge amounts of time. In the time you spent making your list above you could have been cleaning up the article.

Here's a starting place, where you might indicate good intent: there are too many quotes in the article, and quotes should not be italicized.

Next: please review WP:UNDUE and consider the quality of your sources before making substantial changes. If you want to find good sources and meet editors who know sourcing in the area of the Catholic Church, I suggest you thoroughly review the old discussions at:

Meanwhile, I repeat my suggestion that if you are unfamiliar with how to write articles on Wikipedia, you might find your effort would be better spent in constructing a list instead of an article, but please be sure to source it if you do.

Further Lutheranism is the article you have most edited, and heavily edited. I see one hatnote in each section, with each section developed. You apparently knew not to create a hatnote template farm there, so I am wondering if you should be editing in the Catholic realm at all. It appears that you do after all know how to correctly create Wikipedia articles, but just chose not to do it here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing you might do is go back and revert all the links to empty sections in other articles to here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandy was clearly right, on size & MOS grounds if nothing else. But I feel a twinge of regret in losing the header n' link only section "Allegedly egotistical art patronage"! Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of one of our sourcing experts, in the arts, medical and religion area ...  :) :) Sorry 'bout that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In response to an earlier comment, WP:HATNOTERULES is not a "guideline". "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." No "common sense" reason has been provided that justifies the ridiculous number of hatnotes that were pumped into this article. The hatnotes in dispute are clearly contrary to an accepted Wikipedia community standard, so as far as I'm concerned their removal is non-negotiable, and definitely not subject to the requirement that their content be added to this article. --PluniaZ (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are size issues, which can be corrected by separating the article into two: perhaps Historical versus Contemporary, but Johnbod might have better ideas. Then, EpiLover might go back and recover their valid if well-sourced additions and put them in the right place, without the hatnote farm. But based on what has been evidenced here, I am concerned about whether this editor can do this with valid sources and neutral editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One might split it that way, or theological vs practical/"conduct" etc. Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I need to reiterate in response to a recent claim made by SandyGeorgia that the earlier claim I made that other users worked over the article is not false. All of the IP address edits were not by me. If you look at the edit history since I started on the article, you will see them.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, the article is far too large even as it is, and I highly doubt some sections of the article were ever read since they were added. In its current state – let alone with all the superfluous hatnotes – the article is bordering on unreadable. On the other hand, I don't see reverting acceptable content which must have taken hours to write up as a solution: we must respect the other editors' work, and no rule should keep us from improving Wikipedia. With all that in mind, I believe the option proposed by Epiphyllumlover on WPC/N's talk page ([5]) is the optimal solution. That said, I am open to other adequate options which address my concerns.OlJa 00:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the comment above aa well as the discussion here, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard#What_to_do_about_Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church, there are now three editors, including myself, backing a six way split based on the pre-revert version. Besides one article with this heading, the other articles are as follows:
  • "Alleged corruption in the Catholic Church"
  • "Modern criticisms of the Catholic Church"
  • "Interfaith controversies involving the Catholic Church"
  • "Controversies involving Catholic organizations"
  • "Criticism of the historical Catholic Church"
On the other page, it was suggested that "Interfaith controversies involving the Catholic Church" should be "Interfaith controversies involving the Roman Catholic Church." I disagreed due to possible confusion over Eastern Rite Catholics, given that one of the controversies revolves around them. Additionally, one of the controversies revolves around users of the Anglican Rite, but maybe they count as Roman Catholics properly speaking, I don't know.
So I am asking, is anyone else in favor or not in favor of the following six-way split with five new articles?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very much favor proposed six-way split. Think most people hearing catholic assume Roman Catholic, but no strong feelings on that. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Catholic Church" should be used, not "Roman Catholic Church". The excessive hatnotes in the pre-revert version need to come out, regardless of the number of articles this is split into. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interfaith controversies involving the Catholic Church[edit]

I just split off one of the proposed articles: Interfaith controversies involving the Catholic Church. The transclusion templates are messing up references on two of the subsections. I put in a request to the help desk to see if anything could be done.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice from the helpdesk: Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_to_fix_references_on_transcluded_pages. Now that the red link references are fixed, the page is more or less what I envisioned.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All five split articles are published[edit]

The only page left undone is this one, that is, to edit it to reflect the split.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

POV check needed, other template issues[edit]

If anyone has time, I suggest checking the use of this template: Template:Separation of church and state in the history of the Catholic Church SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering we have seen here the irregular use of templates for the purpose of spreading a POV, the use of the following templates needs to be examined ... several of these are created and exclusively edited by Epiphyllum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other side of the same coin[edit]

@Epiphyllumlover, Johnbod, Hyperbolick, PluniaZ, and Oldstone James: I believe that is everyone who weighed in above; if I missed anyone, please do ping them.

I appreciate the good-faith effort made by Epiphyllumlover to correct the hatnote farm and reduce the size of this article, but now we have the opposite side of the same coin: six enormous articles that have pulled in extensive text that is unrelated to criticism of the Catholic Church, or undue, rendering an even larger unreadable wall of text unrelated to the actual topic of criticism of the Catholic Church.

  • The hatnote farm version of this article (earlier problem created by same editor) had 15,000 words of readable prose, and was so lengthy with little relevant content such that no reader was going to glean any actual criticism.

Now we have instead (readable prose size):

  1. 10,000 words Criticism of the Catholic Church
  2. 1,900 words Interfaith controversies involving the Catholic Church
  3. 4,700 words Controversies involving Catholic organizations
    Unsalvageable, now redirected back to here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 7,800 words Criticism of the historical Catholic Church
    Corrected, now 3,500 words with transclusions removed.[6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 6,300 words Alleged corruption in the Catholic Church
    Transclusions removed. [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 11,000 words Modern criticism of the Catholic Church
    Removed transclusions [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, we went from one unholy mess to an even worse unreadable mess, that has more than doubled in size, with the main problem that enormous chunks of text have been simply transcluded from other articles, with no relevance to actual criticism. Most of the content pulled in via transclusion has no bearing on criticism of the Catholic Church, so nothing is provided for the reader seeking information about criticism!

As but one small example (this occurs throughout, so I picked text from the article I know and maintain), you pulled an entire transcluded chunk of text from an article I maintain, scrupulosity, into Modern criticism of the Catholic Church#Scrupulosity, [9] and not a word of it relates to criticism of the Catholic Church. The text you pulled in is good text. That has no relevance here.

If the goal is to make the Catholic Church look as bad as possible, that would be better achieved by targeted, relevant, due weight criticism.

I fear most of the newly created articles also need to be reverted or removed. Epiphyllumlover, I am concerned that your "enthusiasm" to create lengthy criticism is actually diluting criticism, and while I recognize your good faith effort to correct the issues, I am wondering if you are able to see the problem your editing is creating, and whether you can approach the topic more neutrally and according due weight. I encourage others to look closely at the articles above and suggest how we can remedy this new problem, which is worse than the one before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another concern is this banner. Besides that there are now six articles that need cleaning up, rather than selectively removing good text to the relevant articles to reduce size, you have created five more large articles, all of which need cleanup, and now apparently intend to also leave this one needing cleanup. It is not clear to me that you are improving Wikipedia with this approach to editing. It does appear, though, that you are creating a lot of cleanup work for other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I already cleaned them up. Obviously it won't ever be perfect, but nothing on wikipedia does. As it stands now, the only one of the six post split pages on Wikipedia having any bold, red references is the one I did not create. In any event, the time for you to make the criticism you make now was when I was seeking out consensus, not after-the-fact.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The time for me to make criticism is when the problem has been created and when I have time, which is now, a few hours after I observed you pulling the text from scrupulosity, while I was in my car and unable to post. You have created a big problem; you have corrected none of it. A large portion of the content you transcluded needs to be deleted, and if you expect others to do that for you, revert is simpler. There is not a problem with consensus to split the text; there is a problem with how you created the new articles, taking little care, and pulling in unrelated text via transclusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion for remedying the damage at this point is to keep the six articles, but remove every transclusion, since it appears that no care was taking in adding them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks like a huge series of messes - I'd dread actually reading much of it, but the section on the Jesuits was certainly laughably wierd - picking exactly the wrong bits from the main article. It's rather unclear why bits are in one article and not another, & the whole lot seems to suffer from death by a thousand details, with no intelligent sense of overview. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first bit of damage could be possibly called a novice mistake. This next bit of damage is five times as much as was there before, and I do not believe that expecting epi to clean it up by deleting every transclusion him or herself is too much to ask. Otherwise, blanket revert again, because creating this much poor text and expecting others to clean it up isn't on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with SandyGeorgia. I removed one transclusion from the "Anglo-Saxon conversion" section of Christianity and Paganism to, of all places, Alleged corruption in the Catholic Church. It was subsequently restored. In as much as the Irish were invited by Oswald, and the Romans by Æthelberht, I really don't see where it has anything to do with so-called "corruption", -and I'm really, really trying to AGF. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the transclusions from the Modern criticism of the Catholic Church now as well. AGF is not a suicide pact, and this inappropriate use of transclusions as a blunt force with no critical analysis of the content is unacceptable. My next task is to see if this editor has been doing same elsewhere in the Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed at the corruption article. Using transclusions to spread poorly vetted content across six articles is destructive. There was discussion of splitting the article in two, not six, and now there are six POV articles that need cleaning up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One addressed[edit]

I have removed the transclusions at Criticism of the historical Catholic Church, and it is now a reasonable 3,500 words. Epi, if you want to expand this article, please do it correctly-- by seeking out reliable sources to relevant content. This is the second time you have expanded these articles with empty junk; please don't do it again, and please fix the remaining articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Compromise? Perhaps create expansions in some draft or user space, then move in when all agree they are well enough done? Hyperbolick (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise was a good approach the first time. I think Epi's work needs to be more closely watched now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I posted a proposed section on here earlier for others to evaluate, etc., no one commented. Moreover, when I posted a proposed the first page here, of similar style to the rest, there was no comment. I will post several subsections that you trimmed off and maybe this time I will get some feedback. Moreover, all of the articles went gone through the review process for new articles just fine. If there was some sort of serious problem, I expect they would have been sent to draft.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start with this one... tell me what the problem is with this, that it can't go in the article? Or what should be changed to make it fit better?

You transcluded dozens (maybe hundreds) of articles into five other articles, with numerous cases where there is no related critical content, and I for one do not intend to supervise every instance of you doing that, and certainly not until you revert the damage already created. Clear example: there is ZERO critical content in the transcluded portions of scrupulosity. There is no care or concern in the work you have done or in the articles you have created, and since this is now the second time, it looks destructive and WP:NOT. I am hoping to see some good faith reverts on your part, rather than you expecting others, again, to do all this cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Women's asylums[edit]

This section is transcluded from Magdalene asylum. (edit | history)

Magdalene laundry in England, early twentieth century [1]

Magdalene asylums, also known as Magdalene laundries, were initially Protestant but later mostly Roman Catholic institutions that operated from the 18th to the late 20th centuries, ostensibly to house "fallen women". The term referred to female sexual promiscuity or sex workers, young women who became pregnant outside of marriage, or young girls and teenagers who did not have familial support.[2] They were required to work without pay apart from meagre food provisions, while the institutions operated large commercial laundries, serving customers outside their bases.

Many of these "laundries" were effectively operated as penitentiary workhouses. The strict regimes in the institutions were often more severe than those found in prisons. This contradicted the perceived outlook that they were meant to help women as opposed to punishing them. A survivor said of the working conditions: "The heat was unbelievable. You couldn't leave your station unless a bell went."[3] Laundries such as this operated in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden, Canada, the United States, and Australia, for much of the 19th and well into the 20th century, the last one closing in 1996.[4] The institutions were named after the Biblical figure Mary Magdalene.

The first Magdalene institution was founded in late 1758 in Whitechapel, England.[5] A similar institution was established in Ireland by 1767.[5] The first Magdalene asylum in the United States was the Magdalen Society of Philadelphia, founded in 1800. All these were Protestant institutions. Other cities followed, especially from around 1800, with Catholic institutions also being opened. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Magdalene asylums were common in several countries.[6] By 1900, there were more than 300 asylums in England and more than 20 in Scotland.[5][7]

Magdalene Laundries in Ireland[edit]

This section is transcluded from Magdalene Laundries in Ireland. (edit | history)

In February 2013, a few days after the publication of the McAleese Report, two religious sisters gave an interview for RTÉ Radio 1 under conditions of anonymity for themselves and their institute. They described the Irish media coverage of the abuse at the laundries (which they claimed not to have participated in), as a "one-sided anti-Catholic forum". They displayed no remorse for the institutes' past: "Apologize for what? Apologize for providing a service? We provided a free service for the country". They complained that "all the shame of the era is being dumped on the religious orders... the sins of society are being placed on us". On hearing the interview, a survivors' group announced to the press that they were "shocked, horrified and enormously upset" by the sisters' portrayal of events.[8]--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ from Frances Finnegan, Do Penance or Perish (Fig. 5) Congrave Press, 2001
  2. ^ Campsie, Alison (3 March 2017). "Scotland's Magdalene Asylums for "fallen women"". The Scotsman. Archived from the original on 8 May 2019. Retrieved 23 September 2019.
  3. ^ Reilly, Gavan (5 February 2013). "In their own words: Survivors' accounts of life inside a Magdalene Laundry". TheJournal.ie. Archived from the original on 29 April 2019. Retrieved 23 September 2019.
  4. ^ Culliton, Gary (25 September 1996). "LAST DAYS OF A LAUNDRY". The Irish Times. Archived from the original on 30 April 2019. Retrieved 10 December 2018.
  5. ^ a b c Finnegan 2001, p. 8
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Smithxv was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ "Magdalen Hospital for the Reception of Penitent Prostitutes". St-George-in-the-East Church. Archived from the original on 1 December 2016. Retrieved 18 February 2013.
  8. ^ Claire Mc Cormack (30 May 2013). "Nuns Claim No Role in Irish Laundry Scandal". WeNews. Retrieved 28 July 2014.

Comments[edit]

From my perspective: Everything looks fine in the first section save for the bolding; the section section could use somewhat of an intro, maybe a sentence describing the scope of the issue in Ireland. Anything I am missing?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, one might think it belonged in Controversies involving Catholic organizations rather than this one. I missed it when reading that. In its 20th century form, this was a very specific issue, I think unique to Ireland, & probably the one order. Note that the main article woefully fails to make clear that the first Magdalene laundries in England, Ireland and the US (Magdalen Society of Philadelphia) were all Protestant organizations! Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought about that when I was adding it. If so, it would go in the historical subsection. A comment about the original laundries could be added in the non-transcluded fashion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted the main article a bit. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on it more later. Bye for now.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Epiphyllum, you are using transclusion inappropriately as a blunt tool, just as you earlier used hatnotes inappropriately as a blunt tool, apparently in your haste to spread criticism as wide and far as you can, but without regard to the scholarship or sourcing or due weight or even content of any of the text you are adding via transclusion. This is destructive editing. This is exactly the problem you created before, only the other side of the coin. Since this is now the second time, I am asking you to demonstrate good faith and revert your transclusions so others do not have to do this work for you. Again, if your intent is for readers to actually be able to find real criticism of the Catholic church, you have significantly diminished the chance of that happening by creating an unreadable mishmash. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy against transclusion like this? Seems an efficient way to put a relevant block of text in. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting your typo; I could not tell what you were asking or stating before.

The bottom line of every policy and guideline page (even WP:IAR) is that we are here to improve the encyclopedia, not damage it. I have not encountered this kind of damaging mis-use of templates ever before on Wikipedia, and we have other experienced editors saying similar. Templates were used in an unusual way (twice now) as a blunt instrument to create very large unreadable walls of very poor text, without regard for quality, relevance, or sourcing, and then to spread that poor text as widely as possible (that is, editing that cannot be described as "efficient" or with text that was "relevant" or inserted into the correct target articles).

The problems here are covered at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. In pointing out the problems the first time through, we hit WP:LISTEN; Epiphyllumlover did not want to acknowledge that the first mis-use of hatnotes was a one-editor creation. This time, they do not acknowledge that the problem here is not the article split, but that they did not just split the article, they added massive and poorly considered transclusions as well, in the creating edits, so that the work cannot be reverted because there is no earlier version to revert to. The damage was in the edits that created the articles.

That we do not find this kind of poor editing in the Lutheranism suite heavily edited by Epiphyllumlover raises other concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod: Hi, I'm back. It seems that the organizational controversies page has been blanked, but some of it so far has been cut and pasted back into the main criticism page. I disagree with this, but for now will wait and see if it is done well as it seems that the previous consensus group is not showing up just yet. I will see about integrating this into the same article, with corrections. BTW, there is no policy against the use of hatnotes; they are there to produce compound pages. Obviously they come with challenges, but one advantage of using them is that they shelter the user from charges of POV.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're back, inserting partially uncited text into an article, because you found it in another article? And you present this as if Johnbod approves? If your intent is to help build the encyclopedia, then please stop adding unverified text to articles-- that is something newbies do. Did you review the source to see if it actually verifies any of the text you added? No, your editing practices do not shield you from anything; just because you found something in another article doesn't mean you can use that as an excuse to carry poorly sourced or unverified text through to other articles, regardless of the method you are using. I can't verify a good deal of that text from the source given. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional work created[edit]

Mannanan51 I am glad to see someone working on cleanup here, but I suspect that Epiphyllumlover has spread the same issues you are correcting here to the five other articles they created (although what was discussed was splitting the article in two). I fear you may be wasting your time by doing the clean up here, since the Epi Effect is now quite widespread and if this article is to be cut to reflect five new articles, the content you are fixing may still be in those articles.

The first time through, with the hatnote farm, I was viewing this as novice editing mistakes, but Epi is a main editor of Lutheranism and that article evidences that Epi knows good editing practice and they have kept that article in clean shape without the kind of destructive practices seen here, so now that this has happened a second time, and we are left with not one but SIX messes, it doesn't seem like a novice editing issue any more. It is hard to tell what all Epi has done here, and where cleanup should start, so I hope you aren't wasting your time; this is among the most destructive editing I have seen in 15 years of editing, and the mystery is how someone who has kept Lutheranism in such good and clean shape could then turn this article into such an eyesore. We have now twice irregular use of templates like I have never before encountered.

I am concerned that before cleaning up, it needs to be decided which of the split articles should stay and whether some merge/redirects are needed now. What A Mess !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "Editor in Question" is on the Sola fide talk page as far back as 27 September 2009. I agree that "this is among the most destructive editing I have seen". Have no idea what set him off. Given the sheer number of edits, I have to wonder whether this isn't some sophomore class project from WELS. Maybe the page should be moved to "Lutheran complaints about Catholicism"; half of this stuff isn't even criticism per se, but arguments over theological interpretations and semantics. As far as the other articles are concerned, I'll keep cleaning up whatever I happen to come across, as I don't mind at all if all the balderdash gets either merged or deleted. Mannanan51 (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just didn't want you to work at cleanup for nothing! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Listing problems: Epiphyllumlover you did this, after several editors in the sections above had explained to you the problems with this kind of editing. Since it is clear at Lutheranism that you know how to correctly write an article on Wikipedia, please stop creating cleanup issues for other editors here. We are WP:HTBAE, not to create eyesores to spread unreadable criticism across multiple articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought; Don't much care for "Modern Criticism...". What's the criteria for "modern" or "recent". I would prefer to some organization along the lines of perhaps "Internal", "Historical", maybe "Interdenominational" -which could be handled in one with links to relevant Mains (except that's just another opportunity for another blitzkrieg). Mannanan51 (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to Johnbod on how to fix the organizational issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Controversies involving Catholic organizations is quite dreadful; transclusions of wholly uncited text, and more significantly, Epiphyllumlover, please familiarize yourself with the standards required for biomedical health information at WP:MEDRS, and refrain from transcluding content that should not even be in the encyclopedia. Others will need to look at this in terms of UNDUE: I am finding things like "two priests in the middle of nowhere were catholic and had a disagreement so it must belong in this article". Besides numerous undue issues, there is a mix there of historical and current and repeat section headings everywhere. No doubt, a simpler split would have served better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say thank you to SandyGeorgia and Mannanan51 for staying on top of this. I agree with your proposals and at this point I don't even see how the newly created articles are justified. It isn't appropriate to dump a ton of unedited content into articles and expect other users to clean it up. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The burden on other editors is disruptive. If it happens again, next stop is ANI to request a topic ban for, broadly construed, religion topics. There is a neutrality problem here.

By the way, there is still an enormous amount of cleanup work needed to repair this mess. Considering this is a mess I happened upon because it hit scrupulosity, I am not really pleased about the hours I have had to spend here, and hope that others are able to remain vigilant to cleaning this up ... I have work to do elsewhere, and considering I'm not even Catholic and don't care one way or another about Criticism of the Catholic Church, this kind of timesink for damage repair is just ... disruptive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think a topic ban might well be considered. This nonsense has effected dozens of pages, some of them totally unrelated. More than half of the so-called criticism seems to be sourced to a very conservative Lutheran group, while Anglican, Orthodox and other views are only mentioned in passing. POV issues here. Mannanan51 (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And yet we find no mention of this, for example, at Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. It appears that different standards are applied to different articles frequented by Epiphyllumlover. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a section on Antichrist, so there's that. Mannanan51 (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what I mean is that the mention of every catholic priest who ever said "boo" on any topic anywhere in the world being defined as a controversy worthy of encyclopedic inclusion doesn't seem to apply to Bachmann in the WELS article, where we find zero controversy :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues[edit]

I have been looking at the suite of Catholic Church articles to see where else POV was introduced, probably via templates. Now that I have seen this sneaky introduction of a piped link, I have issued this warning to stop. Perhaps a topic ban is needed; the cleanup needs are probably greater than we realize, and hidden everywhere in piped links and templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out, SandyGeorgia. That is a blatant case of disruptive editing. Epiphyllumlover, please cut it out. --PluniaZ (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PluniaZ I have tried to point out these problems on E-lover's talk, but I see they have resumed editing this suite of articles, which concerns me. Perhaps others can make more progress than I have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

So far, I have tried to very briefly indicate areas of criticism or dispute without attempting a long discourse, but providing a link to a Main article which covers the subject more comprehensively. Thus, the substantial trimming.

Where is the line drawn distinguishing between "Criticism" and "Controversy" (both forms used in the split articles)? Is it a matter of how much umbrage is reported in the media? Is there, or should there be, a distinction drawn between garden variety doctrinal issues and the pope allowing the Tridentine form in order to pacify those Catholics who are fond of the traditional mass and thereby inadvertently insulting Jews because the same liturgy for Good Friday includes a less than sensitive prayer for their conversion? Input, opinions welcomed. Mannanan51 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered the same thing. Criticism may be informal, or even one-sided, but controversy always has at least two sides, and usually formal. The term is often used in the Catholic Encyclopedia and other historical sources to describe formal disputes between religious parties. A controversy can contain criticism(s), though.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge made without consensus[edit]

I am of the opinion this redirect from the corruption article was unjustified; this had been discussed prior to the move and had the approval of four editors and the input of one other.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The five-way content split which you did of text from here was not as discussed (a two-way split was discussed), was not necessary, was not done carefully, resulted in SIX unreadable articles, and merging content back to this main criticism article is appropriate.

As an added bonus, Mannanan51 is actually carefully re-writing the content rather than just dumping indiscriminate, unorganized, uncited and poorly written text throughout the Wikipedia, so that's a win. We now offer Wikipedia readers actual criticism articles, rather than six unreadable unorganized walls of text. If similar occurs again, I will be requesting a topic ban.

A look at the progress so far:

  • 14:08 9 Mar, this article before Epiphyllumlover's work
  • 18:48 12 Apr, the result to this article of Epiphyllumover's work including a hatnote farm
    • 02:14 28 Apr, and an example of an article created by an Epiphyllumlover split, using transclusions
    • 02:16 29 Apr, another sample of an article created by an Epiphyllumlover split, using transclusions
  • 2 May sample of progress so far; work still ongoing, but a readable, sourced, and better written article.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What specifically is the problem? You, yourself, placed the banner on the page indicating that it needed "to be cleaned up or summarized". I am doing both. ...and I quote: " I don't know exactly what the Criticism of the Catholic Church page will look like when the split is completed, but you are welcome to start now if you like." So I did. Three separate editors have indicated that the split you initiated was at the very least "problematic". Other observations were "dreadful", "misleading" and "laughable". Given that the Catholic church is a rather large, ancient institution there will no doubt be a good deal with which one could take issue. Much of the excessive text was disorganized and immaterial. This is not the place for lengthy, incoherent dissertations. All that is needed is a brief description and a link to the appropriate Main article. In fact, IMHO that is the best approach in order to be as realistically comprehensive as possible -and it does not require discussing some elderly bishop who may have passed gas someplace. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's good to see this happening - please keep it up! Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From my Talk page:

  • The cleanup banner was for the main page, not this one. I just had a thought: If you support me moving the corruptions page to community draft per the comment made by Hyperbolick (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC) (and later restated on his talk page), I will withdraw my objection, both here and on the talk page. (The page would need to come out of draft via the formal process this way.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It would seem a bit more appropriate if you would direct your comments to the Main page, as (1) it keeps discussion in one place, and (2) there may be other users who would have some views on the matter. Thank you. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Mannanan51 (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
to clarify, the existing merged content could stay on the main criticisms page even if the alleged corruptions page is moved to draft.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated, you have not evidenced the neutrality or objectivity or concern for encyclopedic content to be writing anything about the Catholic Church anywhere on Wikipedia: just my opinion. You also seem to be of the idea that consensus is formed on editor talk pages rather than article talk pages. Mannanan51 gives you good advice to please discuss your article proposals on article talk where we can all review them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft would be a very good step. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As this page only has 32K bytes, there is plenty of room for bona fide observations, and they can be posted here for discussion. Mannanan51 (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse, I fail to see where consensus was established for carrying out the article forks, though? PPEMES (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On this page, the comments by Hyperbolick (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC) and OlJa 00:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC) [that is, Oldstone James], combined with several comments by Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard#What_to_do_about_Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC on. With myself, that was a count of four editors in favor of the six-way split with five new articles. Additionally, PluniaZ gave input about the page names on this and the Christianity noticeboard pages. Although PluniaZ did not say he approved of the split, he gave input which I heeded, and did not object. Lastly, on the Christianity noticeboard page, Sandy Georgia later stated, "Splitting the article was fine (I believe it was my suggestion)"--that said, I think this user preferred splitting it off to a smaller number of articles instead of six, but I am unsure of this. Additionally, the comment here by Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC) suggests splitting the article a different way. Following this, I did each of the articles one-by-one. (I summarized my posts on this page for organization, leaving on the mention of the first one (comment: Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC).) There seemed to be no objection as to my method (heavily reliant on transclusions, which on controversial topics helps to alleviate concerns about POV; since the transcluded portions, often leads, from other articles have (hopefully) been written in a neutral manner and evaluated by many editors over a period of years. The flip-side of this is that formatting could have been better, and some sections had bad flow). Only when I had finished the last article did other users object.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental issue is article quality. The number of different articles is of secondary importance. I reviewed the page that was ultimately redirected here (Alleged corruption in the Catholic Church) and its content was of absurdly low quality, as anyone can see from its edit history. With the edits that Mannanan51 has made to this article, its quality has greatly improved and been condensed such that the need for the previously discussed article split is no longer necessary. There is plenty of room to make quality improvements to this article without creating new articles that are just copy-pastas of unedited text. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we incubate in draft, there would be time to generate non-transcluded text. As for quality, three other editors (none represented in this discussion) thanked me for edits involving the split articles, and two separate editors (none represented in this discussion) completed new-article reviews on the five articles before I published them. They were rated as Start class, which disappointed me. Of article's I've created in the past, the highest initial rating I've gotten is a "B".--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the time the split was agreed to, this article was of absurdly low quality, and the articles that were created were also of poor quality. The quality of this article has greatly improved since then, such that I no longer see the need for any split. I propose that Modern criticism of the Catholic Church and Criticism of the historical Catholic Church be redirected here. It is frankly absurd to have three different articles on this topic. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I went through Modern criticism of the Catholic Church and removed all of the material that did not contain substantiated criticisms of the Catholic Church. There was very little content left that was not also covered here, so I changed it to a redirect to this article. I will also take a look at Criticism of the historical Catholic Church and see if its content can be merged back here. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, and to the extent there ever was any, it did because the content created was dreadful. Twice. Now the problems have been addressed. We now have encyclopedic content, where you provided two versions of something indescribable.

WP:LISTENing is a problem here; please read it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed Criticism of the historical Catholic Church to redirect to this page. The only content left was a discussion of Catholic actions in the Balkans during WWII. If the community thinks that is worthy of inclusion it can be added to this article. --PluniaZ (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although consensus can change, it is unlikely that the process is currently working as it should given that most editors don't want to be used as an example of what happens to you if you express the wrong thoughts. This is why draft is useful, as since it is not published there is not so many emotions flying around. Perhaps the two or three editors who contributed prior to the 14 April mass revert would even come back.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church/Archive_3&oldid=1169900867"