Talk:Catholic Church

GA Reassessment

Catholic Church

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Several uncited sections, including almost the entire first section of the History section. History focuses disproportionately on 20th and 21st century. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Disagree that the history weighting is a significant problem. Might require a minor rebalancing—-I’m not sure why John Paul II has his own section while other popes do not (aside from Francis, but the case for having a section on the current pope is strong)—-but that’s a modest edit, not a reason to delist. The several uncited paragraphs in the History section (which look to be the only significantly uncited section to me) do need fixed, but I note that History of the Catholic Church has a pretty well-cited early history section, so that shouldn’t be a hard fix. Reassessment seems a pretty big overreaction for these problems—-it’s pretty firmly WP:JUSTDOIT territory. El Sandifer (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep on grounds offered. The first part of the History section appears to be a lede-style summary of the subsections afterward (a la WP:LEADCITE), with the relevant citations in the respective subsections. If truly desired, go and move the relevant citations back up, but this is a style that isn't unreasonable. As for focus - the Catholic Church is a topic where multi-volume books have been written on it, there is no one perfect amount to cover on each time period. I will say that random readers are probably more interested in the recent history aspect, so it wouldn't shock me if the 2424 article on the Catholic Church disproportionately focuses on the 24th century. SnowFire (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delist 1) if the unsourced content in the history section is a sourced elsewhere in the article, it is redundant and needs to be removed per GACR#3b 2) obvious recentism in the history section. The Catholic Church has a really long history so the twentieth and twenty first centuries need to be covered in similar amount of detail as other historical epochs, and summary style needs to be used. Note that I did not look at the rest of the article (t · c) buidhe 17:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep There is no obvious "recentism" in the history section. The 20th century section does not appear disproportionately long compared to the rest of the section. I also see no uncited sections. Note that my comments pertain to this most recent revision. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that Zfish118's comment follows my examination and removal of the offending parts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Excellent work in trimming the history section! –Zfish118^⋉talk 03:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Official URL is unnecessarily long.

The official URL for the Catholic Church is too long. If you search www.vatican.va it will simply redirect to https://www.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html. But since the official URL is linked to the wikidata item it automatically displays the longer link which is unnecessary. It would be better if the article showed "vatican.va" as the official website instead of the longer link. EXANXC (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

What if the article is fully protected?

Only admins would edit Catholic Church? But it would be unclear. 130.105.50.149 (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The article is not fully protected, but rather semi-protected. Other editors are able to edit this page, but you have to be a registered account that is both more than four days old and has at least four edits to English Wikipedia. If you wish to edit this article without registering or signing in, you may request an edit on this talk page using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, editin' an article is not easy at all, it may took a whole process to you edit, otherwise, just "admins can edit this article" [Note: Would it worthwhile using {{Edit semi-protected}} template?] 177.105.94.73 (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Siding with the Roman Catholic church against other branches of Catholicism

Such an ironic edit summary:

"This, again, has been discussed at length. The Eastern Orthodox Church maintains that it has always been the real catholic church. For NPOV reasons, we do not take a side in this dispute."

There is a long history here, with schisms and claims to being the "real" catholic and original Christian church. This article and some editors are taking sides in the dispute. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Valjean, if you're referring to the name of the article not being "Roman Catholic Church", you're several years behind on that consensus. It seems like you followed me to this article after I changed "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic Church" on the article for Jean Valjean considering your first edits here occurring shortly afterwards. If you have a grudge against me, please let it go. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I have absolutely no grudge against you. How I discovered what happened here is irrelevant. We all discover things in different ways, and it's legitimate. I just found your edit summary ironic as you are taking sides for the Roman Catholic church in its efforts to take a patent on the word Catholic. Historically, that's not legitimate. Ever since the Reformation, it has always been called the Roman Catholic church by everyone, including themselves, because the Bishop of Rome is the Pope. It's easy to find what you call the Catholic Church calling itself the Roman Catholic Church. Here's just one example. (search it for Roman)

This has been done to distinguish it from the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches, and any other "Eastern" variations of Catholicism. They all are offshoots of the original Christian church, what became known as the Roman Catholic Church. I'm not sure, but the church may have used "Roman Catholic" before the Reformation.

Now you are erasing the name of the Roman Catholic Church from the original title (while you do write "also known as the Roman Catholic Church"), even though it is still used by the church as a self-description. That's really odd and an example of historical revisionism in favor of ONE branch of Catholic Christianity. You are taking sides, rather than recognizing that Catholic is an umbrella term that covers several subdivisions.

I wonder how long it will be before you minimize or delete the follow paragraph from the article?

"While the Roman Church has been used to describe the pope's Diocese of Rome since the Fall of the Western Roman Empire and into the Early Middle Ages (6th–10th century), Roman Catholic Church has been applied to the whole church in the English language since the Protestant Reformation in the late 16th century.[35] Further, some will refer to the Latin Church as Roman Catholic in distinction from the Eastern Catholic churches.[36] "Roman Catholic" has occasionally appeared also in documents produced both by the Holy See,[note 3] and notably used by certain national episcopal conferences and local dioceses.[note 4]"

"Roman Catholic Church has been applied to the whole church in the English language since the Protestant Reformation in the late 16th century.[35]" Your historical revisionism goes against that fact. Roman Catholic Church is the common name and should remain the title here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

This has been done to distinguish it from the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches, and any other "Eastern" variations of Catholicism. That comment is a pretty strong indicator that you're a bit out of your depth, reminiscent of your inability to parse the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches in comments you made here. Also, your claim of not having a grudge against me and then accusing me of plotting to delete content without any evidence is—unlike your original post here—ironic. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Section on Joseph

A section on Joseph was recently added under the Virgin Mary section. I think this is wp:undue. He is clearly not one of the most important saints. Doctrine about him seems like an afterthought (and not dogmatic). I would revert myself but I cann't yet. Rolluik (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)