This article contains a summary of Historical development of the doctrine of papal primacy and Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy. |
Index
| |||||
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The result of the move request was: Move per unanimous consensus. Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 19:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Primacy of the Bishop of Rome → Papal primacy – Per WP:COMMONNAME (see this Google NGram; full current title is too long to search, but first 5 words barely show up together), WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, and WP:CONCISE. Current title is unnecessarily long, not as common, and not as concise as possible within guidelines. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent ( talk) 03:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I notice that throughout the article, there seems to be much confusion between Papal supremacy and Papal primacy. Much of the content in the article is actually concerned with and talking about supremacy, not primacy. For example, see the Orthodox view section, which describes objections to supremacy. I fear it may be necessary to move much of the content here to the supremacy article. Input, especially from those knowledgeable about the distinction, would be appreciated. Ergo Sum 20:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I removed a whole section called "Opposition arguments from Church Councils." Not only were they not NPOV, but they actually cited pretty much only 2 sources. One was a dude called Peter Doeswycky, a guy who has no info other than him writing about "Romanism", and the other was a paper from a pastoral conference for Lutherans. -- 70.24.86.150 ( talk) 06:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I am fine if someone were to remove these sources and rewrite the article using some other, but as it stands, currently, these sources and info derived from them is unallowable. This is a consensus reached by me @ Veverve: and @ Richard Keatinge:, since the same sort of nonsense was copy-pasted on an article we were editing. -- 70.24.86.150 ( talk) 16:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
The removal of the section is actually a consensus on another article where these points were copy pasted.
they actually cited pretty much only 2 sources. One was a dude called Peter Doeswycky,[...], and the other was a paper from a pastoral conference for Lutherans.
Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source.Peaceray ( talk) 18:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Peaceray: Look, it doesn't matter as far as I can tell. The fact that it significantly depends on 2 inadmissable sources already means it needs to be written from scratch. The addition of 18th century sources merely raises questions. If these are notable objections that need to be on a main article, why are they not more widely covered? The 2 already violate WP:RS requirement, and these other 2 are just evidence, as far as I can tell, that these objections are either WP:SYNTH or not notable enough to have presence here.
By the way, this also smells of WP:SYNTH, because the "Patrologia Latina" is just a collection of Church fathers, which probably means the section used a Church father quote and then presents it as an objection, which is WP:SYNTH. This has "Unencyclopedic" written all over it. 70.24.86.150 ( talk) 20:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Why is a paper entitled "How the Bishop of Rome Assumed the Title of 'Vicar of Christ'" be irrelevant or undue for an article on Papal primacy?Peaceray ( talk) 21:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Peaceray:
The entire section violates 1) NPOV. 2) Has 2 inadmissable sources, at least. 3) Violates WP:SYNTH, by linking a 19th century collection of Church fathers and then arguing that their quotes are objections used today. 70.24.86.150 ( talk) 21:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
, I want to hear from other editors as to why this section should be entirely removedor whether 11-year old content can be revised appropriately. I am curious to hear from others. I will probably pause on continuing here to give others the time to respond. Peaceray ( talk) 21:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus. This section has been there over a decade, a few more days or even weeks should not matter much, especially as per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. 70.24.86.150 & I hardly constitute or have arrived at a consensus. Anything short of waiting for other editor input would be tendentious editing. Peaceray ( talk) 23:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Peaceray: It's not that I have a problem with waiting, I am just failing to understand what anyone could possibly add to so much evidence that the section should either be removed (my inclination) or written from scratch. 70.24.86.150 ( talk) 23:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
After trying to find citations of Doeswyck's cited work, the only thing that I really learned was how to spell his name. Google Book & Google Scholar searches revealed several catalog listings of his books, a couple of reviews of Ecumenicalism and Romanism in contemporary Lutheran publications (online but behind paywalls), a mention in Spyros Filos's self-published book, Are There Really Seven Sacraments?, inclusion in the bibliography of Mario Colacci's book The Doctrinal Conflict between Roman Catholic and Protestant Christianity, & discussion in the Schwerin article. Thus, Doeswyck's Ecumencialism and Romanism seems to fail WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
As I do not fluently read Latin, I did not attempt the Latin sources.
This is not an area in which I am knowledgeable. It may be that the history of the various councils can be documented by other sources. But that would be the task of other editors, not this one. I acquiesce to deletion of the section based on the lack of reliable sources, especially since the creator & other editors of the section have not stepped forward to explain why it should still be include. If the latter was done, I might change my conclusions, but otherwise I will no longer object to the deletion of this section. Peaceray ( talk) 05:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
There are 2 partially overlapping paragraphs, "Development of the doctrine" and "Historical development", both sending to the same main article, History of papal primacy. The distinction is legitimate in an academic, analytical sense, but currently the material is too intertwined. An editor-hero should step in and try to fix it. See also the "apparent contradiction" tag. Arminden ( talk) 08:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
This article contains a summary of Historical development of the doctrine of papal primacy and Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy. |
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
| |||||
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The result of the move request was: Move per unanimous consensus. Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 19:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Primacy of the Bishop of Rome → Papal primacy – Per WP:COMMONNAME (see this Google NGram; full current title is too long to search, but first 5 words barely show up together), WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, and WP:CONCISE. Current title is unnecessarily long, not as common, and not as concise as possible within guidelines. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent ( talk) 03:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I notice that throughout the article, there seems to be much confusion between Papal supremacy and Papal primacy. Much of the content in the article is actually concerned with and talking about supremacy, not primacy. For example, see the Orthodox view section, which describes objections to supremacy. I fear it may be necessary to move much of the content here to the supremacy article. Input, especially from those knowledgeable about the distinction, would be appreciated. Ergo Sum 20:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I removed a whole section called "Opposition arguments from Church Councils." Not only were they not NPOV, but they actually cited pretty much only 2 sources. One was a dude called Peter Doeswycky, a guy who has no info other than him writing about "Romanism", and the other was a paper from a pastoral conference for Lutherans. -- 70.24.86.150 ( talk) 06:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I am fine if someone were to remove these sources and rewrite the article using some other, but as it stands, currently, these sources and info derived from them is unallowable. This is a consensus reached by me @ Veverve: and @ Richard Keatinge:, since the same sort of nonsense was copy-pasted on an article we were editing. -- 70.24.86.150 ( talk) 16:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
The removal of the section is actually a consensus on another article where these points were copy pasted.
they actually cited pretty much only 2 sources. One was a dude called Peter Doeswycky,[...], and the other was a paper from a pastoral conference for Lutherans.
Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source.Peaceray ( talk) 18:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Peaceray: Look, it doesn't matter as far as I can tell. The fact that it significantly depends on 2 inadmissable sources already means it needs to be written from scratch. The addition of 18th century sources merely raises questions. If these are notable objections that need to be on a main article, why are they not more widely covered? The 2 already violate WP:RS requirement, and these other 2 are just evidence, as far as I can tell, that these objections are either WP:SYNTH or not notable enough to have presence here.
By the way, this also smells of WP:SYNTH, because the "Patrologia Latina" is just a collection of Church fathers, which probably means the section used a Church father quote and then presents it as an objection, which is WP:SYNTH. This has "Unencyclopedic" written all over it. 70.24.86.150 ( talk) 20:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Why is a paper entitled "How the Bishop of Rome Assumed the Title of 'Vicar of Christ'" be irrelevant or undue for an article on Papal primacy?Peaceray ( talk) 21:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Peaceray:
The entire section violates 1) NPOV. 2) Has 2 inadmissable sources, at least. 3) Violates WP:SYNTH, by linking a 19th century collection of Church fathers and then arguing that their quotes are objections used today. 70.24.86.150 ( talk) 21:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
, I want to hear from other editors as to why this section should be entirely removedor whether 11-year old content can be revised appropriately. I am curious to hear from others. I will probably pause on continuing here to give others the time to respond. Peaceray ( talk) 21:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus. This section has been there over a decade, a few more days or even weeks should not matter much, especially as per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. 70.24.86.150 & I hardly constitute or have arrived at a consensus. Anything short of waiting for other editor input would be tendentious editing. Peaceray ( talk) 23:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Peaceray: It's not that I have a problem with waiting, I am just failing to understand what anyone could possibly add to so much evidence that the section should either be removed (my inclination) or written from scratch. 70.24.86.150 ( talk) 23:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
After trying to find citations of Doeswyck's cited work, the only thing that I really learned was how to spell his name. Google Book & Google Scholar searches revealed several catalog listings of his books, a couple of reviews of Ecumenicalism and Romanism in contemporary Lutheran publications (online but behind paywalls), a mention in Spyros Filos's self-published book, Are There Really Seven Sacraments?, inclusion in the bibliography of Mario Colacci's book The Doctrinal Conflict between Roman Catholic and Protestant Christianity, & discussion in the Schwerin article. Thus, Doeswyck's Ecumencialism and Romanism seems to fail WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
As I do not fluently read Latin, I did not attempt the Latin sources.
This is not an area in which I am knowledgeable. It may be that the history of the various councils can be documented by other sources. But that would be the task of other editors, not this one. I acquiesce to deletion of the section based on the lack of reliable sources, especially since the creator & other editors of the section have not stepped forward to explain why it should still be include. If the latter was done, I might change my conclusions, but otherwise I will no longer object to the deletion of this section. Peaceray ( talk) 05:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
There are 2 partially overlapping paragraphs, "Development of the doctrine" and "Historical development", both sending to the same main article, History of papal primacy. The distinction is legitimate in an academic, analytical sense, but currently the material is too intertwined. An editor-hero should step in and try to fix it. See also the "apparent contradiction" tag. Arminden ( talk) 08:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)