![]() | The contents of the Spiritual bouquet page were merged into Prayer in the Catholic Church on 6 May 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | Prayer in the Catholic Church was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article was nominated for merging with Catholic prayers on 29 June 2016. The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was Redirect Catholic prayers to Prayer in the Catholic Church. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Prayer in the Catholic Church article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
If there is a specific statement that can not be traced to a source, please list it here. As far as I have checked, all sources included all statements mentioned in the article. History2007 ( talk) 01:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
After a few suggestions for a title, this page has assumed the title Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer as of December 9, 2007, among the other plausible and possible permutaions of those words. Given that this has been discussed below, please try to let it be. Thanks History2007 ( talk) 04:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
A number of "redirect to a redirect" edits took place on this page, based on new titles that someone suggested. The reason I selected this page title when I started this page was that it is closest to what a Wikipedia user may search for. Obviously, pages need to be easy to find as users search for them. I have reverted the page to the way it was. The first paragraph on this page clearly defines what it intendes to do and what it is not about. Therefore, please do not redirect this page again. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 01:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Actualy I think the search criteria weigh both the title and the contents of a page, so the effect is not technically the same. History2007 ( talk) 01:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I think if there is a suggestion for a new name please discuss it first, else if the page suddenly moves, it will just get moved back and we get a cycle of moves that will begin to approximate perpetual motion. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 02:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. I get the impression the contents of the article is limited to Catholic prayer rather than any/all Christian prayer but the article title refers to "Christian prayer". Also I think "Powers" would be more meaningful in the title rather than "Power". Can I suggest rename to "Powers of Catholic Prayer"? Barrylb ( talk) 02:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought about the Christian/Catholic issue as well Barry. The reference to the protestant reformation in the article was because many of the items in the Bible date to well before the time the Cathoics split off from the other Christians, so the issue is somewhat wider than Catholic. And the references often quote the King's James Bible so it is a wider audience. So I set a redirect from Catholic Prayers to here, so it would be found in a search. The question of Power vs Powers goes back to search again, for a search on power will find powers more easily than powers will find power - as you know. The reason I kept this title rather than the other was really the search issue, for the page is clear about what it sets to do, and the title is really affecting the search more than the content, for the content is the same. Now that you are reading this, on another topic, that section on the efficacy of prayer page about medical issues needs more extensions. I put in the Australian study that you had privided. If you have any more links, your adding them there will be appreciated. Cheers. History2007 ( talk) 04:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC) .
Ok how about Catholic Beliefs on the power of prayer. The whole point of the article is to discuss the beliefs about power, without claiming the efficacy of the prayers. Catholic beliefs about prayer would miss the issue that Catholics believe it has power, and use that as a tool for group cohesion, regardless of whether the beliefs can be substantiated in a clinical or scientific setting. The article has gone to great length to repeatedly state upfront that it does not claim any powers, but just reviews what they believe about them. And again, (yes again) not having power in the title reduces search capabilities. The article does not relate to Catholic beliefs on "the duty to pray" but on the power attributed (allegedly) to prayer. One could write a whole article on the "duty to pray" and it would be a different artiicle and they would both relate to "beliefs on prayer". The 2nd article may be a needed on its own anyway for the sake of completion, but there is no need to mix the two. This way if any one searches for "catholic + prayer + power" the page will be found. Hence power needs to be there in the title, but if adding Catholic beliefs to the front of it will end this discussion, then let us agree and I will just move it as such.Thanks History2007 ( talk) 11:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
Before I opened it, I thought this article would be about a Sunday radio show from the 40s, since the article Efficacy of prayer already exists. The neutral title of this subject is correctly Efficacy of prayer; the asserted "power" is unsubstantiated. Employing "power" in the very title itself is a common rhetorical trick that embodies the correct significance of "to beg the question." (This page is not on Wetman's watchlist.)-- Wetman ( talk) 00:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, based on all the discussion above, I have renamed/moved it to Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer. I hope this settles the issue for good. History2007 ( talk) 03:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I think these discussion pages somehow have a better effect in balancing things than one might at first expect. Interestingly, from a mathematical point of view, these discussions seem to either converge rather rapidly towards a stable point, or oscillate for a long time. I wonder why... It may have to do with the effort spent in creating alternative paths for convergence.... I have to think about that...But anyway, we seem to have reached the stable point now. History2007 ( talk) 08:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC) .
I have waited over three weeks for someone to point out where the alleged "unpublished synthesis" took place within this article. There have been no responses. I will wait 2 or 3 more days. If there is no response, and a specific mention of which sentences have been synthesized without attribution, I will remove the tag from the top of the page. If anyone has a specific item that they think is improperly attributed please point it out exactly on this page, state your point clearly with suitable references and I will either remove that item, or rework it so it will have completely correct attribution. However, without any specific items, the allegation of improper attribution can not, as of now be supported, and unless anyone has a specific logical point to make, I will remove that tag in 2 or 3 days. Thank you. History2007 ( talk) 23:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
After the three weeks mentioned above, and the second request for clarification and justification for the tag, I waited 3 more days, and there were no responses, so I will now remove the tag. Thanks History2007 ( talk) 23:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I reverted a name change. The page was specifically written to be about POWER so that has to be there. The title had been discussed before and after a discussion became this one. Please discuss these things on talk page before sudden actions. Cheers. History2007 ( talk) 19:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is this article no made about "Catholic beliefs on prayer" -- since there is no other article about that? Notwithstanding the top hat note, it is not about all of Catholic beliefs on prayer now, but should be renamed and expanded. Text from Prayer in Christianity and Roman Catholic prayers to Jesus could be included. Carlaude: Talk 09:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"The nihil obstat and imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the nihil obstat and the imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed." As samples of online sources for this often repeated official statement, see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. An editor who fails to understand that an imprimatur given for printing does NOT imply that the giver agrees with the contents has insisted on putting in this article the statement "Cardinal Hayes of New York provided his imprimatur in support of these promises and the first viewpoint"! 86.45.171.134 ( talk) 17:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I've added several tags because this article has multiple problems. The article itself, and the title, appear to be nothing more than the product of original research. The content of the article is rambling, and the New International Version of the Bible is used instead of a Catholic Bible. The NIV uses a dynamic translation which the Church does not. Also, there's a claim being made that all these prayers share a common link because they offer 'promises,' and then there's a claim that Bishop has approved these promises with the Imprimatur. Any Catholic knows that's not how Imprimaturs, or the Church hierarchy, works.
Also, it reads more like an essay, an uninformed one, to be sure, and not at all like an encyclopedia.
And in several places, there is a mention of "Catholic tradition," yet there are no references, etc. to support the claims, which, in any event, would not center around 'tradition,' but would center on doctrine, etc. It does not reference a single Papal document that supports any of the claims made, nor does it reference any Catholic scholars' works.
I'm thinking it needs to be deleted rather than rewritten, just for the lack of notability as there is no such entity commonly known among Catholics or non-Catholics as the "Catholic Beliefs on the Power of Prayer," nor is there even an article in Wikipedia regarding "The Power of Prayer."
There are no sources to expert opinions, some of the writing seems to be lifted directly from a couple of websites, so I'm questioning if there isn't also copyright problems here.
I'd appreciate it if other editors would read through the article and offer their opinions here. If it is to be rewritten, it would need a new title and focus, and it would need to be written from the Catholic viewpoint on prayers with actual Catholic Church documents/references, etc. as sources. Malke 2010 14:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Malke, As I stated above you were 100% wrong on the "Power of prayer" title. Now, start by listing the copyright violations you claim one by one so they can be addressed. Vague claims are not allowed. No games, no vague accusations, just start by listing the copyright violations one by one. History2007 ( talk) 20:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Additional problems:
Malke 2010 ( talk) 06:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Malke: I asked for the issues to be handled one by one, not as a "vague set". Answer the questions one by one now. Is that clear? Is the request for clarification one by one clear? So:
You are hereby asked to answer the questions one by one regarding your tags. Answer teh first question on the talk page please. And ONLY the first question because the accusations you have made are all mixed up and I want to address them ONE by ONE. So answer the first question now please. History2007 ( talk) 06:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec)This article needs to be:
Did you answer the question Malke? You typed here, so you have read the question. So please answer Question #1 regarding your accusation. Is that clear? If you place tags, in good faith, you MUST respond to questions about them on the talk page, else it will be WP:Disruptive editing. So please answer the questions, one by one. Now, please answer the first question. History2007 ( talk) 12:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I am addressing the key issue first, and I asked a specific question about your notability claim. I am not getting an answer. History2007 ( talk) 12:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
User Malke has challenged the notability of the topic of this article. I have stated above that the topic of "Power of prayer" is notable given that there are several books on this very topic and stated that:
I am not getting a direct answer to this issue. This key issue needs to be addressed before minor issues are dealt with. I have hence requested a 3rd opinion, only on this issue. History2007 ( talk) 12:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Answering the specific question as to whether the topic itself is notable (as requested), I would say that, prima facie, it appears to be so. Catholics hold beliefs about prayer (whatever they may call those beliefs), and those beliefs are an important part of their belief system, so I can't see why this wouldn't be notable. I'd note that AfD is probably the better forum for challenging the inherent notability of a topic, and further discussion on that specific point should ideally take place there. It also seems to me that the tone of some of the comments abive has become overly confrontational; I'd suggest taking a calmer look at things. Not commenting on issues raised above re: original research, etc. as that is outside of the 3O request. (This does not, however, preclude a further 3O on those issues by either party, or an RfC, for that matter, if those would help).— Anaxial ( talk) 13:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC) |
Malke: I think the 3rd opinion has handled the issue of notability. The topic is notable. Now, to make "systematic progress" please address the issue of copyrights that you claimed, below. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 13:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Malke, again, you were asked to answer/clarify "Question 1" and now you are responding by discussing "Question XYZ". In the above, you said, and I quote you directly: "I'm thinking it needs to be deleted rather than rewritten, just for the lack of notability". You suggested that the article was not notable. And I asked you a few times to explain and justify your "lack of notability" claim. And instead you responded about "Bible versions" as well as other issues. So I asked for a 3rd opinion. Now in response to the 3rd opinion, you are discussing the lede! I am finding that logic hard to follow. The question of notability has been the subject of a 3rd opinion. Anaxial is completely right that the lede was not the subject of a 3rd opinion request. Please do the following:
The trend here is that as soon as a question gets close to getting focused on, a separate issue is discussed by you. If you think the lede has problems, I will ask for a separate 3rd opinion on that. The challenge here is to keep the discussion focused, as in "one issue at a time". So please answer questions, "one by one". Do not jump from one question to another. Please answer the questions regarding your claims, "one by one" to stay focused. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 18:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Malke, you have stated that the article has multiple copyright violations. Please list those "one by one" so they can be addressed. You have stated that the section, including the picture of Mary, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_beliefs_on_the_power_of_prayer#Rosary is lifted entirely from another website. Which website is that? How do we know that website did not obtain it from Wikipedia? Please clarify that website and list all other claims about copyright "one by one" so they can be addressed. In this thread, please only address copyright issues, and not Bible versions or other topics, so the discussion can be focused. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 13:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
History2007, please provide a citation for this paragraph in the section on the rosary:
Also, if you have evidence of WP:HARASS, please provide diffs and take them to the appropriate noticeboard to adjudicate that. Otherwise, accusations such as that as well as the claim you left on my talk page that my legitimate concerns for the accuracy and relevance of this article constitute "disruptive editing," can be seen as WP:HARASS by you. And as a reminder, my user name is Malke_2010. Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 15:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The copyvio issue is not the main issue here. That's become a red herring to distract from the real issues here. In a thread above, History2007 provides links to book excerpts on Google Books. These books do not offer any more insight into this so-called Catholic belief than does this Wiki article.
The paragraph I've listed above has been taken directly from one of those books. I have so many of these website links and Google book excerpts bookmarked that it is taking me a while to sort backwards to where this particular paragraph is. But I did indeed find the exact wording, which I remembered because it makes no sense. As the paragraph stands now, without a citation and not making any sense, it could easily be deleted. That is why I'm asking him for a citation. As such, the copvio issue should not halt attention to the larger issues which include:
Hello Malke. And "hello"? Is that a copyright issue you mentioned here? I specifically and directly asked you to "substantiate your claim" that there are copyright violations in this article. You said you had a bookmark on your computer and needed to find it. Then, instead you ask for a citation for a separate, unrelated paragraph? Hello? Are we speaking the same language? Therefore:
It's the if the material is taken directly clause that's the issue here. Simply providing a source (necessary though I agree that is) won't prove that hasn't happened, since it might not be the same source as the one that contains the original text. Although it might, as you say, help to explain what the sentence means, if it's unclear! Anaxial ( talk) 20:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
So are you saying you don't have a source to show it isn't a copyvio? or original research? Malke 2010 ( talk) 21:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
If we intend to improve the article, no baseless claims can be made. The copyright issue is over now, since despite repeated requests no basis for said claims has been presented. Next issue: Bible versions that were mentioned several times as a problem. History2007 ( talk) 19:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The issue of references to the Catholic Bible vs the New International Bible has been brought up as a problem by Malke several times now. I found one, and fixed it to be a generic reference a few days ago, as in most other articles in Wikipedia, so the reader can select the version. Malke, please provide a "complete list" of Bible references that have problems so I can fix them. This, however, is an unusual (yet minor) claim and I have never seen it brought up anywhere in Wikipedia after over 100 articles I have written on Catholic topics. However, I will readily fix these if a list if provided. I can not fix them unless I know where they are. Just now I did a search on "NIV" and found nothing in the article. Malke, I am again asking for substantiation of "this specific claim" to remove the issues in the claims "one by one". Please provide a list of Bible references that you object to, so I can fix them. Please stay focused on this issue so the issues can be resolved one by one. Thank you. History2007 ( talk) 19:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I changed the Bible Gateway references now. Therefore, this issue of Bible versions is now over. Unless there are other Biblegateway items that I can not see. But the differences were truly trivial as far as the meaning and impact within the article is concerned, e.g.
Big deal. No major difference to the article. Much ado about nothing.
However, in the process I got some good ideas on how to expand this article. So I guess we will be seeing much more text in this article, because I have now decided that it needs further expansion, e.g. the issues relating to the Holy Spirit, etc. That material will be interesting to add. Thank you for making me think of expansion. History2007 ( talk) 00:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The following issues have been addressed so far:
Next: Missing citations. Please keep focus on the topic. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 01:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Please provide a list of claimed missing citations in this article. Please ONLY deal with missing citations here, not article lede, copyright or copyleft issues, etc. Please do not debate the nature of theology in this thread but focus on missing citations. The goal in this thread is to keep focus as mentioned before. Article lede will be the LAST topic, since it needs to summarize the article, and it must wait to the end. So please list the missing citations. The article has over 80 references, so it is not exactly citation free. Anyway, please provide a list, and I will delete/modify/expand text to deal with each missing citation. I will not address other issues in this thread. Please start the list of claimed missing citations below:
Item 1:
Item 2:
Here is an example of what appears to be a questionable citation: "Our Sunday Visitor's Treasury of Catholic Stories by Gerald M. Costello 2001 ISBN 0879739797 page 278" is listed as reference #4 sourcing this sentence: "Catholic tradition includes a large number of stories about the power of prayer." However, a quick check of Google Books, where History2007 gets all his references from, shows that that particular chapter is entitled: "On History's Stage: Mother Teresa's Worldwide Mission Begins on a Train Ride." The chapter begins page 276 to 279. [11] Malke 2010 ( talk) 23:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Item 3:
Item 4:
Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 01:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated the article for deletion. There seems to be no progress in the 3O discussion. The article does not offer any illuminations on Catholic beliefs, there is no notability, possible copyright violations, as well as original research and complete lack of sources to confirm Catholic beliefs. Malke 2010 ( talk) 17:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Please do not move my posts, as you did here [13] without my permission. Malke 2010 ( talk) 21:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Please list 5 Catholic beliefs in the power of prayer, using reliable sources and not links back to Wikipedia pages. Malke 2010 ( talk) 21:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
"The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful" Jas.5:16 (NAB) Mannanan51 ( talk) 02:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)mannanan51
An article that purports to present "Catholic beliefs on prayer" seems to allot an undue amount of space to "promises". While the lead states, "Despite the promises associated with power of prayer, the direct measurement of its effect is often discouraged ...", the article then goes on to discuss at some length no less than seven separate traditional pious practices which appear to involve "promises". As currently presented this seems to suggest a rather significant "quid pro quo" aspect to Catholic prayer. (In addition, "Catholic figures such as saints, preachers, or popes ..." may convey said "promises" but they can hardly make them.) Secondly, each of the listed devotions has its own entry, should a reader be interested in additional information. A simple listing, or abbreviated summary in a single paragraph would appear both sufficient and more efficient. (The entire section on the Power of the Rosary is better served in one of the Rosary articles.) All of the mentioned devotions are based on private revelation. While they may each be entirely edifying, Catholics are not obliged to believe in any of them. "Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith..." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #67). Some of these devotions, have more "currency" than others. The discussion re Bridget of Sweden states that the prayers and promises were published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis, suggesting an implied endorsement. However, if one follows the link to the full article about St. Bridget, it indicates that the AAS "...found the alleged promises unreliable, and directed local ordinaries not to permit the circulation of pamphlets containing the promises..." This includes a citation and link directly to AAS and would appear to be a more reliable source than that cited in the instant article. I have not made any edits as yet, lest I inadvertently kick over an anthill, but this article could use a good weed-wacking. Mannanan51 ( talk) 03:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)mannanan51
The other article is but a subset of this, so should merge. Let us wait a day or two, and if no objections it can just be done. History2007 ( talk) 07:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
When I first read Prayer forms I thought it clean and concise. However, I think it appropriate to merge with Roman Catholic Prayer ---just as I think it equally appropriate to move the Devotions section over to the Roman Catholic Devotions page (perhaps with a separate sub-heading). RC Prayer is a general overview, while Devotions pertain to particular practices; plus RC Devotions could use a few more. Mannanan51 ( talk) 23:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)mannanan51
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Rawlangs ( talk · contribs) 23:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
A good article is—
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) | Overall, the prose does not read smoothly. For instance, it is unclear how the content of Belief in Prayer actually relates to the title of that section. Why, in explicating the catholic belief in prayer, is it necessary to know that Jesus prayed? I am not saying that it isn't important, but to a non-Catholic, it is not clear how it is important. The section reads like a collection of summaries of primary sources. Rather than summarizing, try to make factual claims supported by those sources that help readers understand their underlying concepts and why they are important. Some sections are written better than others. The section Forms of prayer is clearly written in that it provides factual information related to its topic, but only discusses petition, leaving out the signposted blessing, intercession, thanksgiving, and praise. Lack of signposting is a consistent problem in the article, and contributes to the overall lack of clarity. The section on devotions appears to be well written but fails completely to explain what a devotion is, which should be the obvious starting point of a section on devotions. There are many more problems in this article. Editors should start by fixing the ones listed above. A solid understanding of WP:BETTER will help editors make improvements to this article. |
![]() |
(b) (MoS) | There are errors and inconsistencies in punctuation (see WP:PUNCT), especially relating to the integration of footnotes (the number goes directly after the punctuation mark, not before, and a space follows the citation unless followed directly by another citation; see WP:FN). The lead does little to summarize the content of the article. Nothing in the lead, for instance, led me to expect I would be reading about either devotions or methods of prayer. There are many, many style problems in this article. Someone with a solid understanding of WP:Style needs to go over it carefully and repeatedly to clean it up. To comply with GA standards, the lead needs to be completely rewritten to comply with WP:LEAD, and someone needs to carefully address the many problems with paragraphing to comply with WP:LAYOUT. |
![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (major aspects) | The article fails to even talk about the aspects of prayer it promises to talk about. After reading teachings on prayer, I did not feel I even got an overview on teachings on prayer. There has to be more than two perspectives in the Catholic Church, and the article fails to unpack even the two it mentions. Expressions of Prayer does not address all of the forms of expression it signposts, and there are more types of expression. I've heard of nuns dancing the Hail Mary, and I would consider that an expression. The Song of Songs, as I recall, has some very interesting things to say about the expression of prayer. There is just so much material left on the table throughout the article. More research needs to be done, as this is a huge topic. |
![]() |
(b) (focused) | Because of the poor quality of the lead, the article lacks organization and thrust. Without a good lead, I have no notion of what the scope of the article should be, and so I have no way of knowing whether it goes off course. I don't think it does, but I'm only guessing without someone suggesting a structure. As it stands, the article is largely a loosely organized collection of quotations from primary sources. Is devotion a type of prayer? It's not listed in the types or expressions of prayer, and not explained in any way. Is this out of scope? Hard to say. A good lead will, I'm sure, help integrate the various sections into a cohesive whole. Write the lead! |
![]() |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
The article appears to be heavily and systemically biased. (See WP:BIAS) This type of bias can show itself as an exclusion of information. I would assume most of the people working on this article are Catholic. I would recommend trying to revise the article under the assumption that non-Catholics are reading it, and trying to provide useful and complete information to them. The article should be useful to someone with literally no prior knowledge of Catholicism. There are about 1.2 billion Catholics. That leaves about six billion non-Catholic potential readers. Reach out to them! |
![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | Good job here. What about some images of people engaged in prayer though? There must be some on Wikimedia, and as people still pray, there should probably be images of them doing so. |
![]() |
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | The images all belong here, but the captions could use some minor work. All of them should conform to MOS:CAPTION, but this is a minor point. Good job. |
![]() |
Please add any related discussion here.
Perhaps this subject could be reeopened now with the refurbished article? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 20:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
In case anyone is wondering, the section on Vocal Prayer is longer than that of Mental Prayer and its expressions because (1) it is likely that most familiar to most people, and (2) the latter group each has its own Main article. Mannanan51 ( talk) 01:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Mannanan51
The result of the move request was: Moved as clear consensus has been established. ( non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 19:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Roman Catholic prayer →
Prayer in the Catholic Church – Before anyone jumps to conclusions, this has nothing to do with the "Roman" in the title. Several similar articles' titles are formatted <main topic> in <organization>; e.g.,
Dogma in the Catholic Church,
Ordination of women in the Catholic Church,
Marriage in the Catholic Church. To meet
WP:CONSISTENCY, this article's title should be no different. Deus vult (aliquid)!
Crusadestudent (
talk)
21:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Catholic prayers is a redundant, low-quality, short article. If there's any worthwhile content there, it should be merged into this article. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} talk | contribs) 15:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} talk | contribs) 20:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Spiritual bouquet page were merged into Prayer in the Catholic Church on 6 May 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | Prayer in the Catholic Church was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article was nominated for merging with Catholic prayers on 29 June 2016. The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was Redirect Catholic prayers to Prayer in the Catholic Church. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Prayer in the Catholic Church article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
If there is a specific statement that can not be traced to a source, please list it here. As far as I have checked, all sources included all statements mentioned in the article. History2007 ( talk) 01:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
After a few suggestions for a title, this page has assumed the title Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer as of December 9, 2007, among the other plausible and possible permutaions of those words. Given that this has been discussed below, please try to let it be. Thanks History2007 ( talk) 04:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
A number of "redirect to a redirect" edits took place on this page, based on new titles that someone suggested. The reason I selected this page title when I started this page was that it is closest to what a Wikipedia user may search for. Obviously, pages need to be easy to find as users search for them. I have reverted the page to the way it was. The first paragraph on this page clearly defines what it intendes to do and what it is not about. Therefore, please do not redirect this page again. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 01:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Actualy I think the search criteria weigh both the title and the contents of a page, so the effect is not technically the same. History2007 ( talk) 01:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I think if there is a suggestion for a new name please discuss it first, else if the page suddenly moves, it will just get moved back and we get a cycle of moves that will begin to approximate perpetual motion. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 02:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. I get the impression the contents of the article is limited to Catholic prayer rather than any/all Christian prayer but the article title refers to "Christian prayer". Also I think "Powers" would be more meaningful in the title rather than "Power". Can I suggest rename to "Powers of Catholic Prayer"? Barrylb ( talk) 02:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought about the Christian/Catholic issue as well Barry. The reference to the protestant reformation in the article was because many of the items in the Bible date to well before the time the Cathoics split off from the other Christians, so the issue is somewhat wider than Catholic. And the references often quote the King's James Bible so it is a wider audience. So I set a redirect from Catholic Prayers to here, so it would be found in a search. The question of Power vs Powers goes back to search again, for a search on power will find powers more easily than powers will find power - as you know. The reason I kept this title rather than the other was really the search issue, for the page is clear about what it sets to do, and the title is really affecting the search more than the content, for the content is the same. Now that you are reading this, on another topic, that section on the efficacy of prayer page about medical issues needs more extensions. I put in the Australian study that you had privided. If you have any more links, your adding them there will be appreciated. Cheers. History2007 ( talk) 04:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC) .
Ok how about Catholic Beliefs on the power of prayer. The whole point of the article is to discuss the beliefs about power, without claiming the efficacy of the prayers. Catholic beliefs about prayer would miss the issue that Catholics believe it has power, and use that as a tool for group cohesion, regardless of whether the beliefs can be substantiated in a clinical or scientific setting. The article has gone to great length to repeatedly state upfront that it does not claim any powers, but just reviews what they believe about them. And again, (yes again) not having power in the title reduces search capabilities. The article does not relate to Catholic beliefs on "the duty to pray" but on the power attributed (allegedly) to prayer. One could write a whole article on the "duty to pray" and it would be a different artiicle and they would both relate to "beliefs on prayer". The 2nd article may be a needed on its own anyway for the sake of completion, but there is no need to mix the two. This way if any one searches for "catholic + prayer + power" the page will be found. Hence power needs to be there in the title, but if adding Catholic beliefs to the front of it will end this discussion, then let us agree and I will just move it as such.Thanks History2007 ( talk) 11:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
Before I opened it, I thought this article would be about a Sunday radio show from the 40s, since the article Efficacy of prayer already exists. The neutral title of this subject is correctly Efficacy of prayer; the asserted "power" is unsubstantiated. Employing "power" in the very title itself is a common rhetorical trick that embodies the correct significance of "to beg the question." (This page is not on Wetman's watchlist.)-- Wetman ( talk) 00:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, based on all the discussion above, I have renamed/moved it to Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer. I hope this settles the issue for good. History2007 ( talk) 03:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I think these discussion pages somehow have a better effect in balancing things than one might at first expect. Interestingly, from a mathematical point of view, these discussions seem to either converge rather rapidly towards a stable point, or oscillate for a long time. I wonder why... It may have to do with the effort spent in creating alternative paths for convergence.... I have to think about that...But anyway, we seem to have reached the stable point now. History2007 ( talk) 08:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC) .
I have waited over three weeks for someone to point out where the alleged "unpublished synthesis" took place within this article. There have been no responses. I will wait 2 or 3 more days. If there is no response, and a specific mention of which sentences have been synthesized without attribution, I will remove the tag from the top of the page. If anyone has a specific item that they think is improperly attributed please point it out exactly on this page, state your point clearly with suitable references and I will either remove that item, or rework it so it will have completely correct attribution. However, without any specific items, the allegation of improper attribution can not, as of now be supported, and unless anyone has a specific logical point to make, I will remove that tag in 2 or 3 days. Thank you. History2007 ( talk) 23:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
After the three weeks mentioned above, and the second request for clarification and justification for the tag, I waited 3 more days, and there were no responses, so I will now remove the tag. Thanks History2007 ( talk) 23:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I reverted a name change. The page was specifically written to be about POWER so that has to be there. The title had been discussed before and after a discussion became this one. Please discuss these things on talk page before sudden actions. Cheers. History2007 ( talk) 19:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is this article no made about "Catholic beliefs on prayer" -- since there is no other article about that? Notwithstanding the top hat note, it is not about all of Catholic beliefs on prayer now, but should be renamed and expanded. Text from Prayer in Christianity and Roman Catholic prayers to Jesus could be included. Carlaude: Talk 09:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"The nihil obstat and imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the nihil obstat and the imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed." As samples of online sources for this often repeated official statement, see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. An editor who fails to understand that an imprimatur given for printing does NOT imply that the giver agrees with the contents has insisted on putting in this article the statement "Cardinal Hayes of New York provided his imprimatur in support of these promises and the first viewpoint"! 86.45.171.134 ( talk) 17:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I've added several tags because this article has multiple problems. The article itself, and the title, appear to be nothing more than the product of original research. The content of the article is rambling, and the New International Version of the Bible is used instead of a Catholic Bible. The NIV uses a dynamic translation which the Church does not. Also, there's a claim being made that all these prayers share a common link because they offer 'promises,' and then there's a claim that Bishop has approved these promises with the Imprimatur. Any Catholic knows that's not how Imprimaturs, or the Church hierarchy, works.
Also, it reads more like an essay, an uninformed one, to be sure, and not at all like an encyclopedia.
And in several places, there is a mention of "Catholic tradition," yet there are no references, etc. to support the claims, which, in any event, would not center around 'tradition,' but would center on doctrine, etc. It does not reference a single Papal document that supports any of the claims made, nor does it reference any Catholic scholars' works.
I'm thinking it needs to be deleted rather than rewritten, just for the lack of notability as there is no such entity commonly known among Catholics or non-Catholics as the "Catholic Beliefs on the Power of Prayer," nor is there even an article in Wikipedia regarding "The Power of Prayer."
There are no sources to expert opinions, some of the writing seems to be lifted directly from a couple of websites, so I'm questioning if there isn't also copyright problems here.
I'd appreciate it if other editors would read through the article and offer their opinions here. If it is to be rewritten, it would need a new title and focus, and it would need to be written from the Catholic viewpoint on prayers with actual Catholic Church documents/references, etc. as sources. Malke 2010 14:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Malke, As I stated above you were 100% wrong on the "Power of prayer" title. Now, start by listing the copyright violations you claim one by one so they can be addressed. Vague claims are not allowed. No games, no vague accusations, just start by listing the copyright violations one by one. History2007 ( talk) 20:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Additional problems:
Malke 2010 ( talk) 06:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Malke: I asked for the issues to be handled one by one, not as a "vague set". Answer the questions one by one now. Is that clear? Is the request for clarification one by one clear? So:
You are hereby asked to answer the questions one by one regarding your tags. Answer teh first question on the talk page please. And ONLY the first question because the accusations you have made are all mixed up and I want to address them ONE by ONE. So answer the first question now please. History2007 ( talk) 06:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec)This article needs to be:
Did you answer the question Malke? You typed here, so you have read the question. So please answer Question #1 regarding your accusation. Is that clear? If you place tags, in good faith, you MUST respond to questions about them on the talk page, else it will be WP:Disruptive editing. So please answer the questions, one by one. Now, please answer the first question. History2007 ( talk) 12:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I am addressing the key issue first, and I asked a specific question about your notability claim. I am not getting an answer. History2007 ( talk) 12:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
User Malke has challenged the notability of the topic of this article. I have stated above that the topic of "Power of prayer" is notable given that there are several books on this very topic and stated that:
I am not getting a direct answer to this issue. This key issue needs to be addressed before minor issues are dealt with. I have hence requested a 3rd opinion, only on this issue. History2007 ( talk) 12:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Answering the specific question as to whether the topic itself is notable (as requested), I would say that, prima facie, it appears to be so. Catholics hold beliefs about prayer (whatever they may call those beliefs), and those beliefs are an important part of their belief system, so I can't see why this wouldn't be notable. I'd note that AfD is probably the better forum for challenging the inherent notability of a topic, and further discussion on that specific point should ideally take place there. It also seems to me that the tone of some of the comments abive has become overly confrontational; I'd suggest taking a calmer look at things. Not commenting on issues raised above re: original research, etc. as that is outside of the 3O request. (This does not, however, preclude a further 3O on those issues by either party, or an RfC, for that matter, if those would help).— Anaxial ( talk) 13:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC) |
Malke: I think the 3rd opinion has handled the issue of notability. The topic is notable. Now, to make "systematic progress" please address the issue of copyrights that you claimed, below. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 13:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Malke, again, you were asked to answer/clarify "Question 1" and now you are responding by discussing "Question XYZ". In the above, you said, and I quote you directly: "I'm thinking it needs to be deleted rather than rewritten, just for the lack of notability". You suggested that the article was not notable. And I asked you a few times to explain and justify your "lack of notability" claim. And instead you responded about "Bible versions" as well as other issues. So I asked for a 3rd opinion. Now in response to the 3rd opinion, you are discussing the lede! I am finding that logic hard to follow. The question of notability has been the subject of a 3rd opinion. Anaxial is completely right that the lede was not the subject of a 3rd opinion request. Please do the following:
The trend here is that as soon as a question gets close to getting focused on, a separate issue is discussed by you. If you think the lede has problems, I will ask for a separate 3rd opinion on that. The challenge here is to keep the discussion focused, as in "one issue at a time". So please answer questions, "one by one". Do not jump from one question to another. Please answer the questions regarding your claims, "one by one" to stay focused. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 18:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Malke, you have stated that the article has multiple copyright violations. Please list those "one by one" so they can be addressed. You have stated that the section, including the picture of Mary, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_beliefs_on_the_power_of_prayer#Rosary is lifted entirely from another website. Which website is that? How do we know that website did not obtain it from Wikipedia? Please clarify that website and list all other claims about copyright "one by one" so they can be addressed. In this thread, please only address copyright issues, and not Bible versions or other topics, so the discussion can be focused. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 13:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
History2007, please provide a citation for this paragraph in the section on the rosary:
Also, if you have evidence of WP:HARASS, please provide diffs and take them to the appropriate noticeboard to adjudicate that. Otherwise, accusations such as that as well as the claim you left on my talk page that my legitimate concerns for the accuracy and relevance of this article constitute "disruptive editing," can be seen as WP:HARASS by you. And as a reminder, my user name is Malke_2010. Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 15:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The copyvio issue is not the main issue here. That's become a red herring to distract from the real issues here. In a thread above, History2007 provides links to book excerpts on Google Books. These books do not offer any more insight into this so-called Catholic belief than does this Wiki article.
The paragraph I've listed above has been taken directly from one of those books. I have so many of these website links and Google book excerpts bookmarked that it is taking me a while to sort backwards to where this particular paragraph is. But I did indeed find the exact wording, which I remembered because it makes no sense. As the paragraph stands now, without a citation and not making any sense, it could easily be deleted. That is why I'm asking him for a citation. As such, the copvio issue should not halt attention to the larger issues which include:
Hello Malke. And "hello"? Is that a copyright issue you mentioned here? I specifically and directly asked you to "substantiate your claim" that there are copyright violations in this article. You said you had a bookmark on your computer and needed to find it. Then, instead you ask for a citation for a separate, unrelated paragraph? Hello? Are we speaking the same language? Therefore:
It's the if the material is taken directly clause that's the issue here. Simply providing a source (necessary though I agree that is) won't prove that hasn't happened, since it might not be the same source as the one that contains the original text. Although it might, as you say, help to explain what the sentence means, if it's unclear! Anaxial ( talk) 20:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
So are you saying you don't have a source to show it isn't a copyvio? or original research? Malke 2010 ( talk) 21:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
If we intend to improve the article, no baseless claims can be made. The copyright issue is over now, since despite repeated requests no basis for said claims has been presented. Next issue: Bible versions that were mentioned several times as a problem. History2007 ( talk) 19:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The issue of references to the Catholic Bible vs the New International Bible has been brought up as a problem by Malke several times now. I found one, and fixed it to be a generic reference a few days ago, as in most other articles in Wikipedia, so the reader can select the version. Malke, please provide a "complete list" of Bible references that have problems so I can fix them. This, however, is an unusual (yet minor) claim and I have never seen it brought up anywhere in Wikipedia after over 100 articles I have written on Catholic topics. However, I will readily fix these if a list if provided. I can not fix them unless I know where they are. Just now I did a search on "NIV" and found nothing in the article. Malke, I am again asking for substantiation of "this specific claim" to remove the issues in the claims "one by one". Please provide a list of Bible references that you object to, so I can fix them. Please stay focused on this issue so the issues can be resolved one by one. Thank you. History2007 ( talk) 19:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I changed the Bible Gateway references now. Therefore, this issue of Bible versions is now over. Unless there are other Biblegateway items that I can not see. But the differences were truly trivial as far as the meaning and impact within the article is concerned, e.g.
Big deal. No major difference to the article. Much ado about nothing.
However, in the process I got some good ideas on how to expand this article. So I guess we will be seeing much more text in this article, because I have now decided that it needs further expansion, e.g. the issues relating to the Holy Spirit, etc. That material will be interesting to add. Thank you for making me think of expansion. History2007 ( talk) 00:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The following issues have been addressed so far:
Next: Missing citations. Please keep focus on the topic. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 01:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Please provide a list of claimed missing citations in this article. Please ONLY deal with missing citations here, not article lede, copyright or copyleft issues, etc. Please do not debate the nature of theology in this thread but focus on missing citations. The goal in this thread is to keep focus as mentioned before. Article lede will be the LAST topic, since it needs to summarize the article, and it must wait to the end. So please list the missing citations. The article has over 80 references, so it is not exactly citation free. Anyway, please provide a list, and I will delete/modify/expand text to deal with each missing citation. I will not address other issues in this thread. Please start the list of claimed missing citations below:
Item 1:
Item 2:
Here is an example of what appears to be a questionable citation: "Our Sunday Visitor's Treasury of Catholic Stories by Gerald M. Costello 2001 ISBN 0879739797 page 278" is listed as reference #4 sourcing this sentence: "Catholic tradition includes a large number of stories about the power of prayer." However, a quick check of Google Books, where History2007 gets all his references from, shows that that particular chapter is entitled: "On History's Stage: Mother Teresa's Worldwide Mission Begins on a Train Ride." The chapter begins page 276 to 279. [11] Malke 2010 ( talk) 23:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Item 3:
Item 4:
Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 01:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated the article for deletion. There seems to be no progress in the 3O discussion. The article does not offer any illuminations on Catholic beliefs, there is no notability, possible copyright violations, as well as original research and complete lack of sources to confirm Catholic beliefs. Malke 2010 ( talk) 17:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Please do not move my posts, as you did here [13] without my permission. Malke 2010 ( talk) 21:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Please list 5 Catholic beliefs in the power of prayer, using reliable sources and not links back to Wikipedia pages. Malke 2010 ( talk) 21:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
"The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful" Jas.5:16 (NAB) Mannanan51 ( talk) 02:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)mannanan51
An article that purports to present "Catholic beliefs on prayer" seems to allot an undue amount of space to "promises". While the lead states, "Despite the promises associated with power of prayer, the direct measurement of its effect is often discouraged ...", the article then goes on to discuss at some length no less than seven separate traditional pious practices which appear to involve "promises". As currently presented this seems to suggest a rather significant "quid pro quo" aspect to Catholic prayer. (In addition, "Catholic figures such as saints, preachers, or popes ..." may convey said "promises" but they can hardly make them.) Secondly, each of the listed devotions has its own entry, should a reader be interested in additional information. A simple listing, or abbreviated summary in a single paragraph would appear both sufficient and more efficient. (The entire section on the Power of the Rosary is better served in one of the Rosary articles.) All of the mentioned devotions are based on private revelation. While they may each be entirely edifying, Catholics are not obliged to believe in any of them. "Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith..." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #67). Some of these devotions, have more "currency" than others. The discussion re Bridget of Sweden states that the prayers and promises were published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis, suggesting an implied endorsement. However, if one follows the link to the full article about St. Bridget, it indicates that the AAS "...found the alleged promises unreliable, and directed local ordinaries not to permit the circulation of pamphlets containing the promises..." This includes a citation and link directly to AAS and would appear to be a more reliable source than that cited in the instant article. I have not made any edits as yet, lest I inadvertently kick over an anthill, but this article could use a good weed-wacking. Mannanan51 ( talk) 03:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)mannanan51
The other article is but a subset of this, so should merge. Let us wait a day or two, and if no objections it can just be done. History2007 ( talk) 07:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
When I first read Prayer forms I thought it clean and concise. However, I think it appropriate to merge with Roman Catholic Prayer ---just as I think it equally appropriate to move the Devotions section over to the Roman Catholic Devotions page (perhaps with a separate sub-heading). RC Prayer is a general overview, while Devotions pertain to particular practices; plus RC Devotions could use a few more. Mannanan51 ( talk) 23:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)mannanan51
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Rawlangs ( talk · contribs) 23:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
A good article is—
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) | Overall, the prose does not read smoothly. For instance, it is unclear how the content of Belief in Prayer actually relates to the title of that section. Why, in explicating the catholic belief in prayer, is it necessary to know that Jesus prayed? I am not saying that it isn't important, but to a non-Catholic, it is not clear how it is important. The section reads like a collection of summaries of primary sources. Rather than summarizing, try to make factual claims supported by those sources that help readers understand their underlying concepts and why they are important. Some sections are written better than others. The section Forms of prayer is clearly written in that it provides factual information related to its topic, but only discusses petition, leaving out the signposted blessing, intercession, thanksgiving, and praise. Lack of signposting is a consistent problem in the article, and contributes to the overall lack of clarity. The section on devotions appears to be well written but fails completely to explain what a devotion is, which should be the obvious starting point of a section on devotions. There are many more problems in this article. Editors should start by fixing the ones listed above. A solid understanding of WP:BETTER will help editors make improvements to this article. |
![]() |
(b) (MoS) | There are errors and inconsistencies in punctuation (see WP:PUNCT), especially relating to the integration of footnotes (the number goes directly after the punctuation mark, not before, and a space follows the citation unless followed directly by another citation; see WP:FN). The lead does little to summarize the content of the article. Nothing in the lead, for instance, led me to expect I would be reading about either devotions or methods of prayer. There are many, many style problems in this article. Someone with a solid understanding of WP:Style needs to go over it carefully and repeatedly to clean it up. To comply with GA standards, the lead needs to be completely rewritten to comply with WP:LEAD, and someone needs to carefully address the many problems with paragraphing to comply with WP:LAYOUT. |
![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (major aspects) | The article fails to even talk about the aspects of prayer it promises to talk about. After reading teachings on prayer, I did not feel I even got an overview on teachings on prayer. There has to be more than two perspectives in the Catholic Church, and the article fails to unpack even the two it mentions. Expressions of Prayer does not address all of the forms of expression it signposts, and there are more types of expression. I've heard of nuns dancing the Hail Mary, and I would consider that an expression. The Song of Songs, as I recall, has some very interesting things to say about the expression of prayer. There is just so much material left on the table throughout the article. More research needs to be done, as this is a huge topic. |
![]() |
(b) (focused) | Because of the poor quality of the lead, the article lacks organization and thrust. Without a good lead, I have no notion of what the scope of the article should be, and so I have no way of knowing whether it goes off course. I don't think it does, but I'm only guessing without someone suggesting a structure. As it stands, the article is largely a loosely organized collection of quotations from primary sources. Is devotion a type of prayer? It's not listed in the types or expressions of prayer, and not explained in any way. Is this out of scope? Hard to say. A good lead will, I'm sure, help integrate the various sections into a cohesive whole. Write the lead! |
![]() |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
The article appears to be heavily and systemically biased. (See WP:BIAS) This type of bias can show itself as an exclusion of information. I would assume most of the people working on this article are Catholic. I would recommend trying to revise the article under the assumption that non-Catholics are reading it, and trying to provide useful and complete information to them. The article should be useful to someone with literally no prior knowledge of Catholicism. There are about 1.2 billion Catholics. That leaves about six billion non-Catholic potential readers. Reach out to them! |
![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | Good job here. What about some images of people engaged in prayer though? There must be some on Wikimedia, and as people still pray, there should probably be images of them doing so. |
![]() |
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | The images all belong here, but the captions could use some minor work. All of them should conform to MOS:CAPTION, but this is a minor point. Good job. |
![]() |
Please add any related discussion here.
Perhaps this subject could be reeopened now with the refurbished article? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 20:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
In case anyone is wondering, the section on Vocal Prayer is longer than that of Mental Prayer and its expressions because (1) it is likely that most familiar to most people, and (2) the latter group each has its own Main article. Mannanan51 ( talk) 01:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Mannanan51
The result of the move request was: Moved as clear consensus has been established. ( non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 19:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Roman Catholic prayer →
Prayer in the Catholic Church – Before anyone jumps to conclusions, this has nothing to do with the "Roman" in the title. Several similar articles' titles are formatted <main topic> in <organization>; e.g.,
Dogma in the Catholic Church,
Ordination of women in the Catholic Church,
Marriage in the Catholic Church. To meet
WP:CONSISTENCY, this article's title should be no different. Deus vult (aliquid)!
Crusadestudent (
talk)
21:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Catholic prayers is a redundant, low-quality, short article. If there's any worthwhile content there, it should be merged into this article. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} talk | contribs) 15:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} talk | contribs) 20:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)