I hate to do this but...
"What is quite striking is how many 20th and 21st century American Catholics who have attended CCD, or whose children attend or have attended CCD do not know what the abbreviation "CCD" stands for, including the many teachers of it."
This sounds like an assumption or opinion to me. Chaz 20:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
well.... my opinion is the same. i work with a few Roman Catholics who had no idea whatsoever what CCD stood for. i'm not a Xtian and i knew. eeeeeek! what's this world coming too?
p.s. maybe it's the Illuminati taking over. hehehehe
The wording on the page (as of 26 April 2006) is not exactly as stated above, so perhaps the author edited it in response to the comment. The "what is quite striking" part might be opinion, but that many children and adults of the last several decades did not know what "CCD" meant is not. It hardly seems a point worth arguing. I came to this discussion specifically to find out why there were all sorts of warning banners at the top of the article--I find them a bit annoying and misleading. How does this issue get resolved so they can be removed?
-- Chkiss 02:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
One word. Sources.
Yes, while I know that the writers likely knew what they were talking about. And most (85%) of the article fits in with the NPOV policy. To someone less almsgiving in regards to Wikipedia articles or a reader who believes it to be POV.... I suggest that people start getting sources for this article fairly ASAP.
However, I'll do some work on gathering sources myself in a little bit. Nateland 00:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to restore this article to something along the lines of its February 2022 structure (see Feb 2022 version), with the historical development of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine laid out ahead of its contemporary usage, and develop the article from there, including more about the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc. in its current form. This would help put current usage in historical context instead of the other way round.
@ PJvanMill and Manannan67, I would be interested in your thoughts as you (PJvanMill) changed the structure and Manannan67 has since edited it. Please let me know what you think. BobKilcoyne ( talk) 06:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I hate to do this but...
"What is quite striking is how many 20th and 21st century American Catholics who have attended CCD, or whose children attend or have attended CCD do not know what the abbreviation "CCD" stands for, including the many teachers of it."
This sounds like an assumption or opinion to me. Chaz 20:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
well.... my opinion is the same. i work with a few Roman Catholics who had no idea whatsoever what CCD stood for. i'm not a Xtian and i knew. eeeeeek! what's this world coming too?
p.s. maybe it's the Illuminati taking over. hehehehe
The wording on the page (as of 26 April 2006) is not exactly as stated above, so perhaps the author edited it in response to the comment. The "what is quite striking" part might be opinion, but that many children and adults of the last several decades did not know what "CCD" meant is not. It hardly seems a point worth arguing. I came to this discussion specifically to find out why there were all sorts of warning banners at the top of the article--I find them a bit annoying and misleading. How does this issue get resolved so they can be removed?
-- Chkiss 02:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
One word. Sources.
Yes, while I know that the writers likely knew what they were talking about. And most (85%) of the article fits in with the NPOV policy. To someone less almsgiving in regards to Wikipedia articles or a reader who believes it to be POV.... I suggest that people start getting sources for this article fairly ASAP.
However, I'll do some work on gathering sources myself in a little bit. Nateland 00:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to restore this article to something along the lines of its February 2022 structure (see Feb 2022 version), with the historical development of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine laid out ahead of its contemporary usage, and develop the article from there, including more about the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc. in its current form. This would help put current usage in historical context instead of the other way round.
@ PJvanMill and Manannan67, I would be interested in your thoughts as you (PJvanMill) changed the structure and Manannan67 has since edited it. Please let me know what you think. BobKilcoyne ( talk) 06:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)