This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) buidhe17:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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⋉talk18:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
Penance
First I would say that it should list its multiple common names, reconciliation and confession which are more common then penance. Second the section states "Serious sins (mortal sins) should be confessed at least once a year and always before receiving Holy Communion, while confession of venial sins also is recommended." The Catholic Church requires catholics to go to confession at least once a year, no matter if the person is in a state of mortal sin or not. 107.77.194.157 (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If one would like to know additional names for a thing, they can generally go to the article for that thing, where they will be listed. Remsense ‥ 论16:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2024
The section about the calling of the first Crusade needs clarification. It, like every other crusade, was initialized as a pilgrimage, as shown in the initializing speech Urban II gave: <https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/urban2a.asp>. This was not a formal military group, and it lacked leading tacticians or generals because it was not intended as an invasion force. It operated as such when it got to the area around Jerusalem, but that was due to the decision of the group, not the official decree that began the pilgrimage. 135.134.66.100 (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Help me here. You're thinking of a demonominational article broader about Catholicism, that is distinctly broader the ambit of communion with the Pope? Remsense ‥ 论08:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the clear counterargument here would seem to be, to a degree unmatched in each comparable example, Catholicism as a social, cultural, and confessional reality is coextensive with the particular institution and authority of the church. Clearly, like any thing that includes billions of people, that doesn't mean it's a monolith, but I do not really see how a split along the pattern of the example above is even workable. Remsense ‥ 论12:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult for me to understand what the Catholics believe and practice, because a lot of the attention in the current article is given to the Church itself. On the other hand, it is very easy to read what the beliefs and practices of Protestantism are. I had to go to Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on Roman Catholicism to be able to much more easily read how Catholicism and Protestantism compare, and I had to guess many readers throughout the past 20 years share my experience. I know that Wikipedia has a page on Catholic theology, but it is much more involved and scholarly than a summary style article. Kenneth Kho (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you find the subject very difficult to grasp, I question why you are are proposing this massive restructuring with the confidence that it will clarify matters. It seems like you would not know one way or the other. Remsense ‥ 论14:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did know, by looking at Encyclopedia Britannica, which is unfortunate because Wikipedia has a much larger readership. I am proposing this restructuring for the benefit of other readers. Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: While this proposal has appeared a couple times before, I have a hard time seeing the utility in creating a "Catholicism" article when we could instead discuss ways to improve Catholic theology. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I support this. Catholicism (its theology, tradition, etc) exists outside the roman catholic church as well (see independent catholicism, sedevacantism and old catholicism, for example). Στάλιν και παραλλαγή (talk)
What benefit would be obtained by a new article, as those subjects already have articles covering them? The scope of those subjects is explicitly that they are not part of the Catholic Church, which is consistent with equating Catholicism with the Catholic Church. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on Protestantism as a branch and theology, which is separate from individual protestant churches, and we have an article on Eastern orthodoxy as a branch and theology, separate from the eastern orthodox churches, why don't we do the same for catholicism as a branch and theology, have a catholicism article separate from the catholic churches (Roman Catholic, Old catholic, independent catholic, etc)? It just seems logical, you know. The benefit would be consistency and an article on Catholic beliefs, theology, traditions, etc that would summarize everything nicely. Στάλιν και παραλλαγή (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, given what has been touched on so far I feel the difference is pretty clear: we're running into issues when there is one identifiable institution that underlies and is more or less coextensive with the denomination in question. These aren't monoliths, but we're not writing comparative monographs, but brief articles. Remsense ‥ 论20:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question – what I would want is a rough outline at the very least. As it stands, I am rather unimpressed by the distinction in scope that exists between Eastern Orthodox Church and Eastern Orthodoxy. It simply is not clear to me what should go in one article or the other, and this needs to be discerned before we make any premeditated changes here. Let's break the bodies down:
Eastern Orthodox Church is 15k words – divided into roughly equal thirds of "history", "institution", and "theology/religious life".
Eastern Orthodoxy is 6.5k words – with three-quarters "theology/religious life", and one-quarter "institution".
To make the confusion explicit, that roughly works out to a "theology/religious life" suprasection given 5k words in each article, so one is effectively not summarizing the other. Much of the content seems to be of roughly equivalent merit if it appears in the overlapping scope of each articles. It just feels an immensely awkward line if we wanted to cut it more cleanly—either we get a totally bloated or over-summarized omnibus article if we do it wrong (we could potentially do it right by keeping this article in mind, maybe), or we could get two incomplete, broken articles. I think it's fair to say in their present state these articles aren't really separate in scope—one is contained within the other.
Actually, what I think could work here is treat History of the Eastern Orthodox Church seriously, i.e. mercilessly summaryslash down the history chunk of Eastern Orthodox Church, which then maybe has room to balance the other material that's presently awkwardly copied or elaborated upon slightly in Eastern Orthodoxy. The point I'm making here, is this does not seem like the best model for basing a premeditated refactoring like this on. Remsense ‥ 论19:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To start with, the theology, liturgy, traditions, sacraments sections of Eastern Orthodoxy are already much more expansive than their much smaller counterparts in Eastern Orthodox Church. If there is a Catholicism article, we would see those sections expanded there and reduced here, and we also have room for minority views such as traditionalist Catholicism, and expand upon how Catholicism affected the rest of the world such as our calendar and our holidays. Kenneth Kho (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In principle this is a solid proposal, my hesitation is similar to Remsense's in that I'm not really sure what such a page would look like... Perhaps an alternative could be to make Catholicism a disambiguation page, that would allow for broader coverage while preventing us from just duplicating a lot of existing text in other articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the disambiguation page has that many traffic means people are looking for the actual Catholicism article and did not find any, it is natural that people say they understand Catholic Church has authority over Catholicism but at the same time Catholicism is still a religion used regularly in national censuses that usually has its own page. Kenneth Kho (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguation page gets ~30 views a day. As to Might does not make right as they say, that's a nice sentiment but not in keeping with Wikipedia's policies. One could make the same arguments as HEB to justify reassigning United States as a disambiguation. Indeed, proportionally, there are more people resident in countries that have some permutation of "United States" in them that are not the USA than self-described Catholics who are not part of the Catholic Church. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a well documented pro-USA bias on wiki... Pointing to that to excuse another bias doesn't make sense. I would also note that any members of Catholic denominations (Roman or otherwise) should be disclosing a COI when participating in this discussion given the clear bias issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear that the Roman Catholic Church would be that primary topic, if we want to look at what other wikis do they generally seem to have an article at catholiscism, for example Simple[1]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What are the high quality sources that the proposed article would be based on, and how do they define "Catholicism" as a phenomenon/term apart from the Catholic Church? Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I get what you mean, the Roman Catholic Church isn’t the only Church that sees itself as Catholic, but I think this is already covered in Christianity BathTubJesus (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: This is original research on your part, and it's clearly missing a lot of context. Please take a look at First Crusade. Remsense ‥ 论 05:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)