Disputatio:Ecclesia Catholica

E Vicipaedia

Ecclesia Catholica Pagina Mensis est aut iam fuit.

Index 1 Pagina Mensis 2 Spoken 3 several things 4 Plagiarism? Oh dear, oh dear! 5 Antiquitas ecclesiarum Christianarum

[recensere] Pagina Mensis

This is on the queue Mycēs set up for the Pagina Mensis.

Suggestions: This article is badly in need of some NPOVing!

Is this article for real? Is it a joke? A hoax? Is it part of a plot by the world-wide leaderhip of Opus Dei? Has anyone actually read it? The Latin is macaronic (e.g., "ita comencebant dies floris Ecclesiae, super fundamenta decadutae societatis antiquae," "religio iudaica a Deo voluta" ["the Jewish religion rolled by God"], and "credo" gets a nominative, "credum") and the POV that of a Spanish Inquisitor (e.g., telling denunciations of the heretic Protestants, "qui estimebant homines non pares esse ad bonum faciendum, etiam Deo auxiliante," and a bold sally against the Enlightenment, that "mala vocata 'Illuminatio,' qui multos martyres dedit Ecclesiae"). Maybe someone could add a stirring salute to the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, or perhaps a glowing account of an auto-da-fe. Severus Censor, 3 April 2006.

[recensere] Spoken

Hi, I am a scolar of linguistics and I can read Latin (hopefully!). I have made a spoken version of this article and so it is a Spoken Wikipedia article.Magicalsaumy 00:52, 10 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! This is, to the best of my knowledge, the first spoken article on the Latin Wikipedia! --Tbook 20:44, 10 Martii 2006 (UTC)

[recensere] several things

First, let me consent with severus censor...this is not an encyclopedia article, but a brochure, and 2 millenia of very dark and evil things done by this church are not only not considered in this article, its tone dismisses the possibility. I must also support the removal of the spoken latin link for the reasons propsed by user "13:03, 18 Iunii 2006 213.140.6.99 (spoken article is a joke; numbers are read in english, and words are misspoken.", and also for the reason that, due to this article's gross violation of pov policy, it should be changed drastically, and therefore the spoken link will no longer be useful. Thoughts?--Ioshus Rocchio 15:24, 18 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

You're right when you say that the article isn't complete, like a lot of Vicipaedia articles. But we should consider that this isn't the most visited language, and articles here are longer made than other lanugages, like english or italian. Everyone should try to integrate the articles uncomplete he finds visiting Vicipaedia: it's not an easy work. Abaz 08 October 2006

For my part, Abaz, I try to stay away from religious article, especially catholic ones. As a former catholic, I do not approach this matter with an aequum POV. My perspective, even if i tried to keep it in check, would manifest in ways like choosing the word "facini" instead of "acta", etc. I think in terms of improving this article, most of it should be deleted. This is why I came to the talk page about it, instead of doing so myself.--Ioshus ^(disp) 17:22, 8 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that I did not notice your comment on removing the "spoken article" link earlier. I was unable to listen to the soundfile myself for lack of appropriate hardware and software. The reason why I re-added the link on June 18 was that I felt that a large chunk of content (= the audible resource) should not be removed without discussion. But if this soundfile is bad indeed, then it should of course be removed. --UV 21:36, 8 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

[recensere] Plagiarism? Oh dear, oh dear!

I just went googling and discovered that the text of Vicipaedia's article Ecclesia Catholica seems to be nearly word-for-word the same as the text at a webpage devoted to Vatican City: http://civitas.vaticana.la.infoax.com/. For example, here's the start of Vicipaedia's article:

Ecclesia Catholica maxima ecclesia Christianorum est, per totum orbem diffusa, sed numerum maiorem credentium habens in Europa et America meridionali. Ecclesia Catholica mysticum Christi corpus se considerat, ordinatum in forma visibili sub succesore Sancti Petri, qui papa vocatur, nunc Benedicto XVI. Ergo dicit Christi Ecclesiam in Ecclesia Catholica subsistere. In hac, omnes considerat baptizatos christianos uniri aliquomodo Catholicae Ecclesiae, etiam si distinctionem tenet inter eos qui se declarant catholicos et plenam communionem habent cum ecclesia et papa, et eos qui hanc plenam communionem non servant, et auctoritatem universalem sedis Romae non confiteantur.

And here's the start of the "Vatican City" section Ecclesia Catholica:

Ecclesia Catholica maxima ecclesia Christianorum est, per totum orbem diffusa, sed numerum maiorem credentium habens in Europa et America meridionale. Ecclesia Catholica mysticum Christi corpus se considerat, ordinatum in forma visibile sub succesore Sancti Petri, qui papa vocatur, nunc Benedictus XVI. Ergo dicit Christi Ecclesiam in Ecclesia Catholica subsistere. In hac, omnes considerat baptizatos christianos uniri aliquomodo Catholicae Ecclesiae, etiam si distinctionem tenet inter eos qui se declarant catholicos et plenam communionem habent cum ecclesia et papa, et eos qui hanc plenam communionem non mantinent, et auctoritatem universalem sedis Romae non confiteantur.

What do you think? Identical? (Except for our meridionali for meridionale, our servant for mantinent and our Benedicto XVI for Benedictus XVI?) Both texts follow the same outline. Our text may have links that the "Vatican City" text doesn't, and our section on "Cultus" may have additional or reworked material and definitely has reworked typography. Should we remonstrate with those clever people at that website for having copied our text? or what? IacobusAmor 12:38, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

FYI: That website isn't the real Vatican City, which I'd guess should include ".va" in its URL. Some of its texts appear to be Scandinavian. Maybe a web-savvier participant here can figure out what's happened. Curious! IacobusAmor 13:34, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I have definitely seen websites quoting a wiki article word for word. I wonder what came first here, the wiki or the vatican city website. If the vatican city website, it would explain the uneasily nauseous feeling I get reading this article. Also if the vatican city website, we should certainly strike the whole thing.--Ioshus Rocchio 15:03, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

When I clicked on it, it said I was visitor 2,081 suggesting that it's probably a recent website, and that the wiki article came first. Not sure, though.--Ioshus Rocchio 15:04, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

I was afraid to click the close bit on the browser that popped up, because I wasn't sure if it would spamm me or not, but I think I agree with Ioshus that this article most likely came first. Alexanderr 15:21, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

I browsed through the history of the text, and the pattern of changes over time strongly suggests that our article came first. Maybe the whole Wiki organization has (or should have) a legal arm that can get websites to conform to generally accepted ethics. If so, it would help to know where to report the discovery of uncredited quotations. Btw, our paragraph quoted above has at least one spelling error: succesore for successore. Spanish influence? IacobusAmor 16:25, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

At a first quick look, this appears to be a violation of the GFDL. If this page is really copied from vicipaedia (and not the other way round), then there should be:

• a reference to vicipaedia as the source
• a link to the article on vicipaedia
• a link to the version history on vicipaedia (to make reference to the authors)
• a link to a local copy of the GFDL
• licencing any changes under the GFDL as well.

I did not find any reference to the GFDL on that page, nor any contact info.

Anyone know how to do a WHOIS lookup on that domain?

Anyone to take the steps described at en:Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Steps and en:Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter#Letter for website that doesn't acknowledge Wikipedia as a source? --UV 20:02, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

<<meekly raises his hand>> I will if no one minds someone of my religious disbeliefs to write the letter. Why do I get myself into these things...?--Ioshus Rocchio 02:10, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be great - also I clicked around, and I think the whole Vicipaedia is copied on that site, not just this article, so I don't think there is a particularly "Catholic" angle to it. Thanks! --Tbook 21:46, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

I think it is just one of those pages that use a robot to pull together a bunch of content so that search engines will draw people to their adds - if you look, it also includes the text of our Constantinus, Benedictus XVI, and Tiberis, as well as a Russian (?) article on platonic philosophy. I think it is fairly safe to say that no human editing went into producing the page. I expect that they have a whole site full of millions of pages of that sort of stuff. Still, they ought to abide by the GFDL, and it wouldn't hurt to contact them. --Tbook 21:33, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

[recensere] Antiquitas ecclesiarum Christianarum

The article begins: "Ecclesia Catholica Romana est ecclesia veterissima Christianorum." This isn't necessarily a neutral point of view. Do the Greek, the Coptic, and the Assyrian (Nestorian) churches, for example, accept that it's true? What would Theodorus II, Pope & Patriarch of Alexandria (Greek Orthodox), and Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of All Africa (Coptic), say? IacobusAmor 03:48, 9 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Iacobus, I don't know what the Greek Orthodox would say, but I don't see how that's POV. After all isn't it the original church, the seat of peter? I thought it was. Alexanderr 05:37, 9 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

You thought in accordance with its claims, but those claims may not be unbiased.

1. Do all Christians recognize that the RCC is "the original church"? If they don't, claiming that it is represents a nonneutral POV. Do Seventh-Day Adventists agree? Do all reputable historians? Do all Christians recognize the primacy of Peter among the apostles? From what I've read, Coptic Orthodox Christians hold Mark in higher esteem.

2. People sometimes ask linguists about the ages of the modern languages: isn't, for example, English a younger language than German, seeing as how English developed from a Germanic stock, in part by simplifying its inflectional system and in part by adopting thousands of words from French? So isn't German older? The usual answer is that English and German are the same age, as all living languages are the same age. I was wondering whether the evolution of manners of worshiping may have resembled the evolution of manners of speaking. The structural continuity of the RCC gives the illusion of great age, and may suggest that religions that "broke away" from it are newer, but all surviving belief-systems (even those that claim to maintain "tradition") evolve over time, and in that sense the RCC may be said to be as new as the churches that "departed" from it. IacobusAmor 13:26, 9 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

IacobusAmor, there are quite a few things to consider when using your analogy. In fact so many that it'd be difficult to describe when speaking to a person, and even harder when writing it down with the intent to change someone's mind. For instance it could be argued that English branched off of German, or that the German spoken today is just as new as English; the German it evolved from being an entirely different language. I mean I'm no linguist, but there are so many things to consider in this analogy that it is just mind boggling.

One thing is for sure though, and that is that Protestant religions don't really work with this model. They are really new religions for they disinherited themselves from the head of the church, from the saints, from over a thousand years of tradition and doctrine, and any debates that go along with it, forming their beliefs out of thin air almost, relying solely on the bible, or on the diverse views of their congregations own leaders. They didn't exactly evolve, and no argument can be made that they really were inside the Church for all those centuries.

It's not quite so simple when talking about the eastern religions though, because (the way I understand it) they did grow apart from the Church, having either been separated or isolated for some time. In fact they seem to have equal rights to the saints prior to their separation. The main I simply am not well enough informed to provide an accurate analysis of the eastern churches. One thing though, simply from browsing the English Wikipedia, is that their papal succession doesn't really rival that of the Roman Catholic Church. Alexanderr 22:15, 9 Octobris 2006 (UTC)