Talk:Collegiality

I tried to fix the link to the German version "Kollegialität" instead of "Mitarbeiter", however cannot save. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ombart (talk • contribs) 09:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the part about the usage in catholic eclesiological technical speak. I think Michael assumed that they must be using the word in the same way it is normally used and modified the paragraph to fit that, but the word is used in a way which has little to do with its original definition. Here are some webpages that show the use of the word in the technical way:

http://www.tcrnews2.com/genprimacy.html http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/rcatholi.htm (about half the time the word is used) http://www.cwnews.com/news/biosgloss/definition.cfm?glossID=21 (this is a definition which seems to imply the most extreme view of collegiality, that the Pope can't act independantly)

OK, I'm going to look at some web sites .... Michael Hardy 17:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also to confuse the issue further, "collegiality" when referred to be critics means the abuse of collegiality, the college having authority over the members. This usage is also seen in critics using the word "eccuminism" by which they mean "false ecuminism".

Collegiality

May I offer an observation on the section on collegiality in the Catholic Church? The authors seems to define it from the view of its critics. Might I suggest a positive definition? - Collegiality is the idea that the bishops of the Catholic Church collectively share responsibility with the Pope for the Church. This doctrine is not taken to demean the traditional authority of the Pope.I have taken the liberty of editing the article by adding this statement. Gary 7-7-06

Why is there a side bar on the right about all this Roman stuff? It seems quite out of place.--LN

Collegiality among cabinet members

I remember that right after Watergate that some group (I believe it was the Brookings Institution) wrote a book saying that the presidential cabinet should have more collegiality. How might that operate? Sarsaparilla (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

BC/AD versus BCE/CE

The sidebar says: "This article is part of a series on the politics and government of Ancient Rome." The dates given as covered by the series are from 753 "BC" [Before Christ] to "AD" 476 [Anno Domini (the Year of Our Lord)]. Except for the 96-year period after the year 380, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#End_of_Roman_persecution_under_Emperor_Constantine_.28313_AD.29> however, Christianity either did not yet exist or, after it came into existence, had no official role in Roman history. Besides those facts, it is also true that the history of Rome is important to the whole world, not just to Christianity. Therefore, in accordance with modern sensibilities, beautifully articulated by Kofi Annan <Annan, Kofi A., (then Secretary-General of the United Nations) (28 June 1999). "Common values for a common era: Even as we cherish our diversity, we need to discover our shared values". Civilization: The Magazine of the Library of Congress> and quoted in section 2.1 of the Wikipedia article "Common Era," <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era> these dates should be changed from "BC" to "BCE" (Before the Common Era) and from "AD" to "CE" (Common Era).

English is the most widely used language in the world, with hundreds of millions of persons of varying beliefs using it as a second language. Except in articles about Christianity, therefore, all dates in the English version of Wikipedia should be expressed using the non sectarian abbreviations "BCE" and "CE." Wikifan2744 (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

"Non sectarian"?! BC is "non-sectarian" enough for me. The extra E added on for me is nothing more than a big glaring flag of the writers' sympathies, and in truth that is more like sectarianism. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no good rational response to the above two-line non sequitur. For enlightenment on the subject, anyone using dates in the English version of Wikipedia ought to read the Wikipedia article "Common Era," <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era> In section 2.1 of that article Kofi Annan is quoted, as was mentioned above. The complete paragraph containing his words is as follows:

Proponents of the Common Era notation assert that the use of BCE/CE shows sensitivity to those who use the same year numbering system as the one that originated with and is currently used by Christians, but who are not themselves Christian.[82] Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan argued, "[T]he Christian calendar no longer belongs exclusively to Christians. People of all faiths have taken to using it simply as a matter of convenience. There is so much interaction between people of different faiths and cultures – different civilizations, if you like – that some shared way of reckoning time is a necessity. And so the Christian Era has become the Common Era."[83]Wikifan2744 (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think as many people really care what Kofi Annan says as you wish they would! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Why on earth is this the default page when you go to the page for "Colleague"? The idea of people you work with is not exactly relevant to the ancient roman empire or the ancient catholic church. :/ Andreocean (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Collegiality in the Catholic Church

In light of the increasing role of Collegiality in the Catholic Church from Vatican II to Pope Francis, and the controversies surrounding that change, I plan to substantially enlarge that section. When I'm done, the article will probably look quite unbalanced.

If anyone feels such imbalance would be inappropriate, I'd be happy to put the expanded section in a new article with appropriate links between the two articles. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've done a first try at redoing that section, with solid sources this time. It doesn't look all that long so I'll let it sit for a while to see if someone wants me to move it. Personally, I'd like a separate article, but it would be awfully small as it stands. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

After thinking if over, I've decided to move most of the section to Collegiality (Catholic Church), where I could establish appropriate links and categories. I trust the summary I left here is adequate --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Collegiality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130802084853/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_christus-dominus_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_christus-dominus_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Source for "In the Roman Republic" section?

There is no source given on the information in the section currently titled "In the Roman Republic", originally titled "Roman Collegiality" and added in this edit by Kuralyov and not significantly modified since.

The linked wiki articles more or less attest to the existence of the practice described; I am concerned with a source for this practice being called, in some way, "collegiality". 96.243.96.110 (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)