Talk:Interdict

Lede

The first sentence is clumsy or even ungrammatical: the core of it is "...ban...that the rites..." It looks like art by committee. Someone who knows both canon law and English ought to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.188.249 (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal

I have removed the line "An interdict against a country would often cause the citizens of that country to demand the government fix whatever caused the interdiction, or in some cases to rebel and overthrow the government," as there are no examples listed in the page. If there are any known examples, I would of course encourage the replacement of the relevant text, but as it is, I don't think the unsupported statement should be included in the article.

Last rites

I recall reading somewhere that anointing of the sick, at least in the form of last rites, was the only sacrament allowed under an interdict. Can anyone confirm if this is true? If so, the article should make mention of this. -R. fiend 17:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Anthropologist views

The anthropologist's view does not belong on this page, but on Maltese history. It will be moved to Malta's talk page, where an editor there can incorporrate it into that article. JBogdan 21:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference prejudical to NPOV

A contributor insists on referring to the interdiction in the 1960s of voters of the Malta Labour Party going as far as to create a section called "Twentieth century examples". This prejudices the article's NPOV through giving this episode undue wieght.

First, why 20th century examples? If we're seeking to be up-to-date why not quote cased from the 21st century where there are instances of the Church using interdiction to influence voting? If any century would do why not the 18th, or the 15th, or the 12th?

The interdiction of Malta Labour Party voters is insignificant in a general article on interdiction. As has been stated on undue weight "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

The case is already mentioned in the entry on the Malta Labour Party and Michael Gonzi. No further reference is warranted. Not to mention the fact that there are a number of significant factual inaccuracies (e.g. interdiction was not lifted in 1969 but in 1964).

Demdem (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think it gives undue weight, then find other examples for balance. I have found two more - all cited. But instead your aim seems to be to remove information - your latest POV censorship [1]. Since your main interest is Malta, it looks as if you are trying to hide something. Twice interdicting half a country for several years for political reasons is an important example of how this power is used. --08:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.28.152 (talk)

Oh yeah, "trying to hide something", I had written most of the Malta Labour Party article including the part on interdiction (minus your inaccuracies -- interdiction was lifted in 1964 and it's not the same thing as peace between the Church and the MLP which happened in 1969). I just have a sense of perspective and just happen to think that Malta is not the centre of the universe and the MLP does not feature that prominently in the history of the Catholic Church. And sorry, you do not make something with undie weight having due weight just because you scramble off to find -- wow, two examples!

But I do not intend to upset a Little Malteser. So yeah, I'll leave it there. It would be cruel to burst your little bubble.

Demdem (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved.  Skomorokh  07:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Interdict (Roman Catholic Church) → Interdict — This is the only article which could be referred to by the noun "Interdict." "Interdict" may also be employed as a verb to refer to other articles, but nouns normally take precedence for the same reason that article titles should be nouns and not verbs. The disambiguation page can be linked via a hatnote on this article. Surveying the incoming links to Interdict, the concept in Roman Catholicism is the most commonly intended meaning anyway. Neelix (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Two Mentions of Malta

1961 - 1969 period, when there was an interdict against the Labour Party, is both under "notable local" and "notable personal" sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.79.110.68 (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixed it. 20:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Veverve (talk)

Requested move 17 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Number 57 22:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Interdict → Interdict (Catholic Church) – To distinguish it from the legal term and make it WP:PRECISE. Interdict should be used as a the DAB instead of Interdict (disambiguation). Veverve (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)—Relisted. 2pou (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck███ 23:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is not a separate article on interdict-in-law, and the word "interdict" never appears in the text of court order nor injunction (okay, it appears once in a see also link to Interdicts in Scots law, but with no further explanation, and that is a very minor and tiny article). There's no need to disambiguate from meanings that don't have Wikipedia articles, and "interdict" is not really used as a synonym for injunctions nowadays unless you have a lawyer who likes using archaic terms for fun. SnowFire (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose the Catholic interdict seems PRIMARY [2] (t · c) buidhe 00:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support the Catholic interdict does not appear to be primary [3] -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support – no primarytopic; disambiguation serves better here. Dicklyon (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per SnowFire, no problem has been demonstrated that would require moving this article. No such user (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The DAB has five other articles to which this could redirect if it were not for the ecclesiastic usage, all of them contenders for primary topic both by significance and usage. So far best to disambiguate. Andrewa (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no other article that would be titled "Interdict" other than Interdicts in Scots law, and pageviews indicate this article is the WP:primary topic even if we include interdiction. Station1 (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

---

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.