Talk:Papal primacy

Requested move 30 May 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move per unanimous consensus. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 19:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

Primacy of the Bishop of Rome → Papal primacy – Per WP:COMMONNAME (see this Google NGram; full current title is too long to search, but first 5 words barely show up together), WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, and WP:CONCISE. Current title is unnecessarily long, not as common, and not as concise as possible within guidelines. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. We already have Historical development of the doctrine of papal primacy. Gulangyu (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Lead can explain need for " Bishop of Rome". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Could you please give more arguments? Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: Five arguments listed so far, by myself and the other commenters, isn't enough? WP:COMMONNAME (per the ridiculous disparity in the NGram) and WP:CONCISE (2 words vs. 6 words) should be more than enough on their own in this case. Not to mention that most people have heard of "papal primacy", but will probably scratch their heads in confusion at "primacy of the Bishop of Rome" (so WP:RECOGNIZABILITY applies). And now per @Gulangyu:'s vote, we know that WP:CONSISTENCY applies as well. (Sorry if I'm rehashing, but I think this is a worthwhile elaboration of what I meant when I listed these policies originally.) Jujutsuan (formerly Crusadestudent) (talk | contribs) 21:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support, as per above. Thanks for the elaboration. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: Thank you. I'm rereading my comment above, and I'm realizing it might have come across as rude. That was not my intent. I was surprised, though, that you were asking for more arguments. No hard feelings? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 22:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support, as per above. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Major confusion of terms

I notice that throughout the article, there seems to be much confusion between Papal supremacy and Papal primacy. Much of the content in the article is actually concerned with and talking about supremacy, not primacy. For example, see the Orthodox view section, which describes objections to supremacy. I fear it may be necessary to move much of the content here to the supremacy article. Input, especially from those knowledgeable about the distinction, would be appreciated. Ergo Sum 20:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is so much content devoted to Historical Development when there is an entire separate article devoted to that? I think that material should be seriously culled. No one wants to read it twice. Duplicate material should be removed, information not in the Main moved there. It would provide a better focus for this article, making it easier to read. Manannan67 (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: @Manannan67: @BoBoMisiu: @Evensteven: I tried to sort things out. Veverve (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Veverve: Thanks for your work. It still seems to me that the two sections concerning the Eastern Orthodox view are responsive to supremacy, not primacy. As far as I am aware, the Orthodox actually accept papal primacy, hence the primus inter pares doctrine. It would follow, then, that any reference to an Orthodox "objection" be moved to the papal supremacy article and there instead be a section in this article that fleshes out the primus inter pares view and links to that article. Ergo Sum 16:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: Is it better now? Veverve (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Veverve: Yes, much better. Thank you for your great work. Ergo Sum 16:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: what do we do with all of BoBoMisiu's feedback in this talk page? He has not come back since he has been blocked three years ago so I doubt we can ask him anything. Veverve (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Manannan67:, perhaps the question is why there's a separate article for historical development, which probably should be a section of the main article instead. Norm1979 (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

removed a section

I removed a whole section called "Opposition arguments from Church Councils." Not only were they not NPOV, but they actually cited pretty much only 2 sources. One was a dude called Peter Doeswycky, a guy who has no info other than him writing about "Romanism", and the other was a paper from a pastoral conference for Lutherans. --70.24.86.150 (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Peaceray: Hello. The removal of the section is actually a consensus on another article where these points were copy pasted. Here is a brief set of reasons:

• 1) The name itself is unclear and not neutral
• 2) The section primarily relies on 2 sources that literally cannot be allowed on Wikipedia. Source #1 is from someone called "Peter J. Doeswyck". Outside of him attaching D.D to his name, it's not even clear that the man has any qualifications let alone relevant qualifications. Google search brings nothing other than his books written in 1960s trying to undermine what he calls "Romanism." Clearly a source that is not notable let alone neutral, let alone academically well received. The other source is from Philip Schwerin. The only notable thing I could find is that this man was a Lutheran pastor who passed away relatively recently. Just to give an idea of how inadmissible his source is, it ends with a line that states that "Rome's history" was used by God to give his church a desire to thoroughly reform. It's some draft apparently presented at a lutheran conference.

I am fine if someone were to remove these sources and rewrite the article using some other, but as it stands, currently, these sources and info derived from them is unallowable. This is a consensus reached by me @Veverve: and @Richard Keatinge:, since the same sort of nonsense was copy-pasted on an article we were editing. --70.24.86.150 (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi 70.24.86.150,

• You state that The removal of the section is actually a consensus on another article where these points were copy pasted.

  That point is nothing without context. Please include a link to the talk page & section.

• You wrote: they actually cited pretty much only 2 sources. One was a dude called Peter Doeswycky,[...], and the other was a paper from a pastoral conference for Lutherans.

  Out of the 19 citations for the section:

  • Three are by Doeswyck
  • Two cite a paper from a pastoral conference for Lutherns. Why is a paper entitled "How the Bishop of Rome Assumed the Title of 'Vicar of Christ'" be irrelevant or undue for an article on Papal primacy?

You have given no justification for the removal of the other citations such as the Catholic Encyclpedia, Migne, Mansi, or Mathews.

At this point, I want to hear from other editors as to why this section should be entirely removed. Again, please see the WP:VNT essay where it states in a nutshell, Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source. Peaceray (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve, Revelation2134, Pseudo-Richard, Montalban, Matthewrobertolson, MainBody, LaurelLodged, ColoniesChris, and Aelmsu: You have all edited this section, so please chime in.

70.24.86.150, I am noting here that this section has been around since at least October 2011, so WP:EDITCONSENSUS applies to its existence. Get consensus. Peaceray (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Peaceray: The consensus is at Talk:Papal supremacy#removed a section. Veverve (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Veverve. Although the same citations were used for the sections on both articles, I reject the removal of this section on the grounds of WP:EDITCONSENSUS & that there is no explanation as to why citations from the Catholic Encyclpedia, Migne, Mansi, or Mathews should be removed. I am doing so because it is just inappropriate to removed citations & the associated material without a thorough explanation. I am reacting primarily to behavior than to content, so I will not stand in the way of consensus. I find that unexplained removal of cited material with a mere explanation of WP:NPOV often is a deletion based on WP:OR.

I think that a rewrite removing any non-reliable sources might be a better. Peaceray (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Peaceray: the structure of the section and other details derive from these 2 sources. Of course, whatever they may have gotten right is probably supported by other sources, but we won't know that until we get rid of these bad sources, and rewrite it entirely using reliable sources. Just to repeat the Scherwin article ends with how "Rome's history" was used by God to bring a desire of reformation in the hearts of believers. It is not a neutral source, and it is not a notable one to be included here. 70.24.86.150 (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Peaceray: @Veverve: By the way, the other sources are suspect as well. While their authors at least are somewhat notable, one source derives from 1700s and the other from 1800s... Immediately raising suspicions as to why a more recent source cannot be used to support these allegedly notable enough counter-arguments. So to recap, the section which is not neutrally written to start with uses 2 unallowable sources and 2 others, at least, that are from 1700s and 1800s respectively. This is just the ones I checked superficially. Good luck finding out if those sources actually state what's being asserted, since a link isn't contained here... and who knows what I will find if I look for other sources. 70.24.86.150 (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:OLDSOURCES. Just because a source is old does not mean that it is inaccurate. I often use 19th-century sources. Peaceray (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, see WP:PUBLISHED. Peaceray (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

BTW:

• https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=patrologia+latina+migne#%2528x0%253Abook%2Bx4%253Adigital%2529format
• https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=Sacrorum+Conciliorum+Nova+et+Amplissima+Collectio+au%3AMansi&qt=results_page#%2528x0%253Abook%2Bx4%253Adigital%2529format

Peaceray (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Peaceray: Look, it doesn't matter as far as I can tell. The fact that it significantly depends on 2 inadmissable sources already means it needs to be written from scratch. The addition of 18th century sources merely raises questions. If these are notable objections that need to be on a main article, why are they not more widely covered? The 2 already violate WP:RS requirement, and these other 2 are just evidence, as far as I can tell, that these objections are either WP:SYNTH or not notable enough to have presence here.

By the way, this also smells of WP:SYNTH, because the "Patrologia Latina" is just a collection of Church fathers, which probably means the section used a Church father quote and then presents it as an objection, which is WP:SYNTH. This has "Unencyclopedic" written all over it. 70.24.86.150 (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your characterization of two sources being inadmissible, as I have asked before: Why is a paper entitled "How the Bishop of Rome Assumed the Title of 'Vicar of Christ'" be irrelevant or undue for an article on Papal primacy? Peaceray (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, for further examination by editors, some additional information on Peter Doeswyck's publishing. (Note "Controversial literature" genre)

• "Doeswyck, Peter J. 1907- [WorldCat Identities]". WorldCat.org. Retrieved 2022-06-15.
• "Doeswyck, Peter J. 1907- [WorldCat Identities]". WorldCat.org. Retrieved 2022-06-15.

Peaceray (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Peaceray:

• 1 - Regarding Schwerin: Because it's not notable, has 0 serious academic citations, is written by an obscure Lutheran pastor and was presented at an obscure Lutheran meeting. And is obviously not neutral since the paper ends with these words, and I quote: "Through all this the Lord brought to the hearts of many a longing for a thorough reformation of the church." Does this sound like a neutral academic source to you?

• 2 - Regarding Doeswyck: The World Cat article you cite characterizes it as "controversial literature." Do I really have to say anything at this point?

The entire section violates 1) NPOV. 2) Has 2 inadmissable sources, at least. 3) Violates WP:SYNTH, by linking a 19th century collection of Church fathers and then arguing that their quotes are objections used today. 70.24.86.150 (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. As noted before, I want to hear from other editors as to why this section should be entirely removed or whether 11-year old content can be revised appropriately. I am curious to hear from others. I will probably pause on continuing here to give others the time to respond. Peaceray (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Peaceray: not exactly sure what else is there to wait for? The evidence is damning as it stands. 70.24.86.150 (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

As per WP:CONSENSUS, Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus. This section has been there over a decade, a few more days or even weeks should not matter much, especially as per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. 70.24.86.150 & I hardly constitute or have arrived at a consensus. Anything short of waiting for other editor input would be tendentious editing. Peaceray (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Peaceray: It's not that I have a problem with waiting, I am just failing to understand what anyone could possibly add to so much evidence that the section should either be removed (my inclination) or written from scratch. 70.24.86.150 (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Because I have not had time to review the text or citations, & have no immediate plans to do so. Hopefully I can review it all over the weekend. Oh, & I am not just taking your word for it, although I would acquiesce if other knowledgeable editors weighed in. Peaceray (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Peaceray: With all due respect, you heard from me, you heard from @Veverve:, and you yourself saw how the source is not reliable, with your own find on WorldCat. Are we going to include mistakes until the weekend because you are not willing to review obvious evidence? This is cause for immediate revert. 70.24.86.150 (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I advise you wait until roughly Monday morning. Not everyone has the free time to do extensive research whenever they want, I think one can WP:AGF that it is not WP:STONEWALLING. Who knows, maybe the findings will be helpful. But I stand by my position on the reliability of those sources, i.e. those sources are not reliable and should be removed along with what they support. Veverve (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

70.24.86.150, I think you would do well to read Northamerica1000's essay, WP:HASTY. I assure you that no lives were lost due to a couple of days delay while I attempted to examine citations. Avoiding abrupt changes in content is exactly the reason for WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Peaceray (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

After trying to find citations of Doeswyck's cited work, the only thing that I really learned was how to spell his name. Google Book & Google Scholar searches revealed several catalog listings of his books, a couple of reviews of Ecumenicalism and Romanism in contemporary Lutheran publications (online but behind paywalls), a mention in Spyros Filos's self-published book, Are There Really Seven Sacraments?, inclusion in the bibliography of Mario Colacci's book The Doctrinal Conflict between Roman Catholic and Protestant Christianity, & discussion in the Schwerin article. Thus, Doeswyck's Ecumencialism and Romanism seems to fail WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

As I do not fluently read Latin, I did not attempt the Latin sources.

This is not an area in which I am knowledgeable. It may be that the history of the various councils can be documented by other sources. But that would be the task of other editors, not this one. I acquiesce to deletion of the section based on the lack of reliable sources, especially since the creator & other editors of the section have not stepped forward to explain why it should still be include. If the latter was done, I might change my conclusions, but otherwise I will no longer object to the deletion of this section. Peaceray (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Peaceray: glad we worked it out. Thanks 70.24.86.150 (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Overlapping paragraphs on history

There are 2 partially overlapping paragraphs, "Development of the doctrine" and "Historical development", both sending to the same main article, History of papal primacy. The distinction is legitimate in an academic, analytical sense, but currently the material is too intertwined. An editor-hero should step in and try to fix it. See also the "apparent contradiction" tag. Arminden (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)