Talk:Pneumatomachi

Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was pages merged D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

---

The article says it was suggested that this article should be merged with Macedonians (religious group). Do you approve of or object to the merger?

Approve. They are clearly about the same group. I prefer to have the article named Pneumatomachi, and move the lesser article's information to Pneumatomachi.Glorthac (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Approve I think they are so close together and they are talking about the same group. TucsonDavidU.S.A.03:56, 24 February 2012 (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.

' (c) ?' sic

Not again!? You can't be serious, the Catholic Encyclopedia has entirely passed into the public domain simply by age, copyright is not forever!

There are thousands of Wikipedia-articles using all or most of articles from it, and there is even an elaborate project to keep doing so till it's exhausted! Arcarius 10:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. However, the Catholic Encyclopedia should be cited properly with an attribution template (I have added this to this article), and not cited merely as a "source" (which it has been until now). Despite the source being public domain, and there thus being no copyvio issue, this Wikipedia article incorporates lengthy continuous verbatim passages from that source, and as a result it isn't a 'simple source' that is "summarized in the same way as it is for copyrighted material (and cited in the same way as copyrighted material)". Such incorporated text may be considered 'plagiarized unless it is adequately attributed to the original work', including use of a template. Additionally, Wikipedia readers should know where the material comes from, for several reasons (including, in this case, what Wikipedia itself comments on: "many parts are dated" and "It explicitly follows a Catholic point of view" - see: [1]). Admittedly the recommendations on various Wikipedia pages regarding how to handle this are inconsistent (one place advises the attribution be put in "External links", another to "provide an inline citation and/or add your own note in the reference section"). FeatherPluma (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

The article clearly takes a side against the people in question, calling their beliefs an "error", describing them as maliciously "taking advantage" etc., and in addition takes a side against those modern scholars who dispute the identification of Macedonians and Pneumatomachi.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Taking advantage" is not necessarily a subjective claim. And, which "modern scholars" make this dispute? Complaints without substance is whining. 99.22.228.89 (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The article itself admits that these modern scholars exist. The substance is obvious, and, to use your elegant syntax, baseless objections to legitimate complaints are dickishness.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

But "distorted the apostolic teaching" and "The false teaching of Macedonius" are clearly pejorative and non-neutral terms. There is an NPOV issue here. Nowhere man (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Both phrases ("distorted the apostolic teaching" and "The false teaching of Macedonius") that you point to appear once in the article, in a "Sources" subsection. They are both verbatim quotes of an Orthodox opinion. The phrases are not Wikipedia "facts, statements or positions." That the phrases are quotes is less obvious than it could be (perhaps "should" be), and I will thus modify the presentation of the material to address your concern. I will then remove the NPOV tag. Of course, add it back with an explanation if you have further new specific points. (Please also see the above section on this page; I have tried to address some attribution issues, to which you may be alluding indirectly.) FeatherPluma (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Bad English

There are a lot of words in this article that are abbreviated, left off, mistakenly used, or sentences are simply ungrammatical, making meanings unclear. Can someone who knows the history here please attend to this! Lucy Skywalker (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)