Template:Did you know nominations/Error has no rights
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Error has no rights
- ... that according to the traditional Catholic view that "error has no rights", non-Catholics did not deserve civil or political rights? Source: "A central component of the traditional church-state model was the principle that "error had no rights." This principle was strongly reas serted by Pope Pius IX (1846-1878). Within this framework those outside the Catholic church enjoyed no title in principle to political and civil rights because they lacked the true faith" https://www.jstor.org/stable/23559453
- ALT1:... that the traditional Catholic view that "error has no rights" was rejected during the Vatican II reforms? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/1965/12/08/archives/freedom-of-religion-vatican-decree-supplants-ancient-doctrine-that.html
Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 19:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- ? - Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
See below Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Reviewer's comments
- The first sentence of the article is sourced to Hertzke, but he does not mention heresy or the Inquisition
- Similarly, the quote from Pope Gregory is not there either - are you citing the correct article?
- Nor it the second paragraph of the Repudiation section, which talks only of the 1990s on. I would suggest that date is correct.
- Strongly suggest that this be cleaned up. I am reluctant to certify that the article is fully cited under the circumstances.
- On the other hand...
- The main hook is supported by fn 6.
- Alt hook supported by the New York Times source
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- You're right,
Self-trout. I was citing the wrong source. Now fixed (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
The wording of the hook is a bit more extreme than the quoted text; "did not deserve" is not the same thing as "enjoyed no title in principle to". A wording like "were not entitled to" would be in line with the text. There are a couple of sentences in the article I have similar concerns about, but I have to sit down and see if I can get a copy of the sources first. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your suggested phrasing is, as far as I can tell, a less concise and more euphemistic way of saying the same thing. The entire point of human rights (a superset of civil and political rights) is that they are enjoyed by all people equally. Otherwise it is not really a right, but a privilege granted by higher authority (t · c) buidhe 15:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: It's not a euphemism—it's literally a form of the same word used in the source. Closely reflecting the language of the source is the safest thing to do. Here, "deserve" is a departure from the source, and has harsher connotations. Anyway, I'll find time tonight to take a closer look at the sources. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is no rule that says that Wikipedia must follow the phrasing of the source. Usually that is discouraged (WP:Close paraphrasing). In fact, Wikipedia strives for WP:IMPARTIAL language even if the source does not. (t · c) buidhe 19:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Take it up on the article talk page. The article could stand to be greatly expended. I am satisfied that the changes resolve the issues I pointed out affecting its promotion at DYK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've done some expansion of the article. I still think the original hook has the issue that the use of the word "deserve" is not the WP:IMPARTIAL one because it deviates from the word actually used in the source to have a harsher tone, and I encourage the promoter to use ALT1. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is no rule that says that Wikipedia must follow the phrasing of the source. Usually that is discouraged (WP:Close paraphrasing). In fact, Wikipedia strives for WP:IMPARTIAL language even if the source does not. (t · c) buidhe 19:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: It's not a euphemism—it's literally a form of the same word used in the source. Closely reflecting the language of the source is the safest thing to do. Here, "deserve" is a departure from the source, and has harsher connotations. Anyway, I'll find time tonight to take a closer look at the sources. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your suggested phrasing is, as far as I can tell, a less concise and more euphemistic way of saying the same thing. The entire point of human rights (a superset of civil and political rights) is that they are enjoyed by all people equally. Otherwise it is not really a right, but a privilege granted by higher authority (t · c) buidhe 15:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- You're right,
