Talk:Alleged corruption in the Catholic Church

Untitled

The content was not all copied from the above article, rather much of it was transcluded from other articles, and may have unrelated content. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Problematic

This article was created via a problematic split from Criticism of the Catholic Church; see Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church#Other side of the same coin and the sections above that section. Transclusions may need to be removed, as they appear to have been added with little care as to to reviewing the content to determine if there was actually reliably sourced criticism in the transcluded content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This page was only created after a consensus decided to split the page at Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This is misleading. As you know, the problem is not only that you split the article (which was my suggestion) with consensus (of only one editor in how you would split). The problem is that you did NOT split content from Criticism of the Catholic Church; you also transcluded content from other articles, that may or may not have reliably sourced content, and you demonstrably did this with little care, as you have been shown examples where you liberally transcluded pages with no content critical of the Catholic church. You have used transclusion as a blunt tool without regard for the text you are transcluding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Is Paganized Christianity an alleged corruption?

I thought I should ask about this as another user questioned it yesterday. Putting it in the article seems like a POV, almost a POV Fork from other articles like Paganism and Christianity. On the other hand, leaving it out removes one of the main criticisms from Restorationists and some Protestants. In short, I can see where people could go both ways on this one, but am interested to know what others think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epiphyllumlover (talk • contribs) 22:35, April 29, 2019 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: you have many editors hard at work correcting this mess; as a courtesy to the rest of us, please sign your posts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Is demon possession an alleged corruption?

It seems to be so due to Emmanuel Milingo. That particular sub-section out of the larger demonic section at least should go back in. It is off-beat, but that is one of the reasons why people read wikipedia. Should some mention be made of Milingo's career/laicization? I don't know.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Rename?

Shouldn't this be Allegations of corruption in the Catholic Church? Cheers, gnu57 22:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Works for me, but you can get better feedback by posting your query at Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church, as this was a rather poorly executed split, and I am not sure if the content will be merged back. @Mannanan51: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Fine with me. Right now I'm trying to salvage Interfaith controversies involving the Catholic Church; total flotsam: a collection of in apropos comments by miscellaneous loopy prelates, and a total misunderstanding (distortion?) of somebody named Pierre Claverie. What's left I will be merging back into the original Criticism article. It's surprising how much room there actually is once you discount irrelevant transclusions. Mannanan51 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The naming guidelines for wikipedia discourage plural page names unless there is a certain compelling reason. I reviewed it not long ago and concluded that this page does not meet the criteria needed for an exception, so I made it singular. However, if you type in "Alleged" into the search box, you will find that not only are some of them plural, but also some of them are spelled with a "d" in the word--an alternative English spelling. So if you want it plural, you probably can do it anyway. Possibly someone will complain, possibly not.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Redirect/Merge made without consensus

I am of the opinion this redirect was unjustified; this had been discussed prior to the move and had the approval of four editors and the input of one other.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church is where discussion is; the content split to here was not as discussed, was not necessary, was not done carefully, and the merge back to the main criticism article is appropriate.

As an added bonus, Mannanan51 is actually carefully re-writing the content rather than just dumping indiscriminate unorganized uncited and poorly written text throughout the Wikipedia, so that's a win. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's try to keep the discussion in one place. Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church is the best place to do that. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)