Jump to content

Talk:Catholic Church in Afghanistan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCatholic Church in Afghanistan has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 21, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 21, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 11, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

This is a Good Article

[edit]

I'm promoting this article to GA status per the qualifications. It is well written, clear, and of a good, neutral tone. The article is well cited with inline citations, and is fairly comprehensive. The subject is obscure, but interesting, and of clear relevance to the future of religious integration and tolerance in Afghanistan.

Here are a few suggestions for continued improvement:

  • An image or two would be nice. However, because of the location and size of the only chapel, it seems there aren't any free license pictures around. However, finding one would help the article. Anyone travelling to Kabul soon want to snap us a nice picture?
  • A little more on the early history of the church's presence in Afghanistan.

Thanks to the editors working on this article, you've done well, and the article is in a good state for further improvement. Phidauex 16:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged hesitation to convert purportedly due to social pressure

[edit]

This article is overtly bias and exceedingly speculative. For instance, a portion of the article reads:

"The Catholic community in Afghanistan is mainly made of foreigners, especially aid workers, and no Afghans currently are part of the Church, mainly due to great social and legal pressure not to convert to non-Islamic religions."

This passage totally fails to recognize the existence of several more substantive reasons why Afghans simply do not want to become Catholics. There is absolutely no indication that their hesistation to convert is chiefly based on social pressures and not mainly on other premises. This is one of many instances in where the article is not devoid of bias. NPOV tag added. Scythian1 (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide some references of these other reasons, it can be included, but its not my problem if you don't like the fact that christians, once revealed, have to flee the country or be killed, it's the truth. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that you are misconstruing my contention with the article into something wholly irrelevant if not accusatory, establishes your partisanship and slant concerning this article. Moreover, that contested portion - that no Afghans currently being part of the church mainly due to "great" social and legal pressure - does NOT contain any references as well. Thus the initial burden is on YOU to find a proper reference showing that no Afghans currently, are part of the church MAINLY because of great social and legal pressure. Such a showing is necessary given Wikipedia's demanding requirement on original research and its prohibition on speculation. Thus, once you meet that burden, I will happily search for a reference "of these other reasons." Accordingly, speculative content removed. Scythian1 (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "speculation" going on, that is the reason there are no converts, pain of death is a powerful thing. If you think I am wrong, and there are lots of happy Christians worshiping in Afghanistan, provide some references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Roman Catholicism in Afghanistan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of the GA sweeps performed by the Good Article Project Quality taskforce, this article has undergone an individual reassessment to ensure that it continues to meet the Good Article criteria. I found it to be a well-written, very interesting article. Many of the references were dead, so I updated them (mostly through Internet Archive's Wayback Machine). Overall, it is a well-sourced, neutral, stable article with no major issues that I can see. I am closing the reassessment as keep. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I digress. it certainly doesnt seem "good article" as it leaves some info to be desired. the status of specific churches and relations in the country, either after or during the taliban (and post-taliban) are not answered)Lihaas (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

I already found one picture in our files that I posted - I am a member of the Barnabites, the order to which the mission sui iuris is entrusted. I will look for older photos and when I can try to get some current material from Fr. Moretti.

Rev. Peter M. Calabrese, CRSP 21:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC) FRMAVERICK — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRMAVERICK (talk • contribs)

Military Presence

[edit]

Overall good article. I was a bit confused though to learn that there are only about 100 Catholics in the country. I'd assume this doesn't (or didn't) include Catholics within foreign armies. What was the experience of such foreign Catholics? --Zfish118 (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big thanks to the editor who included the new section! --Zfish118⋉talk 05:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Roman Catholicism in Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Roman Catholicism in Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

[edit]
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: moved as proposed. SSTflyer 09:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Roman Catholicism in Afghanistan → Catholic Church in Afghanistan – This is the naming style of many other prominent analogous articles (Catholic Church in the United States, Catholic Church in England, etc.), and is the more appropriate style. Additionally, the page on the universal Church was decisively renamed Catholic Church some time ago, and should set the standard for naming conventions. See this discussion for an example of precedent and discussion of rationale. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a contemporary Chaldean Catholic Church, which split from the Church of the East in 1500's to reunite with Rome before the Jesuits came to Afghanistan. The Chaldean church has no presence Afghanistan, but rather the Latin Church. Still, the modern CotE calls itself "Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East", and "Roman Catholic" leaves no ambiguity. --Zfish118⋉talk 05:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biggest issue is the parent article, which discusses various Oriental, Eastern and Assyrian churches having an historical presence. "Roman Catholic" is both consistent with the parent article and avoids ambiguity. Plus, it the not incorrect in contemporary use, just more precise. See User:Zfish118/Roman Catholic if you are interested. --Zfish118⋉talk 05:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move request consolidated discussion

[edit]

Please see the consolidated discussion/proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#"Catholic Church in" vs. "Roman Catholicism in". --Zfish118⋉talk 05:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Move review

[edit]

[Contents moved to move review.]

Please see move review here Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2016_June#Catholic_Church_in_Afghanistan --Zfish118⋉talk 19:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the move review was endorsed. Jenks24 (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 July 2016

[edit]
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: Opposed. WP:SNOW early close due to recent move review fully endorsed; this is only wasting editors' time. — JFG talk 00:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church in Afghanistan → Roman Catholicism in Afghanistan – I believe the page move from "Roman Catholicism in Afghanistan" to "Catholic Church in Afghanistan" was premature, and I wish to restore the original name. There was no strong consensus for the move, and the arguments cited a non-binding precedent, that of the "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church", as well as an incorrect argument that "Catholic Church in Afghanistan" is more "appropriate". For reasons elaborated on in this essay: WP:Roman Catholic, "Roman Catholic" is an appropriate contemporary name for the church in union with the pope, and may be freely used when there is ambiguity. Several similar name changes were recently opposed by consensus, thus showing that there is no consensus currently for all Catholic related articles to strictly avoid "Roman" in the title.

While there are likely some cases where this change would be appropriate, in the Afghanistan article, it is disruptive, and introduces more ambiguity and inconsistency than the proposal corrected. The parent article for the series, Religion in Afghanistan uses the "Roman Catholic" convention, as do several templates and other Afghan religion articles. The history section for Catholic Church in Afghanistan also discussed the "Nestorian" church (AKA the Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East), which is unaffiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, and the article rename adds ambiguity that is difficult to correct without the "Roman" modifier in the title.

The name change introduces in consistency and ambiguity in the series, that could either be corrected by carefully editing each linked page, or by simply using the original name. --Zfish118⋉talk 06:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC) --Zfish118⋉talk 06:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly oppose In general, there's no need for the "Roman". There's no distinction to be made here between the "Roman" CC and any other church claiming catholicity, or calling itself simply "Catholic". (The CC calls itself simply the CC. The other has a long name with several descriptors; distinguishing between the CC and the other Church will be obvious.) If and when that's necessary, that can be done in-article. There are already plenty of articles named "Catholic Church in..."; try searching for it and you'll see.
Procedurally speaking, I think at this point a joint RM on every single page titled "Catholic Church in COUNTRY", "Roman Catholic Church in COUNTRY", or "Roman Catholicism in COUNTRY" should be started so we can settle this debate once and for all. The joint RM will also probably attract a fuller range of editors to the discussion than these individual ones scattered across arbitrarily selected instances. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 18:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll also add that after an RM consensus that was endorsed by a move review, this new RM by the single opposing editor across any of these discussions comes across as far more disruptive than the original move itself. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 18:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the review was closed five days ago so I can't see what would hsve changrd in such a shory time.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of articles titled with "Catholic Church in" is not in dispute, an I find it irksome to be told to "search and see". I am very aware of the conventions in use, and am not bothered by any so-called in consistency. There is no project wide consensus to resolve this inconstency. The article in question here only passed by a slim margin, and no work whatsoever had been to fix in consistencies. Several other recent proposals failed. Page names should not be determined by a coin flip; stability is far more valuable. If the original nominator would like to build a project wide consensus, that is one thing. But adhoc changes without follow through ate disruptive to other's efforts. I've been interested in this page for several years, making and encouraging small improvements to a this obscure article. Now, a drive by name change introduced a whole bunch of problems, without any efforts to help to address them. I am not claiming ownership, I am simply an involved editor aggrieved by sloppy edits approved by uninvolved editors. At least until recently, most references in the article still use Roman Catholic. If an editor wishes to rename an article with a primary argument of "consistency", it should be his responsibility to take over stewardship and fix inconsistencies. Had this been done, I would object less. This had not been done, and all I wish is not that a simple edit be made to revert the name change, at least until someone is willing to follow through and address the inconsistent use of Catholic and Roman Catholic in the Religion in Afghanistan series. --Zfish118⋉talk 17:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. You know my vote is not addressed exclusively to you, right? I'm sure you in particular are aware of the other articles in existence. The "search and see" was for anyone who wasn't already aware.
  2. I know there's no project-wide consensus; which is precisely why the joint RM is needed.
  3. There was no "follow through" because every time I touch a "Roman" without explicit consensus I get my head handed to me. I'll take this comment as permission to do so.
  4. This one and others like it had individual consensus. And at present, it still does, by a fairly wide margin. The move review endorsed the move and this RM is so far entirely opposed to reverting the move.
  5. The entire series (a rather arbitrary grouping; series generally correspond to categories, and individual articles generally belong to several—so which category's conventions does it follow?) does not need to be changed. I don't understand why you think it does. What might be appropriate in one article might not be in another. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zfish118: I've gone through the series and switched everything to be consistent. There were no instances where there could have been any confusion, and everything was properly wikilinked for extra clarity. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 16:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Early history

[edit]

The Roman Catholic Church did not exist in Afghanistan prior to the 1500's, yet the early history refers to "This early establishment of the Church". The Catholic Church was referred to as "The Church" in the article at least once, it should be clarified which church is which. The section also states that 9 bishops and dioceses were established prior to Muslim conquest. Presumably these were "Nestorian" bishops, but I am not familiar with early Afghan history. All of these dates for bishoprics are from after communion between the Church of the East and Roman Catholic was broken. Discussion rolls seemless into the Jesuits, who were not affiliate with the so called "Nestorian" Church of the East, which was apparently persecuted to near extinction in Afghanistan two centuries prior. Again, the lack of affiliation should be made clearer.--Zfish118⋉talk 17:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched that instance of "the Church" for "Christianity". The Jesuits are by definition Catholic and not Nestorian; especially with the label "Jesuits" wikilinked, I don't think further clarification is necessary. The sequence is clearly laid out to be St. Thomas preaching in the 1st century -> Nestorian establishment by the 5th century -> Muslim conquests in the 7th and control by the 9th and 10th-> Jesuits arrive and are welcomed in the 16th. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 18:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_Church_in_Afghanistan&oldid=1195307251"