Talk:Separated brethren

Archives (Index)

1

RfC: sufficient sourcing

Is this source sufficient to support the following sentence? "But a number of professed Christian groups, especially anti-Catholics and fundamentalists, generally reject the notion of "separated brethren" as having any Biblical validity or importance, and don't generally recognize or accept the designation." For more background, see the relevant discussion on the talk page. Novaseminary (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to say there's no immediate indication thta the source is reliable. On the other hand, the statement is obviously true. There are indeed plenty of vehemently anti-Catholic fundamentalist groups who would obviously reject such terms as patronizing. The trick is to find a reliable source. Peter jackson (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The source indicated is just some dude's ministry webpage; doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:RS. As to the statement itself, it's a somewhat odd comment, since to my knowledge the Church has never claimed that the term "separated brethren" has any "Biblical" connection in the first place.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

yes, but that's not really the point...that the R.C. Church may never really have claimed that it was all that "Biblical" per se. (Though I doubt that the R.C. Church would actually call the concept "un-Biblical".) But rather the point there is that the ANTI-CATHOLICS, the ones who claim to be more into the Bible, are the ones who view the Roman Catholic concept of "separated brethren" as not being valid Biblically. The over-arching point (which people admit is obviously true) is that not all professed Christians, the more fundamentalist types especially, accept the Roman Catholic "separated brethren" designation. And my point too again, also, is that this other source is in the context of showing what ANTI-CATHOLICS BELIEVE. That source was clearly "anti-Catholic", clearly "fundamentalist", and CLEARLY rejected the term "separated brethren" as valid. It was a "reliable source" FOR THE CONTEXTUAL PURPOSE OF THE PARAGRAPH. Sure a better more neutral source stating the point would be more desired. But sometimes getting it from the group itself I would think may suffice to "source" the point. I guess it depends. Sweetpoet (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

My response was before the RFC and is above, just above the template. IMHO If the current sourcing is found to be too weak (which I think it will be) but the statement is not disputed, it should be tagged, not deleted. [User:North8000|North8000]] (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I challenge the statement as written. I do think some version of this is probably true, but I also suspect many people to whom this term is a applied do not know about it, are indifferent to it, or like it, in addition to those who "reject" it. That might be true of Catholics, too (note I added a sourced line about the term essentially falling out of favor recently). Even if cleaned up, scrubbed of POV, placed into proper context, and true, I object to it until properly sourced. Of course you know this, North800, but the very first sentence of WP:V (a bedrock of WP, even if most articles do not yet fully comply) is: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Novaseminary (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm leaving this one. To me the statement looks obviously true and easily source-able, and currently too weakly sourced. The "obviously true" is based on pure logic and not expertise. The only way that it could be false would be if NO professed christian group rejected that notion. Maybe there are other problems with that sentence or with it being there. IMHO a discussion of the content should carry weight in in the course of events on this. I don't see such occurring amongst the main participants, and I don't have the expertise in this field to participate. I think that you and sweetpoet have that expertise. Unless you truly think that the article shouldn't exist, why don't you do a 180 and truly engage in the improvement of this article instead of just battering it with wiki-lawyering? North8000 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. I think I have worked to improve the article with appropriate caution (including by adding one of the only, if not the only, truly WP:RS-compliant source with this edit made a few hours before North8000's post). And in an effort to avoid an edit war and be constructive, I issued this request for comment. As to the substance, there are an infinite number of potential "obviously true" statements that should not make this article. My statement just above, essentially "Some people like the term, some people are indifferent to the term, and some people hate the term" is also undoubtedly true, but not terribly illuminating or relevant. To include one ill-defined group's reaction to the term without verifying whether it is representative or significant, supported by a single individual's website (not even actually making the claim asserted, but serving as a purported example of the claim asserted) violates WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. And as for being easily sourcable, I submit that if it were, somebody would have just done so already; it would have been easier than this back-and-forth. This RfC was an invitation for somebody to do so. Novaseminary (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Other than my "sourcable" statement (and that statement of mine is not that meaningful anyway) I think that you are right with respect to the statement in discussion. And I'll avoid going any further on the general topic. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment - the source is clearly not a WP:RS. There would be no need to remove the sentence if the questionable source was the only problem with it, but if it's controversial, which it apparently is, then this source alone is not sufficient to support it. If editors disagree about whether a particular claim should appear in an article, the golden rule is verifiability, not truth. Thparkth (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church

With this edit Glenfarclas rightly noted that the Catholic Church includes the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Catholic Churches. As such, I of course agree with the edits he made. Now I wonder, though, whether the other uses of the term "Roman Catholic" in the article need to be modified or clarified. Do the Eastern Catholic Churches use this separated brethren term? Is the use of the names of the Catholic churches in the article accurate? Novaseminary (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The change would probably be appropriate. I think I made it at one point, but the article migrated onward and the changes were left behind. Certainly, when it comes to a declaration of the Holy See or an ecumenical council, these cannot be characterized strictly as Roman.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the term RCC is ambiguous, often meaning the Catholic Church as a whole, not just the Latin rite. There've been endless discussions about this over at Talk:Catholic Church. Peter jackson (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The term "Roman Catholic Church" has traditionally been used in Vatican documents to include both the Latin Rite and the Eastern Rite churches. The recent custom by some to use the term "Roman Catholic" for the Latin Rite only is idiosyncratic and unhistorical. Afterwriting (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"Catholic Answers" is "official" and I restored it...

I'm not sure why SOME editors seem to have a hang-up against the notion that the RCC "OFFICIALLY" does not consider all professed "Christian" groups as "separated brethren." Is it because this well-sourced FACT personally bothers some people, so they wish to obscure or suppress the fact? What's with you (and Nova)? It should be made CLEAR to the reader that viewing Mormons as "polytheist" or "nontrinitarian" is an OFFICIAL view of the Roman Catholic Church, and NOT just the view maybe just some individual Roman Catholic apologists...

also...

the reference source that WAS there before was "Catholic Answers" or "This Rock" AND IS AN ESTABLISHED AND RECOGNIZED "OFFICIAL" CATHOLIC ORGANIZATION AND SOURCE. See the Talk page (above) and see how that was well-proven, beyond question, where even NOVA ADMITTED EVENTUALLY.

The problem with Novaseminary is that he or she is uptight and neurotic and devious. He/she did not like this article's very existence from the get-go. And Nova just battered it with wiki-lawyering and uptight tags left and right, and I'm NOT the only editor who thinks this way.

Again, you rudely removing the word "officially" was UNJUSTIFIED, simply because of the citation, especially given the fact (in case you forgot) that the citation WAS OFFICIAL, AND THEN WAS REMOVED. Not sure why....

I just restored both the word "officially" AND the "Catholic Answers" citation source, as there was NO valid reason to summarily remove those things. Is there a reason you want even sourced facts suppressed? I did not invent the FACT that the RCC does NOT consider certain specific professed "Christian" groups as "separated brethren" and does so OFFICIALLY...not just loosely or individually. Again, Glen, while I do appreciate a number of your edits on this article, I feel your deletion was not only unwarranted but is only catering to Nova's neurosis and uptight actions on this article.

This whole Mormon thing was SUPPOSED to be a settled matter a long time ago. And Nova gave the impression in the past week or two that it was. But then look what happens......WHOLESALE REMOVALS AGAIN OF WORDS AND PHRASES THAT HE/SHE DOES NOT PERSONALLY LIKE, WITH THE COP-OUT ARGUMENT OF "UNDUE". Forgetting that the whole article is dealing with this specific subject. And leaving whole important points and facts out will cause the article to be sloppy and incomplete.

This is NOT supposed to be just a dictionary definition or stub. And what you (and mostly Novaseminary) have been doing now is reducing this article, when, if anything, it should be ADDED TO AND EXPANDED. Anyway, the source is official that I restored to that part......"Catholic Answers". peace out... Sweetpoet (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been following the bickering about this article, and I have no idea which of you two I agree with (if either). Frankly, I have yet to be persuaded that this article should exist at all, or that "separated brethren" is in any way an official term rather than a colorful phrase that happened to be used in a document and was not intended to be a self-contained theological concept worthy of having an encyclopedia article written about it. I suspect the latter, but oh well. My point is, you can't synthesize a claim that the Church takes some "official" position about who is and isn't "separated brethren" from a book that consists of the author's decidedly unofficial views and a Catholic Answers piece that doesn't use the phrase at all. If the article says, "So-and-so officially declared that such-and-such^[citation]," that citation darned well better either be the official declaration, or be a reliable report of such a declaration.

So, whether or not Catholic Answers is "official" (it is, of course, just a secondary source, and not in any way a Vatican mouthpiece), the citation given simply doesn't discuss "separated brethren" at all, so it cannot serve as a source to the claim given.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be its own article, as it is a stand-alone subject and sourced by itself, and IS an official term from Vatican 2....ayayayaya....it sounds that you might be almost as uptight as Nova, if that's possible.

Listen...please.

This phrase IS official.... from the Second Vatican Council (try reading the article again, that's if it has not been butchered and chopped up too much with facts being removed).

Also, it's a STAND-ALONE SUBJECT, that can be easily proven, sourced BY ITSELF, and this matter was already discussed.

Now as to your other point and argument. That "This Rock" or "Catholic Answers" (which is a Vatican-recognized official and well-established Catholic organization and source, and NOT some website that some individual Catholic who owns a pizza place slapped together two years ago) in that particular page did not use the term "separated brethren."

Ok, now....even so, the CONCEPT was stated fairly clearly that not all who are professed "Christians" are considered "fellow brothers" or "fellow Christians" if they deny Nicean formulation, or the co-equal Trinity doctrine, etc. The overall sense and concept IS there in that Catholic Answers This Rock page.

Also, though, not sure why Nova removed the "This Rock" source to begin with, as this was already discussed AT LENGTH the last few weeks, and he (presumably) came around to ADMIT finally that it's a "good" source, or decent enough, and established.

Unless he/she changed his/her mind, or was waiting for a time, when he/she thought I'd not be around maybe, to simply remove the thing. Don't know.....

But again, why the big hang-up with the word "officially" when it is so well-sourced that this IS an official Roman Catholic position? Sweetpoet (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

First, please settle down on the personal attacks and other insinuations, which are highly unwarranted.

Second, what you've just described is the textbook definition of WP:SYNTH. That is why I've changed it; I otherwise couldn't care less. The fact is, you want the article to report, "The Church officially declares these groups not to be separated brethren." In fact, though, the Church has made no declaration at all about whether these groups fall under the term. You've cobbled together several disparate sources, some of which use the term and some of which don't (and none of which is an official statement of the Church), and basically drawn your conclusion that if the Church ever did have to pronounce on the issue of whether Mormons (e.g.) fell under the heading "separated brethren," they would doubtless determine them not to.

That's bad encyclopedia writing.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

well, to be honest, the reason I said what I said is A) the whole thing about "stand-alone" subject, although it's fine, you did not belabor it....so that's whatever.

But B) the main point about (that I put in bold type that you still kinda somehow in a way missed) is VATICAN TWO USES "SEPARATED BRETHREN" IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY. Go to other WP articles on Vatican Two, etc, and see what I mean. (or other sources).

Also, I said what I said, because you show undue issue against the "Catholic Answers" source by unreasonably calling it "disparate." How were they so unrelated? How exactly (why not look at the WP article on "Catholic Answers"?) is it "disparate"? Don't they all deal with the same overall subject? It's not like one source was talking about the Mass, and the other dealt with celibacy. Cuz it may not fit YOUR definition of a pertinent "official" Catholic situation? I'm not sure. Like I said, even Nova (presumably) a couple of weeks ago came around to see that "This Rock" was a recognized and established source stating OFFICIAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AND POSITIONS. So why exactly are you saying what you're saying?

(As far as the "synthesis" sometimes it's not so black and white and more a matter of interpretation, and depends on what type of person in the moment is doing the interpreting, as contrary to what some wanna think, this is NOT always an exact science per se.)

It's this simple...the source (which is really NOT "disparate" but pertinent) states clearly that the Roman Catholic position is that NOT ALL professed "Christians" are considered "fellow-Christians" or "brothers in Christ". That's what "separated brethren" means. Is that out-and-out "synthesis"? Maybe, maybe not. I mean, if the word "officially" bothers some people THAT MUCH, then whatever......I'm not gonna go on and on about it. Though I know that if many other editors came on to this (instead of the very few that have so far), I'm sure you'd have many more siding with me on this particular issue.

This IS an official Catholic position, and again, why dodge or not understand the whole thing (that I pointed out very clearly) about THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL? Are you prepared to say that THAT is not an official Catholic source? ??? I mean, goodness, Vatican 2 is the very thing that OFFICIALIZED the term !!! The information is there. peace.... Sweetpoet (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you know what "disparate" means, but see here. It's not whatever you're thinking. And I said that the sources were disparate.

Also, yes, the term "separated brethren" is used in an official document of the Second Vatican Council. But the proposition, "Mormons (e.g.) are not separated brethren" is not contained in any official document. Like I said, it may or may not be the case that the Church would consider particular groups to be "separated brethren" if a gun were put to their head and they were forced to pronounce one way or the other. Personally, I don't think the term was intended to stand for a discrete and precisely-delimitable theological concept; it was more of a colorfully descriptive phrase. However, and this is really the bottom line, if the article is going to say, "The Church officially says X," then we should be able to find some place where the Church officially said, "X." Right now we don't have that. My problem isn't that the article could be misleading about the status of the Mormons, my problem is that the article is misleading about what the Church has officially said.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I KNOW what it means, and you were saying that they were unrelated or different or something.

anyway, this is what I tried to add to the other comment, but you were in the middle of yours....please address it:

Are you prepared to say that THAT (the Second Vatican Council) is not an official Catholic source? ??? I mean, goodness, Vatican 2 is the very thing that OFFICIALIZED the term !!! The information is there. peace.... Sweetpoet (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Vatican II is obviously an official source, but it does not say one way or the other which specific groups would and wouldn't be "separated brethren." Catholic Answers is a privately run organization constituting a secondary source, which is not in any way entitled to make policy or official pronouncements on behalf of the Church . . . and, as I've pointed out, it also hasn't said which specific groups do and don't come under the heading, "separated brethren."  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Catholic Answers may be a "secondary" Catholic source, but, as I said, IT IS recognized and has been approved by the Roman Catholic Church, a while back, and IS LISTED as an OFFICIAL Catholic Apologetics organization. In other words, they don't make up their own views, but always put forth official Catholic views and positions.

As to the Mormon matter, the point is that Vatican 2 SAID CLEARLY what would constitute "separated brethren", with the whole "Trinitarian Baptism" thing, and Nicean formula, and other things......things which the "Mormons" do not hold to. And again, you have OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED AND ESTABLISHED Catholic organizations ("Catholic Answers") saying clearly "Mormons are not considered fellow Christians or 'brothers in Christ'" or separated brethren by the Catholic Church.) So again, if you (and Nova) have problems with "officially" cuz you want to be very very very very careful and precise, then so be it. But the Mormon matter should not be removed completely. Otherwise info would be lacking, and would be too chopped up, unnecessarily.

And also, again, this "separated brethren" term is a STAND-ALONE subject, with whole books written JUST ON THAT TERM ALONE !!!!!! And of course web pages and articles. A[[nd is notable and known enough. It was not some willy nilly thing that Vatican 2 decided to whistle out for the hell of it. But anyway, I hope you see my side of things a little bit here. If "officially" is removed again, then so be it. But NOT the whole paragraph..... Sweetpoet (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Glenfarclas here. While I was somewhat persuaded that this particular source (not the entire website) is an RS in some circumstances, it does not support the proposition for which it is cited. Moreover, in light of Glen's comments, I also wonder whether this article should exist. It could be merged with Unitatis_Redintegratio (which I just came across today and added to this article as a wikilink). I had previously proposed merging this article with Catholic Church and ecumenism. That proposal was my first encounter with Sweetpoet and led to one of his several blocks for edit warring. In any case, I would ask Sweetpoet to self-revert because after this latest set of reverts to Glen's work, Sweetpoet is again in violation of WP:3RR. Because of overlapping edits/conflict, I am arguably and inadvertently at 3 reverts in the last 24 hours, so I won't revert Sweetpoet again myself. Novaseminary (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I already proved fairly well why it should be its own article, and I cited VERBATIM where you're wrong. Do I have to paste it here again? It's a stand-alone subject, and it is referenced by itself, and and and WIKIPEDIA POLICY SAID THAT THINGS LIKE THAT SHOULD NOT BE MERGED OR DELETED. I love how you respect that. Then you wonder why I have SEVERE problems with you, Nova....and why I wish you would just disappear (at least from this article). You never change, and you can't be trusted. And you have serious issues.

(Also it's dishonest and convenient for you to say that it was only "Sweetpoet" that was "edit-warring"....ah, you were too, and you can't seem to grasp that. You edit-warred big time. But your selective analysis is par for your course, we know that already... Plus my "block" was for supposedly "sock puppetting" not necessarily "edit warring" by itself, which you were guilty of too...)

and again, to re-iterate to both you and Glen (though Glen is not as much as you it seems), check this down below again:

Merging should NOT be considered if

  1. The resulting article is too long or "clunky"
  2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles
  3. The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short

as for number 3, there's NO QUESTION that that applies to the "Separated brethren" article. It's a subject that ALONE is sourced and referenced and of interest and importance. There is a number of sources that deal with the specific term "Separated brethren" alone.

So, as I said, to answer your question, yes, I do have WP policy and guideline to support my position. This subject alone is easily sourced, and easily recognized, and independent, on its own, and can be proven to be so...and that's a lot of the criteria and policy.(As you yourself admitted.)

....by the way, I undid my revert, because of the dispute and question about the matter....Not that that would matter to you probably...Sweetpoet (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)