Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
- Talk:Pope Pius XII (Request for comment--"retraction" ) — Years after the publication of Hitler's Pope (a best-selling book, critical of Pius XII, that more or less launched the debate over Pius XII and the Holocaust, extensively quoted--positively and negatively--by most following works) , Cornwell stated "I would now argue, in the light of the debates and evidence following Hitler's Pope, that Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by Germany". This quote is included in the section about the book. User:Mamalujo has attempted to, on the basis of this quote, remove entirely any summary of the original argument of Hitler's Pope (e.g. here). Failing that, Mamalujo wishes to add a sentence or clause claiming that the book has been "retracted" (e.g. here). This has already been discussed repeatedly in the article about Hitler's Pope, most recently here. At issue is whether Cornwell's statement constitutes a "retraction" and if that a complete retraction of the entire work or just a modification of part of his original thesis, and if so, whether that means the original argument should not even be mentioned, or be claimed to have been retracted (in addition to including the above quote). Savidan 22:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Episcopal Church (United States) (RfC) — Editors disagree about the legitimacy of calling bishops Spong, Pike and Forrester heterodox.[1] Furthermore, one editor disqualifies Christianity Today as an "extremist" magazine, "'well respected' surely only by those who already agree with its opinions." Other editors think it's a respectable publication.:RfC Comment: There are official bodies of the Episcopal church that decide what and who constitutes orthodoxy, are there not? If such an organization has called these Bishops heterodox, or attempted to remove them or declare them as being outside the scope of orthodoxy, then it is right to identify them as such. Examining their their views and comparing them with the views recorded in the official documents of the church and deciding on that basis that they are heterodox is original research, and outside the scope of what a Wikipedia article should do. In any case, whether they are called orthodox or heterodox, who is doing the calling should be clearly identified rather than just applying the blanket label 'orthodox bishop' or 'heterodox bishop'; statements from a particular author or faction should not be taken as representative of an entire community, unless some organ of that community has affirmed the decision, or the author was acting on behalf of the community. --Clay Collier (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Manually-added entries:
- Talk:Aloisius Joseph Muench (RfC) - An editor has raised a variety of concerns, including " Almost the entire article is taken from a single source and written by a single editor. We need to know whether the source was fair and unbiased and whether the WP editor's selections from that source fairly represent the material or are slanted". Savidan 23:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
To add a discussion to RFC:
- Add the tag
{{rfctag|reli}}. See Template:Wider attention for a list of abbreviations. - To add one discussion into two different categories, use
{{rfctag|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category. - To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
- For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
- Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.
