Talk:Immaculate Conception

Use of 'Catholics Believe' Incorrect?

In numerous places, this article refers to things that 'Catholics believe,' 'Orthodox Christians say,' or 'Old Catholics do not reject.' Forgive me if this is nitpicking, but isn't it more correct to say something like 'The Catholic Church teaches' or 'Orthodox Christian dogma states'? The current phrasing is, in my opinion misleading. As an example, the line 'Catholics believe Mary "was free from any personal or hereditary sin"' seems to speak for every Catholic everywhere, and in my own experience many Catholics hold personal views that are at odds with their Church. To really state what Catholics or Orthodox Christians believe, in my opinion, should require citing a poll showing that the belief is actually widely held outside of Church leadership and theologians.

However, I'm hesitant to go through and make this change because I don't know how Wikipedia treats churches - is it accepted practice to use 'members of the church believe' interchangeably with 'the church teaches'?

Thanks,

- Julien —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.75.8.245 (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dogma

Afterwriting's change of dogma to doctrine on grammatical grounds is theologically incorrect and introduces errors in the article. Needs to be reverted ASAP. He says he needs no theology lesson.....but the article itself says that it is a dogma. So his change is incorrect, period. History2007 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference formats and Ibid

I saw the {{ibid}} template being used in the references section which asked editors to replace "Ibid" with named references.

I attempted to do just that but found that a named reference wouldn't quite cut it since they referred to different paragraphs in the same document. I figured the best thing would be to fill out the whole {{cite web}} template as best I could. I figured that someone would fix it further if need be.

Someone reverted my edit without comment, so I don't know what I did wrong. The current page still has the Ibid reference and the {{ibid}} template asking users to replace it.

Can someone else fix it "properly"?

Heavy Joke (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it because the format seemed off and notes was within refs. I am not sure how to fix it. History2007 (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

editing needed/tags added/deleted without improvement

The article needs to be edited for the redundancies, and to address the issues related to the tags: *The original research is fairly blatant.

• Whole sections are without any citations.
• The lead is interminably long and does not explain fully and succinctly what the IC is all about.

• Same with the dogma 'controversies,' which not surprisingly are entirely bereft of citations.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As I stated specifically above, the article needs editing especially for the fairly blatant WP:OR. An examaple is the section on 'dogma.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception#History_of_the_dogma

The only citation is to an article on the ewtin.com website which does not support the original research.

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya2.htm

The tags have been removed without any improvement to the article. The tags need to be put back so that other editors will see the problems and can contribute to the remedy.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually large sections come from the Catholic encyclopedia if you check, e.g. the dogma section. Clearly a high standard of scrutiny is being imposed here, yet references can be added without throwing the baby out with the bath water. To be "positive" you can do a few searches and add references, e.g. to the dogma section. And mark specific sections - given that there are already 28 references. The lede is a different issue from the rest, as usual, but seems to summarize what there is, and I added a few refs to it. You can search and add a few refs too. It is really easy, once you get used to adding them in a positive manner. You should state specific problems in the lede, not just blanket complaints. History2007 (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

See sources here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources

Also, the Catholic Encyclopedia being used here was written at the start of the 20th century. Over 100 years ago. Certainly, there are current, actual reliable sources that have come along since then.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic encyclopedia is widely, I mean widely used within Wikipedia. I see no reason against it being a WP:Reliable source. That discussion has nothing to do with this page. Catholic encyclopedia is used all over Wikipedia, so I see no reason why it should be questioned just here. Again, this seems to be raising a higher standard here regarding the Catholic encyclopedia than elsewhere in Wikipedia. I see no problem with using Catholic encyclopedia. History2007 (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The rules are very clear on using one source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources Malke 2010 (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It is even more clear that there is more than one source. History2007 (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hidden text?

I went in to correct a small spelling error in the Protestantism section and was floored by paragraphs upon paragraphs of hidden text. (see here.) While I absolutely agree that this gigantic block of non-referenced "information" does not belong in this section (or anywhere on WP, for that matter) I don't understand why it's still included in the edit field. There are no comments or instructions and I'm not seeing anything in the Talk history. I'm too tired to pour through the history right now but I will if need be. I'd like to just remove the block entirely as it just makes for some distracting clutter while editing but I would love to know if there's a reason for this. 03:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)