Talk:Winnipeg Statement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism. See also the Catholicism Portal. (with unknown importance) | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
Contents |
[edit] Papal "satisfaction"
In this article, http://www.peace.mb.ca/07.Mission_of_HS/xneil07.htm, the author states that:
A month later, Pope Paul privately told his Secretary of State that he had taken cognisance of the Winnipeg Statement "with satisfaction".
...a statement which seems very relevant to this article! However, the author does not cite a source. If anyone can provide a verifiable source for this papal comment, we should add this information to the article. -- Mecandes 21:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- We can say that this has been asserted by a liberal Catholic author. However I don't know how noteworthy that will be, as I haven't come across this author before. JASpencer 22:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Okay, I've added this as "alleged by supporters" -- I didn't want to presume to add the label "liberal" though, plus I have seen it said that others imply the Pope supported the Winnipeg Statement. Again, would love to get a verifiable source (but, alas, folks weren't putting their writings on the Internet in the late 60s.) I am surprised, though that there never seemed to be any officially published response or condemnation coming from the Holy See about the Winnipeg Statement... you'd think they'd feel compelled to say something about it...? -- Mecandes 22:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Well yes, but under Paul VI you'd have expected to see a lot of things said about what was going on in the English speaking Church. JASpencer 22:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Link to the full statement text
Unfortunately, the best link I could find to the full text of the Winnipeg Statement, http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/winnipeg.html, is not NPOV. Can anyone update the link to the text of the statement to a copy which is not marked up? (Unforunately, the archives on the CCCB web site don't go back this far.) -- Mecandes 20:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody know whether the text currently linked to (at therosarium) is accurate? Other than the editorializing, have there been any changes to the text (deletions, "corrections", etc...)? -- Njesson 12:10, 23 April 2008 (CST)
[edit] External Links
As all the external links apart from Humanae Vitae are mentioned in in-line references, and Humanae Vitae is mentioned in the See Also section. Shouldn't we simply get rid of them to stop cluttering up the article. JASpencer 20:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral point of view
Due to the level of controversy surrounding the 1968 Winnipeg Statement, and the fact that a search of the Internet reveals that almost all current discussion of it is among very vocal opponents, I worry that this article may suffer from Neutral point of view problems. I commend the early editors for working hard to present both sides of the debate and referencing them, but the introduction of POV may have been innevitable, since they seem to be working primarily from current Internet sources on a debate that pre-dates the Internet. It seems clear that the meaning of the statement is hotly disputed even among Catholic bishops and scholars, so I think we lowly Wikipedians need to take extra care. 216.209.114.132 14:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, the article as it is developing so far seems to be too reliant on the writings of Msgr. Vincent Foy -- writings which contain many unreferenced statements which don't seem to be easily verifiable. He is a passionate opponent, makes broad use of weasel words, and clearly expresses a biased POV. (Many may agree with his POV, but it's not desirable for an unbiased encyclopedia article). I think his writing is great for the Opposition section, but less useful for other sections. Surely there must be other sources of information on this topic (which are not based on Msgr. Foy's writing)...? -- Mecandes 03:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Given that the supporters seem to be silencing themselves and the opponents are the only ones with referencable sources, it may be the best that can be done to eliminate bias. Despite the remaining bias, majority and significant minority viewpoints seem expressed as well as possible given the circumstances. It's not like we're having any revert wars where one side tries to silence the other. The article on Superman is "biased" towards the point of view that he can fly (even though some comics have him only able to leap great distances). We don't judge the superman article as POV because insufficient attention is given to the "non-flying" superman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.53.160.251 (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Categories
I did a significant prune on the categories for this article - "Natural family planning" is getting deleted, and the others were very closely connected in the category trees. Lyrl Talk C 23:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
