Talk:List of opponents of Fiducia supplicans

Article issues

Several editors have expressed concerns with the sources being used in this article and the opponents being claimed. Please see Talk:Fiducia supplicans#Merge proposal for further details. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging users (2A01:4B00:C012:5600:8452:2F68:D998:56C7—2a01:4b00:c012:5600:48eb:791e:542e:1085—2A01:4B00:C012:5600:E4BF:6347:ADC1:9AAE—90.167.202.180—Victordiazbl) As the main contributors to this article (I notice you are IP users or WP:SPA), please could I reemphasise the importance of WP:RS, and ask you to read the comments in this discussion? Please don't add blogsites as sources, and in general, try to cite documents or reliable second-hand sources (e.g. newspapers) rather than tweets or retweets from unaffiliated people. Many of the current "opponents" listed in the article aren't supported by the cited sources; the cited sources instead suggest that they are, at best, neutral towards FS. A helpful practice might be to add the relevant quoted extract showing opposition in your citation, like I have done here for Carlo Maria Viganò, clearly identifying one passage that shows his opposition to the statement. Thank you! IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi IgnatiusofLondon. I tried to do everything from an objective point of view but sorry for any mistake. Thanks for your advices. For me, the only important thing is the truth. I don't have your great experience on Wikipedia. I will try my best next time. As a Catholic, I look for the Unity, the respect for the Pope, the ecumenism, the prayer, the continuity with the Magistery of the Church... So... Jesus... No a new idea of Jesus. For that reason I think it's important to show all the important people who left everything for the Lord, who dedicated their lives to study de Catholic Doctrine... Important people. And suddenly this clever and important people are worried about this declaration. Your comment was so helpful. I will try to look for better references. Anyway, I am not the main contributor of this article. Many people is modifying the content almost each hour. I check the article once a day, for curiosity. I leave the expert people to improve the article. Thanks again and God bless you. Victordiazbl 84.78.243.67 (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'm very happy to help find better sources, and indeed, I think there is quite a broad group of editors now interested in and watching this article. But we absolutely cannot have people accused of being "opponents" when that isn't supported in the cited source, as myself and other editors have highlighted in the merge proposal discussion with examples. The best way we can ensure we don't falsely accuse anyone is by using reliable sources and providing supporting quotes.

I will remove the names of those who have failed verification unless better sources are provided in reasonable time, though please trust me that I will try to find verified sources before I remove any such name, unless their discussion of FS has been obviously misinterpreted or misconstrued, as it was with Vincent Nichols.

Finally, I think it's worthwhile to highlight what some editors said in the merge proposal discussion. I understand the value of a list documenting the "clever and important people [who] are worried about this declaration", but as encyclopaedic editors, we do not have the authority to add anything beyond what the published sources say. This is why a list format, reducing all the rich and varied criticisms of the document to "opponents", is likely neither to be informative nor to be accurate. If this list ends up being merged or deleted, please do not take it personally or see it as wasted work: it will inform the criticisms section of Fiducia Supplicans, and you will have contributed a lot to improving Wikipedia's coverage of this declaration. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Defining opponents

this article lists Episcopal conferences that have followed the direction of Fiducia Supplicans to the letter and have discerned that they are unable to provide non-liturgical blessings because scandal can not be prevented as "opponents" to Fiducia Supplicans. It is not possible to follow the instruction exactly, do exactly what it asks, and be "opposed" to the instruction. 76.71.255.27 (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! You might be interested in reading the above comments and wikilinked discussions. Other editors have agreed that "opponent" is not an altogether helpful label to characterise the nuanced responses of many individuals and organisations. The main article at Fiducia supplicans provides better context. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge execution

It's been almost two months and the merge hasn't yet been executed. Personally, I haven't assisted the merge because I do not think there is altogether that much to incorporate into Fiducia supplicans: I think the target article already does a good job of discussing opposition to the declaration and the nuance within the opposition, unlike the list article. While I can only speak for myself, I suspect other editors who support the merge agree.

So I'm going to WP:BEBOLD and execute a WP:BLAR. If editors believe there is content that can be suitably merged, here is the link to the revision for retrieval.

If my edit is reverted, I'd be happy to pursue consensus by talk page discussion, but, as a forewarning, I would be minded to take this list article to AfD for the WP:CONTENTFORK/WP:NPOV concerns that were raised in the merge discussion. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)