Talk:Prayer in the Catholic Church

Requests for sources

If there is a specific statement that can not be traced to a source, please list it here. As far as I have checked, all sources included all statements mentioned in the article. History2007 (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

New title

After a few suggestions for a title, this page has assumed the title Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer as of December 9, 2007, among the other plausible and possible permutaions of those words. Given that this has been discussed below, please try to let it be. Thanks History2007 (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Titles

A number of "redirect to a redirect" edits took place on this page, based on new titles that someone suggested. The reason I selected this page title when I started this page was that it is closest to what a Wikipedia user may search for. Obviously, pages need to be easy to find as users search for them. I have reverted the page to the way it was. The first paragraph on this page clearly defines what it intendes to do and what it is not about. Therefore, please do not redirect this page again. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see the message on your talk page. This is not the right way to effect a name change. The presence of a redirect means that a user who types in one article name is automatically taken to the article he's looking for; it's no more difficult. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 01:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actualy I think the search criteria weigh both the title and the contents of a page, so the effect is not technically the same. History2007 (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't matter, as long as the redirect takes you to the article you're looking for. At any rate, the article is now at your preferred name. If anyone else wants to rename the article, please follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and do not do cut-and-paste page moves, and do not have the same contents under two different article names. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 02:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think if there is a suggestion for a new name please discuss it first, else if the page suddenly moves, it will just get moved back and we get a cycle of moves that will begin to approximate perpetual motion. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Christian or just Catholic?

I'm a bit confused. I get the impression the contents of the article is limited to Catholic prayer rather than any/all Christian prayer but the article title refers to "Christian prayer". Also I think "Powers" would be more meaningful in the title rather than "Power". Can I suggest rename to "Powers of Catholic Prayer"? Barrylb (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I see in the page history a previous title Catholic beliefs about prayer. Can we go back to that? Barrylb (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought about the Christian/Catholic issue as well Barry. The reference to the protestant reformation in the article was because many of the items in the Bible date to well before the time the Cathoics split off from the other Christians, so the issue is somewhat wider than Catholic. And the references often quote the King's James Bible so it is a wider audience. So I set a redirect from Catholic Prayers to here, so it would be found in a search. The question of Power vs Powers goes back to search again, for a search on power will find powers more easily than powers will find power - as you know. The reason I kept this title rather than the other was really the search issue, for the page is clear about what it sets to do, and the title is really affecting the search more than the content, for the content is the same. Now that you are reading this, on another topic, that section on the efficacy of prayer page about medical issues needs more extensions. I put in the Australian study that you had privided. If you have any more links, your adding them there will be appreciated. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC) .

My concern about the current title is that it may not conform to the principle of NPOV; having this title suggests that the encyclopedia's editorial voice itself is claiming that prayer has certain power, which would be unacceptable. The previous title Catholic beliefs about prayer takes no position about the issue, but simply announces "this is what Catholics believe". Using "Christian" rather than "Catholic" in any version of the title encourages editors to add information about Protestant and Orthodox beliefs about prayer to the article. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 08:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Duty vs Power

Ok how about Catholic Beliefs on the power of prayer. The whole point of the article is to discuss the beliefs about power, without claiming the efficacy of the prayers. Catholic beliefs about prayer would miss the issue that Catholics believe it has power, and use that as a tool for group cohesion, regardless of whether the beliefs can be substantiated in a clinical or scientific setting. The article has gone to great length to repeatedly state upfront that it does not claim any powers, but just reviews what they believe about them. And again, (yes again) not having power in the title reduces search capabilities. The article does not relate to Catholic beliefs on "the duty to pray" but on the power attributed (allegedly) to prayer. One could write a whole article on the "duty to pray" and it would be a different artiicle and they would both relate to "beliefs on prayer". The 2nd article may be a needed on its own anyway for the sake of completion, but there is no need to mix the two. This way if any one searches for "catholic + prayer + power" the page will be found. Hence power needs to be there in the title, but if adding Catholic beliefs to the front of it will end this discussion, then let us agree and I will just move it as such.Thanks History2007 (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC).

I would be happy with the title Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer. Barrylb (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Efficacy of prayer

Before I opened it, I thought this article would be about a Sunday radio show from the 40s, since the article Efficacy of prayer already exists. The neutral title of this subject is correctly Efficacy of prayer; the asserted "power" is unsubstantiated. Employing "power" in the very title itself is a common rhetorical trick that embodies the correct significance of "to beg the question." (This page is not on Wetman's watchlist.)--Wetman (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above, the efficacy of prayer is another topic. It is likely this article will be renamed very shortly to Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer. Barrylb (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, based on all the discussion above, I have renamed/moved it to Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer. I hope this settles the issue for good. History2007 (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's excellent now. See how authentically neutral that is. --Wetman (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think these discussion pages somehow have a better effect in balancing things than one might at first expect. Interestingly, from a mathematical point of view, these discussions seem to either converge rather rapidly towards a stable point, or oscillate for a long time. I wonder why... It may have to do with the effort spent in creating alternative paths for convergence.... I have to think about that...But anyway, we seem to have reached the stable point now. History2007 (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC) .

Unpublished Synthesis?

I have waited over three weeks for someone to point out where the alleged "unpublished synthesis" took place within this article. There have been no responses. I will wait 2 or 3 more days. If there is no response, and a specific mention of which sentences have been synthesized without attribution, I will remove the tag from the top of the page. If anyone has a specific item that they think is improperly attributed please point it out exactly on this page, state your point clearly with suitable references and I will either remove that item, or rework it so it will have completely correct attribution. However, without any specific items, the allegation of improper attribution can not, as of now be supported, and unless anyone has a specific logical point to make, I will remove that tag in 2 or 3 days. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

After the three weeks mentioned above, and the second request for clarification and justification for the tag, I waited 3 more days, and there were no responses, so I will now remove the tag. Thanks History2007 (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Name change

I reverted a name change. The page was specifically written to be about POWER so that has to be there. The title had been discussed before and after a discussion became this one. Please discuss these things on talk page before sudden actions. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Catholic beliefs on prayer

Why is this article no made about "Catholic beliefs on prayer" -- since there is no other article about that? Notwithstanding the top hat note, it is not about all of Catholic beliefs on prayer now, but should be renamed and expanded. Text from Prayer in Christianity and Roman Catholic prayers to Jesus could be included. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 09:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

For Heaven's sake do not open that Pandora's box Carl. If you do, then someone else will say that MANY of the statements here are POV in favor of Catholics. Then the same situation as Mariology vs Roman Catholic Mariology will start and the article will split again. There are just too many Roman Catholic items here, e.g. Rosary, saint quotes, Popes, Marian items, etc. and hence the title.

There may be more general topics, but as is this is about 90% with the Catholic teachings, and as the intro says:

Catholic tradition has had a long history of making specific promises.

which this articles deals with. It keeps quoting popes, and saints and has rosary type chaplet promises etc. If you look you will see that I wrote Roman Catholic prayers to Jesus as well, but kept that separate because it does not focus on "promises". There are also Hindu views on prayer promises and they are not included here. So the general issue of "belief in prayer" is beyond the scope here. There is already Prayer in Christianity as a general topic anyway. If you want to write a separate general article called "Belief in prayer" that is somehow different from my article on efficacy of prayer be my guest, then add 2 paragraphs about Catholics and then a main pointing to here. That would be the route with least electronic suffering for all. History2007 (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not proposing any article be on just "Prayer" or "Belief on prayer"-- but on Roman Catholic prayer-- or on the Roman Catholic views on prayer, just as there is an article on the Roman Catholic view of Eucharist. This change I propose would not make the article any less (or more) about the Catholic Church. It would just cover the whole subject of Roman Catholic prayer. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 14:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what that article would include, but it would be so large that it would still need a main here. There is so much that would then have to come in from the Raccolta an that would be a major undertaking. It would need sections on Novenas vs prayers, Marian vs Christocentric items, Prayers to saints vs others, prayers via apparitions, e.g. Fatima prayers..... and many other topics. It would need to be a really large article and would again need a main to here about Catholic beliefs on power of prayer. It may be an interesting topic, but a huge one and unless done right will be hard to make it high quality. Anyway, I was just about to get restarted on harmony, so I can not even consider that article now. History2007 (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What an imprimatur means

"The nihil obstat and imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the nihil obstat and the imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed." As samples of online sources for this often repeated official statement, see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. An editor who fails to understand that an imprimatur given for printing does NOT imply that the giver agrees with the contents has insisted on putting in this article the statement "Cardinal Hayes of New York provided his imprimatur in support of these promises and the first viewpoint"! 86.45.171.134 (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the page for imprimatur, where it belongs not spread it over multiple pages. Hyperlinks in Wikipedia exist for the sake of centralized definitions. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the imprimatur article. There is something wrong with this article, and here, not in the imprimatur article, is the place to discuss what is wrong with this article. It is you who are spreading over multiple pages an unsourced and baseless claim that a Roman Catholic bishop who grants an imprimatur to a publication is thereby declaring his agreement with its contents. So please discuss the problem on the pages to which you have spread that claim. Your removal of tags that draw attention to the unsourced nature of the claim that you have kept inserting in various places is unjustifiable. If you had only taken the trouble to follow the hyperlinks to the imprimatur article you would see that that article declares unfounded your claim that a Roman Catholic bishop's imprimatur for a publication means agreeing with and supporting its contents.

So how precisely do you try to justify this claim of yours? 86.45.171.134 (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So let me figure this out. There can be a case when bishop A issues an imprimatur for book B, when said bishop disagrees with the content of the book? That would be interesting. History2007 (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That is what the Imprimatur article says. Read it. It contains the statement that I have quoted above with some other sources (after you had removed it from this article where I originally referenced it only with a wikilink to the imprimatur article). A bishop might give an imprimatur to a book by you, in which he found nothing contrary to Catholic faith or morals, but it doesn't follow that he agrees with what you state in the book. If the theme of the book is that your wife is the most beautiful woman in the world, he doesn't declare that he too holds that there is no woman more beautiful! 86.45.171.134 (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I know all that. Don't get worked up buddy, the easy way to fix it was done in this article already. It just needs to say he gave it. That is all. You can fix the rest just like I did here and keep your blood pressure low, then say a rosay. History2007 (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you giving me permission to undo your reverts? I would prefer if you did it yourself, but if you don't want to, OK. 86.45.171.134 (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No, not revert, but do it exactly as I did here, just say he gave an imprimatur, without a dissertation. History2007 (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Article problems

I've added several tags because this article has multiple problems. The article itself, and the title, appear to be nothing more than the product of original research. The content of the article is rambling, and the New International Version of the Bible is used instead of a Catholic Bible. The NIV uses a dynamic translation which the Church does not. Also, there's a claim being made that all these prayers share a common link because they offer 'promises,' and then there's a claim that Bishop has approved these promises with the Imprimatur. Any Catholic knows that's not how Imprimaturs, or the Church hierarchy, works.

Also, it reads more like an essay, an uninformed one, to be sure, and not at all like an encyclopedia.

And in several places, there is a mention of "Catholic tradition," yet there are no references, etc. to support the claims, which, in any event, would not center around 'tradition,' but would center on doctrine, etc. It does not reference a single Papal document that supports any of the claims made, nor does it reference any Catholic scholars' works.

I'm thinking it needs to be deleted rather than rewritten, just for the lack of notability as there is no such entity commonly known among Catholics or non-Catholics as the "Catholic Beliefs on the Power of Prayer," nor is there even an article in Wikipedia regarding "The Power of Prayer."

Malke, you are 100% wrong. See [7] Power of Prayer Power of Prayer The Unseen Power of Prayer: A Catholic Perspective. And there are many more here. The title "Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer" was suggested byanother user, Barrylb, before. It was not my invention. "Power of prayer" would imply that there is power in prayer, hence it has to modified to say what Catholics believe about it, not assert it as a fact. And given that it does not discuss Hindu beliefs, or Lutheran beliefs, it has to have a focused title. You are 100% wrong Malke. History2007 (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There are no sources to expert opinions, some of the writing seems to be lifted directly from a couple of websites, so I'm questioning if there isn't also copyright problems here.

I'd appreciate it if other editors would read through the article and offer their opinions here. If it is to be rewritten, it would need a new title and focus, and it would need to be written from the Catholic viewpoint on prayers with actual Catholic Church documents/references, etc. as sources.Malke2010 14:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the claims made above one by one

Malke, As I stated above you were 100% wrong on the "Power of prayer" title. Now, start by listing the copyright violations you claim one by one so they can be addressed. Vague claims are not allowed. No games, no vague accusations, just start by listing the copyright violations one by one. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke, it has been a day since I asked for a list of your claim copyright violations and you have remained quiet on this page, but not on others. If you do not provide a list within another day, I will have to assume you have abandoned this discussion. You can not just add flags and walk away. History2007 (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke, It has been 2 more days now, and you have been quiet on this page, but active on others. Therefore, I must assume you have no answers. Given the history of debates we have had elsewhere, this issue must be concluded. I will remove the flag. You can not just add flags and walk away. History2007 (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The issues are clearly outlined above. Until they are addressed and the corrections are made, the tags must remain, strawman arguments notwithstanding.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Citations such as this one, http://www.theholyrosary.org/index.html, are not reliable sources. Sources must be reliable. Homemade websites do not qualify.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional problems:

• Multiple citation problems.
• Use of the New International Version of the Bible instead of a Catholic Bible.
• The NIV uses a dynamic translation which the Catholic Church does not.
• Unsourced claims that all these prayers share a common link because they offer 'promises.'
• Improper and original use of Imprimatur
• Original research, completely synthetic claims that Catholics only pray because promises are being made. This is not true. There is no such claim made anywhere in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
• Statements such as this with no citation that links any of these claims to Catholicism: "The 1,189 chapters of the Bible include 1,260 promises, a number of which relate to prayer. http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q10_bible-facts.html But long after the last book of the Bible was written, Christian leaders, be they saints, preachers or popes have continued to make further promises to the faithful who prayed." Really? Who are these saints and popes and what promises have they made? Are these 'promises' the reason the Catholics believe in the so-called power of prayer?
• This section, including the picture of Mary, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Catholic_beliefs_on_the_power_of_prayer#Rosary is lifted entirely from another website.
• This entry makes no sense whatsoever: "Of course, since the words to the rosary include the words to the Our Father and the Hail Mary prayers, the frequency of the Our Father and the Hail Mary by definition exceed that of the rosary." Huh?

Malke 2010 (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Issues: one by one

Malke: I asked for the issues to be handled one by one, not as a "vague set". Answer the questions one by one now. Is that clear? Is the request for clarification one by one clear? So:

• Question 1: Do you agree that you were 100% wrong on notability and article title. Answer that, then we continue. Is that issue resolved? As stated above:

See [8] Power of Prayer Power of Prayer The Unseen Power of Prayer: A Catholic Perspective. And there are many more here. The title "Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer" was suggested byanother user, Barrylb, before. It was not my invention. "Power of prayer" would imply that there is power in prayer, hence it has to modified to say what Catholics believe about it, not assert it as a fact. And given that it does not discuss Hindu beliefs, or Lutheran beliefs, it has to have a focused title.

So has this issue been resolved? Please answer this question ONLY, so progress can be made systematically. Please answer this question first, and theother questions that will be posed "one by one". There is no need to make gumbo in this discussion. Is the request for systematic "one by one" answers clear? Has this issue been resolved? History2007 (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving post to article talk page

You are hereby asked to answer the questions one by one regarding your tags. Answer teh first question on the talk page please. And ONLY the first question because the accusations you have made are all mixed up and I want to address them ONE by ONE. So answer the first question now please. History2007 (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please keep all discussion to the article talk page. Please do not post on my talk page. In this way, all editors will be able to view all discussion. Thanks. Also, bear in mind, this discussion is not confined to you. The tags are in place per Wikipedia policy in order to alert other editors. There is no time limit on Wikipedia.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)This article needs to be:

• either deleted, merged with Catholic Devotions, or completely rewritten with a title change. There is no such Catechism regarding the Catholic belief in the power of prayer because of 'promises' made.
• This article's slant is entirely WP:OR, as I've pointed out repeatedly.
• Many of the citations are not WP:RS.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you answer the question Malke? You typed here, so you have read the question. So please answer Question #1 regarding your accusation. Is that clear? If you place tags, in good faith, you MUST respond to questions about them on the talk page, else it will be WP:Disruptive editing. So please answer the questions, one by one. Now, please answer the first question. History2007 (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've posted several concerns if you would like to begin addressing them. I will not engage in straw man arguments. If you would be kind enough to answer the first concern about the use of a non-Catholic bible, that would be a good start.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am addressing the key issue first, and I asked a specific question about your notability claim. I am not getting an answer. History2007 (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't posting every few minutes today. I am very busy with work, and now I'm afraid I have to go for several hours. There is no urgency as apparently none of my concerns in my original post have not been addressed. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability of article topic

User Malke has challenged the notability of the topic of this article. I have stated above that the topic of "Power of prayer" is notable given that there are several books on this very topic and stated that:

See [9] Power of Prayer Power of Prayer The Unseen Power of Prayer: A Catholic Perspective. And there are many more here. The title "Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer" was suggested byanother user, Barrylb, before. It was not my invention. "Power of prayer" would imply that there is power in prayer, hence it has to modified to say what Catholics believe about it, not assert it as a fact. And given that it does not discuss Hindu beliefs, or Lutheran beliefs, it has to have a focused title.

I am not getting a direct answer to this issue. This key issue needs to be addressed before minor issues are dealt with. I have hence requested a 3rd opinion, only on this issue.History2007 (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I declined the third opinion request as no discussion has taken place in this thread; discuss it with the other user first. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As in the discussion above, I have asked the user for a response, and obtained comments on other issues, not this one. What happens if Malke continues to change topic and not answer the key question, instead move from subtopic to subtopic? In any case, Malke you are hereby asked to address the issue of "notability" as you have made that accusation above and only this issue in this thread. I am asking about this issue only again. So please address this specific question regarding "notability of the article topic" instead of responding about the version of the Bible used in the references. History2007 (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My mistake; you directed the request specifically to this thread though, so it appeared as though you were asking for a third opinion before you had waited for the other user's (second) opinion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So please clarify it for me Giftiger, is the 3rd opinion request I made ok, or not? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes; another user has removed the request because they intend to answer it, so I'll leave it to them. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Answering the specific question as to whether the topic itself is notable (as requested), I would say that, prima facie, it appears to be so. Catholics hold beliefs about prayer (whatever they may call those beliefs), and those beliefs are an important part of their belief system, so I can't see why this wouldn't be notable. I'd note that AfD is probably the better forum for challenging the inherent notability of a topic, and further discussion on that specific point should ideally take place there. It also seems to me that the tone of some of the comments abive has become overly confrontational; I'd suggest taking a calmer look at things. Not commenting on issues raised above re:original research, etc. as that is outside of the 3O request. (This does not, however, preclude a further 3O on those issues by either party, or an RfC, for that matter, if those would help).—Anaxial (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Anaxial. Regarding confontation, it is of course not desired, but you must also see Talk:Holy Face of Jesus and Talk:Rosary_of_the_Holy_Wounds, with a very long 3rd Opinion discussion, to guess if there is WP:WIKIHOUNDing on articles that I edit. Anyway, do I understand that your 3rd opinion on the specific topic of "Article topic notability" was that the article topic is notable? I understand that your opinion here does not extend beyond this issue, but I am hereby assuming that on this issue of topic notability, your opinion was that it is notable. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke: I think the 3rd opinion has handled the issue of notability. The topic is notable. Now, to make "systematic progress" please address the issue of copyrights that you claimed, below. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The question to answer here is, "What is the Catholic belief on the power of prayer?" How do you define that? Does the lead/lede answer: "Catholic belief on the power of prayer is defined as:. . ." Malke 2010 (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't the question I was asked to answer. But, since you raise it, I'll comment that, in my opinion, the lede doesn't necessarily have to provide a definition, but it does have to provide a summary of the topic, and, in particular, of the rest of the article (I make no judgement at this time as to whether it adequately does so or not, however). To my mind, a definition would not illuminate much in this instance: "Catholic belief in the power of prayer can be defined as the belief that Catholic theology holds regarding the efficacy of prayer." Well, yes, but... Anaxial (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is a collection of prayers used by Catholics. The name of the article implies that there is a particular belief here, a Catholic belief. The collection of prayers and the 'promises' that are claimed to attend to these prayers, is being made to seem that these promises are the belief. They are not. Some of these prayers are related to visions people have had and they have reported that Mary said this, or Jesus told them that, etc. These are not verifiable. But since the person reporting these visions does not seem to make claims that go against Catholic teachings, Catholic doctrines, Catholic beliefs, if you will, they are allowed. This article has made claims about the use of the Imprimatur by a particular priest or bishop approving these promises or claims. No such thing exists in Catholicism. These so-called promises attending to these specific prayers, are not Catholic doctrine. These are things that are common among the laity, they are not prohibited by the Church because they don't contain anything that goes against doctrine, but a specific belief taught by the Church, does not exist. The article needs to be retitled, needs a complete rewrite, and needs to have reliable sources, and not sources that lead to websites that are selling rosaries, etc. This is my point in asking the question, what is the Catholic belief in the power of prayer. The article should be able to answer it. These 'promises' are not it.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke, again, you were asked to answer/clarify "Question 1" and now you are responding by discussing "Question XYZ". In the above, you said, and I quote you directly: "I'm thinking it needs to be deleted rather than rewritten, just for the lack of notability". You suggested that the article was not notable. And I asked you a few times to explain and justify your "lack of notability" claim. And instead you responded about "Bible versions" as well as other issues. So I asked for a 3rd opinion. Now in response to the 3rd opinion, you are discussing the lede! I am finding that logic hard to follow. The question of notability has been the subject of a 3rd opinion. Anaxial is completely right that the lede was not the subject of a 3rd opinion request. Please do the following:

Search for the term lede/lead on this talk page. Where does it occur first? In response to the 3rd opinion! This is the first time you have complained about the lede! So it could not have been the subject of a 3rd opinion.

The trend here is that as soon as a question gets close to getting focused on, a separate issue is discussed by you. If you think the lede has problems, I will ask for a separate 3rd opinion on that. The challenge here is to keep the discussion focused, as in "one issue at a time". So please answer questions, "one by one". Do not jump from one question to another. Please answer the questions regarding your claims, "one by one" to stay focused. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be asking a third opinion on a single question, e.g., the notability. There are multiple issues with this article. I've already outlined multiple issues. It might be a good idea to start with those. For example, the lede/lead should address the issue of the 'beliefs,' citations should be from reliable sources, the article is about Catholic beliefs, yet no Catholic bible is used, etc. Perhaps you could respond to those.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the 3O request was on a specific topic. This doesn't, of course, preclude raising a new 3O, or an RfC or any other form of dispute resolution, for that matter, if you would find it helpfuln (which you may not). Equally, if you'd both find it helpful for me to comment on other specific issues, I'll try and do so - but, if one or the other of you doesn't, or would prefer someone else, that's fine by me. Certainly I'd agree that the reliablity and applicability of the sources, the relevance of the article title to the text, and so on, are important questions that ought to be resolved.Anaxial (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And again, What is/are the Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer?Malke 2010 (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I will, of course, respond to issues "one by one" in a systematic and orderly manner. Next topic: copyrights. Let us settle that, then we move on to the next issue. Again: we can only do this one by one in an "orderly manner". Next topic: copyrights, below. History2007 (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Article copyright violations

Malke, you have stated that the article has multiple copyright violations. Please list those "one by one" so they can be addressed. You have stated that the section, including the picture of Mary, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Catholic_beliefs_on_the_power_of_prayer#Rosary is lifted entirely from another website. Which website is that? How do we know that website did not obtain it from Wikipedia? Please clarify that website and list all other claims about copyright "one by one" so they can be addressed. In this thread, please only address copyright issues, and not Bible versions or other topics, so the discussion can be focused. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not at my home computer so I do not have access to the bookmarked pages with the site in question.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. We will wait for you to find that link. But in this thread please only discuss copyright issues and not Bible versions, etc. to stay focused. I would like to address the issues in an "ordered and systematic" manner for the sake of efficiency and clarity. But please provide a "complete list" of the copyright problems that you have claimed, and we will discuss them "one by one". No vague assertions please. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Anaxial, since you offered to provide an opinion on other issues, I would welcome your suggestions on the copyright violations issues. Of course, I am still to find out what those issues are, given that the claims made are vague and without specifics. I am waiting for Malke to provide specifics, but Malke has gone all quiet now, and has not even edited Wikipedia since the last comment. So we will wait and see if Malke edits anything. Either there is a response, or Malke stops editing, then we can decide what to do. In my view the copyright problems will be easy to address. If there are violations (and I am not aware of any) I will readily fix the problems. But these issues need to be handled "one by one" in order not to get into a "new problem invention" cycle that would perpetuate WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

History2007, please provide a citation for this paragraph in the section on the rosary:

"Among the many Catholic prayers, the Holy Rosary is one of the most prominent, and most often recited prayers. Of course, since the words to the rosary include the words to the Our Father and the Hail Mary prayers, the frequency of the Our Father and the Hail Mary by definition exceed that of the rosary."

Also, if you have evidence of WP:HARASS, please provide diffs and take them to the appropriate noticeboard to adjudicate that. Otherwise, accusations such as that as well as the claim you left on my talk page that my legitimate concerns for the accuracy and relevance of this article constitute "disruptive editing," can be seen as WP:HARASS by you. And as a reminder, my user name is Malke_2010. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think, if there's evidence of copyvio, that should be presented, so it can be dealt with promptly. (If you haven't found it yet, that's fine, but nothing much is likely to be done until the evidence is found). I agree that the line you mention needs a citation to support it, but that's not the same thing as copyvio. I also agree that claims of harassment are better dealt with through the proper channels, rather than here.Anaxial (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The copyvio issue is not the main issue here. That's become a red herring to distract from the real issues here. In a thread above, History2007 provides links to book excerpts on Google Books. These books do not offer any more insight into this so-called Catholic belief than does this Wiki article.

The paragraph I've listed above has been taken directly from one of those books. I have so many of these website links and Google book excerpts bookmarked that it is taking me a while to sort backwards to where this particular paragraph is. But I did indeed find the exact wording, which I remembered because it makes no sense. As the paragraph stands now, without a citation and not making any sense, it could easily be deleted. That is why I'm asking him for a citation. As such, the copvio issue should not halt attention to the larger issues which include:

• The lack of proper citations, of course, is one.
• The claims being made by the title that are not addressed anywhere within the body of the article.
• The lead fails to say what these Catholic beliefs are.
• There are no reliable sources discussing the beliefs of Catholics in this so-called 'power of prayer.'
• History2007 admits that the title was chosen after the article was written and other editors contested the title. (See threads above).
• The article seems nothing more than an eclectic collection of Catholic devotions, (totally lacking reliable sources), which are better taken up by this article, Catholic devotions.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Malke. And "hello"? Is that a copyright issue you mentioned here? I specifically and directly asked you to "substantiate your claim" that there are copyright violations in this article. You said you had a bookmark on your computer and needed to find it. Then, instead you ask for a citation for a separate, unrelated paragraph? Hello? Are we speaking the same language? Therefore:

I hereby declare that Malke's claims of copyright violations are without basis.

That's somewhat inflammatory language, if I may say so. Whether the claims are without basis is something that should be determined my consensus, not by unilateral declaration.

While there is no reason to delete/rephrase the passages until Malke_2010 can identify the copyvio, the fact that he hasn't yet done so doesn't in any way prejudice any future evidence he might be able to present. The question, in my view, remains open, without prejudice to the views of either party. Furthermore, the request for a citation is perfectly legitimate to my mind, and judging by Malke_2010's listing above, one that he regards as particularly significant in general throughout the article. Since I gather you have one, it might be best to ferret it out, allowing consensus-building to proceed with clear good-will on both sides? Anaxial (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Anaxial, I will deal with citation issues separately. The problem is that there are MANY claims here, and they need to be addressed "one by one". I have deliberately tried to keep the focus on "one issue at a time" and I ask direct questions about copyright claims and I get no answers. I call that a baseless claim since the claim that the paragraph http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Catholic_beliefs_on_the_power_of_prayer#Rosary "was directly lifted" along with the image from another website was just forgotten and the topic of the discussion changed. I can ONLY fix one problem at a time. Are there copyright problems? If there are, I need a list, else the claim is without basis. History2007 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The simple, time saving solution is to provide a citation for the paragraph in question. In that way, any claim of copyvio can be dispelled immediately.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, that wouldn't dispel anything - just because one can source something has nothing to do with whether or not it's copyvio (it would just prove its not OR). The quickest way to deal with the copyvio issue would be to demonstrate where the copy was lifted from (which I gather you're trying to do, so that's okay). Anaxial (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of copyvio is that if material is taken directly from a source and the source is not cited, that's a copyvio. In addition, even if the source is cited, large amounts of text reprinted without permission are copyvio. If there is a source for the paragraph in question, it would certainly help on several fronts: it might help explain the meaning of this paragraph, it would provide a source all editors could examine, and it might help me find the source where I saw it. This is why I'm requesting the source. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the if the material is taken directly clause that's the issue here. Simply providing a source (necessary though I agree that is) won't prove that hasn't happened, since it might not be the same source as the one that contains the original text. Although it might, as you say, help to explain what the sentence means, if it's unclear!Anaxial (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like a source, regardless. This is becoming something of a red herring. The overall issues with the article must be addressed. It will require far too much time to hunt this one paragraph down and it is not worth it. If it does not have a source, then I will delete it as it does not make any sense.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No Malke, as far as copyright go, your logic is just inconsistent logic. It is inconsistent in the use of universal quantification versus existential quantification and negation as failure technically speaking and also informally known as the argument from ignorance error in logic. History2007 (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That's as may be, but any editor is entitled to delete an unsourced statement, especially if it doesn't make sense, and even if it isn't copyvio. I'd suggest digging up the source, once you've got a moment. Anaxial (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not mind if that is deleted - I can do it myself. That statement makes absolutely NO difference to the article, although the last part of it is a tautology and is totally obvious. If A is included in B, and B is recited, A is recited too. Obviously. But not essential to the article at all. But do want to point out that there were NO copyright violations that anyone on this page is or has been aware of, since this thread is about copyrights and claims were made about copy vio 3 times. This copyright violation claim was not related to citations. Much ado about nothing, just copyvio claims without justification. History2007 (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying you don't have a source to show it isn't a copyvio? or original research?Malke 2010 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you have inconsistent logic again. Please read: argument from ignorance carefully. Enough of this logical error for now.History2007 (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's generally impossible to provide a source that shows something isn't copyvio, but it is possible to provide a source to show it's not original research, and ideally I'd say that should be done, since the question has been raised. I don't quite understand the resistance to providing one, and I'm going to tag it. Anaxial (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Too late - it is not there any more. I removed that trivial item. It was obvious, but a TOTAL waste of time in this thread via faulty logic. And again NO copyvio problems have been shown to me yet. History2007 (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Anaxial. I don't understand the resistance to providing the source. It could possibly help me in finding where I read it off Wiki. In addition, it might help clarify exactly how the rosary fits into these "Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer." Certainly you had a source when you wrote this.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Three words Malke: focus, focus, focus. Did I mention that word before? I will deal with issues "one by one". This thread was/is about copyvio. Did I mention that before? I am not obligated to go through all problems at once. In fact, I amnot obligated to do ANYTHING. Tags are there and I will address their removal systematically. I will address issues one by one. Again, we are not making gumbo here. This thread is/was about copyright violations claims and is now concluded. NO copyvio problems were produced. End of topic. History2007 (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If we intend to improve the article, no baseless claims can be made. The copyright issue is over now, since despite repeated requests no basis for said claims has been presented. Next issue: Bible versions that were mentioned several times as a problem. History2007 (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke, once again, how is "the need for a citation a copyright issue"? Please clarify that logic for me. I do not see that as a logical and correct statement at all. As Anaxial said, "The line you mention needs a citation to support it, but that's not the same thing as copyvio". Anaxial was right, and I repeat: "the need for a citation is NOT a copyright violation". Indeed it may be the reverse. The lack of citation means that the line does not appear anywhere as far as we know, copyright violation means that it was lifted from somehere we know - the reverse. However, your statement that "In that way, any claim of copyvio can be dispelled immediately" can be translated as: "Malke does not have any specific copyright problems that can be pointed out. Hence there are no copyright violations that anyone on this talk page is aware of. End of issue. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Bible versions: Catholic vs other

The issue of references to the Catholic Bible vs the New International Bible has been brought up as a problem by Malke several times now. I found one, and fixed it to be a generic reference a few days ago, as in most other articles in Wikipedia, so the reader can select the version. Malke, please provide a "complete list" of Bible references that have problems so I can fix them. This, however, is an unusual (yet minor) claim and I have never seen it brought up anywhere in Wikipedia after over 100 articles I have written on Catholic topics. However, I will readily fix these if a list if provided. I can not fix them unless I know where they are. Just now I did a search on "NIV" and found nothing in the article. Malke, I am again asking for substantiation of "this specific claim" to remove the issues in the claims "one by one". Please provide a list of Bible references that you object to, so I can fix them. Please stay focused on this issue so the issues can be resolved one by one. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The NIV is, according to its own article at Wikipedia, explicitly Protestant, so I'd agree that it's not a great source for illustrating the beliefs of Catholics. But it's surely not very hard to fix all of the references to it en masse? In fact, I've just made a start, using the Douey-Rheims version. Of course, one could change that to, say, the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (available online via [10]) if that would be more comprehensible. Anaxial (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, the Douey-Rheims is an excellent source, as is New Revised Standard. Also, St. Joseph edition of the New American Bible.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit Anaxial. I thought it meant the online links, so I searched for NIV in the article and found nothing. Somehow the NIV item by itself does not show in the text search. Over the next day, it will be easy for me to substitute that. No big deal. However, the substance of the Gospel passages does not change at all, as the text changes. But thanks for your edit. History2007 (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Three, that I can see (49,50,51). The non-biblical references look generally Catholic to me, but I'm no expert, so I may have missed some. Anaxial (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I will change those later today, then this issue will also be put to bed. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, Anaxial, please respond to my post in the thread above, thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I responded and pointed you to 4 articles on logic as to why your argument is logically inconsistent. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed the Bible Gateway references now. Therefore, this issue of Bible versions is now over. Unless there are other Biblegateway items that I can not see. But the differences were truly trivial as far as the meaning and impact within the article is concerned, e.g.

"An angel from heaven appeared to Him and strengthened Him" was changed to "And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him."

Big deal. No major difference to the article. Much ado about nothing.

However, in the process I got some good ideas on how to expand this article. So I guess we will be seeing much more text in this article, because I have now decided that it needs further expansion, e.g. the issues relating to the Holy Spirit, etc. That material will be interesting to add. Thank you for making me think of expansion. History2007 (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Issues addressed so far

The following issues have been addressed so far:

1. Article notability: Article is notable. .

2. Copyright violations claims: None were presented after much debate. Not a single one.

3. Bible versions: Easily replaced. Trivial changes.

Next: Missing citations. Please keep focus on the topic. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing citation claims

Please provide a list of claimed missing citations in this article. Please ONLY deal with missing citations here, not article lede, copyright or copyleft issues, etc. Please do not debate the nature of theology in this thread but focus on missing citations. The goal in this thread is to keep focus as mentioned before. Article lede will be the LAST topic, since it needs to summarize the article, and it must wait to the end. So please list the missing citations. The article has over 80 references, so it is not exactly citation free. Anyway, please provide a list, and I will delete/modify/expand text to deal with each missing citation. I will not address other issues in this thread. Please start the list of claimed missing citations below:

Item 1:

Here is the Catechism at the Vatican website History2007 (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC) And just to clarify for the last time, you did not read the Catechism carefully, and your edit here was incorrect. The 1st and the 3rd sentences are from the Gospel (and hence had double quotes around them), the middle sentence: Such is the power of prayer and of faith that does not doubt is from the Catechism itself and had no double quotes. Please read these things before you debate them. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a commentary on the words of Christ. It is an example of prayer and faith "that does not doubt." You are twisting this around in all your edits of today to make it appear that there is a Catholic belief on the 'power of prayer,' yet you can not list any number of specific beliefs. So I ask again, please list 5 Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer,using reliable sources.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

In addition, again I ask, please provide reliable sources for this section, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Catholic_beliefs_on_the_power_of_prayer#Prayer_as_a_source_of_strength and the newly added ones, please provide a direct quote and page number here for all editors to examine. Since you obviously have access to these volumes, this should be easy to do.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Item 2:

Here is an example of what appears to be a questionable citation: "Our Sunday Visitor's Treasury of Catholic Stories by Gerald M. Costello 2001 ISBN 0879739797 page 278" is listed as reference #4 sourcing this sentence: "Catholic tradition includes a large number of stories about the power of prayer." However, a quick check of Google Books, where History2007 gets all his references from, shows that that particular chapter is entitled: "On History's Stage: Mother Teresa's Worldwide Mission Begins on a Train Ride." The chapter begins page 276 to 279. [11]Malke 2010 (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke, Please read this link and stop. You must assume good faith. All you needed to do in your own link was scroll down to page 278, end of page. If I typed the exact words, then it would be called a copyvio, right? This is amazing. Now I will stop for the Afd to end. History2007 (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem with the edits here. You are cherry picking a quote from an unrelated chapter in a book and claim that is evidence of Catholic beliefs in the power of prayer. No, that isn't a valid reference. And again, my user name is Malke_2010. Please remember WP:CIVIL.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Item 3:

No 43 goes to the encyclical I think. In any case the encyclical is a clear item on the Vatican website too. Please feel free to be constructive and point to it. History2007 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Item 4:

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I've nominated the article for deletion. There seems to be no progress in the 3O discussion. The article does not offer any illuminations on Catholic beliefs, there is no notability, possible copyright violations, as well as original research and complete lack of sources to confirm Catholic beliefs. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good approach to take, given your concerns. I don't happen to agree with you on this particular point (as I've posted at the AFD), but wider discussion can only be beneficial. Anaxial (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw your note. I think you did a good job with the 3O but given the lack of civility and the refusal to provide sources, or answer questions, it seemed to me to be the only solution.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. But for Heaven's sake, tell me that I misread "possible copyright violations" in what Malke wrote just above here. Are we still talking about copyvio after no single example could be produced (including the book marks referred to) following multiple requests to Malke? We talk for ever and a day about copyrights and no single example can be produced, then it is part of the claims for deletion? I must be misreading this. Am I? History2007 (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You continue to fail to provide sources for these edits. Here's one. What source to you have to show where this came from? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Catholic_beliefs_on_the_power_of_prayer#Prayer_as_a_source_of_strengthMalke 2010 (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

citation problems

In this edit [12] you are making it appear that the Gospel quotations from Matthew and Luke are directly from the Catholic Church as if somehow this supports the title of this article. Just because the quotation is mentioned in the Catechism, doesn't mean the Pope said it. Jesus said it, and Matthew and Luke recorded it. The edit is incorrect and I corrected it. You've reverted it. Please explain the reason for reverting this. The true source of the quote is the Bible, not the Catechism.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

In this section, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Catholic_beliefs_on_the_power_of_prayer#Power_of_the_Rosary, on the first citation at the end of the paragraph, #43, leads to another Wikipedia article.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)]

Where exactly does it say in the Catechism about this power of prayer? Why aren't you quoting it directly?Malke 2010 (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please do not move my posts, as you did here [13] without my permission.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? There is a thread for that above. I did not delete anything just moved it to its own thread. I do not really know how to respond to this type of logic. I will wait for the Afd to complete before I respond again. As stated above in "Item 1" your edit was incorrect. History2007 (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You cannot move another editors' comments without permission. I put my comments where I believed they were best placed.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its probably best not to move another editor's comments, even if you don't change them, as it might be seen as attempts to alter the record (even if that wasn't your intent, as I'm sure it wasn't). Anaxial (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that there was a specific thread for it, I was actually following WP:DNMG, (WP:do not make gumbo) to organize a discussion that was getting scattered all over the place. But anyway, that is beside the point really. History2007 (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Beliefs

Please list 5 Catholic beliefs in the power of prayer, using reliable sources and not links back to Wikipedia pages. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful" Jas.5:16 (NAB)Mannanan51 (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

An article that purports to present "Catholic beliefs on prayer" seems to allot an undue amount of space to "promises". While the lead states, "Despite the promises associated with power of prayer, the direct measurement of its effect is often discouraged ...", the article then goes on to discuss at some length no less than seven separate traditional pious practices which appear to involve "promises". As currently presented this seems to suggest a rather significant "quid pro quo" aspect to Catholic prayer. (In addition, "Catholic figures such as saints, preachers, or popes ..." may convey said "promises" but they can hardly make them.) Secondly, each of the listed devotions has its own entry, should a reader be interested in additional information. A simple listing, or abbreviated summary in a single paragraph would appear both sufficient and more efficient. (The entire section on the Power of the Rosary is better served in one of the Rosary articles.) All of the mentioned devotions are based on private revelation. While they may each be entirely edifying, Catholics are not obliged to believe in any of them. "Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith..." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #67). Some of these devotions, have more "currency" than others. The discussion re Bridget of Sweden states that the prayers and promises were published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis, suggesting an implied endorsement. However, if one follows the link to the full article about St. Bridget, it indicates that the AAS "...found the alleged promises unreliable, and directed local ordinaries not to permit the circulation of pamphlets containing the promises..." This includes a citation and link directly to AAS and would appear to be a more reliable source than that cited in the instant article. I have not made any edits as yet, lest I inadvertently kick over an anthill, but this article could use a good weed-wacking.Mannanan51 (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

Your metaphorical anthill seems to be harmless these days. Please feel free to make edit as you see fit - your AAS point is valid, etc. I have been intending to come back to edit here, but have been busy with other things. So help will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge

The other article is but a subset of this, so should merge. Let us wait a day or two, and if no objections it can just be done. History2007 (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

When I first read Prayer forms I thought it clean and concise. However, I think it appropriate to merge with Roman Catholic Prayer ---just as I think it equally appropriate to move the Devotions section over to the Roman Catholic Devotions page (perhaps with a separate sub-heading). RC Prayer is a general overview, while Devotions pertain to particular practices; plus RC Devotions could use a few more.Mannanan51 (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)mannanan51

Yes, that is partly the case. Devotions are stuck here because the page was originally about "power and promises". So the promises were the driving force. That is why there is a hatnote abou efficacy. Then someone renamed the page... So the Golden Arrow is a prayer, but it is a prayer specifically attached to a devotion. So the two issues of devotion-based prayers and promises of prayer still need to be mentioned.

And the devotions page can certainly be extended with new items. Please feel free to expand that. Now in the context of the new page name, the issue of indulgences should be mentioned as well.

On that note I had not even looked at Mental prayer in any detail, but it is mostly unsourced. I am not even sure how correct it is. What it really needs is a subsection here with a Main. And it needs checking and refs itself.

By the way, I don't know why you chopped Mother Teresa's quotes, and references to "not of this world", etc. I thought those were interesting examples of how Catholics view prayers. History2007 (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have always been somewhat cautious regarding promises revealed through private revelation as they can so readily be perceived as something perilously close to magical thinking. (Graham Greene has an ironically interesting short story wherein a businessman hires an employee for the specific task of attending various devotional activities in order to acccrue indulgences on his behalf --only to find that she has been spending the time in romantic trysts.)

I was not particularly familiar with Mental Prayer as it is more commonly now referred to as Interior Prayer. It appears that much of the material is derived from the long list of External Links and will try to derive some cites from them.

As to the phrase "Not of this world", I found it a little vague (and from current television programs more often suggestive of extraterrestrials). The series of quotations looked a little choppy, but I tried to incorporate some into the body of the article, leaving Damascene, Newman, JPII, Lucia, Bernard, and Teresa. My intent was a more tightly organized article. Mannanan51 (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)mannanan51

I had not read the G Greene item - interesting. What I referred to was 2 Corinthians 10:4-5:"For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty to God, unto the pulling down of fortifications, destroying counsels." something that builds on that. You are probably right that Mother Teresa is not an authority (yet).

Regarding mental prayer, (or interior prayer) they need to be checked. I have been surprised by pure inventions in Wikipedia, e.g. if you look at the talk page for Sermon on teh Mount, where invented pages had existed for a few years. If we cannot verify mental prayer, the material needs to be chopped - no other way. There is no point in leaving wrong information out there.

And now that no one has objected to the merge flag, I think we have a green light on that. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that any merge of Prayer Forms be deferred until such time as some of the concerns raised in the GA review are addressed - otherwise it further clutters an article that apparently already needs significant cleanup. Mannanan51 (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)mannanan51

Yes, I agree. As usual the question is: who will do the work? History2007 (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Per GA critique, have merged Belief and Teachings sections, as it is supposed that Catholics likely believe what they are taught. Mannanan51 (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)mannanan51

Well done! Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 08:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roman Catholic prayer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rawlangs (talk · contribs) 23:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Overall, the prose does not read smoothly. For instance, it is unclear how the content of Belief in Prayer actually relates to the title of that section. Why, in explicating the catholic belief in prayer, is it necessary to know that Jesus prayed? I am not saying that it isn't important, but to a non-Catholic, it is not clear how it is important. The section reads like a collection of summaries of primary sources. Rather than summarizing, try to make factual claims supported by those sources that help readers understand their underlying concepts and why they are important. Some sections are written better than others. The section Forms of prayer is clearly written in that it provides factual information related to its topic, but only discusses petition, leaving out the signposted blessing, intercession, thanksgiving, and praise. Lack of signposting is a consistent problem in the article, and contributes to the overall lack of clarity. The section on devotions appears to be well written but fails completely to explain what a devotion is, which should be the obvious starting point of a section on devotions. There are many more problems in this article. Editors should start by fixing the ones listed above. A solid understanding of WP:BETTER will help editors make improvements to this article.	Fail
(b) (MoS)	There are errors and inconsistencies in punctuation (see WP:PUNCT), especially relating to the integration of footnotes (the number goes directly after the punctuation mark, not before, and a space follows the citation unless followed directly by another citation; see WP:FN). The lead does little to summarize the content of the article. Nothing in the lead, for instance, led me to expect I would be reading about either devotions or methods of prayer. There are many, many style problems in this article. Someone with a solid understanding of WP:Style needs to go over it carefully and repeatedly to clean it up. To comply with GA standards, the lead needs to be completely rewritten to comply with WP:LEAD, and someone needs to carefully address the many problems with paragraphing to comply with WP:LAYOUT.	Fail

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	There is a flag at the top of this article, which would typically qualify the article for quick failing, but I see the reference list as salvageable. As it stands, the article has references to all of its information, but many of these references are incomplete and poorly formatted. The sources are sometimes presented as bare URLs. URLs are susceptible to link rot. If the page ever changes, the link will no longer work and nobody will know how to verify the information in the article. Use the reference templates available in the cite tab when doing your references, and accurately fill out as many of those fields as you can so that even if the link dies, the information can still be found. If you cite books, make sure readers know what book is being cited. Citing the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" is fine, but cite the specific publication that was accessed. To a non Catholic person, the citation looks like it refers to a page number. As few editions of the CCC extend over a thousand pages, this could cause serious confusion. Give a full citation and your readers will thank you. Same goes for quoting the bible: let the reader know exactly what version you are quoting. The current references are inviting inconsistency and lost information and should be overhauled as soon as possible for clarity's sake. Few, but some, references in this article are properly and excellently formatted. Sermon notes of John Henry Cardinal Newman is a good example. Despite the problems, since it is possible to hunt down all of the information if I'm willing to figure out what exactly each reference is referring to, this section gets a marginal pass.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The vast majority of referenced works, with a few exceptions, are reliable. Try to find a better source for links like "Mother Teresa Prayers —" at some point, as there is little on that page to recommend it as a reliable source of information. Go to the library. There's loads of information on Mother Teresa in paper bound books if you're willing to look. In general, a very good job on sourcing information.	Pass
(c) (original research)	There is no obviously original research, though I would not claim to be an expert on the subject.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article fails to even talk about the aspects of prayer it promises to talk about. After reading teachings on prayer, I did not feel I even got an overview on teachings on prayer. There has to be more than two perspectives in the Catholic Church, and the article fails to unpack even the two it mentions. Expressions of Prayer does not address all of the forms of expression it signposts, and there are more types of expression. I've heard of nuns dancing the Hail Mary, and I would consider that an expression. The Song of Songs, as I recall, has some very interesting things to say about the expression of prayer. There is just so much material left on the table throughout the article. More research needs to be done, as this is a huge topic.	Fail
(b) (focused)	Because of the poor quality of the lead, the article lacks organization and thrust. Without a good lead, I have no notion of what the scope of the article should be, and so I have no way of knowing whether it goes off course. I don't think it does, but I'm only guessing without someone suggesting a structure. As it stands, the article is largely a loosely organized collection of quotations from primary sources. Is devotion a type of prayer? It's not listed in the types or expressions of prayer, and not explained in any way. Is this out of scope? Hard to say. A good lead will, I'm sure, help integrate the various sections into a cohesive whole. Write the lead!	Fail

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes

Result

The article appears to be heavily and systemically biased. (See WP:BIAS) This type of bias can show itself as an exclusion of information. I would assume most of the people working on this article are Catholic. I would recommend trying to revise the article under the assumption that non-Catholics are reading it, and trying to provide useful and complete information to them. The article should be useful to someone with literally no prior knowledge of Catholicism. There are about 1.2 billion Catholics. That leaves about six billion non-Catholic potential readers. Reach out to them!

Fail

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes

Result

There do not seem to be any edit wars, though there probably should be if the article expands to the point it should. Very few people can agree on the same religious matters. There is so much diversity in prayer, even within Catholicism, and the issue can be so touchy and prone to heated disagreement that I am honestly surprised that this article is not under constant revision. However, this is not a reason to fail it in this category. Start some arguments if you feel strongly on a subject! Be bold in your edits! It can only improve the article in the long run.

Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Good job here. What about some images of people engaged in prayer though? There must be some on Wikimedia, and as people still pray, there should probably be images of them doing so.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The images all belong here, but the captions could use some minor work. All of them should conform to MOS:CAPTION, but this is a minor point. Good job.	Pass

Result

Result

Notes

Fail

The lead and early sections of the article need to be completely rewritten for clarity, and need to relate better to their headings. There is major systemic bias. There needs to be a lot more information included before the scope of the content aligns with the scope implied by the article title. Workshop the content, then start and resolve some arguments. What exactly, beyond the definition, is prayer? What does it mean to the average Catholic? Everything in the article needs to have a logical and readily apparent reason for being there for a non-Catholic person. Start by fixing what I have mentioned, then re-apply for GA status. You'll make it!

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

Perhaps this subject could be reeopened now with the refurbished article? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Balance

In case anyone is wondering, the section on Vocal Prayer is longer than that of Mental Prayer and its expressions because (1) it is likely that most familiar to most people, and (2) the latter group each has its own Main article. Mannanan51 (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Mannanan51

Requested move 28 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as clear consensus has been established. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 19:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Roman Catholic prayer → Prayer in the Catholic Church – Before anyone jumps to conclusions, this has nothing to do with the "Roman" in the title. Several similar articles' titles are formatted <main topic> in <organization>; e.g., Dogma in the Catholic Church, Ordination of women in the Catholic Church, Marriage in the Catholic Church. To meet WP:CONSISTENCY, this article's title should be no different. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support, I don't see any reason not to be consistent.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support as per above. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Crusadestudent is now Jujutsuan. (And, of course, I still support my own proposal.) Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 21:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger discussion

Catholic prayers is a redundant, low-quality, short article. If there's any worthwhile content there, it should be merged into this article. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 15:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Reading it again, there's no content there that isn't here already, besides the unnecessary inclusion of prayer text. And it's barely sourced at all. I'm going to just redirect it here. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 19:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Good job! Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)