Talk:Ecumenism
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This level-4 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of theEcumenical page weremerged intoEcumenism on 7 May 2005. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please seeits history; for the discussion at that location, seeits talk page. |
| The contents of theInterdenominationalism page weremerged intoEcumenism on 16 March 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please seeits history; for the discussion at that location, seeits talk page. |
There is a section that lumps the "Eastern" and "Oriental" Orthodox churches together. I'd like to remind everyone that these are distinct churches. So distinct, in fact, that if we had to lump churches together, it would arguably make more theological sense to lump the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox together, and put the Oriental Orthodox in a separate section (I don't advocate doing this!). Editors should be careful not to jump to sloppy conclusions based on the mutual use of the word "orthodox" by these churches.184.175.14.142 (talk)20:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions atTemplate:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! --Khazar2 (talk)02:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe an good photo to illustrate this article? --Flor!an (talk)17:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone added statements about ecumenism being a general phenomena, rather than a purely Christian enterprise. This is A) wrong and B) completely unsupported in the text below and I have removed it.108.90.117.6 (talk)22:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links onEcumenism. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If necessary, add{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add{{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online22:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either the uncited claims in the Anglican section need to be sourced, or they need to be removed. There have been minority split movements but they are far in the minority.— Precedingunsigned comment added by67.161.9.245 (talk) 21 December 2015
Done so its easier to gloss over.MaximusEditor (talk)19:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links onEcumenism. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{dead link}} tag tohttp://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0604186.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue orfailed to let others know (documentation at{{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)22:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links onEcumenism. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)01:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My removal of the Popular culture section has been reverted by185.85.186.2(talk ·contribs ·WHOIS).IMDb is not a reliable source andpopular culture content requires reliable third party sources. I will remove the section again, unless this discussion reaches some other outcome.– Finnusertop (talk ⋅contribs)15:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently tagged this article for having multiple issues that need resolving. Namely, these are general copyediting, verbosity of language, and condensing - three that roughly fall in the same ballpark. Let's go through them one by one.
Copyediting - Basic things. Tone, repeated wikilinks, style of writing. General and non-specific cleanup that anyone could have a go at.
Verbosity of language - there are a lot of points in this article that read like an essay written in the context of the reader already understanding the subject. Not everyone is going to read and fully understand the topic of every Wikipedia article, but this should be because of the subject at hand -not because of the way the article is written.
For example - the articleGalaxy is a Featured Article. I don't understand everything written in that article, but that's because I'm not very good at Science. It'snot because it's written terribly - it's a Featured Article, meaning that theopportunity to understand the article subjectis there. I just don't have the smarts for it.
I hope this reasoning makes sense - the point I'm trying to get at is that you have to write a Wikipedia article essentially from the ground up, like the reader has absolutely not a clue what Ecumenism is before they hit the page. Currently, this article does not do this. I had to search on google for what ecumenism is, because thevery first sentence used to read like this:
The term "ecumenism" refers to efforts byChristians of different church traditions to develop closer relationships and better understandings.
The article's subject can be as nuanced and complicated as you want, but the article still has to be written well.
Condensing - I have afeeling there are too many section headers in this article, but I could be wrong. What Idon't feel wrong about is the fact that the information in this article could be heavily condensed and far better organised.
Someone with a greater interest in this subject needs to have a stab at this article, as I couldn't focus for more than one section before my brain started turning into molten cheese. I hope this explanation of the tags makes sense, and I hope that someone takes the opportunity to have a go at improving this article. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk)18:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should delete the "Historic divisions in Christianity" section as it is beyond the scope of this article. Important links could be included in the "See also" section.Editor2020 (talk)01:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that there may be two typos in section 1 of the block quote from The Discipline of the Evangelical Wesleyan Church. Specifically, I surmise that the passage "The scriptural references, as alleged proofs favoring this doctrine, may be showing to rest upon an assumption in each case that the Word of God will not substance" should read "The scriptural references, as alleged proofs favoring this doctrine, may be shown to rest upon an assumption in each case that the Word of God will not substantiate". However, I cannot find the cited work online. Does anyone have access to it?Ps8v9 (talk)01:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]