Talk:Error has no rights

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 19:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: See below Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer's comments
  • The first sentence of the article is sourced to Hertzke, but he does not mention heresy or the Inquisition
  • Similarly, the quote from Pope Gregory is not there either - are you citing the correct article?
  • Nor it the second paragraph of the Repudiation section, which talks only of the 1990s on. I would suggest that date is correct.
  • Strongly suggest that this be cleaned up. I am reluctant to certify that the article is fully cited under the circumstances.
On the other hand...
  • The main hook is supported by fn 6.
  • Alt hook supported by the New York Times source

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're right, trout Self-trout. I was citing the wrong source. Now fixed (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the hook is a bit more extreme than the quoted text; "did not deserve" is not the same thing as "enjoyed no title in principle to". A wording like "were not entitled to" would be in line with the text. There are a couple of sentences in the article I have similar concerns about, but I have to sit down and see if I can get a copy of the sources first. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggested phrasing is, as far as I can tell, a less concise and more euphemistic way of saying the same thing. The entire point of human rights (a superset of civil and political rights) is that they are enjoyed by all people equally. Otherwise it is not really a right, but a privilege granted by higher authority (t · c) buidhe 15:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: It's not a euphemism—it's literally a form of the same word used in the source. Closely reflecting the language of the source is the safest thing to do. Here, "deserve" is a departure from the source, and has harsher connotations. Anyway, I'll find time tonight to take a closer look at the sources. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule that says that Wikipedia must follow the phrasing of the source. Usually that is discouraged (WP:Close paraphrasing). In fact, Wikipedia strives for WP:IMPARTIAL language even if the source does not. (t · c) buidhe 19:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Take it up on the article talk page. The article could stand to be greatly expended. I am satisfied that the changes resolve the issues I pointed out affecting its promotion at DYK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some expansion of the article. I still think the original hook has the issue that the use of the word "deserve" is not the WP:IMPARTIAL one because it deviates from the word actually used in the source to have a harsher tone, and I encourage the promoter to use ALT1. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"For centuries, the Catholic Church maintained close connection to the state and used state coercion (such as the Inquisition) to punish heretics.[8]" Given that the Inquisition was a church body, how is it an example of "state coercion"? The State and the Church (including the Inquisition) are surely not one and the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.104.11 (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion[edit]

@Buidhe: It is highly irregular to revert an entire, large edit, rather than just the parts you disagree with. The material I added was supported by the sources and is relevant to the context of this topic. There are some concepts in this article that really do need context. For example, you write about the "preference for an absolutist confessional state" where "non-Catholics could, or should, be persecuted", which could be interpreted to present this as universal, while the source clearly states non-Catholics were "sometimes tolerated, often persecuted" with an explanation of the reasons. You removed several sentences of context from the very source you cite, which is quite important to understating the full picture.

I will refrain from re-adding the specific aspects you objected to in your edit comment, but you did remove a significant amount of text that is closely tied to the specific phrase "error has no rights", and I will assume that you do not object to those specifically and add those back in so we can discuss any issues farther. We are both of us experienced editors and we should be able to improve the article through discussion. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing is questionable and I don't have time to check it all. For example, Hertzke doesn't say it started in the Middle Ages. Nor does Pawlikowski support "Pressure to overturn the doctrine [presumably you mean the title of the article] largely came from the Catholic hierarchy in the United States, stemming from the positive experience of large numbers of Catholic immigrants into a largely Protestant nation that practiced church–state separation, and of cooperation with Protestants and Jews in passing New Deal social legislation." What the rest of this sentence has to do with the article subject escapes me. (t · c) buidhe 03:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Pawlikowski does in fact specifically state that. "It is no accident, I feel, that the principal challenge to the 'error has no rights' theology came from America." It's on page 150 of the 1979 source.
Yes, you are expected to edit collaboratively and discuss changes to the article. You can't revert an edit just because you "don't have time to check it all". That smacks of article ownership. This goes beyond content issues, it is a conduct issue that prevents us from improving the article if you immediately reject any change to what you have written. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't support the statement you wrote in the article, which goes beyond coming from America, refers to "pressure" rather than an ideological challenge, and doesn't support any connection with the New Deal.
Also, I don't see how the sentence about the Inquisition fits in the article if you're advocating for an extremely narrow scope. Pawlikowski doesn't mention the Inquisition, and the other cited article on the Inquisition doesn't mention "error has no rights", or even church–state relations at all. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ONUS—if material you are adding is subject to a good-faith challenge, it's up to you to demonstrate that it follows policies and guidelines. (t · c) buidhe 17:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the 1989 Pawlikowski source, quite explicitly. "Vatican II witnessed an intense effort by... the U.S. hierarchy in particular to alter the traditional Catholic commitment to the primacy of the confessional state. This effort owed much to the overall experience of U.S. Catholicism. The collective memory of American Catholics included a positive recollection of extensive collaboration with Protestants and Jews on social legislation, especially during the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt." It's pretty hard to miss.
It is not appropriate to completely revert text when a change in the wording will fix the issue, because it inhibits improving the text. It's also improper to revert text other than the text you're stating an objection to. This is the most aggressive editing I have personally encountered in my nearly 14 years on Wikipedia.
WP:ONUS doesn't require writing a whole essay to justify every single sentence added. But as I add things back that deal with your objections, I will use the edit comments to specify the source text.
Also, you have not responded yourself to the issues with the Inquisition sentence. Or another issue I've noticed, the sourcing for the statement on the view that "non-Catholics... should be persecuted". Is this sourced only from the "Just War" source? It only mentions that in the context of St. Augustine, and again doesn't mention "error has no rights". It so, it's important to have a sentence that it's referring to the works of St. Augustine, otherwise it's being wrongly presented as a universal belief, while Pawlikowski explicitly states they non-Catholics were "sometimes tolerated, often persecuted." Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The primacy of the confessional state isn't quite the same thing as "error has no rights", so the material would better belong in a more general article on church-state relations. (t · c) buidhe 20:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Buidhe, I hope you realize that I'm altering the text based on your comments, and have split up the edits by sentence to make it easier for you to selectively respond to each of them without affecting any changes we agree are constructive. That is what collaboration is about. Frankly, you should be editing the text to make improvements, rather than leaving me to guess what edits might satisfy your concerns. You may want to read WP:DONTREVERT. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DONTREVERT is an essay. (t · c) buidhe 20:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional?[edit]

I question whether this is a "traditional" doctrine. It is certainly not a very old slogan in English or Latin. The citations for such a sweeping claim are unimpressive. Srnec (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say that this used to be the main position in Catholicism (endorsed by various popes, etc.) and that it no longer is since the mid-20th century. What wording do you suggest? (t · c) buidhe 01:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with buidhe, this is what the sources state, and most sources are specialised sources written by Catholic theologians. Furthermore, Modern Catholic Social Teaching: Commentaries and Interpretations, p. 251, "Commentary on Dignitatis humanae" (ed. Kenneth R. Himes, Georgetown University Press) talks about error has no rights "which many bishops believed was the authentic and irreformable teaching of the Church" and was "a useful slogan because it captured the traditional position's focus on the truth." Veverve (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: For starters, replace "traditional" with "a". This expression seems to be a modern one, perhaps going back no further than the 19th century. I did find it in Orestes Brownson, but he affirms that while error has no rights, people in error do. So not what the article is talking about.
@Veverve: "which many bishops believed was the authentic and irreformable teaching of the Church" does not sound like it is saying it actually was the traditional teaching of the church. Srnec (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The expression may be a fairly recent one, but the content of the expression was taught by the Catholic Church long before the 19th century. (t · c) buidhe 02:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The expression may be recent, but the "the traditional position's focus on the truth" is not. This position was preached by Pius XII (source), and is given as the official Catholic position by Francis J. Connell in The American Ecclesiastical Review, 1964-08: Vol 151, Iss 2, p. 126-30 (online).
Frank K. Flinn calls 'error has no right' "the old principle that was embodied in the INQUISITION" (Encyclopedia of Catholicism, art. 'Varican Council II', p. 623).
Richard McBrien calls it "the pre-Vatican [II] formula" (Catholicism, ch. "THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF VATICAN II")
Maybe this chapter has more information, but I cannot access it.
It was the Catholic position according to all sources used in the article, so putting an "a" would be betraying the sources. Hopefully, the sources within the article along with all those supplementary sources are enough to explain to you why I support keeping the current wording. Veverve (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article needs to tell us where and when this phrase originated before it can be called traditional. I do not think the cited RS are good enough to apply a modern slogan to age-old Catholic dogma. Srnec (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning is use. Are you arguing that if the expresion used to designate something is recent, then this something cannot be said to be older than the expresion?
Feel free to e-mail the authors of the sources used in the article and which I gave you in this thread if you want to add the origin of the expression. Meanwhile, the WP:RS, until proven the contrary, use the expression 'error has no rights' to designate what the WP article is about. Veverve (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am asserting that, because the Catholic church is neither obscure and understudied nor a recent creation, the sources used are not good enough to establish that this particular phrase is the proper one for anything "traditional". I am not denying that a modern term of art can be used to designate older things. I am denying that this is in fact a term of art for the thing in question. I have only come across this phrase in (a) highly philosophical contexts, not represented by this article and (b) online integralism, quite a niche. That is why the word "traditional" jumped out to me as wrong. Srnec (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how peer-reviewed, quite recent sources written by people who are considered as reliable could be considered not good enough. However, shile I have read most of the sources given in the article, I do not clearly remember everything they say, so it is possible they do not claim this doctrine is traditional, although I think I remember they do. Veverve (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would think something like an official document of the Catholic Church - a papal bull, an apostolic constitution, SOMETHING written by a Pope or a Council, or even a synod of Catholic bishops - would be the preferred source of a claim of what Catholics believe.
Using scholarly speculation as the main source to authoritatively declare "The Catholic Church taught this" is like using the opinions of judges to say "The Constitution affords us these rights".
I lack and want a primary source for this claim. 184.184.197.17 (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you call scholarly speculation are in fact WP:SECONDARY WP:RS, which are to be preferred to WP:PRIMARY SOURCES like an official document of the Catholic Church - a papal bull, an apostolic constitution, SOMETHING written by a Pope or a Council, or even a synod of Catholic bishops. Veverve (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction[edit]

I believe that "had the right to privately profess and practice any religion" contradicts "Roman Catholicism should be the only religion allowed by the State". If you have the right to privately profess and practice any religion, then the state is allowing you to do so. Srnec (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "traditional"[edit]

That Dignitatis Humanae repudiated this principle is false. That is NOT the correct interpretation of DH. This can be seen in the CDF's own interpretation of this in the Response to dubia presented by Marcel Lefebvre which I will source here. I am removing all references to this having been superseded, as declarations by the CDF take precedence over the erroneous opinion of some liberal theologians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brother Jerome (talk • contribs) 00:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This source does not mention "error has no rights", so your edit is the definiton of WP:OR (t · c) buidhe 00:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Error has no rights" is somewhat traditional, but what the article says it means is at the very least debatable. It arguably referred more to what Catholics could teach and what could be deemed equal. The Church more or less supported the Constitution of 3 May 1791 which allowed non-Catholic religions some rights, but not full legal equality. In majority Catholic countries it was deemed important that the state support the idea Catholicism was the true faith, but "erroneous people" could be allowed toleration. Hence Jewish children in the Papal States were not supposed to be baptized without parental consent except in grave situations. If Jews had no rights, as "erroneous persons", then they could have simply taken those kids and baptized them.
When it comes to what Catholic teaching or press allows "error has no rights" was not really revoked and some Catholic publishers or papers can be asked to stop calling themselves Catholic because they are in error.
Wikipedia is not really equipped to get into all this and so it's almost certainly not going to. Basically the thing to remember is that on Wikipedia the word "is" means something more like "According to the consensus of respectable sources we found and ignoring any hedging they may use." So "'Error has no rights' (Latin: Error non habet ius) is a historical Roman Catholic and Traditionalist Catholic principle" should be read as "According to reputable sources 'Error has no rights' is probably the way one should understand a historical Roman Catholic and Traditionalist Catholic principle." I admit I eventually got tired of having to constantly do the mental gymnastics of remembering what the word "is" actually means on Wikipedia so I quit the whole place. But I guess if you're more patient than I you can remember the code and it will make articles less vexing. (Although what I'd more recommend is using Wikipedia articles as a jumping off point to the actual sources. They can be more nuanced and interesting than Wikipedia allows itself to be. I still do use Wikipedia as a place to jump off from to more nuanced and valid things.) Ex-Wikipedia T.Anthony216.49.248.4 (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Error_has_no_rights&oldid=1201801326"