A good example of why it is a bad idea to use the CE as a starting-point for a wikipedia entry: (found on [[Witchhunt]] and quickly removed)
"The question of the reality of witchcraft is one upon which it is not easy to pass a confident judgment. In the face of Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Fathers and theologians the abstract possibility of a pact with the Devil and of a diabolical interference in human affairs can hardly be denied"
;-)
Best, Sascha Noyes
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Sascha Noyes wrote:
A good example of why it is a bad idea to use the CE as a starting-point for a wikipedia entry: (found on [[Witchhunt]] and quickly removed)
"The question of the reality of witchcraft is one upon which it is not easy to pass a confident judgment. In the face of Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Fathers and theologians the abstract possibility of a pact with the Devil and of a diabolical interference in human affairs can hardly be denied"
;-)
Sad to say, but this is the least of the problems I have encountered with the CE. At one point, when researching the Controversy of the Three Chapters (one of the many twists & turns of the dispute over the nature of Christ), I found that the CE actually lied about its effects in the West. Its account of the resulting schism in Northern Italy clearly made it seem as if the dispute was resolved within a life time, when I knew from other accounts that it persisted for about 150 years.
Sometimes even to simply cut-n-paste PD materials, with minimal editting, one must needs be an expert.
Geoff
Well... you /have to/ expect that from an encycl. with the word "Catholic" in its title. 8-...
Sascha Noyes wrote:
A good example of why it is a bad idea to use the CE as a starting-point for a wikipedia entry: (found on [[Witchhunt]] and quickly removed)
"The question of the reality of witchcraft is one upon which it is not easy to pass a confident judgment. In the face of Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Fathers and theologians the abstract possibility of a pact with the Devil and of a diabolical interference in human affairs can hardly be denied"
;-)
Everything needs to be viewed in context. There is still a lot of valuable material in the CE on historical matters and biography.
The quotation, when viewed in isolation, is indeed enigmatic. It nevertheless represents an important turning point in Catholic thought on the subject, from the dogmatic view of inquisitorial times to the more critical view of the twentieth century I would put it back and give it context. There is no need to protect the Catholic Church from itself.
Ec
Sascha Noyes wrote:
A good example of why it is a bad idea to use the CE as a starting-point for a wikipedia entry: (found on [[Witchhunt]] and quickly removed)
"The question of the reality of witchcraft is one upon which it is not easy to pass a confident judgment. In the face of Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Fathers and theologians the abstract possibility of a pact with the Devil and of a diabolical interference in human affairs can hardly be denied"
;-)
Further to my previous post, the incomplete quotation is more POV than the full sentence in the CE. Here's the rest of it:
but no one can read the literature of the subject without realizing the awful cruelties to which this belief and without being convinced that in 99 cases out of 100 the allegations rest upon nothing better than pure delusion.
One should at least give credit to the editors of the CE for recognizing that the topic was problematic.
Ec
On Monday 26 January 2004 12:30 pm, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Sascha Noyes wrote:
A good example of why it is a bad idea to use the CE as a starting-point for a wikipedia entry: (found on [[Witchhunt]] and quickly removed)
"The question of the reality of witchcraft is one upon which it is not easy to pass a confident judgment. In the face of Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Fathers and theologians the abstract possibility of a pact with the Devil and of a diabolical interference in human affairs can hardly be denied"
;-)
Further to my previous post, the incomplete quotation is more POV than
the full sentence in the CE. Here's the rest of it:
but no one can read the literature of the subject without realizing the awful cruelties to which this belief and without being convinced that in 99 cases out of 100 the allegations rest upon nothing better than pure delusion.
One should at least give credit to the editors of the CE for recognizing that the topic was problematic.
Ec
I concede the points you are making. I wrestled with myself about removing the CE content, and had a look at the edit history of the particular article. Only once had a content-related edit been made to the CE text. There were however still opinions like the one I quoted above stated as fact. I agree that the CE text is a valuable resource, and I have therefore moved the text to the talk page where salvageable material can be extracted. I am still unchanged in my opinion, however that old texts make unfruitful starting points for wikipedia articles.
Best, Sascha Noyes
Sascha Noyes wrote:
On Monday 26 January 2004 12:30 pm, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Sascha Noyes wrote:
A good example of why it is a bad idea to use the CE as a starting-point for a wikipedia entry: (found on [[Witchhunt]] and quickly removed)
"The question of the reality of witchcraft is one upon which it is not easy to pass a confident judgment. In the face of Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Fathers and theologians the abstract possibility of a pact with the Devil and of a diabolical interference in human affairs can hardly be denied"
;-)
Further to my previous post, the incomplete quotation is more POV than the full sentence in the CE. Here's the rest of it:
but no one can read the literature of the subject without realizing the awful cruelties to which this belief and without being convinced that in 99 cases out of 100 the allegations rest upon nothing better than pure delusion.
One should at least give credit to the editors of the CE for recognizing that the topic was problematic. Ec
I concede the points you are making. I wrestled with myself about removing the CE content, and had a look at the edit history of the particular article. Only once had a content-related edit been made to the CE text. There were however still opinions like the one I quoted above stated as fact. I agree that the CE text is a valuable resource, and I have therefore moved the text to the talk page where salvageable material can be extracted. I am still unchanged in my opinion, however that old texts make unfruitful starting points for wikipedia articles.
Best, Sascha Noyes
Perhaps the most important consideration in determining what is salvageable is relevance. Our article is about witch"hunt" while the CE article is about witch"craft". They don't have a separate article about witchhunts. We already have an article about witchcraft so we don't need to get into that here. Among the most significant statements in the CE article is that there were no mass witchhunts for the first 1300 years of church history, and the first barbecue did not take place until 1275. Heresy was always a more serious crime. For our puposes in this article the church's reaction to witchcraft is more important than the witchcraft itself.
Ec