Talk:Fraticelli

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 October 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Catholicism Low‑importance Fraticelli is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Catholicism task list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles Middle Ages Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This page is seriously POV, which is not surprising considering that most of it comes from the very partisan 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. It needs rewording in many places. I don't have time to fix it now, but someone should look at it. --John Cowan 17:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I came here to mention exactly that. There seems to have been significant improvement since Mr. Cowan posted his notice, but the article as a whole, and some sections dealing specifically with 'heretical' sects, are slanted to reflect a Roman Catholic perspective rather than a neutral pov. 216.69.219.3 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have often come across this problem. There are a lot of us out there with a serious interest in religion, real Christianity in particular, and the orthodox view comes down like a hammer. You can generate unwelcome attention just by browsing the bookshelves at a library. J3shu4 (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked stuff a little. But most of it can better be attributed rather than removing. For example "his bitter enemy" => "according to the Catholic Encylopedia his bitter enemy -ref-". Lets face it the authors were knowledgeable about church history, that's why they wrote the thing. Rich Farmbrough, 18:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

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) 22:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article ends rather abruptly with the Fraticelli still existing in the 15th century...and then nothing. Was the order exterminated through prosecution? Did it eventually merge with the Conventuals? Die out on its own? Or does it still persist? Where are the houses located? Any additional information would be welcome on this important group of "heretical" monks. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated the POV tag, and have added the 'unreferenced' tag. This article is seriously defective. There is no help for the reader to follow controversies, that is, no references and no bibliography. I personally would not even consider it a "C" class article for those two reasons. There is plenty of bibliography out there, but the task of fixing the article is daunting. A few word changes does not solve the problem. I have added some ten items to the Bibliography, which may help a little. Maybe what we need to do is request an "Expert" to help revise. I am not one such. --Vicedomino (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is this POV? You only mention that it is not sufficiently referenced (though it clearly has a bibliography now thanks to your efforts) which to me seems a verifiability issue. I'd like to contribute to the references if I can. Osmanthus22 (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sections are too long. They should be divided into subsections for ease of reading and reference. --Vicedomino (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not forget that "heretical" and "heresy" are hate words. They are not neutral and descriptive in meaning. They demean and exclude the person or group to which the terms are attached. The article should strive to provide more appropriate terms, however acceptable and even official they may have been and still are in religious contexts. As Julian the Apostate remarked, "See how these Christians love one another!" --Vicedomino (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Heretical" and "heresy" are not hate words, by the OED and Merriam-Webster, and by Wikipedia itself, which states that a heresy "is any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs." According to this definition, the "Fraticelli Heresy" is in my view indisputably a heresy since it was declared such by the Catholic church, which in Latin Europe defined the 'established beliefs or customs' at the time and to which Fraticelli was strongly at variance. In popular culture the word sometimes may have connotations but the definition of the word remains unchanged. Do you have a suggestion for a better word? (I am new to Wikipedia so please let me know any fauxs pas I am committing). Osmanthus22 (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]