Talk:Nostra aetate

,

Christianity: Texts / Catholicism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Religious texts (assessed as Low-importance).
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance).

Religion: Interfaith

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Judaism

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 28, 2007, October 28, 2008, October 28, 2009, and October 28, 2010.

Minor changes[edit]

I am leaving the link to the Vatican web site "visible" to better support printed copies of the article -- as is suggested in the Wikipedia Style discussions.

Also restoring bold on the descriptive title of the declaration to be consistent with other articles

don't know where to post this, but "therefore, the changes to be brought about by the declaration on the Church's Relations with non-Christian Religions, Nostra aetate, carried implications not fully appreciated at the time." is neither logically correct nor elucids what the implications were.

Anniversary?[edit]

I am somewhat surprised that the fortieth anniversary of NOSTRA AETATE seems to have been ignored by the major press. In Sydney tonight - 20 October 2005 - there is a meeting at which Catholic and Jew speakers will be celebrating this event. A source for this event and for the anniversary is page 14 of the Australian Jewish News, Sydney Nsw dated 20th October 2005. Hynot 06:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree -- this remains one of the major accomplishments of the Council, to the irritation of many, apparently. I just reversed some rather POV language hostile to NA. ClaudeMuncey 02:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Update[edit]

I added a short bibliography, and am working on an expansion of the bibliography and new sections dealing with the origins of Nostra Aetate and a history of the drafting of the text. I hope to follow this up later with post-Conciliar implementations of NA post-Conciliar documents and other developments, including events associated with the 40th anniversary of NA User: couchoula 3 September 2006

Grammar between draft 3 and 4[edit]

The grammar of the extracts from draft 4 changes pretty obviously from that of the previous three paragraphs, with the loss of speech marks, parenthases around the summary at the beginning and a few others. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject to make the changes myself, but I'm sure the draft 4 paragraph could be tidied up somewhat. Sithemadmonkey 11:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is said vs. What happened[edit]

There is a very typical dialectic in reporting on the Second Vatican Council, which is to oppose the events on the floor of the Council (or the spirit of the times) with the actual content of the document. I feel that the content of the document is probably more pertinent than who wrote it and what he was doing when he was writing it. In fact, when you re-read Nostra Aetate, it only mentions Jews in 20 % of the text, with other Non-Jewish - Non-Christian religions occupying perhaps 75-80 % of the script, instead of the rate of 50-50 given by various journalists. This appears to be an important detail that should very much be taken into account. ADM (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the 20% estimate misleading. The fourth section is directly about the Jews and the word count there comes to 39.15% of the text in the declaration. One could point out that the Jewish scriptures also have relevance to Christians and Muslims, but that would not leave "75-80% of the script" to Non-Jewish and Non-Christian religions. The first draft seems to have retained its prominence in the final document. Jzsj (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in Revision as of 13:55, 16 January 2008[edit]

It looks to me like several paragraphs from that vandalism in Revision as of 13:55, 16 January 2008 were not restored. Can an editor more involved with this article verify and correct this? Thanks. Tzvee (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to have been a sort of vandalism by either a Sedavacantenist, or a protestant Anti-Catholic who added the section "Errors in Doctrine". Please delete or ammend this section ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepopeami (talk • contribs) 05:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nostra aetate. Please take a moment to review my 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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090131171417/http://bc.edu:80/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/topics/NA-40.htm to http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/topics/NA-40.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true 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 by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simplify comparison of drafts[edit]

How many people reading this article can perceive the differences between the first 3 drafts? I propose to help in the understanding of the changes to focus on differences rather than including the long excerpts. How would you feel about this? @Cyberbot II: @ADM: @Mrcolj: @ClaudeMuncey: Jzsj (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As @Buidhe: rightly observes in the template message, making the quotes more focused would be synthesis. What is needed is finding appropriate citations for all material in the article. I have access only to internet and so must leave this task to someone with library access. Jzsj (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jzsj: If you want to source the quotes in this article, I would try googling them; you can probably source them from official sources. However, the article should not be based on primary quotes, but secondary analysis. I would find some journal articles on the subject and hit up WP:RX; they've been very helpful to me in the past. You can also read papers online for free on JSTOR. Good luck. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 03:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For better or for worse, the long quotes from the different versions could not even be shortened; their source is the originals and shortening would be "synthesis". I'll see what the article would look like from all the newspapers (which I have full access to) but I agree that the decree importantly impacted Catholic relations with all non-Christian religions. This will take time, and I'll mention here if I have to give up on it. I can access books through my Jesuit community at Rockhurst University, but I only visit there every four months.Jzsj (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jzsj: Thanks for your recent edits. I think you might be confused about WP:SYNTH. It refers to putting sources together to get to a conclusion that is not stated in either. However, trimming quotes to the most relevant parts is accepted and encouraged. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 16:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I may not have expressed the issue well but I wonder whether most editors agree on this. They'd call this original research. I met with opposition (still present in the template at the top of the article Theology of Pope Francis) when I selected passages from Pope Francis' foundational writing Evangelii Gaudium. I went on to find secondary sources that made the same selections. Would some not demand that here? @Buidhe: Jzsj (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jzsj: Right, what the editor was objecting to was that the article was largely based on primary sources. In that case it can be very difficult to tell whether the content is being cherry-picked. However, that doesn't mean that it's beneficial to include large block quotes (see WP:QUOTEFARM). Ideally, the article would be based on secondary sources; failing that, it would be best to summarize. b uidhe 17:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of WP:QUOTEFARM is that all quotes are placed with references to secondary sources. That would rule out most of the quotes in the present article. @Buidhe: Jzsj (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jzsj: Personally, I try to avoid quoting primary sources, but that's not actually required by QUOTEFARM. The key part of the guideline is:

a quotation is used without pertinence: it is presented visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained anywhere
quotes are used to explain a point that can also be paraphrased
the quotes dominate the article or section

Clearly, most of the quotes in this article do not satisfy this standard at present. b uidhe 17:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORIGINAL does seem to exclude the sort of "analysis or synthesis" that is involved in selecting what parts of a document to prioritize or quote. Again, the Theology of Pope Francis article was my education in this. @Buidhe: Jzsj (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church[edit]

Just for WP:NPOV, now it has been reported the comment to Nostra aetate given by Patriarch Elijah, the head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church. Significantly, about the Most Holy Trinity he affirms: " Muslims do not worship Him but they worship Allah, the highest (akbar) of the 360 pagan gods of Mecca."Theologian81sp (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]