Talk:Quo primum

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).

On 10 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Quo primum tempore. The result of the discussion was not moved.

POV Issues

This article, in addition to citing no references, is written in a style that advocates a specific point of view. By making statements such as "By this, he forbade alterations by other authorities, ecclesiastical or civil, or by private individuals, but obviously not by himself or by his successors, whose authority as Popes were equal to his own," the article is endorsing a particular point of view with regards to the intent of Quo Primum. The use of words like "obviously," without citing any sources, has the authors of the article themselves taking specific positions. The article, for example, completely ignores the position taken by Traditionalist Catholics and, in fact, seems to be written with a goal of refuting them. Ithizar (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been addressed long since, at least in part. Esoglou (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which question? That the article cites no references? Or that the article adopts a particular interpretation of Quo primum? Because neither has been addressed. The article now has a single footnote, but is still lacking references for the important points it makes. And while the author's claim that Quo primum does not bind future popes has been removed, the claim in the last sentence of the article that changes to the Missal by later popes are not violations of Quo primum is equally POV. If the claim about the binding nature of Quo primum deserved to be removed as POV, so does the claim about the legitimacy of changes by later popes. MDJH (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material Works 18:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quo primum → Quo primum tempore – I suggest renaming this page into "Quo primum tempore", since that is the complete title of the apostolic constitution. Karma1998 (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – my search of Google Books, the Internet Archive, etc. suggests that "Quo primum" does seem to be used more commonly than the longer version, so I don't think a move is necessary unless the current title is ambiguous or otherwise problematic. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There aren't "complete" titles for papal documents like this, just two or more beginning words that are customarily used to refer to them. And in this instance, Quo primum is what is common. SilverLocust 💬 08:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.