Talk:Confraternity of Christian Doctrine

POV
I hate to do this but...

"What is quite striking is how many 20th and 21st century American Catholics who have attended CCD, or whose children attend or have attended CCD do not know what the abbreviation "CCD" stands for, including the many teachers of it."

This sounds like an assumption or opinion to me.Chaz 20:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I knew what it stood for when I was a kid and had to go.... "Central City Dump".  Yeah, we didn't like it.  98.206.219.98 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

CCD discussion
well.... my opinion is the same. i work with a few Roman Catholics who had no idea whatsoever what CCD stood for. i'm not a Xtian and i knew. eeeeeek! what's this world coming too?

p.s. maybe it's the Illuminati taking over. hehehehe

The wording on the page (as of 26 April 2006) is not exactly as stated above, so perhaps the author edited it in response to the comment. The "what is quite striking" part might be opinion, but that many children and adults of the last several decades did not know what "CCD" meant is not. It hardly seems a point worth arguing. I came to this discussion specifically to find out why there were all sorts of warning banners at the top of the article--I find them a bit annoying and misleading. How does this issue get resolved so they can be removed?


 * I agree. I don't exactly see why that warning has to be there.  When something said the article was not neutral, I thought it was promoting the organization or something.  Who can decide on this?

--Chkiss 02:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the POV-check tag since we have nothing here about what is being challenged. I also removed the clenaup tag (though there are still a few more redlinks than I'd like).  If opposed we can restore the tags but it looks OK IMHO. RJFJR 03:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Citations and Sources
One word. Sources.

Yes, while I know that the writers likely knew what they were talking about. And most (85%) of the article fits in with the NPOV policy. To someone less almsgiving in regards to Wikipedia articles or a reader who believes it to be POV.... I suggest that people start getting sources for this article fairly ASAP.

However, I'll do some work on gathering sources myself in a little bit. Nateland 00:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Article structure
I would like to restore this article to something along the lines of its February 2022 structure (see Feb 2022 version), with the historical development of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine laid out ahead of its contemporary usage, and develop the article from there, including more about the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc. in its current form. This would help put current usage in historical context instead of the other way round.

@PJvanMill and Manannan67, I would be interested in your thoughts as you (PJvanMill) changed the structure and Manannan67 has since edited it. Please let me know what you think. BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. Go for it. Manannan67 (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @BobKilcoyne: To give some clarification why I made this change: I have the impression that in the present day, the CCD is more a program than an organisation and that the organisation is now more or less a formality...? When a kid says "I'm going to CCD" they aren't really going to a worldwide organisation, rather they are going to their local church for catechesis; I believe many readers essentially understand CCD to mean "catechesis" and that they would be confused by this article primarily talking about the history of an association starting from the sixteenth century.
 * So basically, as I understand it nowadays CCD is more a program that is taught (even if this is technically incorrect terminology) than an association that is participated in and I hope that the article can explain the current practical reality of the CCD clearly (e.g. I would strongly suggest keeping the term "catechesis" in the lead section). With regard to the structure, please edit the article as you see fit. Kind regards from  PJvanMill ) talk ( 10:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, PJvanMill. I will have a stab at a suitable edit (likely later this week), please feel free to amend or comment accordingly. BobKilcoyne (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Done: please feel welcome to review. BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)