Talk:Liberal Catholic Church

Proposed merge
I propose merging this article with Liberal Catholic movement. This can be explained in that page. The merger will cause no WP:WEIGHT issues. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @FatalSubjectivities You had no opposition in months, and I support the proposal. I think you can perform the merge as soon as you want, the sooner the better. Veverve (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Use of primary and non-reliable sources
WP:SELFSOURCE states:

However, most of what you have added does not meet those criteria, since what you wrote is
 * about "the Liberal Catholic movement" and "its principal founder" (the latter is an unsourced claim)
 * about what are "The two most-notable Liberal Catholic bodies currently" (notability cannot be assessed by claims or primary sources)
 * "James I. Wedgwood's consecration in 1916 by Frederick Samuel Willoughby (a former Old Catholic bishop accused of homosexuality)"
 * "the Liberal Catholic movement schismed into several entities" (something the The Press-Courier source does not state, thus you are making an OR interpretation)
 * "[Liberal Catholic Church has] sustained a presence in South Africa as of 2022" (all the secondary source says is that this peculiar LC building is there since 100 years, and I do not see how a religious denomination having a building for a long time is a notable information)

None of those claims and topics can be supported by a primary source.

You have also used the secondary non-RS source "The Western Orthodox University". You have also confused the Liberal Catholic movement as a whole and a denomination called "Liberal Catholic Church". Veverve (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Have you ever heard of WP:commonsense to determine insinuations? AndreasMar (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Liberal Catholic Church is also a movement. Anything that exists as an organization can be defined as a movement. Wedgwood is the father of the Liberal Catholics by common sense. The two most-notable are called such because they are documented in religious yearbooks and newspapers (though the LCC USA it seems is the main LCC the newspaper articles referred to, out of California). They are also notable because they have Wikipedia articles. How hard can this be to understand? This is sheer bullying! The church having a presence there as of 2022 was the matter of saying it still has existed in SA...the information in the article which defined the belief systems and history of it leading to its South African presence is notable. If you have not read that whole newspaper article you are definitely being selective in OR interpretation yourself. AndreasMar (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's do this instead, please refer to my edit here:
 * Their entry in The Herald (Glasgow) was reliable and verified the information: According to "Liberal Catholic Church". The Glasgow Herald. No. 139. George Outram & Co. January 11, 1923. p. 7. Retrieved September 20, 2023, "It traces its episcopal succession to the Old Catholic Church of Holland, and came into existence as the result of a reorganization in 1916 of the Old Catholic Church in Great Britain."
 * The next statement, "Within the Liberal Catholic movement, churches have been defined for their catholic sacramental system and esoteric Christianity." is verified by the first source from Oxford Reference.
 * Stating, "Liberal Catholic denominations also allow for complete freedom of belief" comes from Liberal Catholic sources writing about their own beliefs in their own statements on their websites. There's plenty of articles on Wikipedia where primary sources can be approved for verifying belief systems or organization principles.
 * From, Hooker, Ian Richard (1981). "The Foundations of the Liberal Catholic Church" – via University of Sydney Library, information is verifiable by simply reading that it has Theosophical influence. It's common sense in multiple sources deemed reliable and unreliable that Wedgwood was also a Theosophist and co-Mason. Even the Liberal Catholic sources specifically admit that!
 * Stating, "The two most-notable Liberal Catholic bodies currently existing—the Liberal Catholic Church, Province of the United States of America and the Liberal Catholic Church International—are both headquartered in the United States," have been coming from online religious yearbooks. Both bodies do trace their origin to the 1916 body by Wedgwood.
 * Stating, "The Province of the United States of America is headquartered in California, and has sustained a presence in South Africa as of 2022" is verifiable through the yearbook and their own website which has been used to verify the information. In the Independent Online source, "The Liberal Catholic Church, which internationally has its headquarters where the presiding archbishop lives – California at the moment – broke away from the Old Catholic Church in 1916 because the Old Catholic Church would not recognise some contributions by Theosophists. The Old Catholic Church had, in turn, broken away from the Roman Catholic Church" is quoted to add extra verification alongside continually verifying its Theosophical influence earlier.
 * AndreasMar (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. AndreasMar (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * to determine insinuations in this way is forbidden. That one person was consecrated a bishop does not insuate at all that "the Liberal Catholic movement schismed into several entities".
 * Anything that exists as an organization can be defined as a movement: yes, but the LCC and the LC movement are two different things; the former is a defined unified group (with its specific hierarchy, etc.), while the latter is a movement composed of various independent groups.
 * They are also notable because they have Wikipedia articles: this does not make them the two most notable goups. Besides, WP:WINARS even when it comes to notability.
 * The church having a presence there as of 2022 was the matter of saying it still has existed in SA: while demographical information is a good idea, I do not see how it is a pertinent demographical information to state that one LC group is operating at least one church in SA (WP:ONUS).
 * Now, on to the second message.
 * This source, while a secondary RS, is old and not specialised; thus I am reluctant on using it to support historical claims of this sort (WP:ONUS).
 * is verified by the first source from Oxford Reference: no, the Oxford Reference article only talks about one group's practices and doctrines, this group being the Liberal Catholic Church.
 * comes from Liberal Catholic sources writing about their own beliefs in their own statements on their websites: all they can be used as a source is what they state about themselves (their own group), not the LC movement in general ("It does not involve claims about third parties", as I quoted above).
 * This is a master's thesis. WP:SCHOLARSHIP states: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence". So, you have to prove Hooker's master's thesis has had influence before using it as a RS.
 * Again, why should those two groups be singled out and specific information on them be given? You still have not proved that they were the two most prominent LC groups and that more precise details on them should be given in this WP article.
 * Yes, the sources state this, but again I do not see how the information that they operate at least one church in SA is relevant (WP:ONUS).
 * Veverve (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed wholesale revision
(also, and cc: , ):

Please could you use this talk page to discuss your proposed rewrites and concerns with the current content; rather than simply continuing to replace the entire page? The current version is somewhat brief and uneven, but your replacement also has significant issues as explained. Please work with the existing content and editors rather than doing a complete replacement. (The answer, incidentally, to the Young Rite being given too much prominence is to expand the rest of the article to match, not to delete the perfectly good sourced content.) TSP (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you @TSP.
 * Eol, the content you added is sourced to the church itself. Compounding this is the fact that what you write reads like an advertisement for the church. By editing this, is your intention to get people to join this church or improve public perception of the church? RetroCosmos (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, but a few people I know have complained that it doesn't describe what the church is. The shortened article makes it sound like there a lots of highly different churches using the name "Liberal Catholic Church" without any sources or examples. In fact the only example of an offshoot given was a brief movement called "The Young Rite" which is disorting where the weight of the article should. It should be on discussing the church called "The Liberal Catholic Church" itself. The Young Rite if it is something that still exists should have its own page with a hyperlink to it.
 * If the tone seems supportive of the church, the tone can change. You can change words, add things like "claims to be" if you find something dubious. Please rather edit THAT, rather than insisting that the shorter article is somehow more descriptive. It lacks any defining detail.
 * So your complaints about me reverting the page back are EXACTLY what I'M complaining about. I added a lot more useful, descriptive content and you guys are reverting it without explaining why every single addition I made is somehow incorrect or inappropriate, rather than flagging the content that is problematic. If you do that I can make the specific appropriate edits, rather than rewriting the entire thing in hopes you wont just toss it all out tell me to start again.
 * The use of church sources is important for doctrine and it stated aims. All of those websites represent the church in its official capacity and this easy to check on their contacts and cross-reference. These are not random blogs. If you find a source dubious, point out that source and why it's not appropriate as a reference to the nature of the fact or claim, rather than nebulous general criticism.
 * I'm not a full-time editor. I'm simply fixing content on a page that was drastically shortened to the point where it's not acting in an informative capacity any longer. Your guidance will be appreciated in a specific targeted manner, not wholesale deletion of my efforts to add informative context. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going to upload my contents soon. I would have appreciated a response from you on my detailed grievances about your continuous reversion to the highly truncated version. You do not own the information and cannot make demands that I don't replace the page, especially given how short and vague the page is. Any serious endeavour to inform readers about the church and its history need to be far longer, so telling me to work with what we've got is nonsensical. There is hardly anything. Veverve, I have noticed, has a history of deleting huge swathes of information on the page and looking at their history of other edits including phrases, I'm beginning to wonder if they don't have a specific agenda to gut content from other non-Roman Catholic movements.
 * Please do not simply revert to the short version because it is undoing a lot of careful work and research on my part. Be constructive by reading carelly and point out SPECIFIC inaccuracies or problematic sources. Edit words which seem to "sell" the church by your usage of the English language. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Right, looking back through the history, it seems there used to be a reasonably informative and balanced, but almost entirely unsourced, version of this article - this revision seems a reasonably representative version of this. This was drastically cut down by  in 2021 due to being unsourced, leaving us with a not very balanced or neutral stub.
 * I would suggest that this version of the article is better than either of the proposed versions, save for its lack of sourcing, and a better quest for you,, may be to look to find reliable third-party sources to restore some of this content. There may be some on the pages of church-related individuals, for example J. I. Wedgwood, Charles Webster Leadbeater, Frederick Samuel Willoughby.
 * I agree that the current state of the article is not good; but,, you need to engage with the criticisms of your additions - particularly the almost complete reliance on internal church sources; and also to be aware of WP:3RR. If you carry out a bulk restoration of what is essentially the same content again today, that will amount to a third revert, which is forbidden by Wikipedia rules, to avoid exactly this situation. TSP (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. I am doing just that. I have been looking at the individuals and the sources on those articles awell to build a balanced review, many of which don't have hyperlinks, so I'm trying figure that out. Im light of this I will continue my scrupulous and laborious edit and post my findings tomorrow.
 * I'm HOPING Veverve will not simply revert as they conintinuously did all the way through 2023 and if they want to be scrupulous about referencing, to please flag it first. I will do my best to appear balanced, but subjective things, like "apolstolic succession" still need to be addressed it is a point of dialogue with any church using the term "Catholic", Roman or Independent. If there is controversy, it is better if Veverve just need to make that clear in an edit, rather than deleting the terms, because some of the contentitious issues are central to the identity of any church and it does no service simply ommitting the. I'm going to include the Young Rite, but it needs it's own Wikipedia Pafe, if there are any people who still practise it.
 * RetroCosmos if you find any language unctuous or selling the church, just teak the offending words or reiorient the grammar. But reverting the entire article is counter-productive. To get a balanced view, we need some content to actually exist. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going to give you two examples of why I reverted your edits.
 * "The Liberal Catholic Church was established by Bishop Charles Webster Leadbeater and Bishop Wedgwood, who was ordained by Frederick Samuel Willoughby of the Old Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain, thereby tracing apostolic succession in the Roman Catholic Church in the traditional manner."
 * On the surface this sentence seems marginal. However, when you consider that the previous wording included "claims" and then specifically attributed the claims to Wedgwood - in other words, "this is what Wedgwood said happened" became "this is what happened" - this edit does not make this article more neutral, or better.
 * "The Liberal Catholic Church is characterised by its preservation of the Seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church in valid form, while espousing intellectual liberty and freedom of conscience with respect to doctrine for its members."
 * Again, this is a self-description that I'm not sure adding "claims" would rescue it from NPOV accusations. At the very least, the section would be tagged for ad.
 * The version TSP proposes seems fine, though I can see that with no sources it can be seen as an ad. RetroCosmos (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The reversion was an extreme reaction. It in no way introduces the reader to what Liberal Catholicism is or purports to be. Just vague.
 * Also Wedgwood DID found the church. This is in no way controversial so it gives the impression that the origins of the church are unknown. The sources also say that he did found it and the intro to the articles also says that the churches "descend" from him. There is actually no need for doubt over that. Who is disputing these sources?
 * There needs to be a description of what the church DOES and what it aims to do. Refraining from any content merely because Veverve keeps attacking it is not the way forward. Saying there is no way of rescuing that information from bias is saying there is no way of presenting it at all. TSP's version is even more in line with what the church claims about itself. It comes directly translated from a German article which is thoroughly sourcesd with German language sources.
 * Anyway, I'm going to continue with the laborious task of finding English sources independent of the church, but please note that the best sources for its stated doctrine, aims, and outlook, MUST be primary sources from the church itself. It can't be vague if there is a real church existing with the name. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I will totally and absolutely oppose any addition that is not sourced by a RS, including restoring content. The WP:BURDEN is not on those who remove.
 * Any discussion related to balance, NPOV, lack of details, etc. must be relying on RSs, and not on how one feels the article is positive or detailed about a topic. How some content can be deemed reasonably informative and balanced without said content being reliably sourced is beyond me. What standard are we supposed to rely on? How can something be informative without being WP:VERIFIABLE, how can one know what is the balanced position on a topic without using RSs? Those things are not decided by raw instinct and intuition.
 * As for the quality of the sources, I have explained at my talk page what the problem is. Veverve (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We are discussing the problem on this page now, Veverve. You are speaking vaguely and not specifically. Please indicate what the problem is with each source when an edit is up so I can see what is wrong with it. Your repeated attacks on the page are destructive. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have gone through the laborious task of finding as many secondary sources, where appropriate to bring the older page back to life. Please, any further edits, need to be on THIS revision. Simply reverting it back to the stub is unproductive. As per WP:BURDEN, " In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." Please respect the work that goes into dredging this up for your perusal BEFORE simply obliterating it. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * TSP, I used the 2021 version you advised me to use, referencing where appropriate. RetroCosmos, please edit any language you find "selling the church" too much. A complete reversion at this point would be highly counterproductive. Veverve, please thoroughly explain citiation issues on each source. Wholesale revesion at this point would be indicative of malice. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added back what could be reliably sourced. Thanks you for your effort.
 * On the bad side, you have gone off-topic a lot. You have also unfortunately confused the LCC group and the LLCI group in describing the teachings and doctrines of the LCC. Veverve (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As a sidenote, all your blogs and random websites (e.g., theosophy.world) and web pages of small alleged religious groups, are still unuseable, non-reliable sources. Veverve (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please can we try to return to editing this article in the normal Wikipedia way - by people making individual changes, and others reviewing those changes, improving where they can, and giving a chance for issues like poor sourcing to be addressed?
 * I realise Eol started, it,, but doing a full revert then restoring individually the bits you judge to be acceptably sourced isn't great editing practice either - apart from anything else, it confuses the writing credit in a way that makes it hard to meet the requirements of the GDFL.
 * Please can we all attempt to avoid both wholesale reverts and wholesale article replacements going forward? If something is poorly-sourced, but not patently false and does not concern a matter of WP:BLP, it's fine to tag it and give a chance for the reference to be improved. TSP (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * doing a full revert then restoring individually the bits you judge to be acceptably sourced isn't great editing practice either: if most of what has been added is not sourced or is off-topic, I might as well fully revert and add the few acceptable pieces.
 * it confuses the writing credit in a way that makes it hard to meet the requirements of the GDFL: my edit summary took care of this. It is not the first time some content is copied from one part of WP to another, and I have seen similar situations somewhere else (e.g. here).
 * If something is poorly-sourced, but not patently false and does not concern a matter of WP:BLP, it's fine to tag it and give a chance for the reference to be improved: no, see WP:BURDEN. Veverve (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As you say, please see WP:BURDEN:
 * "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."
 * TSP (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Possible COI for Hooker 's The foundations of the Liberal Catholic Church
In 2001 "Ian Richard Hooker was the presiding bishop of the LCC with a headquarters in London, England" (source). Now, Hooker's thesis used in this article is from 1982. But could Hooker have already been a priest of the LCC at the time?

Also, please keep in mind WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources" (emphasis added). Veverve (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hooker seems to have been ordained as an LCC priest by 1967, so yes.
 * However, being written by a member of an organisation does not necessarily create conflict of interest or bar something from being a reliable source on that topic, if it meets other requirements for being a reliable source and doesn't appear to make self-serving or unlikely claims or ones contradicted by better sources. (There is a difference between self-published works from a body, and sources written by members of that body, but published elsewhere - for example the editor of the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions is an Anglican priest, but that doesn't make it an unreliable source on Anglicanism; I suspect looking at the pages for most religions will give plentiful sources written by members of that religion.) Accepted PhD theses are, as per the above, acceptable sources - with appropriate caution, but for reasonably routine matters of church history, an accepted PhD thesis from a reputable institution seems fine. TSP (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that we also have a number of openly anti-Liberal Catholic sources used - the New Catholic Encyclopedia is an official publication of the Catholic Church, so obviously sceptical to Liberal Catholic claims; as is "Separated Brethren" (which opens with a prayer that other denominations will be opened to the truth that following the Pope is God's will, and refers to Liberal Catholicism as "ideally suited to adults who like to play church"). Neither of these is a problem per se, provided that sources are used carefully. TSP (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Is this article about a church or a movement?
The article title is "Liberal Catholic Church", which suggests we should be talking about one church primarily, with subsections on notable offshoots if necessary. But the current lead says "The names Liberal Catholic Church (LCC) and Liberal Catholic movement are used by a number of separate Independent Catholic denominations". Per MOS:REFERS, this sort of structure is discouraged on Wikipedia - "the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject". I think we need to be clearer on what the subject of the article is.

I'd suggest that, following the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, the Liberal Catholic Church should be the topic of this article, rather than a broader movement, with a short section on offshoots and schisms. Indeed, I'm not sure we actually have any source referring to a "Liberal Catholic Movement" - none of the ones in the lead seem to - so this should probably go away as unsourced. TSP (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The NCE states the LCC and LCCI are "members of the Liberal Catholic movement". Veverve (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So it does - that is not actually one of the references given for the lead. (It's also not the greatest source - as per WP:CATH, "the Encyclopedia was written to serve the Catholic Church and reflect its doctrine, therefore nearly every article has a distinct POV".)
 * encyclopedia.com also offers an article on "Liberal Catholic Churches", from Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, which covers LCC and LCCI and a number of other churches. We should be aware of WP:GLOBAL concerns, though - while there are several Liberal Catholic churches in the US due to the 1940s and 50s schisms, as far as I can tell worldwide the church remains largely as one communion.  (The Melton article seems to suggest that the LCC in communion with the global LCC is by some way the biggest, even in the US.)
 * In whichever case, this article needs a subject which can be defined, like "The Liberal Catholic Church is..." or "The Liberal Catholic movement is...", not "The names ... are used by", per MOS:REFERS. TSP (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)