Talk:Nota Praevia

Disputed move
ADM moved Nota Praevia to Lumen Gentium to Nota Praevia over redirect, declaring: "It has nothing to do with Lumen Gentium, Paul VI added it as an addenda to ALL documents, and not merely to Lumen Gentium (check your sources)". Since the sources speak of the Nota Praevia as added precisely to Lumen Gentium, since the text of Lumen Gentium includes the Note, since the Note is not included in any of the other documents of the Second Vatican Council (or all documents of Pope Paul VI, if perchance that is what ADM meant), since there seems to be no reliable source that says it was "added as an addenda to ALL documents", since the Note explicitly refers (in a passage quoted in this article) to section 22 of Lumen Gentium, without having to name Lumen Gentium, as would be necessary if the Note were an addendum to some other document, it would be appreciated if ADM would move the article back. Soidi (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if it did only refer to Lumen Gentium, for which I cannot find sufficient evidence, the title should ideally be as short as possible, given that Wikipedia conventions tend to follow the principle of Occam's razor, in which the use of parentheses only applies when there is a disambiguation page. There is currently no such disambiguation, so I would argue that the title Nota Praevia is already suitable with existing norms. ADM (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You understand what "nota praevia" means, don't you? Just "preliminary note".  Not a very illuminative title for an article, you will surely agree.  And not an unambiguous one either.  Other Latin documents have "notae praeviae", just as English writings may have "preliminary notes".  Take for instance the Latin document referred to in this article and this interview. For another example, this other document has no less than two notae praeviae!  And this book has its nota praevia. A mid-thirteenth century Latin poem is accompanied by a "nota praevia".  Marco Tangheroni's book Cristianità, modernità, Rivoluzione reviewed here has a "nota praevia" (sic) written by  Andrea Bartelloni, and the book isn't even in Latin!  Surely that is enough to show that "Nota praevia" does not at all necessarily mean the preliminary note attached to Lumen Gentium. (It was a preliminary note not to the document but to the responses given to a series of proposed amendments to the document; for that reason it is attached to the document not at the start but at the end.)
 * You say you cannot find "sufficient evidence" that the nota praevia attached to Lumen Gentium referred only to that document. What you have made the article say (without any source to back it up) is that the nota praevia in question did not refer to Lumen Gentium, but was instead "an additional explanatory comment to the pastoral constitutions of the Second Vatican Council".  Lumen Gentium was a "dogmatic constitution", not a "pastoral constitution".  Besides, the Council issued only one "pastoral constitution" (Gaudium et Spes), not several.
 * I thought that anyone who read the note that is the subject of the article - as I have presumed you did - would understand that it is uniquely about the document to which it is attached. It seems I was wrong.  Soidi (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A preliminary note is a preliminary note, but there is only one article on Wikipedia that begins with the words Nota Praevia. Likewise, the document Dignitatis Humanae means human dignity, an expression that somewhat resembles human rights, but there is no need to disambiguate that. Dei Verbum means word of God and Musicam Sacram means sacred music, but there is still no problem with that either. ADM (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What does the community think?
Is "Nota Praevia" (Latin for "Preliminary Note") a sufficiently unambiguous title for an article on a particular Preliminary Note?

I have given my opinion above, perhaps rather too forcefully. ADM has given his. I now leave it to the community to decide. Soidi (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If there are no other Notae Praeviae significant enough to have their own Wikipedia page, then it seems to me that it's fine to leave the title of this page as Nota Praevia. It might be necessary to disambiguate later, but I don't think we need to preemptively disambiguate.  Adam_sk (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is unambiguous because it is not in English. It doesn't really matter that the translation would ambiguous. Another question is whether it is necessary to have an article about this at all; why not include it in the Lumen Gentium article? But I digress... Adam Bishop (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Adam Bishop that it just so happens that Nota Praevia is unambiguous on the English Wikipedia. However, in this case that surely is not sufficient.  If "Nota Previa" were, say, the title or name of some kind of document, then it would make sense to use it as a title.  But it not only means "preliminary note" when translated literally, it actually means "preliminary note" in the context of Lumen Gentium.  Take a look at the original source:  Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Volume II, ed. Norman P. Tanner (Georgetown University Press, 1990), which contains the Latin and English of all the decrees.  Lumen Gentium appears on pages 849-900, divided into ten pieces:  Caput 1, Caput 2, Caput 3, ..., Caput 8, Notificationes, and Nota Explicativa Praevia.   If we are going to have a separate article on the last of these, under the name Nota Praevia, why not also have a section on chapter 3 entitled Caput 3?  That article too would be unambiguous on the English Wikipedia!  But I submit that it would be a bad idea, because "Caput 3" merely means "Chapter 3" in Latin... just as "Nota [Explicativa] Praevia" merely means "preliminary [explanatory] note". &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 00:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ADM has today defended below the existence of a separate article on this Note. He has not answered Lawrence King's observation that the title he has insisted on giving that separate article is inappropriate.  Soidi (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, as I mentioned below, I prefer this article to be merged with Lumen Gentium. If it is not, I strongly support a new title, such as Preliminary Note to Lumen Gentium.  By way of analogy, I prefer that the second act of Die Fledermaus not have a separate article, but if it did, its article should be entitled Second Act of "Die Fledermaus" or perhaps Zweiter Akt von "Die Fledermaus", but not merely Zweiter Akt. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 23:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am moving the following from my Talk page to here, where it belongs: Soidi (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point of disambiguating ("Nota Praevia") because there is no possible disambiguation, and I don't agree to merging because it's an important part of Lumen Gentium, much like subsistit in is. And I don't think that subsistit in should be disambiguated either because it is mentioned in other documents than Lumen Gentium, especially in the doctrinal commentaries of Mystici Corporis Christi. ADM (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify: our dispute is not about disambiguation.  I definitely believe that if this article is not deleted, its name should not be merely "Nota Praevia".  But my reason is not disambiguation in the Wikipedia sense:  it is merely a need for clarity in the usual sense.  Analogy:  Suppose that we all agree that Chapter 15 of Moby Dick deserves a Wikipedia article.  One person suggests that the article be named "Chapter 15".  I would reply, no, it should be named "Chapter 15 of Moby Dick" or "Moby Dick, Chapter 15".  That's not really disambiguation in the Wikipedia sense.  Even if there was no other article on Wikipedia that began with the words "chapter 15", it would be wrong to name the article "Chapter 15", because that title doesn't mean anything on its own.  "Chapter 15" does not really mean "Chapter 15 of Moby Dick", period.  Neither does "preliminary note" mean "preliminary note to a specific document", in Latin or in English.  Another analogy:  It would be wrong to rename the article Spiro Agnew to just plain "Spiro", even if no other Wikipedia article is about someone with that name.


 * However, if this article is not merged with Lumen Gentium (which I continue to support), then I would be quite happy renaming this article to something like "Nota Praevia to Lumen Gentium", and then creating a page simply called "Nota Praevia" that redirects to this page! That would be analogous to the page JFK, which redirects to John F. Kennedy. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 23:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No way, we can't have any extra text that violates Occam's razor. Any violation of this principle is a non-starter from the beginning, because it is opposed to the notions of simplicity and efficacy that are supposed to be applied within Wikipedia conventions. ADM (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose Occam favoured ambiguous terms over clear ones, or that he would vote for "Chapter 15" as the title of a Wikipedia article. The idea that Occam's razor would outlaw "Nota Praevia to Lumen Gentium" as the article's title seems altogether baseless.
 * I am putting the question up for comment again, this time in a more appropriate topic area than "Religion and philosophy". Apologies if I should not have left it here and should instead have moved the discussion to the end of the page. Soidi (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is "Nota Praevia" a good title?
Is "Nota Praevia" (Latin for "Preliminary Note") a sufficiently unambiguous title for an article on a particular Preliminary Note? Please continue the discussion above Soidi (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two issues on the table: (1) Should this article be merged into Lumen Gentium?  (2) If not, should this article be renamed?  The first of these is discussed below; the second is discussed above. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 22:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A. Merge with Lumen Gentium


 * Support. Soidi (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. The Nota praevia is part of the Lumen Gentium document, and so the burden of proof is on those who want two separate articles.  Combining the two pages will not result in an overly long Wikipedia page.  The Nota Praevia itself discusses the college of bishops and the pope's role in it; this same topic is discussed in Lumen Gentium chapter 3, and therefore the NP cannot be logically or theologically separated from the rest of LG.  User:ADM points out that the current Lumen Gentium article is quite short, and a merge will result in the Lumen Gentium article that disproportionately focuses on the Nota Praevia; I agree that this is a problem, but the solution is to add more material about the other sections of Lumen Gentium to the article. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 19:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. See my above arguments. ADM (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

B. If not merged, move to "Nota Praevia to Lumen Gentium"


 * Support. Soidi (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. My reasons are described in the  section of this page. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 19:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. See my above arguments. ADM (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I like Adam Bishop's suggestion. So I propose merging this article into Lumen Gentium.

As Adam says, it is unnecessary to have a separate article on something that belongs entirely to the Council's dogmatic constitution on the Church. The constitution is never printed or otherwise presented without this note, which is an official interpretation of certain expressions in the constitution. And the note is found only as an appendix to the text of the constitution, not as an independent document. Soidi (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the merge. It is not the same document as Lumen Gentium because it was primarily written by the Pope and not by the Council. Many senior bishops have never really accepted the existence of the Nota Praevia in the first place because of this. It is a separate issue which pertains to the interpretive controversies which surround Vatican II. Another thing is that we already have twelve independent sources and a wealth of information which exclusively pertain to the Nota Praevia, meaning that it deserves to be elucidated on its own. ADM (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It began as a notification approved by Pope Paul VI for inclusion with the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium, of which it has been an appendix ever since the constitution's official publication. I have no idea who are the "many senior bishops" who have not accepted its existence (it clearly does exist). I also don't know how any "independent source" can have given information on the Preliminary Note of Explanation without at the same time talking about Lumen Gentium.  Since ADM also insists on his claim (but without providing for it the requested reliable-source citation) that the Preliminary Note of Explanation was unrelated to Lumen Gentium and was instead concerned with the Second Vatican Council's "pastoral constitutions" (whatever they were), he must know of some (twelve?) sources that succeed in the seemingly impossible task of discussing the Preliminary Note of Explanation without mentioning Lumen Gentium.  I wonder what they are.  Soidi (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The simple fact that we are separetely arguing about the legitimacy of the Nota Praevia, I think, would constitute some proof that the subject is independently notable. It is well known among theologians and historians that the Nota Praevia has been a flash point surrounding liberal-to-conservative interpretations of the Second Vatican Council. While many conservative bishops have cited it to defend their views, dissenters have sometimes tried to minimize its actual value. ADM (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither you nor I are Wikipedia reliable sources, and our argument about the suitability of a separate article on the Preliminary Note of Explanation is being already covered by Wikipedia, but is not a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article. Soidi (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This article didn't appear out of thin air; we're arguing about it because you created it... Adam Bishop (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not write or create the Nota Praevia, Paul VI did, although I understand your point. The original Lumen Gentium document did not include the Nota Praevia, it was unexpectedly added later, which is why there are good reason to talk about it separately. ADM (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Preliminary Explanatory Note was added before the final vote of approval of the dogmatic constitution was taken, and it is and, ever since the first official printing, has been an appendix to the text of the constitution, on which it is a commentary. As Adam said, you did create this article, which at least two of us think should be merged with Lumen Gentium, but that doesn't give you a right of veto on the formally presented merge proposal.  Your removal of the merge tag suggests you falsely imagine you do have that right.  Soidi (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Soidi is completely correct. ADM points out that "the original Lumen Gentium document did not include the Nota Praevia" -- but that statement is a bit misleading.  The bishops and their periti spent more than two years drafting, writing, re-writing, re-re-writing a document about the Church, which acquired the title Lumen Gentium at a certain point during the process.  So it's not as if there was one fixed "original Lumen Gentium document" which was stable, and then the Note was added later.  The document was constantly being revised.  The Note is unique in that the Pope himself was involved in its being added to the document.  But the document as a whole had many, many writers.  To take one example, Yves Congar was the primary author of the first draft of sections 1-8 (in Chapter 1) and sections 9, 13, 16, and 17 (in Chapter 2).  The Nota Praevia was added on 16 November 1964, at the behest of Pope Paul VI (but that doesn't mean that he personally wrote it).  The final document, including the Nota, was approved on 21 November 1964, by a vote of 2,151 to 5.
 * Therefore I don't see any reason to argue that the Nota is less part of Lumen Gentium than any other section. ADM points out that the note was "unexpected".  If he means that some of the two thousand bishops at the council did not expect this addition, he is certainly correct, but it's also true that many other passages in the document were similarly "unexpected" by many bishops, since the document was being constantly revised, and mimeographed copies of "today's version" were being handed out on a regular basis to the assembled bishops.  If he means that none of the two thousand bishops expected it, then that's false (because the note was created by the pope in consultation with Archbishop Felici and almost certainly others).  It is true that Pope Paul VI himself took a more direct role in creating this note than he did with some other passages, but Catholic doctrine (and Lumen Gentium itself!) teaches that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and is a member of the College of Bishops, and therefore he has at least as much right to compose part of a document of an ecumenical council as any other bishop has.  In conclusion, there can be no doubt that the Nota Praevia is part of Lumen Gentium.  If ADM wants to argue that it deserves a separate Wikipedia article, the argument should be based solely on its importance, not on suggestions that it is a separate document. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 00:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am arguing in fact that it is an important part of Lumen Gentium, and while maybe not an entirely separate document, it almost is by account of its different history of literary composition, one for which philologists would normally grant for other notable crypto-documents such as the Q document or the signs Gospel. There is another important part of Lumen Gentium known as subsistit in that has a separate encyclopedic article because of the ecclesiological debates that surround it, debates that are rather similar to this one which concerns primacy and collegiality. ADM (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Very good. I don't feel very strongly either way.  If there is an official vote on merging Nota Praevia with Lumen Gentium, I would vote "Yes".  Similarly, if there is a vote on merging Subsistit in with Lumen Gentium, I would vote "Yes".  But since I don't feel particularly strongly about it, I have no interest in lobbying for such a vote to be held.
 * Your analogy to Q or the Signs Gospel doesn't convince me, because there are many scholars who believe that these were once separate documents that were circulated on their own. No scholars hold that "subsistit in" was once a separate document.  But again, I'm just stating my opinion, not trying to persuade you.
 * Finally, a procedural point: Discussion about the contents of a Wikipedia article -- and a fortiori, discussion of a possible move, rename, or merge -- belongs on the Talk Page for that article.  This is important, because there are often many former editors who don't look at the page on a regular basis, but have it on their Watch lists.  There is no need to duplicate this information on someone's User Talk page.  If you want to get someone's attention about a discussion, you can just post on their User Talk page a note such as "Can you take a look at the discussion on the so-and-so page?"  That avoids forking the conversation.  Just a suggestion.  &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 20:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge done: the only user who opposed the merge has since been indefinitely blocked. Esoglou (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)