Talk:Wreckovation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled][edit]

Do not delete this!!!!!!!!

There is no hoax with this item! It is a perfectly valid term that, as the article suggests, can easily be heard and read in many conservative Catholic circles to describe the banalization of Catholic Churches over the past 40 years. Please keep the article, as it serves a great purpose to inform those what is truly at stake with these deplorable modifications being made.

I agree. This article does need improvement, but it is an important term that needs an article StThomasMore 03:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely don't think it deserves deletion, but it does seem to slant way to one side. I added the {{NPOV}} template accordingly. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 21:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion / Vandalism[edit]

The edit of the date was in no way a form of vandalism but merely an attempt to delay deletion, which would provide us enough time to discuss this matter. As StThomasMore has already pointed out, there is no hoax, and this is a perfectly valid argument. Those who believe otherwise should not delete this article but should help to edit this page by adding in extra material by showing the opposing view.

When an IP-Address-user with effectively no edits comes in and changes the date on a prod, I consider that vandalism. Given that a user can remove a prod simply if they object there is no reason to alter the date and muck up the process. Kershner 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I disagree with the view, but that no reputable sources have been provided proving that the article has any merit. This is especially true of the word itself, as the article seems centered around the word "Wreckovation" rather than the idea. See WP:V. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consumed Crustacean, perhaps you could edit the text of article in order to make it more appropriate for your ideal article? I'm not sure how to best accomplish your suggestion of changing the article's focus to the idea rather than the word. After a certain point are they not one in the same? I'm willing to hear further suggestions and edit the article myself, but I'm relatively new to wikipedia (when it comes to editing articles), so please provide me with some help! IskoFranco | Talk
Still, I find it hard to force it to meet WP:V and WP:N. Blar, I might try to help the article out eventually, but can you find a decently reputable source for this? I'm reading it on some internet forums, but considering the guideline/policy/whatnot on internet memes the 800 Google results it gets aren't really enough. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two sources and removed the prod tag. If someone else wants to pursue deletion, they can, but I don't particularily feel like it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see this article expanded into something useful. I believe, based on google research that the topic has merit, but that the term used to define the article is a neologism. As such a rename of the article would go a long way towards defining it's encyclopedic quality. I intend to submit this for AfD if it remains in its current state, but I'll give the article a week to come together as it appears to have merit. Kershner 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples[edit]

Can anyone add examples of wreckovation (preferably with before/after images if possible) to the article? Xwejnusgozo (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and notability[edit]

The AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wreckovation ended as no consensus, but the concerns regarding WP:NPOV and WP:N were not addressed, therefore I put the respective templates there.

I support the suggestion of User:IgelRM to move the useful content into Second Vatican Council#Controversies and leave a redirect here.Jan Spousta (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merger. This isn't a controversy about the council itself; it's a controversy about (Western) church design in the years thereafter. I think that ample sourcing at AfD was presented about this topic. A page move to a more encyclopedic title, with a scope focused around those sources, seems warranted. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 February 2024[edit]

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. No consensus for proposed title after 1.5 months of discussion. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wreckovation → Catholic church architecture and design after the Second Vatican Council – I think that the core of the subject that was discussed in sources at AfD is more neutrally described by the title above, and that there are good sources that provide the sort of high-level overview that would be useful in building out an encyclopedia article (i.e. "The Council as Shibboleth: The Rhetoric of Authenticity and Liturgical Space after Vatican II", Architecture in Communion, "Archi-Liturgical Culture Wars", etc.). The proposed title is long, and it would require a bit of restructuring of the article, but I think it's the way to go if we're going to cover this subject broadly. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article really about architecture though? It's about renovations of churches and the destruction of church art, not the building of new churches. 64.141.20.66 (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of the background explicitly refers to architecture multiple times, which is why I had included it. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that the article conflates two things that are related, and both are encyclopedically significant, but they are not identical.

1. The liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which concern liturgical space. This is primarily about the placement of the altar/table so that the priest celebrates Mass facing the people, but also other changes of this type.

2. The influence of modernism in architecture on the interior design of churches - especially the tendency towards simplicity and the removal of ornamentation. This has been evident in the Catholic milieu since about 1930 (see, for example, St. Wenceslas Church in Prague Vršovice from 1929-1930), and it is not only a phenomenon of the Roman Catholic Church, but for instance also of Lutheranism. This tendency is perceived by believers with a more traditional aesthetic sense as a desecration of liturgical space. In the Catholic milieu, they associate it with the Council, since the Council's reforms often prompted the redesign of church interiors. However, the Council itself nowhere prescribes a fundamental reduction of decorative elements in churches, and therefore blaming the Council is not correct.

The first topic is covered on this Wikipedia by the rather unfortunately titled article "Mass of Paul VI" and any criticism of the arrangement of the liturgical space should therefore be included there. The second topic, modernist sacred architecture, is absent from Wikipedia and would be good to have here, but it does not seem to me that it would be easy to develop from this very one-sided and narrowly conceived article.Jan Spousta (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modernist sacred architecture seems like an excellent article title, as it could be widened to cover modernist places of worship in other religions as well. —Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 13:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But modernist architecture is a specific sort of thing, and it's been eclipsed by Postmodern architecture. And early Calvinism also had lots of churches that were very plain with design. I agree that there's something there about modernist sacred architecture, but I don't think that's the right title. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, but the changes of church interiors after the Council were mostly in 1970s and 1980s, before the popularity of postmodern architecture. The word "wreckovation" means in fact "unnecessary simplification in the spirit of Modernism". And the early Calvinist architecture is not described in the current article, therefore I do not see a problem with it. And there is always possibility to create articles postmodern sacred architecture and Calvinist sacred architecture, if you wish.Jan Spousta (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that blaming the Council is not correct inasmuch as the Council did not specify that churches should be made plainer. But there are aspects of the aftermath of the Council (i.e. versus populum) that did themselves affect Church architecture (the sanctuary being removed from the immediate presence of the altar, and the lack of altar rails, for example). The fourth chapter of Architecture in Communion deals with this subject pretty directly. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the requested move has been relisted, but if I read it right we all agree that the Council is not THE main cause of modernist church design and therefore the proposal in its current form is not optimal.Jan Spousta (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What seems pretty clear is that using a negative Portmanteau as a title is not neutral. The suggested title, Catholic church architecture and design after the Second Vatican Council is not very concise. There are sources that deal with Modern architecture and design post Vatican II. "Catholic church" could be added but it seems that the words architecture and design followed by "post Vatican II" self identifies as "Catholic churches".
There are proponents for more modern architecture as well as those that support the move to rearrange the interior design of churches. The current title takes sides straight out of the gate and I am pretty sure I read somewhere that neutrality is a policy and is non-negotiable. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think the title is non-neutral, as it seems to be describing something that was generally negatively received. If anything, trying to ensure neutrality in the title would in itself be creating a false impression of balance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know, it's only been "generally negatively received" by traditionalists and reform-of-the-reform conservatives, and at that only those vocal enough to write about it. If there were no Catholics who had neutral or positive opinions of the changes described in this article, then there wouldn't have been changes in the first place. Marisauna (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2024 (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.

Title[edit]

It seems three editors Patapsco913, Moriwen, and myself thinks the title would be acceptable at Post-Vatican II liturgical design. Pbritti suggested a more simple Post-Vatican II architecture which is more concise and Design could be added. It seems well established the article has issues. Per Red-tailed hawk these are editing issues. These naming suggestions seem far better than the current title, that is a non-neutral or negative Portmanteau.
The suggested title, Catholic church architecture and design after the Second Vatican Council is not very concise. There are sources that deal with "Modern architecture and design post Vatican II". "Catholic church" could be added but it seems that the words architecture and design followed by "post Vatican II" self identifies as "Catholic churches". -- Otr500 (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Council means no significant change in the church architecture or church design. As far as I know the Council did not even touch the theme of church architecture in its documents. The so called "Post-Vatican II liturgical design" is in fact just a Modernist sacral architecture which started in 1920s, culminated in works like Notre-Dame du Haut (1955, seven years before the Council) and had impact on post-Council church reconstructions forced by the changes of liturgical space introduced by the Mass of Paul VI. Therefore the title looks a bit silly to me, alike "Post-2022 French presidential election supermarket architecture". Moreover it conflicts with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view because it falsely suggests that the Council has done something important in the sphere of architecture/design, which is not true.Jan Spousta (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the term "Wreckovation" has to do with post Vatican II architecture. The opening lead sentence states: *Wreckovation is a portmanteau disparagement term used since at least 2002". To me, the wording "disparagement term" is clear that the article fails to be neutral. Since the policy states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. "If" this is true then a name change is in order. There are many sources (including primary) that gives ideas on possible names.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wreckovation&oldid=1215877453"