Talk:Motu proprio

Motu proprio is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Catholic canon law task force (assessed as High-importance).

Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see Draft articles
Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page)
Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates
Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall
Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring
NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment
Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism
Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs
Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire
Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral
Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

Spelling

Is it moto or motu? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.94.59 (talk • contribs)

It is motu. See [1]. -- Cat Whisperer 19:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motus is a fourth declension noun, so its ablative ends in "u". It is derived from the fourth principal part of the verb moveo, movere, movi, motus. Sometimes the fourth principle part (which is first/second declension) can be converted to a fourth-declension noun to represent an abstract action. Thus the verb moveo means "I am setting something in motion", while motus as a fourth-declension noun refers to motion in the abstract. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 02:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

very similar to the article of the Catholic Encyclopedia

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10602a.htm

seems to be a copyright violation...

Torzsmokus 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia is in the public domain, so there is no copyright violation. There are actually many more articles that are virtually identical to the Catholic Encyclopedia article (e.g., Corpus Juris Canonici or Validation of Marriage), which is a problem because that edition is almost 100 years out of date. -- Cat Whisperer 20:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I arrived here by happenstance. I saw the comments in the above section ("very similar to the article of the Catholic Encyclopedia") from over 13 years ago. Consensus has not changed in over 10 years concerning plagiarism and plagiarism problems. While there may be no copyright violations an article that is virtually identical to content in a source needs to be rewritten. It is not "alright" to assume that because something has flown under the radar it is acceptable.

Sua sponte v. Motu proprio

On another note I see that this article is advancing strictly Canon law in the lead and infobox although it has a section on civil law. The article Sua sponte is mentioned in the opening paragraph but suo moto (suo motu), and Motu proprio are very related terms.

In civil law Motu proprio might be more appropriate, and possibly not used largely in the United States (I haven't looked yet), but it is used in Louisiana Law such as State of Louisiana v. Louis Dan Smith (No. 53071, 1973), Motu proprio (page 322), State v. Sherman (1918, No. 23206, pp 205)

Cases using Sua sponte (page 3), cases useing both (Point IV, page 18, Conclusion, page 20)

I have not dug in to try to determine if these two very closely related term should be merged into one possibly better articles, but it seems it should and could be discussed. Otr500 (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]