Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NancyHeise (talk | contribs) at 20:17, 3 June 2008 (→‎Roman Catholic Church). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Roman Catholic Church

previous FAC (00:01, 18 March 2008)

Toolbox

Nominator NancyHeise (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nom restarted, old nom SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Looks good, no major issues, although

  • "In the Catholic Church, a distinction is made between the formal," (entire paragraph) is unreferenced.
Thanks for pointing that out, I went back and added references. NancyHeise (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "helped".[117][82] Catholics " ascending order
Good eye - I corrected that one and rechecked the entire page for more (there were a couple of others that needed correcting). NancyHeise (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he basic administrative unit of the Catholic Church is the diocese." unreferenced
Thanks again - referenced. NancyHeise (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These were random samples. I really admire your determination in bringing this through FAC and sticking with it. Great job! I hope to support this FAC soon. Gary King (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. NancyHeise (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support To reiterate: In my estimation, this article is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, and neutral. While I am not a fan of 'officially known as' in the lead, I have few stylistic concerns; the article is appropriately structured, and I like the distribution of the Nicene creed throughout -- that is a good solution to what had been an ongoing discussion. The length seems appropriate. An intelligent reader coming with no knowledge of the RCC would gain a good brodd overview from reading this entry, and would be guided to appropriate places for more research. Of course there is much that is left out, but this seems to be a feature of summary style, and not something that should stand in the way of FA status. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - excellent prose; just one thing: "Because of this diversity, some variations exist in the liturgical practices of administering the sacraments within the different rites yet all hold the same beliefs". Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I eliminated "some" - good comment. NancyHeise (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support This article has gone through a lot, and come out of it every time better and stronger. It is now the best it has ever been, and I think that it is even more deserving of my support vote than in past noms. From my point of view, it meets all of the criteria, which is amazing since it covers such a large subject. Props to Nancy and all of the other devoted editors who have brought this so far. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 00:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question for Sandy' (It would be better if Sandy handles this): hey sandy can we move the bottom section of the prior version to here? Just everything after the part where you asked people to summarize their opposes, and then some folks replied. Just a thought. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A restart was necessary because the FAC was 330KB and opposes were becoming obscured and were being argued rather than being addressed. I'm hoping this will provide a new chance for nominators to address Opposes if they are restated. Opposers can copy forward their own relevant comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my previous comments. There's room for improvement, particularly concerning the article's sources. However, it currently meets FA criteria. Majoreditor (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on a fresh read-through today. I did not find any prose problems worth complaining about. I'm still not of the opinion that the prose is "brilliant" but it is certainly professional and representative of the best work we will achieve on this subject. --Laser brain (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Just to be positive about good referencing, I'd like a cite at the end of the following paragraphs; first and last paragraphs in "Beliefs", last paragraph in "Ordained members and Holy Orders", last paragraph in "Lay members, Marriage" (but before "Members of religious orders"), and end of "Roman Empire". Also, in regards to the last paragraph of "Ordained members and Holy Orders", it says "Throughout history women have held prominent roles within the Church as abbesses, missionaries, and Doctors of the Church." The sentence feels a bit out of place, as much of the entire section is about men, and the last paragraph deals briefly about women in the church. I didn't read the whole article, so I'm wondering if that statement needs expanding, or if there is a place elsewhere that deals with women in the church. I'm not sure if the layout has been discussed, but is there a reason the history section is not first? I notice that many articles have the history section first. All in all, looks good. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment, I am working on it today but I have to go out for a while at present. I responded to your comment about organization below Squash Racket's comment that follows here. NancyHeise (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK Hurricane, I have addressed your comments regarding references and had to make some changes in text to match some refs. Women in the church, yes, I included text in the Holy Orders to finish the para explaining that only men can be ordained and I have a para in History section under Vatican II and beyond explaining the existence of controversy over the subject and the Church's response. NancyHeise (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Hurricanehink and Squash Racket, a FAC reviewer responded to this same comment on the previous nomination page and I agree with it. [1] Also, this article was organized following the example of the FA Islam. "Ample precedent" exists on Wikipedia to support current organization. Thanks for your comments. NancyHeise (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed to the structure of the Britannica article because it repeatedly proved to be insufficient to cite another Wikipedia FA in reaching concensus. I also mentioned the references of Britannica because I don't think anybody will question the reliability and neutrality of a reference if Britannica accepts it. Squash Racket (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might note, to give a full account of that exchange, that that was in response to my comment, and that I further commented here, as follows:
Interesting. I'm not surprised. This is, of course, how Wikipedia is different from other encyclopedias, in that its contributors are self-selecting, and so its content is generally written by fans and/or adherents. (Sometimes by detractors, but that's no better.) NB this does not necessarily mean that fans or adherents (or even detractors) cannot write good articles; but they face certain rather particular obstacles. Again, I'm not necessarily suggesting that history should be put before doctrine; but it is symptomatic that in fact the order is the other way around, in this article as in other similar ones on Wikipedia.
So this is certainly still an open issue, as far as I'm concerned, though personally I'm not sure I would insist on the revision at this point, as it would obviously require major reorganization. On the other hand, there is a degree of oddity, as the "Origins" section is separated from "History." If putting doctrine before history (like other WP articles, but unlike Britannica) is symptomatic, that stranded bit of history is symptom of the symptom. Something needs to be done about it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Jbmurray's comment here suggesting the possibility of moving Origins section: This was brought up by Karanacs in the last peer review and I responded here [2] by placing a note on the main article talk page to find out if there was consensus for such a change. The resulting responses supported elimination of the full quote of the Creed but there was no consensus for reorganizing Origins. I would be in violation of Wikipedia policy if I were to make such a change after having sought consensus and not getting it. NancyHeise (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not suggested moving the Origins section. Please stop misrepresenting my comments. I have merely pointed to a problem. There are no doubt various possible solutions. Moving the entire section might be one; it's not necessarily the one that I would recommend, which is why I did not make that suggestion. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. It seems to me that, if this protracted FAC process leads to the nomination passing, it will be in significant part due to the article editors' policy of wearing down critical reviewers and choosing to disdain their comments and upbraid their efforts in what is a shocking failure of good faith. See not only previous FACs, but also the series of comments first on my talk page, then on NancyHeise's, and also Karanacs's, and now again here. I do have other comments on this article, but am hardly encouraged to present them here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with this reviewers assessment of his comments. I felt he was provocative in his comments and went off topic as well as asking us to eliminate a top source that is representative of a significant point of view. I do not feel that this oppose is actionable and am not completely convinced that it is made in good faith. NancyHeise (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jb, a lot of people think you misunderstood the use being made of Norman in the passage you objected to. He was being used to demonstrate ONE strand of opinion, not to present a consensus. Further remarks you made about Professor Norman were irrelevant and I believe unfounded. The main thrust of your other objections was vague and non-specific, and despite requests for clarifications and usable suggestions for improvement to deal with your concerns, we got only one solid suggestion for change, which was acted upon. Xandar (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's an (over-)long discussion of that particular comment on my talk page. (This article's defenders seem to like bringing up issues on reviewers' talk pages.) I do there offer a solid suggestion, which was flatly rejected with the words "I see no problem with the article text as it stands." There is another series of comments on structure, and particularly on this article's weakest section, in my view, further down the talk page. --16:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and my further comments on Norman are absolutely relevant when this member of the Peterhouse group is used as a source on liberation theology! Extraordinary stuff. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You had apparently never heard of Norman until he came up here. As a historian whose early specialisation was the religious history of Ireland in the 19th century, also heavily intermixed with politics, and later the author of "Christianity in the Southern Hemisphere (1981)", he is very well placed to comment on Liberation theology, though he clearly has a more sceptical view of it than some enthusiastic writers. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I hadn't heard of Norman. However, I'm learning a little about him. And I note that in this paragraph he's the source for the following statement: "the Church considers [liberation theology] 'a return to the pre-modern notion of establishing a Christian society through the coercive machinery of political management.'" That goes beyond being "more sceptical"; it is extremely tendentious, and yet it is being presented as fact. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, those interested may note that rather than use this clearly tendentious quotation, I preferred to quote what the Latin American bishops thought they were about. This is just in case anyone still thinks that I'm against quoting Catholics, for goodness sake. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ach, and it's been added back in, with the rather surprising summary that this was "adding the Church's point of view. Thus tendentiousness is added to tendentiousness, and NPOV flies out of the window. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, the section on the Latin American church was very poor. (NB also the article is riddled with typos and grammatical errors.) No doubt the poverty of its courage is owing in part to its continued reliance on our friend Norman. I've added more information, better sources--simply what I have to hand, however--a "citation needed" tag for a rather dubious assertion, as well as removing Norman's tendentious editorializing. More work still required, however. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment FAC reviewer Jbmurray, the only oppose vote on this page, has rewritten the paragraph on Liberation Theology, eliminating our referenced and consensus(ed) work that is being voted upon right now - he has replaced it with a version that none of us has discussed or peer reviewed or agreed upon. I think that this change at this point in the FAC process is unhelpful to the FAC process and I ask for guidance on how to deal with this at this point. Should I withdraw the nomination? NancyHeise (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous version of the paragraph was inaccurate, NPOV, poorly sourced, and flawed by typos. I encourage reviewers to judge for themselves if they think the relevant section has been improved or not. Frankly, the entire article requires such revision. I only have the sources to hand to work on this paragraph. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I don't know of any article that has made it through FAC without any changes. It is not uncommon for reviewers to fix issues themselves, especially early in the nomination process (and, since this nom was restarted, this is early in the process). The alternative is for the reviewer to leave a comment on this page and ask the nominator to fix the issue (either way, ideally, the issue is fixed). If there are particular issues with the changes he has made, you might take those up on the article talk page. Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with Karanacs here. Good faith discussion is the best way to proceed here - everyone involved is clearly here to improve the article and ensure the FA process proceeds correctly and reaches the right outcome - i.e. the promotion of the article in its best possible state. Sometimes consensus can unfortunately lead to inferior decisions being made, not through any fault of the contributors, but just because of whoever (or whichever viewpoints) were represented at the time it was formed. Especially on controversial topics, consensus is useful in establishing scope but not always on content - I know of articles which jump from glorifying to bashing the subject quite randomly in an attempt to satisfy NPOV which everybody is equally unhappy with. Sometimes it's necessary to go back to core principles (NPOV/UNDUE, V, RS, OR/SYN, etc) to get it right - especially important when we want to say an article is one of the best Wikipedia has to offer. Orderinchaos 17:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am restoring the paragraph to its consensus'd version that has been peer reviewed and gone through two FACs. If FAC reviewer Jb murray would like to place comments on this page under his Oppose vote, I would be happy to address them. NancyHeise (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's a bad idea. Jbmurray is making good faith edits that appear to be improving the prose and sourcing. You don't have the right to revert his changes based only on the fact that you want the article to be the same as when the nomination started. --Laser brain (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Unless there is something wrong with jbmurray's edits, then you should not revert his content. His comments are fully referenced, and he has as much right as any editor to fix issues he sees in the page. Saying that you will not accept his edits but will make any changes yourself is a little close to violating WP:OWN. Again, I recommend that if you see any issues with his edits, bring them up on the RCC talk page and decide from there what to keep and what (if any) to remove. Karanacs (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he was wrong to eliminate our fully referenced material that had consensus to be brought to FAC. His edits were not mere copyediting but a whole rewrite that is inappropriate at this stage of voting. NancyHeise (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. OK. Well, more reasons to oppose. (I had figured I might as well do something to improve the article while I was at it. I take it you'll also want to remove three reliable sources I added to the bibliography?) Anyhow, as I say, the paragraph in the state that NancyHeise seems to want it is grossly inaccurate, NPOV, poorly sourced, and flawed by typos. Rather than go through all the errors, it's probably easiest just to compare the two versions:

A. In the 1960's, a growing sympathy for working-class movements in Latin American cities gave birth to liberation theology. Chiefly promoted by Gustavo Gutiérrez, this new movement used a radical interpretation of the Gospel to redefine the mission of the Church. It's purpose was meant to achieve revolutionary political change to improve the lot of the poor.[308] Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI susequently denounced the movement as "dangerous" and the Church considers it "a return to the pre-modern notion of establishing a Christian society through the coercive machinery of political management".[308] The movement is still alive in Latin America today although somewhat diminished in popularity.[309]
B. In the 1960s, growing social awareness and politicization in the Latin American Church gave birth to liberation theology, and Peruvian priest, Gustavo Gutiérrez, became one of the movement's better-known scholars. Following a meeting of Latin American bishops in Medellín, Colombia, in 1968, to adopt the principles of Vatican II, the new movement was increasingly influential in re-interpreting the Gospel in radical ways that redefined the Church's mission. In 1979 the bishops' conference, in Puebla, Mexico, officially declared the Latin American Church's "preferential option for the poor".[308] The following year, the Salvadoran Archbishop Óscar Romero became the most famous contemporary martyr to state violence, when he was murdered while saying mass in San Salvador.[309] Despite opposition from Pope John Paul II and the Vatican, and the silencing of theologians such as the Brazilian Leonardo Boff in 1985,[310] the movement is still alive in Latin America today. although the Church now faces the challenge of Pentecostal revival in many parts of the continent.[311]

I was still working on this when NancyHeise reverted. NB my suspicion is that similar flaws litter the rest of the article. I could only really do anything with the one paragraph where I had reliable sources here to hand. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think the new edits are fatal, but they should really have been discussed. I have gone through them to trim, and correct some grammar and copyedit errors. But I will be rechecking the facts a bit later, and may amend, if necessary.Xandar (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to respectfully ask FAC reviewer Jbmurray to not rewrite whole sections of the article as he did with the Liberation Theology section just now. I am trying to answer other reviewers comments who have followed a peaceful procedure of posting any comments in bullet point format on this FAC page so I can address them as nominator. If Jbmurray has a problem with the Liberation Theology paragraph, it might help if he could point out these problems in bullet point - as other FAC reviewers are doing and have done throughout the FAC processes in the past. I am one nominator dealing with many FAC reviewers and I politely ask for your kind consideration in this matter. I would also like to not be accused of WP:OWN as Karanacs has just done. Thank you. NancyHeise (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here you have it in bullet points:
  • inaccurate
  • NPOV
  • poorly sourced
  • flawed by typos
I really had no desire to make a fuss about this paragraph on the FAC. I thought my improvements were entirely obvious and uncontroversial. But if you want to make a fuss, go ahead. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why reviewers often help address their own concerns, so that the burden of making changes does not fall solely on the nominator. jbmurray has the right to make edits to the article, period. (and I did not say that you violated WP:OWN, just that your comments were close to the line) Karanacs (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My position has been vastly overruled. The page has been restored to JBmurray's version. OK, but I ask that the ref's that he has just installed be put in proper format, they are inconsistent with the rest of the article and have statements in front of them. NancyHeise (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jbmurray is using the footnotes in a slightly different way (as a bit of a see also as well as a citation), and I believe it is acceptable to have this mixed in with the other references. Karanacs (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, thanks Karanacs. I think I now understand what NH sees as the problem. Obviously, I didn't want to put undue weight on this paragraph, and tried to be concise as possible. One way to be concise as well as informative, and to increase the number of reliable sources to which the reader can refer, is to use the footnotes more discursively. If NH wants to strip the notes of the two (very) reliable sources I added, she's welcome to do so. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) *Egads. The paragraph has been restored to a version that I wrote with Xander's help in copy-editing, following pretty closely the structure that already existed. meanwhile, I'm not sure what's meant by the fact that the references "have statements in front of them." Is that what we call quotations? Seriously I'm puzzled. Anyhow, you're welcome to go in, of course, and fix any problems you see. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I appreciate your edits and the other reviewers help in resolving the matter. I am OK with the refs format if all the FAC reviewers are OK and it seems they are. I added the church's point of view that had been deleted which I think is necessary to make the article NPOV. NancyHeise (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The church's point of view was already represented in that paragraph. I've left a note on the article talk page for clarification on exactly who is being quoted in the restored text; let's have the rest of the discussion on this paragraph there, please, so this FAC doesn't follow the last one in readability terms. Karanacs (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) As far as I can see, you added Edward Norman's point of view, which I find remarkably tendentious, and not NPOV at all. That paragraph already, in fact, has the Church's point of view, in so far as it has the famous phrase that came out of the Puebla conference of Latin American bishops. Of course, this is complex. If you want to add the Vatican's point of view (which seems fair enough), can I suggest you seek out a direct quotation? Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Liberation theology was always controversial within the Church, and the words from Norman, which may well be a quote or paraphrase from a Vatican statement, seem an unexceptional statement of the hostile view, however much you may dislike it. Here, as elsewhere, you seem to have made up your mind as to what Catholics ought to think or believe and react with rhetorical violence to any statement contradicting these views. In this connection, it might be worth mentioning the ban on clergy holding political office, introduced as a response to the Liberation theology movement, and the Berrigans etc. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully aware that Liberation theology is and was controversial within the Church. This indeed is the point I am making when saying that Norman's quotation does not represent the Church. It represents, as you say, at the very least "the hostile view." I have no opinions on what Catholics ought to believe or think. I have not the foggiest idea where you are getting that from. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jbmurray, I dont hope to win your support for the article since you have claimed that it is in need of a rewrite but both of us have made changes to the liberation theology paragraph and I think we may be in agreement now. All comments are fully referenced and include your changes as well as mine. I believe all points of view are covered here. NancyHeise (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a couple of tweaks for accuracy, in line with some discussion on the talk page, but I can live with that paragraph now (even with Norman!) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I did was a brief copy-edit to smooth the prose a little. I didn't say I approved of what was in the new addition. I said that I was going to check references and see whether what was added was balanced and relevant. We can't just chuck out relevant referenced material, but we have to see whether it is appropriately balanced and weighted. As a general rule though, please don't add major new strands of material to the article at this time without some consultation on the Talk Page. Xandar (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've noted one more Latin America-related concern on the talk page. There are another couple of sentences that are really wrong, and I note that it's our friend Norman who's the source again. I don't know whether this is a misinterpretation of Norman, or whether the error (or perhaps, very bizarre bias in seeming to claim that there were Marxist regimes in Latin America from 1860 on) is Norman's own. Anyhow, this is something else that really has to be fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dealt with on the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • Current refs 30, 40, 86, 89, 94-99, 112 are missing access dates.
    • Current ref 125 is broken.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wackymacs, I've taken a look at all of those citations without access dates. These are all references to actual Bible quotes, the link leads the reader to a page that offers them their choice of Bibles from which to read the actual quote, both Protestant and Catholic versions and leads them to the actual quote if they click on a certain Bible. These references are treated differently than the others and are cited using the formula used by the FA Islam when quoting the Quaran. I have asked for advice from another editor to find out if I am supposed to change these into a cite web format but that would require me to make the choice of Bible used for the reader which would eliminate the option for reader to choose which Bible. Please let me know if you have more knowledge of treatment of this special reference, I wanted it to be the best it could be and I felt the present format was the most NPOV way of offering the information. NancyHeise (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NancyHeise, my understanding about accessdates is that the point is that webpages can go down or offline, or be changed at any point. You put in an accessdate to signify that at that point, at least, you can verify that the information was there, and that it said what you are claiming it did. Thus any reference to a website of any sort (regardless of its content) should include an accessdate. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These refs use the {{bibleverse}} template. If the website goes offline, the template will be changed to something else; anything using the template will stay up to date. If the refs were based on a specific translation, it might be different. Although {{bibleverse}} is a template, I would consider it much the same as the built-in support for PMID 12345678 or RFC 123, which don't need access dates. Gimmetrow 20:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that Gimmetrow. I'll just leave them as is then. NancyHeise (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the broken link. Today's date is acceptable for accessdates? Squash Racket (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you accessed it today, then that's the date! ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Comment/Question Do Opposes and Supports from the immediately prior archived version still stand? If not, is someone gonna notify all those !voters of the restart? Ling.Nut (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, in a restart comments from the archived version are not considered (we're really starting over). Generally, the nominator notifies all previous reviewers, but anyone can do that, as long as they notify both supporters and opposers and use a neutral message. Karanacs (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is WP:AWB spam socially acceptable? Ling.Nut (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've followed all the previous FACs on this as well as the extensive talk discussions and the multiple other by-ways this has nom lead to. But I never had the courage to speak up. I have to say I find the article impressive on a number of criteria, not least that it gives a balanced overview for non experts. I consider it engaging, informative, and unbiased, and overall a fine resource. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - per previous nomination. Extensive research and discussion has clearly paid off here, as evident in the excellent prose. Good job. Rudget (Help?) 17:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am totally unsure what the procedure here is. I have written pages and pages in the previous nom expressing my concerns about the quality of sourcing, the selection of data from those sources, provided specific examples of those problems, and so on. Those remain unaddressed. Am I supposed to repeat it all, and possibly engage in the same discussion over again? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A restart functions the same as an entirely new FAC nomination. Any objections that you still hold and would like to see addressed should be restated here. The hope is that this doesn't come down to the same arguments as before, or at least that we can more succinctly discuss the issues as they relate to WP:WIAFA. Karanacs (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well. If the same issues are raised, and met with the same obduracy that occurred in the previous two noms, to expect that it won't come down to the same arguments is perhaps unrealistic. Or perhaps not, as it will lead to reviewer exhaustion. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
    • In the opening paragraph of the lead, both "Western" and "Latin Rite" link to the article Latin Rite. That seems unnecessary. — Angr 21:13, 2 June 2008 — continues after insertion below
      Yes, I agree, I eliminated the Western one since the actual link is to "Latin Rite". NancyHeise (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link http://www.jknirp.com/miss2.htm gets a "404 - Not Found" message.
      I repaired it. NancyHeise (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not link to One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (or to Four Marks of the Church, where it redirects to) when that phrase is mentioned in the lead and the main body of the text?
      Linked. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What translation is being used for the Bible quotes?
      I have not chosen the Bible quotes, they are linked to a page where reader may make the choice of Bible from which to read the quote and are in the same format without access dates as on the FA Islam which we have used as a guide. If I add access dates as a previous FAC reviewer on this page asks of me, I am afraid that I will then have to choose which Bible which will lead to POV wars - are you in favor of the current method or would you rather see me make a choice of Bible and use the cite web citation format so I can put access dates? Please elaborate on what you would rather see. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, now I see that Gimmetrow has answered my question regarding this, we do not put in cite web format, we leave them as they are so the reader will be able to choose the Bible. NancyHeise (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not talking about the refs, though, I'm talking about the quotes actually used in the article itself. Of the many translations available on the page the refs link to, which one is actually used in the article? —Angr 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I would guess it's the New American Bible.[3] Gimmetrow 06:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Words like "baptism" and "penance" shouldn't be capitalized. I fixed a few, but there are more.
    • Perhaps a link to Saint Dismas on the words "good thief" at the end of the section "Final judgment and afterlife"?
      I added a wikilink but since that is a quote, I can't put the wikilink inside of a quote so I placed it after it. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You can't put wikilinks inside quotes? —Angr 06:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a particularly silly recommendation in the MoS that I for one regularly ignore. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a guideline to that effect, but it's not absolute even as a guideline. Gimmetrow 06:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the sentence "Although it was superseded by the vernacular as the primary form of the Mass, it was never forbidden after the reforms of the Second Vatican Council;" it isn't immediately clear that "it" refers back to the Tridentine Mass, rather than one of the other nouns in the previous sentence.
      Ok, reworded making this clear. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Protestants if they freely ask for them." What about the other way round? Are there circumstances under which Catholics may receive the Eucharist from a Protestant minister (or at least a validly ordained non-RC priest in Apostolic Succession, like an Anglican, Old Catholic, etc.)?
      This produces a whole can of worms, which we can't really go into in the article. Catholics are not allowed to receive protestant communion, and for this purpose Anglicans count as Protestants since their orders were declared invalid for various reasons. Catholics are allowed to take Orthodox communion, but I don't think the Orthodox officially allow it, except in extremis. Xandar (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand the article can't go into great detail on the issue, but since it brings up the issue of non-Catholics receiving Catholic Communion, it should really at least briefly summarize the issue of Catholics receiving non-Catholic Communion. —Angr 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Isn't that covered by "intercommunion with the Eastern Orthodox ... is possible"? Relevant rule is canon 844 §2, which in case of "necessity" (for example, danger of death) and "it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister", a Catholic may receive "penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid". Gimmetrow 07:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Christmas follows, beginning on the night of 24 December, Christmas Eve, and ending with the feast of the baptism of Jesus on 13 January." This contradicts Baptism of the Lord (which should be linked to), which says the feast was fixed on 13 January before Vatican II, but now is on whatever day between 7 January and 13 January inclusive is a Sunday. The sentence is also unsourced, and contradicts what I was always taught (in an Episcopal church, to be sure, but I thought we shared this with Catholics), namely that Christmas ends at Epiphany, but that the Christmas greenery may remain up in the church until the feast of the Presentation on 2 February.
      Christmas for Catholics ends on the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord per my Nihil Obstat source and I refd the entire paragraph for you too. I eliminated the date of January 13 since my source did not give an actual date and I wikilinked Baptism of the Lord. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Epiphany is included under the season of christmas in Catholic Churches, even though the traditional "12 days" of Christmas end on Epiphany. So the season of Christmas ends on the 13th january, after Epiphany week. However the old tradition of keeping christmas decorations up until Candlemas, 2nd of February, persists in part of Europe. Xandar (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also unsourced is "Lent is the 40–day period of purification and penance that begins on Ash Wednesday and ends on Holy Thursday" which again contradicts what I learned, namely that Lent ends on Holy Saturday (the 40 days are the weekdays and Saturdays from Ash Wednesday to Holy Saturday).
      Referenced. Actually, the entire paragraph comes from the source refd at the end of the paragraph, I wasn't originally sure if I had to put a ref at the end of each sentence or not. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I didn't see the ref at the end of the paragraph. Sorry about that! Indeed, if the whole paragraph comes from the same source it's not necessary to ref every single sentence. —Angr 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grouping "Lay members, Marriage" under a single heading seems a little odd. Marriage should be lower case, too.
    • "Some parts of Europe, Ireland and the United States have experienced..." - Ireland is in Europe.
      Good point, eliminated mention of Ireland. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Among those who have been excommunicated or incurred excommunication..." - what's the difference between being excommunicated and incurring excommunication?
      The first sentence of that same paragraph explains that a person may excommunicate themselves or be excommunicated. Incurring excommunication is when you excommunicate yourself. Would you like some more explanation added to the sentence? NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, please. It still seems, at least grammatically, that "incurring excommunication" would be a cover term for both cases, i.e. you have incurred excommunication regardless of whether you did it yourself or someone did it to you. —Angr 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All for now, maybe more comments later. —Angr 21:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Angr, I am not sure about your question regarding Catholics receiving communion from other churches, I'll have to do a little research to answer that one. Also, I am not sure about capitalization of sacraments. We have had a fair amount of MoS gurus go through the page and I think it was decided that they should be capped. I will do some research on that too or ask DanK to come give us some input there. We are also awaiting a decision from the MoS folks on whether to capitalize "Church" throughout the article when it referred to the RCC as opposed to being used in a generic way. Wikipedia policy was vague on that and the Mos people were hashing it out for us. NancyHeise (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) states "Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth, original sin or transubstantiation." This seems fairly open to interpretation as to whether it includes the sacraments. My instinct would be to capitalize Church, Marriage, Eucharist, etc. when used as proper nouns just as you would capitalize Bible or God in the context of Christianity. --Laser brain (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a while since I left school, so my understanding of English grammar may possibly be out of date. Is it not the case that proper nouns are capitalised, whereas improper nouns are not? Does it not therefore seem consistent that "Marriage", when used as a proper noun referring to name of one of the sacraments, ought to be capitalised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuarum (talk • contribs) 23:33, June 2, 2008 (UTC)
I could agree with capitalization in phrases like "the Sacrament of Marriage" and "the Sacrament of Baptism", but not every time marriage or baptism is mentioned alone. —Angr 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of WP:CIVIL. These vitriolic, sarcastic comments from both sides are not helping anyone. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 23:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion moved to talk page SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Comment: I must confess that his debate may have passed me by. I had no problems Opposing the earlier versions. In many respects, the current version seems to skirt just barely under the WIAFA requirements, in my opinion. As I said before, I think any problems with the writing could be cleaned up. Major problems have been addressed. You might think, then, that "a little bit acceptable is still acceptable". Perhaps there's no such thing as being a little bit FA-worthy, like there's no such things as being a little bit pregnant. Well, the one fear I have stems from others' concerns that the article presents Catholicism through the worldview of Catholics. Unfortunately, you could take everything I know about the history of the Roman Catholic Church and fit it in a thimble, with room left over for three caraway seeds and the sympathy of a steely-eyed deletionist. I feel unable to Oppose and unable to Support. Will think further. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, I find the article exceptionally well referenced, informative, and it sets a good example for all other religion articles to follow. The amount of effort that has gone in to pleasing such a diverse range of editors is akin to the task of Sisyphus. Religious topics seem to bring a higher degree of scrutiny, but that also makes for better articles. Also, perfection is impossible on Wikipedia; articles change by the minute. This is an exemplary article. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a. And I'm disappointed to see a resistant approach by the nominator towards critical reviewers. Please read the instructions. The "Support" immediately above does not, to me, reflect critical scrutiny, and the fact of continuous and open editing has nothing to do with our task here. Some of those one-word "Supports" don't hold much water, either; nor do the extravagent yet empty one-liners such as—

"Awesome article, beautifully written, meets all the criteria of an excellent article and everything we want in a featured article. Let's make this happen."

More like intra-club support, given the Latin in the user's signature.

I looked at just one section, "Origin and mission", which—right at the top—you'd expect to have been trawled over to the point of shine; but shine it doesn't, so I really wonder whether the drive-bys are based on any more than a quick glance.

  • "Scholars such as Edward Norman, agree that the Church was founded by Jesus and believe the historical record reveals that it was considered a Christian doctrinal authority from the beginning." What is the comma doing there? — Tony1 05:21, 3 June 2008 — continues after insertion below
Thank you for pointing out that stray comma, it was left over from answering another FAC reviewers comment to remove a section of the sentence that described Edward Norman' credentials as a respected historian.NancyHeise (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scholars such as Edward Norman, agree that the Church was founded by Jesus and believe the historical record reveals that it was considered a Christian doctrinal authority from the beginning.[14] Others, like Eamon Duffy, caution that the insufficient number of clear written records surviving from the early years of Christianity make such precision difficult to confirm." Um ... where's this precision that may be hard to confirm?
This is now reworded and specified with help from other editors, thanks guys. NancyHeise (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He dismisses a letter from Pope Clement I (c. 95) that other historians cite as evidence of a presiding cleric,...". What's your angle here? That evdence from a presiding cleric is unreliable? Unclear.
Please see the paragraph again. NancyHeise (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pope Benedict XVI summarized ..." and then "He states". Which tense is it to be?
  • "He states that these duties presuppose each other and are inseparable.[9] The Church therefore administers social programs throughout the world." Run that causal logic past me again.
  • "corporal"; my dictionary suggests that "corporeal" is more appropriate in this context.

Now, given that these issues occur in just one small part of a very large article, the best thing to do would be to withdraw the nomination and come back when the article has had time to brew: several months, not several weeks, I'd say, for proper NPOV consideration. TONY (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

< Personal commentary unrelated to FAC or WIAFA removed to talk page.> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These "issues" are merely your opinions. Your opinions are certainly interesting, but they do not carry the weight of law as you seem to believe. My opinion is that it would be better to let this restarted FAC take its course, hopefully with reviewers taking a more positive stance in fixing the odd misplaced comma or two and focusing instead on whether or not this article meets the FA criteria. Not the imaginary FA criteria for articles about controversial topics. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expand on that, please? The snark is entertaining, but not precisely loaded with clarity. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comma use needs cleaning up, that's for sure. Gimmetrow 06:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony. you produced a few points which you have quibbles with, largely minor, however, you also appear, without good reason, to be failing to assume good faith among other editors, and in fact make unwarranted allegations against them. You also insist on making unhelpful blanket accusation of POV, without providing any specifics to discuss or be dealt with. And you repeat the desire that "someone else" (unnamed) rewrite the article, and that preferably it "go away" for a period of months (or years?) The article has been through several complete copyedits at different hands, and has also been up before the league of Copyeditors. However in an article which is large, of interest to many people, edited by many hands, and is being tweaked up to 50 times a day to respond to FAC comments and to revert vandalism, you are always going to come up with points of imperfection. With rspect to your actionable objections, which, to avoid breaking up your post, I have numbered for convenience:
1. Comma. Already dealt with by Gimmetrow.
2. I have (subsequent to Gimmetrow) further clarified this point.
3. Clarified
4. He can do both since one statement is written and therefore continuing. But these sentences have been made consistent.
5. The logic is quite simple. Pope Benedict expresses the centrality of charity. Church social programmes logically follow.
6. A matter of preference. Agree with Gimmetrow. Corporal means bodily. Corporeal is more old-fashioned, slightly less likely to be understood.
If you have any further specific actionable points, please bring them forward. If they're important enough to prevent FA status, they should be easy to identify. Xandar (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Sigh, this is getting boring indeed. Tony just said about resistance towards critical reviewers, and here it is again (see Malleus' comment above). Tony's concern about prose quality are definitely valid. My concern about missing access dates has still not been addressed as well - all online refs need access dates, no matter what they might be. Personally I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're talking about bible references. In John 1:1 the reference is John 1:1, not the website. The website functions as a convenience link. Prose is definitely an issue, but opposing over accessdates on this point is improper. Gimmetrow 08:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right...but it's a still a web page. And if that page went down or the site died, then there's no access date to confirm if it was ever accessible? WP:CITE states: "All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used. Full citations must contain enough information for other editors to identify the specific published work you used." - I am nitpicking, and it is not stated in the FA criteria, but it's still important that we stay in accordance to policy and style guidelines. SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) is usually the one who points out citation errors, so you might want to ask for their opinion. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm inclined to agree with Gimmetrow on this: the source is John 1:1, which anyone can find any number of ways; the website is only a convenience link, and not at all essential to locating the source. John 1:1 is enough for other editors to identify the information; this is similar to a PMID, which is only a convenience link. If others disagree, I suggest continuing the discussion at WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Although from reading above, I see there is a wrinkle in comparing it to a PMID: which translation is being used in direct quotes does present an issue, so this may not be as cut and dried as a PMID link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to change the format of the Biblerefs if all of you FAC reviewers will come to a decision on which Bible I should be using and which format. Right now, I can do nothing. I think it would create a POV problem to change what presently exists just so you can have and accessdate which seems to be such a minor and disposable thing for this issue which has precedent on the FA Islam to support the current presentation. NancyHeise (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some content still focuses on the Western perspective. "Lent is the 40–day period of purification..." This section is identified as the Latin rite calendar, but still, how is it 40 days from Ash Wednesday to Holy Thursday? Might it be better to just say "Lent is a period of preparation for Easter", which would cover both Eastern and Western practices? Also, "The couple desiring marriage are themselves the ministers of the sacrament" is a Western view. It would also be nice to write a conclusion for the article. Gimmetrow 09:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article conclusion would be very problematic. It's a big article about an ongoing institution. It would either be very bland and say "The church goes on into an incident-filled future..." or it would become a source of arguments about POV. Is it positive, negative etc? The article is long enough, and i don't see a useful purpose being served. Xandar (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. The article is: well written; comprehensive; factually accurate (emphatically per WP:V and WP:RS); neutral (per extensive talk page slug-fests); stable; has a strong structure, lead, and consistent citations; contains many appropriate images. It is lengthy, but this is justifiable due to its 2000 year history and social importance. These are all of the criteia in WP:FACR. My only quibble is the article title, which has been hashed out again and again--apparently, I'm 'wrong' that it's actually the Catholic Church instead of Roman Catholic Church, but what's an expert's knowledge worth? Lwnf360 (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: be forewarned that there will be hundreds if not thousands of similar comments from users that the article title and first sentance are inacurate when this becomes a FA. Suggest either correcting, or putting a note at the top of the talk page saying that this has been extensivly discussed, and the current version is a comprimise. Lwnf360 (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. Yes, I agree with you on the name but per Wikipedia policy WP:NC, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." Based on that policy, the article was named "Roman Catholic Church" with the redirect for "Catholic Church" coming to this page as well as offering the reader the fact that the Catholic Church officially calls itself the "Catholic Church". NancyHeise (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the History section has 4993 words "readable prose size". The article History of the Roman Catholic Church has 850 words "readable prose size," and is essentially a mammoth time-line. I have been trying to look at this article with fresh eyes. I had an epiphany, but unfortunately it was a deeply discouraging one. After the previous FAC, I mentioned to Nancy that I was almost sure the "next FAC" (i.e., this one) would pass. I was looking at the organization of the article at that time, and projecting the amount of time until the prose could be brought up to speed. I now wonder if it needs major restructuring. i wonder if the History section should be farmed out to History of the Roman Catholic Church, the time-line from History of the Roman Catholic Church farmed out to Timeline of the Roman Catholic Church, and much material from Role of Catholic Church in Civilization (that was moved out of this article because it was too long!!) moved back. It is depressing. I also wonder... shouldn't South and central America get more verbiage? And I like the suggestion of a conclusion as per Gimmetrow, too... I am also seeing the prose as being more flawed than I had earlier thought (see the demographics section) . Ling.Nut (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lingnut, some more for you to consider - Your restructuring would completely change the entire article which has been built by review and consensus for the past five months. You can't just all of a sudden decide on your own that the entire article gets tossed and a new one replaced. I too like the idea of a conclusion and I will perhaps offer one on my talk page later asking for comments and consensus to add it. NancyHeise (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment to FAC reviewers - Wackymacs and others have made some diparaging comments about "resistance" to reviewers comments by editors. I believe they are confusing editors of the RCC page (who have not voted on this FAC because we have substantially contributed to the page) and other FAC reviewers who are answering their comments. Just to clarify something here, Malleus Fatuorum and Johnbod are not editors of the RCC page but FAC reviewers who have cast support votes on this page and who have been extremely helpful to the editors in expressing our difficulties faced in answering many of the FAC reviewers comments that are outside of the FAC criteria. Please try to have more respect for your fellow FAC reviewers who are doing everything they can to help get this top page for Wikiproject Catholicism to FA. I personally appreciate their help very much and I dont think their comments have been anything but proper to the conversation. NancyHeise (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now is not the time for a major restructure of the article, causing massive instability. As per the Britannica article, details of which have been posted below, History makes up a significant, and necessary part of both treatments. Even if the material were transferred, this article would still need a smaller History section, and deciding what went in that and at what weight would be horrendous. (Witness the six months of discussion here and on the Talk pages at RCC). the current length of the History section has been determined, not by the editors so much as by the need to deal with certain subjects in sufficient detail to present necessary viewpoints, and to balance events by importance and Due Weight considerations. Indeed, the History of the Church Article COULD be rewritten in prose style, but that is a mammoth undertaking and would need more detail than we currently have in the RCC article. I ams ure someone could take the current RCC text and expand on it, but that is another (quite large) project. When that is done might be the time to start thinking whether history content in the main article could be trimmed. Xandar (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: NancyHeise left a message on my talk page concerning the restart; many thanks. On 30 May, NancyHeise responded to Ling.Nut and added other citations to text that were cited only to Vidmar. I had asked for replacement than just additions, but what was done is definitely a step in the right direction. It would be better if the text were supported on the solid sources alone. The facts that I stated concerning the book’s reliability still stand. There are potential pitfalls with this source: as I mentioned, one reason is that an erroneous statement could be supported. More importantly, another reason is the source could be used to subtly push a POV which violates criterion 1d. The latter reason was mentioned by Ling.Nut and Refero. So in summary, WIAFA concerns: 1c and 1d, Action: at least add solid sources to the text that cite only Vidmar, which may require some modification of the text. Some more comments and questions: — RelHistBuff 11:52, 3 June 2008 — continues after insertion below

  • The final paragraph of the "Modern era" section concerns the Church’s relationship with the Jews during World War II, a rather controversial subject, therefore it should stand on a bedrock of scholarship. Unfortunately, only a part is cited to solid scholars. The clause "because even though no Church teachings promote the killing of Jews" (cited to a NYT article) should be removed. The clause may be truthful, but I couldn't find that statement in the source.
I eliminated the clause and left the rest of the sentence. NancyHeise (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention of prominent members of the Jewish community and the use of their quotes is simply sourced to a book of quotations. This makes it appear that cherry-picking was done which might bring out claims of WP:OR. The sentence should be supported by a solid source or removed.
I added Bokenkotter as a source and provided the quote to support the current text. NancyHeise (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two final sentences in the paragraph (only cited to Vidmar), appear as if they were statements from an apologist; quoting a single Israeli consul making a unsupported claim may not be a direct example of a POV, but it is a POV by proxy. The previous clause quoting Dalin (cited to Bokenkotter) is sufficient. The sentence giving the number of priests killed by the Nazis is unrelated to Pius' and the Church's relations with the Jews and just appears defensive. The two sentences should be dropped as what is left in the paragraph is enough.
While I disagree that I can't use Vidmar, especially when the preceeding sentence supports the next one, I have eliminated these last two sentences in compromise with you. NancyHeise (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the subject of Mary I, who were the "Catholic spiritual advisor and others" mentioned?
Mary I was married to a Spanish Catholic who asked his chaplain to preach against the burnings, I was only able to find this fact in Vidmar and one other source but it was not a university press or a university professor so I did not use it as a back up. I eliminated the phrase "Catholic spiritual advisor" and replaced with "Spanish ambassador" as supported by the quote by Haigh.NancyHeise (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the subject of the Huguenots, ending a paragraph with the Edict of Nantes is misleading giving the impression that France became a tolerant nation. Surely, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes and its rather devastating after effects should be mentioned as well?
After looking into this extensively through all my sources and online, I dont think that it deserves mention since my scholarly sources do not go into it, probably because it was not an action of the Catholic Church but a secular ruler. If you don't mind, I would like for the text to not stray too far off topic, there are a number of tangents we could follow in all areas of history but we have to have some kind of limit for size reasons. NancyHeise (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--RelHistBuff (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are ample scholarly sources to back up the WWII material in the article. Since this is about the Church and the Nazis, I think reference to numbers of priests killed is relevant. I will look up further references. Xandar (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FAC criteria 1(c) requires the text to be "factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;"
To meet this criteria, we used an equal balance of both apologist and critic sources in the text. Our main sources are from Edward Norman and Eamon Duffy who are introduced in the article in the Origins and Mission section in a way that helps the reader to understand that there are different scholarly viewpoints on Catholic Church history. Duffy and other authors who take the critical viewpoint are more than equally represented in the text than those like Norman who represent the apologist viewpoint. Sensitive areas of the article like Inquisitions, Crusades, Reformation, and Sexual Abuse were created using both critic and apologist sources and quotations from all of these sources were included to reader could see all the various viewpoints for themselves. The book RelHistBuf does not like, The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages by John Vidmar(2005) Paulist Press, is one of our apologist sources. It meets WP:RS criteria and qualifies as a top source per WP:Reliable source examples. Elimination of this book would leave a huge imbalance in the article balance of both points of view. Further, every Vidmar citation in the article text except for one point no one cares about is a double to another reference that no one has a problem with, in most cases the other ref has a quote included so you can see that the sentence is not "built" around Vidmar. Although wikipedia policies allow me to have some citations in the article text referenced only to Vidmar, I have conceeded to FAC reviewers comments and doubled all of his references. Vidmar's book was peer reviewed by critical historian Thomas Bokenkotter in the academic journal Catholic Historical Review which has been published since 1915, there is another peer review by a professor of Theology (theology departments teach Church history) at Graduate Theological Union, Berkley, and another on Googlebooks. None of these reveiws state that the book has any factual errors or radical POV and all of them recommend the book at the end of the review. Thus, there is no Wikipedia policy violated in using Vidmar and I have gone beyond the mere policies to satisfy RelHistBuf but I think it would violate policy completely to remove use of this book. In addition, there is neither any FAC criteria violated unless I do remove him. I will be answering all of RelHistBuf's other comments shortly just underneath his bulletpoints and I very much appreciate the fine way he has framed his comments and review here. I think his is a perfect example of polite opposition and organized review. Thanks RelHistBuf. NancyHeise (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - someone asked me to compare with the Encyclopedia Britannica entry (Roman Catholicism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Library Edition). The EB entry is at "Roman Catholicism", is 121 pages long, and has the following structure:
Structure of Encyclopedia Britannica article on Roman Catholicism
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Introduction
  • History of Roman Catholicism
    • The emergence of Catholic Christianity
      • The emergence of Roman Catholicism
        • Internal factors
        • External factors
        • The early medieval papacy
    • The church of the early Middle Ages
      • The concept of Christendom
      • A period of decadence
      • Popular Christianity 1000
    • The church of the High Middle Ages
      • Gregorian Reform
      • The reign of Gregory VII
      • The Investiture Controversy: Gregory VII to Calixtus II
      • The Crusades
      • The papacy at its height: the 12th and 13th centuries
      • The renaissance of the 12th century
      • The apostolic life
      • Religious orders: canons and monks
      • The mendicant orders
      • The rise of heresy
      • Religious life in the 13th century
      • The golden age of Scholasticism
      • The persecuting society
    • From the late Middle Ages to the Reformation
      • The “Babylonian Captivity”
      • Late medieval reform: the Great Schism and conciliarism
      • Jan Hus
      • Efforts to heal the East-West Schism
      • Roman Catholicism on the eve of the Reformation
      • The decline of Scholastic theology
      • Expressions of spirituality and folk piety
      • Roman Catholicism and Renaissance humanism
      • Roman Catholicism and the emergence of national consciousness
  • The age of Reformation and Counter-Reformation
    • Roman Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation
      • The Roman Catholic Reformation
        • The Council of Trent
        • New religious orders
    • The Counter-Reformation
    • Post-Reformation conditions
    • Developments in France
      • The Gallican problem
      • Jansenism
      • Quietism
    • Controversies involving the Jesuits
      • The Chinese rites controversy
      • Suppression of the Jesuits
    • Religious life in the 17th and 18th centuries
  • The church in the modern period
    • Catholicism in Revolutionary France
    • Napoleon I and the restoration
    • Pius IX
    • Leo XIII
    • The period of the World Wars
    • The Second Vatican Council
    • Aftermath of the council
  • Roman Catholicism outside Europe
    • The New World: Spanish and Portuguese empires
      • Colonial period
      • After independence
      • Spanish and French missions in North America
    • Roman Catholicism in the United States and Canada
      • United States
      • Canada
    • Roman Catholicism in Africa and Asia
      • Missions in Africa
      • Missions in Asia
  • Structure of the church
    • Doctrinal basis
      • The nature of the church
      • Apostolic succession
    • The papacy
      • The papal office
      • Ancient and medieval views of papal authority
      • Early-modern and modern views of papal authority
      • Historical conceptions of the relationship of the papacy to the world
      • Contemporary teaching on papal authority
    • The offices of the clergy
      • The Roman Curia and the College of Cardinals
      • The college of bishops
      • Ecumenical councils
      • The priesthood
    • Religious communities
      • Hermits and monks
      • Mendicant friars and clerks regular
      • Nuns and brothers
    • The laity
    • Canon law
  • Beliefs and practices
    • Faith
      • Concepts of faith
      • Preambles and motivation of faith
      • Heresy
    • Revelation
      • The concept of revelation
      • The content of revelation
    • Tradition and Scripture
      • The magisterium
      • The concept of teaching authority
      • Organs of teaching authority
      • Object and response
    • Major dogmas and doctrines
    • Sacraments
      • General characteristics
      • Baptism
      • Confirmation
      • The Eucharist
      • Reconciliation
      • Anointing of the sick
      • Marriage
      • Holy orders
    • Liturgy
      • The mass
      • The divine office
      • The liturgical year
    • Paraliturgical devotions
      • Eucharistic devotions
      • Cult of the saints
      • Mysticism
    • The order of the mass
      • The introductory rites
      • The liturgy of the Word
      • The liturgy of the Eucharist
      • The communion rite
      • The concluding rite
    • The role of the church in society
      • Missions
      • Education
      • Charitable activities
      • Church and state relations
      • Economic views and practice
      • The family
  • The church since Vatican II
  • Additional Reading
    • General Works
      • History
      • Belief and practice
    • The Latin church from antiquity to the late Middle Ages
    • Reformation and Counter-Reformation
    • Roman Catholicism in modern times
    • The papacy

References are lengthy:

References used for the EB article on Roman Catholicism
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • History:
    • Large-scale works are Hubert Jedin and John Patrick Dolan (eds.), History of the Church, 10 vol. (1986–89). John McManners (ed.), The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity (1990, reissued 2001), is useful. Roland H. Bainton, The Horizon History of Christianity (1964, reissued as Christianity, 2000), is a well-written, beautifully illustrated, comprehensive introduction to Western Christianity through the centuries and includes references to modern Catholicism worldwide.
  • Belief and practice:
    • Reference works include Robert C. Broderick (ed.), The Catholic Encyclopedia, rev. and updated ed. (1987); Thomas Carson and Joann Cerrito (eds.), New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., 15 vol. (2003), which treats all phases of Roman Catholicism; Karl Rahner et al. (eds.), Sacramentum Mundi: An Encyclopedia of Theology, 6 vol. (1968–70), which deals with Catholic doctrine and theological thought; and F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone (eds.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (1997), with informative articles on Roman Catholic subjects and helpful bibliographies.
    • An excellent brief compendium of doctrine is A New Catechism: Catholic Faith for Adults, trans. by Kevin Smyth (1967, reissued 1982; originally published in Dutch, 1966). Also valuable is Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later elected as Pope Benedict XVI) and Christopher Schönborn (one of the contributors to the church's new catechism), Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994). Roman Catholic theology of the church is discussed by Hans Küng, The Church (1967, reissued 1976; originally published in German, 1967); and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today, trans. by Adrian Walker (1996; originally published in German, 1991).
    • The contemporary Roman Catholic Church is surveyed by John L. McKenzie, The Roman Catholic Church (1969, reissued 1971). A balanced and comprehensive introduction is Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism, completely rev. and updated (1994). See also Barrie Ruth Straus, The Catholic Church (1987, reissued 1992). Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 5 vol. (1971–91), opens with the apostolic Fathers and closes with the Second Vatican Council. Jaroslav Pelikan, Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 4 vol. (2003), is a comprehensive collection of statements of faith and includes a volume of commentary on the creeds. Rosemary Ruether and Eleanor McLaughlin (eds.), Women of Spirit: Female Leadership in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (1979, reissued 1998), is a step toward redressing the imbalance in most scholarship. An important starting point for developments in Roman Catholic theology after the Second Vatican Council is Hans Küng, On Being a Christian, trans. by Edward Quinn (1976, reissued 1984; originally published in German, 1974). On developments in Roman Catholic feminist theology, see Mary Jo Weaver, New Catholic Women: A Contemporary Challenge to Traditional Religious Authority (1985, reissued 1995).
  • The Latin church from antiquity to the late Middle Ages
    • Perceptive introductions to the medieval church are Bernard Hamilton, Religion in the Medieval West (1986); and R.W. Southern, Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages (1970, reprinted 1990). A useful survey of the history of the early church is Peter Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, AD 200–1000, 2nd ed. (2003). Important studies of the church in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages are Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (1983); R.A. Markus, The End of Ancient Christianity (1998); Richard E. Sullivan, Christian Missionary Activity in the Early Middle Ages (1994); and J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church (1983). Étienne Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (1955, reissued 1980), is a masterly summary with a full bibliography. Heiko A. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism, rev. ed. (2000), looks at the theology of the late Middle Ages in its entirety, with special emphasis on nominalism. C.H. Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism: Forms of Religious Life in Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 3rd ed. (2001); and C.H. Lawrence, The Friars: The Impact of the Early Mendicant Movement on Western Society (1994), are accessible surveys of the medieval religious orders. The profound changes in spirituality and church organization that occurred in the 11th and 12th centuries are studied in Uta-Renate Blumenthal, The Investiture Controversy: Church and Monarchy from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century (1988, reissued 1991); Michael Frassetto (ed.), Medieval Purity and Piety: Essays on Medieval Clerical Celibacy and Religious Reform (1998); Rachel Fulton, From Judgment to Passion: Devotion to Christ and the Virgin Mary, 800–1200 (2002); Gerd Tellenbach, The Church in Western Europe from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century (1993); and Caroline Walker Bynum, Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (1982).
    • Henry Charles Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages: Its Organization and Operation (1954, reissued 1993), remains the essential, but sectarian, introduction to the topic. Bernard Hamilton, The Medieval Inquisition (1981); and Edward Peters, Inquisition (1988), offer a more balanced view; and Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision, 2nd ed. (1997, reissued 2000), is the best introduction to the institution in Spain. The history of medieval heresy is best examined in Malcom Lambert, Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation, 3rd ed. (2002); and R.I. Moore, The Origins of European Dissent (1977, reissued 1994).
    • A useful introduction to the Crusades is Thomas F. Madden, A Concise History of the Crusades (1999). Francis Oakley, The Western Church in the Later Middle Ages (1979, reissued 1985); and Steven Ozment, The Age of Reform, 1250–1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe (1980), cover the late Middle Ages with sound judgment. W.A. Pantin, The English Church in the Fourteenth Century (1955, reissued 1980), is a good introduction to late medieval English developments; and Lawrence G. Duggan, Bishop and Chapter: The Governance of the Bishopric of Speyer to 1552 (1978), an important study of the institutional church in Germany.
  • Reformation and Counter-Reformation:
    • The period is surveyed thoroughly in two reference works: Thomas A. Brady, Heiko A. Oberman, and James D. Tracy (eds.), Handbook of European History, 1400–1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation, 2 vol. (1994–96); and Hans J. Hillerbrand (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, 4 vol. (1996). An important introduction is G.R. Elton (ed.), The Reformation, 1520–1559, 2nd ed., vol. 2 (1990) of The New Cambridge Modern History, 14 vol. (1957–77, reissued 1975–99). Other useful introductions to the period are John Bossy, Christianity in the West, 1400–1700 (1985); Euan Cameron, The European Reformation (1991); Heiko A. Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought (1986, reissued 1992); and Lewis W. Spitz, The Protestant Reformation, 1517–1559 (1985).
    • Jaroslav Pelikan, Obedient Rebels: Catholic Substance and Protestant Principle in Luther's Reformation (1964), is an investigation of Luther's thought; and Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (1950, reissued 1995), remains the best introduction to Luther's life. Developments in England are considered in Eamon duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400–1580 (1992). George Huntston Williams, The Radical Reformation, 3rd ed. (2000), is a synoptic presentation of the “left wing” of the Reformation. Reform in the Roman Catholic Church is treated best in Robert Bireley, The Refashioning of Catholicism, 1450–1700 (1999); Michael A. Mullett, The Catholic Reformation (1999); and R. Po-chia Hsia, The World of Catholic Renewal 1540–1770 (1998).
  • Roman Catholicism in modern times:
    • An extensive and valuable study is Kenneth Scott Latourette, Christianity in a Revolutionary Age: A History of Christianity in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, 5 vol. (1958–62, reissued 1973); vol. 1, 3, and 5 concentrate on Roman Catholic themes. E.E.Y. Hales, The Catholic Church in the Modern World: A Survey from the French Revolution to the Present, new rev. ed. (1960), concentrates on Europe and America. Two works that make aspects of the American Catholic experience readily available to readers are John Tracy Ellis, American Catholicism, 2nd ed. rev. (1969); and Jay P. Dolan, The American Catholic Experience: A History from Colonial Times to the Present (1985, reissued 2001), an essential study. Stephen Neill, Colonialism and Christian Missions (1966), and A History of Christian Missions, 2nd ed. rev. by Owen Chadwick (1986, reissued 1990), provide brief and generally fair comments on Catholic ventures. Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, trans. and ed. by Caridad Inda and John Eagleson, rev. ed. (2001; originally published in Spanish, 1972), is a provocative introduction to Roman Catholicism in the developing world. Another essential study is Anthony Gill, Rendering unto Caesar: The Catholic Church and the State in Latin America (1998). Adrian Hastings, The Church in Africa, 1450–1950 (1994), is a valuable introduction.
    • Lester R. Kurtz, The Politics of Heresy: The Modernist Crisis in Roman Catholicism (1986), provides an introduction to the debate over Modernism. Austin Flannery (ed.), Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents, new rev. ed. (1996), is a useful collection of documents from the council; and Adrian Hastings (ed.), Modern Catholicism: Vatican II and After (1991), is a valuable consideration of the postconciliar Roman Catholic Church.
  • The papacy:
    • Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, 2nd ed. (2002), is a comprehensive and lively study of the papacy. An excellent brief introduction to papal history up to the Reformation is Geoffrey Barraclough, The Medieval Papacy (1968, reissued 1979). Essential studies for the development of medieval papal claims are W. Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in the Ideological Relation of Clerical to Lay Power, 3rd ed. (1970); and Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150–1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty, and Tradition in the Middle Ages (1972, reissued 1988). Other valuable studies of the medieval papacy are Peter Llewellyn, Rome in the Dark Ages (1971, reissued 1996); Colin Morris, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 (1989); Guillaume Mollat, The Popes at Avignon, 1305–1378 , trans. by Janet Love (1963; originally published in French, 9th ed. 1949); and Francis Oakley, Council over Pope? Towards a Provisional Ecclesiology (1969).
    • Good studies of the papacy from the Renaissance to modern times include John A.F. Thomson, Popes and Princes, 1417–1517: Politics and Polity in the Late Medieval Church (1980); A.D. Wright, The Early Modern Papacy: From the Council of Trent to the French Revolution, 1564–1789 (2000); Owen Chadwick, The Popes and European Revolution (1981); and Frank J. Coppa, The Modern Papacy Since 1789 (1998). Edward Cuthbert Butler, The Vatican Council, 1869–1870: Based on Bishop Ullathorne's Letters, ed. by Christopher Butler (1930, reissued 1962), is a history of the First Vatican Council. Walter M. Abbott (ed.), The Documents of Vatican II (1966, reissued 1989), is an introduction to the achievement of the Second Vatican Council. Garry Wills, Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit (2000), is a controversial and highly critical commentary on the modern papacy.
    • Works on the papacy from theological perspectives include Paul C. Empie and T. Austin Murphy (eds.), Papal Primacy and the Universal Church (1974), an ecumenical dialogue; and Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Church in the New Testament (1965, reissued 1974; originally published in German, 1961), which presents the results of 20th-century Roman Catholic biblical scholarship. Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, and John Reumann (eds.), Peter in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars (1973, reissued 2002), considers the biblical problems in the Petrine question. Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger, The Episcopate and the Primacy, trans. by Kenneth Barker (1962; originally published in German, 1961), is an analysis of the pope-bishop relationship; and Hans Küng, Infallible? An Unresolved Enquiry, new expanded ed. (1994; originally published in German, 1970), and Structures of the Church, trans. by Salvator Attanasio (1964, reissued 1982; originally published in German, 1962), are basic to an understanding of contemporary “liberal” Roman Catholic thinking on the papacy. Francis Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, trans. by Edwin A. Quain (1966, reprinted 1979; originally published in French, 1964); and John Meyendorff et al., The Primacy of Peter, 2nd ed. (1973, reissued 1992; originally published in French, 1960), are useful studies of Eastern Orthodox views on papal primacy.

Hope that's useful. If someone wants a copy of the article, drop me an email. Neıl 龱 13:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Interesting. But you must remember the EB article is far larger than ours, and has the advantage in terms that you can flip to whichever section you want by turning the page, rather than reading through long stretches of text as you tend to on a one-page article. That's why History, being the longest section, but not necessarily the one people will want to read first, has been placed where it is. Xandar (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have not read this article since its last FAC and I hoped to be able to support it this time around. In the meantime, actually, I read several books on church history to be able to better comment on the article. However, I find that I am not able to support the article, most unfortunately. I know that a lot of work has gone into it, but I feel that the article fails 1b, 1c, and 1d. — Awadewit 15:00, 3 June 2008 — continues after insertion below

  • The "History" section has a slight Catholic POV. I know that the editors have worked very hard to avoid this, so I am sure this is unintentional. However, the way some of the sentences are constructed and perhaps even the choice of sources have resulted in a Catholic POV. For example, the editors have made a good effort to begin several sentences "the Catholic Church believes...", however it is not clear where this distinction stops in a paragraph - what is believed only by the Catholic Church and what is not? The waters become muddied. Also, the omission of particular details creates a feeling that the section is a Catholic view of history. Let me give some examples of what I mean:
  • In the 16th century, partly in response to the Protestant Reformation, the Church engaged in a substantial process of reform and renewal, known as the Counter-Reformation. - A reflection of this problem occurs in the lead, actually. Considering that the Counter-Reformation also includes events such as the Spanish Inquisition, I feel that this sentence is a bit of a whitewash.
  • No. Spanish Inquisition began a good 60 years before the counter-reformation, and was no part of that process. It is dealt with in the High Middle Ages section Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the Spanish Inquisition page itself delineates, part of it had to do with with Counter-Reformation, since it lasted for hundreds of years. Anyway, this individual example is not really the point. The more important point is that the Counter-Reformation itself is misrepresented in the lead. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Spanish Inquisition was created by a secular King and was an arm of a secular government. If we have omitted the Spanish Inquisition from the text, I would consider your comment but the fact is that we have quite a lot of text on the inquisitions with many refs with quotes from many different sources to support the text. While we have certainly not covered every detail of history in our short summary of the 2000 year history of the Church, I know we have not omitted any main facts. I think that your insistence on requiring more commentary will not help the aritcle's summary style. The text provides a vast number of wikilinks including Spanish Inquisition and Counter Reformation that will help reader to discover all the missing facts we had to exclude for size considerations. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Catholic Church considers Pentecost to be its moment of origin because this was the day when the apostles first emerged from hiding to publicly preach the message of Jesus after his death - This is mixing theology with history. This belief was already stated in the "Origins" section, anyway, and this theological belief, which is not endorsed by historians, does not need to be included in a "History" section.
Another FAC reviewer endorsed the current text as an important lead and suggested that it was a necessary duplication. I am in agreement with that presentation. Reader needs to know what the Church considers to be its own historical beginning and Wikipedia policy requires us to present all significant viewpoints in the article text. NancyHeise (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the first century onward, the Church of Rome was respected as a doctrinal authority because the Apostles Peter and Paul had led the Church there - This is a Catholic view of history. The book Lost Christianities by the religious scholar Bart Ehrman, for example, explains that Rome was not the center of orthodoxy until the fourth century and that the orthodox actually developed this story about Rome being the center, emphasizing the role of Peter, in retrospect to solidify their authority. In fact, he even goes into detail regarding the academic reliability of various explanations of the emergence of orthodox Christianity, carefully explaining what academics support and what they do not. It is a very useful and accessible book.
  • Ehrman's view is just that - a view - and a rather extreme one. I'm sure you will find a satisfactory discussion of opposing views in the Origins and Mission section at the head of the article. This sentence in History, could be tweaked, however. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ehrman's view is not an extreme view. One reason I took so long to comment on this FAC was because I was reading books so that I could be fully informed. If you would like a full bibliography backing up this position, I can certainly provide you with one. I simply offered what I thought was the most accessible book on the subject. Moreover, just because the article explains the various views in one place does not mean it is off the hook in others. This suggests some reorganization needs to take place - if one section is NPOV and one place is POV to avoid repetition, perhaps some revision can be done, as you suggest.Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text specifically does not say that the Church of Rome was the center of authority but that it was respected as a doctrinal authority because... and it is refd to three scholars, two falling into the critic categories and the refs have the actual quotes to support the text. NancyHeise (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although competing forms of Christianity emerged early and persisted into the fifth century, the Roman Church retained the practice of meeting in ecumenical councils to ensure that any doctrinal differences were quickly resolved - This is a Catholic view of history - see again Lost Christianities which delineates the debates between these competing forms. It explains how some forms of Christianity were labeled "heresies", such as Gnosticism, and deliberately stamped out by an eventual victor, what we label the "proto-orthodox". This now seems inevitable, but it was not at the time. None of this would be considered "resolving doctrinal differences" - it was basically sect against sect.
  • You seem to misunderstand my point. I am pointing out that there was no established church in the way the article now suggests. It now says "within the Church itself", but histories of Christianity argue that there was no centralized, established church before the fourth or fifth century, so such a statement cannot be made. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very radical POV comment. All of my sources, including the ones considered critics do not hold the view offered by Awadewit here. There was a Roman Church, with a pope, beginning with either ST. Peter, according to Norman or someone earlier than Anicetus in the year 150 per Duffy. Oxford History of Christianity states:"Towards the latter part of the first century, Rome's presiding cleric named Clement wrote on behalf of his church to remonstrate with the Corinthian Christians ... Clement apologized not for intervening but for not having acted sooner. Moreover, during the second century the Roman community's leadership was evident in its generous alms to poorer churches. About 165 they erected monuments to their martyred apostles ... Roman bishops were already conscious of being custodians of the authentic tradition or true interpretation of the apostolic writings. In the conflict with Gnosticism Rome played a decisive role, and likewise in the deep division in Asia Minor created by the claims of the Montanist prophets to be the organs of the Holy Spirit's direct utterances." page 36. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't it more that there was a (pretty loosely) centralized, established church in this period, but it contained a wider range of doctrinal views, and every so often one group or another split off? I do agree with Awa that the Pentecost bit, and maybe the whoole first two paras, may be better in "Origins", starting the history at a period when there is more material for historians to work with. Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Johnbod (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no scholarly source justification to remove the early history of the Catholic Church from the history section and present it as if it were a POV separate from the main body of historians whose books support the article text. Why do we have to comment on the whole of Christianity in the Roman Catholic Church article? We have right now, the history of the Roman Catholic Church in the history section, just because it overlaps with other Christian sects (which are mentioned) does not mean we have to eliminate that section of history from its logical position in the article. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first few centuries of its existence, the Church defined and formed its teachings and traditions into a systematic whole under the influence of theological apologists such as Pope Clement I, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Augustine of Hippo. - In my opinion, this is tilted towards a Catholic view, because it implies that the doctrine developed at this time was "systematic" when really it was a response to all of the various versions of Christianity at the time. Some of the doctrinal additions at the time don't make much sense in combination with each other. See Ehrman's discussion of the development of the Nicene Creed in chapter 9 of Lost Christianities, for example.
  • Matters grew still worse with the violent anti-clericalism of the French Revolution. The Church was outlawed, all monasteries destroyed, 30,000 priests were exiled and hundreds more were killed.[278] When Pope Pius VI took sides against the revolution in the First Coalition, Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Italy. The pope was imprisoned by French troops the following year and died after six weeks of captivity. After a change of heart, Napoleon then re-established the Catholic Church in France with the signing of the Concordat of 1801.[279] All over Europe, the end of the Napoleonic wars signaled by the Congress of Vienna, brought Catholic revival, renewed enthusiasm, and new respect for the papacy following the depredations of the previous era - This is also a rather one-sided perspective of the French Revolution. It does not acknowledge that any of the complaints against the clergy at the time might have had merit. In fact, it doesn't explain why any of this violence took place. See Sutherland's France 1789-1815, for a good one-volume history of the French Revolution on this point. There is a helpful index, which will guide you to the relevant sections on the "clergy".
  • There may have been complaints against the clergy, but I'm not sure such complaints are any justification for what happened. Compare Russian revolution, or complaints against Jews prior to pogroms. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the reader cannot decide for themselves - you do not offer the people's perspective. In fact, the reader does not even understand why these acts took place. Right now, it just seems like random violence, but it was not - there were reasons for it. Whether or not you feel those reasons justify it is irrelevant - we should explain those reasons to the reader. The reader needs to know why people in eighteenth-century France thought it was accepted to exile and kill priests, etc. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that is like asking the Holocaust article to go into detail why the Nazi's wanted to kill them, it is assuming that some crime was being committed by the population of people who are being killed. In the Holocaust it was Jews, in the French Revolution it was priests. I think it is POV to insist that whoever is being wiped out at the time must have done something to deserve it in the first place. NancyHeise (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Holocaust article should (and does) explain very briefly the reasons why different things happened. That does not mean the victims are at fault and that the Germans are right. NPOV means includes the facts; the fact is that in France people thought XXX and used that for their justification for exiling or killing priests. The article is not meant to derive a conclusion on whether or not they were correct in thinking those thoughts or doing those deeds. Karanacs (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One way of solving this POV problem, I think, would be to have a section dedicated to the story the Catholic Church tells about its own origin and history - just a few paragraphs. This can include the information about Jesus, Peter, etc. However, the "History" section should be much more NPOV. I worry that we are going to have to "Histories of the church" sections on many different pages, such as Reformation, Lutheran Church, etc. that all present the history of the Christian church from a particular point of view and they will all sound different. This will be confusing to readers. All of these histories should sound similar - they should not sound Lutheran on one page and Catholic on another page, for example. That is why I would suggest dedicating one section to the Church's view of its own history.

  • I think this would risk fictionalising the church take on its history, and factualising opposition viewpoints. Best, I think, to try to do the best with scholarly material as it exists. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also concerned that the article presents Catholic belief as a unified whole with very few or no dissenters. Catholic beliefs are interpreted different by liberal theologians, conservative theologians, different orders of monks, different national churches, etc. It is hard to see what those debates are here (there is one brief discussion of liberation theology, but that is about all). This choice could also be viewed as POV - the Catholic Church wants its followers to believe that it has a unified set of doctrines, when in fact those doctrines are not uniformly followed. A section dedicated to "Disputes over Catholic theology" or some such could help remedy this. I understand that it would be hard to sprinkle them through the entire article at this point.
  • This is a point. However there are not so many differences as some may think. Womens ordination has been mentioned, and Liberation Theology. There are Liberal views and Traditionalist views, which perhaps also deserve a brief mention. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have mentioned in the Demographics section the fact that the number of practicing Catholics is not reliably known. Disputes over Catholic Theology are already discussed throughout the history section in a manner suggested by Jimbo Wales. Women's ordination, birth control, liberation theology and all the past disputes over Catholic theology like Arianism are talked about and wikilinked for the reader who wants to know more. NancyHeise (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is very little in the article on the Catholic Church's missions. This is a large and very significant section of the Church. I mentioned this problem in the last FAC. Brief mentions of charities do not explain the huge networks of schools, hospitals, etc. that the Catholic church builds and runs throughout the world. The article focuses too much on doctrine and history at this point. It does not really explain what the Church does.
  • The article does not omit the fact that the church has schools hospitals etc now or throughout history, this fact is throughout the article. I did some research after the last FAC and considered a section on the current work of the church throughout the world, possibly even listing all of the hospitals, schools, and missions but even after an extensive search, I could not find all that data in one place, I would have had to compile it myself via going to each country in the world's bishop's conference data and we are not allowed to do that on Wikipedia. What could be done is to have a separate wikipedia page on that subject that could link to this page when it is completed. NancyHeise (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to suggest ways to fix the issues I have raised, so I hope these were helpful suggestions. I am sorry that I could not support at this time. I actually spent several days thinking about this oppose. I can see how hard this FAC has been and I wanted to make sure that I was opposing for very substantial reasons. These are not issues that I believe I could easily fix myself or that I believe could be fixed in a day. I believe that some thoughtful and careful revision needs to take place and some additions need to be made before the article should become an FA. However, I have no doubt that these changes can eventually be made. Awadewit (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding this to the end of the FAC; this is unrelated to Awadewit's comments directly before this post. After several talk page and article talk page reminders throughout these FACs, I am formally and directly requesting that personalization of this FAC cease. I will remove further personal commentary, not directly related to the WP:FAC instructions or WP:WIAFA to the talk page. If someone simply must comment on an editor and not the content, pls do so elsewhere, or preferably, not at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose. I've been reading and rereading the article, and the comments that others have offered about the article, since this was restarted to evaluate whether I am indeed holding this to a higher standard than other articles I review. I think that if I am, it is simply because I am much more familiar with the content in this article (at least the history) than other articles I review and can thus more easily see some potential issues. This is definitely a good article, and it has improved dramatially in the last few weeks. However, to fully meet the featured article criteria, I still think it needs more work. Following are a few suggestions (some are new, because I tried to read some of the sections I hadn't previously counted on). I think the easiest way to get over that last little hump would be to invite experts in some of these historical areas to help identify issues that they see in how things have been summarized to ensure that it is fully accurate and NPOV; identifying these on-wiki experts and getting them to help, though, could be difficult.
    • Is there any information on the true demographics of the church? Perhaps percentages by gender or age? It might also be useful to have a few sentences about the way the demographics of the church have changed over time; very broadly, this could mention any changes since countries stopped mandating Catholicism as the national religion (I think in much of Latin America this happened in the 20th century?), and especially demographic changes over the last 50 - 100 years.
No percentages on gender or age but I added text reflecting what the worldwide population was in 1970, the earliest figures anyone has on that. NancyHeise (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the splits of bishops by continent would be easier to find, and give an idea? Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the article has a European/American focus.(Please note that the links provided are not sources I'm recommending you use, just a starting point so you can see what I am talking about)
      • There is only minimal mention in the article of the Church in Africa. As this is now one of the fastest-growing places for the church, it seems as if this merits a bit more discussion. From what I understand of the continent's history, Catholic churches were established in Africa very early, then languished, then a renewed missionary period in the late 15th century, then locals adapted the religion to look nothing like Catholicism, and missionaries started over in the early 17th century.
This is answered after the next comment below. NancyHeise (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, it might be worth mentioning in the paragraph on more modern challenges the more specific challenges of the church in Africa. This would include witchcraft[4] and the fact that many of the church practices that Europeans/North Americans take for granted are not practiced as regularly there.[5]
Yes, without going into too much detail, the article text mentions the establishement of the Church in Africa in the Roman Empire section of History. Then article text mentions the missionary efforts going into Africa in the 15th century. The article text also includes mention of Africa in the demographics where it is noted that it is an area of population growth for the Church. I think this is sufficient mention of Africa. I just finished reading a biography on Michael Tansi, an African priest and there is much about the witchcraft problems that the priests had to deal with in helping the converts leave behind old superstitions - but this is a quality that is not limited to African converts. All missionary efforts had to deal with the indiginous practices of the people they converted. We dont go into this kind of detail in the aritcle and I disagree that we need to do so. NancyHeise (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article mentions the different rites and that they do have different liturgical practices. It does not mention any examples of how the rites differ, which would be useful to someone like me who isn't sure. It also isn't clear from the article whether any of the practices listed in the article are specific to the Latin Rite or not. This maybe ought to be more clear.
    • I'm still not happy with this sentence The five solas were one attempt to express these differences.. Perhaps if we switch it from passive to active voice this would help? Which organization attemped to codify these differences and when? Something like, "During the Protestant Reformation in XXXX, so-and-so wrote the five solas to attempt to express the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism." That would give more context and help the sentence fit in place better.
Added your wording, I like it better too. NancyHeise (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In reading over the article as a result of some of jbmurray's concerns, I found that I was interpreting some of the stuff in the article potentially differently than was intended. For example, there are quotations sprinkled through the article. I assumed that most of those were quotes from Church publications that were then quoted in the source used, but in one sentence with two quotations, one was quoting Cardinal Ratzinger and the other was quoting the author of the book. The article needs to be able to differentiate who is being quote, and I don't think it is 100% there yet.
    • I'd like to reiterate (but not argue over) statements I've made previously that I think the history section is subtly pro-Catholic POV. Using a critic's source for 50% of the citations and a pro-Catholic source for 50% of the citations absolutely does not mean the article is NPOV. It depends on how much information is taken from each source, and whether the information is appropriately balanced with opposing viewpoints on that particular issue. (relata has also brought this up.) I'd prefer that the article use neutral sources so we don't have to worry about pro-Catholic and anti-Catholic (surely there are historians who present no opinion one way or the other??). As an example, I feel that undue space is given to persecutions of Catholics while persecutions by Catholics are glossed over. Furthermore, this article's coverage of the missions is definitely pro-Catholic. When I've brought this up before, I was told that the coverage is this way because it was not officially Church policy to persecute non-Catholics or to cause bad things to happen in the missions. In my belief, though, if this was widespread practice, regardless of whether an official policy was issues, it should have mention here.
(ec) "apologist" and "critical", which I thought already something of a false dichotomy for the likes of Norman, Duffy and Le Goff, is now turning into "pro-Catholic" and "anti-Catholic", which is certainly excessive, though not in the case of Vidmar, who is unapologetically apologist. Critics of the balance have not done too well on citing some individual cases here in the past (or the passages have been changed), though Awa has another go just above. I don't say the balance is perfect, but this is the history of the RC Church, not the effect of the Church on the world, which would be a rather different topic. Which persecutions by Catholics do you think are glossed over? Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Johnbod -what persecutions that the Church sanctioned are not mentioned in the article text? This article is about the Church, not what Catholics have done throughout history. That is off topic material. NancyHeise (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This caption Early Christians were martyred as entertainment in the Colosseum in Rome, a short distance from Vatican City. Jean-Léon Gérôme, 1883. makes it seem as if Vatican City was already in existance at the time that Christians were killed in the Colosseum.
Changed. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The vast majority of the images are right-aligned. Perhaps some of these could be left-aligned instead?
Moved 3; it's difficult with so many sub-headings, below which right alignment is needed. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, none of this ever came up at peer review or the last two FAC's but I'll try to answer each comment after some research, this may take me into tomorrow. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that; I've been concentrating on different sections of the article each time I review. Karanacs (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Roman_Catholic_Church/archive4&oldid=216916767"