Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive3

Roman Catholic Church

No consensus: nomination restarted for length; continued at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive4.

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

previous FAC (00:01, 18 March 2008)

• Comment. Can you explain capitalization of "Pope"? It seems inconsistent to me. On a related note: capitalization of "he" with regards to God or Jesus. There are also inconsistencies in numbering centuries - I'm seeing "fifteenth century" and "14th century".-Wafulz (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good points. We should not capitalize Pope unless speaking of a specific pope whose name then follows and we lowercase "he" when referring to God or Jesus. I am going to go through and make those changes as well as correcting any inconsistencies with centuries. Thank you for identifying these issues. NancyHeise (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes have been made although I could not find any instances where we capitalized "he" when referring to God. If I have missed something please let me know. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. I don't think you actually used "He" anywhere. I just happened to have grown up Catholic and was indoctrinated into always writing "He". :-)-Wafulz (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, indeed - this is usual practice within Christianity, but Wikipedia's Manual of Style specifically says that we do not; as Wikipedia takes a neutral, not a respectful, position to religious figures and this would require making a judgement on which figures were worth of this sign of respect. (Similarly, mentions of Muhammad are not followed by 'peace be upon him' as is the preferred style in Islam.) TSP (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Catholic Church, in its writings and books - including the Catholic Bible - does not capitalize "he" when referring to God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit.NancyHeise (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I have mixed feelings about including the entire Nicene Creed in the article. Might there be a better way to express the creed of the Church? I'd consider summarizing the salient elements. Majoreditor (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That would take vastly longer. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We hashed this out in previous FACs. Non-Catholics want to eliminate the Creed and Catholics want to keep it stating that there is no better or more concise way to explain our core beliefs in a nutshell, the Creed already does it for us and it is so important to our faith and so small a paragraph that it is imperitive that we include it. NancyHeise (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe at least a few Catholics also suggested that the full text of the Creed be removed. We need to ask whether it actually provides value to the reader in this format, and if multiple people who are not familiar with the religion believe it doesn't, then the article has an accessibility problem. Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the objection to the Nicene Creed is exactly. The Creed IS a summary. I don't think it is possible to summarize a summary and do it any better. I feel an attempt would be unwieldy, inaccurate or both. Perhaps Karanacs could suggest wording that says things better. Xandar (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a Catholic (though I'd probably convert if I thought they'd let me in), and I really think the Creed doesn't belong in the article. Take the two sentences that introduce it (excluding "It states:") and incorporate them into the previous section. The creed itself should go to Nicene Creed which, remarkably, doesn't seem to have this version. —Angr 20:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is one of the reasons why I have not been in favor of doing what you propose. It is more helpful to the reader who wants to know what Catholics believe if we include this small paragraph on the page in its entirety. Going to the Nicene Creed page, you have to wonder what is what, it is confusing and does not enhance Wikipedia's goal of being a tool of information to eliminate this short, core statement of Roman Catholic belief. NancyHeise (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I will be OK with removing the creed and taking up Karanacs suggestion if the result of this FAC shows that a majority of editors want the creed removed. I dont think there was a majority in last FAC, there were an awful lot of support votes for the version containing the creed. I would like to do what the consensus of editors desires. NancyHeise (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Because a consensus of editors on the talk page agreed to remove the quote of the Creed, I have removed it and followed Karanacs suggestions. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The article says "Notably, Catholics may marry in the Church only once." That isn't true. Catholics can marry more than once provided their previous spouse has died. 62.145.19.66 (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent observation, thank you for pointing that out for us. I eliminated the sentence altogether since I think it is enough of an explanation in the following sentence that discusses divorce and annulments. Let me know if you find this less than satisfactory. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it was unnecessary and cutting it out completely was a good idea. 62.145.19.66 (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the article is not stable. The very first sentence has an unverifiable, POV claim, introduced since the last FAC. I have tried to change it twice, and I have been reverted twice. The cited source cannot be used to verify the claim that the "Catholic Church" is the "official" title of the church in question. On the other hand, the OED specifically says that "Roman Catholic" is the official title. On top of that, the article goes against the MoS and capitalizes the not-proper noun "Church" throughout the article, a topic that I thought was settled during the last FAC. Because of the resistance to these basic NPOV changes, I do not believe the article is stable, nor in a condition to be promoted yet. I'm sorry I cannot give a more thorough review, but if these very basic issues could not be quickly resolved, it speaks volumes about stability.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Concern withdrawn Andrew c ^[talk] 14:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm just asking because I'm curious - I haven't finished reading the article yet - but why can't that source be used? I read right past that part without thinking about the source. --Laser brain (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe I missed the part where the Catechism says anything about an official title. It's like citing the title of The Book of Mormon to say that "Mormon" is the official name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, especially when we can cite the scholars who wrote the Oxford Dictionary of Contemporary World History saying the "Mormon Church" is Officially known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,. I'd be happy if the word "official" is taken out.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't remotely like that. Like any institution, the Catholic Church has the right to decide its own name, regardless of what the OED has to say on the matter. In fact it is pretty clear the OED (text unchanged since the first edition of 1914) is referring to the "legal and official name" as used by the British authorities. Johnbod (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The term "Roman Catholic Church" refers to the Western portion of the church. The Eastern Catholic Churches - which are part of the Catholic Church - don't refer to themselves Roman. Majoreditor (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

But the Eastern Churches are part of what is popularly known as the Roman Catholic Church.NancyHeise (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding stability - capitalization of Church is something that is minor and can be changed after seeing what FAC reviewers think about the matter. Last FAC wanted Church capitalized when referring to the Roman Catholic Church, not for POV reasons but because it was the topic of the article. There have been no major changes in content for a long time. The first line of the lead was never changed until after I promoted the article for FAC, all of a sudden there is some kind of problem with that issue. Because no one can find a church document that is generated by the Church that can show that it calls itself anything other than the Catholic Church and all major implications we have point to the Church calling itself the Catholic Church - like the Catechism we used as a reference, we have to go with Catholic Church as the official name of the church. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and any other national conference never calls itself "Roman Catholic" on official documents, it is Catholic. We are making a factual article that a reader will use and we want to help the reader, not misinform them of the facts.NancyHeise (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the more popular term for the entire church is "Catholic Church" rather than "Roman Catholic Church." Since the article is about the entire communion - both western and eastern particular churches - the term "Catholic Church" seems more accurate than "Roman Catholic Church". Nancy, I think that you and I agree on this point :) Majoreditor (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes but because we want to help all readers find what they are looking for, we have both names listed in the lead sentence with the term "officially known as " to help the reader understand that "Roman Catholic Church" is not what the Church calls itself. I think it is a good compromise to keep the article title as Roman Catholic Church and have the redirect for Catholic Church go to this page and then make the facts known that it is officially called Catholic Church. If you omit the "officially called" as Andrew c proposes (and there is a vast consensus against his proposal on the talk page) then you are going to misinform the reader who comes to the page and is led to believe that "Roman Catholic" is what the church calls itself. What we have on the page right now is more correct than what Andrew c singularly proposes with no consensus of editors to support him. I dont understand his oppose vote based on this issue. We would be going against Wikipedia policy and common sense by trying to win his support by changing the page to suit him. NancyHeise (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Majoreditor (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I notice many other WP articles from largely Catholic languages/countries also use "Roman" in the title. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't put anything we want in the article based on talk page consensus if it violates WP:V. Give me a verifiable source that says "official" and then we can proceed. We could say something like "frequently called" or something else to convey the significance of "Catholic Church", I'm open to any number of compromises, but without any citation to back up your desires, you are just pushing a POV. And you are saying you know more than the Oxford scholars. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• See the article talk page. There is no shortage of official Catholic publications, including websites. They are the ones who "know more than the Oxford scholars", except you are misreading what the OED says. You need to produce a church source that uses "Roman Catholic Church" in this way. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod, there are no Catholic Church sources that call itself anything other than Catholic Church. We used the Catechism as a ref because that is the most important book published by the Catholic Church used by Catholic institutions and everyone who is Catholic around the world. All national bishops conferences around the world are called "Catholic" not "Roman Catholic" which is also a clear indication of official self designation. I think the burden of proof is on Andrew c to show how it is not the official name. NancyHeise (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To help with matters, I have added a reference published by Eternal Word Television Network. The author is Kenneth Whitehead, author of several books on Catholic Church subjects and it should resolve all issues relating to this matter. There should be no problem with using "officially known as Catholic Church", it is correct and is referenced. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If "Catholic Church" is the official (and commonly used) title of the Catholic Church, then it should be the name of the article. --WikiCats (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My main concern is that readers wanting to find info about the Catholic Church will find it and that the info will be correct. If the name of the article is a popular name for the church but then specifies within the article that the official name is "Catholic Church", then it is OK with me. I dont think we should hold up the FAC because of an issue that has already been hashed out before and consensus was reached to address it in the present manner. For that reason, I would like to leave the article as is and not change it because then we not only wont have an FA, we will have the same old argument over again that we already reached consensus on before. I would like to move forward, not back. NancyHeise (talk) 05:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• • This Mass is almost identical in form to that practiced by the earliest Christians. is incorrect, even when taking into account our source. St. Justin (who the source says "almost identical") is not the earliest Christian. The other cited works are said to bear a striking resemblance to the basic format of the Mass today. Not entirely the same thing as "almost identical". Also, it would be a lot better if we had a non-Catholic source making this claim. I won't go into the character assassination that RelHistBuff attempted below, but I will say that at best, this source can be used to explain Catholic belief, and shouldn't be used to make such a wild (likely disputed) claim.

I disagree that we need any non-Catholic sources when creating the Beliefs section. Our sources are approved by the Catholic Church as being free from doctrinal error meaning that we can rely on them to create a section like this. If our source says what it says, I don't understand why it cant be in this section. There is no controversy over this and I disagree that it is an opinion rather than a statement of fact.

How about we say something along the lines of either "The church believes this form of the mass is nearly unchanged from what the earliest Christians practiced" or "This basic form of this mass is quite similar to that of those found in some of the earliest, extra-biblical Christian written records of the late first to second centuries"?-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, you are the only one bringing this up and I disagree that there needs to be any change in wording, sorry on this one.65.2.33.179 (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I placed another reference to back this statement up, it is a fact not an opinion. NancyHeise (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your reference is equally problematic. It again mentions the 2nd century and Justin. Again I have to say that Justin is not the earliest Christian. I don't understand how it isn't clear the text in the article is going beyond the sources. What about "This Mass is almost identical in form to that practiced by some 2nd century Christians" or "The form of this Mass dates back to at least as early as the 2nd century." As it stands, I cannot verify that the earliest Christians practiced an almost identical form of Mass based on your provided sources. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, this is the actual quote attached to the Shreck reference in the text: "Some of the earliest Christian writings, such as the Didache, or the 'Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,' chapters 9–10 (late first and early second century), and the First Apology of Justin Martyr, chapters 65–67 (about A.D. 155), describe the primitive form of the Mass and its prayers in a way that bears striking resemblance to the basic format of the Mass today. In fact, the main elements of St. Justin's description of the Mass are almost identical to the form Catholics now employ." The first part of the quote mentions the earliest Christian writings of the Didache (late first and early second century). Eamon Duffy mentions in his book "Saints and Sinners" that Polycarp had known the Apostle John in his old age. He then goes on to tell us that Polycarp had a meeting with Anicetus around the year 150 where they discussed the date of Easter. The Apostles are The Earliest Christians. People like Polycarp living in the 150's are documented by a University Press as having known a first apostle. If we have writings from this same time period, it is not a stretch or original research to mention that University professor of theology Dr. Alan Schreck of Franciscan University of Steubenville states these facts in his book on the Catechism. The quote from the text is as follows: "This Mass is almost identical in form to that practiced by the earliest Christians.[97][98]" This is not a point of controversy in the Catholic Church, I think it would be more incorrect to not mention this fact. It is referenced to the Catechism and to a third party scholarly work.NancyHeise (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I just do not agree with your assessment, and the way you turn 2nd century sources into "The Earliest Christians" is a bit of original research. I was thinking adding "Catholics believe" before the sentence would alleviate my concerns. But it is clear to me that Shreck and the Catechisms are not saying what you want them to say. I'm sorry you and I couldn't reach a compromise (I offered a number of suggestions, and you rejected wavering from your positions every time). It would be nice to have more opinions on this matter so it isn't a me vs. you thing.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

would it satisfy both of your concerns if it was changed to "early Christians" instead of "earliest"? Karanacs (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "earliest" is used by Schreck, it is in his quote. The Didache is one of the earliest Christian writings as well as the others he refers to. To change this text to "early" really is not more correct. I can not be accused of original research by repeating and rephrasing what my sources say. I have to go by my sources or else I really will be considered to be doing "original research". NancyHeise (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[reset indent] Yes, Schreck uses "earliest" in conjunction with "Some of the earliest Christian writings". There is a difference between "The earliest Christians" and the earliest writings. Saying the two are the same thing is ignoring about 50 years of history. I also feel "some" is important. I would be happy to substitute "earliest Christians" with "some of the earliest Christian writings" or something more precise. On top of that, you are mixing Schreck's clauses. He does not say that the early writings are "almost identical". He only uses that phrase in relation to the later writings of Justin.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's compare the actual quote to the text in the article:

• quote from Schreck ""Some of the earliest Christian writings, such as the Didache, or the 'Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,' chapters 9–10 (late first and early second century), and the First Apology of Justin Martyr, chapters 65–67 (about A.D. 155), describe the primitive form of the Mass and its prayers in a way that bears striking resemblance to the basic format of the Mass today. In fact, the main elements of St. Justin's description of the Mass are almost identical to the form Catholics now employ."
• text from article "This Mass is almost identical in form to that practiced by the earliest Christians."[98][99]

Clearly, Schreck is saying Didache and Justin Martyr describe the primitive form of the Mass.....

Clearly, the earliest Christian writings were written by the earliest Christians.

NancyHeise (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, that is a fallacy. Do not the Gospels and the writings of Paul predate AD 155? I feel like I am going in circles with you. It is obvious to me that the sentence in the article does not mean the same thing as what our sources are saying. I guess you disagree. Schreck says Justin's description is almost identical. Justin from AD 155. The Didache, which predates Justin by perhaps 50 years, is only said to "bear a striking resemblance". Schreck does not ever say that the Didache is almost identical. Furthermore, Schreck is only talking about "Some of the earliest Christian writings". All we can gather from this is that by the middle of the 2nd century, there is a source that describes elements of the mass that are almost identical to what Catholics still practice. We cannot say that the Earliest Christians (presumably Paul and the apostles and people that predate Justin and the Didache by a century or more) used a form of mass that is almost identical to what is still in use, which is clearly what you are implying in the way you phrase this sentence. You may even believe that this is true. But as it stands, our sources DO NOT SAY THIS. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to something that seems to be better backed up by the sources - "The main elements of this mass are almost identical in form to those described in the earliest Christian writings". I think to go further than this would require additional sources. Even this is pushing it a little, as it is only one writing about which "almost identical" is said, and not the earliest, but it is at least a bit better backed-up by the sources. TSP (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks TSP, I am fine with your edit. Thank you for helping us. NancyHeise (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Note from Nominator regarding Andrew c oppose vote Andrew c says this in his oppose "On top of that, the article goes against the MoS and capitalizes the not-proper noun "Church" throughout the article, a topic that I thought was settled during the last FAC". This statement is incorrect. Please see Awadewit's comments (a top Wikipedia reviewer) regarding this issue in the last FAC. It was also Karanacs suggestion to capitalize Church and , according to my library research which is documented on the talk page, it is not against Mos to capitalize. Andrew c also claims in his oppose vote that the article is unstable. There have been no major changes in content in over a month. There is a lot of vandalism and experiements with wording, minor changes all. That does not constitute instability. In addition, we not only have two reliable references to support the lead sentence "officially known as the Catholic Church" but we have consensus of editors on the talk page to support this wording. There is nothing I can do to change the article to support Andrew c's view that would not violate either consensus or Wikipedia policy or top FAC reviewers from last FAC. NancyHeise (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've striked my first concern. I do not believe my concerns have been 100% met, and I clearly think that the manner and resistance my suggestion met were clearly inappropriate. I have a bad taste in my mouth from my talk page interactions leading from this. But I am not willing to argue any further with these people, and since at least we have a source (still mildly questionable in my mind), the article is at least better than when this started. If someone else is concerned about this, I may re-ignite interest, but if not, I'll leave it be and consider myself too harsh a stickler for basic policies like WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The image captions should be a little more consistent. I like the ones that are works of art that mention the artist and title. There are 5 images that do not mention author and title (and 2 of them do not have that information on the image page, and one of those two seems a little problematic, Image:Saint Benedict.jpg. The image is sourced to a blog and the date is "way over 100 years old" and the artist is "antique artist".) I also don't like how "Albrecht Dürer." is it's own sentence in the "Mary, Joseph and the child Jesus image caption. We should also note if the image is a detail in instances where the image has been cropped (like the Perugino fresco).-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We dont know the artist for all of our images. Some are very old pictures whose artists are unknown and some works dont have a title. NancyHeise (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, ths is not really correct. The St Benedict is pretty clearly a C19th image which would be better replaced with another from the Commons cat here. The Council of Clermont image is not sourced properly (it gives itself as the source) and is a manuscript illumination rather than a painting in the normal sense. If one knew where it came from it may well have been ascribed to an artist. The Durer is a Flight into Egypt. Generally the paintings, as opposed to the photos which I think are ok, are not a strong point of the article - too many popular C19 images, not very good scans (St Michael, Durer) and so on. I will try to at least add key stuff to the captions. Most of this now addressed.Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in tag teaming this John. I felt Nancy's reply was a bit dismisive, and I'm glad that not only someone agreed with me, but that we could collaborative work together to improve the article! Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for addressing the image issues for me, I appreciate it very much. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• • It appears there is some inconsistency on what bible translation is being quoted. It makes sense to just choose one and stick with it throughout. It is unprofessional to quote the exact same bible verse in different section, but cite different translations (as we do with Matthew 16:18). I think the NAB is the version that is cited the most, so I would recommend sticking to that one (and it seems appropriate for a Catholic topic, if international Catholics are not offended, and there isn't a more international option to cite). The specific verses that are not NAB are "... the gates of hell will not prevail against", ""Abide in me, and I in you ... ", and I thought I had come across another one, but now I can't seem to find it. Also, the quote from John 14:15 is incorrect (did you mean 14:26? Also the capitalization and punctuation is a little off in our reproduction of the quoted material).

I made corrections using the NAB - very good comments, thank you. NancyHeise (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The MoS says we should not italicize the titles of scripture, as we do in the "Beliefs" section (specifically the titles of the Gospels). There are places in the article where the titles of the gospels aren't italicized, so we are using two different styles in one article. Choose one (but I don't want to tell you which one to choose because people have claimed I don't know how to read the MoS, or that the MoS is something that should be ignored).

I un-italicized them. NancyHeise (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You missed one;)-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I personally am not fond of using a religious title "Christ" as a synonym for Jesus. It stinks of POV. I think it is fine in certain circumstances, but it is important to remember that the two terms are not interchangeable. From the way things have gone in the past, I have a feeling this suggestion may meet with some resistance (but I hope not). Anyway, for example, I feel the Church teaches that each soul will appear before the judgment seat of Christ immediately after death and Catholics believe that the bread and wine brought to the altar are changed through the power of the Holy Spirit into the true Body and the true Blood of Christ through transubstantiation. are perfectly fine, but a sentence like Ordinatio Sacerdotalis explained that the Church only extends ordination to men in order to follow the example of Christ or its mission is founded upon Christ's biblical command to his followers to spread the faith across the world would work better if we said "Jesus" instead of "Christ". All in all, I think there were 4 places where I felt Christ should be changed to Jesus, and 1 place where I felt Jesus should be changed to Christ.

Changed. NancyHeise (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The section on the Eucharist is problematic. We need to state what we are quoting when we are attributing words to Jesus (especially words not found in the bible). Something seems POV when reading through the first paragraph, but I think a proper attribution of the quoted material may help alleviate that.

Addressed by adding proper words and references. 65.2.33.179 (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Second paragraph of the Eucharist section introduces "is most often celebrated in the vernacular" but uninformed readers have no idea what "the vernacular" means. Please add an explanation, or revise the sentence to read better for lay audiences.

I disagree that vernacular need to be explained, I wikilinked it, there is a very nice, large wikipage on that definition. I think that is enough. NancyHeise (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The explanation of the two masses don't mention Roman rite anywhere, and we don't have any information on masses of the Eastern rite.
    • On broader examination, I think we have a bigger issue here. We don't really discuss the rites, nor particular churches anywhere. The ordination section is the only place that tries to discuss multiple views. There are places in the article that take for granted that Latin Rite is not synonymous with Catholic Church. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point, I have to work tomorrow so I wont be able to get to this until maybe Wed but I will add this info. I think a paragraph could do it because this is English Wikipedia, these other rites are in other languages than English and there is a wikilink to the Eastern Catholic Churches that already explains those rites. The Mass section could use a bit of clarification and that is what I intend to add here. There are no differences in beliefs, community or history sections needed so I think its just Mass section that needs this info. Let me have a day to come up with a good source and paragraph. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. You don't have to do this alone. Maybe we should contact InfernoXV or anyone else? I mean I appreciate the legwork you've put into this article, but you don't always have to be The Hero when wikipedia is a community :) That said, I think this point is quite important. Some users have made arguments against the title "Roman Catholic Church" because the article is supposed to be about all 23 particular churches, where "Roman" sometimes refers to just the Western rite. However, if that were entirely the case, I feel we'd have more info on the Eastern rites in the article (and at the very least, not present the Latin rite masses as if they applied for all 23 particular churches). That said, I understand that there are articles covering that content, and that the Western Catholics make up the majority of the church, so I'm not asking to break undue weight. Also, since the different churches within the Church can get confusing, and probably not many westerners know the intricacies, I think it wouldn't hurt to have a small section or paragraph discussing the overall church structure. I mean the 22 particular Churches are only briefly mentioned in the lead. I think there used to be a larger section in the article discussing this topic which was removed for space issues a while ago. Perhaps we could revise some of that text if it is any good (I don't recall the quality of the text). But maybe this is something that should be discussed and proposed on the article page, because I may be the only one that thinks this. At least we can improve the mass section over the next few days.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I found the information I need to address this and Im doing it now. What you are proposing is way too complicated than it needs to be. Give me a bit of time here and take a look. I should be done in the hour, and I'm not trying to be a hero, Thanks. 65.2.33.179 (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have finished the additions incorporating Eastern rites. Changes are in the opening paragraph to Beliefs in the paragraph discussing sacraments and referenced to the Catechism. Other additions include a sentence in Holy Spirit and Confirmation (last sentence ref'd to Catechism) and in the section discussing the Mass. Since there are many variations of the Mass in the Eastern churches, I stated this fact and wikilinked Eastern churches then mentioned that the Latin rite was the one described in the text. This is a proper useage because the Latin rite is by far the most common form practiced in the English speaking countries and it would be impossible to incorporate onto the page all the differences and intricacies of the various Eastern Churches. These various rites are already wikilinked in the new paragraph I added to the opening Beliefs section. NancyHeise (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'm always happy to answer questions on the Eastern Catholic Churches. I have only a limited amoung of reference material at my fingertips, but can help out as needed. Majoreditor (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Small point - Eastern Catholic Churches generally celebrate liturgies rather than masses. BTW, User:InfernoXV is an excellent resource for information on Eastern Catholic Churches. Majoreditor (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

New wording reflects this and wikilinks to Divine Liturgy. NancyHeise (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • We don't have a citation for the JtB quote "the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". We should also specify in the sentence that the quote comes from scripture. (John 1:29)

addressed. NancyHeise (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The first sentence of the "Liturgy of the Hours" section has a lot of jargon and could be re-worded to be more user friendly.

reworded, eliminated jargon. NancyHeise (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It still could be a little clearer, but I appreciate removing the jargon!-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have made it even clearer now by making some more changes. NancyHeise (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• • While there is a sentence about vocal prayer, the sentence doesn't exactly say what it is (like the following sentences do with the other types of prayer)

I dont agree that this needs to be explained, although it does have an explanation but I wikilinked vocal to help. NancyHeise (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The wikilink to vocal doesn't help because it redirects to human voice. Does vocal prayer mean sung, spoken, both, or something else?-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I eliminated the wikilink and wrote (sung or spoken) next to first mention of vocal prayer. 65.2.33.179 (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Seem we should link to Catholic devotions when we talk about devotions.

Linked. NancyHeise (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • There is no source for the list of 3 people and one organization who were excommunicated. This may not be problematic for Henry VIII and Elizabeth I because their articles have citations, but Frederick I and the Womenpriests do not have proper citations in their articles for the parts about excommunication. It also seems odd to list a Holy Roman Emperor, two English sovereigns, and then a contemporary activist group. I think it wouldn't hurt to expand the list a little, or split it up between historic figures and then maybe current events or people/groups from recent memory. Or, it could work with just removing Womenpriest. However, the juxtaposition of the 4 just struck me as odd, and I think we could improve on it.

I think we were trying to give a broad swath of examples from ancient times, to middle ages to present, thus the variety. I disagree that the list needs to be expanded or shortened. I have added citation for Womenpriests.NancyHeise (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well there isn't a broad swatch because no one is listed from the first 1000 years of church history :) It just seemed like an odd group, and I guess a broad sample can bring that about. Just out of curiosity, (and because I don't know), have there been any other notable excommunications in the last 50 or so years? And thanks for working to address a number of these issues!-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your comments here are very good and make the article better. I think the Womenpriests is the most notable of recent excommunications. Although there are others, I think that discussion of them is best left to the wikilinked page on excommunications.65.2.33.179 (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I eliminated Frederick I and replaced him with Arius - more notable and still from ancient times. NancyHeise (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The phrase "the source and summit of the Christian life" is a direct quote from Lumen gentium, no. 11; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1324. We need quoted around the text, or we need to paraphrase.

I changed wording to paraphrase a different part of the reference. NancyHeise (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • There is no mention that Latin is the official language of the church. I would also propose adding (Latin: Ecclesia Catholica) to the first sentence after "officially known as the Catholic Church".

Added latin as official language, see last sentence in opening para on Church organization. I disagree with the use of Lang-lat|Ecclisia Catholica thing. Its just jargon that does not help reader but makes the page more complicated. I think its enough to have one mention in the Church organization section. NancyHeise (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the FA Islam and Sikhism having translation info in the first sentence, the Catholic related FA of Knights Templar, Maximus the Confessor, Cardinal-nephew, and Henry, Bishop of Uppsala do as well. Since the official language of the church is Latin, adding my proposed text in a parentheses somewhere in the first sentence seems appropriate. I don't think we need to dumb this down to the reader, and I don't believe it complicates matters (not any more than it did with those other FA I referenced above).-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This is really a minor point that should be taken up after FAC. I dont think it helps reader at all to incorporate this comment but just makes the page confusing. The points you want to put in here are minor issues of personal taste, not main facts the reader needs in order to understand the subject matter. The working language of the church is Italian anyway. NancyHeise (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• • TBC.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I disagree with Andrew c above. After reading through the article, I think it's up to FA status.-Wafulz (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I noticed an error on some text on Henry VIII. The article says, "Although he tried to put the Reformation into reverse at the end of his life by passing the Six Articles, it was too late, all monasteries, friaries, convents of nuns and shrines were gone." Some points: 1) Henry tried to slow down the Reformation for his own political purposes by reversing certain reforms, but he never tried to permanently stop or put the Reformation in reverse; 2) The Six Articles did not occur at the end of his life. Henry was involved in some major reformatory work after the Six Articles including the publication of the second edition of the Great Bible (a vernacular Bible); 3) The two clauses put together in the sentence make the implication that he wanted to stop the dissolution of the monasteries, but that is not true. The problem might be with the source; it might be a bit weak and less-than-reliable. The source is a history book written by a Dominican friar, a professor of theology at Providence College, a Dominican institution. The book is published by Paulist Press, a publisher associated to a Catholic missionary organisation. I am not saying that the source is POV-oriented as I have not read it. But I would recommend for anything related to the Church’s history, a history book written by an academic historian and published by a major university publisher is used instead. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The source is written by a college professor, John Vidmar who teaches at the University of Steubenville Providence College and possibly other universities as well. The fact that the colleges are Catholic does not preclude us from respecting the institutions. Oxford and University of Paris as well as many of the oldest and most respected Universities are originally Catholic. The fact that he is a religious does not violate Wikipedia policy or negate that he is a scholar. He has another book published by Sussex Academic Press called "English Catholic Historians and the English Reformation, 1585–1954" that I have ordered to supplement the current text since you have expressed displeasure with Paulist Press. Paulist Press, while it is not an academic source, is a third party reliable source just as John Vidmar fits the scholarly definition. The only thing that would eliminate this book from being a solid source for Wikipedia is if it is a self published scholarly source and this is not. The sentences that you have identified as being incorrect are actually referenced to this scholarly source and the reference includes the quote from the scholar. I have inserted the language that is used in the book. Henry VIII died in 1547 nine years after he passed the Six Articles. If you object to the content I have referenced to this scholarly work, you need to supply another scholarly work that says something different. I have several sources that do not contradict John Vidmar, they just dont give us the detail that Vidmar provides. This does not preclude me from including Vidmars research which is respected in the academic community. NancyHeise (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: I have taken a look at the book through books.google.com and unfortunately, it is not a scholarly work. It is written for a particular audience in mind, it is not neutral, and it makes incorrect statements. He is a professor of theology, not a professor of history. For a history of the Church, I would recommend that another book be used. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The oppose is based on incorrect assumptions. John Vidmar taught Church History at the Dominican House of Studies for many years and is currently teaching at Providence College where he also serves as provincial archivist. An archivist is someone in charge of actual important historical documents. As both a history professor and archivist in one of the world's oldest religious orders, I would say that makes him an expert in Church history subjects - a scholar. He is a respected historian whose works are clearly appropriate for me to use in an article on Roman Catholic Church. I am supposed to use sources from all reliable points of view. He is not a disrespected scholar whose works are shunned by the academic community. I do not understand the basis of this "Oppose" vote based on these facts. Please see Fr. Vidmars profile at the Providence College website. http://www.providence.edu/About+PC/College+News/Press+Releases/Da+Vinci+Code.htm Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the book. It is not scholarly, it is not neutral. Of course, it also does not help that he is a professor of theology, not a professor of history. Nor the fact that it is published by a missionary organisation. For the history of the Church, I would recommend that another book be used. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The accusations of factual inaccuracy are concerning, but as Nancy has pointed out, it would be helpful if you had an alternative source you could cite. How do you know the current cited source is wrong? Your own personal knowledge (which is not a reliable source here on wikipedia, BTW). We cannot change the article and still have it verifiable if we don't have a new source to cite. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

One example, see The King's Reformation: Henry VIII and the Remaking of the English Church by G. W. Bernard. On page 499 he says, "It is a mistake to see the Six Articles of 1539 as in any important sense a reversal of royal policy". But it isn't the issue about one statement being right or wrong. It is the issue of the quality of the source. That is why I opposed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That book is reviewed here:[1] The review clearly says that Bernard's book challenges the mainstream view of Henry VIII and the Reformation. This is a book offering a minority view. Would you be OK to state in the article that "scholars such as G. W. Bernard challenge this view" ?NancyHeise (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, that is only one example. There are others. That still does not solve the problem that Vidmar's book is not scholarly, neutral, and is written by a professor of theology, not history. Another book should be used to cover the history of the Church. And not just for this one statement, but for all the other cites as well. --RelHistBuff (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from taking a look at the history section, it is referenced to history professors (including Vidmar who has been a history professor and is a respected scholar) that are mainly published by University Presses. Vidmar is not my main source. He supplements other sources who are top professors from top Universities. Vidmar gives me a Catholic perspective of Roman Catholic Church history, something I need to have so I am not accused of being anti-Catholic. I also have scholars from the other side of the fence. I have done this to be NPOV. If I eliminate Vidmar as a source, I would not have a thorough research of the subject matter. I changed the wording of the sentence you objected to. It still reflects the quoted source but I eliminated wording that touched on scholarly conflict and now just have the facts. Let me know what you think. Also, I dont think you have actually taken a look at my sources from your comments. No one can reasonably accuse me of using poor sources for this article. After two FACs and two peer reviews the sources are top notch. NancyHeise (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I just counted, and, out of 124 citations used for the history section, Vidmar is used for 13 of them. I dont think RelHistBuff can accuse me of overusing Vidmar. NancyHeise (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

John Vidmar was academic dean and a professor of church history at Dominican House of Studies in Washington DC - please see DHS website where this evidence is clear here [2]. This is a Catholic graduate school of theology. The DHS website also states that Vidmar teaches both Theology and History at Providence College.NancyHeise (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dominican House of Studies consists of the Pontifical Faculty, the Priory, the Studentate, and the Dominican Theological Library per their website here: [3]. In creating a history section about the Roman Catholic Church, Vidmar is the only history professor whose book is authored by a professor directly connected to the Roman Catholic Church (through the Pontifical Faculty). This gives the article the Catholic perspective it needs to be able to claim that it contains all points of view, both Catholic and otherwise. NancyHeise (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For more information about how important a Pontifical Faculty is in the Catholic Church, see Pontifical university. After reading all of this I am wondering if RelHistBuff still considers Vidmar and his book unworthy of being used as one of many top sources in a Featured Article on the Roman Catholic Church? NancyHeise (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Note from Nominator regarding RelHistBuff oppose vote RelHistBuff opposes this article for FA because he states that "The problem is the book. It is not scholarly, it is not neutral. Of course, it also does not help that he is a professor of theology, not a professor of history. Nor the fact that it is published by a missionary organisation. For the history of the Church, I would recommend that another book be used." These reasons are incorrect per books.google.com review here [4] This is the same review that RelHistBuff uses to make his decision that the book is not a scholarly source yet as you can see, the review itself talks about his twenty years as a teacher dealing with undergraduates, graduates and lay people. As I have shown through the links in the arguments above, he is clearly a professor of both Theology and History both at Providence College [5] and previously at the Dominican House of Studies [6], a Pontifical Graduate School of Theology. Vidmar's book provides balance to our list of references to the article by providing the Catholic point of view of Church History. His book is one of 27 used in the history section alone. If you check through the authors of this article, they are all university professors, even the ones used to create the beliefs section with few exceptions. All Beliefs section books have Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur designation - that means they are declared free of doctrinal error by the Catholic Church. We have used 17 web sites of newspaper stories in the history section and almost all of those supplement books for the most recent section of history. This article has obviously not been created by using only one POV source - it was created by using a plethora of scholarly works. Books used most often in the history section are published by University presses. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with this assessment of my vote. Vidmar is a professor of theology; I have not seen that he is a professor of history except for NancyHeise's own opinion of his rank. The link to books.google.com are short summaries given to all books. As expected it says, "Undergraduates, graduates, and interested lay people have given the author an idea of what topics should be emphasized." The reason is because the book is teaching material for lay Catholics for basic easy-to-read understanding of the history of the Church. The targetting of the book and the background of the author are indicators that the source is insufficient. However, even a simple perusal of the book will indicate that the material is not neutral and not scholarly. There are many history books on the church that are far better than this one. If only a small list of cites are used from this book, then why not use another book and confirm the cites? I stand by my vote. --RelHistBuff (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I will not have time to look at this article in depth until I return home on Wednesday, but I'll repeat the fact that WP:RS says that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Note the third party statement there, it means that great care should be taken with using sources that are tied to or directly immanate from the subjects of the article itself. Hopefully, I'll have time to look at the sources of this article in more detail when I get home, but I won't be able to give it the attention that in the past has been demanded until I return home, probably on Wednesday. Thus, I'm not commenting one way or the other on the reliability of the sources for this article until I do return home. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I support promotion of the article to FA. --WikiCats (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

RelHistBuff opposes use of the Vidmar book stating that it is published by a missionary organization. The organization is the well known and respected religious works publisher Paulist Press. Per their website, they are an ecumenical religious publisher of different religious subjects including church history. I would like to point out that the Zwingli article just made FA recently and they used a book by a religious publisher too, the Evangelica Lutheran Augsburg Fortress (which is wikilinked under the term Fortress Press on that page) whose website is here [7]. This source was used in a huge number of citations on the Zwingli page (see all citations to the author Gäbler, Ulrich). I am not sure how Paulist Press is any different than Augsburg Fortress for purposes of creating this wikipage. But I would like to know why this would be allowed on Zwingli but not on Roman Catholic Church if Vidmars book is disallowed. Since RelHistBuff worked extensively on Zwingli's FA, I dont understand his opposition to the Paulist Press book.NancyHeise (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a red herring type of argument. 1) Gäbler is a historian, Vidmar is not. 2) The original publication of Gäbler was in German with a German publisher (not Fortress Press). Fortress only provided the translation. Yes it is a Lutheran publisher, but interestingly, Zwingli was certainly not supportive of Lutherans. I do not think the Lutherans would try to put Zwingli in a favourable light. In any case, my basic points stand. Just perusing the book, it is not neutral, it is not scholarly (lay teaching material), and there are better books that can be used to replace cites. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The big difference here is that the Zwingli article is a biography. We wouldn't use a book that Zwingli had published to write the article on him, which is why some reviewers have registered opposition to using a book essentially published by the RCC in an article about the RCC. I wouldn't see problems using a book by the Paulist Press for a biography of one of the popes as long as it was balanced by information from other sources. Karanacs (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, that explains a lot. I believe there is a fundamental misunderstanding that needs to be cleared up right now. Paulist Press is not an organization owned or under obedience to the Roman Catholic Church organization. According to their website, this Press is not a mouthpiece of Roman Catholic Theology. According to their website which you can view here [8] "Today Paulist Press is a leading publisher of hardcover and paperback books, audio and video tapes, educational programs and materials for parish renewal. Its Classics of Western Spirituality , now in its twentieth year, provides over 90 volumes of the original writings of universally acknowledged teachers within the Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, Islamic, and American Indian traditions. Its Stimulus books explore issues in the contemporary dialogue between Christians and Jews. The "What Are They Saying About (WATSA)?" series provides concise overviews of contemporary religious, moral, theological, and scriptural questions. Through children's books, works on spirituality and prayer, and studies of the latest developments in theology and scripture, the Press continues its mission to bring the riches of the Catholic heritage to Catholics and persons of other religious traditions." If you will understand that there are many businesses in many fields, universities, hospitals, charities, etc which claim to be Catholic, they are not always part of the Roman Catholic Organization as a legal entity. This is the case with Paulist Press. If I were to use a book published by the Vatican, then you can say it is a self published source but you can not make the same statement for a business owned and operated by a religious order. The fact that Paulist Press publishes books with religious themes from all Christian denominations and authors I think is evidence enough that it is not in violation of the third party rule. NancyHeise (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To be valid, an oppose needs to point out specific addressable issues with the text, not just be a vague negation.Xandar (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the Paulist Press website states that the Paulist Press is directly connected to the mission of the Paulist Fathers. This mission statement can be viewed here [9] . Please read the mission statement which clearly mentions that they build bridges of respect and collaboration with peoples of other world religions. For the full text of the mission statement of the Paulist order go here [10] It is clear that the Paulist Press endeavors to fulfill the part of the Paulist order's mission statement that seeks to improve interreligious relations. Is there a Wikipedia policy that is violated by using a Press with these goals? If a Scientific Press owned by scientists had the goal of publishing science themed books would that preclude us from using it on a Science page? No. Then there is no third party rule violated in using a religious press, that is not owned by the Roman Catholic Church organization, that is operated by Catholics whose express intentions are to build bridges between religions and Christian denominations. (Especially when the book in question "The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages by John Vidmar is only used 13 times out of 276 citations and most of those 13 times it is a double to another reference. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If the book is going to be that big a problem, I am sure that something else can be found to back up the thirteen references. Oh Henry VIII, it is right to say that he backtracked a little on the Reformation policies, but he certainly didn't reverse the Reformation, or have any intention of doing so - as can be seen by the Regency Council he set up for his son, Edward VI, which was strongly Protestant. Bishop Gardiner, the main re-catholiciser was expressly excluded. It should not be any problem to tweak the article to better reflect this. Xandar (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked it to address RealHistBuff's concern. The aritcle now just states the facts, eliminating the mention that concerned him in the first place. Yet even after addressing his comment, he decided that the entire Vidmar book is not OK. I have ordered Vidmars other book on Church history that is published by Sussex Academic Press. If Ealdgyth thinks I should replace Vidmar's Paulist Press book, I can change it to the Sussex Academic Press one but that should not be necessary per my argument above. We should not be precluded from using a book published by the independent business of a religious order that specializes in religious subjects. That is not a violation of the third party rule. NancyHeise (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support now that the issue of the Creed has been cleared up. I see no reason not to consider Vidmar a usable, reliable source. —Angr 19:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Note from nominator re capitalization of church issue

Our talk page documents a long discussion regarding the issue of whether or not to capitalize the word "church" when it is used alone as a proper noun that specifically is talking about the Roman Catholic Church because it is the subject of the article, not for POV reasons. I think it is evident from the discussions on the talk page that Wikipedia policy is and has been vague on this subject, that it is a disputed subject, and that even scholars do not always follow the same style. The university professors we used to create the history section of this article, used the capital C when using the word church to specifically describe the Roman Catholic Church (only if the subject of their book was entirely about the history of the Roman Catholic Church). We conducted a straw poll on our talk page to find out which style most editors preferred so we could come to a consensus. The consensus was for capitalizing. If this page will fail FA because we have capitalized for these reasons, I would like to know so we have the opportunity to change it. None of us wants the page to fail FA for such a minor reason. We were just trying to make sense of a vague and disputed Wikipedia MoS policy. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And I'd like to say, as the person leading the charge to lowercase certain uses of "church" in this article, that I would also be unhappy to see it fail FAC for such a minor reason. Capitalization in these contexts was clearly accepted usage 20 years ago, and it is also clearly accepted among a variety of influential academics, and there is no hard rule that Wikipedia must follow either current usage or journalistic as opposed to academic usage. This is purely a judgment call, and one that we are just now in the process of calling. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Note from nominator regarding credentials of John Vidmar author of "The Catholic Church Throughout History" in response to RealHistBuff's opinion that Vidmar is not a scholar I wrote to Professor Vidmar at Providence College via email provided by his faculty page at Providence. His faculty page states that he is a professor of Theology there. He responded to my email today and gave me his assurance that he is an expert on Church History and a list of his credentials which I will duplicate for you here:

• Master of Philosophy degree from the University of Edinburgh (Scotland) in Ecclesiastical History
• Doctorate in Sacred Theology was really in Church History, which is considered a branch of theology.
• I wrote on English Catholic Historians and the English Reformation.
• The MPhil degree in Britain is a much higher degree than the MA in the States, but nobody here knows that. *He states that he was originally assigned to the history faculty at Providence in 1987, after his work in Edinburgh, but the provincial needed him to be in Washington DC instead.
• He also stated that one of the problems Church historians face is that no one seems to know where to place them, in history or in theology because the fact is, you need to know a lot of theology to write accurate Church history.
• He also stated that his colleagues would tell me that the reason he is in the Theology Department at Providence College is that they needed a Church Historian.
• He taught Church history for 15 years at Dominican House of Studies in Washington DC, which is a graduate school of theology.
• He lectured at the Smithsonian Institution (7 times, he believes) on the subjects of the Early Church, the Inquisition, the History of the Popes, a history of Religious Orders.
• He also confirmed for me that Paulist Press, like Ignatius Press and Liturgical Press, are "not overseen or controlled by the Vatican; they are run by independent religious orders."

If these answers have answered your concerns RealHistBuff, I would appreciate a change in your vote, I think that is only fair as your opinions have really been proven to be incorrect. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, "accusations"??? Well, I’ll simply ignore that and respond that what I said is publicly available. As I have stated previously, the problem is the book. I know I am repeating myself; it is not scholarly, it is not neutral. It has mistakes. You have changed the text about “reversing the Reformation”. But take at look at his quote in your footnote, "Henry, seeing how far Cranmer had tried to take him in making the land Lutheran or Calvinist,...". That is wrong. In 1538, Cranmer, although he disagreed with Gardiner on many issues, was nowhere near to being a Lutheran or Calvinist. Later it says, "He [Lambert] was burned by being dragged in and out of the fire for holding the very same beliefs about the Eucharist that Cranmer held." The latter clause is also wrong. At that time, Cranmer believed in the Real Presence as did Henry. Then it says, "Cranmer was made to watch the whole brutal event." Together the two sentences imply he was forced to watch the suffering of a reformer for something that he believed. But, in fact, Cranmer was involved in the decision! Cranmer was told by Henry to lead the questioning of Lambert. I have no idea why Vidmar made these errors, but it is clear, the book is not reliable and it cannot be trusted either for accuracy or neutrality. Please use another history book for the citations and statements. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help your case by providing scholarly sources that support your assertions. My text is supported by two scholarly sources. Also, it is Wikipedia NPOV policy that allows us to present all sides of the story. Vidmar provides a Catholic scholarly expert view. Although my sources include many scholars works, most of them brushed over this section focusing on areas that did not deal with doctrinal disputes - Vidmar's exclusive expertise. As for your statements defending your opinions of Vidmar as being publicly available, that does not make them valid. We have researched the information in this article, all of which is not publicly found easily on the internet. Vidmar's qualifications were easy enough for me to discover, you can email him too. His email address in on his publicly available faculty page at Providence College. NancyHeise (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, whatever the complexities of the doctrinal undercurrents, there seems to be no suggestion from any one that Henry was moving towards reunion with Rome, which is surely the main point for this article. Neither the previous formulation, nor the current one:" He later reversed most of the Reformation legislation by passing the Six Articles which tried to restore the ancient faith" really convey this. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I reworded to better reflect this - new text: "Then, beginning in 1536, some 825 monasteries throughout England, Wales, and Ireland were dissolved and Catholic churches were confiscated.[217] Henry VIII executed those like Thomas More, who disagreed with his Act of Supremacy. Although he later reversed most of the Reformation legislation beginning with the Six Articles in 1539 which reaffirmed Catholic doctrine including transubstantiation and the practice of celibacy;[218][219] when he died in 1547, all monasteries, friaries, convents of nuns and shrines were gone.[219]" To make matters even more clear for Henry VIII, I added to the Bokenkotter quote that serves as the double to Vidmar's so reader can see and understand more that Henry did not want reunification. I also eliminated the last sentence of Vidmar's quote that was misinterpreted to mean that Henry wanted reunification with Rome, rather than what Vidmar was referring to regarding doctrine. NancyHeise (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I also added two new scholarly sources to back up the wording in the text including quotes to back up Bokenkotter and Vidmar. The two sources are both University professors, one is published by Cambridge University Press and the other is HarperCollins. I would appreciate a change in vote, I really think it is unfair for RealHistBuff to oppose use of Vidmar when I have clearly demonstrated that he is a respected scholar and his book is backed up by other non-Catholic scholars as well. NancyHeise (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of what Vidmar says and RelHistBuff disputes doesn't seem to be backed up by the other sources. The wording now is, "Although he later reversed most of the Reformation legislation beginning with the Six Articles in 1539 which reaffirmed Catholic doctrine including transubstantiation and the practice of celibacy; when he died in 1547, all monasteries, friaries, convents of nuns and shrines were gone." I'm not sure that this perspective is really backed up by the sources. As far as I can tell, the Six Articles reaffirmed six doctrines, none of which I'm aware that Henry had ever made any legislation denying. There seems to have been no attempt to return to union with the Pope; nor to restore the monasteries or shrines (the suppression of the shrines in the Province of York was ordered by Henry in 1541, two years after the Six Articles). I find it hard to see how anything which attempted neither of these things could be considered to be "reversing most of the Reformation legislation" - were neither the dissolution of the monasteries nor the breaking of union with the Pope important parts of the English Reformation?

A more neutral wording might be something like, "Henry VIII did, however, reaffirm Catholic doctrines such as transubstantiation and the celibacy of the clergy in the Six Articles of 1539, in opposition to the Calvinist and Lutheran views that were dominant among the Protestants of continental Europe." TSP (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your rewording is a bit too light on what the Six Articles actually did. I reworded using the words of the Cambridge University Press book in addition to the others and I think it is very accurate representation of all the sources as well as neutral and factual. New wording: "Henry VIII executed those like Thomas More, who disagreed with his Act of Supremacy. Later he reversed most of the Reformation legislation dealing with religious policy beginning with the Six Articles in 1539 which reaffirmed Catholic doctrine including transubstantiation and the practice of celibacy.[221][222][223] However this reversal did not extend to papal authority or the dissolution of monasteries and when he died in 1547, all monasteries, friaries, convents of nuns and shrines were gone.[224][222]"NancyHeise (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Only Vidmar seems to speak about reversing legislation. Can you point out which legislation was reversed? The Six Articles don't contradict the earlier Ten Articles (which, indeed, also advance Catholic ideas such as the invocation of the saints and the real presence), even if they are clear in areas where the Ten Articles were intentionally vague.

Haigh's book does talk (very much in passing) about reversing policy, which is rather different; but it attributes the reason for the change in religious policy in part to 'Henry's distaste for radical religion', which does not suggest that Henry's own views had changed.

One note to add: Haigh's said it was the conservatives that reversed the policy, not Henry himself. So the source does not support the sentence in the article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Haigh's book is a good source, and clearly more neutral than Vidmar's, which seems to be open in its biases; but it is still worth noting that it is entitled "The English Reformation Revised", and its back cover states that "it seeks to show how a new 'revisionist' interpretation of the English Reformation can be constructed" and "sets out the framework for a new understanding of the Reformation" ... "It is a deliberately controversial collection, to be used alongside existing textbooks to promote rethinking and debate." It's a useful source, but should be used with caution as it is explicit that it is at times presenting a controversial, not the mainstream, historical view. TSP (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Haigh's book and Vidmar's book are backed up by Gonzalez's book and Bokenkotter's book. I think I have enough sources to support the content. NancyHeise (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't read the entire article in a while, but this recent edit caught my eye: "Eastern rites allow infants to be Confirmed and receive the Eucharist immediately following Baptism." Eastern rites don't merely "allow" this, it's always part of baptism in most rites. The Eucharist is usually received once at baptism (under species of wine), but not again for a few years. The "liturgical year" section is also written entirely from a Western perspective; the "ordinary" form of many Eastern liturgies would be St. John Chrosostom. Eastern Catholics have a distinct preparation for Easter, and some different devotions. Granted the majority of Catholics are Western, but I don't think it would be undue weight to mention these. Gimmetrow 04:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I reworded the baptism part to reflect your comment. Good catch. However, there are many more forms of the Eastern Catholics divine liturgy than just St. John Chrysostrom. I think I'll mention this fact and then provide a few wikilinks with reference to the fact that there are others. NancyHeise (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • This edit goes a bit beyond the source. A degree of union in sacris is not the same as "united in sacris", and intercommunion is accepted and encouraged "given suitable circumstances". This edit implies liberty of intercommunion with the Orthodox, which isn't the case. Gimmetrow 04:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Before reading your comment here, I read this again and thought the same thing. I changed it to better reflect what the Catechism actually says, you can see the actual wording of the reference because it is linked to the online Catechism. Let me know if you think it needs any more changing. It think it makes the point without anymore misunderstanding. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The source that contradicts Vidmar's statement in the footnote concerning the Lambert affair is Thomas Cranmer: A Life by Diarmaid MacCulloch, pp. 232-234. Note that MacCulloch's qualifications is something where I do not have to send a personal email to verify. And in any case a personal email response is not good enough. Anyone can make his own claims. I also have a Ph.D, published papers, made presentations at major institutions, etc., but that does not make me a historian. Publicly Vidmar is a professor of theology at a small Catholic college that does not even grant Ph.Ds! In MacCulloch's case, he is recognised by his peers, his book is reviewed in many journals which one can find in JSTOR. Finally, note the contradiction is not with the text in the article, but with Vidmar's statements itself, i.e., the source! The point is the source is poor quality and unreliable. It has errors, it has to be replaced. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I add below the qualification of Vidmar's statements. I stated these above.

• Vidmar: "Henry, seeing how far Cranmer had tried to take him in making the land Lutheran or Calvinist,...". That is wrong. According to MacCulloch, in 1538 Cranmer, although he disagreed with Gardiner on many issues, was nowhere near to being a Lutheran or Calvinist.
• Vidmar: "He [Lambert] was burned by being dragged in and out of the fire for holding the very same beliefs about the Eucharist that Cranmer held." The latter clause is also wrong. According to MacCulloch, at that time Cranmer believed in the Real Presence as did Henry, i.e., he did not agree with Lambert.
• Vidmar: "Cranmer was made to watch the whole brutal event." Together the two sentences imply Cranmer was forced to watch the suffering of a reformer for something that Cranmer believed. But according to MacCulloch, Cranmer was involved in the decision process that lead to the execution. Cranmer was told by Henry to lead the questioning of Lambert.

--RelHistBuff (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you want me to eliminate a source that reflects the Catholic perspective of history for the Roman Catholic Church article entirely, leaving no reflection or point of view in the article to reflect this opinion. I think what you are asking is not what Wikipedia guidelines require of us and I will not eliminate Vidmar, who, contrary to your unsupported opinions of his qualifications, is in fact a respected Catholic historian with all the proper qualifications to make him not only a sufficient source but an expert in church ecclesial history. Also, Vidmar's statement is supported by Haigh's book with minor difference. I don't think the Six Articles could have been passed without Henry's support and all four of my sources suggest that Henry wanted a certain type of Roman Catholic Faith in the Church of England minus the pope and monasteries. This wording is correct. What you are asking me to do is not. I will go no further to win your support because I really think you are being unreasonable. NancyHeise (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Further note on Vidmar, the Dominican House of Studies website clearly states that he taught church history there "for many years". The Dominican House of Studies and the Catholic University are only a few universities allowed to grant the Doctor of Sacred Theology degree. The Doctor of Sacred Theology has different specialities one of which is Church History. NancyHeise (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia and we are all working to make it the best encyclopedia possible. You may have been able to find sources to synthesise what you believe to be the truth. But the fact of the matter is that the source has produced wrong statements. The other source, Haigh, is not even used properly to support the statement. So my comments were meant to address the situation. It is not just trying to get a bronze star on the article, but making a better article. So I do not believe I am the one that is being unreasonable. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

PS Vidmars book published by Sussex Academic Press states that he is a history professor at Dominican House of Studies - a graduate school of Theology. In the Smithsonian Associates Magazine, he is listed as a history professor. All of their courses offered by him begin with "A history of".NancyHeise (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, as a contributor to the article, that RelHisBuff has a point over the Henry statement. No Reformation legislation was altered or reversed. The Six articles were imposed by Henry in his position as Head of the church. Reformation legislation remained intact and in force. So I think that a change to the wording would be acceptable in this para. On Cranmer, WHEN he changed his view on the Eucharist is highly debatable among historians. He was a wily character, and many historians imply that he hid his true views on such subjects to keep in with Henry, (and his head from the block.) An implication that Cranmer was squeamish about executions might be wrong though, since he sent many people on their way in his time. Xandar (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am OK with Xandars changes to the disputed section that RelHistBuff did not like. I would also like to point out that Vidmar's quote on Cranmer is not part of the article text. It is part of a quote in the references to a section that has four different scholars talking about the same episode, I included all of their quotes on the matter. NancyHeise (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved. Karanacs (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• • This sentence does not make it clear that the Gospel of Matthew was quoting Jesus: "Catholics cite the Gospel of Matthew to support this view: "... you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"

Someone else has corrected this already. NancyHeise (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Do you have sources that link the two Gospel verses with the statements "The Catholic Church believes that it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and that it is protected by divine revelation from falling into doctrinal error. It bases this belief on biblical promises that Jesus made to his apostles" the two verses are cited to the Bible, but, as the Bible is subject to interpretation, I'd like to see an independent source actually link these two verses with that statement.

I just added them, thanks and even though one of the sources is independent, the other is the church's constitution and I dont think it has to be an independent source if you are creating a beliefs section. NancyHeise (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I think this needs to be clarified a bit: "of the college of bishops in union with the pope when they condemn false interpretations of scripture or define truths."

I clarified this and trimmed it a lot, there were a lot of unnecessary words. NancyHeise (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Need a citation immediately after a quotation. Here's an example "particular expressions characterized by the culture". "

The citation was at the end of three sentences all coming from the same thing. I ref named it and put it at the end of that sentence too so this has been addressed. NancyHeise (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't really see the point of having a reference to the five solas in this article, at least not in the Beliefs section. There is no context to tell people what the 5 solas are or when they were written. Maybe this could go into the history section, or maybe it should just be removed.

The Five Solas is wikilinked to a nice Wikipedia page that explains them and I think they help provide context for Roman Catholic Beliefs differences from other faiths. We received compliments on our handling of this in previous FAC's - dont ask me to go find them please. NancyHeise (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Again, I don't think that intepretation of Biblical should be cited to the Bible. For example, this "He desires his creatures to love him and to love one another" is cited to a Bible verse. It should not be difficult to find this in a book.

I just added a citation to address this, sorry I did not see that I had omitted to answer this comment the other night. I think that I have gotten all of them now. NancyHeise (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The article explains Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium but not Sacred Scripture. It may be important to note that the Catholic Church's Sacred Scripture includes some books of the Bible that most Protestant churches don't recognize.

Sacred Scripture is wikilinked to a very nice Wikipedia page that makes this fact far more clear than we ever could. I think that is enough. NancyHeise (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the others are described here, though, for consistency Sacred Scripture should be very briefly described here also. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

All citations in the article text are being checked by me - please see the discussion and progress on this on the discussion page of this FAC (at the bottom under the subheading Karanacs plagiarism comments)NancyHeise (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed this, please see additional text describing Sacred Scripture. NancyHeise (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• • In the references, all newspaper names should be italicized. I noticed, for example, that USA Today was not.

Thanks, I'll go through and check. NancyHeise (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Still not fixed. Karanacs (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Per WP:MOSDASH, need to use ndashes instead of a hyphen for page ranges in references. I fixed a few of these, but there are likely more

Thanks, I'm fixing any that I see too. NancyHeise (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Plaigarism example: I happened to check the source on the line "exaggerated the horrors of the inquisitions and identified the entire Catholic Church with the occasional excesses wrought by secular rule". This had a quote listed with the source: ""...subsequent Protestant propaganda for centuries identified the entire Catholic Church in Spain, and elsewhere, with their occasional excesses" (bolding mine). To me, the line in the WP article is taken too much from the quoted source without attribution. I've fixed this instance by adding appropriate quotation marks, but I am quite concerned that this could be a problem in other pieces of the article.

Karanacs, this is a very serious accusation you are making here. Plagiarism is taking someone else's work and representing it as your own. I was looking at your plagiarism reversal edit here [11] and I was just wondering if you could tell me what exactly was plagiarized. I wasn't sure since there were so many edits here and one is a trim. I would also like to know what other instances you found since you make it sound as if you found other instances when all I can see is this one, incomplete use of same words that lacked quotations and was clearly followed by a reference containing the complete quote. If someone had wanted to plagiarise that section, they (I) would not have included the entire quote from the books the sentence came from. What I am trying to say is that it is not plagiarism if the material is followed by the reference containing the quote. The error you found was one in punctuation, not plagiarism. NancyHeise (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I found the "source and summit..." which was quoted text not identified as such. Karanacs found another instance. Two instances makes me a little nervous. I don't agree that we don't have to use quotations if we quote the full text in a footnote. We should always make it clear to our reader that the text is not our own words if that is the case. It wouldn't hurt if a third party went through the article checking for other instances of plagiarism.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Source and summit sentence is refed to the source immediately following the sentence. It is not plagiarism when the reference follows the sentence. I admit that proper punctuation rules require those same words to be in quotation marks but I think you and Karanacs are jumping the gun a lot in calling anything you have found plagiarism when the material is clearly referenced with name of book and page numbers provides immediately following the two sentences that use some same words. NancyHeise (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I bolded the text in the quotation that was lifted verbatim. Regardless of whether the citation uses a quotation or not, if an exact phrase is lifted from a book, that phrase needs to be in quotation marks. I don't believe this was purposeful plaigairism (this is a huge article with a huge number of sources), but the fact that Andrew and I found two instances of this scares me. The article needs to be checked for any other problems. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

All sources have been checked and corrections made where needed to resolve this issue. Please see my work documented at the discussion page of this FAC and in the edit history of the article page.NancyHeise (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I would first like to say that this article has improved dramatically since its last attempt at FAC. In reading through the article today, I found an instance of plaigairism (probably inadvertant), and my oppose will stand until someone has gone through the entire article and validated that there are no other instances of this. Other problems (and details on this one):
  • I believe the organization still needs work. The Origin and Mission section is an unnecssary duplication of information that is (or should be) found in the History section and the Beliefs section.
    • I suspect you could easily split the argument over the foundation of the RCC into a separate article, and just summarize here.

There is no consensus nor has there ever been consensus for this and I disagree that it will improve reader's understanding of the subject.NancyHeise (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I think the "origin" information should be the first subsection under history, not split out into it's own section.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before on the article talk page; I am not the only one who has suggested this is an improper organization.karanacs 14:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus, there were two editors at most who wanted this, one of them was Karanacs. When I made changes to the article to try and address this issue in the manner she suggested, it was far worse and more rejected even by Karanacs. The present form is the form accepted by the majority of editors and it would be against Wikipedia policy for me to change it to reflect Karanacs view when this has already been discussed and consensus reached. NancyHeise (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The paragraph that covers Junipero Serra implies that nothing had been done mission-wise in the Americas since the last mention in the early 1500s. This is untrue; missions were established in Texas, NM, and Arizona in the 1600s/1700s. Yes, they expanded into California in the late 1700s under Junipero Serra, but I question whether that is really important enough to devote an entire paragraph to it.

This paragraph is the second one in the article dealing with missions in America. The first paragraph emerges in the upper portion of Late Medieval and early Renaissance section and specifically states; "Over the next 150 years, the missions expanded into southwestern North America" This covers the missions in NM and Arizona in the 1600's and 1700's. When Church authorities go on a new push with the missions under Junipero, we rightfully included this in the proper chronological order and mentioned their importance because it is so notable. I do not want to eliminate this for this reason. NancyHeise (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is giving a great deal of importance to Junipero that may not be justified in a summary of the church history in this article. I think this could be summarized a bit so we aren't going into more unnecessary detail. karanacs 17:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Note:I've capped most of my comments (Nancy has fixed a bunch already, and I and Epbr fixed some of the MOS stuff). I am still highly concerned about the two instances of probably inadvertant plaigarism that were found during this FAC, and my oppose will stand until I'm satisfied someone has gone through the article and verified that all quoted phrases use quotation marks. Karanacs (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a long list, Karanacs. You've been invoved with this article for several months now. It woul have been helpful if you'd come up with this list when we were seeking Peer-review (and got few responses) rather than now. Xandar (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of these are issues I have repeatedly brought up but have yet to be fixed. This is the shortest list I've had of problems, though; slowly, issues are being fixed and the article is morning in the right direction. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment That's one of the things that makes me nervous about FAC's. This is the third nomination for this article, but new stuff and supposedly glaring "mistakes" are still popping up, unnoticed in the last two FAC's and peer reviews. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 02:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This article looks almost nothing like the original FAC, and is quite different from the second FAC. That makes comparisons a litle unfair. Some of this was brought up in Peer Review and ignored, and, of course, there is always the problem of not enough peer reviewers. Karanacs (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Reviewers aren't omniscient. A third or fourth reread often reveals problems not seen in previous looks through the article. That said, there does appear to be a lot of work done in the right direction form the previous nominations. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I just checked and there were no items ignored in Peer Review. Karanacs was the only person to come give comments on the peer review and I answered all her comments. I did not ignore any comments. I do not think Karanacs list here is long and I have answered all her comments here too. I think that a lot of peer reviewers did not put their comments on the peer review leave comments list, they just put them on the talk page where we then discussed the issue and addressed it as we went along. I followed all protocol suggested by Karanacs before bringing this article up for FAC this third time. NancyHeise (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support per last time, although the article should continue to improve by addressing many of the points raised above. The is a long article on a contentious and complex subject, and will never be perfect. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 12 which is sourcing "To further its mission, the Church operates social programs and institutions throughout the world. These include schools, universities, hospitals, missions, and shelters, as well as Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Charities that help the poor, families, the elderly, and the sick. " includes a citation to a 1911 encyclopedia. Given that the information is sourced to two other more modern sources, I think it'd be best to drop the 1911 source?

I would like to keep the 1911 source. If I am going to fail FAC for keeping it I'll remove it but I dont see why we cant keep it. The Roman Catholic Church is a very old institution, The 1911 book has a very nice page all about the charities and works of the church that I think helps to round out reader's understanding of what these institutions do. NancyHeise (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My problem with this is that the statement it is being used for is in the present tense, and it is very odd to use an almost 100 year old source for something that strongly implies "this moment" through its tense. The other two sources for the statement are much more current. If you were saying "Throughout its history and through the current day, the Church opperates...." then the old source would fit much better. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont want to change any wording, I'll eliminate the source.NancyHeise (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Is Marty, Martin E.; Chadwick, Henry (2000). Encyclopædia Britannica Millennium Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. actually used in the articles footnotes? I didn't find it.

I eliminated it - I think it was originally used to cite the number of Catholics in the world but then we found a more recent source.NancyHeise (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I remain concerned about the scholarlyness of some of the sources. RelHistBuff has discussed the concerns over Vidmar. I still have deep concerns about using a National Geographic book about the Geography of Religion to source the history sections. Same sort of concerns over using Woods as a medieval source, he's writing popular history, not scholarly history. Goff, at least, is semi-current and a well known historian. I wouldn't call these sources unreliable, they are just not the best that could be found. For an article of this nature, that is bound to attract criticism, it would be best to have absolutely ironclad, third-party, scholarly sources. However, I've beat this drum a number of times before on this article, and frankly, I just don't have the energy to do more than point this out one more time for other reviewers to note.

Links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Ealdgyth, that some of the sources are not the best (although I commend Nancy for how much improved the sources are over the article's first appearance here), but, like you, it's just not worth it for me to fight anymore. Karanacs (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced most of the Nat Geographic refs with those from Collins and Price. The matters covered are pretty much consensus anyway. Xandar (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am OK with Xandar's replacements. His author is a professor of history at American University in Rome. As far as Ealdgyth's and Karanacs comments - please read Wikipedia:Reliable source examples under the subsection "history". All of my sources are scholarly works per these guidelines, even the National Geographic book, about which this guideline says "There are many other sources of historical information, but their authority varies. A recent trend is a proliferation of specialized encyclopedias on historical topics. These are edited by experts who commission scholars to write the articles, and then review each article for quality control. They can be considered authoritative for Wikipedia." The Nat Geo book is one of these books. Thomas Woods author of the other book Ealdgyth says he is concerned about is a highly respected scholar whose works like the book used for this article have been made into television productions and his work has been published in the American Historical Review, a scholarly publication specifically mentioned on the Wikipedia guidelines page. The book reviews of the book I used by John Vidmar can be found here [[12]] and here [[13]]. In addition, the Woods, Vidmar, and Nat Geo book comprise 28 out of 135 cites in the history section. None of these books represent a radical minority view of history, they are not outcasts in the scholarly world, their book reviews reveal this. Since my books meet Wikipedia top guidelines, I would like to not have to defend them anymore. If someone does not like a book I have used, especially if it is one that comprises a small part of the article, then I think they should be showing me what Wikipedia policy or guideline I have violated. All of my sources are written by university professors who are specialists in their fields. How am I supposed to do better than that? I have followed Wikipedia rules and guidelines, my sources meet the criteria.NancyHeise (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please reread what I said. I did not say they were unreliable, I said that they were not "the best that could be found." Woods, reading his Wikipedia article, seems to be an American history scholar. So why use a specialist in American history for a medieval European section? I trained as a historian, and one of the first things you learn is that the scholarly history field is divided into "camps". American historians are not specialists in medieval history who are not specialists in oriental history who are not specialists in ancient history who are not specialists in pre-Columbian history. It'd be like using a Shaker theologian as an expert for Catholic doctrine. It'll work, but it's not as good as it could be. But, whatever, I give in. Use whatever, I'm tired of explaining myself. And for the last time, I am a she. Ealdgyth Swan-neck. And is anyone going to address the OTHER issues I brought up? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I answered all your comments, sorry about calling you a he - its hard to know who is a he and who is a she. Woods Wikipedia page has him in Church history subjects as well as American history subjects. He has been published in the Catholic Historical Review, and the Catholic Social Science Review. I still do not see how you find him unacceptable, from the reception his works have received reading down his page a bit further, it appears that he is a very respected scholar in these fields. It is really unreasonable for FAC reviewers to require editors like me to ignore facts like this to please some particular personal opinion of the reviewer that is not backed up by Wikipedia policy. I am frustrated over this too. I hold to my sources because they clearly fit Wikipedia policy and guidelines and I disagree that I could do better. I honestly think these sources are the best and I have invested my time and money into them because I felt so. NancyHeise (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, I think some of your confusion is that the reliable sources guideline is not black-and-white. In many cases a source could be absolutely reliable for one article but not considered reliable for a different article; the difference is what the focus of the article is, how detailed are the facts you are taking from that article, etc. For example, I am reading a book, published by a university press and written by a professor of history, about the Battle of the Alamo. This is an excellent source to use in the article about the battle. It is not a good source to use in a biography article about William Barret Travis, the commander at the Alamo, because even though the book contains a brief bio of Travis, he isn't the book's (or the author's) main focus. You've done an excellent job of removing the sources that would never be considered reliable from this article. However, the sources the article currently uses may meet the basic RS guideline, but may not be focused properly to be the best sources to use for this article, or for the particular facts they are being used to source. The RCC article is a bit unique on WP because there are 50,000+ potential sources that you could use for it, so it would be better to use the absolute best sources and not just a so-so source. Karanacs (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

But don't let us forget that using unimpeachable sources by no means removes the risk of diagreement, especially on a subject like this. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not remove the risk, but it would reduce the risk. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• First, I'd like to say that I believe there has been an improvement since this article was last here. I believe it is now better-referenced than several other articles that have cleared a featured article review.
• However, that does not mean that I can support adding it to the list. This is because sources should match the subject. The sources that would be considered acceptable in a lower-level article would be considered unacceptable here. (I admit that WP:FA? does not require that we use the best available sources. That is a grievous error, and the source of much of the variable quality of FAs.)
• The extensive reliance on Vidmar is absolutely and utterly unacceptable, a deal-breaker. If, as the lead says in a bit of unnecessary peacocking, "The history of the Catholic Church is virtually inseparable from the history of Western civilization", we should be able to do better than Vidmar.
• The POV problems I discussed in the previous FAC on the Church's actions in Latin America continue to exist in the current version. I could cut-and-paste my objections if necessary.
• Woods' How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilisation has not been reviewed by any scholarly journal, and according to Google Scholar has been cited less than half-a-dozen times. The publisher's blurb is "Will strike an enormous chord with readers looking to defend Western Civilization and their faith." According to Google Books, the book has been cited solely by apologetic authors or by polemical authors writing against Islam.
• I also strongly disagree with any article in which the "beliefs" section is sourced entirely to sources certified as being free of doctrinal error. We are looking for a neutral discussion of the origin and structure of Catholic belief, and that is precisely the sort of one-sided sourcing we must avoid, not look for.
• Hence, once again, I must reluctantly oppose. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Note from Nominator regarding Relata Refero Oppose

Wikipedia Reliable Sources WP:RS and Wikipedia:Reliable source examples offer guidance to editors like me who want to make FA's. FA criteria also offers guidance. Peer Reviews and failed FACs offer guidance as well yet some reviewers disagree with others and sometimes we just have to go with the majority view - consensus. There has been no consensus here that Vidmar and Woods are not scholarly sources. That is because no one has provided any wikilink or internet link to any review of these books that states that they are some kind of unacceptable scholarship. In fact, the reviews give every indication that they are acceptable - I have been the only one here giving you the actual reviews online to read. Through two FACs and two peer reviews, no one has ever said that Vidmar and Woods were unacceptable sources - until now - and without any evidence to offer. Relata Refero opposes the article because I have relied "extensively" on Vidmar. Yet the facts reveal that he is used for 13 out of 276 cites in the article. I used Woods for a total of 7 cites. I disagree that the article would be improved by removing these two sources. They are not POV, they do provide balance in an article overwhelmingly filled with sources that do not consider the history of the Catholic Church from the Catholic perspective.

Further note. Beliefs section is a factual section that we have created using three third party sources and self published Catholic Church sources such as the Catechism. I have to use a source that is approved by the Catholic Church as being free of doctrinal error or I risk creating a Beliefs section that is incorrect. In creating a section like this, Wikipedia expressly allows self-published sources also.

I will not be eliminating Thomas Woods or John Vidmar or the Beliefs section sources for these reasons, they are what make the article particularly Featured Article quality. If Wikipedia feels otherwise, then I guess you will have a Good Article that I will no longer continue to pursue an FA over. I think it is very unfair to provide guidance and policy and then when we follow it, change the rules at the last minute (only for us and for no one else). NancyHeise (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your frustration that this article is being held to higher standards than the normal FA. This is because of the correspondingly better sources available.

I also agree that there are no reasons to suppose that these books are unreliable by the standards of WP:FA? as written. This reflects poorly on WP:FA?, but then many things do.

That being said, the 27 or so cites to Woods, Vidmar and the NatGeo book are primarily used to back up the history of the Church, which is precisely where the highest-quality sources should be used in an encyclopaedia. Focusing on the proportion of references rather than their weight will not help us here.

Wikipedia permits the use of self-published sources for beliefs, it most emphatically does not recommend it. If independent third-party sources are available, especially peer-reviewed, recent, academic sources - as are available for almost every aspect of Catholic theology - self-published sources, and the Catechism, which is practically a primary source, are deprecated. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Relata, you did not look at the sources used for the Beliefs section. They are sourced to three non-Catholic church sources, by university professors in addition to the Catechism (we were asked to show the relation by a previous FAC) and Canon Law. If my article meets the FA criteria, then it should be an FA, it should not be denied because you think FA criteria is inadequate. NancyHeise (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ms. Heise, the books in question are written by professors at Catholic universities, some of whom are ordained priests, are published by Catholic presses, and are certified as acceptable by the Church. They may yet be adequate, but it is my contention that any article which cites only such will not contain the required amount of neutral analysis. If the FA criteria as written result in the promotion of an article that does that, sure, they need to be rewritten; but I would hope whoever does the promoting is capable of reading this, and of some leeway in application of those criteria. Still, who knows. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support Nancy here with respect to relata refero's oppose. In previous FACs the article was criticized for using sources that were not specific to the Catholic Church. More books specific to the Catholic Church have been used as sources, and now that gets criticized. The simple fact is that if books specific to the Catholic Church are wanted as sources, a good number of such books are liable to be written by Catholics. This is the same with all religions. (And all areas of expertise.) Books about Islam or Buddhism are not only nore likely to get written by Muslims and Buddhists respectively, but most people would regard such books as more reliable authorities on the details of those faiths than books written by outsiders. Why is this suddenly different with Catholicism?

There has been a certain amount of nonsense in criticising sources, and that can go on endlessly. As far as I can see, the only valid criticism for FAC purposes is if someone alleges a specific FACTUAL INACCURACY or imbalance gleaned from a particular source. If such criticisms are made, they have to be immediately addressed. However saying the equivalent of "I don't like that book because a Catholic wrote it." is not valid criticism. The same principle applies with regard to the "Beliefs" section. The section is about what the Church actually believes and teaches. What then, can be the problem with a reference that categorically states these things from the most authoritative source possible? These are matters of FACT not opinion. Is anybody saying that the Church DOESN'T believe what is set out in the catechism? If not, the compaint is nonsense. What benefit is there in looking for a book by some possibly inaccurate third party saying, "the Church believes x"? That objection has been gone through before.

Relata Refero also alleges unnamed and unspecified "POV problems" - a criticism which is very easy to make, but completely invalid unless such alleged "problems" are precisely specified. The Latin America section in particular was reworked at previous FAC and agreement on sources reached. I remember people being asked at the time, what precisely did the church do in latin America that has not been covered? There was no response. Unless Relata refero can come up with better than this, his criticisms would seem to be without merit. Xandar (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I did say I'd specified in the last FA. Here, then, is a representative problem:

That does not give an FA the right to skip over the accepted view that there were many problems, particularly its justification of forced labour under its stewardship (see Bruce E. Johansen), its vast holdings, and the close alliance with the Crown under the patronado real. The mainstream view? The Catholic Church "....was a government agency like any other... in return for assistance in conerting indigenous peoples to Catholicism, state officials were given the rght to appoint Church officials and control its finances..." (Carlos Forment). For the final word, see the John Frederick Schwaller's introduction to The Church in Colonial Latin America which puts into perspective the thoeretical "wins" in Spain with the abject failure of adminstration of those principles on the ground. The way the section is written, it sounds the other way 'round.

All this still holds, and hardly counts as "no response":) The merit of my objections I leave for the Godlike personages that decide this trivial matter to to settle. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and in response to "the only valid criticism for FAC purposes is if someone alleges a specific FACTUAL INACCURACY or imbalance gleaned from a particular source" - again, given the way WP:FA? is written, you may possibly be right. That doesnt mean that reviewers should follow those deeply inadequate standards and treat as invalid or inappropriate to an FAC criticisms of sources of the sort that are habitually brought up in history-related article talkpages. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And finally, in response to "Books about Islam or Buddhism are not only nore likely to get written by Muslims and Buddhists respectively, but most people would regard such books as more reliable authorities on the details of those faiths than books written by outsiders." - Absolutely not. The level of peer-review and citation in the religious studies academic community is the only encyclopaedic judge of reliability. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the response I gave Relata from the last FAC regarding his books he uses to tell us what the "mainstream view" of history is: "In an effort to address your concerns about this issue, I looked up the book you have cited to support your viewpoint here: "The Church in Colonial Latin America" by Schwaller. Here is a direct quote of a review of the book by Brian Larkin of St. Johns University History Dept :"Readers interested in the history of the Church and religion in Brazil, the Caribbean, or the frontiers of Spanish America will be disappointed. Likewise, readers particularly concerned with the religious history of women will find little of immediate interest in this volume. Not even Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz or St. Rose of Lima, Latin America's two most famous religious women, receive mention. Because of its limited scope, instructors will need to supplement this text with other materials. Nonetheless, Schwaller has provided scholars with a useful selection of articles for the classroom." You can read the rest of the review here [[14]] evidently, it is considered to be of such a limited scope that it is not useful in the classroom. How can you expect me to use this book on the brief summary in Wikipedia? NancyHeise (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)"

Errm, I talked about the introduction specifically, which is more than comprehensive enough by our standards. Your quote is irrelevant; its not as if we extensively discuss female Latin American divines or the Caribbean in the article. Relata refero (disp.) 06:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that Relata wants us to eliminate books with good reviews and replace them with a book that has a very bad review. I am not going to do that, please understand that I am following the guidelines and policies laid out for me by Wikipedia. To capitulate to your demands will require that I ignore these written and respected policies and I'm not going to do that. NancyHeise (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be a dramatic mis-statement, actually. I am suggesting that sources of dubious academic quality, not generally cited in the literature, and usually published by parochial publishers, be replaced by standard academic sources. This is not really a violation of WP guidelines, you know. On the contrary, the latter are written to encourage it. Relata refero (disp.) 06:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the Vidmar book citations are rarely alone at the end of a sentence because he supplements and confirms another source almost every cite. I provided several quotes from all of these sources in particularly sensitive areas like the Reformation and Inquisitions so the reader could see that I got opinions from several scholars to support the text in the article. I did this so no one could say I was being anti or pro Catholic in these sensitive areas of history.NancyHeise (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I also just added my scholarly work by "A History of Christianity in Asia, Africa and Latin America" to the Latin America sections that Relata says is not mainstream. The text represents mainstream history. The Koschorke book is a documentary sourcebook with commentary. NancyHeise (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero posted: That does not give an FA the right to skip over the accepted view that there were many problems, particularly its justification of forced labour under its stewardship (see Bruce E. Johansen), its vast holdings, and the close alliance with the Crown under the patronado real. The mainstream view? The Catholic Church "....was a government agency like any other... in return for assistance in conerting indigenous peoples to Catholicism, state officials were given the rght to appoint Church officials and control its finances..." (Carlos Forment). For the final word, see the John Frederick Schwaller's introduction to The Church in Colonial Latin America which puts into perspective the thoeretical "wins" in Spain with the abject failure of adminstration of those principles on the ground. The way the section is written, it sounds the other way 'round.

Wikipedia policy specifically does not allow us to use any material in an introduction because it is not fact checked but consists of the authors opinions. 65.2.242.111 (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

At least we have some meat here. I will have a look into these issues and get back later in the day on this. Although the fact that the Catholic Church lost control of virtually all its lands and the right to appoint Church Officials in the "Age of Enlightenment" is definitely mentioned in the article. It was not just a Latin American problem. It represented the weakness of the Church in the face of secular power worldwide. Xandar (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope we are not going to get too involved in detail that is not really appropriate is an article with such a wide scope (as we did with the Six Articles). State involvement in appointment of Church officials has been a huge topic for most of the Church's history, but is barely mentioned in the article - rightly I think as you can't begin to fit everything in. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Shouldn't there be an "Etymology and meaning" section at the top of the article (see Islam)? Also, the statement in lead that the Roman Catholic Church is officially known as the Catholic Church should be explained and sourced in the "Etymology and meaning" section.--Phenylalanine (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The phrase Roman Catholic Church is made up of three ordinary vocabulary words in English, and giving the individual etymologies of the words Roman, catholic, and church would hardly be relevant to the article. —Angr 19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written --Lãzîalë93 17:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I believe that any objective reading of the FA criteria would lead an objective reviewer to agree that the article does indeed meet those criteria. I do not agree that because its subject is – to some – controversial, that it has to be held to a higher standard than any other FA candidate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Not controversial, but covered in more depth and by generally higher-standard secondary sources than the average interstate highway. *shrug* Relata refero (disp.) 21:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you would be kind enough to point me towards the relevant FA criteria? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry, am unclear about what this question asks. Could you rephrase it? --Relata refero (disp.) 09:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Which of the FA criteria specifies different sourcing requirements for different types of articles? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, I thought I had been as clear as possible about that. As far as I can tell, not even one. Perhaps a suitable reading of "accurately represents the relevant body of published knowledge" in 1(c). As I say above "I also agree that there are no reasons to suppose that these books are unreliable by the standards of WP:FA? as written. This reflects poorly on WP:FA?, but then many things do." If this is promoted, it just means that the FA standards aren't keeping poorly-referenced articles out. But, again, I know that already. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy specifically does not allow us to use any material in a the introduction section of a book (where Relata got his quote from Schwaller) because it is not fact checked but consists of the authors opinions. NancyHeise (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That's, um, completely untrue. We prioritise treatment from scholarly presses, and introductions, provide bird's eye views of the sort we need. The Schwaller-edited book was published as part of the well-known Jaguar series on Latin America. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look at some of the material quoted by Relata, as far as I can. There is much about the tension between Church and Colonizers, and quite a lot that backs up what we already have in the article. I'll do a little sorting on the Americas paras with some new citations. Xandar (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

While I am not against more citations, please see that I have already added to this and another section with the Kosorcke and LeGoff books. What Relata is telling us is clearly not correct. All of my sources separate the forced labor of Colonizers with the action of the church which were to fight against slavery and the efforts of the crown to appoint bishops. These facts come from my University press sources by Duffy and Norman. Unless you can find a university press saying what Relata is saying, I would not put this in here because there are many history books that are not scholarly but popular history that we are advised by Wikipedia not to use per their guidelines. I have particularly avoided these for that reason. We don't want a history section that states what someone wants us to believe, we want the facts that have been peer reviewed and fact checked. NancyHeise (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, Xandar just added some cites to the Latin America section that should help sort this all out. I appreciate his efforts here, one source is a scholar named Enrique Dussel who you can view here [15] and the other is to a Rutgers University press. I like the paragraph better now, thanks Xandar. NancyHeise (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Further to relato's point about the Church "justifying forced labour under its stewardship", my search of sources did not find a reference to this. What has been amply documented that leading figures in the Church actively opposed and campaigned against the economedia (sp?) plantation system set up by the Conquistadors, both within New Spain and in the courts of Europe. Undoubtedly those who lived on Franciscan missions and Jesuit reductions had to work to support their community. Was this forced labour? Peasants in many parts of Europe at the same time could also be said to be subject to "forced labour" under this definition. The Franciscan regime in Mexico was harsher than that of the Jesuits and Dominicans elsewhere, but that point has already been well-covered in the article. Discussion of an article such as this needs to distinguish between what the Church did and what "Catholic" individuals and states did. That often gets confused. Xandar (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good points. As to the sources, here are a few, though I can't find the notes I made last time:

• During the first half-century of Iberian rule, ecclesiastical officials forced the Indians to work on church-owned haciendas till the New Laws were passed in 1542. The abolition of Indian slavery, however, did not stop the church from exploting their labor on the missions of the hinterlands... while small sections of the church, led by the prophetic figure of de las Casas, had denounced the enslavement.... very few ecclesiastics raised their voices in protest at the exploitation of Africans in the Americas. In fact, when religious orders.. were not busy managing their own slaves, plantation priests gave benediction to slavocrats. from Chesnut, R. Andrew (2003). Competitive Spirits: Latin America's New Religious Economy. Oxford University Press. p. 189.
• The State and the Church were essentially inseparable from each other in establishing the institution of African slavery in Portugal and its overseas colonies.. and the subsequent passages from Nishida, Mieko (2003). Slavery and Identity: Ethnicity, Gender, and Race in Salvador, Brazil, 1808-1888. Indiana University Press. p. 255.
• Spanish colonialism rested on forced labor... perhaps the most brutal regimes of slavery the world had yet seen. In coastal regions, plantations imported African slaves... in less economically important zones, once the initial violence of subjugation abated, social relations were less violent, yet cruel and exploitative nonetheless. The Catholic Church was complicit in this system, either by justifying it in religious terms or through its own inquisitorial violence and extraction of revenues. Yet at the same time minority sectors of the clergy, particularly brotherhoods such as the Dominicans, carried on las Casas' advocacy work... providing in some areas the only protection available against the abuses of Spanish officials and private elites. - from Greg Grandin in Wasserstrom, Jeffrey N. (2007). Human Rights and Revolutions. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 225. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• For a later period, here's the classic study by Carl N. Degler, which is the currently accepted standard on the subject: he's responding to the old thesis that the differences in slavery between north and south america were a product of the Church's moderating influence: The church's interest in and power to protect the slave's humanity was limited...there is abundant evidence that officially the church showed little interest in interfering with the institution of slavery... religion was used by the church in Brazil as a way to support slavery not to weaken it. (The whole passage provides nuance, but I am excerpting the conclusions here.) This is from the Pulitzer-winning Degler, Carl N. (1986). Neither Black Nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United. Univ of Wisconsin Press. p. 302.

There are many others, unsurprisingly, as this is a major field of study, particularly in comparative history. I certainly don't want to put undue weight on the subject, but the section gives disproportionate influence to rhetoric that mainstream academic opinions appears to believe was not replicated in church policy on the ground. The canonical work in Spanish examining the theological rhetoric supporting forced labor is Luis N. Rivera Pagán, Evangelización y violencia: La conquista de América, written by a professor at PTS. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The text of the article says "This period also saw the Church struggling against the colonial abuses of the Portuguese and Spanish governments. In South America, the Jesuits protected native peoples from enslavement by establishing semi-independent settlements called reductions. Pope Gregory XVI, challenging Spanish and Portuguese sovereignty, appointed his own candidates as bishops in the colonies, condemned slavery and the slave trade in 1839, and approved the ordination of native clergy in the face of government racism.[263]" This is referenced to Duffy's "Saints and Sinners" Cambridge University Press. These are facts, not a writer's opinions.

Xandar also just added this sentence "Enforcement was lax, however, and while some blame the Church for not doing enough to liberate the Indians, others point to the Catholic Church as the only voice raised on behalf of indigenous peoples. [224]" I really think that this new sentence makes clear to the reader that some people, like Relato's excerpts of writer opinion (not solid facts like what we have in the article) criticize the church over this issue. I did some research also to look into what Relato is asking of us. It appears to me that he wants us to include some language stating that the Church instituted slavery along with the Portugese government, exploited slaves regularly and everywhere and officially showed little interest in elimination of slavery. There is no documentary evidence to support these assertions. While there may have been bad priests or missionaries in certain places doing bad things to indians, there were no Church pronouncements advocating slavery but on the contrary we have ample documentary evidence supporting the text in the article. The Church in Brazil, for a time, operated almost completely independently from the rest of the Catholic Church. It was during this time when the Church in Brazil is accused of keeping slaves on some estates to generate income used in missions and schools. This was not church policy, this was some missionaries doing their own thing. The ecclesiastical oversight of the Brazilian Church did not begin to develope in Brazil until the late seventeenth and early eighteeth centuries. They were not even able to implement the directives of the Council of Trent there until the nineteenth century. These facts come from Justo L. Gonzalez' "Christianity in Latin America". I don't think that we need more text in the article. We have stated the controversy over the issue of slavery and we have given both sides of the debate. I really think that it enough addressing of Relato. NancyHeise (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) With respect, I think you are making a distinction between "fact" and "opinion" that is, to be polite about it, novel in historical work.

In effect, the paragraph is now three and half sentences saying "the Church did these good things" and half a sentence saying "of course, no pleasing some people." I'm afraid that is both completely unrepresentative of the state of the academic literature - as I effectively demonstrate above - and symptomatic of the problems endemic in all parts of the history section. (With one unsurprising exception: the sex abuse scandal is given far more weight than it deserves.) I could move on to various other parts of the section to repeat this, but what's the point? The basic problem is the exclusive reliance on the books discussed above, which are clearly not representative of historical work.

And its Relata. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I just counted and there are six lengthy paragraphs in the history text covering Latin America. Per Wikipedia guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, " Textbooks in various academic disciplines often include a historical introduction to the discipline. The authors of these introductions are seldom as familiar with the historical literature as they are with their discipline itself. They write these introductions to provide some background to the discipline as it is currently practiced and to inculcate students into the values of the discipline. Such historical introductions should not be treated as historical research and should be used with caution. On many historical topics there are memoirs and oral histories that specialists consult with caution, for they are filled with stories that people wish to remember — and usually recall without going back to the original documentation. Editors should use them with caution."

That quote is copied and pasted from the guidelines page under the subsection "history". It is great to have so many different historians with so many different viewpoints on what the Church actually did in Latin America, from the apologists to the critics. Relata, you are relying on one part of the spectrum of historical research while we have included all viewpoints in ours - particularly excluding writer speculation - and including facts for which we have documentation and wikilinks (I just wikilinked the papal bull by Pope Gregory condemning slavery In Supremo Apostolatus. This is not the first time a pope condemned slavery, Paul III also condemned it in the wikilinked papal bull in the text and several other popes condemned previously had condemned it too beginning with Clement I. Gregory was upholding the teaching from previous popes). I respectfully disagree with your assessment of our text. NancyHeise (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe we disagree in our assessment of how to establish the consensus among historians. Please note my remarks below on the quality of the sources of my quotes. I note also that I chose quotes to specifically establish what the consensus is among independent, non-parochial academic historians of the area and the period about the Church's role. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Relato has raised some new points, largely with respect to slavery. I would make a couple of points on the sources he quotes.

• Book 1. Chesnut. Seems an opinionated source. Accuses unnamed 'ecclesiastical officials' of forcing indians to work on "church-owned haciendas." No specifics offered. I'm unaware that haciendas existed in this period. In failing to mention that the New Laws were instigated by the church, he also reveals a biased perspective. "priests gave benediction to slavocrats" What does this mean? That slave-owners were allowed in church? Hardly startling. No specific checkable facts.
• Nishida. Again a statement of opinion. No solid facts. How did the church allegedly co-operate with the portuguese in establishing African slavery?

My Koschorke book states that African slavery was an institution in Africa long before Europeans arrived. NancyHeise (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Grandin. Quote is again mostly heavy POV. "Spanish colonialism... perhaps the most brutal regimes of slavery the world had yet seen." Evidence for this? (The chinese buried slaves alive, the Aztecs ripped their hearts out...) Factually, compared to slavery in Protestant lands, Spanish and French slave codes, under church influence, did give some rights to slaves: appeal to courts; respect for marriage, families not to be split; religious holidays; rights to buy freedom. The Grandin quote also says "The Catholic Church was complicit in this system, either by justifying it in religious terms or through its own inquisitorial violence and extraction of revenues." Inquisitorial violence - in the slave trade??? The inquisitions dealt with heresy. And what are the exact complicit justifications being spoken of? To put something in the article we need some solid facts.
• Degler. More moderate, but again vague. Seems to be condemning the church for doing little to interfere with slavery. Several popes were amongst the first people anywhere to condemn the principle of slavery. However slavery was an institution that had always existed. It is even famously tolerated in the New Testament. The Church may not have been as radically abolitionist on the ground as some 21st century commentators would like. But is that an article-worthy observation? Saying some people in the Church in Brazil supported slavery may or may not be true. I don't know. But we'd need clear facts to give that a mention.

The issue of the Church and slavery per se has not been gone into. At the moment on the evidence available, I would say the balance of the article is correct in that I have seen no specific evidence that the CHURCH, as opposed to the STATE was responsible for violence or enslavement, and there is specific evidence that the Church spoke out against it. An author who writes a book is just as likely to be opinionated, POV and use weasel words as anybody else. Many vague accusations against the Catholic church turn out to be poorly substantiated when checked. To add to the article we do need something solid and factual. In extremis we could put in that degler didn't think the Church did enough to oppose slavery. But is there consensus that sentences need adding on slavery? Xandar (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My dear chap, I'm puzzled. I've detached from these books their conclusions. If you then wish to ask "how" and "why", you have to read the books, right? The point of the exercise was to demonstrate the academic consensus, and that this article cheerfully flouts it.

"To add to the article we do need something solid and factual." Any of the statements above, such as "The Catholic Church was complicit in this system, either by justifying it in religious terms or through its own inquisitorial violence and extraction of revenues" is a solid statement of fact, albeit one with which you disagree. So is "there is abundant evidence that officially the church showed little interest in interfering with the institution of slavery" or "plantation priests gave benediction to slavocrats". I merely point out that this distinction you seem to make between fact and opinion is in this case spurious.

Just a reminder: as compared to the other authors, who work at parochial universities and are writing generalist overviews, I've quoted area experts on religion and Latin American history, from prize-winning books and at major universities, including the director of graduate studies at Yale and the former President of the American Historical Association, the main grouping of academic historians. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Having looked in more detail at Degler's book it seems to be specifically written to challenge a pre-existing accepted academic view that Brazilian slavery was a lot less harsh than US slavery. Even so, the book does not provide any evidence, as far as I can find for a charge that the church was actively advocating or working for slavery. Xandar (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Degler book was written in response to a pre-existing general belief, as I quite clearly stated in my introduction to the excerpt. It created a new consensus, and is the canonical work on comparative slavery in the Americas today. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated an "academic consensus", as the books we have quoted show. You have shown that there are academic opinions that state that some authors feel the Church in many of its parts was not actually opposed to slavery. However statements like "The Catholic Church was complicit in this system, either by justifying it in religious terms or through its own inquisitorial violence and extraction of revenues", which you quote, are not "solid statements of fact". They are opinion unless backed up with solid fact, for example verifiable examples of "inquisitorial violence" in support of slavery, sanctioned by the church. Using WP principles, if these events are prominent enough to be in Wikipedia, there must be some solid evidence of them - not just hearsay. When the article says the church opposed slavery, it points to definite dated events and documents. Those are facts and evidence. What your quotes are is evidence of an opinion held by some academics. They can be included if they are considered important enough, but only as a viewpoint. Such as "xxxx considers that..." Xandar (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already pointed out the objections to the books you have quoted: they are written by scholars at parochial universities, and in some cases are published by parochial presses.

Further, it appears that you continue to miss the point. All forms of "factual assertions" made by historians are actually statements of opinion. If those opinions reflect the consensus view, then they do not need to be qualified. "This period also saw the Church struggling against the colonial abuses of the Portuguese and Spanish governments", for example, is a statement of fact on par with "The Catholic Church was complicit in this system, either by justifying it in religious terms or through its own inquisitorial violence and extraction of revenues". The former is in this article, the latter is not.

You demand examples. The books are filled with examples. We don't need to provide the examples. We're a tertiary source, this is a main article. I shouldn't need to explain these basic facts.

I frankly don't know what "hearsay" you're talking about. Half of historical research is built on "hearsay".

And as for the academic consensus, how many more major scholars and presidents of the AHA writing in prize-winning books do you want? How many will outweigh your Vidmars?

Really, given that the problems in this section are representative of the problems throughout the history section.... Relata refero (disp.) 07:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really quite sure what you're wanting us to do. You know that FAC is meant to be a constructive process. A comment or oppose is meant to highlight distinct specific problems, and work out how to resolve them. A valid objection should be focussed and resolvable. You seem to have a broad objection to the history section as a whole as being too favourable to its subject. When asked for specifics, you came up with the Americas section. We produced references to support what is written, and relevant facts. You produced some references from authors who gave their opinions that the Catholic Church was "complicit" in the system of slavery and forced labour. I say, yes, you seem to have proved a point that there are academic authors who take a different view to many of our sources. However you seem to want us to take these opinions as facts, and put into the article as a fact that the Church was complicit in, and in support of, the system of slavery. But however worthy the holders of the opinions are, we can't do that without solid facts. If we wrote in the article: "The Church used inquisitorial violence to uphold the slavery system." and someone asked "What sort of inquisitorial violence, by whom, to whom, where, when?" We couldn't answer. because all we have on that is someone's opinion, which may be mistaken, hyperbole, out of context, or just plain wrong. What you have given us could provide a sentence in the article on the opinions of certain academic figures, but nothing more. Opinions are not facts, and they certainly don't trump verified facts like the papal statements, the reductions, and the protests of church figures like las casas.

You say that your sources are a consensus. But other current academic authors draw different conclusions, and not just (much-abused) Vidmar. You say yours are better authors. I might argue with this. Duffy is a highly-respected academic writer on church history. Koschorke is a protestant church historian and a senior professor at the University of Munich, specialising in the history of the Church outside Europe. Dussel is a renowned rationalist academic, historian and Professor of Philosophy in Mexico. Clearly there is no consensus on the viewpoint you present. And, as Nancy has said; you have failed to produce documentary evidence to support assertions of complicity. Your quotes certainly don't supply that evidence. I have managed to look through books by two of your quoted authors: Bruce E. Johansen and, Degler, and in neither could I find any solid, checkable documentary facts to back up these assertions. Degler's book is focussed on slavery in Brazil, yet I could not find reports of incidents of the Church, (even in this least progressive of Latin American countries of the period,) supporting repression. You say the books are filled with examples, but you have quoted none. I could find nothing solid in the books that I was able to look at. If you are challenging on the factual content, you have to produce the verifiable facts to support your position. It is not up to us to find facts to support your position. Xandar (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You are in, many ways, mis-stating the problem. The problem is that the authors you quote above, except for Vidmar, do not make any firm statements of the sort that I have quoted, so you cannot connect them and the consensus. Further, the problematic bits of the article in question are not from Koschorke but from Dussell and so on. Further, none of the authors you mention (except for Dussell?) are area specialists. Dussell himself is a special case, a marxist philosopher who wrote a history that attempts to construct a historical justification for liberation theology - again, published by a religious press - so it is hardly likely that he will be completely neutral on the subject of church activism!

In any case, you misunderstand the purpose of an article such as this. It reports the large-scale views on the subject. Individual examples - on this plantation in the year 1760 the priest stood aside and blessed the overseer before he whipped a slave to death - are hardly encyclopaedic. I have provided you with the name of the main text that discusses the theological justifications already - Rivera Pagán's. For a specific example of justification of slavery, I can suggest looking at the work of pt:José Joaquim da Cunha Azeredo Coutinho, who in his Obras económicas, studies of the colonial economy, not only placed slavery and forced labour in what he believed was its proper theological and economic context but demonstrated that papal bulls on the subject were constructed so existing Portuguese law on the slave traffic would remain consistent with them.

The frontline collection on the history of Latin America - The Cambridge History of Latin America - is eminently clear. In the very first paragraphs of its essay on the Church in colonial Latin America it says that there are two views: one viewing the Church as inspiring the conquest, conversion and salvation of the continent - the outdated view - and one linking evangelisation and slavery. In more detail: The Church was called upon to create a general climate of agreement in favour of slavery. A theological justification for slavery was devised, for example, by Antonio Viera, who compared Africa to Hell.... and Brazil to Purgatory. The Jesuits put this ... theory into practice by participating in the slave trade....It must be stressed that apart from individual priests, slaves found no support or defence of their interests within the Church.

I don't know how much more clear things can be. There are a dozen more high-level studies I can provide if necessary, stating that this is the mainstream, majority view, and one that is unconscionably dismissed in the article. Further, there are dozens of different places within the article where we could have the same conversation - the Inquisition sections, the Reformation sections, the complete avoidance of any mention of the main war fought for rights of the Church in the past century... Relata refero (disp.) 08:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Your presentation of the opinions in the Cambridge History of Latin America is more than a little one-sided. The paragraph you cite is about the Church in Brazil, not Latin America as a whole, and with respect to the two views of the history of the Church, both interpretations are said to be "traditional." and there is no conclusion that one is correct and the other false. The view that one view is "outdated" is not in the text, but is your addition. In fact the book states:

p517 Spanish America can claim a distinguished array of men doggedly devoted to spreading the gospel in the most unpropitious circumstances. They were poor, devout, ... and little inclined to let interference from the civil power impress them. It is in no way coincidental that colonial circumstances caused most of them to stand out as defenders of the Indians: Antonio de Valdevieso in Nicaragua, Juan de Valle in Popeyan, Pedro de la Pena in Quito, Alfonso Toribio de Mogrovejo in Lima and Domingo de Santo Tomas in La Plata are only some of the names from the many that deserve to be mentioned here.

Indeed Antonio Viera did give a famous sermon in which he rehearsed St Paul's arguments that slaves should obey their masters and accept their lot in order to gain their freedom and equality in heaven. But was this "a theological justification for slavery?" Viera went on to say:

"look to the two poles of Brazil, that of the north and that of the south, and see if there was ever a greater Babylon or a greater Egypt in the world, in which so many thousands of captives have been made, seizing those who were free in nature, with no more right than violence, and with no greater cause than greed, and selling them as slaves. When Joseph's brothers sold him to the Ismaelites to be taken to Egypt, they seized only one free man, but, as punishment for this one act of enslavement, God enslaved in Egypt the whole generation of descendants of those who enslaved Joseph to the number of six hundred thousand, and for a period of forty years. ... Because of the existance of slavery in Africa, God subdued Mina, Santo tome, Angola and Benguels;...And because of our own acts of enslavement, begun on Africa's shores, God allowed there the loss of King Sebastian, after which came the sixty-year captivity of the Kingdom itself.... But what theology could justify the inhumanity and brutality of the exorbitant punishments with which these slaves are mistreated? "Mistreated," I said, but this is a word totally inadequate ... Tyranized, one might say, or martyred;... The miserable slave is being whipped, and with every lash he cries out: "Jesus! Maria! Jesus! Maria!" - and the reverence that these two names deserve is not enough to arouse pity in a man who calls himself a Christian. And how do you expect these two names to respond to you when you call upon them in the hour of your death? Know full well that God hears those cries for help which you do not hear; and though they do not touch your heart, you should know that they make your own punishment certain.

Hardly the creation of "a general climate of agreement in favour of slavery." as it has been spun.

Once again, there is certainly no consensus for your viewpoint. Yes. Many churchmen particularly in Brazil, may have been complacent and comfortable with the status quo - particularly in view of their enforced isolation from the Vatican. But this does not mean that the Catholic church as a whole supported oppression of the Indians or slavery. The official positions, the facts, and the actions of many churchmen say otherwise.

The Abolitions of Slavery, edited by Marcel Dorigny, ISBN:1571814329, tells how, out of twenty parish priests in Northern Sante Domingue (Modern Haiti), in 1791, sixteen took the side of the slave revolt, at least three of these were executed. The Jesuits were blamed for provoking earlier slave revolts and dissentions. The book adds "the evidence ... makes it possible once and for all to abandon the current view that the clergy was wholly committed to the cause of slavery. Such a view was, it is true, already dubious.."

So. What are we left with? A LOT of evidence that the Church, both at the centre, and on the ground set out and fought for principles of human rights for the native peoples. The record is less good on African slavery, with fewer fighting for African rights, but the Church's role was definitely not one of acting as the devisor and bulwark of the slave system as has been claimed. On the basis of all this, I would say the principal change that could be made to the article might be to add a sentence indicating that despite the actions of a number, many Catholic clergy, particularly in Brazil, were complacent on the issue of slavery.Xandar (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, you're once again making the mistake of setting your own interpretation of the sources and acts of the church occupy a more exalted position than that of the academic expert who wrote the article in the Cambridge History. I looked with shock at the statement that I had presented something "one-sided" - was there a conclusion, a broad summary paragraph that implied the opposite, and that I had missed? No. Of course there was not. You were again looking at specific examples. Xandar, that is not our job. We look at what academics conclude, and we report their conclusions. When there is a consensus - as here, when there is stated that there is a consensus, individual examples notwithstanding - we report that. I mean, you say "But this does not mean that the Catholic church as a whole supported oppression of the Indians or slavery." when there are dozens of unimpeachable reliable sources that I have quoted on this page explaining in a nuanced manner exactly what their position was. You see, you come to a conclusion based on your reading of the evidence. We can't permit that. With this basic failing, I don't see how we can agree. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Look. What we're dealing with here is facts not opinions. You seem to want the article to abandon sources which are even backed up in the books that you quote, to abandon facts, for what you claim is a "consensus" opinion. Firstly our job is indeed to present "specific examples," in other words facts. If there was indeed a consensus view, that should be presented as a prominent view. However the "consensus" that you claim does not exist. We have quoted many scholarly authorities who disagree with your view. You simply condemn them out of hand. And the cambridge History does not claim, as you strongly implied, that the positive view of the Catholic Church's activities was "outdated". (And even if it had, the book itself is a general political history of Latin America, not a Church History.) You have simply not provided facts to displace the facts reported in the article, nor have you proved a consensus of scholarly opinion for your viewpoint. However you seem to want the article completely changed to solely reflect your view, to the extent of rejecting offers to add your viewpoint as an alternative scholarly view. Xandar (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Facts not opinion" is twaddle, frankly. Please stop saying it. I've told you before that the distinction is spurious. "The Church struggled against the policies of Spain and Portugal" is as much fact/opinion as anything I have pointed the sources say. And our job is not to present "specific examples." This is a summary article. Please read WP:SS; our job is to present an overview.

You are completely, utterly and incomprehensibly continuing to insist that someone provide "facts" that can "replace" the vague statements in the article. When I've pointed out that there are issues with undue weight, have provided an extensive list of references explaining what those issues are.... you want me to instead tell you which random plantation priest kept slaves. Well, I'm sorry, that's not how good articles are written. I believe we're done here. Whoever has the job of promoting or not promoting this article has more than enough information, I believe.

And about the CHLA, the passage I called outdated was a narrative that "stems from the attitude of the original colonizers". I'm so sorry if you don't think that's outdated. The fact that you dismiss the CHLI as irrelevant in apparent ignorance of the fact that the CHLI is a collection of essays, each written by a topic expert, on topics in Latin American history that is the canonical collection of such facts - as are the various other Cambridge area histories collections, such as the CEHI on the economic history of India and the CHEAL on Englih literature - is only marginally less worrying.

And its not my view. Its the view of those I've cited. Your claim that "offers" to "add" an "alternate scholarly view" is completely spurious. As I say above, the section with those views "added" is three and half sentences saying "the Church did these good things" and half a sentence saying "of course, no pleasing some people." I'm afraid that is both completely unrepresentative of the state of the academic literature and symptomatic of the problems endemic in all parts of the history section. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea that facts aren't supposed to be important in WP articles is a strange one. This isn't a summary article. Summary articles refer on to daughter articles which contain the facts and citations. On facts and opinions, take a look at the policy: WP:ASF. Facts are very important. And even with regard to cited opinions, the policy states "it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints." That is what we are trying to do, and why I have been asking for FACTS to back up the opinions you have cited.

You keep repeating how authoritative the opinions that you have put forward are - but that itself is a matter of opinion. There are clearly at least two opposing scholarly opinions here, both backed by academic authorities. That is why I have said that the opinions you cite should have a sentence in the section as a major academic strand of opinions, but we can't, as you seem to be suggesting, remove the attested facts, and replace them with opinions that favour only one viewpoint. Xandar (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear God. I'm not saying "facts are unimportant" but that you are making a distinction between "fact" and "opinion" that is completely and utterly ahistorical and would cause any historical researcher to splutter in shock. Look at any major scholarly article that provides an overview of this sort of subject. Anything that summarises several "facts" is still as much of a "fact" though it depends on the researcher's ability to summarise. Similarly the "facts" that it summarises are dependen on the researcher's ability to choose or select. Frankly, this is so completely off-base that I don't know what more to say. I'm done here.

Note also we do not judge academic consensus by trying to find counter-examples. When we have a reliable statement that a much-studied field has a prevailing consensus, counter-examples are not sufficient to overturn it. OK? I've said that before as well. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Relato, You also now state that you have other disagreements with material in the article. If you have other specific objections, you had better make them clear at once. We have been the best part of a week on the Americas complaint, and time is limited. you mention the Inquisitions and the reformation. these subjects have been gone through zealously in the past, and wording agreed. So what specific complaints have you with it? On the Spanish Civil War, was that not the occasion when hundreds of innocent priests, monks and nuns were massacred by anarchist and marxist irreulars in Barcelona and elsewhere? How does leaving that out make the article too pro-Catholic? Xandar (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not much point. Judging from the Latin America thing, the unwillingness to remove the poor sources and use better ones, and the statement that it is up to us to judge what the academics are actually saying, I don't expect useful changes. I was merely stating that this a systemic problem caused by the sources and by this attitude.

And its Relata. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Your basic objection seems to be that the article is not as antagonistic to the Catholic Church as you want it to be. But articles cannot be rejected for not agreeing with individuals' prejudices and preconceptions. When pressed, you finally made specific objections with regard to latin America, and these have been gone into in considerable detail. You have not proved the case that the material in the article is false, but you have been offered an amendment to put in the viewpoint that you advocate. It appears this is not satisfactory, and you want your viewpoint to be presented as the "consensus,". However it is clearly not a consensus. And denigrating academics who disagree does no make it so.

This process exists for glaring errors to be pointed out. Saying there is "not much point" itemising specific objections, means that you are not prepared to present specific evidence for your views and to have them tested. I don't decide what goes in the encyclopaedia, however the process insists that people who want to change cited facts do need to have solid evidence. If you are unwilling to provide evidence then I must assume that your objections to those sections are not valid. Xandar (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice, right, to have made up your mind about why I am doing this? Because I want an article "antagonistic"? Because of my "prejudices and preconceptions?" You seem to be unable to recognise a scholarly consensus when it is stated as such - because you know of examples that "disprove" what the scholarly consensus says, and you've found a parochial author who thinks differently. That's classic POV-pushing. Given that I've now provided over a dozen quotes disagreeing with the weightage of that section, asking for "solid evidence" would be amusing if it wasn't so exasperating. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Calling all authors who disagree with you "parochial" is not a good idea, especially when both Jacobsen and the Cambridge History, which you quote, back up the point that Churchmen in fact did a great deal to stand up for the indigenous peoples. The authorities quoted in the article are all academics in good standing, some Catholic, others not. Your insistence that there is a "consensus" in favour of your preferred viewpoint, and that this supposed consensus means those views can be presented as facts, is misplaced. You have not proved a consensus, simply that a party exists of that opinion. And on the need for solid evidence I refer you again to Wikipedia policy. WP:ASF You have brought forward a valid viewpoint, which merits inclusion as a viewpoint. We can add bona-fide fact, and valid strands of opinion to the article, but we can't as you seem to want, replace verified fact with a one-sided viewpoint which seems to have less factual attestation than the one in the article. Xandar (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xandar, we can't just put people's opinions in the article, there must be some sort of document to reference or wikilink to show Catholic Church policy was so and so. Right now, the article text shows what Catholic Church policy was and provides a wikilink and references to sources of all viewpoints from apologist to critic. NancyHeise (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Is anyone looking into the plagiarism issue? Anyone? Karanacs (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As a result of this request and the following discussion, this issue is being addressed and progress charted on the discussion page of this FACNancyHeise (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That is the one thing that is currently holding me back from giving a support as I previously have. I detest plagiarism with a passion, and any article with it should not be allowed to exist, let alone be featured. The only thing I could really do, without having any good books on this subject, is to reword the phrases in question to make it sound less lifted, but that wouldn't accomplish all that much. Anyone have any better ideas? Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Note regarding Benjamins comment just above this one: After I conducted a thorough recheck of all cites in the article text in response to Karanacs request (progress was documented on the discussion page of this FAC), I placed a note on Benjamins talk page telling him what I did and that Karanacs subsequently struck her comment regarding plagiarism. He responded by placing a note on my talk page entitled "RE: RCC" and asked me to strike his comment here and place a support vote on this page for him. I did place a support vote for him at the bottom of this page and copied and pasted his comment from my talk page beside it. NancyHeise (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The correct way to do this is simply to add the diff: [16] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What plagiarism issue? As far as I know, two incidents of text in the article were raised which it was claimed were similar to text in the quoted references. Plagiarism is extremely overdramatic language for that. If you have any incidences you want to bring up, please do so. Xandar (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Amazing allegation of plagiarism, really, that is a personal attack. This is the definition of plagiarism "Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement. Unlike cases of forgery, in which the authenticity of the writing, document, or some other kind of object itself is in question, plagiarism is concerned with the issue of false attribution." Two instances detailed by Karanacs and Andrew showed phrases lifted and placed in two sentences without the appropriate quotes needed. The two sentences were immediately followed by the actual references used with the entire quote from the book. Plagiarism is taking someone else's work and representing it as your own. It is not plagiarism if the sentence is immediately followed by the reference and actual quote - what occured here is not plagiarism but an error of punctuation. I am really offended that Karanacs is accusing me of plagiarism with these two examples of non-plagiarism. NancyHeise (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The "error of punctuation" made the lifting plagiarism. This is an incredibly serious issue, and I am concerned that the main editors of the article don't recognize that. Proper attribution means that not only is a citation given to show where it came from, but that if phrases were lifted in whole or part they must be quoted to explicitly show the reader that this is not the phrasing of a WP editor. I do not believe that the plagiarism was at all intentional (and I have stated that repeatedly), but it obviously happened twice that we found, which is two times too many. There could be 1 or 100 other instances of this type of "error of punctuation" in the article (or, best case scenario, everything else checks out fine). I cannot strike my oppose until someone goes through the article and verifies that no other whole phrases were lifted from the cited source material without using the appropriate quotation marks. I don't have access to the bulk of the source material and so can't do this verification myself. My question is whether anyone is doing this or is planning to do this? Karanacs (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Karanacs, but you are way off-line here. There has to be a little common-sense involved. For one thing the main offending sentence starts off with "Historians note that" - a signpost to the fact that the words that follow are in part at least a form of quotation. For a second point, having some word groups in common is not "plagiarism". Policy says that inline citations should directly correspond to the material they verify, therefore there should usually be a close match between (although not normally a direct copy of) material in a citation and material on the page. This is where your impossiblist demand comes into question. You are demanding that someone (not you, apparently) goes through over 300 inline citations, examines the original text of each work, and checks WHAT? That there are no word groups in common between each cited work and the article?? That is nonsense. Consider a common factual citation. Say, for example that a source says, "Willibrord converted the Germans." Even if that complete sentence occurred in an article - it would not be plagiarism. It is a simple statement of fact in concise form. Even a complete sentence like that cannot be copyright. If every book that said "Caesar conquered Gaul" invoved plagiarism, the law courts would be full of nothing else! The whole issue is bogus unless treated with some sense. Plagiarism, as Nancy said, is passing off others work and ideas as your own. there is nothing like that in the article, and I doubt that any wording similarities, even if found would be anything but coincidental, as per my example. The text has been altered, rearranged and copy-edited too many times. Anyway even checking through all 300 works would prove nothing. What if the nefarious plagiarist has not actually cited the book he copied??? Shall we check every book ever published for similarities? No. use common sense. if there are any particular passages you think might be important matter directly copied from another work, we can check those out. Otherwise your demands, if applied to every WP article, would just put wikipedia into gridlock for the next few years. Xandar (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Karanacs be the person going through checking for errors in punctuation if she is the one calling this plagiarism? How can someone come here and call this plagiarism and then cast a cloud over the whole article without intending to go through and back up their accusation? I already have almost all the sources. I can tell you there is no plagiarism yet I am not allowed to be the checker per Karanacs comments above. I think that if Karanacs doesnt want to check, then she should keep her oppose vote but she should not be continuing to call what occured here plagiarism without further verification of her claims. It would not be hard for her to do since almost every single sentence in the text is followed by a reference that either gives an internet link to the actual text or a reference to a book with page number and ISBN number. I personally think it is going to be very hard to prove plagiarism under these circumstances. NancyHeise (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It has already been proven that issues have been found with quotations not having quotation marks. Nancy, if you have most of these sources, then you are obviously the appropriate person to be checking that the article does not have more "errors of punctuation", provided you clearly understand what is appropriate paraphrasing and what is not. I do not have these sources and cannot get most of them quickly. By the time I can order them all on interlibrary loan this FAC will be closed. I am requesting that you (or someone else that has access to the sources right now) check that the article has no more "errors of punctuation" as you call them. Three reviewers have expressed concern with this issue on this FAC, yet none of the editors with easy access to the sources are willing to take a look and make sure the rest of the article does not have similar problems. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

From plagiarism.org[17], the following are considered plagiarism: "failing to put a quotation in quotation marks" and "The writer properly cites a source, but neglects to put in quotation marks text that has been copied word-for-word, or close to it. Although attributing the basic ideas to the source, the writer is falsely claiming original presentation and interpretation of the information."[18]. Please understand that even if this was completely unintentional (which I am sure it was), this is serious and must be addressed. Karanacs (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am at work today but I will certainly go through all the sources and refs tonight and tomorrow to do the check. I am glad you have allowed me to at least do this myself. I will let you know when I am done, give me at least until Wed afternoon. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs. I am sadly forced to the conclusion that you are just interested in causing as much trouble as you can with respect to this article. You have not responded to any of my points, and continue to misrepresent matters in a wholly shoddy manner. You quote a website selling software to various companies. However you do not quote the main page. "Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism." [19]. This is exactly what has been done in the "example" you cite from the RCC article. Not only is the sentence cited, it is repeated in its original form in the citation. Not only that, but the words "Historians note that" are prominent in the main text of the article prior to the sentence. Yet on this basis, you start making unwarranted accusations about the article, and demand that every single one of 300 citations be checked against some unknown criteria of your own! I find this outrageous, since it is tantamount to accusing all the many writers of this article of bad faith and dishonesty. I have already said that if you have any passages that you think might be suspect, identify them, and they can be checked. That is more than enough to be fair and honest. Most of the citations in the article, anyway, are to simple matters of fact, of which even the website you found says: "You do not have to cite sources for facts that are not the result of unique individual research. Facts that are readily available from numerous sources and generally known to the public are considered "common knowledge," and are not protected by copyright laws. You can use these facts liberally in your paper without citing authors." . As per Wikipedia policy, this article does cite authors.

And, for your further information, there is no such thing as "unintentional plagiarism"... "Some universities are on very shaky legal ground in respect to their published definitions of plagiarism. Many refer to unintentional plagiarism. However, it is a basic legal principle that mens rea (i.e. intention) must be demonstrated. Therefore, if the use of a source which was not cited cannot be demonstrated to have been intentional, then it follows that whatever other offence may have been committed, it cannot properly be said to be plagiarism." [20]. Perhaps you will now apologise for your false and libelous accusations. As I said earlier, the task of going through 300 citations, books, documents, websites etc, looking for some sorts of matching text is onerous, ridiculous, and an utter waste of time, since any plagiarist is unlikely to have cited his sources. I do not think Nancy should be asked to use a huge amount of her time on a burdensome and pointless exercise in folly, and I'm very surprised she has agreed to do so. Xandar (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with that. The charge of plagiarism is a gross caricature, and to cite a couple of examples where there is some common phrasing as casting doubt on the integrity of the entire article is absurd. I have been astonished at what's been asked of the editors of this article, way beyond what's been asked of any other article I've seen sail through FA with a quick polish. Nancy's apparently inexhaustable patience with this non-commonsensical navel gazing does her great credit. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Enough. The article meets FA criteria. Majoreditor (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't expect to find such nice surprises on this page when I came back to it tonight but I thank my supporters for their kind support here. Yes, I agree that the plagiarism accusation was way off base but I still intend to go through every cite as I have previously agreed to do. I have to get a few of the books from the library tomorrow and I have some ceremonies to attend at my kids schools tomorrow too so I will be doing this a little tomorrow and mostly Wednesday. If it makes everyone happy, I am glad to go through. I am not sure what can be called plagiarism because certain instances of same words are generic words like one sentence that states that the Mass is "almost identical" ....." We didn't use quotes around "almost identical" but the sentence is followed by the ref with the entire quote which is quite long and has the words "almost identical" in there somewhere. If anyone here is an expert in plagiarism, please give me your opinion of that sentence - I would like to know if Karanacs considers "almost identical" plagiarism according to her definition. Obviously, according to my and Xandar's definition, it is not plagiarism and we have addressed all the sentences properly but Karanacs has a different viewpoint and definition. Is there a Wikipedia MoS rule on this? I need to go do some research here before beginning. NancyHeise (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to know what everyone thinks I should put quotes around here. Here's the actual sentence from the article text

• "The main elements of this mass are almost identical in form to those described in some of the earliest Christian writings.[100][101]

Here's the quote it comes from that is cited immediately after the sentence

• "^ Schreck, The Essential Catholic Catechism (1999), pp. 189–90, quote: "Some of the earliest Christian writings, such as the Didache, or the 'Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,' chapters 9–10 (late first and early second century), and the First Apology of Justin Martyr, chapters 65–67 (about A.D. 155), describe the primitive form of the Mass and its prayers in a way that bears striking resemblance to the basic format of the Mass today. In fact, the main elements of St. Justin's description of the Mass are almost identical to the form Catholics now employ."

If I follow Karanacs rules, I would have quotation marks around the words "earliest Christian writings" and "almost identical" but this just seems to be too much pickyness to me. Since I am not an expert on this subject I would like some guidance if there are any experts who can let me know what to do before I get started going through all 300 cites. I want to do this correctly. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, since no one here has offered any guidance, I went and did my own research and picked up my other sources at the library. I also read your plagiarism.org website as well as another website published by Purdue Universtiy [21] that helps students find the right way to paraphrase material without being accused of plagiarism. The key according to all of these sources is to cite your work - which we have done. We have failed to use quotation marks in the two instances found by Karanacs and Andrew c which, although they can not be called plagiarism because they were immediately followed by the reference with full quote, constitute punctuation errors that we can not tolerate on this page. After my research, I conclude that the sentence that I was asking about above regarding "earliest Christians" and "almost identical" can be interpreted two ways: if the same words are generic words they dont need quotes, if they are a unique phraseology, they need quotes. I dont think it is reasonable to say that "earliest Christians" and "almost identical" are unique and the sentence represents legitimate paraphrasing that would not be considered plagiarism especially since it is directly followed by the cited source. Andrew c's "source and summit" sentence was already changed and Karanacs already put quotes around the quoted material from Vidmar. I am now going through all of the cites on the page, section by section to check for inappropriate paraphrasing or punctuation errors that need quotation marks. I will not be done with this process until at earliest tomorrow.

Sections checked already are NancyHeise (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

<reintegrating fractured conversation after move to talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just my $0.02. If it is a toss-up call, err on the side of avoiding the quotes of a short phrase or word. The quotes could come across as scare quotes and make for a subtle but insidious non-NPOV. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is correct. If a phrase is in some way remarkable, or identified with a particular source, then it should be quoted and attributed. The grey area with all FAs though I think derives from the almost mandatory requirement that's been tacitly accepted that every sentence needs to have a citation. There are a limited number of ways in which you can, in a simple sentence, talk about "earliest Christians" without using the words "earliest Christians". The problem is analagous to what Fowler referred to as the "fatal influence" of elegant variation. If you're talking about the earliest Christians, to artificially avoid using that phrase because it appears in the source cited at the end of the sentence is an absurdity that's potentially confusing to the reader. Are you talking about the same thing as the source, or something subtley different? There's room for some doubt in their minds now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions I needed to know what others think. NancyHeise (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the key to the issue of what must be quoted is the principle of original thoughts, wording and ideas, that are, because of their originality, the intellectual property of the person in question. "earliest christians" is clearly not an original concept or form of wording. "almost identical" is clearly not an original form of wording. It does reflect the judgement of the original author, so it depends upon what way the term is being used. If you know nothing about the subject and are relying entirely upon the quoted author as sole source, then quotes could be used. If there are other sources saying the same thing, or you knew beforehand that the liturgies were almost identical, then because the words are so commonplace, I would say that no quotes would be correct. The reference is backing the content, but not the sole source. I agree on the "scare quotes" point too. Xandar (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I am addressing this issue and charting my progress on this FAC discussion page here [22]. NancyHeise (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have completed a comprehensive recheck of all references per Karanacs request - a detailed list of my efforts was kept on the discussion page of this FAC. I was not able to check a handful of citations because I did not have the books. Some of these books were ones used by Karanacs and some by other editors who contributed to the page. They represent less than 1% of the page citations. NancyHeise (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per criteria 1(c): a FA "accurately represents the relevant body of published knowledge". Wikipedia would be ridiculed if we use religious rethoric insted of academic sources. --Sum (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering what sources you object to us using? All are written by Academia - university professors - or the "relevent body of published knowledge" except the self published sources used in the beliefs section that we were asked to use per a previous FAC to show the link between beliefs in the text and those officially held by the Catholic Church. These are supplemented by three non-Catholic Church published sources written by university professors. You need to be more specific in your oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: do not remove any more reviewer comments to the talk page. It is going to take me quite some time to reconstruct this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• I believe I have now correctly restored reviewer comments that were deleted.Restored text and diff before deletions started. First, don't remove anyone else's comments to the talk page, and second, if you do remove your own lengthy comments, please include a link to the talk page section, since talk page links to individual FAC talk pages aren't available in the full-page FAC view. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To Sandy and everyone else, I don't know if there are FAC directions but please know that I was trying to follow what Sandy had done in the last FAC. I thought I was helping her. Sorry if I messed things up instead. NancyHeise (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry (I responded on your talk page). I think everything should be back together now, so let's get back to work :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Comments

1. Note to nominators and supporters: reviewers bringing up concerns on this page seem to be disappearing— not 'cause they feel satisfied, but seemingly because they feel a bit like a bone over-chewed by a puppy. I know this article has been through the wringer... but it is IMMENSELY better than when I first saw it. please do take that as a meaningful victory on the path toward FA. I also know the nominators and supporters are weary, and are feeling as though there is a double standard. As for the latter:yes there is a double standard. Do you remember the very first time your mom or dad said "Son/daughter, I hate to tell ya this, but life isn't fair"? This is a repeat of that moment. Nobody gives a crap about various video games and highway intersections or whatever, and <curse word self-deleted> it, they slip through the cracks. They are of inferior quality in every aspect, but especially with respect to the quality of their sources. I apologize. The universe should apologize. But that is the way it is, and until we get about 30 more reviewers who are worth their salt, this injustice will continue. meanwhile... and I say this almost as caringly as dear old Mom/Dad woulda.. I'm afraid you're just gonna hafta accept it. I'm sorry. Truly and sincerely I am. If is seems unjust, then go find some good FA reviewers. I really mean that; I'm not being a smart-aleck. :-)
2. Uhhh, I looked up old "The Catholic Church through the Ages" on Google scholar and JSTOR and got nothing. I looked on Academic Search Premier and got one and only one book review by Tomas Bokenkotter (in the journal Catholic Historical Review) which offers only faint praise, saying for example, "Let me single out a few of his judgments to which one might take exception...[examples snipped]... For those who want a rapid walk down the mine-strewn road of Catholic history, Father Vidmar will prove a useful, if sometimes controversial, guide." OK OK OK. No book is perfect. But any book that has one and only one book review does not smell like a significant work to me. Then add in the fact that the sole review is best characterized as "faint praise" and you have not a winner, but a loser. I speak as a PhD student (in linguistics, but a serious student nonetheless). The Vidmar book is cited over 30 times... that's about 10% of the cites in the article. Vidmar is way, way over-represented here. More comments later... Ling.Nut (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ling Nut, as a CPA and former auditor for Ernst & Young in their West Palm Beach office I know a little bit about research. I know that does not make me a genius either. Wikipedia is a fun project that I am enjoying even if I dont get an FA on this page. Perhaps I am not the person to bring it to FA or perhaps the 50,000 sources out there on this subject will disallow any form of across the board consensus on what constitutes a "good source" The Bokenkotter book review by a university professor is at the Barnes and Noble website here [23]. It is also part of this history professor's required reading list (text) [24]. I have used Bokenkotter to supplement Vidmar where his cites stood alone. (Vidmar reviews are here [25] and here [26]) Because we have so many sources to choose from and we have the Wikipedia reliable sources examples and [WP:RS] and FAC criteria to guide us in choosing our sources, we have only chosen sources that meet these written criteria as well as following the advice of reviewers in the past two FAC's. I extensively eliminated sources that the last two FAC's reviewers did not like. Now, this FAC, reviewers are deciding to not like some more books that were not mentioned in the last two FACs. At what point can I bring an aritcle to FAC without having to redo sources, over and over again? Because a spectrum of sources exists on the Church from harsh critics to radical apologists we have not chosen either the harsh critics or the radical apologists but have searched for the more middle of the road sources. We still include the viewpoint of the critic (Duffy, Gonzalez, Le Goff and several others) and we also include the apologists (Norman and Vidmar). Bokenkotter is not considered an apologist but a critic among Catholics. In some of the more sensitive areas of the article like Reformation and Inquisitions where people's emotions can cloud their thinking - we took careful steps to include references and quotes from all of the author's viewpoints so no one could say we had only represented the apologist or critic's view. If you will also take a look at what Vidmar is referencing where he stands alone, it is to uncontested facts, not sensitive areas and his cites are then followed by the critic. Now, if I were to eliminate Vidmar because some FAC reviewers on this page dont like him, that is not fair to the people on this page who have voted to support the page with him in it. Since he is not my main source (his cites do not stand alone they are used as supplements - Duffy and Norman are my main sources) I think it is unreasonable and foolish for you or anyone else to kill this FAC because of use of his fairly new book - a scholarly work written my a notable professor of Church history. NancyHeise (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful that the only articles that get passed as Featured Articles don't become just the video games and US highways. A long article on a complex subject particularly one on which people often have strong opinions is going to be hard enought to get through an objection-based FAC process anyway. Attempting to hold that article to an even higher standard of citation than other FAC articles only makes the problem worse.

On sources. lets use a little common-sense - which can solve 95% of the problems being raised. Is a serious objection being made that a source is giving misleading information? If so, object on that basis. If not, then objecting to a source because it is written by someone you don't like, think isn't eminent enough, etc. is pointless. Most of the Vidmar citations, for example, are for points not in dispute. Since Vidmar is a genuine academic author, Wouldn't it be a lot simpler for everyone only to object on specific points where you allege a citation is wrong? Xandar (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ling.Nut mentioned that 10% of the cites Vidmar's and that he is over-represented. But in fact if one considers only the history section of the article which is what the book covers, the percentage of Vidmar cites approach 20%. You mentioned that the citations support points that are not in dispute. Perhaps, but unless one digs into the finer details of each point, any disputes that may exist remain hidden until some expert comes along and raises a red flag. I found the Six Articles and the "Henry saw Cranmer leading England toward Lutheranism/Zwinglianism" errors by chance. The potential for these errors can be reduced by using a better source. As I mentioned previously, I found even more errors in Vidmar. (for example, Vidmar wrongly states that the Anabaptists are Zwinglian.) The errors are not used in this article, but the end result is that the source cannot be trusted. And as Ling.Nut has shown, even one of Vidmar's peers has doubts about the source. So why should we be trying so hard to keep using such a source in one of our articles? --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Vidmar says that Anabaptists are Zwinglians?? REALLY? Oh, my. That's a rather fundamental error there. Really, that says that perhaps the source isn't as good as we've been told at length here. Note that the article on Zwinglian theology says that "Zwingli's views on baptism is largely rooted in his conflict with the Anabaptists.", which kinda precludes them being the same thing or holding the same theological views. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If anyone would like to read what John Vidmar actually says about Anabaptists, they can read it here [27]. I reproduced it on the discussion page of this FAC since RelHistBuff continues to spread falsities about Vidmar and his work. I think the errors are in RelHistBuff's assessment, not in Vidmar's work. I also challenge anyone to show me an actual error in the article text before dismissing my sources. Thanks.NancyHeise (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"spread falsities"??? Once again, I will choose to ignore this kind of language. On page 198. "For modern Zwinglians—namely the Amish in the United States—the logical consequences of this...". The Amish are modern Anabaptists, not Zwinglians. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested to read the full quote from Vidmar that RelHistBuff is saying is an error, I have put it on the discussion page here [28]. I also included the paragraph before and after so reader can see that he is discussing liturgical practices. Amish omission of certain practices comes from Zwingli's ideals and that is the context in which he calls them modern Zwinglians. NancyHeise (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Once again we are getting bogged down discussing things that are really pretty dispensible to the article. If there was no reference at all in the article to Cranmer, the Six Articles or the Amish, I don't believe anyone would be complaining about their absence. It might be better just to drop these references completely - personally I think the amount on the English Reformation here borders on WP:UNDUE in a small way. The South American issue is at least undeniably on topic. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod. Just to let everyone know - there are no mentions in the article text about Cranmer or Anabaptists. The Six Articles are wikilinked in the article text as part of the discussion on the dissolution of the monasteries and royal policy on Catholic belief in England during the Reformation. The English Reformation is given an extra couple of sentences because it is an English speaking country whose policies affected English speaking countries and this is English Wikipedia.NancyHeise (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For those who haven't viewed the Talk page, the nub of what Vidmar said on page 198 of his book was this: "Zwingli had the idea that anything not expressly permitted by Scripture was sinful. Hence hymns and pipe organs were unscriptural. For modern Zwinglians - namely the Amish in the United States - the logical consequence of this is that electricity, the internal combustion engine, or modern medicine, are not in Scripture, and are therefore to be avoided." In other words he didn't say that Anabaptists were Zwinglians, he said that Amish were Zwinglians - something significantly different from what RelHisBuff posted. The article here [29], from the Berkeley University site, says "The Amish present a classic case of traditionalist resistance to assimilation. The tradition dates from 1525 when rebaptizers (Anabaptists) broke with the Swiss Brethren led by the priest-reformer Ulrich Zwingli (Klassen 1973, 3)." In other words, the Amish indeed rose out of the Zwinglian Church, and would have kept most of those teachings. Hence Vidmar's point that they carried Zwinglian doctrine to a logical extreme seems quite valid. Xandar (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Amish are theologically Anabaptists, not Zwinglians/Reformed. I don't know how else to say that, than that. Yes, they trace back to disputes with the Zwinglian church, but they rejected one of the main tenets of the Zwinglian church, infant baptism, so you can't call them Zwinglians at all. The statement that the Amish are Zwinglians is only true in a very tortured reading, based off of where the denominations branched off. By that logic, all Christian denomenations are Jewish, because they started in Judiasm. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the point of this off-topic conversation is an effort by some to make a statement that John Vidmar has a factual inaccuracy in his book concerning the Amish and Zwingli (who are not mentioned in the article text). Those calling his statement an error are taking his comment out of context. If anyone would like to point us to any book review that states that Vidmar's book is factually inaccurate, then we can consider his book inaccurate. But there are no such reviews, he is a university professor, a scholar regularly employed by the Smithsonian Institute to teach classes on Church history, he is a notable scholar and his book is peer reviewed and has good reviews. Since no one has pointed out any factual inaccuracies with the article text, I suggest we end this conversation unless someone can come up with a bad review of his book. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Because much discussion on this page has ensued regarding sources used in the history section, I have provided a detailed analysis for you to consider in addition to the arguments above. The Lead and Origin and Mission section of the article is included in the analysis because they make many historical statements of fact. Here is my analysis:

Citation analysis

This is an analysis of references used in the Lead, Origin and Mission and History section of the article.

Total number of references in these sections is 262 which includes multiple citations to the same reference.

Of that total we have analyzed the most used books and newspapers to see in what proportion the critics or apologists were used in the article. In the critic category we have placed books by Duffy, LeGoff, Bokenkotter, McManners, and all major newspapers. In the apologist category we have placed books by Woods, Vidmar and Norman and all news services that are Catholic specific in their reporting (not owned by Catholic Church). Books by Collins (7 cites), Hitchcock (3 cites), and Koschorke (9 cites) were considered neither apologist or critic. Please note that none of these books is considered radical in either their criticism or apoligism per their book reviews.

CRITICS

• Number of citations and name of author and book
• 20 All major newspapers including New York Times, CBS, UKTimes, BBC, Int. Herald Tribune
• 32 Eamon Duffy Saints and Sinners (1997) Yale University Press
• 14 John McManners The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity (1990) Oxford University Press
• 7 Jacques Le Goff Medieval Civilization(2000)Barnes and Noble(first published by Univ of Paris)
• 9 Thomas Bokenkotter A Concise History of the Catholic Church (2004) Doubleday (Bokenkotter is professor of history at Xavier University - Barnes and Noble book review by a university professor is here [30] and the book is a required text for this univeristy classroom [31])

Total critics 82 cites out of 262 or 31%

APOLOGISTS

• Number of citations and name of author and book
• 9 Catholic News Service, EWTN
• 8 Thomas Woods How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization Regnery Publishing
• 26 Edward Norman The Roman Catholic Church, An Illustrated History (2007) Univ. of Calif. press
• 33 John Vidmar The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages(2005) Paulist Press

Total apologists 76 cites out of 262 or 29%

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS Citations to critics is equal to 31% of total and apologists comprise 29% of total so they are roughly equally represented. I should note that the Vidmar book is usually used in the article text as a double to another author's citation. He is only used alone for a total of 13 citations and these are citation numbers 20, 163, 165, 182, 184, 190, 196, 205, 210, 241, 256, and 279. None of these places where he is used alone is a contentious or sensitive sentence - they are basic statements of fact that are undisputed by other authors - I know because I checked all of my sources before including the Vidmar citation. He provided more detail than other authors in a couple of specific situations and I researched other authors before including his citation to make sure it was not a contested fact. Since we have represented the critics and apologists in equal proportion, (31% and 29%) and the rest of the citations 40% do not easily fall into either category of critic or apologist, I conclude that our article satisfies FA criteria number 1. NancyHeise (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a bit dubious about the critics/apologists split; what Eamon Duffy, John McManners and Edward Norman have in common (apart from being British) is that they are widely respected scholarly historians in a way the others (apart from Jacques Le Goff) perhaps are not. I'm not sure the 4 of them would be able to work up much of an argument about most issues in this article. But a useful analysis anyway. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your opinion of who is a widely respected scholar, I have to admit that is a contentious point where we have no written Wikipedia guidelines to make that determination. The guidelines we have suppose that peer reviewed scholarly works written by university professors are considered top quality. All of our sources meet this criteria. Unless Wikipedia has some rules that we have violated, I don't see why our sources should be tossed just because someone else has a particular opinion that is not backed up by a book review. I would appreciate fair application of Wikipedia rules and guidelines when judgeing this article, not personal, unwritten rules. If someone here thinks that this article should be held to a higher standard than others, I suggest that a written change be made in the Wikipedia policy and guidelines and FAC criteria. If we were all judges in a courtroom, our decision to oppose this article based on unwritten criteria would be easily appealed and overturned. I suggest that if this article meets the FA criteria as currently written, it should be FA. NancyHeise (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Please be aware that just having a proportional number of citations to people with pro and con viewpoints is not enough to satisfy the WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE guidelines. The information that is picked from the books should be balanced and present all major viewpoints in equal weights. I think the discusison on the FAC page is that some reviewers believe that a) one or more sources is unreliable because it/they contain inaccurate information, or b) for a particular issue (or issues), the article tilts to the pro-Catholic POV and does not give the same weight to the other side. Having 1 pro and 1 con source for a paragraph doesn't provide adequate balance if you have 5 sentences stating the pro and only 1 stating the con viewpoint (provided, that is, that neither viewpoint is a fringe theory). Karanacs (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen any comments here saying any part of our text violates NPOV or UNDUE.NancyHeise (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Side comment I'd like to make a comment here, from one of those who is questioning sources. I am getting the impression from some of the folks involved with this FAC that somehow questioning the sources of an article isn't fair, or that anyone doing so is really just showing bias against the RCC or is being unreasonable. There seems to be a strong undercurrent of "us vs. them" here, and I'm getting a strong impression that the sources aren't as important as the prose. No one complains when the prose is copyedited or suggestions on improving flow of the prose are made. Everyone understands that the prose needs to be first rate and anything that works towards that goal is good.

Contrast that with the effort it takes me to get folks to improve their sourcing. It seems that as long as it's just enough to get by, any old source will do. No one gives source questions the benefit of the doubt, it always seems to generate a confrontational response, like I'm not really trying to improve the article, but that I'm out to "stop the FAC" or something similar. Honestly, I just want a good article also, the best that it can be. I'm not anti-Catholic, any more than I'm anti-anything-but-bad-sourcing. A large number of the articles that I work on are part of the Catholicism project. In fact, it was I who pushed Augustine of Canterbury to FA status. I dare you to find anything in that that's anti-Catholic, but he's a Catholic saint.

Please, assume some good faith on the side of the people who are working on the sourcing. We, like you, want the best article possible. That's all. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent by SandyGeorgia for readability) --> <sigh> I can only say ditto. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am reading through the arguments above and I dont see where anyone has been called anti-Catholic for disagreeing with others about issues. I have not accused anyone of being anti-Catholic. I have asked that the article pass FA if it meets FA criteria. If it is being held to a higher standard that is unwritten, I have asked for a change to be made to the FA criteria so other people like me who have spent countless hours and hundreds of dollars on books to create an article arent also misled. I believed when I bought all these books or found them in the library, that they would be acceptable scholarship if they were written by university professors, peer reviewed, and/or published by University presses. I have followed Wikipedia protocol before bringing this FAC up for consideration for the third time. It was peer-reviewed twice. On issues that I disagreed with where consensus was reached on the talk page, I conceeded and made the changes requested - again following Wikipedia protocol. I am not understanding what is now unacceptable in the article. No one has pointed out factual inaccuracies in the text. None of my books have bad reviews and they all fit Wikipedia reliable sources examples per the guidelines. A serious effort was made to represent all viewpoints to meet NPOV yet no one is clearly pointing out any problem with the aritcle. Comments made here are - "I dont like the sources used, they arent the best". If you have some ideas for improving sources or providing guidance on what constitutes the "best" source that is more informative than the current Wikipedia guidelines, then I think it would be helpful to the Wikipedia community for you to put your ideas in writing and improve the current policies, guidelines and FAC criteria. Until then, I think you should in all fairness, pass our article. If the guidelines change, I will change the article to fit written policy. NancyHeise (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, no one is disputing that you have gone to great lengths to try to improve this article, and several of us have said above that we think the article is in far better shape than it was at its first FAC. That is definitely to your credit. However, reviewers have provided an example of a poor review for Vidmar and have pointed out inaccuracies within that book, which makes it appear that it is not reliable. Reviewers have also stressed that the history section seems to be placing undue weight on certain viewpoints or eliminating other viewpoints. For the most part, their comments are met with an extremely defensive attitude and at times what appears to be a refusal to listen to the arguments. Continuing to ask for examples of what the problems are, when these have already been provided and discussed, is not helping anyone's cause. Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, please take a look, no one has provided any bad book review of Vidmar. I have provided two good ones. Please back up your statement with a link. No one has provided any factual inaccuracies either. Please back up your statement with a link to any scholar who makes such a statement. Here's my good reviews and the only reviews anyone has provided for Vidmar's book. From Googlebooks [32] and from Graduate Theological Union, Berkley [33]. If I am defensive, it might be because some reviewers are not reasonable or factually accurate in their demands as I am showing with the Vidmar book which you will not be able to find a bad review for because there arent any. Please provide a link to any bad review if you are going to respond to me on this issue. NancyHeise (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

See above where Ling.nut looked through Google Scholar and Academic Search Premier and found only one book review, which was not very praising of the work. I found two refs on Google Scholar to "John Vidmar" that MIGHT be book reviews, but I'll have to go to the library tomorrow to see if I can get them. If anyone can get a hold of them before this, One from New Blackfriars and One from English Historical Review. As for factual inaccuracies, I don't know how else to explain it to you other than the fact that the Amish are not Zwinglian. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am reproducing Ling Nut's words on the Vidmar book by copy and paste - he says "Uhhh, I looked up old "The Catholic Church through the Ages" on Google scholar and JSTOR and got nothing." That is not a bad review. I again provide the two good reviews here - From Googlebooks [34] and from Graduate Theological Union, Berkley [35]. Ling Nut said he found a faint review of Bokenkotter's book. Yet Bokenkotter, a professor of history at Xavier University has book reviews here - Barnes and Noble book review by a university professor [36] and the book is a required text for this univeristy classroom [37]). In light of this I again ask you to please respond to me with actual links to any bad book reviews or statements by scholars who claim the books contain inaccuracies. NancyHeise (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You left out the next sentence which says "I looked on Academic Search Premier and got one and only one book review by Tomas Bokenkotter (in the journal Catholic Historical Review) which offers only faint praise, saying for example, "Let me single out a few of his judgments to which one might take exception...[examples snipped]... For those who want a rapid walk down the mine-strewn road of Catholic history, Father Vidmar will prove a useful, if sometimes controversial, guide." " I don't care if Bokenkotter's books are reviewed or what others say of his books, we're discussing Vidmar's book. The google books link is not a book review, it's a blurb discussing the contents of the book. The one from Graduate Theological Union is from a pastoral care journal, not a history journal. I found this part of the review particuarly interesting " Here, then, is a church history that one can confidently place in the hands of R.C.I.A. participants, Catholic college students, Newman Center attendees, parish adult education groups and a host of others in similar circumstances. Father Vidmar’s work is a masterpiece of pedagogy, an example of fine scholarship, and an important voice in the Church’s own reporting of what the author calls her “family story." " I've yet to see a review of his work by a historian, although I posted two links above that I will try to investigate tomorrow, if no one beats me to it. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Bokenkotter was used as one of our critic sources in the article text, he is a history professor and his review qualifies as a scholarly review of Vidmar's book. John Vidmar is one of our apologist sources. Of course Bokenkotter is going to offer "faint praise" but he never states that the book is inaccurate and recommends it to readers at the end of the review. When we are asked to build a FA article, we are required to use books from all viewpoints granted they arent rejected by the academic community for being radical as our Wikipedia guidelines suggest. Vidmar has taught church history at three different Catholic Universities for 20 years and regularly teaches Church History at the Smithsonian. Every indication has proven him to be a good source to provide a reliable "apologist" point of view of Catholic History. The book reviews Ealdgyth is going to look up tomorrow at the library are not about the book we used in the text but another book by Vidmar published by Sussex Academic Press that they approached him (not the other way around) to publish. He is a very respected scholar and you all still have not proven that his book is inaccurate or inappropriate as used in the article. Has anyone looked up the 13 cites where his book is cited alone? They are not contentious points in the article. All other cites to Vidmar are a double to another source at the end of the same sentence - we did this to provide evidence that scholars from all viewpoints agree on those sensitive issues. I again ask you to please respond to me with actual links to any bad book reviews or statements by scholars who claim the book contains inaccuracies. NancyHeise (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

To make this clear - Bokenkotter is a scholar - his review is a scholarly review of Vidmar's book. His review ultimately recommends it to readers at the end of the review. NancyHeise (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally, a nice reviewer, Ealdgyth, has examined the Vidmar cites and provided comments on the article talk page. I am addressing her comments (happily) so there should not be any more contention about Vidmar.NancyHeise (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

All Ealdgyth's comments regarding all 33 of the Vidmar citations have been addressed and completed. Please see detail on the main article talk page. NancyHeise (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—POV and 1a (although it's certainly better-written than last time); Cr 4, too much detail for summary style in many places. Let's look at the lead:

• "Numerous religious communities exist within the Church and are composed of members from each of these groups." Which groups?

Added wording in lead to clarify. NancyHeise (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• "The history of the Catholic Church is virtually inseparable from the history of Western civilization." Blatant POV, and obviously inacurrate just on a chronological basis (Western civilization goes back further—much further). In any case, avoid the repetition by using "that of". But you won't need to—the statement has to go.

Reworded to eliminate appearance of POV - I think it now really just states a commonly known fact, please take a look. NancyHeise (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• "The Church has affected and shaped the lives and beliefs of Christians and non-Christians alike for almost 2,000 years." I'd stay away from puffy statements like this, which can't be verified or refuted. This article needs to be strictly NPOV to adhere to one of WP's central pillars. In any case, "alike" is claiming more than you want to.

I eliminated this sentence. NancyHeise (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Modern challenges: surely this should include the fact that only half of all parishes in the world have a priest (dire shortage of priests) ....?

Throughout the history of the church at various points and in certain places there has been a shortage of one thing or another including priests in some areas. This is not modern challenge and the shortage is not worldwide, it is in only certain places - please see where this is discussed in detail and referenced in the Demographics section. It is not notable enough to make it a Lead statement.NancyHeise (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Flicking through further down:

• "The Catholic Church traces its founding to Jesus and the Twelve Apostles and sees the bishops of the Church as the successors of the apostles, and the pope in particular as the successor of Peter, leader of the apostles." Winding, over-long sentence. Try "... the Twelve Apostles; it sees the bishops ...".

Good point, I separated this into two sentences. NancyHeise (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• "three-fold"—one word, I think.

Corrected, thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Logical punctuation required: unseen."

Corrected, thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Period missing before [55].

Thanks, corrected. NancyHeise (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And more. And I'd weed out the repeated links; if they don't follow a link first-off, littering the text with bright blue won't make them do so subsequently. TONY (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting comments. The sentences you complain of could be altered. I will look into some possible alternatives today and check them out with people on the article talk page.

On detail. This has been a matter of balance. We have tried to keep in with the maximum article size for WP. But this is a big subject, and we've found that we need all the space to explain things properly - particularly in the History section, where many reviewers have demanded extra detail and additional viewpoints for some issues. Not to unbalance the article, the detail gone into with respect to the Crusades, say, or abuse4 issues, has to be reflected with other important issues.

On repeat links. Perhaps too many. However, the article is large, and for certain important subjects, (Jesus, Mary, Pope) more than one link is really needed, otherwise people might be searching fruitlessly for one link that is in another section of the article. I know that I added a Mary link to a different section of the article - however this was to an article discussing a different aspect of Mary to the first link. Xandar (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I have addressed Tony's comments, I hope you are OK with my changes, they were reallly very minor.NancyHeise (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony, If those comments are the only reason you have opposed, I hope you will change your vote now that I have addressed them all. Also, I will change the repeated links if that is all it takes to win your support but I am going to leave them if you intend to oppose it anyway. We had offered the reader more links because the article is the top article for Wikiproject Catholicism and is a hub for many Catholicism links - also because the aritcle is so long and many readers come to the page just to look up one thing or the other, not to read the whole page. We felt is was more helpful to reader to include links both at first mention in the lead and again in the body of the text. We did not want to have double links in the same para so if that is what you were referring to I will gladly eliminate a double link if you saw any. NancyHeise (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There are also some other people's oppose votes who still exist on the page even though I have answered all their comments or shown where their comments go against consensus gathered on our article talk page (like capitalization of Church and reorganization of Origin and Mission para - Andrew c and Karanacs). NancyHeise (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think consensus is to keep the Origins and Missions section as is. From my calculations, 4 people have specifically discussed this section (3 on the talk page and 1 additional person at the FAC). Of these 4, 3 people (2 on this FAC) have said it is duplicating data and is poor organization (very important issues in an article of this size; anything we can do to streamline the article will help the reader); only 1 person (Nancy) has actively defended the current placement, for reasons I don't fully understand, yet there is a continual refrain that there is a consensus for the existing organization. Karanacs (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nominator evaluation of existing oppose votes

Karanacs, in the last FAC, counting the original page before it was restarted again by SandyGeorgia, there were a total of 24 support votes and 14 oppose votes. None of those people asked me to move the Origin and Mission section. This FAC page has about 7 support votes and 6 oppose and 2 people have asked for it to be moved. That is not a consensus. Your oppose vote stands only on that issue, I have anwered all of your comments except that one. I have answered all of Andrew c's. I think it is not right of you or Andrew c to continue to oppose. Likewise, RelHistBuff's oppose on this page stands on his opposition to use of Vidmar's book. We have already demonstrated that it is an acceptable source and Ealdgyth's comments regarding that book have all been addressed on the talk page of the article. One oppose on this page does not elaborate or give specifics for me to answer and one oppose (Relata) is asking us to include information that is not found in any of our sources which means that it is not very notable stuff. I have just addressed all of Tony's comments listed in his oppose making changes he has suggested. Even as I have done my part as nominator, not all of the opposes here have done their part in striking the concerns I have adequately addressed. NancyHeise (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for keeping Origin and Mission just where it is are:

• Consensus of editors
• It represents a logical flow of ideas that gracefully lead into one another. It accomplishes the FAC criteria of "brilliance"! (obviously Karanacs doesnt agree but do we have to agree on every point?)
• Logical flow considers the reader who comes to the page wanting to know what the Roman Catholic Church is. Logically, knowing how something came into being right away is key to helping someone find the answer to that question. Right after we tell them how the church came to be (Origin), we tell them what it does (Mission) which logically flows into what that mission (to spread the Gospel) believes (Beliefs and Prayer and Worship) which flows into who is doing this mission (Church community and Demographics). This is all logically followed by the History section.NancyHeise (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Reluctantly, but I have to point out that I think something important is missing from the history section. In Eastern Europe there were also spies among Catholic priests and that was quite a news for a while here. It deserves a sentence as the long fight of the Church against communism is also mentioned. Squash Racket (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't think that we are reluctant to add notable facts to the page. Thank you for providing this information, I think it rounds out our spot on communist governments very well. I added your reference and some content to reflect this event. Thanks for providing it. NancyHeise (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I added two more reliable references as these are not just accusations anymore. In Europe this has been quite a controversial issue receiving wide media coverage. Squash Racket (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. This article appears to be well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, and neutral. While I am not a fan of 'official' 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 has been an ongoing discussion. The length seems appropriate. An intelligent reader coming with no knowledge of the RCC would benefit 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) 16:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Covers a vast amount of difficult and controversial material clearly. Whether it should stand or fall on the basis of the capitalization of church seems frivolous IMO. I would also like to quote another source which invites votes and comments on their articles: "Great articles create great hatred as well as great love. Mediocre articles create neither." Student7 (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Student7 - Thanks for your support vote. I just want to say that the Capitalization of Church issue was addressed by gathering a consenus on the talk page of the article. We conducted a straw poll that was posted on the Wikipedia MoS page and zillions of editors from all over stopped by to vote. Consensus was for capitalizing and the issue is being addressed at MoS to add language to the guidelines to improve that page since the previous instructions were unclear. I told the MoS people that if, for some reason, the issue ultimately went the other way and was resolved in favor of lower casing Church, to please come tell me and I would change it on our RCC page. One prominent editor of that page agreed that the issue should not keep this article from becoming an FA his comments are on this FAC page. I am copy and pasting them here so they don't get lost in the forest above : "And I'd like to say, as the person leading the charge to lowercase certain uses of "church" in this article, that I would also be unhappy to see it fail FAC for such a minor reason. Capitalization in these contexts was clearly accepted usage 20 years ago, and it is also clearly accepted among a variety of influential academics, and there is no hard rule that Wikipedia must follow either current usage or journalistic as opposed to academic usage. This is purely a judgment call, and one that we are just now in the process of calling. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC) "

NancyHeise (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I'd support if I got some reassurance that the article's FA status will not become an obstacle towards future modifications. Squash Racket (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

SquashRacket, I think that it is clear from seeing all the former Featured Articles out there that nothing is cast in stone once it gets FA. (I know the little support vote inside of you wants to come out) - gosh already - let it! NancyHeise (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That request was rather directed towards the so-called "FA Team". The simple fact that I could add important information just yesterday (as a non-expert) makes me think a bit. This article is definitely heading in the right direction, the FA status to me sounds like a final stage. Squash Racket (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

SquashRacket, Gosh, while a few priests have been discovered to have been collaborators with Communist governments, that does not change the main fact that the official Church resistance and that of John Paul II have been credited with bringing about the downfall of these governments. Your information, that is dated to very recent news articles added a notable fact but did not change the factual accuracy of the text.NancyHeise (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I picked the sources after a quick search at The New York Times webpage, obviously way more than a "few priests" were involved in the Communist bloc.

The official Church resistance and the efforts of John Paul II were key factors in the downfall of Communism and nobody questions the overall factual accuracy of the text. I only said I had added the info as a non-expert, so the real experts may probably find some info missing. I also said the article was heading in the right direction. Squash Racket (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And I thanked you for your improvement. Please see other FA's like Intelligent Design, on the FA tag on the talk page it invites editors to please improve the article if they can. I think that means that FA's are open to constant improvement - like your recent edit here. NancyHeise (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I'd like to support this article. It is a great article and I feel it meets all the criteria to become a feature article. I captures many of the topic of Roman Catholic Theology wery well. Let's Make This A Featured Article! Magnetawan (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - This article has been through the ringer and I admire all of the work that has gone in to make it as good as it is. I really can't imagine how this article could be improved. I tip my hat! --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Notes: most of the focus of this FAC seems to be on sources, so it's unclear if other issues (MoS, for example) are being reviewed. In an article this size, with many editors involved, it would be a good idea to periodically scan for citation and MoS errors that may be introduced or missed. I quickly peeked in and found the following samples:

• WP:PUNC, logical quotation errors in both directions (punctuation inside of quotes that should be outside, and punctuation outside of quotes that should be in): [38] [39]
• Citation error, sample: [40]
• WP:MSH issues, specifically

  * Avoid restating or directly referring to the topic or to wording on a higher level in the hierarchy.
  *The first letter of the first word, letters in acronyms, and the first letter of each word of a proper noun are capitalized; all other letters are in lower case (Funding of UNESCO projects, not Funding of UNESCO Projects).

• For example, the heading "Church History" would be correctly capitalized as "Church history" per WP:MSH. But, since the article is about the Roman Catholic Church, the word "Church" doesn't need to be restated (repeated wording from a higher level in the hierarchy); the heading can be just "History". I pointed this out in edit summary; NancyHeise made subsequent capitalization changes to section headings, indicating in edit summary that the changes were per my comments. These subsequent changes are not per my comments; my comment was about straightforward, uncontested MSH errors like capitalizing the word "history" in "Church History", which is not a proper noun. As far as I can tell, High Middle Ages is a proper noun, and some of the subsequent changes are incorrect, but I'll leave that to the historians and grammarians among us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And I would like to point out that almost all of the few errors Sandy found were the result of recent changes made during the FAC process. I thank Sandy for her help in pointing out the capitalization errors and the couple of quotes. We recently had our Yale graduate editor, HelpingPeopleTick do a copyedit for us and there are no major errors here. After his copyedit, he supported the aritcle for FA. For anyone wondering why I was tinkering with the history headings, WP:MSH suggests making your headings unique without repetition. Our history headings have Early Middle Ages and High Middle Ages. After some tinkering with trying to make them unique per SandyGeorgia's comments in the edit summary directing me to WP:MSH I decided that it was too much of a major change - so many editors of the page have visited and offered their input without anyone having a problem with the history headings. I think that we should leave them because they correctly describe the different ages and the daughter articles also have those distinct names. The WP:MoS page has a special box at the top that states "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article." I think it is common sense to leave our history headings as they are, since no one has had a problem with them in months and they accurately describe the sections of history they contain. NancyHeise (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the props Nancy! But I should say that, while I am the managing editor for an academic journal in RL, I am not a stickler for MoS issues even in my own journal -- my criteria are consistency and readability, and I interpret those quite flexibly; I'm also not extremely well versed in WP MoS (yet!), so things like the heading capitalization is not something I checked in my recent review. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The caps are as per our articles, now linked above. What's the problem? Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem there, Johnbod; the example of the error was "Church History", which should have been "Church history", which should have been just "History". The headings seem to be corrected now, and I guess Nancy misunderstood WP:MSH. I mentioned it because every time I've checked the article in the last few months, I've found MSH errors as well as other trivial MoS issues, as a reminder that editors should stay on top of those issues even as they're dealing with prose and sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Helping People, I saw you make some corrections that were Wikipeidia MoS correct - I thought you were doing a great job - don't underestimate your skills! NancyHeise (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have gone through the entire article twice looking for MoS errors and I found a (minor) few that you can see I corrected in the edit summary. I will continue to go through and pay attention to this point Sandy has asked us to consider. NancyHeise (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, a much more experienced and respected editor, Malleus Fatuarum, has gone through the article too. Thank you Malleus, your help is greatly appreciated! (side note: Malleus Fatuarum also voted to support this article for FA as listed on this FAC page.) NancyHeise (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - This support vote is being pasted here with permission from Benjamin who posted this message on my talk page asking me to do so: "RE: RCC Sorry I haven't responded. I've been away for a while. So, I think everything's better now, I can't quite find my comment, so strike it and change it to support, if you would. Thanks, Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 01:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)" NancyHeise (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Add diff:[41] SandyGeorgia (Talk)

• Talk page note: I've added a note on the talk page to encourage nominators to focus on resolving remaining objections; it may be helpful for Opposers to briefly summarize outstanding actionable items. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• At Sandy's request, my objection is based on: a) the organization of the article needs a bit of work as the Origins and Missions section duplicates information in other pieces of the article (3 people have specifically requested this be fixed and only 1 has specifically posted in support of this organization) and b) the History section places too much emphasis on several pieces of history (such as Junipero Serra's role in the missions, English reformation, etc). It is okay for an article to be this long, but it should be tightly focused, and while this article is close, it is not there yet. Karanacs (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nominator response - a)I beg the Wikipedia director to please take a look at the article to try to find where the Origins and Mission section is duplicated - it is not duplicated and of all the people who have commented on this FAC (over 21 people) only 2 have asked for the Origins and Mission section to be moved. Per WP:Silence and consensus " The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is." This organization has been the same for months without any challenge except from Karanacs. In addition, moving Origins and Mission somewhere else will disrupt the logical flow of ideas since present flow tells us where the church came from(Origin), and what it is supposed to be doing (Mission), what that mission (to spread the Gospel) believes (Beleifs and Practices section), and who makes up the church community (Community section) - all followed by History section. b)I also ask the Wikipedia director to please take a look at the talk pages, the peer reviews and the last two FAC's to see how many of the very numerous comments given to me by Karanacs (the one editor who has commented most on this article) that I have absolutely answered to her satisfaction. These last two issues I disagree with her about. I am an editor too and I disagree with her for valid reasons -1)Consensus of editors agrees with me 2) English Wikipedia readers will have a greater interest in the English Reformation since that is the single most important event in the history of the English speaking Catholic Church and 3)Junipero Serra's work affected the English speaking United States and he only has two sentences in the article - not vast coverage as Karanacs suggests in her oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Mike92591 independently objected to the Origins and Mission section on the talk page on the 6th of March; and I did on the 7th of March. TSP (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) (ec) Comment (long): I too think the Origin and Mission section should be kept separate from the History section. I fear I am about to walk through a theological land mine as I prepare to explain why... please, folks, let's not have a theological argument! :-) But here goes: your average Catholic presumably believes to the core of his/her soul that there is real, concrete, unimpeachable historical RECORD linking the Catholic church back to Peter and to the original Apostles. Your average Protestant, if he/she ever thinks about it at all, would almost certainly assume that the Catholic church started one or two hundred years later, and all documents depicting a continuous bridge back to Peter and Jesus are apocryphal. I presume this clash of worldviews is reflected in the higher scholarship; the article itself seems to use Duffy's "suspiciously tidy" remarks as a representative example of the latter view. This question strikes at the heart of opposing beliefs regarding the fundamental nature of the Catholic church. This question takes on an importance greater than... I would like to say, greater than the body of all other Catholic history (see the "fundamental nature" remarks above), but I fear I would get shouted down. Let's just say it takes on an importance separable, and probably separate and distinct from the body of all other Catholic history. It deserves its own section, since it is tangled up in issues revolving around the constitution, legitimacy and esp. authority of the RCC. In fact, I think the section is a touch too vague as it stands, but I readily and publicly acknowledge that clarifying it would almost certainly touch off interminable POV wars... That only leaves the question, why is the Mission info lumped together with the Origin? I seem to recall that Nancy said in an earlier FAC or in comments somewhere—and please do forgive me if I am wrong; my memory truly does suck—that there just didn't seem to be a better place to hang it. I would submit/suggest that there is more fundamental reason why these two threads of thought are directly and explicitly linked: I suggest that they are two of the three points of the "fundamental nature" and the implicit identity of the Catholic church. On this view, the Catholic church, then, in an extremely oversimplified nutshell, is three things: first, it is the direct and unbroken and legitimate Christian offshoot of Jesus and the original Apostles, esp. Peter. This speaks directly to the legitimacy of its authority! Second, it exists to administer communion and do other religious stuff (sorry for the informality). Third, it exists to do social service and other good works.... Do you see the point I'm making? The "Origin and Missions" section speaks to the question, "What is the Catholic church?" OTOH, the History section really speaks to the question, "What has the RCC done?" There is one sentence in the opening paragraph of the History section that recaps the link back to Pentecost, but surely this is a necessary textual cohesive device... :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• On these issues, I haven't commented previously on "Origins and Mission" but I think it is fine as it is. I sort of see what Ling Nut is saying, though not entirely, but Mission is too short for a separate section, and I really don't think "Origin" needs more space than it has in an article like this. I'm not aware of any duplication, and the section is nicely balanced, and positioned correctly as far as I am concerned. I have previously said I thought there was too much on the English Reformation, but Nancy has almost persuaded me otherwise. One can argue for ever about the space to be allotted to this and that in an article of this scope, but although there are many wrong answers, there are no right ones. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I very much appreciate Lingnut and Johnbod's vote of agreement with my presentation here. NancyHeise (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I raised the question of whether Vidmar’s book is reliable. Here is a summary of what has been stated:

• Vidmar is a professor of theology, not history

Untrue statement - please see here [42] and highly reference wikipedia page at John Vidmar NancyHeise (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

From the Providence College website, "Rev. John C. Vidmar, O.P., associate professor of theology at Providence College..." --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Publisher is not a neutral university publisher, but a missionary organisation.

Paulist Press is not owned or overseen by the Catholic Church, please see this example of one of the many books on Jewish spirituality that they also publish in their series called "Classics in Western Spirituality". [43] NancyHeise (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

From the Paulist Press website, "The Paulist Press is a major component of the work of the Paulist Fathers, a society of missionary priests founded for and by Americans in 1858..." --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Serious gross errors are found in the book as mentioned previously. I won’t repeat these again, but they are true errors. And in answer to those who would like to only address each point in the article that is cited to Vidmar, I say again, unless one digs into the finer details of each point, any disputes that may exist remain hidden until some expert comes along and raises a red flag.

Completely untrue statement that is not backed up by an scholarly source saying the same. NancyHeise (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Other than Bokenkotter’s review of Vidmar’s book in Catholic Historical Review, reviews from academic journals are non-existent according to Ling.Nut. I have read the Bokenkotter’s review and what Ling.Nut had mentioned and quoted from it is correct.

Catholic Historical Review is an academic journal published since 1915. Bokenkotter's review recommends it to readers at the end of the review and never states there are any factual inaccuracies as you have alleged. NancyHeise (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• About 20% of the citations in the History section are to Vidmar’s book.

Only seven citations of uncontested fact are singly cited to Vidmar all others are duplicates to other sources - (this is evidenced in article text and by Ealdgyth's comments on main article talk page under subsection entitled "Vidmar")NancyHeise (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I opposed because I believe 1c is not satisfied. Is this oppose vote actionable? Yes, simply by replacing Vidmar. One could go with the books by Edward Norman, John McManners, and Eamon Duffy as they are already used in the article anyway. Other possible books include Owen Chadwick’s A History of Christianity or the multi-volume The Cambridge History of Christianity.

By the way, what I am saying here about using the best sources is nothing really new. Others such as Ealdgyth, our illustrious source-checker, has been saying this as most nominators on FAC already know. Also, in a previous candidacy of this article, the importance of high quality sources was noted by Awadewit. This FAC is not being treated differently to other FACs. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't !voted yet, but will Support if RelHistBuff's concerns about using premier academic sources are addressed... There are other shortcomings. The prose runs a little rat-a-tat-tat for my liking. It would be nice to get a prose and WP:MOS gun in here.. Willow, maybe...? The text about the Crusades zoomed past a little too quickly: how many were there, from when to when, which were the most destructive, etc.? There may be issues that are somewhat more modern that have been left undiscussed, or some issues may rec'v marginally more focus than is warranted. These issues may exist, but their particular instantiation in this article does not seem to be a deal breaker. They seem to be relatively minor in nature, and can be worked out. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, you don't want to get into those Crusade issues here! In any case, the Church had a big role in starting the 1st, but very little influence once even that one got East, and thereafter. Johnbod (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I can live with that. But the sources still need a bit of a boost. Ling.Nut (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Responding to LingNut - Crusades are treated like everything else in the history section - brief summary (more extensive for Crusades, inquisitions, Reformation etc ) plus wikilinks throughout to direct reader to where he can learn more detail. Right now Crusades is wikilinked to a very good Wikipedia article that answers all your questions posted above. NancyHeise (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to RelHistBuf by nominator - one of Wikipedia's big MoS guns already went through the aritcle just two days ago - Malleus Fatuarum (talk · contribs). RelHistBuf states that my sources are not top. All of my sources meet WP:RS and WP:Reliable_source_examples criteria for top sources. They are written by university professors and peer reviewed and most of the ones used most often in the history text are published by highly respected university professors whose names are linked to their Wikipedia pages which means they are notable. A substantial number of the ones used most often are published by University presses. I am not understanding what criteria is not being met here. The reviewers have stated that there are 50,000 books out there on the history of the Catholic Church and that I have not used the top sources. Where in Wikipedia do we have guidance to what those top sources are except in WP:RS and WP:Reliable_source_examples? If my reviewers are judging my sources by unwritten rules - and they are - then I suggest that the rules be rewritten. However, at this momment, I have satisfied the written criteria for sources used in an FA and I should be judged by the written rules, not someone's unwritten criteria that has not been given the chance to be judged by the Wikipedia community. Please note that there is no contention about any source except in the history section and all contention has to do with use of the book by John Vidmar. RelHistBuf states there are inaccuracies in John Vidmar's book but no book review says the same - RelHistBuf makes inaccurate statements (like Vidmar is not a professor of history) and takes Vidmar's peer reviewed work(by Thomas Bokenkotter in Catholic Historical Review as well as googlebooks and Graduate Theological Union, Berkley) out of context to make his point - I provided the full text of Vidmar's quotes to prove this point on the talk page of this FAC. John Vidmar's highly referenced Wikipedia page provides evidence that he has long been a respected professor of Catholic Church history both in the Church and secular sectors. He is considered so much of an expert on the subject of Church history that he is regularly employed by the Smithsonian Institute in Washington DC to teach the subject. Ealdgyth admitted that it met the criteria (on her talk page) and provided a list of comments for use of the book on the main article talk page. If a book meets WP:RS and WP:Reliable_source_examples criteria, and there are only good book reviews for it, I don't understand why it can not be used in the article. I think RelHistBuf should be required to prove that a book does not meet criteria (by providing a bad review) if he is going to require me to change the book. The last FAC specifically asked us to use more Roman Catholic Church history specific books in the article. We used this book in answer to that FAC comment. Now that we have, new reviewers want us to not use it. That is inconsistent reviewing that speaks to the impossibility of making everyone happy on sources when there are 50,000 to choose from. Because this page will meet with excruciating review if it becomes FAC by both Catholic and non-Catholic reviewers we specifically used in proper balance, both apologia sources and critic sources in the article text. A summary of this was provided on this FAC page above that clearly shows the reliability and notability of the professors and their books. We can not remove Vidmar because it will leave a serious hole in the apologia sources and make the aritcle look unbalanced to future reviewers. Vidmar's book was used as a double citation in almost every instance to back up what another source was stating. Each instance of sensitive issues in the Catholic Church history like inqisitions, crusades, Reformation, WWII, has references to multiple apologia and critic sources with quotes provided in the citations specifically for the purpose of showing that the text in the article is consensus of historians from all viewpoints. John Vidmar was initially used for a total of 13 stand alone cites of uncontested facts like East West Schism in the lead, etc. That has been reduced to 7 stand alone cites of uncontested fact as Ealdgyth has agreed in her comments posted on the main article talk page under the subsection Vidmar. NancyHeise (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not make any inaccurate statements. He is a professor of theology, you even agreed with this in that it is stated on the faculty page of the Providence College website. All the bullet points that I pointed out are true statements. I really do not like wikilawyering, but I could respond and say there is nowhere in the policies that require me to present a "bad" review. The review of Vidmar's book by Bokenkotter is not a "bad" review, but it shows that it is not one of the best sources. Quotes:

• "As to readability, I would say he has certainly succeeded though it does get a little breezy at times."
• "The book, of course, includes many broad all-encompassing statements. But one expects as much in a book that covers 2000 years in 360 pages though I would quarrel with more than a few of them."
• "Let me single out a few of his judgments to which one might take exception. His treatment of Augustine, for instance, I find guilty of special pleading as he glosses over the negative features of his legacy. Then there is the way he presents Modernism as an offshoot of Liberal Catholicism, and in his treatment of the development of doctrine he mentions Mohler, Sailer, and Schlegel but curiously fails to mention Newman's great Essay on the Development of Doctrine."
• "For those who want a rapid walk down the mine-strewn road of Catholic history. Father Vidmar will prove a useful, if sometimes controversial, guide."

This does not instill confidence that the book is a "top" source. Also, it is important to remember this review is from a Catholic academic writing in Catholic Historical Review and there are no reviews from a major academic journal found in JSTOR. If there were no reviews at all, then the source is already on shaky ground. I ask again that other sources (Norman, Duffy, etc.) be used for the sake of producing a quality Wikipedia article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Vidmar is now being used to reference very basic statements in the History section, many of which would really fall under "subject-specific common knowledge" and so not need citing under WP:CITE. Examples: "Iconodules, backed by the pope and the Western Church, disagreed with this interpretation.[184] The dispute was resolved in 787..."; "A dispute over whether Constantinople or Rome held jurisdiction over the church in Sicily led to mutual excommunications in 1054. The Western (Latin) branch of Christianity has since become known as the Catholic Church, while the Eastern (Greek) branch became known as the Orthodox Church.[192]"; "Over a 350-year period, the Spanish Inquisition executed between 3,000 and 4,000 people,[212].."; "Executions of Catholics under Elizabeth I, who reigned much longer, then surpassed the Marian persecutions[251]" and so on. Many points have 2nd or third references. I think people complaining about Vidmar should give specific examples in the article refs, though I can see that someone who wrote a week ago "Monasticism is a series of personal actions like liturgical recitations (rosary) and ceremonies (bearing of palms, lighting candles, etc.)" [44] might be not be well placed to do so.Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No one, including RelHistBuf, can give specific examples in the article refs because none of the references to history and theology professor (from Sussex Academic Press here [45]) John Vidmar are contentious. No one has asserted any factual inaccuracies in the article text. Catholic Historical Review (published since 1915) is the academic journal for Church history, Bokenkotter is a respected church history professor and church historian whose own book is used as a reference in the article and has been standard fare in university classrooms (Catholic and not) for decades. He is considered a critic and Vidmar is considered an very respected apologist - both viewpoints have been represented in our article in equal measure. RelHistBuf asks me to use Duffy (critic) and Norman (apologist) to create a quality Wikipedia article and these two are already in the article as my main sources. Vidmar meets WP:RS and WP:Reliable_source_examples and fills a very important spot as one of our apologist sources. RelHistBuf is opposing based on unwritten criteria that has not been vetted by the entire Wikipedia community.NancyHeise (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a. I finally got around to reading this through again. I don't care to delve into the sourcing issue because it looks like more informed parties are tackling it, but the prose is heavy and not positioned for a general audience. It is in most places "correct" but not brilliant or compelling. In many places, I detect oddly-inserted qualifiers and phrases that may be meant to appease various reviewers but they don't flow at all. Random examples:
  • "The Catholic Church, with the backing of a number of historians, asserts that, via Apostolic Succession, it is the Christian community founded by Jesus in his act of consecrating Saint Peter." Complex and overly apologetic. One is not sure what the historians are actually doing here.

Agreed, I eliminated the historians and reworded that sentence in simpler fashion. The historians' agreement is evidenced in the references that also have quotes attached. NancyHeise (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "Catholics cite Jesus' words in the Gospel of Matthew to support this view: '... you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'" Sermonish, overly general. I've never heard a Catholic cite this.

It is part of the Church's constitution and is in every church history book - it is a major basic fact and I am very glad that our article will help to educate people in that way! I added a reference to the Church's constitution to help make this clear. It is in Chapter three, paragraph 22 of the Lumen Gentium. While you may think it is sermonish, I disagree. This Gospel statement is the foundational statement of the Catholic Church, the heart of the Origin section. To eliminate it would harm reader's ability to understand one of the most basic points of the article. NancyHeise (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "Scholars such as emeritus fellow and former dean of Peterhouse, Cambridge, 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." Why the jumble of qualifications for a linked subject? Isn't Norman a Catholic? I would seem to follow that he believes this because of his faith and not because of his scholarship.

All that jargon was added in response to a reviewer in the last FAC. I agree that it is unnecessary and I eliminated it in response to your comment. I think it is enough that Norman and Duffy are wikilinked for the reader who wants to know more about who they are. NancyHeise (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "Calling "suspiciously tidy" the first historical document to list the Roman bishops back to Saint Peter which was supplied by Irenaeus in the second century ..." I got lost after a few words.

I absolutely agree with you - too many words - I trimmed this in response to your comment. NancyHeise (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "This creed is recited at Sunday Masses and is the core statement of belief in many other Christian churches as well." What is the phrase "as well" doing?

Good comment - I eliminated the unnecessary "as well". Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Some similar statements that are seemingly at odds with each other will confound unfamiliar readers. Consider "The Nicene Creed sets out the main principles of Catholic Christian belief." and then "The central statement of Catholic faith, the Nicene Creed, begins ..."

Agreed, I changed both of these sentences to simplify and eliminate redundancy. Thanks for your great comments! However, I disagree that you need to oppose the entire article for these few items. NancyHeise (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, you'll note that I wrote "random examples" at the head of my list, meaning I provided items that are representative of my opposition. It is by no means an exhaustive list, nor is FAC the place for exhaustive lists of issues. The text has been bruised and battered - at the minimum, I think it needs a solid session with a fresh (meaning someone who has not edited the article extensively) copyeditor. My examples, and Tony's further above, will help that person target their effort. --Laser brain (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The heavier the subject, the harder it is to have brilliant prose - I have similar feelings reading most scientific FAs, let alone mathmatical ones. Then in most sports ones I'm just too bored to go on. I agree with some points above; with others I can't really see the problem. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree to some extent but this is a particularly broad topic so I think it should be as accessible as possible. It will take some work with a great copy-editor. Which of my points do you disagree with? --Laser brain (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This one has a long history with many editors, and lots of the phrasing has been the subject of intense debate, here & on the talk page (on good days). None of which helps the flow. Of your 6, I was ok with: 1, 4 & 6. 2 could perhaps keep the first sentence of the quote, with the rest in a footnote. On 3 I agree with you, though I think that is a "defensive structure" left from the Vidmar war above. 5 "and is also the core statement ... of most other..." reads better, and is more accurate. In fact nearly all major other CCs use it: " Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian, the Anglican Communion, Lutheranism, the Reformed churches, Methodism, and almost all other forms of Protestantism " - from the article. Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have answered all of Laserbrain's comments. I want to thank you, Johnbod, for helping all of us get through this FAC. Your comments are very helpful to me. NancyHeise (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Further to Laser brain's comments: the specific objections have been answered. vague carps and suggestions that "someone else" (unnamed) should do a rewrite (presumably involving a third suspension of FAC) are not valid. I would add that Laser Brain very recently supported the text of a successful FAC candidate article which included (on a quick scan) the following: Van der Eem disclosed that he had been a friend of Van der Sloot for years (contradicting his statement on the De Vries show that he had met Van der Sloot in 2007), that he expects to become a millionaire off his involvement in the Holloway case, and that he knew the person who supposedly disposed of Holloway's body—and that Van der Sloot had asked him for two thousand euros to buy the man's silence. (Excessively complicated sentence construction, poor grammar, and punctuation errors.) Plus.. Van der Sloot initially denied knowing Holloway's name, but he then told the following story, with which Deepak Kalpoe, who was present, agreed: Van der Sloot related that they drove Holloway to the California Lighthouse area of Arashi Beach because Holloway wanted to see sharks, before dropping Holloway off at her hotel around 2:00 a.m. According to Van der Sloot, Holloway fell down as she exited the car but refused Van der Sloot's help. He stated that she was then approached by a dark man in a black shirt similar to those worn by security guards as the young men drove away. (Almost unintelligible. Very poor and convoluted sentence structure. bad grammar. At times can't tell what a verb or clause is referring too at all.) Anything but "brilliant and compelling" prose. Yet far from objecting Laser brain supported this article. Xandar (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Oppose I would like to stress that this is a single-issue Oppose. I do have some unhappiness with the state of the writing, and would like to see a fresh pair of eyes and a writer of flowing prose smooth things out a bit—but those feelings are not strong enough to Oppose. If that were the only issue, I would Support. But the overuse of less-than-sterling scholars who may have POV issues is just a concern to me. I feel unhappy about Opposing. I seriously considered +S. I spent two hours this AM trying to track down an alternate source for one and only one Vidmar cite: the idea that he pope (which pope? Gregory III?) had actively supported the iconodules..but found only that he had written a couple of letters mildly supporting that stance. I dunno. I am looking for better scholarly sources. Sorry.Ling.Nut (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is odd. Online, the obviously old Catholic Encyclopedia gives lots of details at its Iconoclasm, and the linked articles on Popes Gregory II and III. The latter's council of 731 excommunicated iconoclasts,[46] provoking military retaliation by the Emperor. [47]. What justification do you have for "mildly"? Letters and concils are what Popes do, and the only evidence one would expect to survive 1200 years. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Do you have ready access to better sources? Why don't you replace the Vidmar cites with better ones? That was the point all along; the iconodules factbyte was just an example I was trying to chase down... I think the source said "moderate" not "mild", but I didn't keep it... sorry for the poor use of adjectives... Ling.Nut (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Lingnut, I have added Duffy and other sources to all of the remaining Vidmar refs (except number 267) that were alone at the end of a sentence (not a double to another ref) including the example of Iconoclasm. Those facts are really standard fare but I put quotes from Duffy and other sources so you can see that Vidmar's refs are fine. The one sentence statement about Eastern Catholic Churches in the section High Middle Ages is a basic Catholic historical fact that none of my "better scholarly sources" even talked about. This little fact that is considered "minor" to the big scholars is not minor but very important to have in our text and only John Vidmar provided this fact in a peer reviewed book. I had to use a Catholic World News online reference to double with Vidmar here - something that speaks to the superiority of the Vidmar book in certain instances. I hope you will reconsider your oppose after I have spent the time to double Vidmar's refs for you. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

<copied from User talk:Raul654, let's not fragment discussion of the FAC opposes, please; keep FAC discussion on the FAC> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Raul, I am the nominator for the Roman Catholic Church FAC. There are currently 12 votes of support from 11 very veteran and respected editors and one new - and 6 oppose. The comments left for us by the opposes have all been addressed by making changes in the text or by providing Wikipedia policy or consensus to refute. The issues that opposers wanted us to change that we did not change and why are listed below:

1. Capitalization of the word "Church" issue - opposer Andrew c asked us to lowercase all mentions of "Church" even when it was being used as a substitute for saying "Roman Catholic Church" over and over throughout the article. A poll we conducted on the RCC talk page eventually went to the MoS page where Wikipedia policy on the issue was vague. Wikipedia community was in the process of making a decision on this issue. We decided that we would change the text to reflect the community decision but would leave it alone until such decision had been made. See this comment by DanK on FAC page [48]
2. Use of the book "The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages" by John Vidmar - opposer RelHistBuff did not want us to use this book at all stating that it was not a scholarly work and that John Vidmar was not a history professor. Although much discussion ensued on this issue, the facts revealed that Mr. Vidmar is a very respected history professor who has taught church history at three different Catholic universities and the Smithsonian Institute. His book was reviewed by a fellow scholar Thomas Bokenkotter in the academic journal Catholic Historical Review. Since no one could come up with any evidence that the book was not a scholarly work, no bad reviews, no statements of errors and we had three good reviews including the scholarly Bokenkotter one, we did not eliminate use of this book since it provided us with one of our three apologist church history works that were used in equal balance with three critic sources. I performed an analysis of our sources that is documented on the FAC page that reveals how we paid special attention to use of sources by all major viewpoints to avoid being labeled pro or anti Catholic. This analysis is here [49]. Sensititve areas of Church history like Inquisitions, Crusades, Reformation, WWII, provide references to both apologist and critic sources with quotes included from each source. Eliminating Vidmar would have eliminated a very important apologist source for us. Ealdgyth did an analysis of the Vidmar citations used in the article and provided us with a minor list of comments on the article talk page - all of which we answered satisfactorily - and none of which revealed anything improper in using his book. See this documented at subsection entitled Vidmar here: [50]
3. Slavery - Relata Refero asked us to include statements in the article text that were not found in any of our scholarly sources and for which no papal bull or other substantial church document could be provided to back up his assertions. The Church did not create or institute African slavery, it was an institution long before Europeans arrived and I have this information from one of my scholarly sources by Koschorke, a documentary sourcebook. We have text in the article that states that some believe the Church did not do enough to stop it.
4. move Origin and Mission section - opposer Karanacs wants us to move Origin and Mission stating that it duplicates material elsewhere in the article. Please see the article, it is not a duplication and there is consensus of editors to keep it where it is. Complete discussion of Karanacs comments are here [51] - as of this writing, one editor has posted his an another editor's previous agreement with Karanacs on this issue and two have posted in my favor - Lingnut and Johnbod. I have noted that per Wikipedia policy WP:Silence and consensus, the significant lack of any discussion or requests by the vast majority of editors on the article through three FACs including this one and two peer reviews and months of talk page discussion proves that most editors have long been OK with the current format. Three editors does not make a consensus in this situation, even when just considering this FAC.
5. Nine comments - by opposer Tony (mainly punctuation or wording improvements) were answered by making changes to the text or in one instance providing direction to where he could find the content he desired that was already in the article text.
6. opposer SummerWithMorons did not leave any comments for us to address but only chastised us for using religious rhetoric and not using scholarly sources - opposer did not elaborate on which of our sources he considered not scholarly - please see that our sources meet WP:RS and the top qualifications as suggested by WP:Reliable_source_examples.NancyHeise (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: The above list was copied and pasted here by SandyGeorgia from Raul's talk page where I posted it to help him make sense of what was going on on this FAC page. I did so in hopes of not having to restart the nomination which I feel is not necessary. If we are going to move all talk page comments, you should know there are some on Ealdgyth's talk page too. NancyHeise (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to the mischaracterisation of my concerns, and the implication that they extend to only the point mischaracterised, as well as the further implication that they have been addressed. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Lengthy attempts have been made to address yoyur concerns, however you refused to accept any form of compromise wording or anything other than the viewpoint you expressed being the text of the article. Since that viewpoint contradicts clear facts, that was unacceptable. Xandar (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Popped in here to see how things were going (I haven't had it watchlisted) It says "all of which we answered satisfactorily" above in relation to my concerns. How do you know they were answered satisfactorily? I said both on my own talk page and on the list of comments that I wasn't looking at the article, that I wasn't involving myself further in the FAC, and that I was done with things. I don't see that part brought out. The statement above implies that I approved of whatever answers that were given, when in fact, I never checked and never told you either way. I don't know, because this reviewer frankly got tired of repeating and repeating herself, and wanted to spend her limited wikitime on more fruitful endeavors. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, you went through every single one of the Vidmar quotes on the RCC talk page here Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church/Archive 16#Vidmar. You stated that you could find no significant errors, and made some generally minor comments on each quotation, every single one of which was addressed by various contributors. I don't see ANY evidence of things being "repeated and repeated". If you never checked, perhaps you should do so now. A lot of people have put a lot of work into this article. Xandar (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I went over to the article and checked on what got replied to. I take exception to one statement that I told you was wrong and backed up with a source. It's about Innocent III starting the papal inquisition. I used Lambert's Medieval Heresy as a source for this, and here is the reply:

(Ealdgyth comment)"Abuses committed by the crusaders caused Innocent III to institute the first inquisition to prevent future abuses and to root out the remaining Cathars." Hm. I don't think that it was abuses that really concerned Innocent here. And this is a great oversimplification, there were bishops' inquisitions, and it was really Gregory IX who got the real papal inquisition started. Malcolm Lambert Medieval Heresy Third Edition p. 108-109. There were some precursors under Innocent III, as he wished the bishops to increase their episcopal inquistions, (Lambert p. 106-107) but the papal inquistion didn't really start until Gregory IX.

(NH reply) You are incorrect. I added a reference to Bokenkotter with quote to supplement this sentence in addition to providing the quote from Vidmar. Please see these quotes as they specifically state that Pope Innocent III began the Inquisition which was later institutionalized by Gregory IX. I think my sources are more expert and more correct than Lambert on this issue. NancyHeise (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice what the quote from Vidmar says "The Albigensian Crusade, as it became known, lasted until 1219. The pope, Innocent III, was a lawyer and saw both how easily the crusade had gotten out of hand and how it could be mitigated. He encouraged local rulers to adopt anti-heretic legislation and bring people to trial. By 1231 a papal inquisition began, and the friars were given charge of investigating tribunals." Please note that Innocent died in 1216. He couldn't possibly have started a papal inquisition in 1231. The backup source for this was given also and it's quotation says "A crusade was proclaimed against these Albigenses, as they were sometimes called ... It was in connection with this crusade that the papal system of Inquisition originated-a special tribunal appointed by the Popes and charged with ferreting out heretics. ... In 1233 Gregory IX organized this ad hoc body into a system of permanent inquisitors, who were usually chosen from among the mendicant friars, Dominicans and Franciscans, men who were often marked by a high degree of courage, integrity, prudence, and zeal." The origins lie with efforts by Innocent III, the institution as a permanent body is Gregory. Much more nuance than is in the statement given in the article. That's the one big glaring thing that struck me in a quick look. I won't say I agree with a lot of the way my comments were taken, but it's not worth fighting about. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I just added the full quote from Bokenkotter that supports the article text. Maybe your source did not call it an inquisition when it was initiated by Innocent III but that is what it was even if it was not a formal system. I think you are splitting hairs here. Also, I do not understand where all your expressions of exasperation with this article are coming from. I am the one who is exasperated with dealing with reviewers who aren't judgeing the article according to written Wikipedia policy! Have a bit more patience with us and we'll try to do the same! Peace! NancyHeise (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Checking the sources, this seems to have boiled down to a matter of development. The process began under Innocent. but officially the organized inquisition did not start until 1231, so I have altered the passage to reflect this. Hopefully everyone can agree on that. Xandar (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, WP:Silence and consensus is not a policy. It's not even a guideline - it's an essay someone wrote. Additionally, I believe you are misrepresenting some of the opposition. Tony and I left comments that are examples of problems with the prose. Fixing the examples does not mean you have addressed the opposition. I won't speak for Tony, but I am still not happy with the prose even though you fixed my examples. I've noted that the tendency here has been to put patches on the dam as reviewers poke holes in it, but this thing is springing more leaks all the time. I continue to request that you get a good, uninvolved copy-editor to spend some time smoothing this over, and my opposition remains. --Laser brain (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired, that's all. Other sources would say (and did say, as I pointed out on the talk page, where I gave a ref that says that the Inquisition started under Gregory) which was dismissed. That source, Google books here, is published by a well respected scholarly press, is writen by a scholar of heresy and heretics in the Middle Ages, but it was dismissed as "incorrect". It might be splitting hairs, but the scholarly opinion at the very least is divided on the issue of when exactly the Inquistion started (whether formally with Gregory, or with the informal steps taken by Innocent.) The article, as it stands, takes a stand one way without accepting the nuances of scholarly opinion. That's why relying on only one or two books for the history section is not good. It skews the viewpoint. But, as I said before, technically, you're in the right. Please understand that I just want the article to be as good as it can possibly be, that's all. It's not a fight to insert some POV or something like that, all *I* want as a reviewer is to help improve the article. If you want to leave the statements as they are, you certainly can. You might get more fights later about it not including other scholarly viewpoints, but if you feel that strongly that other scholars are wrong, it's not worth the fight to me. I freely admit the sourcing on the article has improved by leaps and bounds since the first review. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I dont think scholarly opinion is divided over this, the inquisitors are well known for keeping very good records and the facts are the facts and those are that Innocent got things going but Gregory formalized the system. I did a quick googline and found an online source [52] that states that Innocent III informally established this inquisition which was then formalized by later popes - that is what Vidmar and Bokenkotter have stated as well. Perhaps adding the word "informally" will make everyone happy? I am adding that now. NancyHeise (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Laserbrain, per WP:CONS, which is a Wikipedia policy, not an essay someone wrote: "In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, unless convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted." WP:Silence and consensus is the wikilink within this official policy. I think it is more than just an essay, if not, it should be removed as a wikilink from the official policy page. NancyHeise (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

All protocol was followed before bringing this article to FAC including posting a request on the League of Copy Editor's page. Several editors have visited the page doing exactly what you have asked here - their comments were addressed as well as yours. If you don't have specific examples to give to support continued oppose, that makes your oppose invalid.NancyHeise (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Note from Nominator regarding use of Vidmar book in text Without providing any evidence of factual inaccuracies in the article text, several editors here (Lingnut, RelHistBuf, Ealdgyth, Karanacs) have expressed disapproval of my use of the John Vidmar book The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages published by Paulist Press calling it an inferior source (even though it meets WP:RS) and (again without evidence) possibly POV. I have just gone through the article and added double refs to the 7 remaining citations where Vidmar was used alone. He is now completely a source that is used only as a double reference except for ref number 267. I could have easily eliminated use of his book and used these other sources by themselves but I have a valid reason for keeping Vidmar that you may not have considered. To help you understand this valid reason, I am going to quote for you something from Edward Norman's book The Roman Catholic Church, an illustrated history published by University of California Press, page 92 quote: "Attitudes to the Reformation in later centuries tended to be influenced by the propaganda put out in England at the time, for England became the leading Protestant state and the national enemy of Spain - which was the most powerful of the European countries in the sixteenth century, seat of a great empire and of the 'Most Catholic' sovereigns, the secular bulwark of the Catholic Church. Protestantism in England developed an interpretation of Spanish Catholicism that over time became the customary way in which the English-speaking world evaluated the Catholic Church. Popular anti-Catholic sentiment became an essential ingredient in English national identity and, at times, a useful political cohesive. It was a tradition of thinking which not surprisingly chose to ignore the existence within Spanish Catholicism of an influential reformist movement. ....English opinion about Spanish practice in the Counter Reformation, however, was fashioned in ignorance of its reform tradition. English popular anti-papal sentiment, which endured to the end of the nineteenth century, and beyond, was dependent on what it represented as the horrible crimes of the priests." Any English Wikipedia article on a Roman Catholic Church subject is going to be suspect if it does not include a Catholic historian point of view on sensitive subjects to reflect FAC criteria "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations". As the nominator and one of the main editors of the page, I am unwilling to defend the article in the general Wikipedia population if it does not have this important factor. While I have made serious concessions to the wishes of my opposing reviewers, I am not willing to conceed on this point for this reason. I am hoping that by doubling all Vidmar refs, you will now all be OK with this and try to see it from my point of view. I am the one who is going to have to defend the article against the sometimes unpleasant ultra Catholics who want me to eliminate the things that unpleasant ultra non Catholics want me to expand upon (and vice versa). NancyHeise (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Note from Nominator regarding prose objections by Tony and Laserbrain

Tony and Laserbrain provided our FAC with very good comments regarding prose improvements. I answered all of their comments in good faith and they have provided no new comments with specifics for us to answer. Laserbrain has suggested that the article needs further prose improvement and has let stand his oppose based on this suggestion. I want the FAC director to know that this article, since the last FAC was peer-reviewed (for the second time) and a request for review from the League of copy editors was (and still is) posted for many weeks before FAC. Several nice reviewers came to the page and made edits without commenting on the LOCE tag to correct any prose or other problems. In addition, I have followed each bit of advice provided by Tony's "How to Satisfy Criterion 1a" [53]. I have copied and pasted this advice from Tony's page: "Although most criteria for good writing in English are widely accepted, advocates may differ on particular technical and stylistic matters. Please take this into account here: some of our advice and suggested solutions may be debatable." What constitutes "brilliance" in prose is something about which reasonable people can disagree. Some prefer use of words that the average person would need a dictionary nearby in order to read the article. Others, like myself, prefer a simpler language that the average person can understand. Wikipedia requires us to use a name for the article that is something the common man would be able to find even if that name is the incorrect title WP:NC. This fact alone makes clear that this encyclopedia is meant to be read by the common man, not journalistic editors and English professors. As such, our prose is simple and concise, meant for the average person who will be able to read it and understand it without needing to reach for the dictionary at every other sentence. A FAC reviewer in the last FAC made this point in her comments. I took these comments to heart because I felt they made a lot of sense and the article was improved in many ways to meet that FAC reviewers suggestions. NancyHeise (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, strongly support Nancy on this. FAC is for specific objections to be addressed, not general "I don't like the style of the text," objections, especially when the objctor refuses to specify precise objections, or says that "someone else" (unnamed) should come in and rewrite the article! The personal preference of the objector on style is not a valid matter. I could go through the FAs today and raise numerous objections on style or "brilliant prose" criteria. I quoted an FA article, above, supported by Laser Brain for prose style, which is certainly no example to this one. If laserbrain refuses to provide addressable specific prose objections, now his earlier ones have been addressed, his objection is not valid. Xandar (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I was caught short already at the start of the second paragraph: "The primary mission of the Catholic Church is to spread the message of Jesus Christ, found in the four Gospels, and to administer sacraments that aid the spiritual growth of its members." The footnote supporting this claim is to a book called One Faith, One Lord. I would a) like a better source; how does the Vatican itself define its mission? and b) some indication that this is the church's own view of its mission. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• WP:RS exhorts editors to use "reliable, third-party, published sources". In what sense would you consider the Vatican to be a third-party source? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)"Third-party" in this context is something of a WP term of art; if you follow the link it appears to mean something more like "third-hand" in normal terms. I think it can be allowed that the Vatican is an RS as to its own professed intentions. Perhaps, Nancy, the source has a Nihil obstat? If Jbmurray will click on the Catechism link a couple below the one he mentions, he will find relevant passages, and will also perhaps copme understand better the difficulties editors here face in expressing the church's position succinctly. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

  Per Johnbod as to the reliability of the organization regarding its own professed intentions. I'm not sure about the subsequent comment about the Catechism; I clicked on the link (though don't see why I should have to), and wasn't much helped. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Still in the lead, the following sentence: "the Church acknowledges that the Holy Spirit can make use of Christian communities separated from itself to bring people to salvation, and that Catholics are called by the Holy Spirit to work for unity among all Christians, a movement called ecumenism." Not only are there problems of style and grammar ("communities separated from itself"), this sentence also seems to give credence to the existence of the Holy Spirit, and to take for granted that salvation is a fact. And this is in a sentence that, one can tell, is striving towards neutrality. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

what do you want the article to say? Should it say "The alleged Holy Spirit", whenever that entity is mentioned? And how about when we mention Jesus - some people doubt he exists too - "the alleged god-man" called Jesus? The same goes for salvation - people generally know what the concept signifies without the very mention of the concept forcing belief. Every time salvation is mentioned you can't add "the alleged concept by which believers are freed from the penalties and punishments due from the alleged Christian God due to their breaches of that alleged beings alleged rules for life, claimed to be written in the alleged... etc" We can't redefine every concept in every sentence. They are all explained in the text anyhow. Xandar (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather than becoming, frankly, somewhat histrionic... you might consider that the problem with "the Church acknowledges that the Holy Spirit" could be with the verb, rather than the noun. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Further on... "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." The reference is to an "illustrated history," which I would doubt is particularly scholarly. Moreover, I doubt there are many "scholars such as Edward Norman" as, judging from our page on him, he's a part-time academic associated with the most extreme elements of the Thatcherite right. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong; just that he hardly is representative of the broader scholarly consensus, which is what the sentence at present misleadingly suggests. I recognize that the following sentence or two intends to balance this opinion; but even so. I can't believe that many scholars seriously suggest that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. If I may make a perhaps controversial comparison, it's like trying to present a balance between a fundamentalist creationist and a scientific evolutionist, as though both had their points of view in an ongoing debate. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A silly characterisation, as his list of works show. Like many distinguished academics getting on in years, he now has several strings to his bow. "I can't believe" is not a great basis for opposition; there have been, and are, very many Catholic scholars on the subject, and this is a fundamental Catholic belief. Whether, without allowing for divine omniscience, Jesus would have been aware of, or intended, all further development of the Catholic Church is of course a rather different matter. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. Not "silly" at all, judging again from Edward Norman. He's described first and foremost as "Canon Chancellor of York Minster." And though there's a quotation suggesting his repudiation of Thatcherism, he's both a member of the Peterhouse group and a writer for the Salisbury Review. You may not like "I can't believe" as a basis for comment; I'd rather a more reliable source here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea what the "Canon Chancellor of York Minster" does, but I doubt if it takes more than a few days a year, if that. What he was doing in York was being Professor of History at York University. "he's both a member of the Peterhouse group and a writer for the Salisbury Review" - shock-horror! Actually no, he's a member of the Peterhouse school of history, not the Peterhouse group, which normally denotes the Tory politicians who were taught by them. The idea that writing for a particular journal disqualifies a professional historian's views from consideration really is silly. Bang go Antony Flew, Enoch Powell, Margaret Thatcher, Václav Havel, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Norman Stone, Michael J. Rutherford and Stuart Millson.

(from their article. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This comment I simply don't understand, and continuing to call what I'm saying "silly" doesn't much help. I was merely pointing out that Norman is hardly a representative academic. It's a poor source, and frames a false debate. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Representative? No, he is clearly much better than that. You may not approve of his political views, but he is a distinguished historian with a shelf-full of academic works. Even from the WP article, to characterise him as "part-time"is clearly completely wrong, and no justification has been broughrt forward as to why he might be a false source. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Looking through what follows, I see a clear pattern of continuing problems with what Wikipedia terms POV. Even once we've got past the doctrinal issues (and the very fact of putting doctrine first is symptomatic), the historical section begins "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." The problem is that the article portrays the Church the way in which the Church itself does. There has clearly been much effort to take distance from this self-portrayal by repeatedly inserting phrases such as "the Church believes" and "according to the Church," but all this does is the equivalent of putting the entire article within quotation marks.

  Change to strong oppose for the ways in which my comments have been taken, even though they attempted to be as respectful and positive as possible (see immediately below, re. "honestly salut[ing] the efforts" made by the article editors). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• I honestly salute the efforts that have been made by this article's editors, both in writing the article and in bringing it through these extended FAC processes. They have obviously bent over backwards in an effort to ensure that the article is brought up to scratch, and theirs has clearly been a labour of love. But unfortunately, that's precisely the problem.
• I do idly wonder what would happen were a group of committed Catholics to attempt to bring (say) Baptist or Judaism up to FA standard, and ask the Baptists and the Jews to get to work on Roman Catholic Church. It could be a disaster, but who knows, the results could be excellent. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• The article is entirely consistent with the way WP, like indeed other encyclopedias, tackles other large subjects that attract lots of controversy - look at United States, or George W. Bush. Why should doctrine not go first? I suspect to put anything else first would be POV. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

  I'm looking at RCC; I'm not sure why I should be sent to United States, heaven help me! I was idly wondering as I was reading how other encyclopedias cover the Church. I'd be prepared to bet that it's not like this. As for the structure: putting doctrine before history is no less POV than than the other way around, and for my money is (to use a word I otherwise dislike, but you've implicitly brought it up) much less encyclopedic. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

  I think I understand where you're coming from when you say "doctrine first is symptomatic", because I considered mentioning it: Britannica's article on the Catholic Church has the history first. Either order subtly affects how material is presented and reflects to some degree a philosophical POV, so rearranging is not as simple as a cut-and-paste. Further, the three current FAs about religions, Islam, Sikhism and Bahá'í Faith, all lead with doctrines and teaching, so there is ample precedent. (Even Atheism does the same.) And the Islam and Bahá'í articles articles are rather full of "Muslims believe that" and "Bahá'í teachings state" phrases, and Sikhism frequently says what "Nanak described". Gimmetrow 02:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

  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. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note on the sacraments: there is some jargon that may not make sense to general readers. Specifically, the notion of "valid" and "licit" is not introduced before it is used. At least link to something like [54] Gimmetrow 02:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, I made this change in the text. Thanks for pointing this out. NancyHeise (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

jbmurray's oppose seems to be based on his POV about the way in which he thinks the Catholic Church should be portrayed. However, apart from suggesting a new rule that articles on faiths (and presumably history and science topics) should be written by people from other faiths (or fields of knowledge) there is no substance to any of the comments. The opposer may not believe that the Church considers its origin to be the emergence of the Apostles at Pentecost, but this belief is an important fact whether jbmurray likes it or not. If what he wants is something from a conspiracy-theory website, that the church actually ate all of Jesus's original followers, re-wrote history, and all the proof of this is hidden in the vatican vaults, then this is the wrong place to begin such an argument. Equally "I can't believe Jesus founded the Catholic Church" is not a valid objection. It's not even as if the article states this as a fact, but a belief. So the basis of this objection escapes me. I think it is generally accepted that Jesus founded a Church,a nd that the catholic Church believes (with some evidence, certainly a lot more than say, the 7th Church of Pensacola) that it is this original Church. This needs to be in the article. In fact the fact of this belief is an uncontentious point in any serious coverage of the issue. This nominatuion is now officially the longest one on the list, and still we are seeing people chip in with new and sometimes irrelevant "objections". Xandar (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• My comments (like, I suppose, everyone else's) are indeed based on my view as to how I think the Church should be portrayed.
• I did not suggest any such "rule."
• I was seeking precisely to distinguish between the church's own views and those of scholars; I have nothing against the Church's views being represented, and indeed encouraged them to be so.
• There is nothing irrelevant about my objections. I object to the way in which you've (not) addressed them. In combination with Johnbod's repeatedly calling my comments "silly," I'm frankly rather shocked at your treatment of a good faith review. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your objections (now changed to strong objections,) seem to be based on a personal viewpoint, which, as you put it, is that the Church is presented "as it sees itself". This is largely unexplained, but seems to be that the article starts (like all religious organisation articles) from the premise that the church actually believes what it declares itself to believe and that its basic history is that accepted by the consensus of theologians and historians down the years. You may have theories that all of this is false, but that does not signify without more of a concrete nature. You say you want "scholars" views on the Church included. Which scholars? What views? And with what weight? And every time a theological concept like salvation is mentioned, you seem to want it hedged about with re-definitions and statements that this is not a scientifically-proven concept, but that would make any faith article impracticable in any terms. Try applying your objections to Britannica for example. Just changing your oppose to "strong" doesn't make it any more valid.Xandar (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be easier for all of us, I submit, if you took more time to read rather than to expostulate about my comments. My objections, I freely admit, are based on my personal viewpoint--I have no other. You may choose to read into them what you wish, but doing so means that you miss what they actually say. Inter alia, I have no problem at all that the church should believe what it declares itself to believe (though things are of course more complicated than this; still, complication seems not to be your forte). I do object to the way in which you've treated these good faith comments. However, I continue to salute the article's editors for their efforts on what is a complex and difficult topic. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I and others can do no more than read what you post as your objections. That is what I, and others, have responded to. If you have another meaning that is not being picked up by other readers here, it could be because you have not expressed yourself with sufficient clarity. In other words what precise change to the article would answer your objection. You say you don't like certain sentences. What comparable sentence would meet with your approval? You say views of scholars on the Church should be included, but fail to say what scholars. Not helpful to those of us without mind-reading power. Xandar (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No mind reading is necessary; simply, reading. To take just one example, let me copy and paste my first comment:

• I was caught short already at the start of the second paragraph: "The primary mission of the Catholic Church is to spread the message of Jesus Christ, found in the four Gospels, and to administer sacraments that aid the spiritual growth of its members." The footnote supporting this claim is to a book called One Faith, One Lord. I would a) like a better source; how does the Vatican itself define its mission? and b) some indication that this is the church's own view of its mission.

Note that what I posted suggested not that "views of scholars on the Church should be included" but that the Church's statements on the issue be directly quoted. If you want a "comparable sentence," it might start something along these lines: "The Church declares that its mission is..." or "The Church defines its mission as..." or whatever. I can't complete the sentence, because (as I say) it depends upon coming up with a better source.

Anyhow, I'm not going through my comments again in the same detail. Nor indeed, do I much feel like adding any more, given that those that I have already made have been treated with such disdain. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If you had read through this FAC and possibly also the No 2 FAC, you would have seen lengthy discussions in which it was insisted by some that simply posting the Church's own declarations of what it believed was not enough. Some people have insisted that this material should be from third party sources. In order to compromise with this objection, third party sources were introduced - such as the one you quote. Nancy alluded to this issue tangentially in her response to you. But you can't win on this one. Citations to the Vatican are objected to by some, third party cites by others. Your suggestion on rewording is not objectionable, and I have changed this, however there is also a direct quote to Pope Benedict on this topic in the Origin and Missions section. As for further isuues you may have, if you won't state them specifically, they cannot be addressed. If they are important issues, you should be able to spell them out. If not.... Xandar (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as Mr Vidmar is concerned, I think he's been done to death now as an objection reason. Ealdgyth has been through every single Vidmar attestation in the article for accuracy. No one has come up with any of the facts cited to Vidmar which are false or dubious. Every single Vidmar cite but one is double-referenced, for additional security. There can no longer by any genuine causes for any objection to the cites from professor Vidmar's church history. Xandar (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Note to whoever is still reading this: POV consists also in the choice of "facts" presented. That is where Vidmar is particularly problematic. An article with its largest section structured around one of the Vidmars of the world should simply never be of featured quality. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the history section was not structured around Professor Vidmar. It was there in bulk long before he was used. I don't think he was even on the reference list at the first FAC, and certainly not before. We were told at that (seemingly so long ago) FAC that we needed more books specifically about the History of the Catholic Church as references, and so Vidmar's History of the Catholic church was used as one such book, generally for uncontentious citations of fact. Saying an article quoting such a book can "never be of featured quality," (as usual not citing one error,) is just incredible. Xandar (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Vidmar was not used in first or second FAC, we were asked by FAC reviewers in last FAC to use more Roman Catholic Church specific sources for history section and this book was used - no one had a problem with it in peer review and the only guidance we were given by last FAC reviewers were the published Wikipedia policies that suggest peer reviewed books written by university professors, especially notable ones like John Vidmar! NancyHeise (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to Jbmurray strong oppose from nominator

Wow - I wake up to a whole book of new comments on the FAC page! If I didn't enjoy editing Wikipedia, I would turn the computer off right now and go read the newspaper! Let me make a list of what the comments above encompass and see if I can't address each one as a bullet point. Per opposer Jbmurray:

1. Doesn't like Church's mission being sourced to One Faith, but wants it linked to a Vatican source.

   I added a ref to the Church's constitution, Lumen Gentium, as posted on the official Vatican website.

2. Asks if my beliefs sources have nihil obstat

That specific question was me - he wanted confirmation the statements represented the Church's view. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes - they have Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur declarations which mean that the Catholic Church has declared them to be free of doctrinal or moral error (it does not mean that the Church published them) What this means for us, the editors, is that we can use these sources and be confident that they correctly describe what the Catholic Church believes and teaches and do not invent something else. All doctrinal sections of the article are referenced to both third party sources and self published sources. We did this in response to Karanacs comments quite a long time ago - maybe even in the first FAC. She wanted to see that scholars said it and that it was also what the Church said about itself. The three main third party sources are

   • Dr. Peter Kreeft (2001). Catholic Christianity. Ignatius Press. ISBN 0-89870-798-6. - Kreeft is a professor of Philosophy at Boston College.
   • Dr. Alan Schreck (1999). The Essential Catholic Catechism. Servant Publications. ISBN 0569551286. - Schreck is a professor of theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville.
   • Rev. Msgr. John F. Barry, (2001). One Faith, One Lord: A Study of Basic Catholic Belief. Gerard F. Baumbach, Ed.D. ISBN 0-8215-2207-8. - Msgr Barry is one of the top consultants with Sadlier, the company used by the Catholic Church in the United States to create all of the textbooks used in religious education classrooms. One Faith, One Lord is the textbook used by the Church for teaching religious education to young adult converts to the Church who are going through RCIA (the educational program converts go through to become a member of the Catholic Church).
2. Thinks that the article is invalid because it is written by Catholics.

   If Catholics were not allowed to write an aritcle about Catholic subjects, I would tend to think that Wikipedia would have no articles on Catholic subjects. I do not know of any Wikipedia policy to support your view on this and I think it is an invalid point for this FAC.

   Sigh. I very explicitly did not say this. Again, please, please, please read what reviewers actually write. My oppose stands. The fact that you (and your fellow editors) choose to disdain or misinterpret what I'm saying, notwithstanding. This will be my last comment on this FAC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

3. doesnt like the use of "Christian communities separated from itself", "acknowledges the Holy Spirit" or "salvation" used in the lead because it is stating a belief as something factual and this is unencyclopedic.

   The sentence in question is this: "Although the Catholic Church believes that it is the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church"[24] founded by Jesus, the Church acknowledges that the Holy Spirit can make use of Christian communities separated from itself to bring people to salvation, and that Catholics are called by the Holy Spirit to work for unity among all Christians, a movement called ecumenism.[25][26]" Clearly, the sentence begins with the words "the Catholic Church believes" and the lead is a summary about the Catholic Church so ... I think it is clearly an OK sentence.

4. Thinks that the Edward Norman book is not scholarly and should not be used

   This is the Norman book you dont want me to use:

   • Edward Norman (2007). The Roman Catholic Church, An Illustrated History. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-25251-6. Per WP:RS and WP:Reliable source examples, this book meets the top qualifications of an acceptable source. There are scholars who believe that Jesus founded the Catholic Church, not just in today's time, but for many centuries before us, this fact is referenced to our National Geographic Society book that is the compiled work of over 12 top history professors. It would be unencyclopedic of us to exclude this fact just because some people dont like it or have never heard of it. We also have included the viewpoint of others who think differently as Wikipedia NPOV rules require.
5. Thinks that the organization is evidence of POV and that history section should be presented first

   I structured this article after the FA Islam. As Gimmetrow has pointed out, there is ample precedent on Wikipedia for the present format so it can not be assumed that we are being POV (remember the good faith rule!).

6. Wants us to distinguish between the Church's own views and those of scholars

   That is exactly what Karanacs asked us to do when she asked us to use references to both self published sources and third party sources and that is exactly what we have done throughout.

NancyHeise (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just spent a couple of hours going through the article making some prose improvements and doing a bit of smoothing. I did find a few areas that seemed a bit rough and corrected these. I would like to ask those opposers, Laserbrain and Tony to please make a pass at the article to try to find anything that they think is at odds with their standards. NancyHeise (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I have stricken my Oppose. I still feel a faint sense of disquiet with respect to this article, but even more disquiet with respect to the weariness and seemingly intractable positions of the various participants. I am unhappy at what appear to be discordant vibes being tossed back and forth between nominators and reviewers. I am not finger-pointing; I assign no individual blame. I think everyone is weary. Pass or fail, the concerns of the Reviewers were expressed in Good faith. Ditto for the responses of the nominators. I think we all need to walk away from this and clear our heads. I will be happy with a Pass, but also happy with a Fail—if and only if it immediately precedes collegial, productive improvement of the article. Enough is too much; we need a break. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Restarted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)