Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive5

See also: Wikipedia:FAC/Roman Catholic Church/summary5 and User:Marskell/RCC

Wow, I cant believe this is STILL going!

The amount of laughable conflict going on at this FAC is unacceptable. Clearly, it is being made almost impossible for this article to be promoted. Applauds to NancyHeise and his constant running efforts to answer concerns, but I feel it will all become a possibly wasted effort. The article is clearly good enough, and it certainly meets all the criteria.Again, people arguing false points is just messing up the page. I also see some efforts have been made to move some discussions around, which is also good but to little avail. I would like to point out and remind people that FAC's do pass even if there are opposes given towards such; I myself have opposed many articles on grounds of good criteria but it still got promoted. I would hate to see this worthy article fail even once just because some users have beef with the Catholic Church. As a Catholic myself, I understand that some people take negatively towards the church because of issues with power, dominance, belief and other social (problems?). I hate to say it once again, but this is a large factor behind this FAC. I'm seeing people pull out the most random points so they have something to argue with against this article, yet even when it is proven wrong and resolved, new and more ridiculous points arouse. This needs to stop. As other users have said as well, this is one of the best articles on WP. I'm yet to see any article as comprehensive and well-written and sourced as this one. Since it passes all the criteria, I don't see why the FAC is being trailed so users can keep arguing insufficient points. Domiy (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Domiy, I expect the controversy directed at RCC. I don't mind it and I trust that the article will receive fair treatment from the FA director. If it meets criteria, I believe it will be promoted otherwise I would not have spent my time improving it. Many people, even several who are not Catholic, have worked together to improve the article. It has become a very ecumenical endeavor, not always unenjoyable. Be positive! NancyHeise ^talk 01:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Jumbled declarations

The Oppose declarations in the FAC have become rather jumbled, with interrupted discussions, missing sigs, and some interspersed addressed issues. Restarting, as done in the past, has proven to be difficult to Opposers, as it causes them to retype everything, so I'm going to pull each original declaration out to here, and then invite Opposers to strike what has been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's everything. This is not a substitute for reading the full page, rather it is intended to make it easier for declarers to locate their original text and make any strikes as appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please leave each editors' declarations intact so this page won't become as jumbled as the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Fasach Nua

Image comment - I don't feel Image:Das Schwarze Korps Eugenio Pacelli Judenfreund Feind des Nationalsozialismus.jpg is warranted per WP:NFCC#8, and thus the article fails FA criteria 3, otherwise images checkout fine. This is a hugely difficult article to meet FAC#4, because of the age and scope of the subject, dont feel down-hearted if it doent pass. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OPPOSE - I don't believe that the image "conveys a message that words cannot begin to approach", and therefore I oppose promotion, failure to meet featured article criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This should be easy to resolve: Angr, Savidan, Fasach Nua, and Elcobbola are all in agreement with respect to this image not meeting policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As it is presently tagged on WP. Since legal impediments prevent the Nazi Party from collecting its royalty cheques these days, I think the issue is whether it is tagged correctly. Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There has also been some disagreement about German PD law (an area which Elcobbola seems well versed in). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Question Why is this picture OK on the Featured Article Pope Pius XII and not on this article? What is the difference in rationale here? NancyHeise ^talk 01:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The article being evaluated here is Roman Catholic Church; Pope Pius XII was promoted long ago, and there could be many reasons for differences. What is "Fair Use" for one article isn't necessarily Fair Use for another: see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches. Or, Wiki policies could have changed. Or, it's possible FACs didn't receive solid image reviews when PP XII was passed. There are many possible differences, but our focus here is RCC, not PP XII. Also, the previous discussions of images at RCC talk did not discuss clearance per image policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A general note from WP:CONSENSUS: "Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Consensus is developed on an article talk page. Then broader consensus is developed if a wider audience comes to peer review. Then a wider audience participates at FAC. And, if an article makes it to the mainpage, a still wider audience participates. No prior decisions are set in stone: consensus can change and a decision made on article talk by a small group of involved editors is not exempt from change when examined by a wider audience in a broader forum. FAC exposes an article to a broader audience for more thorough analysis; hopefully, this avoids the need for WP:FAR so that an article won't be judged deficient by the broader Wiki community if it hits the main page. I hope this explanation helps towards understanding the FAC process: "It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, per WP:Consensus since this image has been exposed to such a wide array of editors over the past 6 months or so and only four editors are against its inclusion, doesn't that meet the criteria of consensus? We have had over 50 editors on this page giving comments (there were 54 in the last FAC alone). Four don't like the picture and two of those have not opposed the article. Experienced photographers like user:Ealdgyth and user:Kelly have supported inclusion of the image, Kelly vetted it per image policy in the last FAC [1] and Ealdgyth gave us an extensive peer review just prior to this FAC. NancyHeise ^talk 03:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat again that just because I'm a photographer doesn't mean that I understand Wikipedia image policies, and my silence shouldn't be taken for agreeing the image should stay. Frankly, if it's causing this many problems, I'm pretty sure it would be easier to just remove it. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, Ealdgyth, I thought you were doing something when you made suggestions about the pictures at peer review. Yes it would be easy to remove the picture but I don't think it would improve the article. I do not see why this picture is OK on the FA Pope Pius XII and not here. This is inconsistent application of Wikipedia policy. Image rules are not something that is a grey area, either the picture is OK or it isn't according to the copyright laws and it appears that the laws favor use of the image in a Wikipedia article about the subject matter, which RCC happens to be. NancyHeise ^talk 16:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What qualifies as "Fair use" for one article doesn't necessarily qualify for another: see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

While I personally feel the image meets "fair use" criteria, I have eliminated it anyway in hopes of pleasing everyone here. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana

To keep things focused, here is a specific list of points that if addressed would change my opposition to neutrality or support:

• Some mention that not all scholars agree with the version of history presented. This need not take up more than a couple of statements in the article, simply noting the existence of opposing views and citing a couple of prominent examples (such as Bauer, et al's model of extreme diversity and Ehrman, et al's "proto-orthodox" model).
• A few relevant points about the existance of other sees with exceptional authority besides Rome. I would prefer to see a specific mention of the similar authority of the Bishop of Alexandria (as affirmed by the First Council of Nicaea) and the later similar authority of the Bishop of Constantinople.
• Related to the above, I would like to see a clearer picture of how and when the Bishop of Rome established more exclusive primacy and how it relates to the schism between the (modern) Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. Some information related to this point is present in the article, but the picture is rather muddled/incomplete.
• A better examination of papal infallibility and the doctrine of infallibility in general (the Pope is not the only source of infallible teachings and doctrine, which is contrary to much of the public perception of Catholicism).
• A bit more detail on the Curia. How and when were they established? What about the role they played during the era of the Papal States? How did their purpose transform with the end of their civil authority?
• In general and overall, a little more representation of the Protestant, Orthodox and secularist views. It is not necessary to bog down the article with counterpoints galore or to add such outside views willy-nilly. Instead, I am simply looking for indications to the reader that other views exist on points where there exists alternate prominent views, such as with the point about the history presented.

I hope this helps clarify my opposition and presents my concerns in a more addressable and less confrontational manner. If I can provide further clarification or there are any questions, please do not hesitate to let me know. Vassyana (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Papal Primacy

This is the papal primacy section that was deleted in the article trim. Vassyana mentioned it's absence in her oppose. If other editors want this in the article, I have no problem re-adding it. " Two decades later, the Council of Chalcedon solidified Roman papal primacy which added to continuing breakdown in relations between Rome and Constantinople, the see of the Eastern Church. Also sparked were the Monophysite disagreements over the precise nature of the incarnation of Jesus which led to the first of the various Oriental Orthodox Churches breaking away from the Catholic Church.]" NancyHeise ^talk 19:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman

Excerpt from Chronicle Review [8] "Some of the sharpest digs have been reserved for Ehrman, who was the first member of the National Geographic team to publish a book on Judas. Publicly Ehrman has been the most vocal in embracing Judas as hero, and he has been pilloried for it. Scholar after scholar at the Rice conference took shots at him. Turner said he didn't read Ehrman's book because he "wouldn't expect to learn anything from it."

Ehrman thinks he has been unfairly caricatured as a cheerleader for the positive Judas theory. "People like April harp on whether Judas is a good guy or not," he says. "The bulk of my essay and my book deals with other aspects." He also defends National Geographic against those who say the society's decisions, like insisting on nondisclosure agreements, were purely mercenary. "This million dollars has to come from some place," Ehrman says. "If National Geographic gets scooped, are they going to do it out of the kindness of their hearts?"" —Preceding unsigned comment added by NancyHeise (talk • contribs) 03:52, October 9, 2008

Council of Chalcedon

Responding to Vassyana's assertions that the article text is factually incorrect with regard to the Council of Chalcedon solidifying Roman papal primacy, I am placing this quote from Bokenkotter's "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" to refute her claim. From page 91-92:

" 'And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome (Constantinople), justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her....' Pope Leo refused to accept this canon. There were several reasons for his stand (lists reasons).....Even though things were temporarily patched up, with Leo accepting a conciliatory letter from the patriarch of Constantinople, who agreed not to officially promulgate Canon 28, the misunderstanding continued to bedevil the relations between the two sees and finally played a major role in the final schism of the Middle Ages."

NancyHeise ^talk 22:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

To substantiate Bokenkotter I also offer this excerpt from Eamon Duffy's "Saints and Sinners" found on pages 45-46 in the paperback issue of this book (the hardcover edition was used in the actual article)

"The bishops at Chalcedon, however, made no such assumption. They acknowledged the special dignity and honour of the apostolic see, but they did not therefore assume that whatever its bishop said must be true, and seemed to have believed that on this particular occasion, Peter had spoken through Leo. They had adopted his solution to the problem, therefore, not merely because it was his, but because they judged it true. To underline this, in canon 28 of the Council they restated the teaching of the Council of Constantinople that Constantinople took precedence after Rome 'because it is new Rome'. There could not have been a clearer demonstration of the gap between Eastern and Western views of the papacy, and Leo delayed his acceptance of Chalcedon for two years on the strength of it.

NancyHeise ^talk 22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Vb

• Oppose This is a very naive opposition: I am not a scholar expert in this intricated domain. Here are however my feeling after reading the lead and the first section. The lead does not read well. It is IMHO no brilliant prose but the result of many edit wars and strange compromises: For example, "The Church looks to the pope, currently Benedict XVI, as its highest human and visible authority in matters of faith, morality and Church governance.[5]" seems to have been written to avoid to say that the highest authority of the Church a level below God is the Pope. Is God not human? Is God not visible? Moreover it seems the authors wanted to list all the powers of the Pope in order to say that the Pope has a limited authority. Which matters are relevant for the Church except "faith, morality and Church governance"? Could one say this in a simpler way: "The Church looks to the pope, currently Benedict XVI, as its highest authority after God." The first section is written in the catholic POV only. According to this article, the Church "traces its foundation to Jesus and the Twelve Apostles" and "Some scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus". Does this mean that the other scholars don't agree? If so, who are they and which are their arguments? Why are both topic "Origin" and "Mission" mixed in one section only? The question of the orgins is a question of faith and a question of historical fact which has nothing to do with the mission of the church - except if one adopt the purely naive catholic POV and declares that the mission was "founded upon Jesus' command" as if Jesus would have been able to predict the future and was therefore defined from the origin on. Vb (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Continued oppose I don't have access to the reference you are citing (Schreck and Barry) but I have some doubts about the section "Final judgment and afterlife". While the "final judgement" is a corner stone of the catholic belief based on the evangiles, the question of the "particular judgement" is less clear (see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08550a.htm). The distinct level of both dogmas should also be mirrored in the article. Vb 20:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Continued oppose Let me add those two sentences from the lead which show why the article makes to me a POVed impression:

1)"It has defined its doctrines through various ecumenical councils, following the example set by the first Apostles in the Council of Jerusalem.[12]"

The Council of Jerusalem is treated here as an historical fact. Of course there are proofs which support Church's belief in this event but are they enough solid to present this event as a fact. Better would be "It has defined its doctrines through various ecumenical councils; the first one being believed (supposed?) to be the Council of Jerusalem."

2)"On the basis of promises that Jesus made to his apostles, it believes that it is guided by the Holy Spirit and so protected from falling into doctrinal error.[13][14][15]"

"On the basis of the evangiles (citation), it believes that..." One should not forget that Jesus isn't either proven to have existed at all.

I hope it helps! Vb (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Vb's oppose based on Particular Judgement

Hi Vb, thanks for your comment and link to the New Covenant web site. Our Beliefs section article text is referenced to books that carry the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur declarations from the Catholic Church that they are free of moral or doctrinal error. The article text you are worried about comes from one of these sources, The Essential Catholic Catechism by Dr. Alan Schreck, professor of theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville. Per page 379 " The Catholic Church teaches that at the moment of death, each person will 'appear before the judgement seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in his body' (2Cor5:10; see also Rom2:6). This is known, in Catholic theology, as the "particular judgment," to distinguish it from the "general judgement," or "last judgment," when Christ will 'come again in glory to judge the living and the dead' (Nicene Creed). The New Testament teaches consistently that each person will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief attest to this (see CCC 1021)."

and from page 397 same book under the chapter entitled "The Last Judgement" "The second coming of Christ also means that the physical universe and earth as we know it will come to an end. The New Testament envisions a destruction of the universe (see2Pet3:10-12; Rev 21:1) - 'Heaven and earth will pass away..." (Lk21:33)-but also contains the promise of 'a new heaven and a new earth' (2Pet3:13; Rev21:1; see CCC 1043), in which righteousness dwells, in which 'happiness will fill and surpass all the desires of peace arising in the hearts of men,' and God will reign forever."

our article text referenced to this section states: "The Church teaches that immediately after death the soul of each person will be judged by Jesus, and will receive a particular judgment based on the deeds of that individual's earthly life.[80] This teaching also attests to another day when Jesus will sit in a universal judgment of all mankind.[8][81] This final judgment, according to Church teaching, will bring an end to human history and mark the beginning of a new and better heaven and earth ruled by God in righteousness.[82]

Hi Nancy, I don't mean what is written is false neither bad sourced but I think it should be said that the dogma of the final judgment stands on a better ground (the evangiles) than the dogma of the particular judgement (visions of Bede the Venerable). This is also the reason why Luther believes in the first and not in the second one. According to my religion teacher (a Roman Catholic dean), the dogma of the particular judgement is in contradistinction with the catholic belief that soul and body are unseparable when it comes to the definition of a person. The belief in souls (existing indepedently of the bodies) is (according to him) an influence of oriental beliefs imported in Europe via Platon. Vb 09:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.194.107 (talk)

Thanks Vb. I must explain that for the sake of consistency throughout the article, we do not discuss the hierarchy of beliefs for each belief. If it is in the Catechism, it is listed as a Belief of the Roman Catholic Church. I think that the article Roman Catholic theology is a better place to go into such detail and this is also linked in our main article. NancyHeise ^talk 23:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You are very right Nancy but here it is so easy to correct this point! The article says "The Church teaches that immediately after death the soul of each person will be judged by Jesus,...This teaching also attests to another day when Jesus will sit in a universal judgment of all mankind." The wording "also attests" and the order in which both judgements are treated lead the reader to the false opinion that the central belief is the particular judgement and that the final judgement is just also attested by the Church. In fact this is the other way around! The central point is the final judgement common to all christians and the particular judgement is just a tradition which belongs to the dogma but has not really the same character. Vb (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you a wording like "The Church, together with all Christians communities, teaches on the basis of the evangiles that the final judgement will come... This teaching also attests that the souls will be judged within the particular judgement..." You just have to switch the paragraph around. You don't have to begin any theological discussion which would definitively belongs elsewhere. Vb (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Taam

• Oppose but the article is promosing if the following major issues could be reviewed:

Note 337 states “Einstein, for instance, in an article in Time, paid tribute to Pius and noted that the Church alone 'stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign.' “ But the reference doesn't check out since I can find no mention of Pius in Einsteins comments as published by Time. [9] Furthermore Einstein doesn't say its the Roman Catholic Church who “stood squarely” as is suggested by this note, its simply the Church which in the context of the article seems to be the Christian church as a whole. There has been some debate as to the apocryphal nature of the remarks attributed by Time to Einstein but there is a letter that was being auctioned recently that purports to be from Einstein to a Christian correspondent asking him to confirm if he indeed spoke the words quoted by Time and once again, if its authentic, its the Christian Church as a whole and not the Roman Catholic Church in particular that Einstein alludes, not as the article currently suggests.[10]

The body text states : ”After the war historians such as David Kertzer accused the Church of encouraging centuries of anti-semitism, and Pope Pius XII of not doing enough to stop Nazi atrocities.[336] Prominent members of the Jewish community such as Albert Einstein contradicted the criticisms and spoke highly of Pius' efforts to protect Jews” I think this is ambiguous since Einsteins supposed comments in Time Magazine doesn't exonerate the Church for historical persecution, he only mentions what was happening in the 1930's.[11] I cannot believe there is any Jewish or Christian scholar who would deny historical oppression. After apparently dismissing any charges the article continues “Even so, in 2000 Pope John Paul II on behalf of all people, apologized to Jews by inserting a prayer at the Western Wall that read "We're deeply saddened by the behavior of those in the course of history who have caused the children of God to suffer, and asking your forgiveness, we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.” which makes the Pope seemly apologise for things that never happened. Compare this to what the Church says: ““Despite the Christian preaching of love for all, even for one's enemies, the prevailing mentality down the centuries penalized minorities and those who were in any way "different". Sentiments of anti-Judaism in some Christian quarters, and the gap which existed between the Church and the Jewish people, led to a generalized discrimination, which ended at times in expulsions or attempts at forced conversions. In a large part of the "Christian" world, until the end of the 18th century, those who were not Christian did not always enjoy a fully guaranteed juridical status. Despite that fact, Jews throughout Christendom held on to their religious traditions and communal customs. They were therefore looked upon with a certain suspicion and mistrust. In times of crisis such as famine, war, pestilence or social tensions, the Jewish minority was sometimes taken as a scapegoat and became the victim of violence, looting, even massacres.”[12]. The whole section seems a gloss over, no mention of the “perfidious Jews” that formed part of the Good Friday liturgy up until the late 1950's, nothing about how Jews were made to dress differently - [13] and so on...

The article states “Prior to the start of World War II in the 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, Pope Pius XI warned Catholics that antisemitism is incompatible with Christianity.” The encyclical doesn't mention anti-Semitism specifically and the reference given to support the claim doesn't check out, i.e the words the article attributes to Mit brennender Sorge, and by extension to Pius XII, were in fact supposed to have been spoken by Pius XI to visiting Belgian pilgrims in the Vatican[14] which is a lot different to an encyclical broadcast to the world. On the subject of anti-semitism it is indeed true that Pius XI intended to publish an encyclical on this subject but he died and Pius XII decided not to publish it.[15]

The article says of Mit brennender Sorge “it described Hitler as an insane and arrogant prophet” . The encyclical doesn't mention Hitler in particular and this assertion seems way over the top in its zeal to exonerate the Church. Common sense says that a Pope has to be very careful of every word spoken, think what happened a couple of years ago in the immediate aftermath of comments spoken by Pope Benedict. In “We Remember the Shoa” it simply states “Pope Pius XI too condemned Nazi racism in a solemn way in his Encyclical Letter Mit brennender Sorge,”[16]

In the section “Catholic institutions, personnel and demographics” it mentions the substantial increase in world wide Church membership but this seems to be misleading. The world population has risen by 69% during the period mentioned in the article whereas the Church membership has increased by 72.78% . There is also the lack of balance, typical for the article as a whole outside the beliefs section, in that there is no mention of the substantial decline in the West, by way of example UK and USA.[17]. This is a significant and should be included in the article. Would I be correct in saying that the membership figures claimed in the article count so called “cultural catholics” I.e ones who do not practice the faith but hang on to the description as an expression of group identity? I think the article would be enhanced if we know exactly what counts as a Catholic.

As for the “Cultural influence” section all I can hope for is that a Catholic scholar will appear here that you will listen to and this will will lead to its deletion or a complete rewrite, for this section detracts from the rest of the article by its broad brushstroke and exaggerated tone that is hopelessly unbalanced. The appalling use of images is particularly noteworthy. A common tactic in Catholic apologetics circles is to justify what happened to the native population of the America when Columbus arrived by referring to the human sacrifice of the Aztecs as if two wrongs make a right. But read what Columbus says of the Tainos on his first arrival. “They traded with us and gave us everything they had, with good will..they took great delight in pleasing us..They are very gentle and without knowledge of what is evil; nor do they murder or steal..Your highness may believe that in all the world there can be no better people ..They love their neighbours as themselves, and they have the sweetest talk in the world, and are gentle and always laughing.” This use of such powerful imagery without proper context attempts to cast a slur over all the indigenous population of the America's whilst glossing over the cultural carnage that took place with the arrival of Columbus. I also note that it is the Catholic Church herself who keeps alive the idea that human sacrifice, I.e Calvary, is pleasing to God. You have no right to look down your noses at people who shared the same basic idea as you do now. You are using pictures and images the same way as the Nazis to demonize whole races and peoples. Imagine if someone added to this article a picture of St Faustina ,who was recently canonised, showing her vision of the reality of the Eucharist, I.e baby Jesus being ripped apart and eaten alive? How about adding a picture of Jew with the special dress they were made to wear by the Church and put it side by side with an image of the Nazis using the same technique? When the following quotation of Pope John Paul was added in order to try and balance the over the top claims made it with regard to women , culture and the rights of other peoples it was deleted: “In March 2000 Pope John Paul II prayed publicly for forgiveness for sins committed by Christians with regard to the rights of peoples, cultures and religions as well as sins against the dignity of women and the unity of the human race.”

The article mentions the persecution of the Church but fails to mention the persecution of paganism etc. In the past she has been accused of behaving inconsistently, claiming toleration and liberty for herself, but being intolerant of other religions. This was denied on the basis that they worshipped the one true God and it could not be considered persecution when acts were taken to suppress other religious traditions since "error has no rights".[18][19] I think the article must deal with this issue in order to be NPOV

A suggestion: In the section “Catholicism today” it makes mention of President Bush's remarks about Pope JP2 but I think the article would be enhanced by a reference to JP2 and the Vaticans position regarding the war in Iraq. [20].

Otherwise I think the article has the making of featured status, but at present I could not treat it even as good article no matter how superficially it conforms outwardly to wiki standards. Taam (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Excerpt from Froehle in response to Taam's request

I am placing the entire paragraph on European's from the book Global Catholicism by Bryan Froehle and Mary Gautier, researchers at Center for Applied Research, the institution used by major newspapers when seeking information on church statistics. Excerpt from page 129: "Europeans increasingly express no formal religious preference. This is particularly the case in the more Protestant countries of Northern Europe and the formerly communist countries of Eastern Europe, but it is increasing throughout the continent. These are not the so-called cafeteria Christians who pick and choose what they believe from within their tradition-rather, this is a case of larger proportions of the population no longer identifying with any formal religious tradition. In spite of these overall trends, Europe remains a particularly strong center of Catholicism, particularly as measured by the presence of Catholic institutions and personnel."

Excerpts that support article text that Taam wants me to delete

Opposing FAC reviewer Taam, in this edit [21] has asked me to remove article text relating to Mit Brenneder Sorge and comments by Pius XI to pilgrims. I am placing quotes from my most scholarly sources to support my article text. The fact that both of these issues figure prominently in the history of the Church, and that they are listed in these top sources should be enough to prove their notability and worthiness of inclusion.

• From Eamon Duffy's Saints and Sinners, Yale University Press, pages 342-343 in the paperback version ISBN 9780300115970 (I used the hardcover for the article and I think the page numbers may be different)

  "In January 1937 key figures from the German hierarchy came to Rome on their ad limina visit. They told the Pope that the time for caution had passed, and Pius XI decided to act. Cardinal Faulhaber, Archbishop of Munich, was commissioned to produce a draft encyclical, which was tidied up by Pacelli, and signed by the Pope. In a triumphant security operation, the encyclical was smuggled into Germany, locally printed, and read from the Catholic pulpits on Palm Sunday 1937. Mit Brennender Sorge(With Burning Anxiety) denounced both specific government actions against the Church in breach of the concordat and Nazi racial theory more generally. There was a striking and deliberate emphasis on the permanent validity of the Jewish scriptures, and the Pope denounced the 'idolatrous cult' which replaced belief in the true God with a 'national religion' and the 'myth of race and blood'. He contrasted this perverted ideology with the teaching of the Church in which there was a home 'for all peoples and all nations'. The impact of the encyclical was immense, and it dispelled at once all suspicion of a Fascist Pope. While the world was still reacting, however, Pius issued five days later another encyclical, Divini Redemptoris, denouncing Communism, declaring its principles "intrinsically hostile to religion in any form whatever', detailing the attacks on the Church which had followed the establishment of Communist regimes in Russia, Mexico and Spain, and calling for the implementation of Catholic social teaching to offset both Communism and 'amoral liberalism'.... His speeches and conversations were blunt, filled with phrases like 'stupid racialism', 'barbaric Hitlerism'. In May 1938 Hitler visited Rome. The Pope left for Castel Gandolfo, and explained to pilgrims there that he could not bear 'to see raised in Rome another cross which is not the cross of Christ'. In September he told another group that the Canon of the Mass spoke of Abraham as 'our father in faith'. No Christian, therefore, could be anti-Semitic, for 'spiritualy, we are all Semites'.

• From John Vidmar's The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages, Paulist Press, Page 327 ISBN 0809142341

  "Pius XI's greatest coup was in writing the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge ("With Burning Desire") in 1936, and having it distributed secretly and ingenuiously by an army of motorcyclists, and read from every pulpit on Palm Sunday before the Nazi's obtained a single copy. It stated (in German and not in the traditional Latin) that the Concordat with the Nazis was agreed to despite serious misgivings about Nazi integrity. It then went on to condemn the persecution of the church, the neopaganism of the Naxi ideology-especially its theory of racial superiority-and Hitler himself, calling him "a mad prophet possessed of repulsive arrogance." But perhaps Pius XI's most memorable protest against anti-Semitism came just before his death, when he told a group of pilgrims in 1938: 'Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather. Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are all spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spritiually, we are all Semites.' The Nazi's promptly called him "the Chief Rabbi of the Christian World."

• From Thomas Bokenkotter's A Concise History of the Catholic Church, Doubleday, page 389

  "And when Hitler showed his increasing belligerence toward the Church, Pius met the challenge with a decisiveness that astonished the world. His encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge was the "first great official public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism" and "one of the greatest such condemnations ever issued by the Vatican."2 Smuggled into Germany, it was read from all the Catholic pulpits on Palm Sunday in March 1937. It exposed the fallacy and denounced the Nazi myth of blood and soil; it decried its neopaganism, its war of annihilation against the Church, and even described the Fuhrer himself as a "mad prophet possessed of repulsive arrogance."3 The Nazi's were infuriated, and in retaliation closed and sealed all the presses that had printed it and took numerous vindictive measures against the Church, including staging a long series of immorality trials of the Catholic clergy. At Koblenz, 170 Franciscans were arrested and prosecuted for the corruption of youth and for turning their monastery into a 'male brothel,' A Hitler Youth film was circulated that showed priests dancing in a bordello."

  Bokenkotter is quoting from two scholars in this quote, the first is from C. Falconi, The Popes of the Twentieth Century(Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), p. 117. The second is from A. Rhodes, The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1973), p. 205

This book is the most scholalry work of all our works. It has been a university textbook for decades with four reprintings. It has a bibliography that is 43 pages long and this is the book we used to produce the article text that Taam wants me to delete.

Other scholarly sources that claim Mit Brenneder Sorge described Hitler as a "mad prophet" are

• Spritual Semites: Catholics and Jews During World War II by Paul Martin - page 16
• Keepers of the Keys: A History of the Popes from St. Peter to John Paul II by Nicolas Cheetham - Page 284
• Baltimore Iconoclast by William C. Hughes - Page 215

Sources that quote Pius XI's address to pilgrims that "spiritually we are all Semites"

• Under His Very Windows: The Vatican and the Holocaust in Italy by Susan Zuccotti - Page 45
• The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII by Joseph Bottum, David G. Dalin- Page 114
• The Papacy: An Encyclopedia by Philippe Levillain, John W. O'Malley - Page 1209
• The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis by David G. Dalin - Page 66
• Three Popes and the Jews by Pinchas Lapide - Page 113
• Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII by John Cornwell - Page 190
• The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry, 1933-1945 by Nora Levin - Page 689
• A Short History of Christianity by Stephen Tomkins - Page 227

And there are dozens more which I do not have the time to place on this page. Clearly this quote from Pius XI is notable and worthy of inclusion in this article if hundreds of authors have reproduced it in their works, including the most scholarly.

The Bokenkotter book is the most scholalry work of all our works. It has been a university textbook for decades with four reprintings. It has a bibliography that is 43 pages long. Per WP:reliable source examples it meets the qualifications of a top source and this is the book we used to produce the article text that Taam wants me to delete. As you can see, Taam's request is unreasonable and would make the article factually incomplete. NancyHeise ^talk 00:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Mit Brenneder Sorge article text referenced to Bokenkotter, Taam has also stated that the quotes listed in the Bokenkotter book are incorrect. I purchased the two books that Bokenkotter is quoting that supports our article text and am placing the actual quotes here so we can all see that Bokenkotter is not misquoting anyone. In addition, Bokenkotter's book, as a decades old university textbook with three reprintings and scholarly reviews, has been seriously vetted by the scholarly community so we shouldnt have to go check his work but I am doing it anyway to prove that he is correct in his cites. One is from Anthony Rhodes The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators (1922-1945), a scholarly source used by university students per its own reviews in the New Statesman, Times Literary Supplement, and The Month. It is referred to in these reviews as "a balanced survey of the relations between Pius XI and Pius XII, and the dictators, notably Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Stalin." and "A scholarly and balanced analysis of Vatican diplomacy...", "Mr. Rhode's book is one which no serious student of the history of the 20th century can afford to neglect." The other source is from The Popes in the Twentieth Century by Carlo Falconi which, along with Rhodes is often cited by other scholarly works like the one we used in the article - Bokenkotter's A Concise History of the Catholic Church.

From Carlo Falconi's The Popes in the Twentieth Century (1967) Library of Congress catalog number 68-14744 page 230. "Nevertheless, even with these limitations, the pontifical letter still remains the first great official public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism, and the Pope's courage astonished the world."

From Anthony Rhode's The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators 1922-1945 (1973) ISBN 0030077362 page 205, "Mit brennender Sorge did not prevaricate. Although it began mildly enough with an account of the broad aims of the Church, it went on to become one of the greatest condemnations of a national regime ever pronounced by the Vatican. Its vigorous language is in sharp contrast to the involved style in which encyclicals were normally written..... (goes on to list criticisms of Nazi practices like neo-paganism, theory of blood and soil, spiritual oppression in Germany, oppression of education, the Nazi war of annihilation against the Catholic Faith, cult of idols)...The fulminations thundered down from the pulpits to the delighted congregations. Nor was the Fuhrer himself spared, for his 'aspirations to divinity', 'placing himself on the same level as Christ';'a mad prophet possessed of repuslive arrogance' (widerliche Hochmut)". ..."The true extent of the Nazi fury at this encyclical was shown by the immediate measures taken in Germany to counter further propagation of the document. Not a word of it was printed in the newspapers, and the following day the Secret Police visited the diocesan offices and confiscated every copy they could lay their hands on. All presses which had printed it were closed and sealed. The bishops diocesan magazines (Amtsblatter) were proscribed; a paper for church pamphlets or secretarial work was severely restricted. ...The encyclical was well received abroad. ...(names several countries reactions)... From Chile the German Ambassador reported that the encyclical 'has had great effect in turning the people against Germany'. The most important effect however was in the United States. On the 24th of December, 1937, The German Ambassador in Washington reported that thanks to the anti-Catholic campaign, Germany was losing the support, which had hitherto been very active when the National Socialist anti-Communist policy was announced, of twenty five million Catholics who 'stand united and determined behind their Church'. From these representative samples of world opinion, it might be supposed that the Nazis would have learnt the old lesson, Qui mange du Pape en meurt. But so obsessed were they with the vast military machine they had built over the last four years that they only became more overweening, determined to teach the Papacy a lesson." NancyHeise ^talk 18:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ioannes Pragensis

Oppose. Because of my limited time, I have seen only the first part of the article, and even if it is better than in the previous FAC (thanks to NancyHeise and other editors!), it contains too many small problems to vote otherwise:

• (The church) "is made up of one Western church (the Latin Rite) and twenty-two Eastern Catholic churches, divided into 2,782 bishoprics." - it is not clear whether the 2,782 bishoprics are the whole church or the Eastern Churches only.
• Citations of long documents (eg. Lumen Gentium) in references should contain chapters - one should be able to find the source without reading the whole document.
• "Catholic faith is summarized in the Nicene Creed and detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church." - should also mention Bible & Apostolic tradition as the "primary" sources of faith according to R-C church in the intro.
• "Formal Catholic worship is ordered by the liturgy" - more often, "liturgy" is synonymous with "the formal worship"
• "Some scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus..." - the wording of the paragraph looks a bit one-sided (WP:NPOV); there are many other scholars and theologians who believe otherwise (eg. that the establishing of papacy in its current power was a rather lengthy process), not only Duffy alone, and it should be mentioned, including their principal arguments
• "Sacred scripture or the Catholic Bible consists of the Greek version of the Old Testament—known as the Septuagint—and the 27 New Testament writings found in the Codex Vaticanus and listed in Athanasius' Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter." - not exactly true: R-C church regards the OT books from Septuagint as canonical, but does not prefer their Greek Septuagint versions as THE canonical version; it uses mainly the Neovulgata translation for its normal agenda and the Hebrew originals for scholarly purposes. Moreover the Codex Vaticanus has no special position in the definition of the R-C canon - it was created hundreds of years after the definition of the Christian NT canon. - In this regard I can only repeat what I have said in the previous FAC: the low scholarly quality of sources (Schreck in this case) leads to the low quality of the article.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Another remarks:

• "Catholic teachings have been refined and clarified by councils of the Church, convened by Church leaders, at important points throughout history" - the wording "important points" looks slightly exaggerated, some councils were held at relatively "normal" times
• "The first such council, the Council of Jerusalem, was convened by the apostles around the year 50" - the Council of Jerusalem is usually not listed as one of the Catholic Ecumenical Councils linked in the previous sentence. Moreover the word "convened" is used two times in two lines of text.
• " teaching authority of the Church, which includes infallible pronouncements by the pope,[45] pronouncements of ecumenical councils, and those of the college of bishops acting in union with the pope to define truths or to condemn interpretations of scripture believed to be false" - should be clearly stated that the teaching authority includes both "infallible" and "not-infallible" pronouncements of church leaders about faith & moral.
• "According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Jesus instituted seven sacraments and entrusted them to the Church" - almost everything in the chapter Beliefs can be "according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church" but why to stress it just here? The number 7 sacraments comes from the Middle Ages and was established by the Council of Trent as binding doctrine.
• "Through the passion of Jesus and his crucifixion, the Church teaches that all people have an opportunity for forgiveness and freedom from sin, and so can be reconciled to God." I think that the central Christian doctrine deserves more than one sentence here. At least mention the Resurrection and its meaning - it is not explained here in contast to many less important details - and the connection of the Passion and Resurrection with Baptism and Eucharist.
• "There are three states of afterlife in Catholic belief. Purgatory is a temporary..." - why the explanation starts with the less important, temporary state? It should start with heaven as the principal goal of Catholics, and then discuss the remaining two states.
• "An alternate or extraordinary form of Mass, called the Tridentine Mass, is celebrated primarily in Latin..." - many parts of the article are written mainly from the today's perspective, although the R-C Church has a long history. It is especially clear here: If we mention the Tridentine Rite, then we should start with the information that it was the standard Latin rite for centuries. Its very limited use today is hardly worth to mention.
• "(Tridentine Rite) reaffirms that the Mass is the same sacrifice of Jesus' death as the one he suffered on Calvary, contrary to Protestant belief" - is it really the single most important thing on the Tridentine Rite?
• "These dogmas, focus of Roman Catholic Mariology, are considered infallible." - Are there any "fallible" dogmas in the R-C Church?
• There is a well-developed anthropologic and sociologic literature about the folk R-C spirituality (pilgrimages, cult of Mary, prayers...) and its historical development, should be cited and considered.
• "The sacrament of Matrimony in the Latin rite is the only sacrament not conferred by a priest" - perhaps "under normal circumstances" should be added; exceptionally laypersons may also baptize; and "priest" should be replaced by "ordained person", because the Holy Orders are also not conferred by priest.
• "may enter the cloistered consecrated life either as monks or nuns." - why "either"? Would not be better "may enter the cloistered consecrated life as monks or nuns"?
• "The majority of those wishing to enter the consecrated life..." - is there any statistics proving that they are really the majority? Cite it please.
• "or those never baptized may be received by participating in a formation program" - those never baptized may be received only by being baptized (of course after a formation program in most cases)
• "by condemning female infanticide (as well as all other forms)" - not clear what are the all other forms
• "The Church has frequently been criticized for the house arrest of Galileo" - there are many other cases of persecuted and even killed thinkers which should be mentioned (Hypatia of Alexandria, Jan Hus, Giordano Bruno). Generally the chapter sounds too positive - what about the pogroms against Jews in Catholic Europe for example, the first predecessors of the later Nazi atrocities?
• " the concept of the primacy of the Roman bishop over other churches" - this is the hard-core R-C reading of the history. The Orthodox reading says that it was the primacy of the Roman bishop between other churches, not over them. As far as I know, modern historians think that the Orthodox reading is more close to the historical reality of the first centuries. The primacy over other (Western) churches was fully developed after the Great Schism, that is 1000 years later.
• "in 391 this Biblical canon was translated into the common language of Latin creating the Vulgate" - not exact; the translation/revision work took more than 20 years to Jerome, and there existed older translations before Vulgate.
• Chapter Early Middle Ages: The rise of Islam and the loses in Africa and Near East should be at least briefly mentioned - it is too important to drop.
• Eastern Europe and its evangelization both peaceful (Saints Cyril and Methodius) and warlike (Charlemagne, crusades against "pagans") should be mentioned
• "theologians such as Thomas Aquinas worked at these universities and his Summa Theologica was" - the sentence looks grammatically wrong to me; the subject of the first part are theologians, therefore the second part should have "Aquinas'" instead of "his" (sorry if I am wrong here, my knowledge of English is not perfect).
• "to reside under French influence in the fortified city of Avignon" - no need to stress the fortification, most of medieval cities were fortified.
• "These challenges developed into the Protestant Reformation" - the sentence should add a short description what was the Protestant Reformation - what demanded Luther, what was the response of Rome, how the schizm developed at its beginnings - otherwise the uneducated reader will not understand the following text.
• Hussites deserve to be shortly mentioned as foreruners of Reformation
• St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre should appear briefly
• Counter-Reformation: it was not only cultural and ecclesiastical movement, it meant also a state-sponsored persecution of non-Catholics in the Habsburg domain; should be mentioned perhaps including its notable victims (John Amos Comenius...)
• "resulted in a small breakaway movement called the Old Catholic Church" - small perhaps compared to the whole church, but nevertheless relatively big and influential in Germany of these days; "breakaway" from the Roman perspective, but traditionalist Catholic from their own perspective; is there a more neutral wording possible?
• Chapter Industrial age: Hugh McLeod's book on Secularisation in Western Europe, 1848-1914 is the classic about the period's religious development, would be nice to cite it
• "The records of Dachau concentration camp alone" - bad link - points to the city, not to the concentration camp.
• "Even though some priests collaborated with the regime" - even some laypersons and bishops collaborated. Should be "some Catholics collaborated".
• Chapter Second Vatican Council discusses many things beyond the Council - the name should be expanded
• The paragraph starting with "Major lawsuits emerged in 2001..." looks too lenghty and too US-centric
• The part starting with "On his 2008 visit to the United States..." - the same problem
• "Following the controversy over his Regensburg address," - it should briefly explain why is the address controversial
• The chapter titled "Catholicism today" should change its title to "Pope Benedict today" :-) (or it should really speak about its theme, which is what I would prefer) I am not very happy here, but let it be...

Best regards,--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Further comments, not added to main page due to length

Further comments (mostly taken from the foreign-language Wikipedias):

• At least one or two sentes about Liturgical year and major feasts of Catholicism
• Either drop the Tridentine rite or include other "minor" possibilities (John Chrysostomus and Basilius liturgies probably are both more widespread in the Catholic church today than the Tridentine rite; and Tridentine rite does not establish its own branch in the lineage of the liturgy, it is simply the previous version of the current Roman liturgy.)
• Shortly explain what the word "catholic" mean and indicate that it is a Greek, not Latin, word
• Inclue short explanation (few words) what the word Filioque means - in my opinion an internal link is not enough if the average reader cannot understand what the link is about.
• A map of the worldwide distribution of Catholics is really important, should be there - R-C is a worldwide church.
• Either drop/trim the US-centric passages, or decide to expand the history of Catholicism in the English speaking countries (it should then be more balanced and include also more info about UK/Ireland)
• NPOV - it is hard to define, but still I have not the feeling of academic, neutral text when I read it.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

excerpt from Schreck tending to Ioannes comment

"An unfortunate result of the rift between Catholics and Protestants is the disagreement over the canon (official list of inspired writings) of the Old Testament. Catholics recognize as divinely inspired the writings included in the ancient Greek version of the Old Testament that was used in the early church, known as the Septuagint. Protestants accept only the writings found in an early Hebrew version of the Bible, which did not include the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. These books are sometimes referred to by Protestants as "the Apocrypha". Many Protestants read and respect these writings, although they do not consider them divinely inspired. Catholics often refer to these books as deutero-canonical (a second canon) because they have been disputed. Even so, Catholics accept them as divinely inspired works that are fully part of the canon of the Old Testament."

from page 22 of The Essential Catholic Catechism by Dr. Alan Schreck, professor of theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville.

NancyHeise ^talk 10:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Responses to Ioannes Pragensis

NancyHeise, would you mind refactoring your responses to here so that each editors' section here can be kept as only a list for them to review and strike? I'd like to avoid having this page become as jumbled as the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Another remarks:

• "An alternate or extraordinary form of Mass, called the Tridentine Mass, is celebrated primarily in Latin..." - many parts of the article are written mainly from the today's perspective, although the R-C Church has a long history. It is especially clear here: If we mention the Tridentine Rite, then we should start with the information that it was the standard Latin rite for centuries. Its very limited use today is hardly worth to mention.

The Tridentine Rite exists as one of two forms of Mass, ordinary and extraordinary, this is a fact mentioned by my scholalry sources. I can not eliminate it just because it is used less. The note at the end of the sentence mentions this.NancyHeise ^talk 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• "(Tridentine Rite) reaffirms that the Mass is the same sacrifice of Jesus' death as the one he suffered on Calvary, contrary to Protestant belief" - is it really the single most important thing on the Tridentine Rite?

All info to the Mass is referenced to a nihil obstat imprimatur source. The structure of the section reflects the importance placed on issues by the scholarly sources. NancyHeise ^talk 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• There is a well-developed anthropologic and sociologic literature about the folk R-C spirituality (pilgrimages, cult of Mary, prayers...) and its historical development, should be cited and considered.

I will not be adding any information to address this comment because it would require me to make special exception for one area of Beliefs, ignoring all others. Further, this is a very off topic subject you are asking me to insert into this article. The article is about the Roman Catholic Church institution, not an examination of their Beliefs in the scientific forum. NancyHeise ^talk 17:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• "or those never baptized may be received by participating in a formation program" - those never baptized may be received only by being baptized (of course after a formation program in most cases)

I do not need to change this section. The very first sentence makes clear that people become members by being baptized. All other sentences including this one supplement that first sentence. NancyHeise ^talk 17:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• "These challenges developed into the Protestant Reformation" - the sentence should add a short description what was the Protestant Reformation - what demanded Luther, what was the response of Rome, how the schizm developed at its beginnings - otherwise the uneducated reader will not understand the following text.

I added text to address this comment, please see the article again. NancyHeise ^talk 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Counter-Reformation: it was not only cultural and ecclesiastical movement, it meant also a state-sponsored persecution of non-Catholics in the Habsburg domain; should be mentioned perhaps including its notable victims (John Amos Comenius...)

I added more text to the article to address this, please see the article again. NancyHeise ^talk 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• The paragraph starting with "Major lawsuits emerged in 2001..." looks too lenghty and too US-centric

I will not be addressing this comment, this is not a FAC criteria and as I said before, it has been agreed after much discussion and consensus. NancyHeise ^talk 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• The part starting with "On his 2008 visit to the United States..." - the same problem

I trimmed this sentence already. Please see again and try to stick to FAC criteria. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Following the controversy over his Regensburg address," - it should briefly explain why is the address controversial

This was already done, please see the article. NancyHeise ^talk 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• The chapter titled "Catholicism today" should change its title to "Pope Benedict today" :-) (or it should really speak about its theme, which is what I would prefer)

This was already done, please see the article. NancyHeise ^talk 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Best regards,--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Further comments (mostly taken from the foreign-language Wikipedias):

• At least one or two sentes about Liturgical year and major feasts of Catholicism

Added. NancyHeise ^talk 00:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Either drop the Tridentine rite or include other "minor" possibilities (John Chrysostomus and Basilius liturgies probably are both more widespread in the Catholic church today than the Tridentine rite; and Tridentine rite does not establish its own branch in the lineage of the liturgy, it is simply the previous version of the current Roman liturgy.)

Sorry, you are asking me to do something that goes against my scholalry sources. The Tridentine Rite is one of two forms of the Mass. You are mistaken in your evaluation of this sectionl. There are others used in the Eastern Churches and these are mentioned also. I don't understand why you keep asking me to delete Tridentine. It exists as a legitimate form of the Mass, several churches in my area offer it. Elimination would make the article factually incomplete. NancyHeise ^talk 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Shortly explain what the word "catholic" mean and indicate that it is a Greek, not Latin, word

added to a note.NancyHeise ^talk 00:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Inclue short explanation (few words) what the word Filioque means - in my opinion an internal link is not enough if the average reader cannot understand what the link is about.

Added few words. NancyHeise ^talk 00:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• A map of the worldwide distribution of Catholics is really important, should be there - R-C is a worldwide church.

The map on Wikipedia is not accurate and is not updated. We don't have an accurate map to place in the article. NancyHeise ^talk 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Either drop/trim the US-centric passages, or decide to expand the history of Catholicism in the English speaking countries (it should then be more balanced and include also more info about UK/Ireland)

The only US-centric passages are the Sex abuse scandal, a notable scandal which we are obliged to include mention of and the visit by the pope to the US. I will not eliminate either of these and I already trimmed the mention of the visit to US. You are not sticking to FAC criteria in asking this, it is a question of style that I think you need to be a bit more flexible on. The article is English Wikipedia and the popes visit to the most populous English speaking country is a notable event to English speakers. NancyHeise ^talk 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• NPOV - it is hard to define, but still I have not the feeling of academic, neutral text when I read it.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please specify which sentences you think are POV and offer a more NPOV alternative sentence and I will add it. Right now, the article reflects the most NPOV form after going through four FACs and peer review. NancyHeise ^talk 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Savidan comments

• Comment - I continue to have the same concerns that I have expressed in previous FACs and on the article's talk page before the current push for FA status. (1) the temporal and geographic variation in Catholic beliefs, practices, and influence is largely elided and overlooked; (2) the history section of the article is severely lacking in terms of key trends such as (a) the centralization of papal authority and the development of the church as a global institution rather than an Italian or European one, or (b) the growth and development of the church hierarchy, in particular the College of Cardinals, and the various economic and political drivers associated with it, and (3) the article is still largely written from the perspective of a Catholic looking out on the world, hence the overemphasis of doctrine and social teaching, and the neglect of the vast economic, political, cultural influence of the church. In this area, the article has doubtlessly improved since the first FAC, but is still far off the mark. Where such issues are not neglected, they are treated from a comically one-sided perspective. For example, the article cherry-picks in attributing the elimination of human sacrifice and other practices to the church rather than delivering any meaningful or nuanced analysis of the church's complicated role in colonization, the development of European identity, or relations with other religions. Finally, with relation to the modern church, it is clear that the article gives undo emphasis both to points of view and to subject matter. The discussion of PPXII and the image in particular (which I agree does not meet the fair use policies) is essentially a rebuttal to one specific criticism of Pope Pius XII rather than a true top-level summary of his significance as a pontiff. Again I believe that this article has improved, and that the content and effort that has gone into it could have spawned a dozen featured articles on Catholicism, but I am unready at this point to support this article, believing that the standard should be higher for more important topics. My concerns about summary style in previous nominations have been remedied in many respects, but I believe that the use of summary style would need further improvement if the current content were written from a more balanced perspective with reference to point-of-view, global coverage, and intertemporal variation. Savidan 16:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Due to the inaction (and frankly, hostility) towards my earlier comments, I am going to have to formally oppose this nomination. The article is both un-comprehensive and lopsided in its coverage. As Nancy says above, "we were careful to include all facts relating to that criticism [of Pope Pius XII]" (her emphasis). That comment explains a lot about how this article was constructed; it gives undo emphasis to certain subtopics (2 paragraphs plus a picture just to defend Pius XII's record during the Holocaust) rather than establishing a top-down, summary style organization, evenly distributing emphasis. For example, the following words are never mentioned: Papal States, Usury, Antipope. These three topics are an order of magnitude more historically significant than these specific rebuttals of a specific criticism of a specific pope. In fact, antisemitism itself is only discussed in the article as it relates to Pius XII. The article's strength is supposed to be theology, but it mentions neither Scholasticism or Thomism. I'll give a few more examples to illustrate this same problem. Several encyclicals are covered in depth (if I may dare a guess, chosen because certain editors had axes to grind), but the article never discusses encyclicals in general, or even the types of papal writings (encyclicals, apostolic constitutions, etc.) and their varying levels of importance. Similarly, several papal elections are detailed (chosen at random this time, I believe, rather than by any bias), but never the development or process of the conclave as a means of papal succession (dare I mention Papal appointment, which was more or less the norm for 1000 years). Several sentences about the nuances of regulations relating to homosexuals in the priesthood are included (even a sentence presenting the church's stated rationale, that the ban was a response to child abuse, as a fact!) but nothing is said about catholic social teaching about heterosexuality as a whole; there is also excessive treatment of the topic of women in the priesthood but nothing about the overall relationship of the church to gender roles (Periculoso, etc., etc.). I've already mentioned how the article attributes to the RCC a causal role in eliminating infanticide and human sacrifice, but says nothing about the real topic that these are a subset of: colonization and forced conversion.
• Short version: this article's exceptional referencing and prose are deceptive because its text is more often than not a minute detail of a sub-topic. This article needs to be rethought in terms of summary style. It should not be a collection of all facts relating to a few select issues but rather a meta-level summary of the RCC as a whole. Savidan 18:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Bokenkotter excerpts

Some excerpts from Thomas Bokenkotter's A Concise History of the Catholic Church which has been a university textbook for decades. Regarding the Church impact upon Medieval culture and society he writes:

"Bishops, priests, monks, friars, nuns, they were by and large the most educated, the most cultivated, and the most respected members of medieval society during the period of the Church's ascendency, and they constituted a much larger percentage of the population than they do today. Their large numbers enabled the Church to dedicate itself to a wide range of social services, constituting a kind of Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Church's care for the unfortunates was concentrated in its hospitals, which at the time were not restricted to care for the sick but ministered to all kinds of needy persons."

"In comparison with the Eastern Christians, whose stand against war was generally consistent, Western Christendom appears much less enlightened. The barbarian invasions and the conditions of feudal society made war a constant fact of life; ecclesiastics tried to channel this bellicose energy for the Church's own purposes. Holy war in the service of the Church was regarded as permissible and even desirable. Popes even led armies into battle and ranked the victims of a holy war as martyrs....A series of Church councils followed in France, which prescribed oaths to be taken by the nobility to limit their war-making propensities."

"There is no doubt, however, that the Crusades contributed much to the developements of the time: the rise of commerce and towns, the growing sense of nationality, the expansion of intellectual horizons, and the increase in the prestige of the papacy. But in none of these instances was the influence decisive. The taste for Eastern spices, silk, and metalware, for instance, was already stimulated by a trade that was growing independently of the Crusades; the crusaders' effect on the rise of commerce was not as crucial as is sometimes supported. Probably their most important effect was to retard the Turkish advance into the Balkans for three hundred years."

"As we can see from this brief survey, the Church's impact on medieval society was profound. In every department of life one found the Church present. Under the leadership of the Popes, the priests, monks, friars, and nuns who were the spiritual elite of medieval society labored steadily to instill faith in the illiterate masses, to give them at least a glimpse of truth and goodness beyond the grim facts of their narrowly circumscribed lives. ....And one can agree with the conclusion of a recent study by Francis Oakley, '...For whatever its barbarisms, its corruptions, its malformations, whatever its evasions and dishonesties, in the medieval church men and women still contrived, it would seem, to encounter the Gospel."

In that last paragraph, Bokenkotter is quoting Francis Oakley from his book The Medieval Experience, Foundations of Western Cultural Singularity published by University of Toronto Press. The actual quote and book are here [22] as you can see, the full statement Francis Oakley is making is that the Medieval Experience profoundly shaped our modern Western culture and the Church was the main driving force. NancyHeise ^talk 03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Article excerpts

• Here is a list of the sections of History in the article text that discuss exactly what you are asking for

1)Early Middle Ages:

• "The new monasteries preserved classical craft and artistic skills while maintaining intellectual culture within their schools, scriptoria and libraries. As well as providing a focus for spiritual life, they functioned as agricultural, economic and production centers, particularly in remote regions, becoming major conduits of civilization.[220]"
• "Charlemagne, who had been crowned in 800 by the pope attempted to unify Western Europe through the common bond of Christianity, creating an improved system of education and establishing unified laws. However imperial interest created a problem for the church as succeeding emperors sought to impose increasingly tight control over the popes.[227][228]"

2)High Middle Ages:

• "Monasteries introduced new technologies and crops, fostered the creation and preservation of literature and promoted economic growth. Monasteries, convents and cathedrals still operated virtually all schools and libraries.[237][238] After 1100, some of these higher schools developed into universities, the direct ancestors of the modern Western institutions"
• "Reform efforts sparked by Cluny intensified internal Church efforts to eliminate the practice of lay investiture, or the practice of laymen selecting bishops. Considered by reformers to be a source of church corruption, lay investiture was a powerful source of dominance over the Church by secular rulers.[247] Pope Gregory VII issued a decree against the practice in 1075 which contributed to a century and a half long struggle between popes and secular rulers. The matter was eventually settled with the Concordat of Worms in 1122 which decreed that elections of bishops would be conducted under canon law.[248] "
• "Over time, other inquisitions were launched by the Church or secular rulers to prosecute heretics, to respond to the threat of Muslim invasion or for political purposes.[255] In the 14th century, King Philip IV of France created an inquisition for his suppression of the Knights Templar.[254] King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella formed an inquisition in 1480, originally to deal with distrusted ex-Jewish and ex-Muslim converts"

3)Late Medieval and Renaissance

• "Beginning in the late 15th century, European explorers and missionaries spread Catholicism to the Americas, Asia, Africa and Oceania. Pope Alexander VI had awarded colonial rights over most of the newly discovered lands to Spain and Portugal.[269] Under the patronato system, however, state authorities, not the Vatican, controlled all clerical appointments in the new colonies.[270]"
• "In 1521 the Spanish explorer Ferdinand Magellan made the first Catholic converts in the Philippines.[277] The following year, the first Franciscan missionaries arrived in Mexico, establishing schools, model farms and hospitals."
• "Toward the latter part of the 17th century, Pope Innocent XI reformed abuses by the Church, including simony, nepotism and the lavish papal expenditures that had caused him to inherit a large papal debt.[306] He promoted missionary activity, tried to unite Europe against the Turkish invasions, and condemned religious persecution of all kinds.[306] In 1685 King Louis XIV of France revoked the Edict of Nantes, ending a century-long experiment in religious toleration. This and other religious conflicts of the Reformation era provoked a backlash against Christianity, which helped spawn the violent anti-clericalism of the French Revolution. Direct attacks on the wealth of the Church and associated grievances led to the wholesale nationalisation of church property in France.[307]"

4)Enlightenment

• "In the Americas, Franciscan priest Junípero Serra founded a series of new missions in cooperation with the Spanish government and military.[310] These missions brought grain, cattle and a new way of living to the Indian tribes of California. San Francisco was founded in 1776 and Los Angeles in 1781. However, in bringing Western civilization to the area, the missions have been held responsible for the loss of nearly a third of the native population, primarily through disease.[311]"
• "In China, despite Jesuit efforts to find compromise, the Chinese Rites controversy led the Kangxi Emperor to outlaw Christian missions in 1721.[312] "
• "In a challenge to Spanish and Portuguese policy, Pope Gregory XVI, began to appoint his own candidates as bishops in the colonies, condemned slavery and the slave trade in the 1839 papal bull In Supremo Apostolatus, and approved the ordination of native clergy in the face of government racism.[315]"

5)Industrial age

• "The Communist rise to power in China of 1949 led to the expulsion of all foreign missionaries, "often after cruel and farcical 'public trials'".[339] In an effort to further detach Chinese Catholics, the new government created the Patriotic Church independent of the worldwide Catholic Church.[339] Rome subsequently rejected its bishops.[340] The Cultural Revolution of the 1960s encouraged gangs of teenagers to eliminate all places of worship and turn their occupants into labourers. When Chinese churches eventually reopened they remained under the control of the Communist party's Patriotic Church, and many Catholic pastors and priests continued to be sent to prison for refusing to break allegiance with Rome.[340]"

6)Catholicism today

• "The Church continues to occupy a unique place in society. As in ages past, the pope remains an international leader who regularly receives heads of state from around the world. As the representative of the Holy See, he also holds a seat at, and occasionally addresses, the United Nations.[371]"

This list shows that the article has not neglected the political or economical effects of the Church. If you can point out for us some notable fact we have omitted, we would be glad to include more info as long as it does not violate WP:summary style and the consensus of editors agrees to the addition. We have all already gone through the article and feel that what is missing is covered via summary style through the wikilinks to other pages throughout the article. Article size was of great concern to several people and we agreed to present content and size after much compromise and discussion. NancyHeise ^talk 16:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Geometry guy

• Oppose Wow, I hope that this embarrassment of an article will not be featured. An article on the Roman Catholic Church might, one presumes, include some criticism of the role that this church played in history and still plays now? If that is a reasonable presumption, and I think it is per WP:NPOV, then the current article does not make the grade. The lead contains no criticism whatsoever, despite being way too long. In the rest of the article, the only critical section I found was

The Church has frequently been criticized for the house arrest of Galileo, and also for the execution of Giordano Bruno. However historians of science, including non-Catholics such as J.L. Heilbron,[192] A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg,[193] and Thomas Goldstein,[194] have argued that the Church had a significant, positive influence on the development of civilization. In contrast to scholars such as Ramsay MacMullen, who take a negative view with respect to the loss of ancient literature with the rise of Christianity,[195] they hold that not only did monks save and cultivate the remnants of ancient civilization during the barbarian invasions of Europe, but the Church promoted learning and science through its sponsorship of universities and Catholic schools throughout the world. Presently, the Church operates the world's largest non-governmental school system.[196]

which is effectively a whitewash. The whole structure of the piece contradicts WP:WTA. There are many more embarrassments in the structure of the article, and I for one do not want Wikipedia to be embarrassed. Geometry guy 00:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay I've recovered from the shock when I first saw this candidate, and will hopefully be less grumpy about it! So far the cited paragraph has not been fixed. I've updated it, color coded the viewpoints and highlighted structural (WP:WTA) issues in red. I would note that the embarrassment here only concerns Wikipedia's core WP:NPOV policy. The article is very impressive in other ways, and my comments were not intended to denigrate the immense work that has gone into the article, or any editors involved. Geometry guy 20:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

More examples of non-neutral structure and prose follow. Same color scheme: pro-prose in a burgundy tone or not-pro-prose in a bluish tone.

• Eamon Duffy for instance, acknowledges the existence of a Christian community in Rome and that Peter and Paul "lived, preached and died" there, but is not certain that there was a ruling bishop in the Roman church in the first century, and questions the concept of apostolic succession.

• Although Catholic doctrine accepts the possibility that God's creation occurred in a way consistent with the Theory of Evolution, it rejects any use of the theory to deny supernatural divine design, considering that to be outside the scope of science.

• Although the Church considers Jesus to be its ultimate spiritual head, as an earthly organization its spiritual head and leader is the pope.

• The Church in Asia is a significant minority among other religions comprising only 3% of all Asians, yet its vibrance is evidenced by the large proportion of religious sisters, priests and parishes to total Catholic population.

• Most significant was its role in the spread of the Christian religion throughout the world, a process which ended practices like human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide and polygamy in Christian lands. Historians note that Catholic missionaries, popes, laymen and religious were among the leaders in the campaign against slavery, an institution that has existed in almost every culture. Christianity improved the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infanticide was more common), divorce, incest, polygamy and marital infidelity of both men and women in contrast to the evangelized cultures beginning with the Roman Empire that previously permitted these practices.

• Because early Christians refused to offer sacrifices to the Roman gods or to defer to Roman rulers as gods, they were frequently subject to persecution. This began under Nero in the first century and culminated in the great persecution of Diocletian and Galerius, which was seen as a final attempt to wipe out Christianity.

• Twelfth century France witnessed the emergence of Catharism, a belief which stated that matter was evil, accepted suicide, and denied the value of Church sacraments. After a papal legate was murdered by the Cathars in 1208, Pope Innocent III declared the Albigensian Crusade. Abuses committed during the crusade prompted Innocent III to informally institute the first papal inquisition to prevent future abuses and to root out the remaining Cathars. Formalized under Gregory IX, this Medieval inquisition executed an average of three people per year for heresy at its height.

• Historians note that for centuries Protestant propaganda and popular literature exaggerated the horrors of the inquisitions in an effort to associate the entire Catholic Church with crimes most often committed by secular rulers. Over all, one percent of those tried by the inquisitions received death penalties, leading many scholars to consider them rather lenient when compared to the secular courts of the period.

• In December 1511, Antonio de Montesinos, a Dominican friar, openly rebuked the Spanish rulers of Hispaniola for their "cruelty and tyranny" in dealing with the American natives. King Ferdinand enacted the Laws of Burgos and Valladolid in response. However enforcement was lax, and some historians blame the Church for not doing enough to liberate the Indians; others point to the Church as the only voice raised on behalf of indigenous peoples.

• In 1509, the most famous scholar of the age, Erasmus

Source quality. I randomly checked some sources. Dennet seems to be a scholarly neutral source. Norman, Wilken, Morris are all illustrated books for general readers. Armstrong is a school text book. Collins and Vidmar are not neutral:

Collins: ""Catholic Christianity, which began in Jerusalem with the resurrection of the crucified Jesus (most likely before April AD 30) and the coming of the Holy Spirit, emerged from Judaism"

Vidmar: "This is not to say that these miracles did not happen, but rather that they must be understood as explaining Christ's message. Christ can heal the sick, but such physical healing (as he points out) is nothing compared to his ability to heal the sinner."

Response to Geometry guy

• In 1509, the most famous scholar of the age, Erasmus

??What's the problem here [23] I'm glad to see the Protestant Truth Society is among the easily found sources confirming this cliche.

There are lengthy previous discussions on the sources for the article, which I suggest you read. The last FAC especially. I'm afraid your colour codes don't appear for me, which may be why I can't undertand your points here. You appear to be disproving your own argument that no criticism is included. Johnbod (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

← The reason why colours don't appear as intended is probably because Gguy's HTML formatting is not well-formed. Some browsers will put up with that, some won't. I'd suggest closing one (deprecated) font tag before opening another, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Like Jonbod, I can't see what your quarrel is with the quoted excerpts you seem to be objecting to. I too cannot see your colour scheme, and don't see what difference it would make if I did. If you have a problem with any of these sentences, or believe they are untrue, you need to clearly specify these problems, and back this up with reputable sources that challenge the scholarly sources used. Just saying "Collins is not neutral", won't do it. Xandar 00:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am responding to Geometry Guys detailed points in the next section below. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 01:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Detailed response to Geometry Guys oppose points

I have placed all of Geometry Guys list of sentences he claims are evidence of POV in italics below. I do not see how any of these sentences constitutes POV. But to make sure that Geometry Guy knows that they are paraphrases of the actual scholars I am going to include for him the actual quotes from the sources to support article text. If he wishes to then create a sentence that he thinks is more NPOV, he is free to do so and I welcome his help, however I don't think he realizes that we are stating facts, not our own opinions here. I think the shock he speaks of comes from not knowing the article subject matter and discovering facts that he never knew before. I am glad our article will help people learn more about the oldest, largest and very important institution in the history of Western Civilization! That is why I spent time on the page! NancyHeise ^talk 00:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Eamon Duffy for instance, acknowledges the existence of a Christian community in Rome and that Peter and Paul "lived, preached and died" there, but is not certain that there was a ruling bishop in the Roman church in the first century, and questions the concept of apostolic succession.

Excerpts from Eamon Duffy Saints and Sinners, Yale University Press:

• p. 6, quote: "For all these reasons, most scholars accept the early Christian tradition that Peter and Paul died in Rome. Yet, though they lived, preached and died in Rome, they did not strictly 'found' the Church there. Paul's Epistle to the Romans was written before either he or Peter ever set foot in Rome, to a Christian community already in existence."
• p. 7, quote: "It was against this mid-century background of ritual and doctrinal confusion that the 'monarchic episcopate', the rule of the church by a single bishop, was accepted in Rome. Throughout the Mediterranean world the rule of bishops came to be seen as a crucial defence against heresy. As Irenaeus wrote in his Treatise against the Heresies, 'It is within the power of anyone who cares, to find the truth and know the tradition of the Apostles...we are able to name those who were appointed bishops by the Apostles in the churches and their successors down to our own times.' There is no sure way to settle on a date by which the office of ruling bishop had emerged in Rome, and so to name the first Pope, but the process was certainly complete by the time of Anicetus in the mid-150's, when Polycarp, the aged Bishop of Smyrna, visited Rome, and he and Anicetus debated amicably the question of the date of Easter."NancyHeise ^talk 01:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

acknowledge (WP:WTA) and is not certain suggest the source is reluctantly admitting some well-accepted facts and is confused about others. Geometry guy 06:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what he is doing. He dismisses two pieces of historical documents Clements letter and Irenaeus list of bishops and comes to a final conclusion saying "there is no sure way to settle on a date by which the office of ruling bishop had emerged in Rome...." That is "is not certain". I have seen all your other comments on the page and I am wondering if, after reading the exact quotes, you might suggest a better word to eliminate the specific word you dislike? It would help me to know what you have in mind to make the sentence more NPOV to you. None of these seem to be POV to me, in fact in many cases, the wording of the article text is much milder than the wording used by the source meaning I really could have made it sound even more POV if I wanted to just quote the source instead- but I didn't and I think I did a very good job of presenting this material in an NPOV manner. Now if I could just convince you! : ) NancyHeise ^talk 07:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"This is exactly what he is doing" according to whom? Geometry guy 22:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Duffy, I have bolded his words above to support article text. NancyHeise ^talk 00:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Although Catholic doctrine accepts the possibility that God's creation occurred in a way consistent with the Theory of Evolution, it rejects any use of the theory to deny supernatural divine design, considering that to be outside the scope of science.

This quote which is found in the Beliefs section of the article is from professor Peter Kreeft's Catholic Christianity, a book which contains the Nihil obstat Imprimatur declaration by the Catholic Church to be free of doctrinal or moral error and which states on page 49 under the title "Creation and Evolution" "The doctrine of creation and the theory of biological evolution do not necessarily contradict each other. We do not know how God arranged for the world he created to come to perfection. He could have used the evolution of species by natural selection ('survival of the fittest') to produce the human body. Scripture says he "formed" it out "of dust from the ground" (Gen 2:7). However, the breath of life (the soul) was then "breathed" into man by God (Gen 2:7). Souls cannot evolve from matter but must be directly created by God. Insofar as evolution explains bodies, it does not contradict the doctrine of creation. Insofar as it claims to explain souls, it does. but it is unscientific and illogical to try to explain immaterial souls by material biology. Insofar as evolution explains the natural processes, it does not contradict creation. Insofar as it denies supernatural divine design, it does; but then evolution goes beyond its scientific scope and becomes a theology instead of natural science. There can be no real contradiction, ever, between true science and true religion, because truth can never contradict truth." NancyHeise ^talk 02:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

deny (WP:WTA) suggests a failure to accept a truth. Geometry guy 06:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not used this word. NancyHeise ^talk 08:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It is still in the text of the article. Geometry guy 20:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not used this word, the scholarly source uses it. I have bolded it in the quote above. NancyHeise ^talk 00:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Although the Church considers Jesus to be its ultimate spiritual head, as an earthly organization its spiritual head and leader is the pope.

This quote which is found in the Church Organization and Community section of the article is also from professor Peter Kreeft's Catholic Christianity described in the previous quote above. From page 109 "Essentially the Church is one because Christ her Head is one...'But the unity of the ...Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion: profession of the one faith received from the Apostles; common celebration of divine worship, especially the sacraments; apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders. For it is a matter of historical fact that 'the apostles were careful to appoint successors'.(LG20)" NancyHeise ^talk 02:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

earthly suggests a point of view, and is used multiple times in the article. Geometry guy 06:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Earthly is descriptive and was agreed by other editors as a concise and descriptive word, entirely appropriate when describing Catholic Church beliefs which is what this sentence is referring to. NancyHeise ^talk 08:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• The Church in Asia is a significant minority among other religions comprising only 3% of all Asians, yet its vibrance is evidenced by the large proportion of religious sisters, priests and parishes to total Catholic population.

This quote is found in the Catholic institutions, personnel, demographics section which is mainly sourced to the same source used by all major newspapers when quoting Church statistics, the Center for Applied Research at Georgetown University. The book is called Global Catholicism, Portrait of a World Church written by two researchers at Center for Applied Research, Bryan Froehle and Mary Gautier. From page 128-129 "The marked minority status of the Church in Asia has clearly not hurt its growth and vibrancy. The proportion of women religious, priests, and parishes as a proportion of Catholic population worldwide is generally exceptionally large relative to other continents." The 3% figure is total Catholic population in Asia to total population in Asia from a table on page 86.

vibrance is point of view of one source. Geometry guy 06:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Vibrance" is the exact word used by the source which happens to be the same source used by all major news media outlets when seeking statistics on the Church. NancyHeise ^talk 08:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And is this source used for critical analysis as well as statistics? Geometry guy 22:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest removing the word clearly and the phrase and vibrancy. The tonality is a bit absolute; best to let the statistics speak for themselves. Majoreditor (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed the word "vibrancy" - cant find "clearly" anywhere. NancyHeise ^talk 00:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Most significant was its role in the spread of the Christian religion throughout the world, a process which ended practices like human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide and polygamy in Christian lands. Historians note that Catholic missionaries, popes, laymen and religious were among the leaders in the campaign against slavery, an institution that has existed in almost every culture. Christianity improved the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infanticide was more common), divorce, incest, polygamy and marital infidelity of both men and women in contrast to the evangelized cultures beginning with the Roman Empire that previously permitted these practices.

This quote comes from the Cultural Influence section of the article. It is referenced to seven scholarly works. Listed below.

• Kohl, Infanticide and the Value of Life (1978), p. 61, Contribution entitled Infanticide: an anthropological analysis by L Williamson, quote: "Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule."
• Thomas Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church university textbook for decades here's one [24], another [25], another [26] another [27] another [28] p. 56 "Roman law allowed abortion, imposed no criminal penalty for abandonment of a child, and even permitted infanticide. It was only through Christian influence that these crimes were eventually outlawed. Divorce was consistently condemned by the Church, in keeping with its absolute prohibition by Jesus."
• Owen Chadwick, A History of Christianity Barnes and Noble reprint p. 242 "During most of the Middle Ages the work of freeing slaves by ransom was regarded as a good work; and orders of monks, such as the Mercedarians, were founded to win liberty for slaves. ...The leaders in the campaign against slavery were of five kinds: the intellectuals of the Enlightenment; the more humane of the American and French revolutionaries; Catholic missionaries in the Americas (the Jesuits never allowed slaves in their settlements); some radical Christians such as the Quakers..., and devout English evangelicals let by the parliamentarian William Wilberforce. Britain did not finally abolish slavery itself until 1833."
• Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners Yale University Press p. 221, "Gregory had a low opinion of the effects of state patronage in the Americas and the Far East. He condemned slavery and the slave trade in 1839, and backed Propaganda's campaign for the ordination of native clergy, in the face of Portugese racism. His disapproval of the Portugese misuse of the padroado (crown control of the Church) went further."
• Mark Noll, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis University of North Carolina Press (book review from The Journal of American History here [29] p. 137 "Cochins main concern however was to present a detailed defense of the Catholic Church as working throughout the centuries to apply 'abolute principles' of Scripture that defined "the equality of men before God, the lawfulness of wages, the unity and the brotherhood of the human race," the duties of mutual love to neighbors and the Golden Rule. Cochin put into the present tense what he claimed the leaders of the Catholic Church had always done: "Occupied moreover, before everything the enfranchisement of souls, they seek to make of the master and the slave, two brethren on earth, and of these brethren, two saints in heaven. To those who suffer they say 'Wait!' to those who inflict suffering, 'Tremble!'"
• Noble, Western Civilization the Continuing Experimenthas numerous authors who are profiled here [30] and is a university textbook here's where it is listed by a Cornell Univ. professor [31] p. 446, "The most chilling tribute, however, was in humans for sacrifice. When the wars of expansion that had provided prisoners came to an end, the Aztecs and their neighbors fought 'flower wars'—highly ritualized battles to provide prisoners to be sacrificed. Five thousand victims were sacrificed at the coronation of Moctezuma II (r. 1502–20) in 1502. Even more, reportedly twenty thousand were sacrificed at the dedication of the great temple of Huitzilopochtli in Tenochtitlan." p. 456, quote "The peoples living in the Valley of Mexico believed that their conquest was fated by the gods and that their new masters would bring in new gods. The Spaniards' beliefs were strikingly similar, based on the revelation of divine will and the omnipotence of the Christian God. Cortes, by whitewashing former Aztec temples and converting native priests into white-clad Christian priests, was in a way fulfilling the Aztecs' expectations about their conquerer." "
• Noble, Western Civilization the Continuing Experiment has numerous authors who are profiled here [32] and is a university textbook here's where it is listed by a Cornell Univ. professor [33] p. 230, "Women's lives were not as well known as men's. 'Nature produced women for this very purpose.' says a Roman legal text, 'that they might bear children and this is their greatest desire.' Ancient philosophy held that women were intellectually inferior to men, science said they were physically weaker, and law maintained that they were naturally dependent. In the Roman world women could not enter professions, and they had limited rights in legal matters. Christianity offered women opposing models... Eve.. and Mary...Christianity brought some interesting changes in marriage practices. Since the new faith prized virginity and celibacy, women now had the option of declining marriage. ...Christianity required both men and women to be faithful in marriage, whereas Roman custom had permitted men, but not women, to have lovers, prostitutes, and concubines. Christianity disproved of divorce, which may have accorded women greater financial and social security, although at the cost of staying with abusive or unloved husbands. Traditionally women were not permitted to teach in the ancient world, although we do hear of women teachers such as Hypathia of Alexandria (355-415).... Some Christian women were formidably learned. Until at least the sixth century the Christian church had deaconesses who had important responsibilities in the instruction of women and girls. Medical knowledge was often the preserve of women, particularly in the areas such as childbirth, sexual problems, and "female complaints." Christianity also affected daily life. Churchmen were concerned that women not be seen as sex objects. They told women to clothe their flesh, veil their hair..Pious women no longer used public baths and latrines. Male or female, Christians thought and lived in distinctive new ways. All Christians were sinners, and so all were equal in God's eyes and equally in need of God's grace. Neither birth, wealth, nor status was supposed to matter in this democracy of sin. Theological equality did not, however translate into social equality....Thus in some ways Christianity produced a society the likes of which the ancient world had never known, a society in which the living and the dead jockeyed for a place in a heirarchy that was at once earthly and celestial....Strictly speaking, catholic Christianity would be the one form professed by all believers. A fifth century writer said that the catholic faith was the one believed 'everywhere, all the time, by everyone.' It is no accident that the Catholic Church grew up in a Roman world steeped in ideas of universality. The most deeply held tenet of Roman ideology was that Rome's mission was to civilize the world and bend it to Roman ways."
• Rodney Stark, professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University The Rise of Christianity, Princeton University Press p. 96 "Because infanticide was outlawed, and because women were more likely than men to convert, among Christians there were soon far more women than men, while among pagans, men far outnumbered women. p. 102 "In Athens, women were in relatively short supply owing to female infanticide, practiced by all classes, and to additional deaths caused by abortion. The status of Athenian women was very low. Girls received little or no education. Typically Athenian females were married at puberty and often before. Under Athenian law, a woman was classified as a child regardless of age, and therefore was the legal property of some man at all stages in her life. Males could divorce by simply ordering a wife out of the household. Moreover if a woman was seduced or raped her husband was legally compelled to divorce her. If a woman wanted to have a divorce, she had to have her father or some other man bring her case before a judge. Finally, Athenian women could own property but control of the property was always vested in the male to whom she 'belonged'." p. 103 "Although I begin this chapter with the assertion that Christian women did indeed enjoy considerably greater status than pagan women, this needs to be demonstrated at greater length. The discussion will focus on two primary aspects of female status: within the family and within the religious community." p. 106 "These differences are highly significant statistically. But they seem of even greater social significance when we discover that not only were a substantial number of pagan Roman girls married before the onset of puberty, to a man far older than themselves, but these marriages typically were consummated at once." NancyHeise ^talk 04:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, but there's zero reference to any source which disagrees with these assertions, and sentence phrasing to suggest that no one could possible deny it ("note", "In contrast" WP:WTA). Geometry guy 06:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because there are no sources in disagreement because it is a documented fact agreed by vast array of scholarly consensus. NancyHeise ^talk 08:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? Do you think no sources disagree with the point of view expressed here on all of these issues. I would suggest that disagreement on a number of these issues is widespread. I've illustrated the case of women in the church below. Geometry guy 22:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the case of women to the article text per your suggestion. Thanks for your help. I do not find any opposing POV's to these facts clearly referenced to several univeristy textbooks and scholarly sources. Sometimes Facts are Facts and not POV's. If scholarly consensus agrees, it is likely that it is FACT. NancyHeise ^talk 00:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Because early Christians refused to offer sacrifices to the Roman gods or to defer to Roman rulers as gods, they were frequently subject to persecution. This began under Nero in the first century and culminated in the great persecution of Diocletian and Galerius, which was seen as a final attempt to wipe out Christianity.

This quote is from the Roman Empire subsection of the History section of the article. The first sentence is from National Geographic Society encyclopedia called Geography of Religion Christianity section which was written by Robert Wilken, professor of History of Christianity at University of Virginia p. 282 "For Generations, Christians suffered sporadic persecution. By the mid-third century, persecution became empire-wide. Depending on the ferocity of the emperor, many Christians were imprisoned, exiled, or killed for their faith. The refused to worship the Roman gods they derided as pagan-Jupiter, Mars, Apollo, Venus-and to glorify Roman rulers as if they were gods themselves. They refused to cremate their dead. In 303, Emperor Diocletian ordered that no Christians were allowed to meet in Rome. Their church buildings were to be destroyed, their Bibles burned." NancyHeise ^talk 04:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There is another book quoted for the second sentence in this quote and I have to get it from the library. NancyHeise ^talk 06:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you can source this stuff. That doesn't make it neutral. I could source all sorts of contrary claims to Gibbon's "Decline and fall" (which is notably absent here). That doesn't make him neutral either. Geometry guy 06:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This is actually such common knowledge that we shouldnt have to source it per WP:cite but we did anyway because we know how picky everyone would be on this FAC for this subject. BTW, The National Geographic book is in no way considered to be a Catholic friendly source so I don't know how you can call this POV. NancyHeise ^talk 08:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What "contrary claims"? I rather doubt you could, but in any case Gibbon is clearly not an RS here. That you should suggest he is "notably absent" here is remarkable. I'm still not at all clear what you are objecting to here, as in most of these examples. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is Gibbon "clearly" not a reliable source? I have no view on whether he is or isn't, but evidently you do. Geometry guy 22:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that a serious question? Because his work is over two hundred years old, and outdated in every area, despite the magnificent prose. Also he had strong prejudices, conscious and unconscious, that make him wholly unsuitable as an RS, especially here. Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It is. The bible is mostly 2000 years old (or more), is outdated in many areas and, despite its magnificent prose, it is full of prejudices, conscious and unconscious.

This article refers to McClintock's 1889 Cyclopedia. So what is so unsuitable about Gibbon? (Again I am neutral on this.) Geometry guy 23:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That is why the Bible is a primary source, not an RS either, except for (obviously) what the Bible says. In trhe case of Gibbon there are plenty of modern scholarly alternatives. We should not reference to McClintock's 1889 Cyclopedia either imo - do we? You will find Gibbon has been decided by concensus not to be an RS on many non-religious articles. Would you source a science article to, say, Baron Cuvier? Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Twelfth century France witnessed the emergence of Catharism, a belief which stated that matter was evil, accepted suicide, and denied the value of Church sacraments. After a papal legate was murdered by the Cathars in 1208, Pope Innocent III declared the Albigensian Crusade. Abuses committed during the crusade prompted Innocent III to informally institute the first papal inquisition to prevent future abuses and to root out the remaining Cathars. Formalized under Gregory IX, this Medieval inquisition executed an average of three people per year for heresy at its height.

This quote is from the High Middle Ages subsection of History, from Thomas Bokenkotter's A Concise History of the Catholic Church p. 131 "Innocent first found force necessary in dealing with the Cathari, an anti-social sect whose members preached that the material universe was the creation and tool of Satan; hence they condemned the use of all things material, prohibited marriage, encouraged suicide, and in general stood for a morality that strangely combined asceticism with immorality."

and from Eamon Duffy's Saints and Sinners, Yale University Press p. 112 "Innocent set about rooting out all such heresy - especially among the Cathars in Spain and southern France, a group whose religious imagination was haunted by the conflict between the powers of darkness and light. They identified teh material world with evil, and so their leaders or 'perfecti' ate no meat, abstained from sex and denied the value of the Church sacramental system. ... In all this Innocent did not shrink from the use of force, especially after the murder of Peter of Castelnau, the legate he had sent to organise the mission to the Cathars in the south of France in 1208."

John Vidmar, The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages, Paulist Press pp. 144–47, quote: "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."

Thomas Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church p. 132, quote: "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. Until then the responsibility devolved on the local bishops. However, Innocent found it necessary in coping with the Albigensian threat to send out delegates who were entrusted with special powers that made them independent of the episcopal authority. 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."

Edward Norman "The Roman Catholic Church, An Illustrated History" University of California Press p. 93 "In 1233, Gregory IX appointed permanent papal Inquisitors, most of whom were Franciscan and Dominican friars, to prosecute heresy. The Inquisitors had no powers except spiritual ones; heretics who recanted were given ordinary penances - usually those dispensed in the confessional. Heretics who were obdurate were handed over to secular authorities and were punished according to the laws of each city or state. This was a code of procedure more or less uniform across Europe. The consequences were not, in reality, especially draconian, especially when set against the normal fearsome administration of punishment in the Middle Ages. Heretics were executed by burning; conventional criminals were usually hung. In the middle of the thirteenth century, at the height of the Albigensian campaign, some three people a year were being executed for heresy. What first brought the Inquisition tribunals into disrepute was their use by King Philip IV of France in his brutal suppression of the Templars in the fourteenth century: it was secular, not the religious, authority that was largely responsible." NancyHeise ^talk 06:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Quote demonizes (even ridicules) Catharism, contains point of view on "values", then suggests that persecution was solely motivated by one "murder" rather than a desire to eliminate heresy. Enemies of the church "murder", while the church "executes". Geometry guy 06:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not writing the books, I am just presenting facts on a page in the same manner as the scholarly sources that WP:reliable source examples tells me to use. NancyHeise ^talk 08:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Historians note that for centuries Protestant propaganda and popular literature exaggerated the horrors of the inquisitions in an effort to associate the entire Catholic Church with crimes most often committed by secular rulers. Over all, one percent of those tried by the inquisitions received death penalties, leading many scholars to consider them rather lenient when compared to the secular courts of the period.

This quote is from the High Middle Ages subsection of History

Edward Norman "The Roman Catholic Church, An Illustrated History" University of California Pressp. 93, quote: "... subsequent Protestant propaganda for centuries identified the entire Catholic Church in Spain, and elsewhere, with their occasional excesses. By the 19th century political liberals and religious dissenters took the 'crimes' of the Inquisition to be the ultimate proofs of the vile character of 'popery', and an enormous popular literature on the subject poured from the presses of Europe and North America. At its most active, in the 16th century, nevertheless, the Inquisition was regarded as far more enlightened than the secular courts: if you denied the Trinity and repented you were given penance; if you stole a sheep and repented you were hung. It has been calculated that only one per cent of those who appeared before the Inquisition tribunals eventually received death penalties. But the damage wrought by propaganda has been effective, and today the 'Spanish' Inquisition, like the Crusades, persists in supplying supposedly discreditable episodes to damn the memory of the Catholic past."

Colin Morris "Christian Civilization (1050–1400)". The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. Ed. John McManners. Oxford University Press, p. 215, quote: "The inquisition has come to occupy such a role in European demonology that we must be careful to keep it in proportion. ... and the surviving records indicate that the proportion of executions was not high."

John Vidmar, The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages, Paulist Press, p. 146, quote: "The extent of the Inquisition trials for heresy has been highly exaggerated. Once the Inquisition was established ... the pyromania which had characterized lay attempts to suppress heresy came to an end. Ninety percent of the sentences were "canonical" or church-related penances: fasting, pilgrimage, increased attendance at Mass, the wearing of distinctive clothing or badges, etc. The number of those who were put to death was very small indeed. The best estimate is that, of every hundred people sentenced, one person was executed, and ten were given prison terms. Even these latter could have their sentences reduced once the inquisitors left town."

NancyHeise ^talk 06:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Point of view is favoured by the text, hence note (WP:WTA). Geometry guy 06:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have three scholars saying the same thing, I dont think that means POV but rather scholarly consensus. NancyHeise ^talk 08:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• In December 1511, Antonio de Montesinos, a Dominican friar, openly rebuked the Spanish rulers of Hispaniola for their "cruelty and tyranny" in dealing with the American natives. King Ferdinand enacted the Laws of Burgos and Valladolid in response. However enforcement was lax, and some historians blame the Church for not doing enough to liberate the Indians; others point to the Church as the only voice raised on behalf of indigenous peoples.

This quote is from the Late Medieval and Renaissance subsection of History

Thomas Woods How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization Regnery Publishing page 135-7 "The first major broadside by a churchman against Spanish colonial policy came in December 1511, on the island of Hispaniola (now Haiti and the Dominican Republic). In a dramatic sermon on the text "I am a voice crying in the wilderness," a Dominican friar named Antonio de Montesinos, speaking on behalf of the island's small Dominican community, proceeded to level a series of criticisms and condemnations at Spanish policy toward the Indians. According to historian Lewis Hanke, the sermon, delivered with important Spanish authorities in the audience, "was designed to shock and terrify its hearers," And indeed it must have: 'In order to make your sins against the Indians known to you I have come up on this pulpit, I who am a voice of Christ crying in the wilderness of this island, and therefore it behooves you to listen, not with careless attention, but with all your heart and senses, so that you may hear it; for this is going to be the strangest voice you have ever heard, the harshest and hardest and most awful and most dangerous that ever you expected to hear....This voice says that you are in mortal sin, that you live and die in it, for the cruelty and tyranny you use in dealing with these innocent people...." ...At this point, the king faced with dramatic testimony regarding Spanish behavior in the New World, called together a group of theologians and jurists to develop laws that would govern Spanish officials in their interaction with the natives. In this way were born the Laws of Burgos (1512) and of Valladolid (1513), and similar arguments influenced the so-called New Laws of 1542. Much of this legislation on behalf of the natives proved disappointing in its application and enforcement, particularly since so much distance separated the Spanish Crown from the scene of activity in the New World. But this early criticism helped set the stage for the more systematic and lasting work of some of the great sixteenth century theological jurists. Among the most illustrioius of these thinkers was Father Francisco de Vitoria. In the course of his own critique of Spanish policy, Vitoria laid the groundwork for modern international law theory, and for that reason is sometimes called "the father of international law"4 This note 4 is referencing Michael Novak, The Universal Hunger for Liberty Basic Books 2004

Klaus Koschorke, A History of Christianity in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, A Documentary Sourcebook William B Eerdmans Publishing Company page 287 "The first community of Dominicans reached Espanola (the Dominican Republic/Haiti) in September 1510. Since they had come in the spirit of strict observance and radical imitation of Christ, it did not take long for the undaunted Dominicans, in the best tradition of the Order, to make the connection between praxis and law, to detect the contradiction, and to decide to denounce the actions of their compatriots from the pulpit who "were excessively brutal and who knew no mercy or pity" (Las Casas). The prophetic sermon of Antonio Montesinos (d.1540) on the fourth Sunday of Advent (December 21, 1511) represents a rebellion of conscience and belongs to those events that we should definitely call epochal in ecclesial and human history. Christianity had barely reached the New World in earthen vessels when the Dominicans, by means of this sermon, gave it back its own unique character as a "messianic" religion of the hungry and of those who thirst for justice. ....(reproduces the entire Montesinos sermon)... After Montesinos' sermon the Crown convened a junta (commission) of theologians and jurists. On the one hand they developed the Laws of Burgos (1512) and Valladolid (1513) in order to limit the fierce exploitation of the Indians and of the encomienda. On the other hand they drafted the requerimiento (1513) in order to justify the crusades of conquest to the European public...Later theologians like Francisco de Vitoria (1483-1546) harshly criticized teh requerimiento and justified legal titles which were based, above all, on the ius communicationis and the ius pradicandi...."NancyHeise ^talk 06:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be WP:UNDUE weight to me: a lone voice is not the same thing as the institutional view of the church. Also Some historians are weasel words. Geometry guy 07:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not if referenced. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we also included the institutional view of the Church to show this consistency, in the following paragraph the article text reads "When some Europeans questioned whether the Indians were truly human and worthy of baptism, Pope Paul III in the 1537 bull Sublimis Deus confirmed that "their souls were as immortal as those of Europeans" and they should neither be robbed nor turned into slaves.[290][291][292] " NancyHeise ^talk 08:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Also from the Cambridge History of Latin America: 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."

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.." . Xandar 14:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• In 1509, the most famous scholar of the age, Erasmus

Edward Norman The Roman Catholic Church, an Illustrated History p 86 "By the start of the sixteenth century there was something like a consensus for reform among the educated classes. The writings of Erasmus - who when he died in 1536 was recognized as the most famous scholar of the age - included some of the biting criticisms of the unreformed Church. The most widely disseminated of these were in the Praise of Folly, published in 1509 while he was living in England, and in the even more influential Enchiridion Militis Christiani (Manual of the Christian Knight) of 1504."

not referenced in the article text but placed here to show you that Norman is on target with this comment I have this from Owen Chadwick A History of Christianity p 198 "The person who did the most to make educated Europe think that things must change because they could not be borne any longer was not a friar but an ex-monk, still unmarried: Erasmus of Rotterdam. We see in him the symbol of the new scholarship of that age; so much so that in modern British universities, on formal occasions, the learned still wear a hat of much the same shape that he wore. " NancyHeise ^talk 06:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Then show, don't tell, per WP:PEACOCK. Geometry guy 07:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly covered by the reference at the end of the statement. Since it is in any case common knowlege, or certainly Subject-specific common knowledge, and the article is under heavy space pressure - something you appear not to recognise at all - it would be inappropriate to expand, and is unecessary to remove it. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think we need the superlative. Surely a scholar talking about Machiavelli or Thomas More could put forward arguments about them as well. Either we qualify the statement with something like "Some scholars consider..." or we take out "more" and replace it with something else, like "a very influential" or even "one of the most". But an article about the RCC doesn't seem like the place to put forth the argument that out of all the early 16th century figures, Erasmus is THE MOST famous of them all (especially when Norman was saying that only applied at the time of his death. "the most well known Humanist in his day, north of the Alps", might be a bit more accurate). To top it off, the word "famous" is so vague. If it means the scholar that would be most recognized today, then I really think both of my suggestions are more famous (or "known to the general public") than Erasmus.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The quote refers to his contemporary reputation. Machiavelli was not a scholar at all, and only well-known internationally well after his death, and Thomas More was also only a scholar in his early years, and nowhere near as well known for this as Erasmus. Neither of them ever taught at universities, produced new editions of Scripture in Latin & Greek & so on. See the ghits for this phrase linked above - even specialist academic authors seem to find it unavoidable. Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This is really the most minor of points, and if justified actually contradicts Geometry guy's charge that the piece is too pro-Catholic - since it is elevating the status of Erasmus, who launched some of the most trelling attacks on the Church Xandar 14:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is pretty minor compared to the others. I listed it to show that I am opposing non-neutral prose. It doesn't matter to me whether the prose is pro-Catholic or against it. I am simply applying Pillar two. Geometry guy 20:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Source quality. I randomly checked some sources. Dennet seems to be a scholarly neutral source. Norman, Wilken, Morris are all illustrated books for general readers. Armstrong is a school text book. Collins and Vidmar are not neutral:

Collins: ""Catholic Christianity, which began in Jerusalem with the resurrection of the crucified Jesus (most likely before April AD 30) and the coming of the Holy Spirit, emerged from Judaism"

Vidmar: "This is not to say that these miracles did not happen, but rather that they must be understood as explaining Christ's message. Christ can heal the sick, but such physical healing (as he points out) is nothing compared to his ability to heal the sinner."

Response to Source quality comment Scholars of all religions and POV's have been used to create this article. Norman, Wilken, Morris books all meet WP:RS and are respected scholars in their fields. In fact what you are calling illustrated books are encyclopedias. Morris is in the oft cited encyclopedia Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity which is cited by my most scholarly works as well as Encyclopedia Brittanica. Wilken is listed in an encyclopedia by National Geographic Society, hardly a Catholic friendly source. Edward Norman you just need to wikilink to see that he is well qualified too. His book has a bibliograhy and is published by a university press - a scholarly work. I made a partial list of all the non-Catholic authors used in the creation of the article on the main FAC page. I eliminated Armstrong ref, I am not sure if it is a high school book or university textbook but it is unnecessary since the sentences it refd were already refd to other scholarly sources, one of the sentences still has three references beside it, all scholarly works. I replaced Armstrong with an Edward Peters book on the Inquisition, a California University Press. Vidmar and Collins are used for very minor few cites that we needed to have all POV's represented because they were areas of criticism. They supplement other scholars who are considered to be of the opposite POV. The most oft used scholars are Bokenkotter, a university text book and Eamon Duffy, who is clearly our anti-Catholic POV scholar. I don't know what else we should be doing to be any more NPOV. NancyHeise ^talk 00:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are tertiary sources. Geometry guy 06:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont think you understand what kind of encyclopedias these are. They are collections of the most respected works bound together into one book that is then edited by a top scholar. The authors collected in the Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity are top, for instance Henry Chadwick's The Early Church is cited 141 times on googlesholar. The McManners book is cited by several of my other sources in their bibliographies. What constitutes the top sources per WP:Reliable source examples are scholarly works produced by university professors, published by university presses or other publishing houses with similar quality levels and that have bibliographies and notes and are cited by other authors. That is what these are. NancyHeise ^talk 07:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are great sources for information, but should not be used for unqualified opinion. However, I readily admit that you have much more expertise on the sources than I do. Geometry guy 20:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Women

One of the issues which raised my NPOV antennae is the relation of the RCC with women. The article contains (I believe) only the following passages on this subject.

Efforts to lead the Church to consider the ordination of women led Pope John Paul II to issue the 1988 encyclical Mulieris Dignitatem, which declared that women had a different, yet equally important role in the Church.

Since the twelve apostles chosen by Jesus were all male, only men may be ordained in the Catholic Church.[148] While some consider this to be evidence of a discriminatory attitude toward women,[149] the Church believes that Jesus called women to different yet equally important vocations in Church ministry.[150] Pope John Paul II, in his apostolic letter Christifideles Laici, states that women have specific vocations reserved only for the female sex, and are equally called to be disciples of Jesus.[151] This belief in different and complementary roles between men and women is exemplified in Pope Paul VI's statement "If the witness of the Apostles founds the Church, the witness of women contributes greatly towards nourishing the faith of Christian communities".

Christianity improved the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infanticide was more common), divorce, incest, polygamy and marital infidelity of both men and women in contrast to the evangelized cultures beginning with the Roman Empire that previously permitted these practices.

I have already taken issue with the last of these. It is not that I believe it is false (even if I did, so what?). No, the point of Wikipedia is not to present The Truth^TM but to describe human knowledge and beliefs, as documented by reliable sources. It is a quite common view that the church has repressed women, and there are surely reliable sources which document this. Their views are not represented in this article.

One example concerns midwives. Now, I am no expert on sources here, but I did a simple search and found this reference by scholarly authors, containing a view which is not represented in this article. Geometry guy 21:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The "work" you link to is hardly a WP "Reliable source". It is a polemic pamphlet from the 1970s, published by a feminist press. It is written in an extremely biased style, contains no footnotes or academic references, and makes the preposterous claim that the main women healers in medieval Europe were witches! Even saying all that, it doesn't back up your claims with any facts. On the rare occasions it gives any specific facts, it makes it clear that male physicians were the principle people who took action to suppress women healers. In fact the medieval church supported many women healers, particularly among the monastic sisters. see here. This scholarly reference has nothing about the Church persecuting women healers. A Sister Ann is described as a medica at St Leonard's Hospital, York, in 1276. Abbess Hildegard of Bingen wrote the Liber simplicis medicinae (Simple Book of Medicine) around 1160. She was the first German medical writer. [34] Another famous woman physician was the Italian Trotula of Salerno, whose works on women's ailments spread across Europe. Xandar 02:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think what Wikipedia requires is inclusion of POV's even if they minority POV's but not if they are so far off the planet that no one agrees with them. We have included the persuction of what the church considered heretics in the article, witches fall into that category. The sentences Geometry Guy does not like on women listed above are not someone's POV, they are stating facts - the first two sentences explain some core Church teachings, something we have to include in an article about the RCC! The last is something that consensus of scholars agrees to extensively as evidenced above by all the scholarly works supporting the article. It is interesting to me that the one source that discussed it most at length with pages and pages was a university textbook on Western Civilization. I am sure that if it were a notable fact that the Church repressed women (as opposed to all worldwide societies in general) we would be able to find this argument in our works. When we searched for it, we found the opposite was true which led to the inclusion of it in the Cultural Influence section. I would also like to point out that we have included that the Church is seen as discriminatory against women for disallowing female ordinations. NancyHeise ^talk 04:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Even the Paulist Press has published a book critical of how women are treated in the Catholic Church [35]. Here's one from Indiana University Press that could be appropriate [36] and one from Beacon Press [37]. I'm not saying that these are the best sources, but they specifically speak to this point that Geometry Guy is trying to make (that some people feel that the RCC oppresses women), and indicate that more sources are likely available on this topic. Karanacs (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Karanacs, but many of those books would not fall under weight. There is no "one" view that they hold, and they are also in the minority or take an anti-Catholic Church stance, so they represent opinion, not fact. By stressing the opinion of individuals (which you would have to do since they each have differening feelings), you would have to necessitate including individuals, and none of those would meet the weight requirements for this large page. Sure, a controversy page, but not this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the point is here. We happily cite many sources that take an openly pro-Catholic Church stance, including a large number by clergy. What seems to be missing in several places seem to be the balancing external or opposing views (where they exist, of course). On uncontroversial factual matters such as the church's organisation and stated beliefs, it is probably fine to rely on largely internal sources; but in places where the article seeks to speak on, for example, what the Church's overall influence on Western civilisation has been, there need to be balanced presentations of all significant views (assuming, of course, that notable dissenting voices exist). Opinions will and should always be included in Wikipedia pages (things such as "the Church had a significant, positive influence on the development of civilization" are opinions, and correctly ascribed as such); the important thing is that all notable opinions are presented in a balanced fashion, and as opinions. The greatest danger I've seen in attempting to gain neutrality is in deciding that the opinions of one party are "fact" and should be presented as Wikipedia's view, where the other side's are "opinion" and should be marginalised. TSP (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"We happily cite many sources that take an openly pro-Catholic Church stance" Actually, this is completely wrong. We "happily" cite many sources that discuss the background and the history of the Church. They are not "pro" or "con", they are historical. You want to inject a POV, which would be a minority POV. Since pages have a size limit, injecting more POV discussion into a history page would not only destroy the balance of weight, but be completely unencyclopedic. The history of the church is not controversy, its development. Thus, controversy cannot take as central as a part as many want it to be. Furthermore, there are hundreds of thousands of books on the history of the church, so the handful here, percentage wise, fail to meet any legitimate weight concerns and would go against all Wikipedia encyclopedic practices. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that if the RCC needs to have a section on repressing women because of a few books, then the US page, the UK page, etc etc, need to have sections on repressing women for the same thing. It would mean that most countries would also need such. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not opposed to adding some more info on women. I like Karanacs book suggestions and I think we can add a sentence or two in the history section on this without to much trouble. Let me do a bit of research and you can all take a look and let me know what you think when I'm done. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have added text and ref to Cultural Influence section first paragraph and the sexual revolution paragraph of Second Vatican Council and beyond section of History. Please see and let me know what you think. Bokenkotter was the best ref, I searched in Karanacs offerings but I think Bokenkotter said it best and was considered more scholarly source. Thanks for helping out here Karanacs. NancyHeise ^talk 18:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to thank Karanacs for explaining the issue in a better way than I could, and finding better sources. I only have time to do very superficial checks and would not propose that any specific source be added to the article. I am only illustrating what views exist in published sources. However, there are a couple of issues in this discussion which illustrate my concerns over NPOV.

• The preference for fact over opinion. "Fact" is an ill-defined term: one person's fact can be another's opinion. It is often more neutral to present a balance of opinion, qualified where necessary, and let the reader decide. By relying too much on fact, there is a selection bias. Which points are elevated to the status of fact, and which facts are included? The recent edits are an improvement, but there is still nothing on midwives. The source I cited is certainly very point of view, and not a good choice, but it illustrates a widespread point of view that midwives were labelled as witches and consequently persecuted. This point of view is unrepresented and it is relevant.

I welcome the inclusion of some feminist critique, and am grateful to TSP for also clarifying this point.

• The distinction between individuals and organisations. Any organisation is a collection of individuals, so any action can be attributed to the organisation or to the individual(s) initiating it. In the case of the medieval Christendom, there are many layers: individual, individual churches, individual states, the RCC as a whole. One non-neutral aspect of the article is the tendency to attribute positive consequences of church influence to the church, but negative consequences to individuals or substructures. Did individuals or substructures persecute women as witches? Surely. Did the church climate foster this? There are surely multiple opinions and the article should reflect that.

Given the generally positive response here, I give further examples below in new subsections. Geometry guy 21:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Facts are those found in our scholarly sources as facts, especially when there is scholary consensus. I am not insensitive to what constitutes a scholalry opinion versus fact. If there are any facts presented in the article which you consider to be opinions please point them out. Also, please point out the inconsistencies in attributing positive consequences to the Church but negative consequences to individuals. I am not seeing what you seem to be seeing here. NancyHeise ^talk 00:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Science

The article suggests a positive role that the church has played in the development of science. Yet, no mention is made of the dark ages and the role of the church there. This is partly about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, but there are multiple viewpoints about the role of the church in this too. A related aspect is the elimination of "heresy" (a point of view term). This is not just about the elimination of "heretics" (Cathars and midwives being among those labelled as such), but the elimination of heretical literature. There is nothing in the article about the affect this had on the development of science and knowledge. Scholars widely credit medieval Islamic society with at least maintaining and passing on the knowledge of the Greeks while Christendom was in turmoil. This is certainly true in mathematics, and my observations on this have already been referred to on the FAC page.

Why did Western civilization not recover from the fall of the Roman Empire until the Reformation? Multiple points of view surely exist. I have again done a simple search for a strident source on the destruction of libraries and literature: here is one. This is just to show that the issue is discussed, not to suggest that this is the best source. Geometry guy 21:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I will not be adding any more information about science because we already have an entire paragraph in the Cultural influence section and mention in the Benedict XVI and Catholicism Today section. Gallileo and Bruno are prominently featured in the paragraph followed by more information about how the Church was criticized for the loss of literature. The paragraph perfectly reflects the balance given to each issue in our scholarly works. There were reams of information on the monks, very little on Gallileo or Bruno. The inquisitions are already covered and this information just supplements what we already had. No notable facts are omitted here and the issue has been treated properly in keeping with WP:summary style. NancyHeise ^talk 00:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few problems in the above, Geometry guy. 1. Dark ages is a false term and historically inaccurate. 2. The Church did not control Rome until after the Vandals sacked Rome. Now, technology and the Empire survived until the fall of Constantinople, and the technology there never decreased. 3. Heresay and heretic are political terminology and declaration by the secular and religious governments. This is no different than saying France is called France. The destruction of "heretical literature" had nothing to do with the development of science and knowledge. Quite opposite, the humanism of those like Roger Bacon actually drove people away from the Aristotelian models towards a more perfect understanding of science. 4. Some scholars do credit Islam, but many scholars instead credit them with only a few things, and those few things were taken by Islam out of Roman territories, so it was recovered from Islam and not necessarily discovered by Islam. Regardless, these mostly deal with mathematics, and this was quickly surpassed by those like Descartes. However, Euclidean geometry was never lost, just like Ptolemeic astronomy. 5. The Fall of Rome did nothing, according to Gibbon, but instead allow for a more perfect type of government, i.e. the individual states, to rise. Gibbon blamed the decline of Rome on gluttony and lust among the civilization leading to corruption. He was an atheist who hated the Catholic Church, so I'm sure that his view is very credible. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the destruction of libraries is a fraud. The Catholic Church actually preserved many, many "heretical" books that would normally have been destroyed by the Roman government, because the Church actually believed in collecting heretical works, studying them, and disproving them before they could cause social problems or be used for revolutionary purposes. The Dominican tradition, for example, was founded on this idea. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There is, of course, a chance that you are right, but is this "fraud" a fact, or a point of view? Geometry guy 22:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact. The above is the same as Protestants in the 19th century writing anti-Catholic "history" books claiming that Catholics believed the world was flat. There is a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda out there. Most of the Catholic Doctors and Saints were highly educated in the Greek and Roman texts and took careful means to preserve them. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Ottava. The Dark Ages such as they were, were brought about by the invasion of Pagan and Arian barbarians such as the Huns, Goths, Avars, Vandals and Vikings who destroyed the economy and institutions of the, by then Catholic, Western Roman Empire. The Dark Ages were deepened by the Islamic conquests which cut off navigation in the Mediterranean, separating Western Europe from the still-functioning civilisation of the Christian East. The recovery of civilisation in the west actually began with the Church, and took off from 1000AD onward, caused by the stabilisation of borders against the Arabs, Vikings and other raiders, the spread of Christianity Northward and the monastic colonisation programme along with the foundation of Universities from 1100. Xandar 01:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

My, it doesn't take much shaking to bring points of view out of the woodwork. So the Church did not control Rome until after the Vandals sacked Rome. Yet also, pagan barbarians such as the Vandals destroyed the institutions of the Catholic Western Roman Empire. Hmmm. I wish I had the certainty of you guys over what happened between one and two thousand years ago. I have never pretended to be a scholar in this area, nor do I have an opinion on what actually happened. I only know, as a scholar in general, that uncertainty and multiple viewpoints are typical when so little evidence is preserved. History provides a narrative which is compatible with and explains evidence from the past. Historians often reach different conclusions on what the most explanatory or most likely narrative is. You each describe slightly different versions of such a narrative. There are many others. This article favours, for the most part, one narrative. That isn't compatible with WP:NPOV, however "correct" or "true" that narrative may be. Geometry guy 22:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The version of history I gave in potted form above is, I believe, the Standard one, rather than a POV. But while you're making a lot of broad statements, Geometry guy, what you are not doing is stating precisely exactly what alternate view you think the article needs to incorporate, and giving us a sound and Reliable source for those views, so it can be checked. Opposes at FA do need to be specific to be actionable. To quote the FA Director here

Note - all objections must be actionable. That is, they must give a specific rationale for the objection. If nothing can be done to "fix" the objected-to matter, then the objection is invalid. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page, unless such suitability can be fixed.)

At the moment, you have not supplied anything specific enough to either fix, or to rebut. Xandar 23:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why are you replying to my comments?

On the contrary I have provided specific examples of non-neutral prose and specific examples of widely held views which are either ignored or dismissed in a non-neutral way. Action has been taken on two or three of my objections, and considerable effort has been expended trying to rebut the rest, mainly by confusing neutrality issues with reliable source issues (and I am not the first reviewer to note this). There is no requirement for me to find reliable sources, and even your 4-year-old quote doesn't say there is. Geometry guy 10:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Geometry guy, for every example you could provide, I could provide 10 more, which means that your view is a fringe view. NPOV does not state no point of view. It clearly states point of view based on their sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And this ("barbarians such as the Vandals destroyed the institutions of the Catholic Western Roman Empire.") is patently wrong. The Vandals, an Arrian Christian sect, although opposed to the Catholic Church, did not destroy any of the Churchs or institutions. Likewise, the other Germanic groups actually aided the Church and not hurt it. The promotion of Christianity under Charlemagne, for example, led to many libraries and monestaries being built and a revitalization in culture. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I haven't expressed a view. Your disagreement about the Vandals is with Xandar, not me. I'm still amazed that you guys have so much confidence about events which occurred more than 1000 years ago, and are able to determine what is The Truth^TM and what is fraud. Geometry guy 19:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My fear is that the Medievalists will join this conversation, dragging in thousands of points about European scientific and technological advances made between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance :) Majoreditor (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of the church vs. persecution by the church

These are handled rather differently by the article. Concerning persecution by the church, criticism is either absent, or is itself criticised as exaggeration (see the quote "Historians note that for centuries Protestant propaganda and popular literature exaggerated the horrors of the inquisitions in an effort to associate the entire Catholic Church with crimes most often committed by secular rulers."). Concerning persecution of the church, we have (literally) graphic details, and absolutely no suggestion that these might be exaggerations, despite the fact that there are sources which question many details, such as the Tacitus passage. Random source: [38]. Geometry guy 21:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be interesting for you to note that persecution by the Church was much less of an issue than persecution of the Church which was far more frequent and violent. We were not being POV, we were giving proper weight to the issues discussed in more depth in our scholarly sources. The Protestant propaganda was an very notable fact to mention that affected the Church very much. Even to this day, the Spanish Inquisition brings to mind the horrors of the Church - yet it is amazing how many people do not know that it was protested by the Pope and entirely out of his control! I did not write these books, I just put the facts on the page. NancyHeise ^talk 00:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The entire coverage of the Roman persecutions in the article is this: "Because early Christians refused to offer sacrifices to the Roman gods or to defer to Roman rulers as gods, they were frequently subject to persecution.[211] This began under Nero in the first century and culminated in the great persecution of Diocletian and Galerius, which was seen as a final attempt to wipe out Christianity.[212] Nevertheless, Christianity continued to spread and was eventually legalized in 313 under Constantine I's Edict of Milan." It isn't particularly graphic or exaggerated as far as I can see. It used to be longer, but the entire history section was recently pruned to bring the article within size limits. There are links to more detailed articles which are better places for more detail. Xandar 23:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Insider vs. outsider view

By and large this article presents the Roman Catholic Church from an inside perspective (that's a gross exaggeration, I admit). There isn't much on how the Church is viewed from the outside in sociological or other analysis, for example. Here's a random text with a completely different analysis, which may or may not be a good representative of outside points of view: [39]. Geometry guy 21:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that is way off topic unless it is an actual notable criticism of the Church which we have already included. Economic theories like this book are not going to help Reader know what the topic of the article is - it is a tangent with which to lead Reader away from the actual subject. Because this is not a criticism or notable fact, but someone's perusings on Economic theory related to a larger topic of Christianity as a whole I do not see the value of including it here. Thanks anyway. NancyHeise ^talk 00:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the blurb, the book seems essentially to be about Protestantism. Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Soidi

• Oppose. The phrase with which, as a result of further changes by Nancy, the article now begins is inappropriate as an opening, and is criticized by several editors on the Talk page. Soidi (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

While Nancy has rightly made yet more changes, recognizing the controversial character of the text on which I commented above, controversy still attaches to the view that remains expressed in a note within the lead (see the article's Talk page). Soidi (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I though I was commenting on the main page, not on its talk page. I will now move to the talk page. Soidi (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nancy has rightly made yet more changes, recognizing the controversial character of the text on which I commented. But, as well as suggesting by the use of the phrase "the Church" that the Eastern bishop Ignatius thought only the Western Church was catholic, a note within the lead attributes to a particular writer, as the only source for its statement, an idea that he explicitly rejected, it presents as fact a questioned unsourced statement that is contradicted by reliable sources, and it suggests, against the evidence of the documents themselves, that there is only one name by which this Church refers to itself in important documents. Soidi (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to Soidi

The consensus was not for "official" which we changed to "more commonly and properly known" bending to your arguement, it was for "more commonly and properly" which, after agreeing to, you then rejected. I have now eliminated any qualifying statements in the lead sentence following Karanacs suggestion which you also agreed to so now the lead states "Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church..." followed by a note which gives Reader all relevant info regarding Church name. NancyHeise ^talk 04:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Soidi is not getting away with this. "official" is correct, and has been in the article for the best part of a year. before that the article led on "Catholic Church", with "Roman Catholic Church" in second p[lace. Amenable to Soidi, we changed this to "commonly and properly", but that caused still more trouble. The Church's proper name HAS to be stated clearly, so I have restored "formally known as", to make that clear.Xandar 13:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out, there is only one "official" document of the Catholic Church, which is the Catechism, aka, the law of the Church. I already pointed out how the Latin is the official language on the talk page (with the US Bishops website) and how it is Catholica Ecclesia in the Catechism. In English (which is Wikipedia), it is Catechism of the Catholic Church, not Roman Catholic Church. Thus, this oppose is invalid as not being found on a legitimate complaint. If anyone needs any more proof, please feel free to contact me. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So in almost 2000 years the Catholic Church has produced only one "official" document, and this document, rather than, for instance, the Code of Canon Law, is the law of the Church. Soidi (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We are conducting a vote on the article's talk page here [40] to find the form of sentence that most people agree to. I liked the second one because I felt it eliminated all possible controversy and left all info on name issues to the note. Please remember that most Readers do not care what the formal or official name of the church is and if they do, they have the note to inform them. NancyHeise ^talk 17:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Censoring the official name of the Church is unacceptable and unencyclopedic. It is also against WP guidelines. Under those guidelines it is not acceptable to censor the name a body self-identifies by in order to "eliminate all possible controversy". That itself is a POV position. The official name of the Church should appear in the first line of the article. A footnote will not suffice. Xandar 00:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Church name has not been censored. It is a controversial subject that we are trying very hard to treat in a completely neutral manner. I am in agreement that the sources support use of "official name" but several other editors do not agree with this and provide links to some documents where the Church has used the "Roman" prefix on occasion. All this is explained in our note with linked sources and because it is a lengthy explanation (and boring topic) I think it is OK to put it there. We are conducting a vote on the talk page of the article to see which form most editors agree with. When we discover what that form is, we should respect the consensus, especially when no facts are omitted an any Reader can discover with ease what the official name is by clicking on the note immediatly following "Catholic Church". NancyHeise ^talk 00:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What the current proposal wishes to censor is the indisputable fact that the name of the Church is the Catholic Church as it self-identifies, and as it appears in its principal official documents and institutions. By removing this information because "some editors" ie Soidi, do not agree with this, the proposal breaches Wikipedia guidelines - which state that the self-identified name of a body is to be used even if other groups object to the usage. The proposal would give the false impression that Roman Catholic Church is the proper name, and Catholic Church an alternative. As such it is unacceptable. No consensus will be possible on that basis. All WP articles have the official name of the subject clearly accessible in the first line, not hidden away in a footnote. Xandar 02:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not true, we are more in keeping with Wikipedia policy by our current formulation. The Church name is such a complicated issue and one that is controversial so the information is best left to a note. Please see this [41] link that spells out just how controversial this is. WP:article name expressly encourages avoiding names that would be controversial and to seek other alternatives. The Catholic Church name needs qualification to explain that even though it is the official name of the Church as used by herself in her most authoritative documents, other churches claim to be "catholic" too. We can't say all that in an article name so it has to go into a note. NancyHeise ^talk 03:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The point that some other Churches call themselves Catholic too (but do not name themselves that without qualification) can be put in a footnote. The information on what is the proper, accurate and official name of the church cannot be consigned there - particularly if this is done because that information is a matter of controversy to some. Controversy is not an excuse for suppressing information. The newspaper article you link to on the controversy actually backs up the point I am making - Roman Catholic Church is NOT in any way the official name of the Church and is rejected by many members and sections. The WP article however is titled "Roman Catholic Church", this gives the strong, and wrongful, impression that this is the official name of the Church. This was tolerated by many Catholics so long as it was made clear immediately in the body text of the article that "Catholic Church" is the official name. it is this longstanding compromise that is being subverted by the current proposal. The article will give a clear false impression unless the footnote is read. Footnotes are not designed to reverse or correct false information given by the main text, but to provide additional information in support of the main text. the proposed change is a misuse of footnotes. The WP guideline you link to, WP:article name, is NOT the guidance that covers this matter. That article refers primarily to place or personal names, not the names of bodies such as Catholic Church. The more correct guidance is Wikipedia:Naming conflict, which states that a self-identifying entity should be referred to and identified clearly by its self-identified name, however much controversy other groups may have against use of such a name. It says that caving in to such pressure can be seen as POV. Removing sourced information to a footnote in order to confuse the issue and give the impression that the name of the body is not what it self-identifies as is POV, and against WP guidance and practice. Xandar 10:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Editors overwhelmingly decided on the sentence "Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church (note1)" as evidenced on the article talk page here [42]. They then overwhelmingly supported the note following the sentence as evidenced here [43]. Objectors arguments over the name sentence and the note were soundly rejected as evidenced by these votes. Soidi was the only person to suggest any problem with the note and his arguments were soundly rejected by both the vote and this dicussion here [44]. I don't know what else I could be doing to find the most correct sentence or note. We have exhausted this subject and come to a consensus conclusion that is documented on the article talk page. NancyHeise ^talk 15:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Editors are NOT "overwhelmingly decided on the sentence "Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church (note1)" which Soidi and Nancy have decided to try and improperly steamroller through with the aid of people brought in from elsewhere for a sudden trumped-up vote. A "vote" which has been held in a few hours without proper debate on the options or the relevant WP policies. Such a "vote" cannot properly be used in an attempt to overturn a long-term consensus of how the name of the Church should be dealt with in the article. Consensus is not achieved by such methods, and what is attempted is not a consensus. Nor can any such vote overturn the WP policies on naming which have been ignored by these people. The matter will have to be properly discussed in the light of all relevant WP policies and practices, the history of the article, and the options available for dealing with the issue of the Church's official name. This must be done to ensure that referenced facts are not improperly removed and censored from the article. Xandar 15:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The vote was the logical result of discussions over the past two weeks with over 15 interested editors participating. Per WP:Consensus "Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. —Jimbo Wales" 15 editors came to an overwhelming conclusion after significant debate evidenced on the talk page and the previous archived page of the article. No one was "brought in" except the person who welcomes people to Wikiproject Catholicism and I pinged him because as a Catholic, I wanted to know what he preferred. He sided with me and the others who were in the majority favoring present article text that Xandar rejects. NancyHeise ^talk 16:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The vote was not a logical result of discussions. It was on a new idea, immediately put up for a vote overnight, which was unrepresentative and confused. The previous consensus format was not even up in the poll. In any event consensus is not worked out by polls of persons, some with no contributing history to the article, held overnight. Real consensus, as per WP policy comes through discussion and agreement. The original long-standing article text needs a real consensus for such radical alteration. Xandar 19:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, Xandar conducted a new poll and support for the sentence that Soidi rejects [45]. Soidi's positions have been rejected by the consensus of editors as evidenced on the article's talk pages where they were soundly considered and debated by many editors. We can not act on his oppose. NancyHeise ^talk 04:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Marskell

Oppose. I haven't read this in its entirety and will try at some point. But browsing through I paused at Cultural influence and my jaw dropped. The POV is totally pervasive. "Aztecs were practicing human sacrifice, which ended with the spread of Christianity to the region by Catholic missionaries." Isn't that nice. Might we also add: "In order to achieve this milestone in human betterment, Aztec society was ruthlessly conquered and much of its population obliterated by warfare and diseases such as smallpox." We're told that Catholics took a lead in opposing slavery and Dum Diversas gets nary a mention. We're told that denying a right to divorce is an improvement in the lives of women. The second paragraph, meanwhile, is classic "yes, but" strawman-ing. I mean really. Marskell (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to Marskell

One of the rules of FAC is that you have to read the WHOLE article before you comment. That is to ensure that you are looking impartially at the whole article in the light of criteria rather than picking out bits that disagree with your personal outlook. The Aztecs were pretty good at practising warfare, many tribes joined the Spanish because they preferred them to the Aztecs. The incidence of smallpox and such diseases has nothing to do with the Catholic Church, but inevitable whatever Old World people had come over. So far this is your POV in conflict with the academic sources quoted in the article. Xandar 23:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've never known such a rule, and I doubt one exists. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the FIRST rule on commenting at the top of the Feature Article Candidate Page. Perhaps you should try to read such things before you post. Xandar 13:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that the instructions suggest you read an article "fully". In my mind, "fully" does not necessarily mean you have to read the entire article. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What does "fully" mean in your mind then? My dictionary defines "fully as "completely, entirely". What does yours say? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to Marskell's comment on the main project page of this FAC. NancyHeise ^talk 04:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Rreagan007

• Reluctant Oppose. This is an extremely well-written article, and it is obvious that a tremendous amount of work has been put into it. Unfortunately, I agree with some of the above comments that the article violates NPOV because the article is clearly biased. The main problems lie in the cultural influence and history sections. While the Catholic Church has done many great and wonderful things over the years, it has also done a number of very bad and destructive things over its 2000 year history. The good is heavily emphasized and the bad is very much downplayed, or left out entirely. You're either going to have to chop out much of the positive spin, or add in more of the negative points about the Church's history in order to eliminate the bias. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, lots of horrible things, like existing, not promoting Marxism, being an institution, not being Protestant, not being Muslim, not being radically feminist, etc etc etc. I'm sure if this was a biography, these opposes will be "I'm sure he beat his wife, why isn't that in the article". Ottava Rima (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to Rreagan007's oppose on the main FAC page. NancyHeise ^talk 23:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it not self-evident?

Is it not self-evident that this is no longer a review of the article, if it ever was, but a review of the Roman Catholic Church itself? As Xandar says above, what part of the blame for the introduction of smallpox into the Aztec community can be laid at the door of the Catholic Church? And as for slavery, the west Africans themselves practised slavery long before the arrival of the Church. There are certainly POVs on display here, but sadly they're the POVS of the reviewers. If this article is once again failed because not everyone likes it I think that will be a shame that wikipedia and the FAC process may find comes back to bite them.

This review needs to be closed. Someone needs to be brave. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets be clear here. I support the article. I think the RCC page, in one of its forms, deserves to be an FA. However, this has gotten out of hand and should be closed as not passing. There are many people who should have been involved earlier coming in at the last moment. It should be obvious as to who one of these people is. Its a little disappointing that they decided to speak up now and claim biased in a few areas. However, since their opinion is important to the process as a whole, this should probably be closed as a non-pass because they probably wont be satisfied within a few hours or days. Hopefully, they will speak up before FAC begins when a lot of the other regulars were speaking up. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, there appears to be 22 supports and over 10 opposes, which is a very bad proportion for passing this article. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I think that this is a great article that will never get past the pov warriors. Still, the lack of a bronze star doesn't make it a bad article; just makes the FAC process look like a farce. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that this article needs to be closed. I have demonstrated that we have either incorporated opposers comments or have not been able to act on others. 10 opposes is not 10 opposes if we have already answered their comments by incorporating their concerns or are not able to act upon them. NancyHeise ^talk 04:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be an enormous injustice to the people who have worked on the article, and a failure of the Feature Article process if the FAC were AGAIN rejected because of persistent POV-warriors. It will have to be restarted if necessary, and objections got to the bottom of. After all this is the FIFTH time it has been here, and it is getting beyond a joke! Nearly all the oppposes currently are people with a point of view to push, often silly, like the person who dislikes us considering Jesus and the Apostles as real people, or contradictory, like those who want more Nazi Germany or much less. For the process to work properly, non-actionable-opposes need to be tightly defined and ruthlessly ignored. I am sure that if the text of Britannica or World Book was placed up for review here without attribution, it would attract even more opposes than this has. Just giving a perpetual veto to a handful of POV-warriors is not a way to proceed, Ottava. Especially when editors take time and a lot of effort to respond to their concerns with good sources and research. I have suggested on the main page that objective criteria need to be applied in these case and this article compared to Britannica or World Book etc on contested points to see if any major bias can be identified in POV or issue weighting. If no significant bias is found the objection should fail. Xandar 13:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not the fifth time RCC has been at FAC: because of the extreme size, one of the restarts was entered as an experimental archive rather than the usual method of a restart. What shows in articlehistory as the fourth FAC was a continuation of the third. This is the fourth RCC FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(o/d) Malleus, I made clear in my second response that I am not laying smallpox at the foot of the Church. What happened to Mesoamerican civilization can't be understood without it, hence the mention. But how, honestly, is it POV on my part to ask that the Church's complicity in slavery be mentioned alongside its efforts against slavery? That's not my POV—it's a simple neutrality concern.

Given that a few reviewers have now singled out that section as problematic, mightn't suggested rewrites be in order? Marskell (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Complicity is a POV term. Your conflation of the Church with Spanish and Portuguese is strange to say the least. The same propaganda is found within Defoe's Robinson Crusoe about those evil Papists and their treatment of natives and how the Protestant treatment is so much better. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Then don't use "complicity" and try something else. "Legitimization" is perhaps the best term. Or (an important or): drop the reference to Catholics arguing against slavery. There's nothing that says we even need that Cultural influences section.

As for evil Papists, let's not put words in my mouth. Marskell (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not mistaking you for Defoe, Marskell. I don't think you are a radical protestant who published propaganda for half of his life. However, I do think you are using the same claims as he did, and that should give you a sense that maybe its not as neutral as you thought. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to have something like a (very short) "cultural influences" section would be a failure of comprehensiveness. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree Johnbod. A good argument can be made that you do the doctrine, the history (weaving cultural mentions as necessary), and the demographics, and you leave it at that. Islam could go into detail on architecture and calligraphy; it doesn't, and I don't think the article is worse off for it. I think this Cultural influences section doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it about culture or about apologism for Catholic expansion? The article is altogether too long anyway. Marskell (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And at a minimum, why don't people start suggesting rewrites to address concerns, particularly when they come from multiple people? Both G'Guy and myself pointed to this section, as did the oppose that arrived after mine. All that seems to be happening is that nominators aggressively challenge opposers rather than offering up changes. Sandy doesn't just count heads: an actionable oppose is an actionable oppose. (And if all of the supporters have read this article in full, I'll eat my keyboard.) Marskell (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Because there were multiple Peer Reviews and a talk page for this, Marskell. This should have been done months ago, not wait until the FAC process and then start surprising people when there was a long forum to join in the consensus. Wikipedia works on consensus, not black mailing people into adding your own views during FAC through opposition. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My own views? Go over to the bottom of the FAC and see my latest list; I'm not asking for any of my own views. That I have arrived here late can't be held against me; and the berating tone of the supporters is only going to ensure that this piece never gets featured. Marskell (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If they are not your views, why are you participating in an consensus based system? The whole foundation of Wikipedia is people pulling together information and discussing which information should be included. That is what your view is, and what you are attempting to do now. This is not what FAC is about, and I think it is a bad precedence for you, who is involved with the FA process, to jump in this late and start expounding about problems when there was plenty of time for you to join in consensus earlier. I am extremely troubled by people waiting weeks to oppose over POV concerns, and I think it is really troubling that you opposed approximately 26 days later, even though there were multiple FAC, Peer Review, and talk page discussions that you could have easily participated in the consensus. Instead of being one voice, your oppose stands as not part of consensus building, but saying "no, this has to change to accommodate me". I really don't think this is fair to the participants of RCC, to the Peer Review process, to the FAC process, and to the rest here. I stepped away from Wikipedia for a while because of problems, and I stopped looking at the FAC because of things like this. I find your actions disgusting Marskell, and those actions are the reason why I said that Sandy should close this FAC and not pass it, because people feel that they need to destroy this FAC process in order to keep RCC from becoming FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with what Ottava has said, except that I wouldn't call Marskell's actions "disgusting", that's a little unfair. This is not the first FAC that has turned into a circus recently. Simply demonstrates to me that the FAC process is not working as it should, and is emasculating articles instead of improving them in too many cases. In the process, it is alienating editors because of its inherently adversarial nature, which is perhaps in the long run going to prove to be its Achilles heel. The bronze star does not now and never has represented wikipedia's best content. I'd hazard a guess that the very best articles wouldn't stand a chance of getting through FAC these days. What's important is a good article, not a bronze star, but the longer this FAC drags on the more damage is being done to this article. That's the only reason I want to see this FAC closed, one way or another. I'm reminded of the old saw: "The camel is a horse designed by a committee." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue here is a conflict between WP:FAC and WP:WIAFA, similar to the one that arose not long ago over comprehensiveness and short articles. Marskell and I have both opposed this article on the grounds that WP cannot feature articles that don't meet WP:NPOV. Neither of us has, as far as I am aware, any history of pushing points of view in religious articles, and have both expressed no desire to impose any personal point of view on this article. Both of us, however, have worked, in a variety of contexts, to uphold the neutral point of view policy, which does seem to be rather misunderstood by some editors. I did not arrive late in the day deliberately and I imagine the same is true for Marskell. We have both been pretty specific about neutrality issues, and multiple other reviewers have raised the same broad concerns. However, my objections have not been fixed, and there is no sign that Marskell's will be either. Does that mean they are not "actionable"? Can we feature non-neutral articles because editors have been unable or unwilling to find (or credit as reliable) the sources which demonstrate this non-neutrality. This sounds very similar to featuring non-comprehensive articles for which the missing information cannot be reliably sourced. Geometry guy 19:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. I'm not convinced that damage is being done to the article. Here are two consecutive diffs: [46] and [47]. There isn't much improvement, but I don't see significant degradation either.

The point that you have studiously failed to address is that it is your opinion that this article does not meet WP:NPOV, not a fact. How are such opinions to be weighted? By who it is that holds them? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

How can one "studiously fail" to do something? I have not expressed an opinion. I have raised ample evidence that the article fails WP:NPOV. This evidence can be compared against policy for its validity. It is up to the director or his delegate to decide whether this evidence is valid. If it isn't, then it can be ignored. Geometry guy 21:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Geometry guy, NPOV is based on consensus. This means that the whole group discusses how to be neutral then agrees to the language. It does not mean that one person disagrees then constantly relies on NPOV to say that you are right. That is not how the consensus building process works, nor do you have any weight to your opinion beyond one individual in a group. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV policy reflects and is supported by the consensus of Wikipedia editors (and is a Pillar). Consensus building is very important, but that does not mean that consensus built on a single article trumps Wikipedia wide consensus such as WP:NPOV. I have almost zero weight as an individual. My argument only carries weight if it demonstrates that this article fails WP:NPOV. Geometry guy 22:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is a complete distortion of everything that Wikipedia is about. Consensus on the policy is the wording of the policy and that it is important. To use the policy requires talk page consensus when it deals with a page. Stop this right now. You are breaching all rules of consensus and this "me me me" approach is not what Wikipedia is about. There are over 30 editors that are working on this page. That means that your opinion counts for 1/30th. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

How can someone studiously fail to do something? By focusing on what suits their purpose and by ignoring what does not. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting definition. It might be worth evaluating your own contributions against that. We're all volunteers and concentrate on where we think our contribution is most needed. Geometry guy 22:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I chose the words "disgusting" because I am filled with the urge to vomit over some of the processing that people go through. POV concerns are solved through consensus and building together an understanding in which everyone is included. Why do we even have a consensus process and talk page development when people just want to go on their own and ask for their preferred preference. Honestly, the FAC process could easily be accomplished if we just had three regular people review it all, that is, if they knew MoS back and forth like Sandy does. The reason why there are so many reviewers pulled in is to have many eyes on it. I really don't care about the damage done to the RCC article. I care about the damage done to the RCC editors. This is a cooperative process in which people donate their spare time to help out, and instead of thanking them for their valuable time, we make them jump through hoops, subject them to last minute strain, and just drag them through the mud. It would be easier on these editors mentally if they were outright indef banned than to toy with them in such a manner. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Why does it feel like it is one every time I load this page? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church as it appeared before:

• the first FAC
• the second FAC
• the third FAC

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

By applying the principle of reductio ad absurdum, the logical position would be to have an infinite number of FACs, each leading (hopefully) to some improvement in the article. Not just for this article, but for every article. Enough is enough. I actually agree with Geometry guy's comment above, about the confusion between WP:FAC and WP:WIAFA. I just don't agree about who it is that's confused. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The cycle stops when the article meets the FA criteria. Even meeting policy would be progress, and WP:NPOV is a GA criterion too. Geometry guy 21:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Geometry guy, I would serious reevaluate your constant use of NPOV right now. Why? Because it is a policy and you are constantly condemning the other contributors to the page, which goes against Civility guidelines. You can say it once or twice and it is appropriate. However, the extent that you are taking it to is beyond any acceptable means. In essence, you have broached into your own POV pushing on the topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I condemn no one. I merely wish to uphold the quality of the encyclopedia, and (in particular) the quality of "our best articles". I am certainly pushing WP:NPOV, but trying to resist being patronising about it. I guess I have failed. Geometry guy 22:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand accusations of POV when I have reproduced the top scholarly sources on this talk page supporting article text that is toned down from what the consensus of scholars are saying. If Geo Guy and Marskell want to convince us that we are POV, why are they not supplying some diffs to scholarly sources that show some POV that we have not included in the article text? I have included Marskell's suggestion of the papal bull allowing slavery. I can not act on any other comments because none of them are specific or are asking me to eliminate text that comes from a consensus of scholars on the subject. How is that POV? How is that not just FACT? NancyHeise ^talk 23:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Geometry Guy and Marskell destroy their own argument when they say: "Can we feature non-neutral articles because editors have been unable or unwilling to find (or credit as reliable) the sources which demonstrate this non-neutrality." The answer to that is soundly YES. If you cannot provide scholarly evidence to prove the claims of non-neutrality those claims are invalid. Read WP:UNDUE. Your opinion about whether the article is non-neutral or not counts for nothing, since WP goes by scholarly sources. If there are no good scholarly sources to back your point, or your POV, then your viewpoint should not be included in Wikipedia. This is from Jimbo Wales.

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. Xandar 23:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Well. First off, a few procedural concerns should be addressed here; I'll hope that Sandy will offer her opinion on these.

1. It does not matter if a support or oppose arrives in the 26th minute or the 26th day of review. It simply doesn't. I can understand that there is more than an ounce of exhaustion amongst editors to this article, but it's bad faith to dismiss a concern because of when it arrives. Both G'Guy and myself have made copious good faith contributions to the quality content processes; we deserve better than this.
2. An oppose need not be based on a full read of the article. It's simply impossible to prove whether somebody has read the full article and you do not need to read everything to oppose; if you read the lead and find it terrible, you can oppose on that basis alone. The language has been removed from the template for opposes but retained for support.
3. It is not actually incumbent upon reviewers to provide sources for their concerns. Both G'Guy and I (and Rreagan007) are not actually questioning the sources used, but the balance of presentation. In my last bullet, I did point to a page which is itself sourced and reasonably NPOV. An editor concerned with addressing my oppose could easily use it to improve balance; I'd do it myself, but I suspect if I edit this article things will get even messier.

Also, I must address "my own views". My own views on, as examples, the divinity of Christ or papal infallibility have not been on display here and they are not germane to this discussion. It is not "my own view" that Dum Diversas was issued in 1452 (I appreciate that Nancy noted it in the article) or that thousands were killed when Tenochtitlan fell. These are matters of historic record. If you want to mention slavery, or the Aztecs, or Pious XII (note that you don't actually have to) then you need to properly reflect the historic record. That Christian Europeans visited brutality upon Mesoamerica is not the opinion of post-Marxist socialism peddlers, nor is it "my own view"; it is a mainstream historical fact.

Finally, Ottava and Xandar, your rhetoric here is becoming increasingly bizarre and insulting. I'll not say more. Marskell (talk) 07:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, You are the one who started with insulting rhetoric, having not even bothered to read the whole article. If you read the text on the FAC page it says, read the whole article before offering comments. And that is quite simply good practice. You cannot comment properly on somethging you have not properly read.

Also read WP:UNDUE If your "concerns" require a change to the article text, or the insertion of a point of view that is not already in the article, then YOU have to provide scholarly evidence that that point of view is A) Vouched for in reliable sources, and B) significant. You cannot just say "I think this is unbalanced because it does not say x" and provide no evidence. If you want to validly complain that a POV is not properly represented you have to provide the evidence that it is a SCHOLARLY view, and not just YOUR view. And whether Christian Europeans "visited brutality" upon Mesoamerica or not, is not a particular issue here. It is, what has directly to do with the Catholioc Church. Xandar 23:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, I cannot disagree with your approach to FAC any more than I am right now. Yes, last minute reviews by people who were blatantly aware of a consensus process that went on for a very long time but wait until weeks into the FAC process is an insult to the FAC process. Marskell, I respect your work, but it is impossible for me to respect your actions, and you are the reason why I refuse to participate in reviewing FAC. If FAC is turning into last minute surprises and unwillingness to participate in consensus, then I want nothing to do with it. It destroys articles and goes against what Wikipedia is about. This is the last comment I will make on a FAC review unless I hear otherwise that such activities have stopped. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Posted to Ottava on her talk.

Xandar, I have not edited this article. Of course, if I add something I would be required to source it. But at the reviews there is no rule that sources must be brought for opposes. And again, I am primarily concerned about balance and phrasing. I don't think continuing talking to you is going to accomplish much at this point. Marskell (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please focus on content, not reviewers

One small example from recent exchanges on the FAC:

Ok, let’s take this quote: “Christianity improved the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infanticide was more common), divorce, incest, polygamy and marital infidelity of both men and women in contrast to the evangelized cultures beginning with the Roman Empire that previously permitted these practices.” That statement is not necessarily untrue, but it is clearly biased. I could write a statement saying, “Catholicism holds women down by continuing to deny them access to divorce, contraceptive, and abortions.” That statement would be equally true, but also equally biased. If you can’t see that bias then you won’t get any of the other bias I could point out in the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That sentence is clearly is toned down from the way the scholars presented these facts which are reproduced on this FAC's talk page here [48]. Also, the opposing POV is included in our article text - you did not copy the following sentence. I reproduce the whole thing for you here: "Christianity improved the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infanticide was more common), divorce, incest, polygamy and marital infidelity of both men and women in contrast to the evangelized cultures beginning with the Roman Empire that previously permitted these practices.[188][192][193] Critics, however, accuse the Church and teachings by St. Paul, the Fathers of the Church and Scholastic theologians of perpetuating a notion that female inferiority was divinely ordained.[194]" The scholars give reasons why condemnation of divorce improved women's status, please read the sources I reproduced on this articles talk page [49], these are university textbooks, not POV's. NancyHeise ^talk 23:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The exchange directly above offers more clear evidence that some of the opposers have either misunderstood, misinterpreted, or else not properly read the entire text of passages they are objecting to. Xandar 23:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A response to Xandar:

Christianity improved the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infanticide was more common), divorce, incest, polygamy and marital infidelity of both men and women in contrast to the evangelized cultures beginning with the Roman Empire that previously permitted these practices. Critics, however, accuse the Church and teachings by St. Paul, the Fathers of the Church and Scholastic theologians of perpetuating a notion that female inferiority was divinely ordained.

See WP:WTA: this may be part of what Marskell refers to with "POV problems are inbuilt on the level of phrase". The tone changes if "critics, however, accuse" is replaced with something like "others say". One example only. Xandar, working with opposers, rather than discounting the issues they raise, might help move these FACs forward. Please try to stay focused on the content, the issues and the text and refrain from personalizing discussions to the reviewers themselves, particularly on a FAC that is overly long partly because of these sorts of combative responses. Several very good FAC reviewers and experienced FA writers have refused to return to this article's FACs because of the combative attitudes and accusations about reviewer motives. The combative and adversarial tone towards reviewers has dramatically improved since the first two FACs, and I commend Nancy's efforts towards improving the article, but this continues to be an issue, contributing to the length of this review and the fact that the same unresolved issues continue to surface. Others should note that disparaging reviewers, attacking their motives, and dividing reviewers into (usually wrong) categories of Catholic and non-Catholic is not the way to move this FAC forward. Working with reviewers of all viewpoints is the way forward: "writing for the enemy" is one way NPOV is achieved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sandy. This won't do. If marskell and others have specific points to make, let them make them. But it is not for us to have to work out or guess what he means when he fails to read the whole article, and then launches into a strident POV attack. If you cannot see that the combative attitudes originate in several of the reviewers of the article rather than from people who have attempted to answer specific point over four FACs, perhaps you need to refocus. We have tried hard to work with reviewers, but when you defend a "reveiwer" who admits he did not even bother to read the full article, and then , in spite of the guidelines makes vague and unsubstantiated claims of POV, then perhaps your objectivity comes into question. Xandar 23:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, it is not uncommon, nor it is wrong, to oppose an article without reading it all the way through. Often while reading a few sections a reviewer will notice areas where the article does not (in their opinion), meet the FAC criteria. Reading further may very well turn up more issues, but it is not going to make the reviewer forget about the issues they have already seen. The oppose is valid if it is actionable (which does not mean that it comes with a step-by-step instruction guide of how to fix each problem). Karanacs (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It does say in Raul's original instructions [50] to Read the whole article, in the current version it says that reason(s) "should be based on a full reading of the text." Without doing that, you have no idea how balanced the article is as a whole. But that is a more minor point than what makes an oppose actionable. To be actionable, the guidance says: an oppose "must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. " Saying it is POV or too catholic will not do it. You have to point to specific points, and be prepared to discuss them on the basis of sources, not just demand your own way. Xandar 00:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrt Marskell's post above, of course there is no requirement that any volunteer editor participate at peer review or join in a FAC early on or refrain from commenting at FAC because they didn't join editing early on. When an article presents at FAC, the nominators are asking for critical review and that should be encouraged. If an article is featured and goes on the main page, any issues that are unresolved at FAC will be examined by orders of magnitude more viewers, and less sympathetic readers. FAC should work to assure that an article is well vetted so that it can survive the scrutiny of mainpage day without ending up at WP:FAR, and those tens of thousands of viewers weren't invited to any peer review or FAC in advance. This article's history shows it has steadily improved as a result of FAC input: if reviewers are disparaged and alienated, the article will not make it over the hump. The article has come very far and the work put into it has been remarkable: an end to disparaging reviewer motives and seriously engaging reviewer concerns may help bring it over the final hump. The goal of everyone should be an article that could go on the mainpage and not receive orders of magnitude more complaints than we see from the relatively protected exposure that the article gets from seasoned FA writers and reviewers at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I inserted "Others say" and eliminated "Critics however accuse" per Sandy's comments here. NancyHeise ^talk 18:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That was one example representing the need to NPOV the text that was suggested by Rreagan007. Others have suggested that NPOVing also needs to extend to the selection of what material to include/exclude. Working with reviewers to comb the entire text for similar issues may help towards this end. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I appreciate your comments here but I have persistently had a problem with reviewers like Marskell who say the article is POV but are not specific in their comments. When they are then asked to be specific and provide me with some issue to address, it seems that they are asking me to eliminate sourced content. See Geometry guys responses to my detailed list of scholarly quotes. I provided those quotes because people just can't believe that scholars have said what we have placed on the page. Is it not clear that these are well sourced facts, not POV? You provided this one instance of wording improvement by suggesting "others say". It would help me a LOT if those opposing reviewers accusing me of POV would do the same. Also, I have added a lot of information that reviewers have asked for. I don't know what to do about selection of material, the material selected comes from the weight given it by the several scholarly sources used to create the article. For example, on Pius XII, the sources discuss at lenght the things he did to stop Nazi atrocities. We did not include all the things he did like hiding Jews in Rome during the deportation or his radio addressess which were hailed by New York Times as the only voice in the silence of Europe speaking out against the atrocities. We have not mentioned alot of things that favor the Church also evidenced if you see the scholarly sources quoted in my response to Geometry guy. At what point is someone going to believe that I have just stated facts and stop accusing me of POV? I persistently ask people what have I not included and then include whatever they mention if I can find a source.NancyHeise ^talk 18:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have observed that you are better able to deal with very specific examples than with the broader statements of issues with the article. For example, notice how many of Ioannes Pragensis' issues were addressed, and he presented a list rather than a broader brush critique. The current example typifies, though, part of what has gone wrong in some of these FACs. Different editors work in different ways: I, for example, prefer broader brush critique so I can work out the text myself, and I really dislike specific line-by-line examples. Other editors like line-by-line examples and analysis of what needs to change. One thing that has gone wrong here has been the disparaging of editors who offer up a broader brush critique: not all editors prefer to micromanage text at the phrase level, and some prefer to put up broader brush critiques with a few examples. They shouldn't be disparaged for working that way :-) I'm concerned here that you (Nancy) have either not gotten good advice about how to move this forward, or not noticed when you have gotten good advice, which is a shame, because you've worked so hard and the article is clearly improving. The goal of my post here is to focus on how the combative adversarialism and division of reviewers into theoretical camps may be preventing you from working with the reviewers and seeing the issues at a broader level. On an article this size, it would be very hard for reviewers to tackle the text line by line, offering you suggested improvements. My suggestion is to go back and re-read all of the opposes with an eye towards engaging them rather than dismissing them. Just because they aren't specific doesn't mean work can't proceed towards addressing them (on article talk, please, because the length of these FACs has also been an off-putting factor). The clearest example of this problem occurred very early on in this FAC, and it didn't have to go that way. Savidan put up a list of Comments (not even an oppose). After a rather aggressive response, including an unnecessary statement about his oppose (which it wasn't),[51] and little attempt to address his concerns, he came back weeks later to oppose. Savidan has written many FAs, including Pius XII. Marskell is one of our leading FA writers. So is Awadewit, and she hasn't been back after her specific offer to help in the second or third FAC. Many others have refused to re-engage here. Food for thought. The FACs will continue to be more of same until a disposition of engaging the opposers rather than disparaging them, so that the article can "write for the enemy" is adopted. We aren't Catholic or non-Catholic: we're Wikipedians. I hope this helps: you've worked very hard, but when other reviewers disrespect the FAC process, I'm afraid that won't help show the best way forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, as you know, I have tried to improve the tone of this article FAC process. I am not in control of all editors to the page. I hope you have noticed that some FAC reviewers have been less than civil themselves especially Vassyana and Taam. I do not see how I can be penalized for the responses of others. I do not see any of my responses in this FAC as being inappropriate. Savidan suggested a rewrite of the entire article. FAC criteria requires reviewers to be specific. Marskell has made suggestions that I have incorporated. I can not act on opposes that tell me to rewrite the article or tell me it is POV without some specifics. NancyHeise ^talk 18:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have consistently worked towards improving the tone, and you have done that; and reviewers were not blameless, particularly in the earlier FACs. And ... let's look at the progress. Several FACs ago, we were dealing with prose and MoS issues and wholly inadequate sources and some statements about outright POV. The dialogue now is on a much higher level, and I can't understand anyone saying this article hasn't demonstrably improved through the FAC process. But commentary shows work remains towards achieving neutrality in the article, and since you have taken the lead on this article, it will probably have to be you that finds a way to seriously engage the opposition and understand the issues. One other piece of advice that might be helpful :-) Raul and I are not the Owners Of All Things FAC; our "job" is to gauge consensus, not to be dictators. If Raul questioned one time whether a rewrite was necessary, that doesn't mean unequivocably and forever more that no rewrites of any sections might not be helpful :-) Because a certain version of any article went through Peer review or FAC doesn't mean it's forever set in stone or "officially" approved. Consensus changes, and not everyone shows up at any given part of the featured content process. If I change a pp to a p, that doesn't mean that Sandy Has Spoken So You Must Change All pps to ps :-) I suggest considering how very dynamic Wikipedia is, very unlike a Big Eight accounting firm or any other structured or hierarchical entity. All reasonable declarations should be engaged. Keep up the good work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful information. I thought I had engaged all reasonable declarations though. You sound as if you disagree. NancyHeise ^talk 19:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend to state whether I agreed or disagreed with any individual declaration or oppose: what is apparent is that most of the opposes center around neutrality and how History is presented, many reviewers are saying the same things, and many of the same issues are surfacing in subsequent FACs. You have nine unstruck opposes (ten, but the image Fasach Nua objected to was removed, although no other image reviewer has been through the current images in the article, and one I invited declined to come to this FAC ... maybe eleven, because I don't know what RandomBlue intended). That's why I suggest re-reading each oppose (summarized above, so you don't have to wade back through the entire FAC) with an eye towards engaging the reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, can you give me a few days? user:Ealdgyth has offered to help me with this. She is going to read through the opposes and the article on Wednesday and offer ideas on helping NPOV. You must understand that it is very difficult for me to see the POV when the information is coming straight from scholarly sources. I keep asking opposers for ideas on what I have not included to make it more NPOV and incorporate each idea they have offered except when there is no source to support it (like Vassyana's claim). I understand it is not their place to find sources but I think it is their place to be specific on what they are asking to see in the article and to be reasonable when it turns out their ideas are wrong and unsupported by scholars. This has happened with several opposers - Vassyana wanted information that the Church in Rome before the 4th century was not the same entity as what became the Church headed by Rome - I searched and no scholar supports this. I didn't have a problem adding a new POV - I just could not find any source - even her own provided that said that. Geometry guys oppose specifically listed several statements, all of which I answered in depth giving the exact quotes from several scholarly sources including university textbooks. Even when I show opposers that the text is sourced they still say I am POV for putting facts on the page. I am not sure how to be NPOV if it requires me to hide notable facts that consensus of scholars discuss at length in university textbooks. However, seeing that I need help in this area, Ealdgyth has come to my rescue and I hope you will allow us to work together to address this issue before closing this FAC. Thanks much. NancyHeise ^talk 21:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nancy has made an immense effort to put facts on the page, but the choice and presentation is not neutral. New input from Str1977 and Ealdgyth is very encouraging. I append an analysis of NPOV in this article below, which I hope will help. Geometry guy 22:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sandy. I am sorry, but you are being one-sided and ridiculous. Perhaps some of these people you are defending are members of the in-clique at FAC which many others have pointed to, but that does not justify your defending abuse and ridiculous unspecified opposes on their part, which are against the rule and spirit of Wikipedia. Your criticisms are totally one-sided and unjustified. And if this is your attitude perhaps your position would better be filled by someone a little more unbiased. There is no way we can answer vague and POV-inspired opposes based on the idea that the article is too-pro-catholic. Without specifcs, such opposes are little more than a declaration of personal opinion - and totally non-actionable. I notice you have counted the opposes including the most RIDICULOUS opposes, including the one saying it is POV to treat Jesus and the Apostles as real people! If the idea is that we bring the article back, then various motivated people make vague allegations of POV, which they refuse to specify, back-up or justify with sources, and you then count them all as valid opposes and fail the article, that is a game we cannot go on playing. FAC will have become a JOKE in which no notable controversial article can pass. Perhaps FAC is broken - and if so it needs mending so that articles with persistent POV opposers can get by on their merits, and be discussed on the SOURCES and references, not on the prejudices of opposers who choose to turn up. But I am not at all happy with your attitude here, and am asking why you have NOT criticised the rudeness and failures of some of the opposers here? I'd like an answer to that. Xandar 00:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, Wikipedia works on consensus and if there are actionable opposes they are considered by Raul and Sandy. I think we can trust them to decide which ones are actionable or not. Honestly, I would not have spent any time on this article if I did not feel we would be treated fairly by Sandy and Raul. The past FAC failures have only helped improve the article and we really need to work on improving the cooperative tone on our end. We are not going to get anywhere unless we are more respectful and polite - as we ourselves wish to be treated.NancyHeise ^talk 00:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Xandar is not happy with the message that adversarialism has not helped advance these FAcs, but I do hope he'll allow Nancy and others the best shot at getting this article featured. If she is a member of some "clique" at FAC, her efforts still deserve a fair shot, and it's time that someone called for an end to the combativeness that is keeping these FACs from moving forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What I'm not happy with is your worrying one-sidedness, blaming the promoters of the article for any adversarialism, as you did above. It is clear to any non-committed observer that Nancy has bent over backwards to be pleasant to objectors, even those who came in saying the article was a "joke," or catholic propaganda or would be an embarrassment to Wikipedia, or admitted to not bothering to read it all before opposing. Yet you have not said a word against these people. That is wrong. I also note that other article FACs can become adversarial, including harsh comments from the proposer to persistent critics ,without reproach eg King Arthur. But in this case, since certain people were involved in the article who you speak of approvingly above, it got passed, even with certain large areas not covered. Nor did I suggest that Nancy was a member of a clique at FAC. Clearly she is not. But there clearly is a clique of people at FAC who get FAs passed and who consider they have a veto on other articles. You refer to MArskell as "one of our leading FA writers". That should not mean that certain people "write FAs," and have license to veto others effots, make comments without reading the article, and refuse to provide the addressable specifics that the FA process requires to be tenable and workable. That is why I am alarmed at your continuing to count as "opposes" many which are clearly unactionable on any sensible interpretation of the FA criteria, and which editors have stated to be so. Opposes which only say "I do not like this article" or "I consider it POV" without engaging in specifics that can be dealt with are clearly non-actionable since they cannot be acted upon without guesswork. There must be an OBJECTIVE criteria for such opposes. Without this, the process becomes a farce. Xandar 11:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, please try to read what I write, not what you imagine between the lines. First, I was defending Nancy's efforts: I'm sorry you missed that. The adversarialism on this FAC is not coming from her, as I acknowledged. Second, I have given *no* indication of what "opposes" I "count" as actionable. (I believe you made the same mistaken assumption on the last FAC, where you equated "unstruck" with "actionable".) Third, I gave one small example of where the adversarialism on this FAC has prevented Nancy from addressing issues (which she usually addresses as soon as they're pointed out to her, as she did in this example) and has also discouraged other reviewers from participating. And finally, when an article is submitted to FAC, the purpose is for critical review: that is partly why the instructions say "Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly." Criticism of the article is part of the process; negative responses to article critique will not help advance the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(o/d) I have posted to Nancy offering phrasings suggestions. I'll probably do this in user space as the well is so badly poisoned here. Marskell (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I sympathise, but will continue to post here. However, I will generally ignore posts which are self-defeating by their hostility. In this respect I apologize to Ottava for treating some of his/her posts on the same level as those of Xandar, and I do not think that these two editors should be tarred with the same brush. Geometry guy 23:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And exactly HOW did you come into this discussion, geometry guy? With a load of insults and a very unpleasant attitude. So please don't start trying to be "holier than thou" at the moment. So far you have made a lot of noise, but come up with little in the way of specifics to be addressed or material to back them up. I think you need an attitude adjustment. Xandar 22:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What is NPOV and how does it apply to RCC?

I'd like to try and clarify some misunderstandings over this. I hope this will make it easier for editors to see why I believe this article is not written from Wikipedia's neutral point of view. This is not intended as a criticism of article editors, but is rather intended to explain why the issue is quite distinct from (e.g.) the quality of the sources.

Let's start with the obvious: the neutral point of view on a topic is the point of view that a Wikipedia article on that topic should take. It is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. (Italicized text is from WP:NPOV.)

There are several other things that the neutral point of view is not.

• It is not the most popular view.
• It is not some sort of intermediate view among the different viewpoints.
• It is not the view of scholarly consensus.

Instead, in Wikipedia's neutral point of view, multiple or conflicting perspectives [that] exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.

This is the first misunderstanding: POV sources are not a bad thing. When we label a source or source material as POV, it does not mean it conflicts with WP:NPOV and must be eliminated. Wikipedia itself should not challenge the point of view of the source, but ensure that the sources represent the point of view well, and are presented fairly.

The word "fairly" is hard to interpret, but WP:NPOV elaborates considerably on this.

• The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are clearly described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in.
• NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases... what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article.
• Assert facts, including facts about opinions, but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."
• A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized.
• A balanced selection of sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, 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.
• the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

The last of these is the opening of WP:UNDUE, which ironically has been given undue weight in this FAC :-) Let's consider the others. One is fact selection. The article has been criticized for this, e.g., in relation to the Aztecs, women, and slavery.

This is a second misunderstanding, between neutrality and verifiability. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively... Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited.

It is quite easy to see the partial tone of this article by imagining a moderately knowledgeable catholic reading it, and asking where they might disagree or feel uncomfortable with the material. Or one could ask, what parts of the article would the RCC itself contend? Very few, I think, and this shows that the commentary is partisan in many places. Another sign of the partial tone is the way that the article deconstructs an opposing position without first constructing it, or glosses over negative influences of the church before describing how reforms made things better.

I hope to have time to give examples tomorrow, but they have mostly been listed already, if not fully explained. I like Sandy's comment to "write for the enemy". I cannot write an NPOV version of the paragraphs I criticise because I do not have sufficient knowledge of the sources. It might be helpful to write an OPOV (opposing point of view) version. I will try to do this in a couple of examples, but other editors might want to try this themselves: for each challenged paragraph, write a version which uses the same (or other) source material to support an opposite point of view. Geometry guy 22:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything proposed by Wikipedia NPOV rules. What is surprising to me is that people are so ready to say the article is POV when they don't realize that we searched for opposing POV's sometimes in vain - like with the Cultural Influence section. What the Cultural Influence section states as Church impact upon societies is repeated over and over again in source after source.Human sacrifice was practiced not only by Aztecs but also by Ancient civilizations and Africans who were eventually Christianized. As I am willing to work with others in creating more neutral wording, I would like to ask others to please not call us POV unless they are certain we are eliminating some POV - especially in Cultural Influence. I really really wish some of the opposers would do their own searches on Google or Googlebooks and see if they can find something we have omitted. NancyHeise ^talk 23:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Calling article editors "POV" is unhelpful and does nothing to improve the article, I agree. Claims that the article viewpoint is all there is in the sources doesn't help to improve it either. Fact selection, partial tone, and other points of view are issues still to be addressed. Geometry guy 00:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Geometry Guy, It is a logical fallacy to suggest that passages that that Catholics could agree with or feel comfortable with are themselves therefore POV. That is an assumption that Catholics are always wrong, and their critics always right. What you are forgetting is the importance of FACTS. These mean that if someone accuses say Pope Pius of aiding the Nazis, it is NOT NPOV to quote their accusations if not backed up by facts with the same weight as a response that IS backed up with facts and citations. This is what is meant when we talk about weighting on the evidence of the SOURCES. It is not enough for Marskell to say the Catholic impact on the Americas was more negative than positive. For that to go in the article, he needs to produce facts and sources to back that up. It cannot go in the article on his say-so. Actually the article contains a good deal MORE criticism of Catholicism than most encyclopedia articles, and that most Catholics would agree with. And there is a LOT more positive stuff we could put in and source, but we've tried to be fair. However we are not writing the article some people might want - one that lists all the negative allegations against Catholicism in the Black Legend, and ignores everything positive. Xandar 00:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"It is a logical fallacy to suggest that passages that that Catholics could agree with or feel comfortable with are themselves therefore POV. That is an assumption that Catholics are always wrong, and their critics always right."

First sentence: I never suggested any such thing. The second sentence actually is a fallacy, but nevermind. Geometry guy 00:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to work with Geometry Guy and I agree that we still need to go through a thorough review of NPOV which user:Ealdgyth has offered to help us with. I am going to listen to what she has to offer us. If we are missing relevant POV's I want to include them as required by Wikipedia policy. Should we be looking for the Ku Klux Klan viewpoints on the Catholic Church? I am not kidding with this question nor being sarcastic. I want to know if that is what Wikipedia editors expect to see in their encyclopedia article. NancyHeise ^talk 00:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am going to answer my own question here and I invite others comments on my logic. The POV we have to have in history section is the POV of those books suggested for use in writing a history section by WP:RS specifically WP:Reliable source examples. It seems clear that Wikipedia explicitly rejects for use those books which are not deemed scholarly sources. If we can not reliably use books that aren't scholarly sources, then logically we can't include POV's that come from sources not considered scholarly works. We have included, to my knowledge, all POV's of scholarly works. I am hoping that if we have missed any, this will come to light when Ealdgyth helps us on Wednesday. NancyHeise ^talk 01:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE insists that POVs have to have a significant level of academic support to merit inclusion in an article, even as a minority position. What puzzles me is that opposers have had, since Sandy claims some of these opposes are the same as in previous FACs, six months and more to sort out exactly what their opposes actually are, and to produce some scholarly backing for them. But by and large they haven't. That is why a line has to be drawn under repeated unsubstantiated claims of POV in the article, and some OBJECTIVE measure used. Xandar 13:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources document viewpoints

A further confusion has arisen above between the point of view of the source and the point of view that it documents. It can be very useful to use a source with one view to verify another. There are also dangers here, however: if the source is hostile to the view it documents, then it may misrepresent it; if it isn't then neutrality may be compromised by the suggestion that "even a source with an opposing view agrees on this".

With this in mind, let's look at Eamon Duffy, who is described as "our anti-Catholic POV scholar". This description raises concerns, but let's see how the source is used first.

It is used to support generally uncontested facts (that's good!): a quote from Matthew, a few dates, Constantine built things, the move to Avignon, the percentage of Catholics in the world, the sponsoring of art. It is also used often to support opinion that is not at all anti-Catholic: RCC opposition to slavery, widespread growth and renewal after the Cluniac reform, reforms of abuses and modernization. The main other use of the source appears to be in the discussion of conflicts between Eastern and Western Christendom, for instance iconoclasm. Recent edits have clarified the article, but text such as "succeeding emperors sought to impose increasingly tight control over the popes" is still broadly sympathetic to the RCC viewpoint.

What's left? Well, there's a comment on the fact that "rich, powerful and worldly men... were able to win election to the papacy", without explaining the consequences of this. There's the Albigensian Crusade, which (arguably) has a papal viewpoint. And there's the suggestion that Peter and/or Paul might not have founded the church in Rome. Let's focus on the last one.

The article describes the RCC view:

• "The Church and many historians believe it to be the continuation, through apostolic succession, of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter."

Okay, but what about alternative viewpoints. Well, we have:

• "Eamon Duffy for instance, acknowledges the existence of a Christian community in Rome and that Peter and Paul 'lived, preached and died' there, but is not certain that there was a ruling bishop in the Roman church in the first century, and questions the concept of apostolic succession."

This is not presented neutrally. Despite the source being qualified, the viewpoint is not that of the source. If you are going to qualify the source, then present its view fairly. Here are alternative qualified and unqualified versions.

• "Scholars such as Eamon Duffy argue that neither Peter nor Paul could have founded the the Church in Rome, since Paul's Epistle to the Romans was written before either he or Peter had visited Rome."
• "Scholars generally accept the early Christian tradition that Peter and Paul preached and died in Rome, but there is disagreement over whether they founded the Church there. The office of ruling bishop of Rome may not have emerged until the time of Anicetus over 100 years later."

I am not claiming that either alternative version is neutral. In particular, in the second sentence of the second version, I am just showing what can be done using the same source material!

The last paragraph of WP:NPOV is worth quoting in its entirety:

• There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy, that when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to oppose Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the editors of Wikipedia, trust readers to form their own opinions. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any particular one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism. Nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.

In other words, let the reader decide. Article editors have opposed criticism by saying "we are just writing what the sources say". However, which sources you use, which facts you pick, and how you present opinion has an enormous effect on the freedom you give the reader to form their own opinion. Wikipedia's neutral point of view asks you to hand the reader as much freedom as you possibly can. Geometry guy 00:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have mentioned before that it is wrong to characterise Eamon Duffy as "anti-Catholic", as a look at his biography will show. He is however a professional historian of distinction who essentially takes a scholarly view, and, like a great many Catholic writers, is not attached to the Church's official position on matters. Johnbod (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree and welcome further contributions to this discussion based on such a position. Geometry guy 00:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Eamon Duffy viewpoint in the article, as quoted by you above is a fair reflection of what Duffy says on the issue of apostolic succession in the foundation of the Catholic Church. You are confusing this with another (less important) issue, namely who founded the Church in Rome. One of your alternative Duffy quotes is actually in the notes, but since the issue of who founded the roman congregation is peripheral, it does not have the weight to be in the main text. A tweak in the wording is always possible, but your example does not make the point of POV presentation of sources. Xandar 23:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue of whether Peter or Paul founded the Church in Rome is not in dispute among scholars. The Christians were already in Rome before they arrived. The article is discussing apostolic succession and whether or not Peter led the Church in Rome as its first bishop. The scholarly dispute is over this item, not the other. I changed the words in Duffy's sentence from "is not certain" to "doubts".NancyHeise ^talk 08:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)