Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive3

Addressing Karanacs request to go through all cites to make sure no plagiarism or punctuation errors in quoting material from cited sources

Sections in article checked by Nancy and comments

• Lead

Comment - I did not have the source for reference number 19 but I could use the book by Bokenkotter because he says the same thing in his introduction if anyone wants me to change the source. I won't change it unless someone has a problem with that. NancyHeise (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" did not have quotes although it was ref'd to the church constitution at the end of the sentence. I added a ref to the Catechism as well right after the phrase and put the phrase in quotes.NancyHeise (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Origin and Mission

Comment - no problems identified

• Beliefs opening para

Comment - no problems found except that I dont have the sources for three references - numbers 47, 49, and 50 - the authors are Mongoven, Langan and Parry.

I've looked at Ref 49, Langan. No copy there. Xandar (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• God the Father, Original sin, Baptism

Comment - made two edits to eliminate use of same word as cited source - see edit history

• Jesus, sin and Penance

Comment - no problems. I cleaned up a ref that did not have to be separated

• Holy Spirit and Confirmation

Comment - put quotes around "sacrament of Christian maturity" because the source used quotes for that term

• Church, works of mercy, Anointing of the Sick

Comment - put quotes around excerpt from Catechism and another quote from another source that I couldnt think of better words to use. Both of these were immediately followed by the cited source but phrase did not have quotes.

• Final Judgement and Afterlife

Comment - there were four instances of quoted phrases followed by ref that I had to either change words or put quotes around

• Prayer and worship

Comment - I do not have the Trauffler book so to make sure it did not have same words, I changed the sentence to my own words. I also put quotes on part of a sentence ref'd to the Catechism that used same words.

• Church organization and community

Comment - I found one instance where quoted material that was introduced as a quote and followed by the ref but did not have quotation marks around the quoted phrase - corrected.

• Demographics

Comment - No problems

• Roman Empire

Comment - found one instance of quoted material in text that did not have quotation marks but was followed by reference with full quote in ref. I corrected by putting quotation marks.

• Early Middle Ages

Comment - no problems

• High Middle Ages

Comment - one instance of quoted phrase within a sentence did not have quotation marks but did have reference - I corrected punctuation error. Also, there was an error with a sentence cited to Vidmar. I did not paraphrase his meaning correctly, he was talking about the Medieval Crusade and I inserted the info as the Albigensian Crusade. Corrected by eliminating the sentence and replacing with a new one sourced to Norman.

• Late Medieval and Renaissance

Comment - corrected one instance of similar phrase using same words - I changed the words instead of turning it into a quote. Ref was at end of sentence. Also, I do not have the sources for ref numbers 231, 232, 233, 244, 250, and 251. These are to authors Samora, Jackson and Schama and I believe that Karanacs was the contributor of these sections with these authors.

• Age of Reason

Comment - corrected two instances of use of same word or words that might have needed quotes if I didn't change it. Both had references at end of sentence.

• Modern Era

Comment - changed one instance of some same words within a sentence followed by a ref. Addressed by using different words.

• Vatican II and beyond

Comment - changed two partial quotes into full quotes. These were followed by ref. Also, I did not have books for references 297, 303, and 305 to authors Bruni, Steinfels and Frawley ODea.

Completed. NancyHeise (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What John Vidmar really says about Anabaptists and Zwingli quoted from his book used in our RCC article "The Catholic Church Through the Ages" page 203-204

"The Anabaptists began in Zwingli's Zurich, but were unhappy about the slow pace of the Zwinglian reform. In 1523 they began to question the appropriateness of infant baptism. They ran afoul of the city council in Zurich when it began to legislate and enforce reformed practices in Zurich. Their overriding principle was that people should be free to search the Bible for the truth. After being expelled from Zurich, they constructed a Confession in 1527 that set out the principles and organization of a pacifist sectarian creed which was to avoid civil oaths, public office, and bloodshed. The Anabaptists are a difficult group to categorize, because they believed many different things in different places, depending on who their leaders were. However, there are common threads which allow us ot identify Anabaptist sects to some degree. They generally held the following notions in common: 1) a desire to establish the primitive community of Jerusalem; 2)only the elect could belong to it and be saved; 3)the life of the congregation and individual must be oriented to the Scriptures, and preferably the New Testament; 4)The Spirit of God guarantees the correct understanding of the Scriptures (i.e., not the church and not any civil government); 5) a denial of the Real Presence and the corresponding belief in the Lord's Supper as a memorial feast; 6)excommunication was to be applied liberaly; 7)the pursuit of a bustling missionary movement, spurred on by the proximity of the Second Coming; 8)a rejection of military service, the taking of oaths, the death penalty, the acceptance of any civil position of authority; 9) the allowance of private property. (Related groups like the Moravian (Hutterites) regarded private property as sinful - saying 'Those who have it have no Father in heaven.') Such religious determination could, and did, lead to extremes, the most sensational of which was the episode of the Anabaptists in the northwestern German city of Munster. There Melchior Hofmann (1500-43) preached that the Bible was a secret revelation, which only those spirit-filled few could interpret correctly. Of course, he was one of them. He believed that the world was going to end soon, and he thought he was one of the final witnesses announced in Revelations 11-3 - the new Elijah. When the Reformation became established in Munster in the early 1530's the town became crowded with Anabaptists, much like San Francisco became crowded with hippies in the 1960's. All who opposed them were expelled. The town council became completely Anabaptist in 1534. John von Leiden soon took over and dissolved the council and appointed twelve elders in its place-as rulers of the twelve tribes of Israel. In reality, he did the ruling. After a failed military coup against him, he executed the opposing leaders (1534). He also executed one of his wives (polygamy had been introduced in 1534). After this military success, he declared himself king of the world. With friends like him, the Anabaptists did not have to look far to find enemies. Luther and Roman Cahtolics were both appalled at what was happening in Munster and agreed that military action was necessary. The bishop of Munster raised an army, someone inside the city opened the gates, and von Leiden's coup was put down in June 1535. Von Leiden and his close associates were examined under torture for seven months until they died. The cages where their corpses were hung can still be seen hanging from a church tower in Munster. Religious toleration thus became a dirty word and would not be tried again for another century (in Maryland)."

Full text of Vidmar's quote on page 198 of "The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages

Since this subject is way off topic I am putting this on the discussion page. RelHistBuff is pointing out what he calls errors in Vidmar's book that we used for some cites on our article page. Since he is taking Vidmar out of context, I feel it is only fair to include the full text of Vidmar's statement so people can decide for themselves if he is in error or not. From "The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages" page 198: "Thus Zwingli radically minimized the theology of the Eucharist. He not only eliminated sacrificial language but also held that the Eucharist was only a symbol, shrinking from the idea that physical objects could be vehicles of spiritual gifts. Thus, when Christ said, "This is my body," he meant it in the same way he meant "I am the vine," etc. Martin Bucer, an ex-Dominican and an unflappable peacemaker among the warring tribes of new Reformation sects, saw the Eucharist as a very real source of division, and sought to bring Zwingli and Martin Luther to some agreement. At this famous (and apparently brief) meeting, Zwingli stated his position, and Luther wrote on the desk "Hoc est Corpus Meum," the ancient words of the liturgy which stated that "This is my body." Zwingli countered that the Latin should read "Hoc significat Corpus Meum," or "This symbolizes my body." Bucer attempted desperately to arrive at the compromise that the Eucharist would be whatever the receiver wanted it to be, the ulitmate in individualism, but both Zwingli and Luther had too much integrity to settle for such a position. The meeting ended without any agreement.

Zwingli had the idea that anything not expressly permitted by Scripture was sinful. Hence hymns and pipe organs were unscriptural. For modern Zwinglians - namely the Amish in the United States - the logical consequence of this is that electricity, the internal combustion engine, or modern medicine, are not in Scripture, and are therefore to be avoided. Luther differed from this radical position completely. He thought that whatever Scripture did not forbid was permissible. Consequently, he was far more flexible (and traditional) than other reformers - allowing vestments, stained glass, organ-playing, and hymn-singing.

Zwingli's contribution to the Reformation was mainly liturgical. His Sunday word service and "evangelical Last Supper" became the principal ways of worship for most mainline Protestant churches: Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists, Baptists, Evangelicals. In Presbytterian churches, this led to a two-tiered congregation: an elite few who were "practicing" Presbyterians and the rest. So, if communion is given, only a few receive. Protestant liturgical art would also follow Zwingli's lead: simple churches unadorned with statues, stained glass, candles, or altars. Most often, a small table stands at the head of the congregation with a Bible on it. An even more extreme form of this would be the modern-day auditorium-e.g., the Crystal Cathedral. Because of the loss of Roman sacrificial vestments and a corresponding dependence on knowledge of Scripture, ministers soon began to wear academic garb to demonstrate their theological credentials."

This still says ..."modern Zwinglians - namely the Amish in the United States - " which is wrong. Amish trace their roots to the Anabaptists, which did grow out of disputes with Zwingli, but they are not Zwinglian in any way shape, form or fashion. He's wrong. I'm not enough of a theologian to know if the rest of that paragraph is correct about Zwingli (the part about things not expressly in Scripture are sinful) but I do know enough to know that the second sentence is wrong. And it's wrong on a very basic level, one that is taught to undergraduates in their basic Reformation classes. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone point to any review where an expert is alleging that what Vidmar is saying is incorrect? There are no bad reviews of his book, they are only good. Also, why are we on the topic of Anabaptists? None of this is in the article text. No one has pointed out any factual inaccuracy in the text. NancyHeise (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If the author has factual inaccuracies in his work, whether or not it is used in the article, the work becomes more suspect. One or two inaccuracies aren't a huge deal, but more than that makes the work suspect. And, yes, even looking at the context of the statement, he is wrong. Anabaptists believe in adult baptism. The Amish are Anabaptists, and believe in adult baptism. Zwinglians believed in infant baptism, although not quite in the way that Catholics do. That's a fundamental difference in the theology, and they just can't be the same, period. Thus, calling the Amish Zwinglians is in error. If he meant that they sprang from the Zwinglian movement, he would have said that, or should have at the very least. I have no problem reading the context of what he wrote, honestly. It's akin to saying Cathars were Catholics, yes they sprang from the same movement, but the theology is so different that it just doesn't work. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Zwingli and Amish and Anabaptists are not discussed in the article (Zwingli in passing through Reformation era) and Vidmar is a Catholic scholar who works as a history professor in a Catholic University and has taught Catholic Church history for over 20 years at three universities as well as being regularly asked by the Smithsonian Institute to teach classes there on Church History - what do you think the chances are that he does not know what he is talking about when he writes about Catholic Church History? I think I will trust Vidmar over the opinions of those who can provide no links to any bad reviews of his books or any statement by any scholar that his book contains factual inaccuracies. NancyHeise (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It is important, though, to note that the criticisms of Vidmar's work don't normally seem to relate to when he is talking about the Roman Catholic Church, on which he may be an expert, but to when he attempts to describe other groups.

I am no expert, but the above quoted passage appears to me to entirely misunderstand the Amish. I have never heard before the suggestion that Amish believe that "electricity, the internal combustion engine, or modern medicine, are not in Scripture, and are therefore to be avoided". Amish beliefs on technology are centred around which technologies will improve the community, not which appear in the Bible. So, in some circumstances, Amish do use electricity; but usually they do so by generating it themselves, so as not to become too reliant on it. Similarly, some communities may have telephones, but usually outside the house, so that incoming calls cannot disturb family times. Likewise, Amish will often hire cars when necessary, but believe that owning them would encourage them to travel too easily, to the detriment of the community. This doesn't seem to match with Vidmar's presentation of it as a Zwinglian rejection of anything not featured in scripture. I'm also not aware that Amish shun modern medicine, though they do reject health insurance.

I'm not sure about reviews; I can't find any from non-Catholic publications. Homelitic & Pastoral Review gives it a good review; noting that "John Vidmar has provided a scholarly examination of the Church’s pilgrimage [...] but refreshingly, he does so from the perspective of a loyal son of the Church." That may be a good thing from HPR's point of view. I'm not convinced it's a good thing from Wikipedia's. TSP (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation analysis

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

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

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

CRITICS

• Number of citations and name of author and book
• 20 All major newspapers including New York Times, CBS, UKTimes, BBC, Int. Herald Tribune
• 32 Eamon Duffy Saints and Sinners (1997) Yale University Press
• 14 John McManners The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity (1990) Oxford University Press
• 7 Jacques Le Goff Medieval Civilization(2000)Barnes and Noble(first published by Univ of Paris)
• 9 Thomas Bokenkotter A Concise History of the Catholic Church (2004) Doubleday (Bokenkotter is professor of history at Xavier University - Barnes and Noble book review by a university professor is here [1] and the book is a required text for this univeristy classroom [2])

Total critics 82 cites out of 262 or 31%

APOLOGISTS

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

Total apologists 76 cites out of 262 or 29%

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS Citations to critics is equal to 31% of total and apologists comprise 29% of total so they are roughly equally represented. I should note that the Vidmar book is usually used in the article text as a double to another author's citation. He is only used alone for a total of 13 citations and these are citation numbers 20, 163, 165, 182, 184, 190, 196, 205, 210, 241, 256, and 279. None of these places where he is used alone is a contentious or sensitive sentence - they are basic statements of fact that are undisputed by other authors - I know because I checked all of my sources before including the Vidmar citation. He provided more detail than other authors in a couple of specific situations and I researched other authors before including his citation to make sure it was not a contested fact. Since we have represented the critics and apologists in equal proportion, (31% and 29%) and the rest of the citations 60% do not easily fall into either category of critic or apologist, I conclude that our article satisfies FA criteria number 1. NancyHeise (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Note

It took me half an hour to restore the FAC to the version before these moves were made; please don't move reviewer comments again, please check with me to determine if something is going off-topic wrt WIAFA and needs to be moved, and if you do move your own, off-topic comments to the talk page, please link to the exact talk page section and be aware of GFDL requirments. This FAC is now fractured and I can only hope I restored everything correctly; I suggest that others review my work. As with the other RCC FACs, there is a problem with length here, which can hopefully be resolved by keeping commentary focused on WP:WIAFA and carrying on lengthy discussions on the article talk page, not the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary

The article has improved through this and the two previous FACs, but discussion on these FACs has frequently strayed from the criteria and the objective of FAC, specifically:

For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

• actionable objections have not been resolved; or
• consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
• insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.
  
  

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.

Reviewers have already typed volumes of useful information that still includes actionable opposes, but issues remaining to be addressed are hard to sort out because of the lengthy discussions following each Oppose declaration. Raul and I agree that a restart might be in order,[3] but because volumes of useful information has already been typed, I am reluctant to restart or close just yet. I encourage the nominators to remember that FAC is not a vote and to focus on resolving remaining objections, keep the discussion on topic, and mind talk page guidelines to keep the FAC readable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Wafulz (talk · contribs)
2. WikiCats (talk · contribs)
3. Angr (talk · contribs)
4. Johnbod (talk · contribs)
5. Laziale93 (talk · contribs)
6. Malleus Fatuarum (talk · contribs)
7. Majoreditor (talk · contribs)
8. The.helping.people.tick (talk · contribs)
9. Student7 (talk · contribs)
10. Magnetawan (talk · contribs)
11. Storm Rider (talk · contribs)
12. Bmrbarre (talk · contribs)

Oppose

1. Andrew c (talk · contribs)
2. RelHistBuff (talk · contribs)
3. Karanacs (talk · contribs)
4. Relata refero (talk · contribs)
5. SummerWithMorons (talk · contribs)
6. Tony1 (talk · contribs)

   Ling.Nut (talk · contribs) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

7. Laser brain (talk · contribs)
8. Jbmurray (talk · contribs)

Updated: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)