Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 17:08, 15 February 2008.

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

previous FAC never submitted at WP:FAC
Check external links

This article has had a recent peer review and just passed GA. I think it meets the criteria for featured article. Please come take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Issue:Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a little misleading to say Simon Peter was the first pope? From what I know the Catholic church was officially formed a couple hundred years after the supposed death of Jesus. Also I never read anything about Jesus wanting to start a church, from what I read he just wanted Peter to lead the apostles to foreign lands and spread his message of love, etc. As the article is currently written it's as if Peter was crowned the title "Pope of the Catholic Church" by Jesus. 76.10.142.30 (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? It says right in there "upon this rock I will build my church"...its in any version of the bible.... I suppose you could argue whether he meant it to be the Catholic church instead of a broader definition of "Church", but its definitely accurate. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The article states the Catholic Church originated from the whole Jesus blessing/directing Simon Peter episode. It also states Simon Peter was the first pope. If you're unaware of the problem with such statements than you should read up on early Christian history. Of course it's not the only misconception of the article but only a glaring one right in the lead and first section. I agree with other commentary in regards to a Catholic bias and lack of academic objective sources. 76.10.141.107 (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue with Jesus appointing first Pope was addressed at the GA level and resolved in favor of the current article because the statement is sourced to a book by National Geographic Society - very third party and very reliable. NancyHeise (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I must second the anon's question. How can Simon Peter be the first pope when the church didn't exist then? In History of the Papacy it notes that the church considers him the first pope, but this article does not seem to explain that well and just boldly proclaims he is. Since there is a History of the Catholic Church marked as the main article, the Church history section seems like it is a little long here. Could it be summarized better? There seems to be an excessive number of External Links, many of questionable value. A review of WP:EL and some clean out might be a good idea. The article also seems very unbalanced and biased towards the Catholic Church's view, rather than taking an outside neutral view. This appears to have been brought up multiple times in the article's talk page, and ignored. Alternative/opposing views are not presented regarding RCC's claims regarding the history of the church or Peter, and it seems odd that there appears to be no criticms at all. Considering the recent edit war and per my other remarks, I feel this article fails the first FAC requirement of being "well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable". Collectonian (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue with Jesus appointing first Pope was addressed at the GA level and resolved in favor of the current article because the statement is sourced to a book by National Geographic Society - very third party and very reliable. The history section was rewritten in response to GA reviewers comments, in addition other reviewers asked for specific information to go into that section. I think it is a brief summary of a very long history and we cant shorten it without removing basic important facts. The History section gives facts, not opinion one way or the other, these facts are referenced to very third party non Catholic Church affiliated sources - school textbooks for the most part. This is not POV, this is the most NPOV source I could find to create this history. NancyHeise (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
External links were cleaned up by editor ArielGold. NancyHeise (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to reiterate my earlier oppose. Many issues raised regarding neutrality have not been addressed (simply changing primary references to ones supporting to point of view being pushed is not neutralizing).Collectonian (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it is fine to describe what the Church says of itself, the historical veracity can be discussed elsewhere. The formula this article uses initially "traces its origins to" is good, factual and avoids the POV minefield. However, there bits of this where more reference to the Catechism etc are needed. I mean, the "Origin and Mission" section cites Scripture as its source. That will not do, you need to cite some official document attesting that this is how the Church is interpreting Scripture. Also avoid words like "Catholics believe" - what ALL Catholics? No they do not! We need to be clear that we are speaking of the teaching of the denomination and not all members and adherents. The History section, however, has POV problems. The reformers are described as repudiating "various other Catholic doctrines and practices". However since the Reformers claimed to be Catholics, indeed often the true Catholics, that's decidedly a problematic description. I suspect this article needs to pay a little more attention to some definition of "Catholic", which is an ambiguous and disputed term in itself. The Church claims to the THE Catholic Church, and in sole continuity with the pre-reformation Church, but that title and claim are not straightforward or without POV. The alternative is to stick to the formula of "the church claims" throughout. I suggest this needs some eyes by historians that do not necessarily take a Roman Catholic view for granted.--Docg 20:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I changed every instance of Catholics believe to "Catholic beleif includes" or "Catholic belief holds". NancyHeise (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue with Jesus appointing first Pope was addressed at the GA level and resolved in favor of the current article because the statement is sourced to a book by National Geographic Society - very third party and very reliable. NancyHeise (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose based on sourcing and NPOV issues. There are also layout issues. I did not read very closely to see whether the prose needed work.
    • External links section is too long
this has been shortened by editor ArielGold NancyHeise (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It is still way too long. Karanacs (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I will stand in agreement with the decisions made by ArielGold on what to include and exclude here. ArielGold has been repeatedly asked to be an admin and I trust her judgement to be unbiased and done only to improve the article. Please appreciate her work. NancyHeise (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There are 19 links. That is excessive, especially when some of them are linking to the Encyclopedia Britannica, to a US Catholic directory (but not to any for other countries, so just leave this out too), to various pieces of the Vatican website (a link to just www.vatican.va should be sufficient). Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I have serious concerns about the sourcing. The vast majority of the citations are to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is considered a self-published source. There have been numerous books written about the Catholic Church, and I would expect the bulk of the citations to come from these independent sources, with a minimal number to those published by or for the Catholic Church.
Addressed by adding more citations to non Catholic church sources. NancyHeise (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The Catholic Church is a very controversial organization, and has been throughout history. I feel this has been whitewashed in this article.

Karanacs (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the history section to see how these issues have been addressed in a very NPOV manner. That already passed GA. Per your concerns, I have added to some sections in history to give a more thorough account with references to textbooks. NancyHeise (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

continued comments from Karanacs (this has been cross-posted on the article talk page as well)

  • Create a separate article called Beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church beliefs. You can then summarize that information here, and it will allow you to go more in-depth in the beliefs article.
This is an unreasonable comment. Looking other church articles, they all have a belief section, this is a core part of a description of what a church is. Karanacs wants to remove the beliefs section of this article and replace it with sections on Catholic art and architecture and science and Criticims of the Church even the most insignificant like Traditionalist Catholics. This is off subject material. The definition of the Roman Catholic Church includes its beliefs, it does not include these other things which do have their own articles that are mentioned in the body of this article and wikilinked.NancyHeise (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This is only a suggestion to reduce the size; not a requirement for my position to change. Karanacs (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In the beliefs section, Bible verses and an interpretation of what they mean are cited directly to the Bible. For example, "Historically, the New Testament contains warnings against teachings considered to be only masquerading as Christianity,". This is original research. There are multiple interpretations of just about every verse in the Bible, and these types of statements should be able to be sourced to a reliable, third-party source (or two or three).
This is an unreasonable comment. The Bible verses in the Belief section are accompanied with Catechism refs that directly show the relation of the Bible verse to the Church teaching about that verse.NancyHeise (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I changed some of the wording to show only what Jesus says when it is referenced to a bibleref and added another textbook ref to support the Catholic translation commentary in this section. Every statment has appropriate references not only to Bible and Catechism but also to this third party textbook.NancyHeise (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
More examples of this type of issue noted on article talk page. Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Need to expand on the influence of the Catholic Church on art and architecture. There is only one sentence on architechture in the history sentence, which does not really convey the Church's tremendous impact on this field.
This is an unreasonable comment. The article is about the Church, not the church's impact on art and architecture. There is a See Also at the top of the history section of this article directing the reader to three articles that address this in detail. Per GA reviewer and Peer Reviewers, the history section was deemed too long with the section on Art and Architecture so a new page was made for that material and it is one of those referenced at the top of history section. FA criteria requires the page to stay on subject, not stray into every possible area in order to keep it from being too long. I am sorry but the consensus of editors does not support this comment of Karanacs. NancyHeise (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The Church's impact on the world around it is a HUGE part of its history, but that is not summarized properly in this article. Per WP:SUMMARY, when you spin off content into a child article, the parent article should still contain the highlights from that information, and this does not. Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • POV issues:
  • There's no mention of the continued religious fights in Ireland between Protestants and Catholics
The subject is the Roman Catholic Church, not relationships of Catholics with other peoples. The Church is not fighting the Protestants in Ireland. Irish people are fighting Irish people in Ireland and they are divided over much more than religious differences, like economic . NancyHeise (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
With so much discussion of persecution of Catholics in earlier parts of the history section, it seems wise to include at least a mention that in some parts of the world Catholics are still persecuted (if not Ireland, than some African and Asian? nations). Karanacs (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no mention of the Traditional movement in Catholicism - the people who are unhappy with the reforms of the Second Vatican Council
honestly I don't think this is an issue. If it belongs anywhere it should go in the Criticism of the Catholic Church article.NancyHeise (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I strongly believe that there is an issue with the citations in this article. WP is based on verifiability, meaning that information can be found to verify a fact in a source that is not selfpublished. There are literally thousands of books written about the Catholic Church since its founding (Amazon lists over 42000), by both people within the church hierarchy and those without. These sources should be used instead of the official church writings or random websites, and, for a subject such as this, even before newspaper and other media sources.

***Catholic Fun Facts, culturalcatholic.com

      • Major Branches of Religions. adherents.com.
      • Chart of Catholic & Protestant Beliefs from ReligionFacts
      • Robinson, B.A. (2007). Comparing the beliefs of Roman Catholics with those of conservative Protestants. Religious Tolerance.org.
      • Messianic & Apocalyptic Biblical Texts", UNCC.edu, 24 October 2007.
      • Scott, Jr, J. Julius (1992). The Jerusalem Council, The Cross Cultural Challenge in the First Century. Wheaton College. Retrieved on 2008-01-30.
      • The Great Schism: The Estrangement of Eastern and Western Christendom. Orthodox Christian Information Center. Retrieved on 2008-02-09.
      • Applied History Research Group (1997). The End of Europe's Middle Ages. University of Calgary. Retrieved on 2008-01-31.
      • Anastos, Milton V.. Constantinople and Rome. Myriobiblos Library. Retrieved on 2008-02-09.
      • King Henry VIII. History Mole. DOI:2008-02-01.
      • Knox, Skip. The Reformation in Germany. Boise State University.
      • Council of Trent. Boise State University. Retrieved on 2008-02-02.
      • Shimabara Castle. Japan National Tourist Organization. Retrieved on 2008-02-02.
      • Sommerville, Professor J.P.. Louis XIV, Religion and dissension. University of Wisconsin. Retrieved on 2008-02-02.
      • Terry, Karen; et al (2004). John Jay Report. John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
All of these references have been deleted and replaced with textbooks or library books you approve of. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The sources should not be used by themselves because they are published by the subject of the article (the Catholic Church)
      • Paul VI, Pope (1964-11-21). Lumen Gentium. Chapter 3. Vatian.
      • Catechism of the Catholic Church
      • Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter 2 paragraph 15. Libreria Editrice Vaticana (1964).
      • 1983 Code of Canon Law. Vatican.
      • Sacrosanctum Concilium. Vatican
      • Humanae Vitae. Vatican.
      • Apostolic Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone. Vatican.
      • Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
    • The Bible should not be used as a source for an interpretation of the words in the Bible - that is WP:OR.

Karanacs (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Self published sources are allowed to be used if they are defining the teachings of the church and especially if they can not be obtained from other sources. I have added more refs to compliment these throughout the belief and community sections - specifically to a textbook on Catholic religious education - not self published.NancyHeise (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

However even though I disagree, I added third party sources to each of these concerns to satisfy your comments here. NancyHeise (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
These sources are still self-published (not by the Church):
    • von Hase, Karl August (1855). A History of the Christian Church. D. Appleton and Company. Retrieved on 2008-02-02.
    • Halsall, Paul (1997). The Chinese Rites Controversy, 1715. Internet Modern History Sourcebook. Retrieved on 2008-02-02.
    • a b c Abridged History of Rome - Part III. Romeartlover.it. Retrieved on 2008-02-02.
    • Roman Catholic Church. theotherside (2000-10-23). Retrieved on 2008-02-02.

Karanacs (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, it is not always evident to me when something is self published and I am trusting that you are more experienced at this than I am that is why I have so painstakingly attended to your comments and addressed them to your full satisfaction. I need a book that my daughter uses in her religion history class at school and I will not be able to address these until later tonight. Thanks again. NancyHeise (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Resolved comments Karanacs (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Some refs are missing the publisher, author, access date or publishing date.

Epbr123 (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Refs have all been checked and corrected to make sure they include this info. NancyHeise (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The Concordate with Nazi Germany, Opus Dei as fundamentalist offspring, Ignatius of Loyola and his Society of Jesus with all its negative forms of Counter-Reformation, would give a more balanced view on the history of RCC, which has really dark and ugly spots. But my favorit sentence on crusade is failed to stifle Islamic aggression this has to get a little more balanced.--Stone (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, that line in particular made me laugh out loud! It's the most obvious of the NPOV issues, but by all means not the only one. I honestly don't think there is enough time in the FAC process for this article to be fixed, and I encourage Nancy to withdraw the nomination for now, work on the NPOV and sourcing issues, and bring it back in a few weeks/months. Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Note: the Crusades paragraph has been rewritten. This statement is taken out and the paragraph is much more NPOV. The history section is almost at NPOV; some things are still being discussed at Talk:Roman Catholic Church. Karanacs (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
NOMINATORS RESPONSE TO ABOVE COMMENTS: This is the second article that I have attempted to bring to FA. The first made it see Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. These are my answers to your statements above:
  • I have cited very third party and very reliable sources for calling St. Peter the first pope - see National Geographic source especially.
  • The Catechism is a self published source that is used to create the Beliefs section of the article and none other. What source should I be using to compile this section? It seems to me that if you write an article on a church and you are creating a beliefs section, you would go to the direct source - the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
  • History section is not whitewashed. Please read the History section to find all dark spots wikilinked and appropriately mentioned in this brief history of this 2000 year old organiztion. If I were to delve into all of the dark spots and expand, then to be NPOV, I would have to do the same with the bright spots - then the article would be too long for FA. Thus, everything is mentioned in brief with main articles listed at the top in See Also or wikilinked in the body. Karanacs seems to be fond of dark spots but does not realize that it is POV to expand on them without expanding on the good - and there is quite a lot of good in fact much more than the bad if you really consider the hospitals and schools and orphanages and etc etc throughout history. A lot of rich and poor people have found help in the church but it doesnt get reported or remembered for some reason.
  • The lead section is not too short and does properly summarize the article. IF you click on Edit this page you will see that the appropriate information exists but since the article is somehow locked, for some reason what is in the lead never makes it to the actual page. I don't know how to change that.

I would appreciate reviewers not placing POV comments here as seems to be happening. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The lock is a protection lock to keep anon and newer users from editing it. I've fix the lead for you (there was an unclosed named reference). Collectonian (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The article is supposed to present a balanced view – both what the Church thinks/says/does and how other people interpret what the Church thinks/says/does. Articles need to rely on reliable sources when at all possible. I would wager there have been many books written on the Catholic Church that discuss in depth what the Church believes and how those beliefs have changed over time. Those should be cited first, and then (and only then), should you fill in with information from a self-published source. Articles about controversial topics should especially rely on an abundance of independent, quality reliable sources, and this article does not. I do agree with you that the Church has done a lot of good as well as a lot of bad, but the bad has been almost completely ignored, and some of the good has also. The Church is responsible for much of the passion for art and architecture of the Renaissance, but that information isn't in here either. Karanacs (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This article was created using the FA Islam as a guide. Islam relies extensively on the Quaran when creating its belief section, as is appropriate to this type of article. It does not use other viewpoints when creating the article because its purpose is to give the reader a definition of what Islam is - not a commentary of the issue. I have done the same thing with this article. It is a definition of what the Roman Catholic Church is. While there exist many differing personal opinions about how good or bad the Catholic Church is, these opinions are included in the article Criticism of the Catholic Church which is appropriately wikilinked in the See Also section. I eliminated three obscure see also's and now the See Also section of this article is no longer than that of Islam. Thirty two of the references in the reference list are to non-Catholic Church, third party reliable sources. Catholic Church linked references such as the Catechism are used only to provide a source for comments that describe what the Church teaches and believes or holds as a rule, in keeping with the example of the FA Islam.NancyHeise (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition, a commentator above, stated that there is some POV problem with this sentence in the History section: "Lasting a period of just over one hundred years, these crusades ultimately failed to stifle Islamic aggression and even contributed to Christian enmity with the sacking and occupation of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade.[71]" As you can see, this comment is referenced, it is not just someone's opinion. If you will take a look, it is referenced to a very third party, very reliable reference. I don't appreciate the above reviewer making reference to only part of the sentence when you can clearly see that the full sentence is in no way flattering to Roman Catholic Church history and can hardly be called POV. It is simply factual. NancyHeise (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Some pictures have been eliminated per FA reviewers comments. Also, I put all refs in proper format per another reviewers comments here.NancyHeise (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also added more info and very third party reference expanding on role of the church during WWII and criticism. NancyHeise (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Changing to Oppose The Lead could use a little work on summarizing the article, but While, I see no problems with POV or references, a more thorough reading reveals a lack of some key points: Tridentine Mass, Post V2 Traditionalists, etc.--Mike Searson (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support vote - I added to the lead paragraph per your comment. NancyHeise (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment "Catholics are taught that there are sins of commission, we sin when we do them; and sins of omission, we sin when we fail to do them. Jesus preaches that his way leads to the fullness of life and love and following him leads the person to this fullness. Sin is the opposite of following Jesus (...)." This section needs some cleanup, it seems to mix specific Catholic beliefs and general Christian teachings about Jesus.
"although the word 'church' is what Catholic places of worship are called." Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as I know all Christian places of worship are referred to as 'church'. Squash Racket (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I reworded the section and added a couple of references to the Catechism and Gospel to address your comment. Let me know what you think. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I am copy and pasting SquashRackets comments regarding this article from my talk page. NancyHeise (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not that big theology expert, so I could only do some minor changes. I advise you to contact User:Lima who seems to know more about the Catholic Church than me and also seems to be an active editor. I try to keep an eye on the process though. I think the article will be FA one way or another, it would only be better if real experts checked it. It looks nice. Squash Racket (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


I have addressed each one of Karanacs comments here. Specifically, I added content in the History section addressing issues Karanacs says were missing. I eliminated all refs that Karanacs did not like and replaced them with refs Karanacs said were OK - textbooks and library books. I added refs throughout the article wherever Karanacs had posted a Citation Needed tag including supplementing Catechism references with textbook refs on religion. Some of Karanacs comments I did not agree with and did not implement citing conflict with previous peer review and GA reviewer agreements on how to treat issues. NancyHeise (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Citation needed tag needs to be removed from this article. NancyHeise (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Original research tag needs to be removed from this article because every concern of Karanacs has been addressed. Specifically, every bibleverse ref that has commentary also has a ref to the third party textbook on Catholic belief. There is no commentary that is left without a ref to this third party source. There is a sentence that states what Jesus says in the Gospel with no commentary in the same sentence. That sentence just has the bibleref and the end. The commentary follows and is refed to the third party ref and catechism. There should be a list of specific concerns by Karanacs if the tag is not removed after this comment. NancyHeise (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I have addressed Karanacs comments in full yet many of those comments are not crossed out. Whole sections remain unaddressed by Karanacs especially the concerns over citations and original research which have clearly been resolved to a degree beyond Wikipedia standards due to Karanacs insistance. After answering all of Karanacs concerns which even concerned the history section, this editor has decided to reinvent the history section with completely new concerns that are not concerns to anyone else. I have a difficult time believing that this person is not trying to be obstructionistic to the progession of this article to FA. The original research tag that Karanacs added to the page remains even though these issues have been sufficiently addressed. As such, I am removing the tag and would appreciate a list of reasons if the tag is replaced. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I looked over Karanacs additions and changes to the history section. I made some minor adjustments and I think it is fine. NancyHeise (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Papal infallibility gets two bare passing mentions in the article. It's a central identifying feature of the church and has been the topic of vigorous and broad discussion. There is absolutely no mention of the Roman Curia. struck comments addressed/partially addressed 13:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC) The earliest part of the church history section deals with a version of early Christian history, rather than with the early history of the Roman Catholic Church as discussed by academics. That section needs to be replaced with what reliable sources report about the origin of the Catholic Church. For example, one of the earliest mentions of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome occurs in the 4th century in the results of the First Council of Nicaea. Even then, the Roman Catholic Pope (Bishop of Rome) was not the sole authority, as the Bishop of Alexandria was granted similar authority. This POV problem is represented in the infobox, which reports that the Roman Catholic Church was founded in Jersusalem around 30 AD. All in all, this article has major holes in coverage and some significant problems with presenting the Catholic POV as fact. Vassyana (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassayana brought this same issue up over and over again before the GA review. This issue of Bishop of Rome has been resolved in favor of the current article at the GA level and should not be repeatedly brought up. There are two very reliable references and neutralizing language used here to support it. Papal Infallibility like numerous other issues that people think are "central" is mentioned and wikilinked so the reader can find out more elsewhere. In the section on Beliefs, the pope is mentioned as being the highest authority and I have included a new mention of papal infallibility there to satisfy Vassayana's comment here. NancyHeise (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

also added mention of Roman Curia - both papal infallibilibty and roman curia are good comments and important to mention here. bishop of rome issue was resolved by the evidence of consensus of historians in various third party books, most notably the National Geographic "Geography of Religion" which is used as the reference supporting the entry in the article.NancyHeise (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No such "consensus of historians" was ever established. Regardless, the "Bishop of Rome issue" is one small part of a broader problem. As I mentioned, the earliest history is presented as a version of early Chrisitian history. The origin of the Roman Catholic Church (a sect of Christianity) is not the same as the origin of Christianity. Vassyana (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
For a contested fact, it is usually best to either a) cite it to multiple independent reliable sources, or b) present both sides of the controversy (without giving undue weight to either side). Since several people have mentioned this very concern on this page, it is likely time to pick one of these methods to strengthen your position. Karanacs (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Further comment. To prevent any misunderstanding, let me clarify the foundation of my objection regarding the early church history presented in the article: Bart Ehrman, Harry Maier, Jaroslav Pelikan, James Tabor, Joseph Tyson, Carsten Peter Thiede, Elaine Pagels and Philip Esler all posit (in varying versions) that early Christianity was a diverse religion with orthodoxy (as reflected in the Roman Catholic/Orthodox branch of the faith) developing alongside competing sects over the first few centuries of the religion's existence before establishing and imposing itself firmly. They all also address earliest Christianity as a tension between Judaic and Hellenistic tendencies and doctrines, also with a diverse spectrum of belief. These experts are all highly respected for their scholarly work and they represent a fairly decent spectrum of scholarly opinion. Presenting the earliest history of the Roman Catholic Church as identical to early Christian history is simply contrary to the picture painted by reputable scholars. Vassyana (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassayana's position was not the position of the consensus of editors in both the peer and GA review. The book by National Geographic was written in consultation with the top historians and advisors in the world listed in both the front and back of the book. This is not a self published source, it is a collaboration of historians and is by far the best reference anyone could use for this article. It is very third party and very reliable source. While there are many opinions on the roots of Christianity, there is no one who can bring forth a better, more reliable reference than what already exists in the article. It was also the consensus of editors that the language used is neutral in this article. "traces its origins" is not the same as "it origins are". What Vassayana is proposing is unreasonable and is not the consensus of editors. For more approvals of what exists, please see other editors comments on my talk page. This issue should not be part of FA if it has already passed GA. Please respect that. NancyHeise (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There was not a clear consensus regarding this. We settled the matter in the form of a compromise for the infobox (some of which, I notice now, has been reverted). I withdrew myself from the debate because it didn't seem like at the time we were proposing anything new. However, I believe I established through multiple, reliable sources, that the traditional view isn't the only notable view. That not only are there prominent Catholic scholars who disagree, but other secular historians. I agree with Vassayana that the Roman Empire subsection needs more balance. And you also neglect to mention that Vassayana was the first person to reviewed this for GA, and it failed on January 17th. These issues were raised back then, where never settled on the talk page, and should still be addressed if FA is the intention. Just because another reviewer didn't mention it during the next GA doesn't mean we get an easy pass to ignore this important NPOV issue here at the FA.-Andrew c [talk] 15:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It's also not unusual for scholars to disagree. While a very highly respected scholar may agree with what is in the author, another, equally respected scholar may disagree. Per WP:NPOV, the differing opinions should be given appropriate weight in the article. Karanacs (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I listed a cross-section of academics representing a collection of several of the most prominent and well-regarded scholars of early Christian history from various schools of thought. I hardly think it's "unreasonable" to ask that the article does not baldly present claims counter to the overwhemingly dominant view in modern scholarship. Vassyana (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
But you are forgetting one key point: that a National Geographic reference work trumps your alleged "modern scholarship". :Þ In all seriousness, I agree with Karanacs, that we shouldn't take sides, and that per NPOV, we should present all notable views with appropriate weight. I have a feeling though, with Vassyana's claim that a more skeptical/critical view is dominant, and Nancy's claim that millions and millions of catholics hold the "traditional" view, we may not come to an agreement on weight issues. So at least for the time being, we should try to introduce balance and differing perspectives.-Andrew c [talk] 17:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Heh. :) Regardless of how it is resolved, it should all be reliably referenced from on-topic reputable sources. Vassyana (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It is reasoning like this that makes articles like this end up with a locked page like FA Islam. I suggest that the ultimate FA reviewer look at the sources being offered and make a decision based on the most reliable and most third party source. That is what I have done and the GA reviewer. Vassayana's first attempt at GA failed because this editor holds a radical POV view that is not the consensus of historians as revealed by the sources I have that will stand with National Geographic. IN particular, the book Saints and Sinners by Eamon Duffy published by Yale University Press and was a 10 hour documentary with S4C. Here's their quote on page 1 "Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum (Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church and I will give to thee the keys of the KIngdom of Heaven). Set there to crown the grave of the Apostle, ...they are designed to proclaim the authority of the man whom almost a billion Christians look to as the living heir of Peter. With these words, it is believed, Christ made Peter prince of the Apostles and head of the Church on earth: generation by generation, that role has been handed on to Peter's successors, the popes. ..... The continuity between Pope and Apostle rests on traditions which stretch back almost to the very beginning of the written records of Christianity. It was already well established by the year 180AD, when the early Christian writer Irenaeus of Lyons invoked it in defence of orthodox Christianity. The Church of Rome was for him the 'great and illustrious Church' to which, 'on account of its commanding position, every church, that is the faithful everywhere, must resort'. Iranaeus thought that the Church had been 'founded and organised at Rome by the two glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul,' and that its faith had been reliably passed down to posterity by an unbroken succession of bishops, the first of them chosen and consecrated by the Apostles themselves. He named the bishops who had succeeded the Apostles, in the process providing us with the earliest surviving list of the popes - Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, and so on down to Irenaeus' contemporary and friend Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome from AD 174 to 189." This first paragraph is then referenced to this footnote "Most of the early texts bearing on the history of the papacy up to the reign of Damascus I are conveniently collected and translated into English in J.T. Shotwell and L.R. Loomis, The See of Peter, New York 1927, reprinted in 1991. The passage from Irenaeus' Contra Haereses III cited in the text will be found at pp.265-72. The next paragraph in Saints and Sinners this author goes on to discuss how there are no written records of Peters later life, that part of history was orally passed and accepted by the greatest minds of the early church - Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. So I am going to ask you all to tell me, if there were no written records of these events except what we have from Irenaeus who recorded it in 180AD - about 150 years after Jesus death - how can anyone say that historical evidence proves otherwise? This is why National Geographic sided with written historical record instead of some people's fantastical speculation for which there are absolutely no early historical records to support. NancyHeise (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The list of scholars I provided is composed of prominent and highly regarded academics who represent a broad swath of opinions. Addressing your misuse of Duffy's work, it would have behooved you to read past the first page to get the entire context (struck because I better read your comments which indicate you did read that far, but simply were dishonest in the presentation of the source):
“ All the essential claims of the modern papacy, it might seems, are contained in this Gospel saying about the Rock, and in Ireneaus' account of the apostolic pedigree of the early bishops of Rome. Yet matters are not so simple. ”

—Duffy. Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes. Page 2.
“ These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest n minds of the early Church -- Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter's later life or of the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve. ”

—Duffy. Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes. Page 2.
The very source you provided argues against you, leading me to worry what other sources may have been similarly cherry-picked or misused. In addition to any other remaining issues, this particular exchange leads me to believe that a source audit by an outside party is needed. Vassyana (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
ACCUSATIONS OF CHERRYPICKING ADDRESSED: Vassayana has accused me of cherrypicking - yes - I cherrypicked from the book Saints and Sinners. What I cherrypicked was the actual facts, not the writers speculation. I did not use the book Saints and Sinners as the documented reference for listing Jesus as the founder of the Roman Catholic Church. I used National Geographic Society "Geography of Religion" which is a better source. In making my decision on what content to put in this article, I made use of three school textbooks, two are non-Catholic school and one Catholic school textbook plus the National Geographic book and Saints and Sinners. Traditionally (the language used in this article) Jesus is considered to be the founder of the Church in Rome based on his consecration of Peter in the historical document of the Gospel account of Matthew, considered by historians to be an eyewitness account. The earliest written record of Christian history is ST. Irenaeus. There are no written records to support the opposing view in this article. I used the written record, the best sources and tossed the speculative comment by Duffy based on what other sources were saying using just the available facts. That is what an editor is supposed to do. Vassayana will instead overlook the written record and jump into the speculation ignoring other better historical sources and opinions like National Geographic. If Wikipedia really wants to destroy its reputation, it will side with Vassayana on this one. I have offered the more factual and historically accurate version. NancyHeise (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

New Tags by Karanacs The history section of this article passed both peer and GA review. It is not only sufficiently referenced. It is very sufficiently referenced. Karanacs has decided that the paragraph on the Inquisition is not accurate and has replaced it with a version that is very inaccurate according to my three history books. I replaced the version with my previous one based on other editors who protested Karanacs additions as incorrect. Karanacs has responded with placeing a Disputed section tag on the article. The section is not disputed. Karanacs does not have consensus of editors or GA or peer review for her version. My version does have these things and they are referenced. I don't see how this editor can be helping this article with these maneuvers, this is more like harrassment or obstructionism. NancyHeise (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, this is not the place to complain about tags. The article page is the appropriate forum. Karanacs (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed section of history compared

This is the text that Karanacs disputes that passed GA and peer review as factually accurate and NPOV: "The Medieval Inquisition in 1252 was part of the campaign against the Cathars also known as Albigensianism. At the time, heresy was seen as an attack on both the state and the Church and any remedy was considered acceptable, even torture.[21] The Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions were Church approved but state controlled campaigns that began in 1478 at the request of the Spanish monarchs.[21] It was developed in part out of the effort to drive out the Moors. Anyone suspected of following a faith other than Christianity was arrested.[1] Although the pope issued strict guidelines about how to conduct these trials, abuses occurred including torture and execution.[21] The Roman Inquisition persecuted Jews, beggars and prostitutes as well as Protestants in Rome under Pope Paul IV from 1555-1559.[9] Galileo Galilei was among those tried as heretics under this inquisition."

This is Karanacs version which doesn't match the three school textbooks I have used to create the section: "The Inquisitions were intended to identify and prosecute heretics. The accused were encouraged to recant their heresy and those who did not could be punished by fine, imprisonment, or execution by burning. In 1252, the Church authorized torture as a method of questioning.[81] Some of the Inquisitions also prosecuted bigamy, usury, witchcraft, apostasy, and blasphemy, and some accusations were made for political rather than religious purposes.[81] Scientists, including Galileo Galilei, were also subject to the Inquisition."

A reader looking at Karanacs version would think that torture was approved for all the inquisitions when it was only approved for the 1252 one and that Galileo was tortured when he was really sentenced to house arrest. NancyHeise (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, please see the discussion on the talk page, as I have submitted several versions of this and am trying to reach consensus. Karanacs (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a consensus - it passed GA and peer review and even the editors you are talking to now disagree with you - you are the only editor to object and from your edits it is clear you are a POV problem for the advancement of this page to FA. I do not think you are NPOV enough to be the FA reviewer for this article anymore. NancyHeise (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

maybe Karanacs should not be copyediting this article

This is her edit to the last paragraph of Middle ages that appears just before Reformation section: "Respect for the Church and papal authority declined in the late Middle Ages due to these internal disagreements, clerical corruption and abuses of power, and perceived misuse of finances. Some ordained men were considered hypocrites, as they live luxurious lifestyles or maintained mistresses and fathered illegitimate children.[21]"

That edit is referenced to the source I used. I put that reference in the article at the end of this sentence that she removed and the one that passed GA and peer review. "The late Middle Ages saw a decline in respect for the Church and papal authority because of these internal disagreements, clerical corruption like simony and nepotism, abuses of power, and perceived misuse of finances. The hypocrisy of some ordained men who lived luxurious lifestyles, who had mistresses and illegitimate children spawned a new age in Christianity that brought these abuses to task. This was the beginning of the Reformation.[21]" That is what the reference says - not what Karanacs copyedited it to be. Her version makes the sentence a POV problem and inaccurate. Help! NancyHeise (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, Nancy, FAC is not the place for this. Please discuss on the article talk page. Karanacs (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
When someone is actively destroying an FA candidate I think it belongs on the FA talk page. I worked to bring a Wikipedia article up to FA status and you are doing your best to destroy it. NancyHeise (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Break 1 RC

NOTE TO FA REVIEWER I have given a good faith effort to bring this article up to FA. I have answered at lenghth all of everyone's oppose comments. None have changed their vote even though their concerns have been addressed and incorporated. The editor Karanacs is actively trying to obstruct the advancement of this article to FA with unreasonable changes, edits to referenced material that then makes the material not match the reference and against the consensus of editors. I do not consider Karanacs an NPOV editor to this article but an obstructionist. I offer to work with an FA reviewer who is sincere about bringing the article up to FA but I will no longer be a part of this FA process as long as Karanacs is allowed to harrass and obstruct. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith with the editors here. User:Karanacs and User:Vassyana are both pointing out rather obtrusive problems with the article that need to be address if it is to become an FA. Shooting the messenger does not remove the problems that this article currently suffers from, namely the WP:NPOV problems mentioned above. No one here wants to see this article's candidacy "destroyed" in any fashion. On the contrary, every editor here would be more than happy for an article on such an important topic to become an FA, but it is necessary for it to meet all the criteria, which the aforementioned users are pointing out. Please keep your comments limited to discussion of the article's content and the like instead of attacking editors, as it only hurts your chances of bringing the article up to standard. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
difficulty getting knowledgeable people to help

This comment was on my talk page after an admin asked me to consult with this person he considered an expert. This is what that person said:

I am sorry that I have not been able to intervene as requested. Perhaps I am not the best person to ask to polish an article, rather than merely to search out factual information. Besides, I fear that an editor who has taken a dislike to me and my editing might be drawn to intervene in what you and I would consider to be a negative way. Perhaps, too, people with prejudices against what the article is about will in any case make it impossible for you to achieve your aim, no matter how perfect you make the form of the article. Lima (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


I think it is clear that people like me who are trying to build a non POV article get harrassed by people who are somehow anti-Catholic and wish to turn these Wikipedia pages into propaganda against the Catholic church. I am very discouraged working with Karanacs after seeing her edits to the sensitive issues of Crusades and Inquisitions. I think her edits are very POV, mine were neutral - they told the plain facts. She has spun those facts into something that makes it POV. Other editors have said the same thing, she is the one owning the page and not listening to others. I am trying to bring an important article to FA - this editor is doing her best to block that effort. NancyHeise (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

One issue I see throughout this discussion, that bears clearing up, is a repeated reference to what passed peer review and good article review. GA is not a community process; FAC is. Whatever passed GA isn't relevant to a featured article candidacy. A review of the suggestions at the WP:FAC instructions may help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Also, the peer review got scanty input, and an article doesn't "pass" peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Per Sandy, passing GA and peer review isn't exactly the greatest accolade in the world in most cases, as the former varies drastically on the reviewer and the latter usually doesn't get much critical input (unfortunately). Nancy, I must again ask you to assume good faith with the editors here, and accept the fact that you must consider outside, reliable sources independent of the Catholic Church to address the issues they are bringing up. None of the editors here are pushing an anti-Catholic viewpoint, they are ensuring that all points of view are represented. Especially for such controversial topics such as the Crusades and the Inquisition, all points of view must be given proper weight, the good and the bad. To be absolutely frank, this nomination will never succeed until all points of view are adequately represented for these issues, and I highly recommend that you cease your ad hominem attacks on the users here and work with them so this nomination can have a chance at passing. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd suggest eliminating the infobox since it's a lightning rod for argument. Take a look at other denominational articles such as Lutheran Church. Rather than using an infobox it features a portal banner. Perhaps the Catholicism WikiProject banner could be used in place of the infobox.
Also, beef up content on Eastern Catholic Churches, which are mentioned in the lead but appear only in passing elsewhere. I'd suggest a short (3-4 sentence) section, nothing more, which branches to the main article on Eastern Catholic Churches. Best, Majoreditor (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've added a section break. A little curious why a section on Sacraments got inserted into "Church and Papal Authority" (see also WP:MOSHEAD). It wasn't there a month ago. Gimmetrow 05:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I saw that and just moved/merged it where it should be, I trimmed some extraneous text and added a sentence or two as well. I'm thinking the article needs mention of the Traditional Mass as opposed to just the Novus Ordo Missae and the role of traditionalists post V2.--Mike Searson (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
ACCUSATIONS OF CHERRYPICKING ADDRESSED: Vassayana has accused me of cherrypicking - yes - I cherrypicked from the book Saints and Sinners. What I cherrypicked was the actual facts, not the writers speculation. I did not use the book Saints and Sinners as the documented reference for listing Jesus as the founder of the Roman Catholic Church. I used National Geographic Society "Geography of Religion" which is a better source. In making my decision on what content to put in this article, I made use of three school textbooks, two are non-Catholic school and one Catholic school textbook plus the National Geographic book and Saints and Sinners. Traditionally (the language used in this article) Jesus is considered to be the founder of the Church in Rome based on his consecration of Peter in the historical document of the Gospel account of Matthew, considered by historians to be an eyewitness account. The earliest written record of Christian history is ST. Irenaeus. There are no written records to support the opposing view in this article. I used the written record, the best sources and tossed the speculative comment by Duffy based on what other sources were saying using just the available facts. That is what an editor is supposed to do. Vassayana will instead overlook the written record and jump into the speculation ignoring other better historical sources and opinions like National Geographic. If Wikipedia really wants to destroy its reputation, it will side with Vassayana on this one. I have offered the more factual and historically accurate version. NancyHeise (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) A book by a popular writer (in the sense of the genre) with no qualifications in the field published by a popular science publisher (again, genre) is most certainly does not trump a book published by a professional academic through an academic press. Such an assertion turns reliable sourcing standards on their head. Furthermore, such cherry-picking is against the grain of the basic content policies of verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view. Sources need to be accurately represented. All notable views need to be presented. Dominant Catholic views and dominant academic views need to presented as such. While there is an amount of editorial discretion, editors are expected to avoid cherry-picking for their favored view and NPOV (presenting all notable views) is "non-negotiable". Vassyana (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I'm a bit concerned that the Gospel of Matthew is being characterized as "considered by historians to be an eyewitness account." especially as Gospel of Matthew right here on Wikipedia says "Secular scholarship generally agrees it was written by an anonymous non-eyewitness to Jesus' ministry." Ealdgyth | Talk 15:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Working with editors- I am willing to work with editors. I thank all of you for coming to this page and giving your input. I am especially happy to see that another Catholic person who is knowledgeable about the Catholic Church is here to help. It should not be just me and Karanacs on an article of such importance. I do not feel that we alone are sufficient to bring the aritcle up to FA. Without your help and input, we will be locked in time wasting back and forth. Please stick around and help. I would like to see this article be a tool of information - non-POV in either direction - for children like my own to see when they are doing research for school. The only reason why I am here editing Wikipedia is that I think it can be a tool of information or propaganda. I would prefer that this page not be propaganda. There have been editors saying things on the talk page like Vassayana who thinks that Jesus did not found the Church. Did the Church Jesus founded disappear? Who founded the Catholic Church? No historical text says that it was anyone else, they just say they don't know or they cite Irenaeus, the only written source. There have been editors who want to say the Catholics are not Christians. This page and editors like me have had to put up with a lot of really screwed up logic. It would help if some knowledgable admins who really care about facts could help out here. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on the infobox - I like the infobox because it really helps give the reader a snapshot of the church. When I am editing Wikipedia I try to keep in mind that children often use Wikipedia as a source for information. If a child were to look at this page with no infobox, they would have to read through a huge lengthy page just to begin to grasp the subject. The infobox gives you a nice picture and a snapshot. Obviously this is just my opinion. I value other non-POV editors opinions who really care about making the ariticle informative and not turning it into propaganda. NancyHeise (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Papal infallibility is at least now defined in the article. However, there is still a complete lack of discussion, even in passing, of why, how and/or when the doctrine arose. The Roman Curia now has an exceeding brief passing mention, but neither their origin, enumeration nor purpose are really addressed in the article. Vassyana (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Just my opinion but I dont think that theses issues need any more expansion. Papal infallibility is mentioned also in the Beliefs intro as one of the points that Eastern Orthodox are out of agreement with Catholics on. It is wikilinked both here and in the section discussing the Pope so the reader can learn more about that issue on another whole Wikipedia page. Since papal infallibility has only been used twice in the whole history of the church (the doctrine of the Immmaculate Conception of Mary and the Ordination only reserved for men) and these issues are noted on the Wikipedia link for that article, I don't think it is a central issue that deserves any more mention. Roman Curia, likewise has its own Wikipeida page. Mentioning it without going into boring detail lets the page be a core page about the Church that is not cluttered up with in depth discussions about things that are already covered in linked pages. The article becomes too long and boring when you get technical and you don't have to do that to the page if there are subpages. You mention and wikilink. If someone wants to add more info I don't care but I would prefer not too much expansion. NancyHeise (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Some things do need to be explained briefly in this article though. Having just a statement with a wikilink is great for people who already have at least a limited understanding of the topic, but people who are wholly unfamiliar with the term/concept will be confused. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to the historical sections being incredibly muddled and wrong in some sections.
  • None of the history section is referenced to anything academic. School textbooks are not a good source for information, as they are often simplified and out of date. Neither is a book published by the National Geographic society. This is a contentious subject you are best served by using the best possible sources.

I just checked the page on Verifiablility and it says that you can use "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications" National Geographic is a mainstream publication - the most respected publication in the field of history and archeology. NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • At a quick glance - "Beginning in the 11th century some older cathedral schools developed into universities." which is sourced to a web site and greatly simplifies the whole question. The cathedral schools did not directly become universities, but rather the cathedral schools attracted peripheral scholars who set up their own guilds, or universities, to teach in addition to the cathedral schools. Besides, the web site for that cite doesn't say anything close to what it being cited to. I'm sure the book the web site is about does, but you need to cite the book itself, not the website review of the book.
I will look into that Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Another BIG difference between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches is the approach to clerical celibacy, which arrose in the middle ages. That isn't mentioned at all. You also neglect to mention it up in the Beliefs section.
The Eastern Rite Catholic Churches - they are part of the Roman Catholic Church answerable to the Pope - has married priests. I dont think that needs to be distinguished in that section.NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You've muddled time frames with discussing the Cistercians along with the friars. Cistercians were founded a 100 years before the friars, and avoided towns. By placing them together you imply that the Cistercians were involved in the towns, which they empatically were not.
Good point, we were trying to be concise. NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In fact, Innocent III preached a crusade, the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars.There were a number of other heresies that caused the foundation of the inqusitions.
I just listed the one in my sources. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Who is this English pope? You're talking about the 14th century, and then link to Nicholas Breakspear, who is from the 12th??? And Adrian IV didn't reside in Rome because of he faced a revolt lead by Arnold of Brescia, which I suppose had something to do with his health, but France wasn't a powerful country at the time of Adrian's election, it was still under Louis VII. And Adrian did NOT reside in Avignon. I believe you mean Pope Clement V here, not Adrian. Clement was a Gascon, not an Englishman, and while he was a subject of the King of England, it was only because the King of England was also Duke of Aquitaine (or Gascony).
Perhaps you would like to help the article and make that edit? NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Technically, the French did not "control" Avignon, and current historical scholarship leans towards the belief that while the first couple of Avignonese popes were intimidated by the French monarchy, the later ones were not so much under the control of the French, and that other reasons kept them away from Rome.

I invite you to come make changes to the history section, we could use some more editors on this important project. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The way the Great Schism is described, it leads one to believe that only two men claimed to be pope during this time. There were actually several different men on each side, not just two.

I invite you to come make changes. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Luther actually owed very little of his thought to the Renaissance, and saying that the Reformation repudiated the seven sacraments and the Eucharist isn't exactly correct. Various reformers rejected various parts of the sacraments, and rejected parts of the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. I think the Lutherans would object to being told they reject the Eucharist and the sacraments, as well as all other denominations listed in the Eucharist article.

I did not put that content in the article, it was Karanacs. I invite you to come make the changes you see need to be made, we could use your help. NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The heading 'Renaissance" is misleading, since most of what is being discussed is from the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.
  • If you want to mention things from the Renaissance, mention Lorenzo Valla.
  • The statement that Henry IV of France hoped to avoid the religious wars of his neighbors as the cause of the Edict of Nantes is just... wrong. There were already a series of religious wars in France, fought because Henry was originally a Protestant who converted to Catholicism to become king, and he issued the Edict to STOP the religious wars in his kingdom.

This was directly from my source. If you have another source that says something else, I invite you to come and make the change. NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The sudden introduction of the Japanese revolt when there has been nothing on the Japanese being converted is rather jarring, and who is Ieyasu? No context is given for that.
Good point, they were evangelized by Francis Xavier. NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The whole section of the Age of Reason is disjointed and lacking context on statements. We aren't told what Louis XIV did (hint, he revoked the Edict of Nantes) No mention of Gallicism, or the settlement between the pope and the French kings over the papal revenues from France and the appointment of bishops in France. Also there is no good indication of time scale in this section, it's just a series of data without much connection to the other data.
  • Historians are divided on the issue of the Council of Jerusalem in about 50, many are not sure it took place, others don't believe it dealt with the things that it is often claimed to have dealt with.
  • The Christians were probably subject to persecutions not just because they refused to worship the gods or the emperors, but because they were different and secretive. Also, many historians believe that systemic persecution led by the emperors didn't happen until the middle of the 3rd century. Previous episodes of persecution were largely localized and not led by authorities.
  • Whether Constantine was a convert, and WHEN he converted is a subject under intense debate among historians.
  • You mention the Oriental Orthodox Church, but not the Monophysites or any of the other branches of Christianity
  • The Catholic Church launched missionary activity only later than 476, much closer to 700 or so. The efforts in the Balkans were done by missionaries from Constantinople. The Finss weren't missonized until after 910, as were the Scandinavians. The section on the Early Middle Ages is a muddle of chronology and topics. You mix up the Benedictines with the missionary efforts, and imply that many of the peoples listed were missionized and converted by 910. Needs a thorough rewrite to not mislead readers.

The History section was supposed to be short to meet FA criteria with the expanded version of history located in another Wikipedia page that is referenced at the top. The article contains the best information I could find using both school textbooks, mainstream publications, University professors who were experts and who I had to delete because Karanacs said they were self published but they are really allowed per Wikipedia Verifiablility and guidlines on History.

  • I too share concerns about some of the sourcing in the Beliefs sections.

What would you suggest using? NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I did NOT look at any sections other than the historical with any sort of depth, but the prose could use a good copyedit, I think.
  • Several contentious statements are not cited:
    • Galileo Galilei was among those tried as heretics under this inquisition.
    • French King Henry IV, hoping to avoid the religious wars of his neighbors, ..."
    • Dioscorus, the patriarch of Alexandria, disagreed wtih this dogma..."and the rest of that paragraph.

For now, I must oppose, as the historical sections have some wrong information, and use sourcing that is not of the quality demanded by FA status. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Closing notes: after a week, four opposes and no supports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Since the FAC is closed, please continue commentary on the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.