Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive2

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 00:01, 18 March 2008.

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

previous FAC (17:08, 15 February 2008)

Check external links

NOMINATOR: I am nominating this again for FA since extensive reworking of the article has occured with several contributing editors including copyedits. These editors collaborated and worked together building consensus on addressing FA comments from last attempt and new comments emerging on the talk page. Thanks you for your time to come look at this article and give us your honest vote. NancyHeise (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Restart: old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support, as before. The concerns I had have been adequately addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Perhaps the most viewed and criticized article in Wikipedia! Even the infrequent unconstructive ones have been answered. Article is factually correct and readable. Student7 (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I sustain my support; the article is very comprehensive on aspects of the Church, its history, and its practices. It also has great prose and is very accurately presented. Hello32020 (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: This sentence in the WP:LEAD is ambiguous, but the interpretation most readily accessible violates WP:NPOV: "It traces its origins, via apostolic succession, to the original Christian community founded by Jesus." This could be interpreted as meaning either:

1. the Catholic church actively traces its own origins in this manner (which entails subjectivity), or
2. as an assertion of fact taken from common knowledge, verifiable historical fact etc.

I suggest that the latter interpretation is the one most readily accessible, as in for example:

1. United States Postal Inspection Service: "The Postal Inspection Service is one of the oldest federal law enforcement agencies in the United States. It traces its origins back to 1772..."
2. Cleveland State University: "The Cleveland-Marshall College of Law traces its origins to the founding of Cleveland Law School in 1897..."
3. etc.

Therefore suggest: "Catholic doctrine asserts that the origins of the Catholic church can be traced..." Ling.Nut (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE:Done. Thanks for the suggestion. NancyHeise (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not an improvement in my view, and actually much worse for NPOV. Is there anyone who would dispute that the origins trace back that far? Apostolic succession is a different matter of course, but this wording suggests the whole "tracing" is dubious. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE - I edited that sentence myself. Does that work? Nautical Mongoose (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The early history is documented by sources which do not clearly support the material as the history of the Roman Catholic Church. We are not permitted to assert claims that the sources do not, even if we think they are "obvious" or "natural" conclusions of the references. To avoid cluttering this FAC, I have posted specific examples of my concerns to the article talk page. Vassyana (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE - I have answered Vassyana on the talk page in depth. I will make brief reference here: Oxford History of Christianity has a subsection called "Rome" that speaks specifically about the Roman Church, my references clearly state that the quotes are taken from that subsection. The meeting of the apostles in Jerusalem in the year 50 is referenced to this subsection specifically discussing Rome on page 37. All of my sources specifically talk about the Roman Church existing from the beginning of Christian history. None of them make any argument in the other direction even Eamon Duffy who is considered my "other side of the argument" source. Thus it appears that there is a significant consensus of historians that contradict Vassyanas position. At least 25 of them counting all the scholars that are listed as authors of the books I have cited, 18 of them coming from the Oxford History book alone. One of my University press sources "The Roman Catholic Church, an Illustrated History" specifically states that the church was founded by Jesus in his lifetime.NancyHeise (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't understand the inclusion of the the bulk of the first paragraph of the "Final judgment" section, nor the relevance of the verses from Matthew 25 as quoted. The "as quoted" bit is important. Note here that by no means am I arguing doctrine etc. I'm merely saying that the bits as quoted aren't precisely relevant to this particular section of the Wikipedia article. Here goes:

1. I do see how one could make a case interpreting 25:34 as an instance of Jesus presiding over the separation of sheep and goats etc., "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." But my prob is that the bit as quoted omits "inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world", which would seem to me to be the most important point. Those words are the ones that pin Jesus' comments to the time of the Judgment, so those should not be omitted. However, the article does include what are apparently some reasons why those "blessed of my Father" will "inherit the kingdom." Thereafter follows a brief discussion of spiritual and corporal works of mercy. If you're still with me here (I hope), then what I'm saying is that although the discussion of spiritual and corporal works of mercy is surely connected to Final judgment, it is not properly considered a part of the section on Final judgment. That discussion should more accurately be placed in a section about... spiritual and corporal works of mercy? Social Gospel? I dunno. Something about the works we do here on earth... the spiritual and corporal works of mercy could be mentioned, but not discussed, in the "Final judgment" section.
2. The second paragraph, on the other hand, seems perfectly relevant to the section.
3. So I suggest taking only the first sentence plus my selected quote of the passage from Matthew 25 from the first paragraph, and then tacking those onto the beginning of the second paragraph. That leaves a one-paragraph section. Then more could (and perhaps should) be done to flesh that out. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

FINAL RESPONSE- Agree. I made changes to the section called Judgement and placed a new section under Jesus and Eucharist called Catholic Social Teaching. I think this is a better arrangement, thanks for the suggestion. NancyHeise (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have offered an alternate working version here Ling.Nut (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• STRONG Oppose. I do not think the article is there yet, I think we have made great improvements, but I know there is a richer body of source material that can be used as references. I will work to get this where it needs to be, but cannot support it in its current form. --Mike Searson (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE - Since the bibliography and footnotes section of the article are one of the longest in Wikipedia and I have spent myself in the library and buying books on Amazon to create the article, I am struck through the heart with this suggestion. If there are specific sources that Mike has in mind, that have not been used here, I am willing to get those sources if he can please provide the names. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, I do not have anything specific in mind. The problem is that no matter what the final product is...this article will come under the strictest scrutiny and will be held to a higher standard. For that reason, the sources have to be impeccable, regarding quality as well as with regard to content. None of the cited sources for example, specifically address claims about "Catholic church" vs "Christian Church"; which will be a major point of contention and already brought up in the FAC. I know that "Catholic Church" was used as early as 110 A.D. in Epistle to the Church at Smyrna and The Death of Polycarp in 125 A.D. these original sources should be cited as well as other sources pointing to these, I don't see it. Another editor as recently as this morning asked for citations on Universites, hospitals, etc. Whether because he wanted to nitpick the article or he legitimately did not know of all the various hospitals, universities, etc founded by the Catholic Church is immaterial; the bottom line is that I could not confidently source what he was asking for, because I did not know or trust the quality of the reference in question. I say all this as someone who has invested time and energy into this article, who is also a practicing Catholic. How can it be expected to stand up in the face of those with an obvious bias and agenda against the Church if it passes and ends up at FAR?--Mike Searson (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am adding new sources in hopes of winning Mikes support. Please see two new sources added today and two more to come tomorrow. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Two sources are not going to win my support. Since I started working on this article, I've really only noticed the sections I worked on in bits and pieces: history, liturgy, Tridentine Mass, sacraments, etc. As a whole the article is way too long, does not have an encyclopedic tone (some sections do, but overall it's not there), and the sourcing leaves much to be desired. I won't get into the MOS mess, because that's not my strong suit, but when they are pointed out by Sandy or Tony they need to be addressed quickly.--Mike Searson (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The article has taken a turn for the worse. Any signs of once engaging prose are now vestigal and any real facts about beliefs or dogma that a reader would want to gain have been eliminated. What remains of history, controversy, etc is now a watered down shell of what had the potential to be a great article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what Mike would like to see, I have worked extensively with both Catholic and non-Catholic editors who have agreed to the changes made to the article in its present form. I did re-add some of the beliefs section that was core material that got tossed in the vigor to reduce the size of the article but I dont think anyone is advocating tossing it again. I trimmed it with the help of other editors to eliminate redundancy. While I would like to make Mike happy, I have to listen to other editors concerns too especially when they are in agreement on certain issues. NancyHeise (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, I know you have been more than accomodating and I know you have been working hard to get it done properly, but I think the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater here. There is no mention of the Apostle Paul, the Roman Missal, the Tridentine Mass, rules for Communion, Holy Relics, yet there is mention and a wikilink to womenpriests. Scant mention is given to the pagan persecutions, penal laws, or the Catholic religious martyred by mohhamedans or nazis in WW2 in lieu of having space to talk about the Clerical sex-abuse scandal. We see nothing of Pope Pius X opposing modernism, changing the rules for reception of the Eucharist, or John XXIII trying to help the Church find her place in the modern world. What of the Irish monks of the Dark Ages who preserved ancient texts both sacred and secular so they were not lost forever like so many other texts were? Nothing about the church's impact on Art, architecture, music, or literature is present. The Precepts of the Church are glossed over, we see nothing concerning the Corporal and Spiritual works of Mercy, Gifts and Fruits of the Holy Spirit, the three Eminent Good Works, Cardinal Sins, Cardinal virtues, 3 Munera:Munus docendi, Munus sanctificandi,Munus regendi or anything that resembles what makes the Roman Catholic Church unique among Christian Churches; but we have plenty of information on Martin Luther. Nothing about vestments, Holy oils, the bells, incense, scapulars, medals, 7 sorrows and of Mary and Joseph, I guess I should be glad that at least the rosary gets a wikilink if no other mention. I do not feel that the present incarnation does full justice to its subject matter. It is not as comprehensive as it could be and unlike other subjects, it is not because of a lack of quality printed source material to document and reference these things.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have problems with this section:"Some Catholics who call themselves Traditionalists objected to the new Mass called Novus Ordo Missae which used vernacular language in favor of the old Mass called Tridentine Mass that used only Latin. Today, both forms of the Mass are celebrated with the vernacular being more common." The controversy had little to do with language, as the Novus Ordo is also said in Latin in quite a few parishes. Also, the drastic translations did not seem to occur in languages other than English. True, there were many who left the Church altogether, switched to an Eastern Rite, or went to Mass begrudgingly because the "New Mass" was seen as more of a Protestant type celebration...the thing is that there were also misapplications of the Vatican's instruction and outright lies about the status of the Tridentine Mass. In the 70's and 80's up to as recently as 2 years ago, people said the Old Rite was outlawed. It never was, JP2 issued an Indult in 1984 allowing the Tridentine Mass to be said with the permission of the Local Bishop. The Traditionalists represented a minority who held out.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have archieved my and Nancy's comments because the specific concern has been dealt with. I'm neither supporting nor opposing this article, but the one concern I brought forward has been dealt with.

ISSUE RESOLVED NancyHeise (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support You guys have no idea how hard my mom worked on this! She stays up past midnight sometimes to edit and cite stuff, and when I see her on the computer she's usually surrounded by a ton of books...that's it.StacyyW (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

< moved to talk page> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support This article is thoroughly comprehensive, well written, good reading, informative, and well cited. It covers a very broad topic on a subject that has irrevokably changed the world, and to which 1/7 of the world's population belongs. While it is certainly one of the most difficult subjects on Wikipedia to write a fair, NPOV, well-cited, and thorough article on, Roman Catholic Church is an exemplary article, and, IMHO, it has all of the qualities that I listed. I have read many Wikipedia articles, including many featured ones, and though I have only been on here for a year and a half, I feel that this is assuredly one of the best I have ever read. It is informative and doesn't appear to suffer from what in my opinion is one of the pitfalls of an online community such as this, choppiness. For me, this article flows very naturally, from the intro to importance to origins then beliefs, history, and finally the stats. It provides a plethora of helpful links to more lengthy explanations and definitions (etc.) where things need to be summarized. I think that the main flaw I find is the sheer length of the introduction, which may be unalterable due to, as I have said, the sheer breadth of the topic. If this can be changed, that would be wonderful, and if not, I find it perfectly understandable. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 00:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

<off topic commentary removed to talk page; this FAC has been restarted once, please stay on-topic relative to WP:WIAFA > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am just wondering if the 13 support votes on the previous page of this restart page still count. If not, may we contact those people to come see the article and revote? I dont think there have been any substantial changes to the article and there were only four opposes, one changed to support, another said she would change to support if I added more on art which I did, Vassyana has reasserted her oppose saying my sources all have to be Roman Catholic Church specific which they are and another voted no because he wanted to see a criticism section which is against what Jimbo Wales suggests. In accordance with Jimbo, we have incorporated criticisms throughout the article. NancyHeise (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC is not a vote; please focus on addressing actionable opposes per WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But to answer the question that was asked, there could be no objection at all to asking those who commented on the previous page to look at the article again and to confirm their opinion in this restarted nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a message on the talk pages of all those who voted on the previous page inviting them to come vote again. I did not invite those who have already come and voted. NancyHeise (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Support----This Article deserves to be A FA. Very well written. It follows each and every guideline of a FA. I had previously voted. I am revoting again.-->>>Kensplanet (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparing this article to the article Islam which has featured status, i cannot see any deficiencies in Roman Catholic Church.Further to the issues raised by Ealdgyth, I cannot see what more can be done than to say that other forms of Christianity existed at the time, as has been done. The fact is indisputable that the "Roman" Catholic Church today is the direct organisational continuation of the organised catholic church of the early christians. Xandar (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose—Not well-written; a "professional" standard is required. Here are examples just from the top, which suggest that 'the whole text' needs a good massage by someone unfamiliar with it. At issue are matters of grammar, style and formatting. There's redundant wording, and there are MOS breaches.
• "Alongside" and "also"?
• In the listy sentence at the end of para 1, why the comma after "hospitals", but not after "sick"? Sorry to be picky, but there are tons of commas already. Use the Oxford comma unerringly if you must, but frankly, the prose would run more smoothly if it were rationed to places where it is required for disambiguation.
• "by means of the liturgy regulated by church authority". Clunkiness and redundancy? Why not "by the liturgy, which is regulated by the Church".
• "as well as the ordinary laity, and those like monks and nuns who live a consecrated life under a rule." Same issue. Why "ordinary"? Remove "those like" (what does "those" refer to?). Comma required after "nuns".
• "intricately intertwined"—euuwwwh.
• "amongst". Well, OK in the 1960s, but plain English suggests losing the "st".
• Caption: "A 15th century painting depicting Jesus giving". Ing ing ing. Hyphen required. Also, the eucharist caption is a full sentence, not just a nominal group, so needs a final period, according to MOS.
• "with the vernacular being more commonly used"—ungrammatical and clumsy. Reword.
• "church-state conflicts"—Nope, en dash required. See MOS.
• Ellipsis dots need to be properly spaced: See MOS.
• Eucharist: is it going to be E or e? I see both.

MikeSearson took care of this list. NancyHeise (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

These were just random samples. Tony (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And lots more.

Random issues:

• Why is the Nicene Creed quoted in full? Certainly not unless there's a decent amount and depth of commentary on the wording in WP's text.

In light of making the article as short as possible we decided to quote it in full since any commentary would likely be longer than the actual text. We felt it was good form to give the reader the actual creed since it is also discussed in both the lead and history section and is the most important part of the church's beliefs.NancyHeise (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a good reason. The text needs to be elsewhere and the commentary here, linked to it. Quoting verbatim large tracts of text is inappropriate, especially where almost nothing is said about it. See the article on the US Constitution. Tony (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• "like a dove."—See MOS on final punctuation where the opening quote marks occur within a WP sentence.
• Many of the links and piped links are good. But there's a lot to link, and parts of the text are looking overly blue. This detracts from the high-value links and makes the text harder read and messy in appearance. I'd remove the repeat links for a more effective use of linking.

• 1c: Not good. Here are random samples (in which I found every item I sampled wanting in some respect).
  • Please audit the references for consistent, MOS-required formatting. For example: "The Roman Catholic Church an Illustrated History" (surely there's missing punctuation?). Hyphens instead of en dashes in a few pages ranges. The O'Connell book—does it start with "The" or doesn't it? There's a clash between the title in the reference list and the bibliography. Such sloppiness won't do in a serious, authoritative article. —This is part of a comment by Tony1 (of 13:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:
    • WP:Foot subsection entitled Style Recommendations allows you to use a shortened form of the title in the text if the full title is in the bibliography. I believe the audit you suggest of the references has already been done by Karanacs with the help of SandyGeorgia.NancyHeise (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • All I've done in the references is identify which ones obviously failed WP:RS and which ones looked duplicated. I haven't done a comprehensive audit of the source formatting.Karanacs (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Nor have I; I have gone through a few times and left sample edits of minor MoS issues that needed attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 223: Why not send us directly to the "web site" that was the source for this NYT posting? Who knows what mistakes might have occurred in the replication.
    • Because we are trying to get away from self published sources. The New York Times is a very reliable third party source and we thought it was even better than using the self published source. NancyHeise (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't care how reliable you think the NYT is—there's absolutely no reason to link to its version rather than the original. Avoiding self-published links is to minimise self-promotion and POV; the display of an official text is not in that category. Tony (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't think there is any Wikipedia policy that would require me to eliminate using NYT in favor of a self-published source. Since I have been beaten over the head enough times over self published sources by Karanacs on this and another FA I did, I would prefer to keep the NYT piece. Thanks for your opinion, please respect that I have one too on this matter. NancyHeise (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 228: Author cited on the web page, but not given here ....
    • The name appearing above the article is just below an advertisement for a book, not necessarily the author of the article. NancyHeise (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • OK Tony (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm uneasy that the history has drawn on rather too few books, but I don't know the area, and can't determine whether sufficiently broad sources have been used. It's just that there are a lot of sweeping assertions that I'd normally want to question, or check the detail on. For example: "By the mid-third century, persecution was extensive throughout the empire.[121] The ferocity of the persecution varied, with tradition holding Decius and Valerian I prominent among persecuting emperors.[125][126] In spite of these persecutions, the effective systems of Roman roads facilitated evangelization.[127]" OK, I'll take these assertions on trust, but many wouldn't. —This is part of a comment by Tony1 (of 13:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:
    • These assertions are found in many of our over 30 books used, they are very basic historical facts that I dont think anyone is going to question. We eliminated one of the books we used that had the same information because another reviewer was uncomfortable that the book was not specifically written about the history of the Roman Catholic Church. We are doing our best to make everyone happy here :0 ) NancyHeise (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But it is not only 1a and 1c that are at issue: the article fails to satisfy 1d (balance) and 1b (comprehensiveness). In summary, it is far too much like a text that the Church PR department would write. On the surface, it's a sequence of facts, but heavily skewed towards the historical and a very mainstream interpretation of the faith. There is little treatment of contemporary criticism of the political and social role of the church, everywhere, but especially in the third world. No proper treatment is given to those who would speak out against what the church has done to the hundreds of thousands of African women whose husbands were advised by their local priest (under orders from the Vatican) not to wear a condom, despite knowing that they were HIV positive (that's mass murder in the eyes of many) [oh wait, we do have this: "The church's rejection of the use of condoms, however, has provoked criticism, especially with respect to countries where AIDS and HIV infections are at epidemic proportions. The church maintains that countries like Kenya, where behavioral changes are endorsed instead of condom use, have experienced greater progress towards controlling the disease than countries solely promoting condoms.[213]", but it's heavily weighted towards the church's self-defence, and hello, the Herald Tribune (if the page could be accessed) looks like beating the depths of its own unresearched twaddle in that article; what about some scientific evidence rather than the musings of Catholic journalists? The exposures all over the catholic world of the sexual predation by priests of their flock, especially of the children among them, are not treated well: again, the church is made to look as good as possible in the text; many people would find this POV. Nothing about the current wealth and financial governance of the church. —This is part of a comment by Tony1 (of 13:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

In the effort to keep the page to a manageable size and provide Wikiproject Catholicism with a main article that would wikilink to all other pages in the project, we chose to mention all main facts supplying just what was necessary to give both sides of the issue and then wikilink to pages where those issues are discussed in depth. Each criticism has its own page where the subject matter is discussed in full, in addition to having the page Criticism of the Catholic Church be a main see also article in the top of the page. NancyHeise (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already suggested that the History sections need to be significantly reduced in size (they all link to daughter articles, and in their present length and detail suggest the need for a separate article on the history of the RCC). Thus, using the bloated size of this treatment as a reason not to introduce more balance here is not an acceptable defence. Tony (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have looked over the history section in an effort to comply with Tonys comment. However, compliance with his wishes will eliminate material that was inserted and expanded upon in order to comply with previous FA reviewers comments on this and a previous FA nomination. While I try to keep all FA reveiwers happy, it is not always possible to do especially when their wishes conflict. Please understand. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

SUMMARY: Needs thorough copy-editing by someone else. Needs the opinion of a disinterested historical scholar or two as to the balance of the account. The history sections need to be trimmed significantly. A more balanced angle on the deficiencies of the church is required. Quite simply, nothing less than a major overhaul is necessary.

Finally, two matters:

• First, as you'll see from my talk page, I'm no friend of supernatural religion. However, the substance of my review would not alter if that weren't the case, since I'm merely applying conventional standards of research and balance writing here.
• Second, I want to reinforce Sandy's point above about the fact that this is not a vote. Consensus is required for promotion. Too many reviewers appear to have flown by from somewhere else to support the article without properly engaging with the FA Criteria. Tony (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE: See talk page of user Tony for my comments in response to his final comments here. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

< Responses moved to talk page; Nancy, pls stay focused on WP:WIAFA. A second restart at FAC would be unprecedented; personal comments can be added to the talk page.> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There are a few referencing issues that need to be addressed.
  • Citation 194 (International Religious Freedom Report 2006) is wikilinked to a google cache which won't be there forever. Can you find the original page?
    • I changed the link to the actual document from US Dept of State and now its wikilinked to that page of the original document. Thanks NancyHeise (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The books in the References section don't include publication locations. That is generally standard.
    • This is copied from WP:Cite#full "Full citations for books typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, the date of publication, and page numbers. The name of the publisher, city of publication, and ISBN are optional"NancyHeise (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There are two listings for the Annuario Pontificio in the References section. The only difference between the listing is the ISBN. Are these actually different? If so, it is not clear in the footnotes which one is being referred to. If not, please fix the references so that this only appears once.
    • I have ordered the new Annuario Pontificio and will eliminate these with the most current information when I receive the book,hopefully in the next day or two.NancyHeise (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a. I must concur with Tony that the prose is not at the professional standard required here. After reading the article, I got much more of a sense of "persuasive essay" than encyclopedia article. The prose misses the mark significantly in serving its audience here. A thorough treatment by an uninvolved editor is required. --Laser brain (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote. We were not trying to write a persuasive essay, but a factual article that would help readers who wanted to know what the Catholic Church is, its beleifs, its community, its practices prayer and worship and history. I was inspired to put effort into this after I saw the FA on Islam which is very well done on a controversial subject. For people like me who just want to know the facts without all the fluff of a pro- Islam propaganda piece or arrows of an anti-Islam propaganda piece, it was refreshing to read just the facts and know what they believe and practice and history. I thought what we were creating with this article was identical and helpful to Wikipedia, especially to Wikiproject Catholicism who needs a top article to wikilink all other articles in the project. NancyHeise (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, it's NOT a vote. No one is going to do a count. Consensus is not 50% plus 1. Tony (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And, to keep this page focused on WP:WIAFA, please direct any followup on this commentary to the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose.Support.Oppose. The article is very good. My only complaint is that either the article is U.S.-centric or the editors are too harsh on singling out the U.S. regarding the child abuse scandal. It was quite widespread in many countries and the first cases came to light in the 1980s. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It was difficult to find any information about the abuse scandals in other countries that comprehensively quantified the problem. Only the United States had extensive studies that developed a reportable conclusion. There is information compiled by the Vatican that give the worldwide figure of total accused priests compared to total worldwide priests and that figure is 0.02%. I have only found that figure in a Catholic News article quoting a cardinal. I currently have on order the new Statistical Yearbook of the Church, if the information is in there, I will add it. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't that hard to find sources :-) But, if you want to blame the US, so be it! I'm Canadian. The article is good. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment.I've flip/flopped on this article. The article needs to be tightened up. The article is not NPOV. The text confuses Christian doctrine with specific Roman Catholic doctrine. If it eliminated what is universal to Christian belief, then the nearly 10,000 words of bloat could be reduced to a decent size. This isn't supposed to be a repeat of the Catechism of the Church. A non-Catholic and especially a non-Christian reader will find the article hard going as it does not provide context for the reader but resorts to too much jargon. The Lead alone is written at an advanced level - grade 12.7 by the Flesch-Kincaid score - and at over 500 words in length is getting a bit long. I'm still bothered by the U.S.-centric section on the child abuse scandal. I said it earlier, it is easy to find good references to the scandal and its world-wide reach. Also, the scandal was being reported before 2001 outside of the U.S. Simply, the text is factually wrong. Thus, reading the article and pondering it some more, I oppose the article being promoted to FA at this time. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The more I look into the article and compare it to other encyclopedias, and reputable sites, the more POV problems I see. The minimizing of the child abuse scandal and its affects on the Church is one lacunae that is bothering me more and more. A comment was made that the scandal is a drop in the bucket of 2 000 years of Catholic history, and yet there are plenty of good reputable sources that put the scandal in context of the church's history without the the fault of recentism. For example, this book:

• Wall, Patrick D.; Doyle, Thomas J.. Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes: The Catholic Church's 2,000-Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse. Chicago: Bonus Books. ISBN 1566252652. 

The author is a "Fr. Doyle, a canon lawyer, served at the Vatican’s U.S. embassy in the early ’80s".

• Here is the review in the National Catholic Reporter:Sex, lies, secrecy and abuse.

I throw up my hands here. There are good reputable sources that take the 'long view' of the child abuse scandal on the Church. The contributing editors are turning a blind eye. Seek and ye shall find. This article can not be FA quality without a better discussion of the scandal. Even the Encyclopedia Britannica devotes a thousand words to the topic. Cheers ! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Its comprehensive, had many good images, has been reworked many times to be neutral and well written. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support -- I reiterate my earlier support. Coemgenus 19:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Since some have taken exception with the brevity of my support, I will repeat in full what I said at the last nom: "I'm not knowledgable about the issues with the pictures, but the article's text is clear, well-written, and NPOV on a topic that inspires a lot of POV." I still agree with this statement. Coemgenus 12:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support -- I also reiterate my earlier support. --Anietor (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Vote early, vote often. OK, all supporters please "reiterate" what the nominator still regards as a vote, and you'll swamp us. These support repeats should be struck through. Tony (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I think there is merely some confusion about what "restart" means in FA nomination, which may suggest that a reiteration of a prior position is warranted. Striking through suggests a change of position, no? The.helping.people.tick (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the images such as Image:Albrecht Dürer 022.jpg should be moved a little down, right now they are directly below the level 3 header, and due to their left alignment they are breaking the prose's flow. Outside of that there are few matters that concern me, nothing so particulary troubling to prevent being featured, especially if we take under consideration that religion based articles are always hot topics. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Per WP:MOS#Images, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings". ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made changes to the images due to this comment. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Actually, my heart says Support but my mind says Oppose. I realize a copious amount of sweat and tears has been poured into this article. I've been scanning through the previous FAC, and the article has come a long, long way. I offer my respect and thanks to all those who have dedicated themselves to this task. Unfortunately, however, FAs aren't (or shouldn't be) awarded for hard work and dedication. They also aren't awarded for the worthiness of the topic. They are awarded for possessing an outstanding degree of compliance with WP:WIAFA, and I'm afraid this article just isn't quite there yet:

First, I am immovably sure that the article needs far too much work yet toward compliance with 1a. It needs to be tightened, tightened, tightened. Redundancies need to be stripped away mercilessly. All too often, moreover, it is not readily apparent to me how the Bible verses quoted to support various points are directly relevant, or whether they are needed at all. Finally, the article is a bit overburdened with clunky turns of phase and overdecorated with commas. As one example, I reworded the following sentence:

• Previous: "In Catholic belief, before the creation of man, God created spiritual beings called angels, servants and messengers of God, who possess intelligence, will, and immortality."
• Mine: "In Catholic belief, before creating mankind God created spiritual beings called angels to be his servants and messengers. Angels are immortal, and possess intelligence and will."

• This sentence was originally in your form but was changed due to an FA reviewer who felt it sounded too much like the sentence was a statement of fact rather than a belief. It has been difficult trying to make various FA reviewers happy on these minor differences of personal taste. NancyHeise (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Immediately below this is another clumsy passage, which I didn't edit:

• "Originally created to live in union with God, the first humans, Adam and Eve, by committing this original sin, brought suffering and death into the world. This event, known as the Fall of Man, left humans separated from their original state of intimacy with God. This state of separation can follow the soul into death."

Too many commas breaking up twisty constructions, too many sentences start with "this" etc.

I don't claim to be a professional-calibre writer. I can't always pull the rabbit out of the hat, but I can clearly see when the trick has failed. It fails here, and throughout the article.

Second, as for 1b and 1d, well, you'll note the first thing I pointed out was a grammatical construction that created a violation of WP:NPOV. That construction, while fixed in the lead, stands unmolested in the "Origin and mission" section... and I think if I pored over the article I would find more such... I am not sufficiently well-versed in Catholic history etc. to mount a formidable opposing argument based on 1b and 1d. That would require the services of a domain expert. However, see my comments about magic and magicians above. I just... get the feeling... that the article speaks too much from a Catholic POV, uses Catholic arguments to make Catholic points, etc. So my conclusion is "Oppose based on 1a", and I retain nagging concerns about 1b and 1d as well. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE:Thank you for your comments. Issues such as personal taste on things like wording are difficult for us to make everyone happy. Sometimes, removing wording for one person to make him or her happy will often offend someone else who then sees an obvious bias that the other may not see. We have tried to keep everyone happy but I realize that we can't always be successful in that area. NancyHeise (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - as much as I respect the work that Nancy and others have placed into this article, it does not meet the current criteria per Tony and others. My main problem with the article is that it reads like a persuasive essay, not an encyclopedic article. All points of view must be considered and addressed per WP:NPOV, and that is simply not done here. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE:Thanks for your comments. I realize there is a tendency for some people to want to see more expansion on certain criticisms. Again, it is difficult to make everyone happy here. We have omitted no criticism of the Catholic Church. All are mentioned in brief summary and then wikilinked to other Wikipedia pages where the issue is discussed in further depth. We had to do this in order to keep the page length down to a minimum. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not limited to mere criticism. Different points of view are not necessarily criticism. Per above, the article is heavily favorable towards the Church. I am a Catholic and this is blatantly apparent. As I requested at the previous FAC, please work with the editors who have raised objections on this nomination and work with them. If you are confused, ask for clarification. Merely brushing them off and using ad hominem attacks is not going to help you in any fashion here. FAC is not a vote. As it stands, this nomination will fail unless you can address the oppose votes here. There can be fifty support votes and it would be irrelevant in every fashion possible so long as the objections remain. I implore you to cease your attacks and work with the editors here. Getting a third party copy-editor to fix the page per Tony's suggestion would be a start. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support, it clearly reaches the requirements of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. No question about it. I'm trying to maintain good faith, but from the words of the people who are opposing, it seems their issues are more centred to their personal opinion of the Catholic Church, rather than "is this article up to standard for FA". The article presents a thorough, complete, overview of the subject at hand.. including relevent criticisms to present a NPOV and over 200 citations. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support as before. The article still has room for improvement. However, it meets FA standards. It's a fairly good article on a complex subject. Majoreditor (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The sacrament of Penance is fully described in the section about Jesus, but receives only a mention in the paragraph about sacraments. Is that the way it should be? I mean... Jesus is connected to everything in Christianity, and so everything could perhaps be in a section about Jesus... but is that the logical place? Ling.Nut (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, really, we could have gone into depth on each sacrament in the paragraph about Mass where they are all listed. But it was more logical to describe each sacrament under the actual belief section from which the purpose of the sacrament originates. As you will see, the most basic sacraments are described within certain sections of Beliefs like Penance under Jesus - whose death is believed by Christians to have granted people the opportunity for forgiveness of sins for those who are sorry and repent - Sacrament of Penance. NancyHeise (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I just replaced a lower-case "p" with a capital P in "sacrament of penance". Just now found a lower-case "c" in one instance of sacrament of confirmation". Am I correct in assuming that words like confirmation and eucharist should always rec'v caps after "sacrament of.."? Penance is both a sacrament and a general English word, but what about eucharist/Eucharist? Ling.Nut (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I could use help capitalizing these. After reading the Wikipolicies I thought it best to lowercase them just to not appear POV. After another editor started to captialize them, I asked SandyGeorgia for advice and she told me to go ask Tony (who subsequently came over with a big Oppose vote). Tony advised me to capitalize them. I have been doing so as I go through but may have missed some - your kindness and help to get them all is much appreciated.NancyHeise (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a bit surprised that the Demographics & Membership sections are placed at the very end of the article... I would've thought that these, being more general, would come near the front.. are you following some template on this arrangement? It's a matter of style, but... Ling.Nut (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything about this article was conceived following the example of the FA on Islam which I found to be very helpful to someone like me who does not know much about that religion. Since some of my children's school friends are Muslims and it is respectful to people of different cultures to have some knowledge of their beliefs, I found the article extremely helpful. I organized this article along the same lines. I want this to be an FA so people can trust that the information is not some product of ignorant editors going back and forth on Wikipedia! NancyHeise (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Despite other editors' confessed (no pun intended) struggles adhering to WP:AGF regarding the Oppose votes, the fact is, you need non-Catholics reading this article. I just finished reading (and rereading, and re-rereading) "Church organization and community" and it didn't make sense to me. I suspect that's because Catholics, when reading, subconsciously "fill in the blanks" with missing information — whereas those blanks are chasms to me... The section seemed to omit key information, to include redundant statements, etc etc etc. I'm gonna try to work on a revised version in my user space, though I'm sure it'll contain some errors. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has been much improved by the contributions of non-Catholics. I especially appreciate the number of them who have been respectful of this religion and truly wanted to help Wikipedia have a decent article on the subject regardless of their personal feelings about the Church.NancyHeise (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Nancy is working on the Community section as per my comments; I'm working on an (unfortunately) competing version here. That version currently has tons of redundancy that can be cut cut cut. unfortunately I have to quit for the day now, but I hope we can work together. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I replaced my reworking with Ling Nut's making some minor corrections of fact. NancyHeise (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I must give extreme kudos to Nancy for maintaining her composure in the face of some of the extreme POV carping by certain people on this page. She must have spent over 100 hours of intense work on this project since nomination. No sooner does she work to appease one set of objections when a whole shaft more appears. There are vague criticisms saying the article is "too pro-Catholic", with no detail given, presumably because it doesn't follow their own prejudices. Is the "France" article too pro-French, I wonder or the Science article too pro-science? At the other extreme there are people like Dave1 who want the article to conform to their own personal style and word choice preferences, with numerous petty criticisms. References are removed because they aren't from books specifically looking at the Catholic Church, then someone objects that the source is too narrow! Finally when the history and belief sections are enlarged, and heavily referenced to include sections detailing issues that FA reviewers have said need to be included, others then turn up and say the sections need cropping! We will never get anywhere at this rate! Xandar (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

<remainder of commentary moved to the talk page; please stay focused on WP:WIAFA and remember that Islam and the article author are not being evaluated here (Roman Catholic Church is). Please continue this off-topic discussion on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment All I'm saying, which I do believe NEEDS saying on this page, (more is on the talk page) is let's have constructive relelevant, and specific criticisms only, not vague, general bad-mouthing, or saying "someone else could do it better." Saying "not well organized" or "should be better than this", is no use whatsoever to the process. If your point has any relevance, explain HOW and in what precise way you would prefer to see it organised, and in what precise way it should be "better", otherwise I would say the comment is irrelevant, and should be ignored. Xandar (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose It's covering a pretty big subject but it's not very well organized. Most of the covered topics have main articles so it really shouldn't be this long. The history is better off in its own article. "Origin and mission" is out of place. Obviously, a featured article doesn't need to be perfect but it should be better than this.Mike92591 (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple editors have just worked to trim the article in all areas. It was 132KB and is now 118KB. I have looked over every part of the article to remove excesses or redundancies as well as three other editors. I do not see any more we can cut without starting to violate FA criteria requiring us not to omit key information. NancyHeise (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You could move the history.Mike92591 (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support The article is well up to FA standard, which means (like its subject) not perfect. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Multiple instances of British English spelling. They didn't appear to be in direct quotes or book titles etc.; just in the body text. The overwhelming majority of the text (including section headers) is American English, so I assume that's the standard for the article. Look for: organisation, behaviour, criticised, baptised, favour, endeavour and travellers. I think that's all of them. Ling.Nut (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm fixing the British Eng. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am unfamiliar with the specific criteria for FACs these days, but if this is the sort of thing that people are allowing through, I am a little unhappy. In general, this article is not sufficiently neutral, does not rely sufficiently on disinterested academic scholarship - especially in matters related to the catechism, where Msgr. Barry is used, and in medieval history, where a book credited to "Harcourt Religious Publishers" is used extensively.

Wikipedia allows self published sources like the Catechism and Code of Canon Law when creating sections like "Beliefs". The other books referencing those sections are not self-published, even the Msgr. Barry book. The history section is referenced to over 30 books with several that are University press published and written by scholars that are then supplemented with a variety of books spanning a wide expanse of published sources on the subject matter. I think it makes the history section quite well-rounded. NancyHeise (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, self-published sources are allowed. Two things, however: our best articles should avoid them if possible; and in this case the Catechism is a primary source, which should be used with caution, and ideally only to support a secondary source for an interested reader. (I'd love to put that in terms of FA criteria. Its mentioned in WP:V, but not explicitly in the criteria. Typical. Prose should be "brilliant", but the quality of sourcing isnt addressed.)

The history section is strongly dependent on the Harcourt book, which is - as far as I can tell - a parochial publishing house in Florida. Relata refero (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Since "specific" complaints are also asked for, may I direct people to the section on the Church's history in the Renaissance. On the Church's role in the New World, this is all that is mentioned: "n December 1511, Dominican friar Antonio de Montesinos openly rebuked the Spanish authorities governing Hispaniola for their mistreatment of the American natives, telling them "you are in mortal sin ... for the cruelty and tyranny you use in dealing with these innocent people".[142] Although King Ferdinand enacted the Laws of Burgos and Valladolid in response, enforcement was lax. The issue did rouse a crisis of conscience in 16th century Spain. An outpouring of self-criticism and philosophical reflection among Catholic theologians, most notably Francisco de Vitoria, led to debate on the nature of human rights, and the birth of modern international law." Seriously? This is not the mainstream view of the Church's involvement, far from it.—This is part of a comment by Relata refero , which was interrupted by the following:

Amazing response - this was found in several books and is in fact the mainstream view. I am happy that the article will sufficiently reveal to people that the Catholic Church, as viewed by historians, has been an influence for good in the New World and is distinguished and separate from the harm done by Spanish explorers. NancyHeise (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It has indeed been a lasting and in many ways "good" influence. The activities of the Franciscans and the famous sermons of Vitoria and de la Casas are indeed relevant, and the fact that Vitoria's lectures at Salamanca on the subject are crucial to the history of international law and sovereignty is a nice point. That does not give an FA the right to skip over the accepted view that there were many problems, particularly its justification of forced labour under its stewardship (see Bruce E. Johansen), its vast holdings, and the close alliance with the Crown under the patronado real. The mainstream view? The Catholic Church "....was a government agency like any other... in return for assistance in conerting indigenous peoples to Catholicism, state officials were given the right to appoint Church officials and control its finances..." (Carlos Forment). For the final word, see the John Frederick Schwaller's introduction to The Church in Colonial Latin America which puts into perspective the thoeretical "wins" in Spain with the abject failure of adminstration of those principles on the ground. The way the section is written, it sounds the other way 'round. Relata refero (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the part of the article you are having trouble with and calling POV is this "In the Americas, the church expanded its missions in cooperation with the Spanish government and military. Junípero Serra, the Franciscan priest in charge of this effort, founded a series of missions which quickly became important economic, political, and religious institutions.[165] These missions brought grain, cattle, and a new way of living to the pagan Indian tribes of California. Overland routes were established from New Mexico that resulted in the colonization of San Francisco in 1776 and Los Angeles in 1781. However, by bringing civilization to the area, these missions and the Spanish government have been held responsible for wiping out nearly a third of the native population, primarily through disease.[166] This period also saw the church struggling against the colonial abuses of the Portuguese and Spanish governments. In South America Jesuits established semi-independent colonies or reductions to protect native peoples from enslavement. Pope Gregory XVI, challenging Spanish and Portuguese sovereignty, appointed his own candidates as bishops in the colonies, condemned slavery and the slave trade in 1839, and approved the ordination of native clergy in the face of government racism.[167]" This part of the article is referenced to two different Scholarly books published by University Presses supplemented with an online source. Clearly, scholarly works in agreement would constitute reliable facts that we can put in the article. Neither source mentions your "mainstream view". I have to use the best and most reliable sources over others and that is what the article has done. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was talking about the earlier section, which I quoted. This section uses a book published in the 1970s by the "Society of Californian Pioneers", and Duffy. I have no objection to the section on the 1830s, though it certainly doesn't tell the whole story; one would think the Jesuits had local church support, which wasn't the case. My concerns about the earlier section stand. Relata refero (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In an effort to address your concerns about this issue, I looked up the book you have cited to support your viewpoint here: "The Church in Colonial Latin America" by Schwaller. Here is a direct quote of a review of the book by Brian Larkin of St. Johns University History Dept :"Readers interested in the history of the Church and religion in Brazil, the Caribbean, or the frontiers of Spanish America will be disappointed. Likewise, readers particularly concerned with the religious history of women will find little of immediate interest in this volume. Not even Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz or St. Rose of Lima, Latin America's two most famous religious women, receive mention. Because of its limited scope, instructors will need to supplement this text with other materials. Nonetheless, Schwaller has provided scholars with a useful selection of articles for the classroom." You can read the rest of the review here [[1]] evidently, it is considered to be of such a limited scope that it is not useful in the classroom. How can you expect me to use this book on the brief summary in Wikipedia? NancyHeise (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, reading that section, the Reformation is not put into sufficient context: "In Europe, the Renaissance was a period of renewed interest in ancient and classical learning, and a re-examination of accepted beliefs. On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses, which protested key points of Catholic doctrine as well as the sale of indulgences.[144] Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, and others further criticised Catholic teachings. These challenges developed into the Protestant Reformation.[145]" Criticised how? The only thing mentioned here is indulgences. Not good enough.—This is part of a comment by Relata refero , which was interrupted by the following:

This is what I was talking about earlier about not being able to satisfy all people. In an earlier FAC, reviewers wanted more info - we put it in and then this FAC they want the article to have less. Now we have less and we have reviewers who want more again. Several editors both Catholic and non-Catholic worked together to get the current version, many top sources were consulted and used for the current form of the history section. It was recently trimmed by Karanacs and Lingnut.NancyHeise (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but must repeat that from the point of view of an encyclopaedic article on the Catholic church, not having a few sentences on what caused the Reformation is very not-OK. Relata refero (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that more expansion of this section is needed. It was expanded to include the information this reviewer would like to see. It was subsequently trimmed by three non-Catholic and very expert FA reviewers in a recent vast trimming of the entire page. NancyHeise (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My comments on the need for context for the most major event in Catholic history stand. On the subject of who made the changes, it doesn't matter: they may be expert FA reviewers, but they've certainly screwed up the article here. Relata refero (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the key is to make sure that the most important points are covered, and those of lesser importance are left to the article on the History of the Roman Catholic Church. I agree with Relata that the article should include more information on what led up to the Reformation. Karanacs (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Addressed. I have added two new sentences sourced to a University press book that state what led up to the Reformation, see the two sentences immediately before Martin Luther's 95 theses. NancyHeise (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The end of the section sums up the problem with the entire article: "Baroque religious expression was emotional, with joyful and exuberant music and art intended to appeal to the senses. Emphasizing the humanity of Jesus and the motherly qualities of Mary, this style offered the common people a joyous religious experience." Depressingly in-universe, as it were, and completely ignores the mainstream scholarship: "The baroque is the glorification of established regimes: it is the art of authoritarianism that carries the awed observer away so he forgets to doubt and question" - Joyce G. Simpson, quoted in Jose Antonio Maravall; not to mention the stream of thought that links the baroque in religious architecture to spectacle, illusion and theatricality, for which see Karsten Harries on ethics in architecture.

I am not sure what FAs are coming to these days, if this is a representative candidate. Relata refero (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The section on Baroque is referenced to a non- Catholic church affiliated source and was inserted at the request of a non-Catholic FA reviewer. NancyHeise (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, the Baroque section is referenced to the book from Harcourt, the religious publishers. Relata refero (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no particular contradiction between the views on the Baroque quoted or mentioned, and Simpson (whoever she is) appears to be discussing the secular Baroque in particular; the passage in the article cannot reasonably be accused of "completely ignoring" mainstream views. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia NPOV requires an article to give the reader a fair representation of views. This does not preclude us from supplementing all of our 90% + books used to create the history section with the only one that is published by Harcourt Religion Publishers. In fact, it is to the advantage of the article not to be accused of being anti-Catholic by using at least one of these kinds of books to tie in with the others. We did not use just one book but over 30 including more than a fair amount of University press citations.NancyHeise (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

John: Joyce Simpson wrote the book on the French baroque. In this section she is talking about the general approach to the baroque in France; Maravall later on in the same passage goes on to point out the unitary structure of authority between the Church and secular power, and their common use of the baroque. This is absolutely the mainstream in art history. The passage may not "contradict" the mainstream, but it definitely ignores it.

Perlease - she wrote a book called "Le Tasse et la litterature et I'art baroques en France" in 1962, so mainly about the reception of Tasso, an Italian pre-Baroque poet, in France - that is all I can find on google scholar etc. This is a passing reference in a huge article, and gives a perfectly conventional quick summation of the impact of the Baroque in religious art. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nancy: in this section the Harcourt book is the source for all the major claims. Relata refero (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am not understanding what is controversial about Baroque art. How is art controversial - is there anything in the aritcle that is not a referenced fact? No. Neither is this a material item to the Roman Catholic Church as an organization. We made mention of Baroque art as a cultural thing of the times. It is not church policy, there were no papal decrees - it was a fad. NancyHeise (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Comments The article needs a thorough copy edit - there are awkwardly worded sentences, confusing diction, and easter egg links. Here are some examples from the lead.

• On Images: Obviously there is a plethora of art to choose from for this page and the editors have chosen lovely images (all listed as being in the public domain). However, none of the captions list the artists and only some list the dates. Many of these works are famous and beautiful (I studied a lot of them in my art history classes). It would be helpful to readers unfamiliar with the art historical tradition to identify the artists and approximate dates for them. Awadewit talk 15:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

While we could change all captions to reflect only the origin of the artwork, I disagree that this would be an improvement to the article. The reader can click on the picture to discover its origin, the article is not about art history, it is about the Roman Catholic Church and these pictures are about subjects directly related to content in the article. We chose to caption the content of the picture rather than its origin in an effort to supplement reader's understanding of the article topic, not redirect their attention to an off-subject topic. NancyHeise (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clearer. I wanted only to add to the captions. Most artworks are identified in FAs and then have a commentary about how they apply to the article. It is both a gesture of recognition to the artist and a way to inform the audience. Awadewit talk 14:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin and mission

• The church and scholars such as Edward Norman consider this to be the manner of the church's origin and cite historical records that support this belief. - Is there any way to characterize the group of scholars that Norman belongs to? Do they belong to a strain of thinking, for example?

"Dr. Edward Norman (born 22 November, 1938) was Canon Chancellor of York Minster and is an ecclesiastical historian. He lectured in history at the University of Cambridge. He is an emeritus Fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge and was Dean of Peterhouse for seventeen years and Dean and Chaplain at Christ Church College, Canterbury and Professor of History at the University of York. He is a member of the Peterhouse school of history. Norman also was a BBC Reith lecturer in 1978, discussing the relationship between religion and politics. Margaret Thatcher once invited him to Chequers, although Norman insists he is not a Thatcherite and says he is 'appalled by the results of naked capitalism'. He has left the Church of England and has converted to the Roman Catholic Church, although he claims these two actions are independent of each other." He has been involved with the Conservative Philosophy Group and has written for the Salisbury Review. this was copied and pasted from the Wikipedia page on Edward Norman, not an obscure historian from an obscure college. His book "Roman Catholic Church and Illustrated History" is one of our University Press sources used to create the article.NancyHeise (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can verify from somewhere other than Wikipedia that he part of the "Peterhouse school of history", that is precisely the sort of information we are looking for. Describing it would be even better than giving its name. For readers unfamiliar with the world of biblical studies, it is pretty much meaningless to cite a scholar's name, but if you can say "he uses this particular methodology", that helps them out a lot more, if you see what I mean. Awadewit talk 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that we have to put anything in the article more than a wikilinked name of the author in the origin and mission section. It is easy enough for the reader to go to the page of that author and see who he is. I added a reference to the Wikipedia page on Edward Norman to support the claims made on his page. Is there some Wikipedia policy that requires more information on an author? I'm sorry, while I am complying with many of your requests, I do not see how this will make the article better. I think it will clutter up the messages being conveyed in the Origin and Mission paragraph and is unnecessary if we have a wikilink to the author, which we have for both authors cited.NancyHeise (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, Edward Norman is a top scholar at one of the worlds top Universities. Peterhouse school of history definition concentrated on these scholars views of politics in the 19th and 20th centuries. This is not relevent to the topic of the article.NancyHeise (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a wikipolicy somewhere about proper attribution of quotations. I'm sure someone here knows where it is. However, the real issue is that you can help the reader. Let me give an example. In the article about Mary Shelley that I'm currently working on, I just noticed the same problem. The article could say: "Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar write that..." Now Gilbert and Gubar wrote a very important book on women writers. It would be better, however, if the article said: "Feminist literary critics Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar write that..." That way readers know the perspective from which the scholarship is coming. It is these tiny details that help readers who don't know what you, the writer, knows. Awadewit talk 00:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Addressed 74.225.135.48 (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just adding where he is a professor is not what I meant - that doesn't help the reader. That is why I tried to give an example. Perhaps someone else knows the answer to this question? Awadewit (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Prayer and worship

• The Mass is a representation of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary and a response to Jesus' request for the disciples to remember him in this way. - I thought this was supposed to be the Eucharist - "Do this in remembrance of me".

I changed this section and got a better source. It is such an important and unique part of Roman Catholicism that I thought it needed a little more background. 74.225.135.48 (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Church organization and community

• The church teaches that women have a different yet equally important role in church ministry, prayer and life. - What is that different role? A small description should be included.

Addressed NancyHeise (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The new sentence only repeats that the role is different - it doesn't state what that role is. I would delete the Pope sentence and find a source that explains what women are supposed to do. Awadewit (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• The lay person's role in the church body is to make Christian teaching and the Christian life a reality in the social, political, and economic realms of the secular world. By offering their prayers and good works as spiritual sacrifices, by being good Christian examples to the world both in word and deed, by self-mastery and working to conform worldly institutions to the norms of justice, the lay faithful participate with the ordained in Christ's priestly, prophetic and royal offices. - I think that by relying too much on the Church's own language, this sentence has the potential to confuse readers. Much here is unclear to me: What is a "Christian life"? What are good works"? Phrases like "word and deed" are religious and unfamiliar to the casual reader. I worry that "working to conform worldly institutions to the norms of justice" implies that somehow they aren't already just - if that is the Catholic position - that needs to made clearer. What does "Christ's priestley, prophetic and royal offices" mean? Again,this is religious (and poetic) language - it is vague and doesn't help the reader unfamiliar with Catholicism understand what the duty of the lay Catholic is.

Addressed NancyHeise (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand what "Christ's priestley, prophetic and royal offices" means. Awadewit (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead

• I still think the lead is too detailed. I've tried copy editing it myself, along with my other copy editing. We'll see what people think. Awadewit (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I read it and thought your changes were fine. 74.225.135.48 (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still going to work on it some more - the lead needs more flow. Awadewit (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources

• Poughkeepsie Journal - Why are we using this newspaper to describe the differences between the CC and the Greek Orthodox Church? Awadewit (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a problem with using it? The discussions between the churches were a news item. The Poughkeepsie Journal is one of the oldest newspapers in the country, I considered it a reliable source. I thought the article was well done. 74.225.135.48 (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that generally we stay away from newspapers whenever possible (see discussion on FAC talk page recently). This story is from six years ago. Surely some more reputable source, such as an academic journal or book has published something on this since then? Awadewit (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Awadewit that it would be better to use a non newspaper source. I'll see if I can find one. Karanacs (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC) I've now replaced the newspaper reference with a book reference. Karanacs (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please describe the Barry book for me. It is not available in my university research library (which is quite extensive), nor is it easily available for purchase (e.g. on amazon). I saw several books on the internet by Barry, but they were for teenagers. The publisher in a description of a large type version, describes it this way: "Designed for adolescents and young adults, it is an ideal resource for those who have minimal catechesis". While this is true of Wikipedia's audience, it should not serve as the foundation for the research for the article. However, there seem to be many books with this title. See here. I'm concerned, however, that the book doesn't appear in WorldCat. I've checked through the article and this book serves as the sole secondary source for at least the "Spiritual realm", "Church", and "Devotional life" sections. His book plays a major role elsewhere, so we need to make sure it is the most reputable source possible. That it is so hard to find disturbs me. Awadewit (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The book is used as a tool for Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church. It is created for and sold to Roman Catholic Religious Education departments for use in various programs to initiate people into the church. Usually people coming into the church are adult converts or teenagers who want to make their confirmation (which often happens either in middle school or high school). They have to take two years of classes before they can get confirmed. Thus, the book is a summary of basic Cathoilc belief. If you will see, I have supplemented the Beliefs section with a new source "The Essential Catholic Catechism" by Dr. Alan Schreck, Servant Publications - this book has what are called "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" which means that it is declared by the Catholic Church to be free from doctrinal or moral error. It is an acceptable source to represent Catholic Belief. It is not exactly a Catechism but a commentary explaining it. NancyHeise (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My inclination is to say that the article should not rely so heavily on Barry, then, for several reasons. According to the websites I saw and what you are saying, I'm not sure it is written for adults - I'm concerned that basing our articles on simplified sources will give Wikipedia a bad reputation and might have misled us in what we included (not intentionally, of course). What the church chooses to include in Confirmation classes is not necessarily what we need to include in our article. We need a multiplicity of views. I did see that part of the Beliefs section is supplemented with Schreck, but that is only part. I am also concerned that the book is so hard to obtain. This book is the citational foundation for several sections; it is disingenuous for Wikipedia to claim that it is sourcing its articles and then point readers to unobtainable books. However, this is a tricky issue. I have asked others to weigh in on this issue as well. Let's see what they think. Awadewit (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it is my opinion that it is a top source that no one will argue with Wikipedia for using if it is used to train new converts to the religion. I did not know it was so hard to obtain - I teach religious education so I have a copy given to me by the church. NancyHeise (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the article would be better served if we include more non-RCC sources to back up some of what is sourced to the Barry book (I hadn't realized it was so hard to access). While I don't believe that book would have errors, I think we definitely need a plethora of views here, and not necessarily only the view of the RCC. (Note: I am not advocating getting rid of this source completely, just supplementing with a book not directly associated with the RCC.) That said, I do appreciate that Nancy found this book rather than sourcing directly to the Catechism, and I wouldn't oppose based on this. Karanacs (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now looked up all of the Catholic churches in my town, but unfortunately I would need a car to get to any of them and I don't own one. I think that using this book, which is not a third-party source, peer-reviewed in any way, written for teenagers, written for "new converts" (a very specific target audience), and extremely difficult to obtain, as the sole source for many of the sections I have listed above, is a significant problem. I agree with Karanacs that it should be supplemented with other, more reliable, preferably non-RCC sources. Unlike Karanacs, I will oppose based on this - sources are the foundation of Wikipedia's credibility in FAs. They must be impeccable. Awadewit (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to change my "comments" to "oppose", unfortunately, because of the source issues I brought up and those brought up below. Finding new sources often involves not just replacing old sources with new but also doing new research to determine if the article is accurate and, if not, fixing it. This can take some time. When the new sources have been added and the article has been checked for accuracy, I will, of course, be happy to look at it again. Awadewit (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• 1a - I still think that this article is wordy and awkward in places. I have copy edited it myself and tried to help the editors, but it is in such a state of flux that this assistance is a drop in the bucket. Whole sections are rewritten daily.
• 1b - First, this article needs more on the Catholic church's modern missions. I mentioned this briefly on the talk page of the article, but the more I think about it, the more I think it is necessary. I've spent quite a bit of time now thinking about what should/should not be in the article (several days in fact) and I'm concerned that the practical "mission" of the Church is not given more space. Its efforts to convert and to help the needy are a large part of the institution and should be given space in the article. They are mentioned in the history but not in the "contemporary" part of the article. This needs to be rectified. Other editors have addressed the problems with the history (which I think should be shrunk). Second, I think this article focuses too much on the ideal Catholic life. More on the lived Catholic life would be helpful. For example, saints are very important to Catholics in Latin America but saints receive very little treatment here. Thus, I would expect the article to, at times, mention the differences between Catholic theology and the actual practice of Catholics in different parts of the world. Which brings up my third point. The article does not describe the different kinds of Catholicism the world over very well. Since Catholics are not all the same everywhere, some attempt should be made to describe the different Catholic traditions in Africa, Latin America, Europe, and America, for example.
• 1c - I've already explained my objections to some of the sources used.
• 1e - The article is not stable, but this is an artifact of the FAC process. Awadewit (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I would like to point out that I'm sure we all agree this article is very important and I would like to thank the editors who have put so much time and effort into it. I am hoping that by ironing out any little writing problems, we can also iron out any possible POV problems. Happily, focusing on the language of an article often has that effect. Awadewit talk 13:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(off-topic) I remember now why I don't spend time near FAC. Precisely the belief you outline in the last couple of sentences, which really seems to have no grounding in fact. Relata refero (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Three editors, two of whom are not Catholics, who opposed the FA nomination have just spent a significant effort to eliminate POV and trim the article. I appreciate thier efforts and do not feel there is any POV left to eliminate without eliminating what the Catholic church thinks of itself - important content to have.NancyHeise (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I am more focused on the writing. Awadewit talk 21:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of your points have been addressed like the Origin and MIssion sentence and easter egg links. Others are matters of personal taste that may conflict with the many qualified and often non-Catholic editors of the page who have gone over several times with improvements. Some of your comments will just make the page too long and off subject - wikilinks are provided for the reader who wants more explanation of terms like Gospel, liturgy, etc. Thanks for your comments. NancyHeise (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we generally don't talk about qualifications, but if you want to hear mine, I'm sure you would be satisfied with them. I have both on- and off-wiki qualifications. :) I would also argue that explaining core concepts such as the Holy Spirit early in the article are not off topic. Readers need to be helped along - they often skip parts of articles and when reading introductory articles such as this one, we might assume they are unfamiliar with the language of the Church. We should do all we can to assist them in understanding the material we are presenting. Awadewit talk 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: those who have a problem with the length of the article please take a look at the comparable featured article Israel. Squash Racket (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• This article is 60kb of readable prose (to calculate this, I followed the directions at WP:LENGTH). According to that page, "> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". Awadewit talk 15:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot has been done in the past few days to cut its size, esp. by User:Karanacs. If it fails and then receives intensive copy editing, a lot more will be done. If it passes, then it is perhaps unlikely that it will receive such intensive scrutiny. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Current readable prose size per Dr pda's prose size script of Roman Catholic Church is 56KB, Israel is 46KB, Islam is 41KB, and Atheism is 32KB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Further to size, here is a list for comparison purposes of the articles found in the on-line edition of Encarta.

• Roman Catholic Church (Encarta): 4,400 words
• Islam (Encarta): 9,700 words
• Christianity (Encarta): 7,100 words
• Atheism (Encarta): 1,500 words
• The current size (15 March 2008) of the Roman Catholic Church article: 9,700 words

I think it is not unreasonable to envision the main Roman Catholic Church article to be about 5,000 words. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Encarta. The current Catholic article on Wikipedia, is better than Encarta's (which is the purpose of this project anyway). Squash Racket brings up a great point, Israel's article was allowed to pass without having essential imformation stripped out of it, so should this article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If this article is cut to fit Wikipedias guidlines, it will omit basic facts - several editors have just trimmed everything out of the aritcle that is not core. We want a useful article, not a shell and this subject warrants a sufficient size to meet the FA criteria that requires it to not omit important facts. The Wikipedia guideline on article size states at the top of the page that if a subject warrants a larger size, then it is OK to ignore the guideline. NancyHeise (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Question for the MOS gurus I hate to ask this, but it must be asked if we are going to do this right: Are we going to go with "church" or "Church". This recently came up at the Zwingli article FAC, where we went with "the Church". The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers states that capitalizing the shortened form is a good idea in order to distinguish it from the generic use of the word. Here is their example: "The Democratic Party has always been the dominant party in this country. However, recently other political groups have begun to encroach upon the Party's territory." I have frequently seen "the Church" in published scholarship. Thoughts on this? Awadewit talk 21:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The rule is that you use lower case unless you are naming the church. I went through this already with the FA Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. NancyHeise (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

But I am pointing out that grammar books disagree with this and perhaps we should rethink that decision. Awadewit talk 14:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you would have to argue that with top Wikipedia people, I just did what they told me to do on Archdiocese of Miami.NancyHeise (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been through Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and the talk page of Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and don't find any discussion of the capitalization issue. Can you please point us to this discussion? I don't know what "top Wikipedia people" means. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

NancyHeise responded on my talk page that this was based on one comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami that "diocese and archdiocese should not be capitalized unless referring to a specific one", so there doesn't appear to have been a broad discussion of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would support removing the Nicene Creed, as articles do not usually contain entire texts like that, and we are trying to reduce the size of this one (I was actually about to suggest this move). I would not support removing the entire "Beliefs" section. Awadewit talk 02:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The Roman Catholic Church is an organization built around a set of beliefs. Take out the beliefs and it is no longer a church; it's a social outreach organization, or something like that. No way on earth can that section be tossed.... As for eliminating the Nicene creed: I too think it should go. But just removing it goes far beyond the bounds of WP:BOLD in my opinion. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Please see my trimmed version of the beliefs section. It is 530 words rather than 1,700 words. I've placed it at Talk:Roman Catholic Church#Tossing Beliefs Section and is in bold called 'beliefs and doctrines'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTE TO FA REVIEWER FROM NOMINATOR: Because two editors are now discussing eliminating the Beliefs section for this article and one has already eliminated the Nicene Creed (which I replaced) I am wondering if we can please have some kind of ruling on the RCC page as of my last edit. The page is currently being turned into something that I would not consider worthy of FA and would probably make me withdraw the nomination. These changes have occured without consensus of editors considering all of the support votes here and only a couple of opposes stating elimination of Nicene Creed and no one advocating tossing the entire beliefs section. It has been over two weeks that this page has been at FAC. I think it was perfect as of my last edit here which includes the polishing edits of SandyGeorgia, Lingnut and several other editors many of whom are not-Catholic and worked extensively to eliminate any POV and address issues brought up by the oppose votes on this page. How much longer do we go on without a decision and at what point can this controversial page receive protection from the kind of editing that is occuring now? NancyHeise (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Note I have since restored the page to the form it was in as an FA nomination. NancyHeise (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. All major edits should go through consensus on the article Talk Page. Xandar (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is true, then the article fails FAC #1(e). These differences and changes need to be worked out on the talk page. If there is edit warring and lack of consensus on the article in major ways, then the article clearly isn't stable. We can't force and article to be "stable" by reverting back to an earlier version. The concerns of these editors need to be addressed, or they need to be convinced to jump on board (or vice versa). Conflict like this isn't good for the nomination :( -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Also in view of the sheer weight of comments here; and in the interests of Nancy and others, who have spent far more time on the page than I have been able to offer, can objections be less matters of personal preference than things the objector or commenter really believes are breaches of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria? Perhaps mentioning the specific criterion they are referring to, and in what precise way they allege the criterion not to be met. Secondly, since the number of suggestions for change shows no sign of slowing down, there needs to be some sort of shape to this process. Perhaps if a number of us could agree a finished article, and then everyone can re-submit valid supports and opposes from that point?? Xandar (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the article has reached the finished point and do not want another revote. I would like the FA reviewer to please come and make a decision. It has been two weeks and the only issues coming up now are minor issues of personal taste with no breaches of wikipedia policies or POV. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nancy. I suggested a re-vote so the old objections could be weeded out and the process boil down to those who still have issues - and whether those issues are valid or not. At the moment I'm confused as to who is still opposing and for what reasons? Xandar (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that two weeks is a relatively short time for an article of this magnitude and potential controversy. It is also normal for the prose of an article to be carefully checked. That is part of what FAC is about. Awadewit talk 14:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I personally think that when this page gets longer than the actual article in question, that's when a decision should be made. We're almost there! ;-) Seriously, though, I'm having a problem with a quite key sentence in the article, in the Reformation section or whatever it actually is: "On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses, which protested key points of Catholic doctrine as well as the sale of indulgences.[151]" When I started the All Saints' Church, Wittenberg article about the church the theses were posted on, I found out and was confronted about them not actually having been posted there. In our The Ninety-Five Theses article, under "Initial Dissemination", they mention that there is no contemporaraneous evidence supporting the posting of the Theses on the door. It references that statement to "Iserloh, Erwin. The Theses Were Not Posted. Toronto: Saunders of Toronto, Ltd., 1966." Now, in such an important article as this, I don't think that we should be putting as fact what may be question. Perhaps throw in an allegedly or historically or something, but I don't think that we should be saying that he did in fact post his theses there. Any thoughts, yea or nay? Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 15:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Might ask RelHistBuff. He's been working on Reformation articles recently. Might know. Awadewit talk 15:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• I reworded this and added a reference to support the rewording. My source says it was originally sent in a letter to the Archbishop of Albrecht who was the one selling indulgences to raise money. Luther then sent the 95 theses to other bishops hoping to spark debate and discussion in a scholarly fashion. NancyHeise (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My source (Bainton, p. 60) says that Luther did post a placard of the Ninety-five Theses on the Castle Church. Of course, there will always be many theories. Unless there are more publications other than Iserloh (who is by the way a Roman Catholic professor of church history at Trier) that support his claim, I don't think this theory should be given undue weight. An additional comment: I do think the coverage on the Reformation is weak. There are significant number of sentences devoted to the English Reformation (Anglicanism), but I think most Protestants would agree that the heart of the break with Rome lies within the German (Lutheranism) and Swiss (Calvinism) Reformation of which there is little description. Another question: why are the French reformers simply called "militant followers of Calvinism"? Is there something wrong with calling them Huguenots? --RelHistBuff (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Diarmaid MacCulloch (who is Anglican in background, but claims no religous affiliation) says in The Reformation (2003) page 119 "Reputedly Luther spoke out on October 31, 1517, celebrated in later years in German-speaking lands as Reformation Day. That day, he may or may not have publically advertised his intention of setting up an academic disputation on the subject of indulgences by tacking to the castle church doors in ..." What year is Bainton? If it's his Reformation of the Sixteenth Century the original publication date on that is 1952. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it really matter if we say Luther posted them on a door or not? I mean, we have the 95 theses in the article with a reference to the fact that he sent it to bishops. Do we have to go into detail about whether or not he posted it on the door? I think that is really not necessary. NancyHeise (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not that important. It was brought up by Bmrbarre and the idea was to improve the text. However, MacCulloch's formulation (brought up by Ealdgyth) is preferable. A more serious problem is the coverage of the Reformation. Following with the "different course in England" sentence, nearly a whole paragraph is devoted to the actions of the English royal family. Their stories make great television dramas, but the real split with Rome was based on the movements started by Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. I'm not asking for additional text, in fact keep it to one paragraph. Just reduce the English politics and add a few sentences on the Continental reformation. I also believe that there is a definite POV problem when the Huguenots are described simply as "militant followers of Calvinism". --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed to Huguenots. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• <off-topic comment moved to talk page> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Question: The Huguenot article says: "Tensions led to eight civil wars... between 1562 and 1598", while the Roman Catholic Church article says "In France a series of eight civil wars were fought between 1560 and 1621". Discrepancy, or some really subtle point? :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Question Is it Tyler Hitchcock or Hitchcock for the last name of the author of the Geography of Religion book? The bibliography has it Tyler Hitchcock, but most of the time it seems to be referred to in the footnotes as Hitchcock. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Source concerns
  • Gentzler Medieval Times to Today is listed as a Juvenile Nonfiction book at Google Google Books entry Amazon entry. I really don't think that using a book that is targeted at 9-12 year olds is the best source we can be using for the Early Middle Ages section.
    • I agree that this children's book is unacceptable because it is not an academic, peer-reviewed source. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I have concerns also about using the Geography of Religion book for some of the sourcing. Not as much as the above book, but still some concerns. The description of the book leads me to believe it's more a coffee table book than a serious scholarly work. Google books entry
    • I agree that this does not look like the best scholarly work. This article is up for FA - it should have the best research. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Using the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is a bit outdated. Granted, it's not to a particularly contentious piece of data ("The ferocity of the persecution varied") but the two sources you are using for this statement don't say that the ferocity varied, they are both noted as persecutors. Use the Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity book instead, it'll be a lot less contentious than using an outdated Catholic encyclopedia.
    • I agree that the Catholic Encyclopedia uses outdated historical methodology - it would be better to use more reliable sources. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You're using Issues and Trends in Technology and Human Interation, specifically a side comment in a chapter about the benefits of the Internet to 21st century churches to source "In spite of these persecutions, the effective system of Roman roads facilitated evangelizing..."
    • I agree that this statement needs to be sourced to a more relevant source. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that a Thomas Woods book is the most scholarly thing we can reference in the Middle Ages.
  • Langley, Medieval Life is another juvenile nonfiction book. It's one of the DK books, heavily illustrated. Entry at Google Books and Entry at Amazon. The book is aimed at 9-12 year olds.
    • I agree that this children's book is unacceptable because it is not an academic, peer-reviewed source. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, the Riley-Smith reference is a good scholarly third-party source.
  • Here's a review of Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition from the NYTimes. I tend to think Kame's probably an acceptable source, but the review brings up some points to bear in mind when using it. Review
  • I have concerns with using this Asia and the Pacific World Explorer which appears to be a another juvenile book aimed at 9-12 year olds. See Amazon entry
    • I agree that this children's book is unacceptable because it is not an academic, peer-reviewed source. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The Resh Thomas Behind the Mask: The Life of Elizabeth I book is another juvenile. Entry at Google and Entry at Amazon, where the review from School Library Journal says Grade 8 Up.
    • I agree that this children's book is unacceptable because it is not an academic, peer-reviewed source. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Using a source from 1855 isn't the best source we could find for the statement "Pope Innocent XII launced further church reform in 1691 when he outlawed nepotism and simony." (We'll leave asside the issue that simony was against canon law long long long before this....since William of York was deposed as Archbishop of York in the 1140's for simony, and I could multipy the examples). Surely we have something more recent than 1855?
    • Using such out-dated reflects poorly on Wikipedia - we can do better. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I really only looked at the sources for the ancient, medieval, and reformation sections of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The 2 from the Catholic Encyclopedia were provided by me when that was actually an entirely different statement that it was sourcing. Since it was condensed and rewritten the sources were pulled out and used to support something else. I used those to source and support the names and dates of 2 emporers (one of whom arrested a pope while he was saying Mass and had him beheaded). I cannot speak to the sourcing of children's books. The Woods book is decent, but as I've said and been shouted down about and accussed of being "mean and hurtful" I think the article deserves better.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Children's books are not acceptable sources for an article on the Roman Catholic Church on which much as been written by scholars. According to WP:V, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." For the section on the history of the Catholic Church (from which this list was taken), we should have the best scholarship published by historians. They publish in academic presses and academic presses. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Closing notes on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.