Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Expert opinion provided

FYI, I emailed a few Church historians and RCC experts yesterday. I am posting this response with permission from the expert who responded via email. Per John Vidmar who took a look at this RCC and another article I wrote elsewhere at my request "Hi Nancy, Sorry, but I also think your article on the Roman Catholic Church is very good and you have great references." When I inquired further about his comment regarding the references, he said he was serious and not just saying that because his book was used as one of many references. NancyHeise (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Several people have stated in the FAC and above that they believe Vidmar to be advocating a particular POV in his book, so I suspect that they may see his endorsement of the article as proof that it has a pro-Catholic POV. Karanacs (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also asked Eamon Duffy and several others but they have yet to respond. Interestingly, I subscribed to Encyclopedia Brittanica to see what their article looked like and they do not mention anything about Eamon Duffy's take on the origins of the Church, their article mirrors Edward Norman's view. Perhaps the people pushing a POV here are not Vidmar and Norman but the rest of ya's. NancyHeise (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that you are basically accusing "us" of violating Wikipedia policy, right? Nautical Mongoose (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nautical, I am not sure that I have ever accused you of violating Wikipedia policy but I do think that others are doing so by asking us to remove Norman and Vidmar whose inclusion is required by Wikipedia NPOV.NancyHeise (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

While getting expert opinion is a good step, I don't feel that it is necessary towards the general improvement of the article. In fact, I had thought that such an approach was antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia; after all, we create, improve, and maintain articles based on consensus, regardless of expertise (of course, the help of experts is always appreciated to fine-tune the issues). Nautical Mongoose (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Too late to take back my emails now - they've been sent. Peter Kreeft responded by telling me that he is not a computer whiz and will not review the article for accuracy but wished me the best. NancyHeise (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Naming historians in the text

Although, as those unfortunate enough to be "regular readers" here will know, I have often defended the use as sources in the article of one volume histories like Duffy, Norman, Vidmar & McManners (of the Oxford Illustrated History), I now think we should avoid attributing views to them in the main text, if the views are not especially linked to them in the overall academic context, which I think is generally the case in the examples now in the article. Norman in particular is named 3 times (& linked twice btw) in the main text, once in contrast to Duffy on the 1st century, on which neither are specialists or would I'm sure want to claim any originality in their views. Norman's other two text mentions are in the context of areas & periods closer to his specialism (I'm not sure how close), but we are only referencing his general work, not a more specialised one. I think it would be better at points like these to have a footnote pointing to the general histories taking different views, but only name historians in the main text who have made an important original contribution to the study of the issue at hand, or produced the "standard work" on the subject. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

For potentially controversial statements, I believe it is necessary to name the historian who puts forth that view in the article text. The fact that "the views are not especially linked to them in the overall academic context" or are not "standard works" on the subjects is a great example of why quite a few FAC reviewers opposed on the basis of sourcing. If they aren't linked with those views, then let's find scholars who do specialize in those areas and use their books instead. Karanacs (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

These were not especially controversial points, or rather should not have been. Does your belief have any foundation in policy? In a subject like this that has been the subject of massive scholarly attention (mostly not in English) for ever, there may well be no single scholar it is pertinent to mention. I am all for adding more specialised sourcing, but to avoid the OR dangers of compressing weighty tomes into a few words, we should not use these alone. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the relevant guideline: Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Reference_qualification_in_article_text. Karanacs (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to cover this situation at all. Here, as I said above, the historians are cited expressing well-established positions, held, with variations, by generations of scholars before them. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Getting my $11 worth from my EB subscription - Encyclopedia Brittanica does not name any scholars, they just state the different views when there are differences to note. I can go either way on this. NancyHeise (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Johnbod's point make sense for a sentence like the following: "Scholars such as Edward Norman note that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus and that the historical record confirms that it was considered a Christian doctrinal authority from its beginning". It would, in my opinion, be better to say: "The Catholic Church believes xyz (refs); views of historians are (refs) and (refs). The advantage of this is subtle, because you no would no longer have the impression of the church plus one set of historians versus another set of historians; so scholars will not appear co-opted to an official line but independent. Please note that this is a suggestion to build consensus and the chances of the article at FAC, not a POV attack by me. 02:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

QP, I appreciate your contribution. I hope others weigh in on this so we can reflect consensus.NancyHeise (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with QPs approach. Xandar (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

New Section

FYI - I just added statistics gleaned from a new source called Global Catholicism by Dr. Bryan Froehle member of the sociology faculty of Dominican University and Mary Gautier, a sociologist who serves as a senior research associate at Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University. The book has detailed footnotes and bibliography.NancyHeise (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Specific changes to the text now include mention of how many bishops priests deacons, sees, and church organization etc in the Organization and community section, how many religious brothers and sisters in the Religious members section. I also did away with demographics section and parceled out its contents to other more relevent sections. I placed the section Membership under Church organization and community and included the sentence about how many members there are in the worldwide church (taken from the former Demographics section). A new section was added (Catholicism today) which is an overview of the worldwide church and includes some important statistics from the new source as well as discussion about Benedict XVI which was formerly suggested by JBMurray.NancyHeise (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the new section Catholicism Today, is an excellent addition. A real improvement, Nancy. Xandar (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe over the summer we can either add or subtract from whats there. NancyHeise (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I liked having a separate demographics section, but if consensus likes this better that's okay. Under this organization I do think, however, that the information in the first paragraph of Catholicism today belongs in other pieces of the article (such as organization). While I think some of the information about Benedict is very relevant, I think it more properly belongs as another subsection of the history section. The way the paragraph on Benedict is currently written though seems more like a promotional piece for him and I think it is too detailed for this article. I'm not saying that there is bad stuff about Benedict that we should include (this covers all the controversies), but the word choices and general tone do not seem neutral enough yet. Good work getting all the research though. Karanacs (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I expect the new information to probably go through some changes - I just wanted to get it on the page in a reasonable manner to begin with. We will consider your ideas. NancyHeise (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I rearranged the sections - now there is a "Church institutions, personnel, demographics" section just before History. All of the new statistical info and commentary is in this section and the Benedict info was placed at the end of the history section. I think I like this arrangement better since reader will be able to see in one place all stats if that is what they are seeking. Because these stats are so hard to come by, I think they make the article even more exceptional. (my unbiased opinion) NancyHeise (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

scholarly views on foundation of the Church

I was doing some more research and came across this highy respected series of scholarly works called Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt - so notable are they that they have their own Wikipedia page - go figure! I found an excerpt from one of the books in this series that perfectly supports the presentation we have in our text on Origins and Missions - see [1]. From this excerpt it is clear that some historians take Edward Norman's view of the Church and others take Eamon Duffy's. It is also clear that these two views are not exclusive to those two historians but are generally the norm among historians of the Early Church based on what Augstieg is saying here. Maybe we should include a link to this book's citation in that section. NancyHeise (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the ref but its not in proper format, will correct later. NancyHeise (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Looks like it's heading in the right direction!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment and encouragement Mike. NancyHeise (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary style

Wikipedia:Article size recommends that articles try to stay under 50 KB of readable prose. This article currently contains about 91 KB of readable prose (186 KB total). I think it would benefit this article greatly if lengthier sections were trimmed or spun off into separate articles per Wikipedia:Summary style. The most obvious candidate would be the History section. The history section of this article is actually longer (by about 500 words) than the History of the Roman Catholic Church article. Per Wikipedia:Summary style the history section of this article should only be a summary of History of the Roman Catholic Church, thus it should be significantly shorter than the main article. I would recommend copying over anything in this article that is missing from History of the Roman Catholic Church, and then dramatically editing down the history section of this article (by at least half). Otherwise it seems unlikely that this article would ever be able to qualify as a Featured Article. Kaldari (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, we are going to be considering this over the summer and searching for ways to reduce the size. NancyHeise (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For reasons stated elsewhere, while the History section can possibly be trimmed and tightened, (as can the other sections,) all the pressure on us is toward adding more information, not less. Therefore removing events is very problematic with regard to balance, due weight and other considerations. Once we have the article factual content more firmly set, we can look to trimming down the prose. Another problem is that if the History of the RCC article was used as a main article, this would entail replacing the current timeline with detailed narrative. Xandar (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting. The History section of this article should be moved/merged to History of the Roman Catholic Church article (replacing the timeline content), and a summary of the content should appear here. Otherwise these articles are not conforming to Summary Style. Kaldari (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary Style is an option, not something that articles have to conform to. the problem with "summarizing" the History section is that it is already pretty much a summary. And a summary that exists as a result of a huge amount of debate and negotiation. We have not tried to make it lengthy, rather the reverse, but there is a limit to the extent you can summarize complex events without removing vital issues and context. It migth be interesting to see an attempt to summarize a subsection of the History section of the article. It would be an extremely difficult job to keep it balanced, weighted, cover all the issues, and be sufficiently illuminating. Xandar (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the history section is a summary of the decent article on the history of the RCC that we unfortunately don't have on WP at present - or not in one place. Since a great number of the FAC comments wanted more emphasis on various points in it, I think the next application would probably be in more trouble if this route is followed. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to the length of content. I'm objecting to the placement of the content. The most comprehensive overview of the history of the church (which appears to be here at the moment) should appear at History of the Roman Catholic Church. The content here should be less comprehensive than that article. It just doesn't make sense for the history section of this article to be longer than the entire History of the Roman Catholic Church article. Nor does it make sense for the history section to be the summary of some ghost article that doesn't exist (as Johnbod suggests). Kaldari (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

History of the Roman Catholic Church, as people have previously pointed out, should really be renamed "Timeline of ...." (really I think we should do that). In effect we don't have an article on the subject. Others have suggested splitting off the history section here to fulfil that role, but objections to that have come from many sides - some feel that would be an attempt to evade mention of dubious parts of the Church's record etc. Especially with FAC in mind, we have to decide what is best for this article, and the shaky concensus still seems to be to keep it here. Concerns about length have been addressed by Sandy G and others - the present length is acceptable, and less than some other FAs on far narrower subjects. Johnbod (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Some drive-by comments

I haven't been involved with this article at all up until now, and can honestly say I haven't missed much. (sarcasm alert. :-) After seeing several New York Times references with unneeded extra characters and meaning to fix them for a while, I finally got around to it now. While making the edits, I found a handful of problems and questions that I want to post here.

• Current ref 375 is to a site called Quantara. I've never heard of it, so I'd like to know if this is a reliable source. It may well be, but I might as well ask while I'm here.
• This same reference publisher is spelled Qantara in the link. Has a typo been made somewhere here?
• This reference, along with many others, is a cached link. Is there a reason why you are using cached links? It's much better to use links from the original publishers. If they go dead, you could always go to the Internet Archive and type in the link to see if they have a copy. Cached links are only temporary, or at least that's my understanding of it. I could attempt to track down some news links if you're interested.
• Current ref 134 lacks a publisher. (USA Today)
• Vatican II and beyond: There is an extra row of empty space before the seventh paragraph.
• Current ref 366, "Scandals in the church", should capitalize the first letters of "in the church". When all caps are used in a reference like this, it is correct to not capitalize entirely, but I'm pretty sure the first letters of the words should be capitalized.
• Two references (378 and 380) are not formatted properly.
• I haven't read much, but the text looks extremely comma-heavy. A couple examples: "Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine," "A reason which is deaf to the divine,"
• "During this Regensburg address Benedict quoted a Byzantine emporer who said Muhammad had brought the world only things "evil and inhumane". Benedict in fact apologized." Second sentence here is a tad stubby. Wouldn't it be better as ""evil and inhumane", a comment for which Benedict later apologized."?
• In the last paragraph of this section, it talks about the Church's beliefs on people with vegatative status. Why is Terri Schiavo not mentioned? Didn't her situation have something to do with the Church speaking out on this?

In short, I see why you are so proud of this article, but I also see why it has failed when coming to FAC. Please consider changes based on these comments. Good luck with the work, since this topic deserves a great article. Giants2008 (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - Found a couple more things.

• Current refs 370, 371 and 372 all have an extra space after punctuation.
• Current ref 370 is a link to a Wikipedia article, which is already linked in the text. Since a reference is probably needed for comments from the Pope. it would be better to cite a news article. Giants2008 (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. Hopefully we'll get to them shortly. Xandar (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed all of these and then some with a complete audit of all reference links with corrections where needed. Thanks Giants2008 for your valuable and helpful comments here. :) NancyHeise ^talk 19:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies and clarifications

It seems that my previous comments caused more kerfuffle than I'd expected or wanted. For that, I sincerely apologize for my statements. It was not my intention to impute ill will towards the regular editors; in fact, as I attempted to say I have the utmost respect for the editors and the amazing work they've done for this article. However, I still feel that perhaps we've been a bit too defensive about criticisms to this article. I did not observe the FAC discussion so perhaps this is why my perspective is different, but I feel in the process of sorting out unwarranted criticisms that perhaps some warranted or even only semi-warranted criticisms were also put aside (I still believe that User:Awadewit had some valid points about our sources). I was going to make suggestions, as StormRider said, but it seems that Johnbod and others have already picked up on this and have provided us excellent initiative. My only further comment is to say that we should take our time, perhaps several months before thinking about FAC again, but that's just me. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 04:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, NM. I offer my apologies too. I think we all tend to get more tetchy and irritated than we should at times in these often difficult debates. Hopefully we can get movement in many things if people bring their criticisms here and have patience. However some criticisms will inevitably be misplaced (in our opinion, anyway) and it is where two opposing views of what should be in the article conflict that the long factual arguments take place. As to time, we were projecting that the revision process would hopefully be nearing completion at the end of a two month period. We don't want to spend our whole lives on this! Xandar (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for some opinions on what written FAC criteria requires in the way of sources

copied from Wikipedia:Featured article criteria "1(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge,..."

I think it would help to have a discussion here about what constitutes the "relevant body of published knowledge". According to Awadewit, only scholarly sources are OK, all others should be eliminated but I am not sure that all editors would agree that is what the criteria is asking us to do. For instance, in the Beliefs section, relevant body of published knowledge includes self published sources like the Catechism and Code of Canon Law as well as scholarly works that help explain them. In demographics section, we used a book from a University research center, the only source in the English speaking world to compile and publish demographic data on the church and used extensively by major news publications as a source for this same data. In History section, we have used books that comprise a full spectrum of "relevent body of published knowledge" and meet WP:Reliable source examples. Most of our references are to scholarly works that have bibliography and footnotes and are cited as sources by other scholars - particularly Bokenkotter, Duffy and McManners books as well as Le Goff. For a very few cites of standard well known facts, we have used as references Summary histories written by university professors like the National Geographic book. Since we are allowed to use news articles from sources like New York Times in the history section, why does anyone have a problem with the National Geographic source? This is a major media outlet, as old and respected as New York Times whose specialty interest is in scientific / historical subjects. The source is authored by a university professor and another respected author and was composed with the help of several university professors and notable religious scholars. We have been persistenly attacked for using this source by Wikipedia editors (Awadewit) who have called it a "coffee table book" which is a term not found in any Wikipedia policy. Further, two sources that specifically represent the historical view of the Church from the Catholic perspective, Edward Norman and John Vidmar, whose views are not radical off the map views prohibited by Wikipedia but represent a significant view, possibly even the majority view in some instances, are also considered unacceptable by some editors (Awadewit and RelHistBuff). Does not "relevant body of published knowledge" include their views especially when they meet WP:Reliable source examples as top sources? I think FAC criteria and WP:NPOV policy requires inclusion of these books as sources especially when they are not the main sources but supplement other top reliable sources and provide quotes so reader can see all points of view on particularly sensitive subjects. I would like a discussion by editors and some sort of consensus reached on what constitutes "relevant body of published knowledge" so we can move forward without having to constantly waste our time arguing over sources. There are 50,000+ books written on the Church, we can not possibly be expected to eliminate our sources and rewrite using someone elses (better) source each time someone comes along. If sources meet criteria, they should be respected as such and all comments should be toward improving the article in other ways. I recently added a top scholarly source to Edward Normans view that is framed in Origins and History section. The new ref clearly supports the presentation of scholarly views in that section and specifically Norman - see [2]. NancyHeise (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A few misconceptions: the FAC criteria and the RS examples do not "require" any source to be used. They can be used to determine if a source should not be used, but not whether it has to be used. NPOV likewise does not require the use of any particular book; it says that the positions should be given proper weight, but not that a particularly POV book must be used. It is generally best to use works that are as neutral as possible which discuss various theories. Please also note that Wikipedia:Reliable source examples is an essay. WP:RS is the appropriate policy. Karanacs (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record all of our sources meet WP:RS. They also meet WP:Reliable source examples as top sources and differing viewpoints are presented in the manner required by WP:NPOV. I am wondering what editors here consider "relevant body of published knowledge" to mean so we can adequately address that FAC criteria. NancyHeise (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Relevant policy/guideline info

I thought it would be helpful to pull out what I think are the applicable pieces of WP policies and guidelines to this dispute.

• From policy WP:V#RS:
  • Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available
  • As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.
  • The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context
• From guideline WP:RS
  • Sources are considered scholarly if
    • published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
    • The scholarly credentials of a source can be established by verifying the degree to which the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in google scholar or other citation indexes. (so if the book is not cited by other works, it is not really scholarly)
  • Tertiary sources - compendiums, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources - may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.
  • Attribute information to the scholar:
    • Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.
• From policy WP:NPOV
  • When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. ... It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution".
  • A balanced selection of sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view.
  • An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements
  • A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias

Karanacs (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments continuation

This discussion needs to focus around what is expected due to WP policies; the FAC criteria come from those. For that reason, I posted what I consider relevant lines from those policies. As an FAC reviewer, I evaluate the sources in terms of WP policies and the RS guideline, and they make it very clear that not all reliable sources are created equally. I feel that to meet the FAC criteria (and, indeed, to adequately meet WP:V]] an article should make use of the most reliable sources; this definition of what is most reliable changes based on what is available for the particular topic (there are probably no scholarly works on the life of Reese Witherspoon, for example). There is a wealth of information available about the RCC, which makes it even more important that the most reliable sources are used so that it is clear to everyone that the appropriate balance is given to various viewpoints and that the appropriate facts are chosen for inclusion in the summary. In my opinion, the best way to determine what the most reliable sources are for this article is to consult others who are experts in various pieces of the RCC article and have presumably already researched the reliability of those sources (for example, RelHistBuff has been doing a great deal of work on the Protestant Reformation and may have a good idea of what the best sources are for those pieces). It may mean rework, and it may take time to develop a good consensus of what sources should and should not be included, but it will result in a stronger article that will not have as difficult a time going through FAC. Karanacs (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have already given my views on many aspects of these issues above, at the FAC etc, & won't go over them all again. As far as the History section goes, certainly the most contentious, the whole section falls under "overviews or summaries", as we have no space for "detailed discussion" of anything - probably this is true of the whole article. I have stated my concerns above about the dangers of OR in editors compressing large books into a sentence or two, which is what using the most detailed sources available would certainly mean in this case, since there is hardly a sentence in the article which has not itself been the sole subject of many books. I think there is a good case for referencing at many points along the lines of a ref to a high-quality one volume history book/textbook, with a further reference in the note to one or more detailed works on the subject. Textbooks and the like are also useful for covering "Claims of consensus must be sourced" - often much more so than front-line scholarly sources. I have to say RelHistBuff is an odd example to choose in my view for someone to select impartial sources, but I won't go into all that again. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I must make it clear that the article is built on our most used sources of Duffy, McManners and Bokenkotter. These are considered to be the most reliable sources per these criteria since they are scholarly works often cited by other scholars and Bokenkotter is a University textbook for decades. Duffy and McManners books are both cited in Encyclopedia Brittanica as well as Vidmar's book and a couple of the other sources used in the article. The fact that the entire article is based on these core books should exclude any requests to eliminate the others whose views supplement these. Vidmar is never alone as a citation, his contribution is to provide the Catholic POV and quotes in the references that give reader this POV if they wish to see it. Norman gives the Catholic view of its own history also which is now supplemented by the new source that is clearly a well respected scholarly source. While Vidmar and Norman meet the scholarly source criteria, they do not meet it to the degree that Duffy and McManners and Bokenkotter do. I should not be asked to eliminate them if they meet all other criteria and are only supplements to core books that do meet the top criteria. "Relevant body of published knowledge" includes these. Also, I agree with Johnbod's comment that the entire history section falls under the "summary" definition which then allows the use of summary sources - not all of our sources need to be detailed scholarly works (clearly many of them are - see the A History of Christianity in Asia, Africa, and Latin America book, the Church in Africa, Le Goff's book, etc.) NancyHeise (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you involve the reviewers that opposed on the basis of sources to this discussion. While the people who watch this page may declare consensus that the sources used are sound, if they remain as is the same people will oppose on the same sourcing grounds. However, many of those people have already written reams about why they think the sources are not sound, so I doubt they'll come back. Karanacs (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets allow people offer opinions, whoever they may be. Karanacs, you have provided useful information here but we need to keep quiet now and let the discussion take its course. NancyHeise (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Johnbod's comments on using books that are too detailed is pertinent, since we don't want to try to edit down several chapters to a whole book into one sentence. Some of the longest debates on this article have resulted in perhaps one sentence added or changed. Removing sources is only necessary if they are proved unreliable on the matters sourced to them. As has been said, we are quite willing to look at new sources people may suggest, but for the History section we are looking for books that are narrative sources, that don't assume knowledge derived elsewhere, and which attempt to cover the entire history of the Church or a significant section of that history, such as the Reformation, the 17th century, or the Early Church. Xandar (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I think for FAC we need a combination of both at contentious points, extra work though that is. Though I think everyone accepts that sourcing improved considerably in the run-up to and during the last FAC, it seems equally clear that a number of people were still going to be objectors based on the sourcing at the end of that, and will be next time. Personally I'm pretty sure that little if any text will need changing if the sourcing is further upgraded, but I think this needs to be done to pass next time. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Benedict XVI

This article very long. But its ending with an disproportional discussion of the American pedolphile crisis and seemingly insignificant individual events of Pope Benedict (Leaving out his teachings)seems unworthy to me. The insistence on "conservative" without any reference, without any specification, what it refers to, is to me POV. Given the solemn Church declarations on a number of issues, no pope can or will act differently. So what does the GENERAL label conservative mean, if not a stereotypical demeaning of Pope Benedict XVI? I am sure this was not intended but that's the way it sounded. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ambrosius, I am very happy that you have taken an interest in the article - God knows we need some more Catholic POV input to help us here. Please go through the article and offer your insights but also please be sensitive to size issues. Make any additions as unwordy and concise as possible and make a concerted effort to word any addition in a way that will be considered NPOV to readers of all religions. We just want the facts in the article. Thanks for your help and observations. I value your input and I did not mean any harm by my revert of your additions to Catholicism Today section. I just thought it was way too wordy and sympathetic toward Benedict. I love him too but I also want to make the article encyclopedic (not blogish) :) NancyHeise (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments and the invitation, Nancy. I agree, that the ending is too wordy. But it is also a bit frog perspective espcially when compared with the introduction. ALL popes in the past 200 years have been conservative, including John XXIII who excommunicated Fidel Castro, and distroyed academic careers of several people, because they had different views ´(such as Raimondo Spiazzi)I guess, its part of the job description. Everything else, including the liberal-conservative is largely PR. To be neutral to the very short and still evolving pontificate of Benedict means in my view to stick to the few important facts, which address the Church as a whole, such as encyclicals. To be honest, there are things, I wonder about, such as the tone of the papacy at times. And then there is the question who may be behind it all, since the 81 year old pope cannot possibly write all the speeches and sermons which he delivers. But it is all new and much can happen. For these reasons I would hold back with generalizations. Cheers and thanks --Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

An outside perspective

Hello All. I dropped by this article recently because I noticed it had become one of the longest articles on Wikipedia that wasn't a list and I wanted to offer some suggestions on editing it down to a reasonable size. Noticing there was a lively debate going on here, I decided to read through it and see what all the hubbub was about. Basically it looks like Awadewit has suggested that this article be rewritten in an academically critical manner and that sources not up to academic rigor be discarded. In response, other editors have pointed out that Wikipedia does not require academically rigorous standards, only what it defines as reliable sources. Although I'm not interested in participating in this debate or editing this article (I try to stay away from religious topics), I would like to offer two observations:

1. Awadewit is probably the most sought-after collaborator on Wikipedia. She has people lined up around the wikiblock waiting for her to look at their work and offer suggestions. She has written 26 Featured Articles (several of which passed with unanimous support), copyedited countless Featured Article candidates, shepherded the Murder Madness and Mayhem project through 3 Featured Articles, and even been the subject of an episode of WikipediaWeekly. She is also one of the most patient and considerate editors I've ever encountered. The fact that she is volunteering to help you guys edit this monster of an article should be seen as a godsend. If I were you guys I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss her ideas and efforts.
2. It is true that Wikipedia doesn't require academically rigorous sources, but this misses the point. You guys have a chance to improve the quality of this article beyond what is required. Why would you want to hang on to sources that aren't the most academically solid sources possible? National Geographic might be a fine source for a newspaper article about the Roman Catholic Church, but we should try to do better (or at least not stand in the way of someone else who wants to try to do better).

Kaldari (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Raul, the FA director disagreed with Awadewit's suggested rewrite [3] (also suggested by JB and also commented on by Raul) and questioned in his note to JB why a rewrite would be better than what we have now [4]. Thus, we are not going to rewrite the article which is what Awadewit's suggestion would entail. Awadewit also criticized our top sources as not being top sources when clearly they meet the top reliable sources examples of scholarly sources that have been oft cited by other scholars. The article was principally built around Duffy, Bokenkotter and McManners books (our top scholarly sources). The rest supplement in an attempt to meet FA criteria "relevant body of published knowledge" of which National Geographic fits nicely (and is only used for 4 cites of basic undisputed facts). While I respect that Awadewit is a loved editor of Wikipedia, her comments have not served to improve the article and her criticisms of our sources are incorrect. If our main sources were not listed by numerous other authors (including Encyclopedia Brittanica) then we would consider her comments but it is difficult to accept her recommendations when they require us to rewrite the article using sources that are not any better than what we have and even Raul questioned her recommendations. While we are willing to add sources we feel that is not necessary since the article is well referenced, a fact that even Raul noticed in failing it for the last FAC which indicates to us that it was not failed based on source issues. If I am incorrect, I beg for Raul to honestly correct me here. NancyHeise (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see compelling evidence that Raul654 disagreed with the idea of rewriting the article. Indeed, he seemed to be saying that you and Xandar would not be willing to entertain the idea, which seems pretty obvious. I'm not saying you need to let Awadewit rewrite the article, I'm saying you should stop treating her like a threat and start treating her like a valued collaborator. From my experience, Awadewit is an expert academic researcher and I imagine this article would benefit greatly by entertaining a few of her ideas and incorporating some of the sources she is suggesting (regardless of their degree of orthodoxy). Kaldari (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, Nancy, I find it difficult to take your statements seriously when you continue to say things like "Duffy and McManners books are both cited in Encyclopedia Brittanica", which has already been rightfully pointed out as false (or at least misleading). Kaldari (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether EB specifically cites its sources or not, the books are cited by EB as works they considers will further improve understanding of the topic beyond what is available in the Britannica article itself. In other words they are books that have not only been used during the preparation of Britannica's article, but which are recommended for better understanding by the authors and editors of that work. So I do not see how such works can possibly be considered unsuitable for wikipedia. On the issue of co-operating with Awadewit, co-operation is a principle of wikipedia. I am sure all of us are only too pleased to co-operate with people interested in constructive improvement of the article. Awadewit appears to have a particular point of view on Church History, which is okay. But the article cannot be slanted toward that point of view. Here one wonders quite what is intended by "rewriting in an academically critical manner", and "discarding sources". I haven't so far seen any coherent argument for a complete re-write of the article, especially since, after a year of continuous work by dozens of editors, it is acknowleded close to FA standard. What we are seeking to do is take the existing article and improve it by working through all specific objections and comments, to use sources to evaluate such comments and adapt the article in view of the best sources. Xandar (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Per user Neil, the works used to create the EB article - what he called their "sources" are listed by him on our last FAC here [5]. The Thomas Bokenkotter book that is used as one of our main sources (also is a University textbook for decades) has an annotated bibliography that is 43 pages long. Among the first four sources on the General Works list, on page one of this extensive bibliography are Eamon Duffy's Saints and Sinners (listed as number one and also one of our main sources and also listed by EB) and John McManners The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity (also listed by EB). Per Awadewit, these sources are not OK. Who am I supposed to listen to? Encyclopedia Brittanica and Thomas Bokenkotter or Awadewit? I am not treating her in some bad way, her recommendations were just plain incorrect and I do not believe we should follow her recommendations for very valid reasons.NancyHeise (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your characterization of Awadewit's suggestions is completely exaggerated. I have actually read the discussions you know. The only source she said should probably be dispensed with is Vidmar. Your continued persistence at playing fast and loose with the facts of the discussion leads me to believe it is you who are pushing a POV (and quite tenaciously) rather than Awadewit. I see you have managed to completely drive her away from the article, so I can only offer my condolences at loosing a valuable opportunity to significantly improve this article. I find it disappointing that this article seems to be completely controlled by editors who are enforcing particular sources and a strictly orthodox POV. Are there any editors still here besides Xandar and Nancy? If so, does anyone else have opinions on Awadewit's suggestions? Kaldari (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

See [6] where she lists my sources claiming they are not scholarly, including the John McManners book. I have been persistently accused of pushing a POV, now including you too. What happens to "assume good faith" when people come to this page? It is certainly not being applied to me or Xandar. Yet when we try to defend our decisions that are based entirely on written Wikipedia policy, we are then persistently accused of "pushing POV" or "driving away" editors who wish to help. If editors really wished to help, they would stop the antagonizing comments that seem to keep coming at us and give us a written Wikipedia policy to back up their unreasonable demands that we eliminate perfectly good sources. We can add sources, we just do not wish to remove those that we have invested our research, time, money and energy into and that prove to represent "relevent body of published knowledge" as FAC criteria 1c requires. We have scholarly sources that represent the core of the article, around them, we have less scholarly sources written by university professors that are peer reviewed and recommended by scholarly journals. Some of these were necessary to include to be able to cover the Catholic viewpoint of its own history, which is a significant point of view whether the article is about the RCC or not - WP:NPOV requires representation of this view and we have the most notable professors represented. Together, these sourcese represent the "relevant body of published knowledge". I find your comments very antagonizing and insulting and this is not helpful to any of the editors of the page. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Nancy's link to what Awa actually said proves her point here. The section below reminds me that some of the most contentious passages linked to the McManners book, described by Awa as "not scholarly" and certainly objected to by her, were actually written by Henry Chadwick (theologian), an Anglican specialist in the period who was Regius Professor (the top professorship in a subject) at both Oxford and then Cambridge. This was not clear at the time, as the chapter authors were not given in the refs. But I think now this is clear, continued objections to these refs would be wholly unreasonable, whether or not the actual book cited has footnotes and pictures or not. Many of the other authors in the book are specialists of near equal distinction. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Example of this article's painstaking attention to NPOV and use of top sources

Author Thomas Bokenkotter's Concise History of the Catholic Church that is used as one of our main sources (also is a University textbook for decades) has an annotated bibliography that is 43 pages long. Among the first four sources on the General Works list, on page one of this extensive bibliography are Eamon Duffy's Saints and Sinners (listed as number one and also one of our main sources and also cited by Encyclopedia Brittanica [7]) and John McManners The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity (also cited by Encyclopedia Brittanica). Together, these books represent the core of the history section of the article. Other sources supplement these in an effort to satisfy FAC criteria 1c [8] "relevent body of published knowledge" and WP:NPOV which requires representation of all significant viewpoints.

In an effort to illustrate how we used our sources see these excerpts from the first section of History and our explanations that follow:

• "The Catholic Church believes its inception occurred on the day of Pentecost when, according to scriptural accounts, the apostles emerged from hiding following the death of Jesus to preach and spread his message.[186][187]"

This statement of Church belief about its own inception (required by WP:NPOV) is referenced to John Vidmar a Catholic historian and Dominican priest. It is doubly referenced to Dr. Alan Schreck, professor of theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville - because the sentence is a statement of Church belief about history, we referenced it to a historian and a theologian. Shreck's book has Nihil obstat and Imprimatur designation so we know that it states Church belief without error.

• "According to church tradition and many historians, the apostles traveled to northern Africa, Asia Minor, Arabia, Greece, and Rome to found the first Christian communities,[186][188][189] and over 40 were established by the year 100.[188][189]"

This statement about how Christianity spread to different communities (including Rome) is referenced to three sources: 1)Bokenkotter, one of our scholary sources used as university textbook for decades 2)National Geographic Society, a very respected, non-Catholic POV mainstream media outlet specializing in science/historical/archaeological subjects - their book is a consolidated work created with the help of many top university professors and famous experts on the subjects and 3)John Vidmar a Catholic POV source. We presented Church history in this manner throughout the article in an effort to punctuate those issues that all scholars, regardless of POV agree upon. We presented all sides of an issue where there were different viewpoints and included the actual quotes from the authors so reader could see those POV's for themselves.

• " From the first century, the Church of Rome was recognized as a doctrinal authority because it was believed that the Apostles Peter and Paul had led the Church there.[15][190][191]"

Some people think that this is an inflammatory statement that we have inserted here because we are just out to make the article pro-Catholic POV. Yet if you take a minute to look at the refs you will see that it is a statement of fact. The sentence does not claim it was the doctrinal authority but a doctrinal authority. The sentence is then referenced to three sources (all containing the quotes that support the sentence) 1)The scholarly John McManners book where this section is written by the most authoritative scholar on the Early Church Henry Chadwick 2)John Vidmar who provides the Catholic POV of RCC's own history and 3)Edward Norman who happens to have been a top Anglican priest for most of his life as well as the top historian in one of the oldest schools of history at Cambridge. Once again we have three historians coming together in agreement on a main topic.

• "The apostles had already convened the first Church council, the Council of Jerusalem, in or around the year 50 to reconcile doctrinal differences concerning the Gentile mission.[17] Although competing forms of Christianity emerged early and persisted into the fifth century, the Roman Church retained the practice of meeting in ecumenical councils to ensure that any internal doctrinal differences were quickly resolved.[18]"

This is entirely sourced to John McManners book (with quotes), the one cited by Thomas Bokenkotters (university textbook) annotated bibliography and Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Please take a momment to peruse the rest of the article especially those sensitive areas of history to see that we have repeated this application to the rest of the article. Please note that the three top scholarly works are Eamon Duffy's Saints and Sinners, John McManners Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, Thomas Bokenkotter Concise History of the Catholic Church, Jacques Le Goff Medieval History. There are many others like Koschorke, Owen Chadwick, Jonathan Riley-Smith, Justo Gonzalez, and others but Duffy, Bokenkotter, McManners and LeGoff have the most citations and should be considered the core of the article. All others like Edward Norman, National Geographic Society and John Vidmar are sprinkled in to make the article meet WP:NPOV policy (I was going to count the citations out of a total but there are more than 382 total citations if you add multiple cites - Im tired - please just scan the references and see how often my core scholarly sources are represented. It is very plain to see. NancyHeise (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, obviously, you have demonstrated that your sources are acceptable per Wikipedia standards. No one has disputed that (that I have seen). The problem that Awadewit was addressing is that the History section is written (mostly) according to the scholarly consensus of theologists and church historians, not secular historians. Indeed the history section begins with the statement "The Catholic Church believes...", which basically sets the tone for the entire section. Just look at the first three sentences:

• "The Catholic Church believes..."
• "According to church tradition and many historians..."
• "...it was believed that the Apostles Peter and Paul had led the Church there."

The History section should not be primarily concerned with what the Catholic church believes or what church tradition says. It should, at the very least, give equal weight to the views of secular historians. I think the problem here is that "scholarly consensus" means two different things to you and Awadewit. It's unfortunate that you weren't able to find a way to work together. Kaldari (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an issue that has been brought up by many more editors than just Awadewit. Many of us believe that the article should make more effort to balance the Church view of its history with the secular view, but we have been unable to frame the argument in a way that makes sense to the regular editors of the page. Most of those who have offered opinions have stopped watching the article because there is such a high level of resistance to many suggestions. Karanacs (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have said before that I do think a distinction should be made in the history section between the very early decades, when there are effectively no sources beyond scripture and tradition, and the point where historians have material to go on. For the early period I think certain critics were largely unaware of what the "secular view" of historians, if there is such a thing, actually was. For later periods many people wanted particular "secular views" - more Spanish Inquisition please!, which often shaded into a secularist "black legend" POV. Then there were traditionalist Catholics with their objections. Many suggestions have been acted on but many others could not or should not have been. Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Many of us believe that the article should make more effort to balance the Church view of its history with the secular view,- __I think this secular view has already been added with the above mentioned Duffy, whose book is really the text of six television programmes on the papacy. It is s clearly not written from an RC point of view, as the title Saints and Sinners indicates. Duffy who wrote for TV listeners, uses "anti-Catholic slogans" popular in the 19th and early 20th century for his headings, such as Pio Nono(why not Pius IX ?) , the triumph of Ultramontanism, Ultramontanism with a Liberal Face, and Age of Intransigence, to name a few. In 300 pages with “ a light sprinkling of reference” (Duffy about duffy), he deals critically with the papacy, covering its 2000 year period. Fun to read, refreshing, in part very knowlegable, in part very opinionated, poorly referenced, several mistakes, entrertaining but … not an Imprimatur Catholic book. Duffy, an Anglican, should most definitely be included here (he is fun), but used with care in light of a virtual absence of scholarly references. His decidedly secular views should not be regarded as an authentic Catholic Church interpretation of its own history. I use him in my Wikipedia articles, when I have other sources to back him up, they are often older or foreign language. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Duffy is in fact (as his name suggests) not an Anglican at all; he was raised a Catholic & apparently remains one - he has published a book of sermons and is a member of the Pontifical Historical Commission among other things. But he takes a straightforward academic historical view.his faculty page Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that books that contain the non-Catholic view have been consulted; my concern (and that of other FA reviewers) has been in the way that information is presented in this article. The history section should not regurgitate the RCC's view of itself but should reflect the main views that scholars have about the RCC. Some of us believe that more weight is given to the RCC perspective and that the history section has a slight pro-Catholic POV. Karanacs (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to demonstrate this with reference to specific points have resulted in changes in many places, and been inconclusive or demonstrably wrong in others. "What my history class taught" or "what this book I read said" is often not "the main views that scholars have about the RCC". Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The article needs to present facts in preference to opinions, even scholarly ones. Xandar (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nancy writes, let me quote her, Among the first four sourceson the General Works list, on page one of this extensive bibliography are Eamon Duffy's Saints and Sinners (listed as number one and also one of our main sources Does this answer your question? ... My insignificant view is that an article about the Roman Catholic Church, confined to narrow space, should give the reader an authentic overview of the Roman Catholic Church and not a list of "What's Wrong with the Roman Catholic Church". This could be a very valuable topic too, but a separate one. IF you enter conflicting opinion, where do you start? Virgin birth? resurrection, Two natures in one person, apostolic succession, miracles, historicity of scriptures, human side of the papacy, burning of heretics, various "heretical"teachings, the role of the emperors, relation to feudalism, position on social issues, human sexuality, World War Two, infallibility, role of women, mariology, Church procedures, and more. There are so many topics which are worthy of controversial presentation, any selection of which is POV in relation to those not selected. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As has been said here ad-infinitum, vague accusations that certain people "believe that the history section has a slight pro-Catholic POV," are totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter what certain people may believe. Their "beliefs" may be based on their own prejudices, poor education, or an erroneous grasp of Catholic history. What is required of such people is not general vagueness, or saying they don't like the article. As we have been saying, seemingly endlessly, is that what we need from such people are specifics - in other words specific points where they consider there are errors or significant omissions in the article, and to back these specifics up with verifiable facts. This is what it has been so hard to get these people to do. The absence of most of these vague objectors from the process on this page, despite the invitation to take part, speaks volumes. Unless they come up with specific material that can prove the points they make, then their "beliefs" about the history section are irrelevant. Xandar (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Change to History of Roman Catholic Church

Just to let everyone know, I've moved the information that was in History of the Roman Catholic Church to Timeline of the Roman Catholic Church, as it is an excellent list that we don't want to lose. I then copied the history section of this article into History of the Roman Catholic Church as a basis for expansion. I know this page has seen several queries recently of information that might ought to go in a history section, and if it deemed inappropriate for this summary we should redirect people to the History article. I suspect that it will soon be time to split different sections of the History article into separate articles of its own (Origins of the Roman Catholic Church will probably be very interesting to write). Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The right move I think - there was support for this on what is now the Timeline talk page, as well as intermitently here. The timeline is not bad as such, but sometimes quirky in the choice of events, & I found tons of links to add. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Great move! I have long been frustrated by the format of the old article. We should look at History of Christianity and History of the Papacy for material to include in the new article. Also, I want to point out that, technically, History of the Roman Catholic Church now qualifies for a "Did you know?". If you can think of an appropriate blurb, please submit it. The time window for submissions is short (something like 3-5 days after creation/expansion of an article). --Richard (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

5 days, but I think "recycled" material doesn't qualify under the rules although they don't cover this situation specifically. Johnbod (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• I approve of the copying of the history section as a start for a much better History of the Roman Catholic Church, but it has not been agreed that the section should be removed from here. Before drastic changes are made, it should be discussed here, especially with Nancy away. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd previously been working on a sandbox version of a summarized history section. I've asked Carlaude to take a look at that, and maybe we'll have something to present here for consideration next week. Karanacs (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• That's a much better way of doing it - meanwhile the present section should stay. It would also be useful if people devote their energies to expanding the "new" History article. If incorporating material from other articles, the title should be linked in the edit summary. Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As I have said before, the entire concept of "summarizing" the history article is problematic for many reasons, including balance, giving differing events their Due Weight in the account, and the need to include certain important events along with their proper context. The present content of the section is the result of over a year of sometimes difficult negotiation and adjustment. Carlaude's attempted hatchet-job is non-acceptable, and should not even have been attempted without discussion and agreement among the editors here. As for Karanacs/Carlaude's intended short version. That will need to be looked at in detail to see whether it is even a basis for discussion, since the principle of summarizing has not been accepted, let alone the content of the summary. No sourced content should be removed from the article if and until all these things are agreed - which is by no means guaranteed. Xandar (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My hope is that by summarizing in a better way we can reduce the current issues that the section has with balance, at least according to many of the FAC reviewers. I hope that you will keep an open mind about the changes when they are proposed. Karanacs (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Balance is a very difficult thing to achieve, and while, as I have said, I have no strong objections to trimming the History section somewhat, the vast majority of the issues and events covered need to remain in order to preserve over-all article balance. Balance consists of the selection of events, the weight given to them, the weight given to various views of them, and the issues which arise. As for your proposal for a summary. We need to see it. Where is it posted? Xandar (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

History of Roman Catholic Church

You don't need a complete history of the Roman Catholic Church under "Roman Catholic Church" and "History of the Roman Catholic Church." To artificially maintain the full text here is beg for an edit war for no suitable reason. To so is to claim, as a mater or principle, that all text here is of equal critical importance. To claim that all text here is of equal critical importance is silly, at best.

I see no real advantage to crafting a summary elsewhere and bringing it in wholesale. To take this route would only made less clear the changes underway to those that are concerned. If you object to edits-- you have to say why and how you object-- not just curse all summarizing as problematic. --Carlaude (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all clear what you are saying here. The question of the length of the History section here has been discussed exhaustively above and at the FACs. The History of the RCC article should be much longer than the section here has ever been. I think we have a concensus here to discuss the new section before changing the one here. If there is an edit war, it will only be because you are ignoring that concensus as, unfortunately, you are rather prone to do. It is in any case much easier to discuss the new section as a whole than have to track lkoads of individual edits. Is the new proposal now ready to discuss? Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is being prepared for FA status by editors, a process which has taken seven solid months on that specifically, and many months before that building and improving the article to GA status. In other words, the article as it stands is the result of hundreds if not thousands of hours of work, negotiation and compromise. All facts are often multiply referenced with inline citations. Therefore taking an axe to large sections of it by individuals is not something that would be met with kindly. All significant changes to the article need to be discussed and agreed here first. I've had a brief look at karanacs shortening suggestion. First thoughts are that moving Origins is not on, since it needs to be at the beginning of the article (per Nancy's strong feelings on this). Roman Empire has been shortened to invisibility. Other sections not so much, but it is a difficult job without losing context and important information. Trimming of the History section needs to be chiefly about trimming unnecessary detail and language, not events Xandar (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you are saying here. are you saying that you are trimming or have trimmed? This history is too long and you should look for objections on that alone now that there is a better history page. --Carlaude (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there have been rather more objections on the basis of things left out than of excessive length. Personally I am ready to see a shortening, now we have the other article, but the draft needs extensive discussion. Apart from anything else, it is far easier to edit by itself, as this article is so slow to load etc. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Carlaude, please cease VANDALISM of this article. You have been warned for this sort of behaviour before with other articles. DESIST NOW. You have not been involved in the writing and discussions on this article. You have been told SEVERAL TIMES that major revision of the article must be discussed and agreed here, yet you again persist in trying to cut large amounts of referenced material from the article without agreement. Stop now please. Xandar (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Recommended reading for you, Xandar. --Carlaude (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Vandalism
• Wikipedia:No personal attacks
• Wikipedia:Good article criteria
• Wikipedia:Summary Style

And no. Trimming has not yet been started. The new article allows for the possibility of reducing DETAIL - not context and events. The History of the RCC article is also by no means at an acceptable standard yet. Trimming needs to be very carefully done on that basis. I will first try to start reducing the size of the history section without damaging content. Xandar (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case I also recommended also give an answer before you undo all of another's good faith efforts.--Carlaude (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Everyone, can we please put this to rest for a week or two and wait until Nancy gets back? Then we can debate between several different proposals - what is currently in the article, what I've been working on, and whatever Xandar has in mind. Karanacs (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to fossilize absolutely everything until Nancy returns from the wilderness. But crtainly I don't think we can make major changes in the article until then. I hope i can do some non-contentious trimming of the history section (ie not removing important sourced material) in the next week or so. I am also hoping to continue to respond to some of the less contentious comments on this page. Then we can see what people think of that. Xandar (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oldest institution?

As one example, we have Shishi Middle School which predates Christ. Not to mention that it is not a universally established fact that the Roman Catholic Church was founded in the first century (and even if we accept that, the claim of oldest isn't unique, and could aptly apply to many Eastern branches, and arguments could be made for Messianic sects, restorationist sects, etc.) And the largest could be questioned as the way it is currently phrased. An "institution" like the Islamic Conference could claim to have more than the RCC's 1.1 billion. Even the UN could make the claim, right? Is there any independent verification of the source? Could we rephrase the sentence to make it more clear on its factual accuracy?-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Er no, the UN could not make the claim, nor can an individual join the Islamic Conference. There are many references around the founding date, though indeed other churches can & do claim apostolic foundation - uniqueness is not claimed, nor that the products of later splits cannot claim the same. Do you have any references that the RCC was not founded in the 1st century, or by Peter? If not then, when, and by whom? The "oldest institution" may have to go; the Pontifex Maximus (now of course the Pope) if that is an institution, is probably older, although I see the article is sceptical about the continuity. I notice Shishi Middle School is completely unreferenced, by the way. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Shishi Middle School seems a little dodgy. Many bodies (like the Freemasons)claim great age without solid attribution. And if Shishi Middle School is really that old, shouldn't Shishi First School be even older? Xandar (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I argued and hit my head against a wall regarding the founding date of the RCC back in archive 12. I don't want to deal with that again. I got the information about Shishi from another source, and just linked to the wikipedia article. While I understand completely the arguments you are trying to make regarding the UN (and that was my point to begin with), those nuances you are arguing are clearly not implicit in the current phrasing "institution", and thus I was requesting that we rephrase to be more accurate. I say the sentence should just go. The first sentence of the article says much more, and is in line with these claims.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew c. Indeed, I don't know why it is even worth arguing to retain such a dubious claim. The Bible nowhere mentions the institution we know as the Roman Catholic (or Catholic) Church; and subsequent claims to Peter's original primacy of said institution are just that - subsequent. It perhaps might carry more veracity if there were independent verifications of the claim (i.e., by non-Catholic sources) contemporaneous or nearly contemporaneous with it. As it stands, again concurring with Andrew c, the first sentence of paragraph two makes precisely the same claim, without the problematic insinuation of unimpeachable veracity. If other editors insist on retaining it, might I suggest the very simple and minor insertion of "one of the" before "oldest"? fishhead64 (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a reasonable suggestion, Fishhead, to re-word it to "one of the oldest." Majoreditor (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I shall be bold, then! As it stands, one of the demurring editors concedes this assertion is a claim - and neither one provides an attestation of the sort I suggest. fishhead64 (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just reread, and noticed it says "oldest...Christian institution." I don't know if I midread earlier, or if it has been subsequently changed - but since this is true, I don't see the need of editing it. Time to run off again with tail between legs! Cheers! fishhead64 (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Christian" was added subsequent to my post (but apparently not yours ;). However, the cited source does not make that distinction. We are correcting a cited source because "we know better" than the source itself. While this is The Truth, it isn't verifiable. I still say we strike the sentence (and if we can find a better, more reliable source without such an hyperbole of a claim, then we should re-add a similar sentence). I also think if we are to say they are the oldest, we need to make it clear that that is not an exclusive claim, perhaps adding a phrase "along with Orthodox Chrisitanity", assuming we have sources for that as well. Finally, the number 2000 is not listed in the currently cited source, so I am removing that.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Oldest" may be a challengeable claim with regard to the Orthodox, but the 2,000 year history isn't really debateable. It's important. The source references this, and that has been replaced. Xandar (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you quote me the text from the reference that says this? I apologize, but I just looked at the google preview and could not find this claim anywhere on that page. Is it on a page other than page v?-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I think it's fair to claim that the Christian Church has a 2000 year history, or even the Catholic Church, but since other branches also claim a direct lineage from the apostles, those claims to the ancestral institution are made as well. It is only within the POV context of claiming that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is needed to claim that antiquity that one can make the assertion in the article. fishhead64 (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, well no, but it should be made clear that uniqueness is not claimed. The Orthodox and Coptic Churches have excellent claims to continuity since one or more of the Apostles. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue here should not be what the bible says or whether the Catholic Church is right or wrong claiming its foundation 2000 years ago by Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church does make that claim, (that's all we have to say here) that there is only one Church founded by Christ 2000 years ago, and that the Church of Christ is and subsists in the Catholic Church, as restated on June 29 2007 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Levada,in the "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church":

• Christ "established here on earth" only one Church and instituted it as a "visible and spiritual community", that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. "This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him". In number 8 of the Constitution Lumen gentium "subsistence" means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth. It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church.

This maybe objectionable or even offensive to some, but it is the Catholic view and should be stated as such .... along the lines: The Roman Catholic Church perceives its foundation not from any person but from Jesus Christ, who lived some 2000 years ago. Catholic doctrine states that Christ is the head of his Mystical Body, the Catholic Church It is the world's largest institution. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not a point to make in the first sentence, I think. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the oldest claim was removed. My problem is if we have a source that says the CC is the oldest institution, and we don't believe that, and we have a source that says it is the largest "institution" but we have to add the phrase "Christian" to make it accurate, do we need to be citing such a dubious source? Let's find another source to back this claim up. And as it stands, we have a really odd sentence with conflicting/non sequitur clauses. The first clause "With a 2,000 year history" has nothing to do with the CC being the largest Christian institution. This is just poor sentence structure. Also keep in mind that the very first sentence of the article says "the world's largest Christian church", we we really don't need to repeat that in the paragraph about history. I appreciate that edits are being made to try to address these concerns here on the talk page, but we should also consider the bigger picture, because just snipping away parts without considering prose and usage leads to low quality writing. Since we make the largest claim in the very first sentence, we should get rid of that from the 4th paragraph, and then perhaps start that sentence with the 2,000 year info (assuming we find a source) and perhaps state that it, along with a number of other denominations can be considered the oldest. What do others think?-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is just a matter of sentence brushing-up. The "oldest institution" claim was removed not because the source is untrustworthy, but because, as already stated, the Orthodox and Coptic Churches can make a reasonable claim to be equally as old, and we don't want to go into such detail in the lead. I agree we can remove the largest institution from para 4. On the 2,000year history the present source is sufficient, since it details the history of the Church from the crucifixion on in the Chapter "The First Thousand Years." Xandar (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The Orthodox Church also uses the name "Catholic" in its title: Orthodox Catholic Church —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.217.231 (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe we've touched on this above. I've made a small edit to the lead. I reduced some redundancy (the largest claim is already made in the first sentence of the article). I also clarified that the claim to be the oldest isn't exclusive. I may not have the best wording, so feel free to alter.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Cultural influence

As I have been doing ongoing work to trim the wording of the history section, I grew more convinced that the article badly needed a short new section to unite material on the Church's cultural influence and link with the main articles Art in Roman Catholicism and Role of the Roman Catholic Church in civilization. Hopefully this will not increase the article size over-all. Xandar (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. There may be a suitable music main also. Johnbod (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

While conflict thesis isn't regarded as historically valid, this section seems pretty exhuberant. If it was cut down to a sentence, it would be "the cultural influence of the Roman Catholic Church was: very, very good." The relationship between religion and science was complex. While in many ways Catholicism preserved and advanced science, it should also be mentioned that it banned the writings of some of the most influential empiricist and rationalist philosophers. Sometimes they acted in concert, sometimes they didn't. Sometimes these times were the same time. Its relationship to slavery was likewise mixed, especially with regards to non-Christians, and included slavery apologists and abolitionists. The attempt to represent Catholicism as having been beneficial to women is far too simplistic, and only narrowly covers a part of Catholicism's influence on sexual ethics. The churches relationship with the aristocratic social order was likewise complex. Catholicism's relationship to the theory of the divine right of kings is not mentioned. Later, there were Catholic fascists, clerical fascists, Catholic anti-fascists, and Catholic martyrs to fascism.

--Aeemnrsu (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Laicization

In the article it is stated that "Benedict lowered the barriers for laicization". The footnote refers to a book which I don't have. I never heard of such measures and the article laicization doesn't mention them. Can someone explain? --Saint-Louis (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sexual abuse scandal should be a separate section

Because it's probably the most important single issue facing the church. And because glossing over it under another heading is mildly suppressive. I expected to find such a section when I read the TOC here. Also, the discussion of that topic ends with a carefully crafted dismissive spin. A counterpoint needs to be added after that last sentence--even abuse in public schools comes nowhere near the outrageous level of degenerate betrayal that a priest of a holy church sinks to when he commits abuse. There is no comparison, the context of holy spiritual authority is everything. So to say that some commentators think it's overblown is deliberate indirection--away from the vast, unanimous outraged constituency that would decline with contempt any such craven plea. Rep07 (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This may be the case in the US. In my country this is not the case. --Saint-Louis (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hardly the most important issue. It's been blown way out of proportion, I don't even think it merits mention at all on this page, given the 2000 year history of the Catholic church. Vatican II, Humanae Vitae, and all the rest of the papal encyclicals in the 20th century are far more notable. Does the article Teachers talk about their propensity for abuse? Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, this issue completely invalidates the authority and integrity of the RCC. No one takes RCC seriously anymore, and this scandal marks the beginning of its final decline. You above are in denial--or maybe ya work for the church? The scandal so far is just the tip of the iceberg--and you know it. Rep07 (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It really is not a world issue, a big issue in the US and maybe Australia, the former colonies! -:)) --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Rep07, your arguments are riddled with fallacies - "No one takes the RCC seriously anymore" - who are you, one person, to judge 6 billion people? Your view has no doubt been skewed by the media, which enjoys showing stories of Catholic priests molesting boys but turns a blind eye towards significant criticism and reform initiated by the Popes. The Roman Catholic Church does not have total 100% control of every single action of her millions of priests, monks and bishops, because they are human beings and believe it or not, the Catholic Church is not some super mastermind that controls people's brains like robots. Secondly, "this issue completely invalidates the authority and integrity of the RCC" - says who? You again are adding in your own opinion. You are not citing world opinion, or scholars of anything. Thirdly, "Tip of the Iceberg" - says who? You? What do you know? Do you have information? If so, present it. But you are correct, we are in denial, in denial that is, of your ridiculous and unfounded claims - Wikipedia is not a place to vent your anger. There are two types of people who against the Pope. There are the reasonable types who wish to see an end to these scandals, even though it is of course impossible to stop this (what are they gonna do put security guards to ensure priests act good?). Then there are types such as yourself, who will not listen to the opposing arguments, will close themselves to evidence against ridiculous unfounded accusations that it is "the tip of the Iceberg" and have made the conclusion in their minds to be unreasonable from the start. Tourskin (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

>"what are they gonna do put security guards to ensure priests act good?"

Yeah, that sounds like the right thing to do. Or at least cameras. It's the tip of the iceberg because of the innate, intense difficulty victims have in coming forward. Therefore, we can assume a priori that there is much, much more tragedy to be unearthed here. The implicit magnitude of this tragedy defines the Church as a failed institution. Why should this article present the issue so softly, so daintily, with such muted nuance and suggestive doubt reminiscent of Holocaust deniers.Rep07 (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you do a nice job of discrediting yourself. Not only do you suggest the impossible, but you insult one of the most respected organizations in the world, which demonstrates how poor your judgment skills are. You present a case that suggests the Church committed countless atrocius crimes without actually presenting any evidence. In short, you are arguing forward a very controversial idea that is not supported by any evidence and widely discredited - quite frankly, you are the one who has the Holocaust denial attitude, by suggesting something so disgusting when you present no evidence and have plenty against you. You call the Church a failed institution based upon a few mistakes, yet the Church is expanding and reforming at a continuous rate. You have repeated your claims with no references; you are and will remain a loud, incoherent and unintelligible noise for as long as you retain your aggressive and unfounded claims. Gabr-el 01:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

History of the Roman Catholic Church

History of the Roman Catholic Church was created two and a half weeks ago. Tell me again why Roman Catholic Church still hasn't isn't getting any shorter.--Carlaude (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

a) I haven't had time to go through the changes in the article since I first created my draft to see if those should end up in the draft (help on this would be nice!) and b) waiting for NancyHeise to get back, because she is a major contributor to the article. Karanacs (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact Zandar has been snipping away at it. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is currently being trimmed of excess detail, however there is no mandate or consensus for removal of significant factual matter. Whether removing any "meat" from the section is advisable or necessary, and if so, exactly what issues might be removed is a discussion that is yet to be had, and in any event needs to see NancyHeise (the principal FAC promoter and reviser of this article) back from holiday. Xandar (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It takes ages for these sort of things to work, I know from my efforts in the Byzantine Empire. Let the editors do their work and when its done it will be done. Tourskin (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A good question and good answers. surely we can wait for a few weeks on this. There sems to be agreement, that a major cutting is going to take place.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried to help with some tentative trimming, but was reverted by Xandar. I'm giving up on helping with this article, as it seems to have some serious ownership issues. Good luck to the rest of you. Kaldari (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You were partially reverted since you cut some material about the imprisonment and death of the pope which many would consider notable. You also added a reference to lengthy negotiations with Napoleon which may be true (anyway, is it significant?) but which was not backed up in the cited source. For Feature Article status, the information in a sentence must be supported by the cited source. Xandar (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

How is the imprisonment and death of Pope Pius VI critical to understanding the history of the Roman Catholic Church? We already understand that the church was heavily persecuted following the French Revolution. I really don't think the sentence about Pope Pius VI is a necessary detail there. It is also somewhat misleading, as the sentence doesn't explain that the pope was already 81 years old when he was imprisoned, thus his death is not as surprising as a reader would assume. Leave it in if you want, but it certainly doesn't help the article meet Featured Article criteria 4: "stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". Kaldari (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the problem of how deeply you cut a section like this. What is the fat and what are the flesh and bones? That is why removal of referenced material generally needs to be discussed. What we're primarily trying to do at this stage is reduce the wordiness, not eliminate facts. As you cut the paragraph, it read as if Napoleon and the Church simply held a lengthy business session about reestablishing Catholicism. I would consider that misleading, since it did not reflect things such as the papal imprisonment and death, or Napoleon's motivation for the change of policy. I did reduce the paragraph from what it was, but not to the extent that it provides virtually no useful information. Xandar (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Article history incorrect

Can anyone shed light on how the articlehistory here came to be inaccurate? I'm going to have to step back through the talk page diffs now to try to find the change and resurrect the correct articlehistory. This provides an example of why I strongly argued against archived restarts, as they make a mess in articlehistory and put ah out of sync with FAC archives. I'll go back and try to put the pieces back together, but wanted to call it to attention on this page, since this is the only time I've tried a non-conventional, archived restart on a FAC (and why I won't likely ever do it again). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What, or where, is the problem? Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Found and solved. A separate discussion elsewhere prompted my memory that this was the only FAC that was ever restarted via an archive, a method that always troubled me because it could lead to misunderstandings, so I came over to check the articlehistory and found the actual FAC (number 4) was missing from articlehistory, which was pointing to the restarted FAC (number 3), which wasn't an archive. The error in articlehistory was just a matter of wrong numbers entered when the GAR closed,[9] but I still find it weird that the articlehistory shows four FACs when there were only three. Oh, well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Going over discussions above

My Encyclopedia Brittanica subscription has expired but I will renew. I think that in their version of the Catholic Church, it is described as the oldest and largest institution in the world. They go into great detail in their opening sentences about its worldwide importance and how a person can not know either world history or world culture without knowing about the Catholic Church, its beliefs and history. I included the sentence about it being the world's oldest and largest institution because of the importance placed upon this fact by Encyclopedia Brittanica. I felt our article was lacking in communicating to the reader the importance and vastness of this institution. The only church older than the Roman Church that I know of was the Church in Jerusalem which vanished with that city's destruction in AD 70, however, Peter had already been leading the Church in Rome before that event. The sentence is referenced and until we get a better sentence and reference, we should leave it. I will be doing more research and have thought a lot about the article while on vacation. I have some ideas that may make it better. I wonder if anyone thinks the end of the history section should make some mention about notable recent converts like Tony Blair, Anne Rice, Robert Novak and Magdi Allam as well as the vast numbers of converts coming from the Church of England. Also, we could put a number of converts to the Church in 2007 in the demographics section. Actually, I'm not sure if there is a worldwide number for this figure but I think we have a figure for the number of adults going through RCIA in the US at the USCCB website. I spent time this summer reading the pope's book "Jesus" which has a number of insightful comments that can be incorporated into the beliefs section (I tagged these for future use) and I have another book written by a Jewish rabbi who recently converted to the RCC that contains some more possibly usable info that connects Roman Catholic Beliefs to Jewish prophetic predictions about the Messiah. However, that may be more usable in the article Roman Catholic Theology, not sure yet. It's inclusion would make the reading more interesting and "brilliant".

I think that we have eliminated some important facts like how many priests were killed in Nazi death camps. There were thousands of priests executed under Hitler for helping Jews. In addition, the article makes no mention of the persecution of the Church in Poland - the thousands of priests killed and exiled from there. I think this is a serious POV omission. On the same subject, we have failed to mention the persecution of the Church in China and how it is forbidden and/or persecuted in most Muslim countries. In India, priests and Catholics are persecuted by both Muslims and Hindus and the Church is practically the only place poor people can get an education for their children there. Our article omits the importance throughout history of Catholic schools in educating people. (interesting fact: Sacagawea's two sons were educated in Catholic schools - either Lewis or Clark paid for their education) The recent trim of the article's history section eliminated the fact that the only people offering an education to African's were Christian missionaries - a fact that is part of the scholarly work to which the sentence is referenced. The history of the Church is also incomplete, I think, without mention of the constant persecution that continues to this day. Consider also that there is no mention of the persecution of Catholics in the United States both in written laws and in violent cultural forces like the KKK for most of our history. These are serious omissions that make the aritcle factually skewed in a manner that could be interpreted as POV.

In a couple of the past FAC's there was great discussion about the Church and slavery where Relata Refero was convinced the Church was a particular bad guy on this issue and that we needed to make mention of this "fact". The facts and references that I have show just the opposite, slavery was an institution and way of life in every culture around the world except in Christian Europe, originating under Roman Catholic rule and teaching. It was Christians, including the official pronouncements of the Roman Catholic Church that contributed to the eventual elimination of its legalization in the Western world. Should we include these kinds of facts in the history of the Church? I don't want the article to be just another mouthpiece for blah info but it should actually be interesting and informative to meet the "brilliant" criteria of FAC. What do you all think? NancyHeise (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad you are back, we were missing you! I added the new template on persecution, which relates to several points mentioned by Nancy. That material, not perfect yet, could be a start. It includes only official 20th century persecutions by the State and therefore excludes persecutions in India, Pakistan and other countries. Nancy is right on the persecution of the Church in Nazi Germany, involving both German and (after the start of WWII) European priests and lay people. An article on this is sorely missing. Thanks for the inspiration, I'll do something about this today.

The History of the Roman Catholic Church incorporates much of it meanwhile. A basic question here is how much history in light of the decision to have a history article on its own. That article (and the history sections here) still have gaps as Johnbod pointed out with Arianism. Another example is the half-sentence on the Thirty Year War (1618-1648), arguably the most devastating in Europe ever, as it took over 150 years to reach the population levels of 1618 in Central Europe.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow - I didn't know there was a template or any discussion about 20th Century persecutions of the Church. Terrific! That will help cover that gap in our information. I agree we need to sit down and seriously hash out what gets included and how much in the history section. Perhaps another sentence on the Thirty Year War will help reader understand its significance if we identify exactly what you have stated above but refd to a scholarly work? After we get some more input here maybe we can make a bullet point list of to dos to improve the article based on these discussions. I also want us to consider that the organization and community section could be improved by mentioning some things I found in this months Discover magazine. I'll put the info here:

"The lessons learned from the trial and condemnation of Galileo in the 1600's have guided an era of scientific caution and hesitancy within the Vatican. Today the Vatican's approach to science is a complex undertaking involving nearly every facet of Church life. The Roman Curia - the Church's governing body-includes a network of 5 pontifical academies and 11 pontifical councils, each of them charged with tasks ranging from promotion of Christian unity to the cataloging of martyrs. To varying degrees, each of the 16 offices - and, of course, the independent Vatican Observatory - intersects with scientific issues, and they tend to rely on the efforts of one academy to provide clarity and consultation: The Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Housed in a building several centuries old deep inside Vatican City, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is a surprisingly nonreligious institution as well as one of the Vatican's least understood. Though it is virtually unknown among laypeople, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is an independent and remarkably influential body within the Holy See. Over the years its membership roster has read like a who's who of 20th-century scientists (including Max Planck, Niels Bohr, and Erwin Schrödinger, to name a few), and it currently boasts more than 80 international academicians, many of them Nobel Laureates and not all of them Catholic - including the playfully irreligious physicist Stephen Hawking. Academy members are elected by the current membership. There are no religious, racial, or gender criteria. Candidates are chosen on the basis of scientific acheivements and their high moral standards. When a nomination for membership is made, the Vatican Secretariat of State is consulted in order to prevent the appointment of someone with a questionable history. 'We're a group of people from all over the world- many religions and attitudes,' says physicist Charles Hard Townes, a Nobel laureate and an inventor of the laser. 'It is essential for scientists to participate in this and try to help the Catholic Church, advise them on their policies. Many civilizations in the world are not directly affected by science and technology decision making, but they are affected by mandates and decisions of the Catholic Church.' Maxine Singer, a leader in the field of human genetics[10], had praise for the academy's work even before she became a member. 'I went to a study week on genetics(in the early 1980's) and listened to a discussion about new reproductive techniques that were just beginning,' she says, 'It was fascinating to be at the Vatican talking about such things when the newspapers and media would have you believe that the Vatican wouldn't discuss them.'" This quote is from Discover Magazine September 2008 issue page 43 article entitled 'Holy Alliance, Many of the greatest minds of science meet regularly in Vatican City to counsel the pope on the hot topics of the day' by Michael Mason. It appears to me that the pope is well advised on scientific issues, something that may be a surprise to many people and information that will help make the article meet the "brilliant" FAC criteria. Perhaps someone here may want to use this some of this info to improve the Wiki article (I am trying to put off making changes until after my kids go back to school next Monday). NancyHeise (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I will do the 30 year war acc to your suggestions. The new article Post Vatican II history of the Roman Catholic Church‎ is Vatican II and beyond, which I farmed out (as Vatican II and beyond )from History of the Roman Catholic Church. It was too long for a history article and is now a main. It has now found new contributors. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it will help this article if we have sub-articles containing greater detail like you have created here. A problem we have had getting this featured is that we keep getting objectors who want more expansion and others who say it is too long. At least if we have a sister article on a subject, we can mention this to any objector and include the wikilink in this main article. It worked for the Beliefs section but we could not do the same in history since we were lacking articles like what you have just created here. It will enable us to trim more if we can provide a wikilink for the reader who wants to know more as you have done here - thanks! I picked up a book by Owen Chadwick today that talks in great detail about the persecutions of the Roman Catholic Church in all the areas I listed above. It is an eye-opener on the subject and gives actual numbers of priests murdered in most instances. It is called "A History of Christianity" by Owen Chadwick published by Barnes and Noble. Owen Chadwick is a very respected, non-Catholic historian and I think adding his book will only enhance our chances of meeting the FAC criteria of "relevent body of published knowledge". NancyHeise (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, after taking another look at the article, I dont think we should include mention of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences as discussed above. This article makes mention with wikilink to the Roman Curia which is where the Pontifical Academies belong. It will make our article unneccesarily long and we cant discuss all of the pontifical academies. It would be weird to discuss just one of them so I think we should just leave it out - maybe use the info to enhance the Roman Curia page. NancyHeise (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Catholicism in Africa

The following sentence is currently in the Catholic institutions, personnel and demographics section:

With an unusually high number of adult baptisms, the Church is growing faster in Africa than anywhere else even though the continent is a center of strife between Islam and Christianity and suffers the world's highest rate of AIDS.[Froehle book]

Unfortunately, I don't have access to the Froehle book. Does the book actually note that Africa is the "center of strife" between Christianity and Islam, or was this an editorial addition? Also, can someone elaborate on the relationship between growth of the Catholic church in Africa and the high rate of HIV/AIDS infection? Is the implication that the Church's growth rate is elevated despite high mortality in the region? Or that some local stigma attached to HIV infection prevents people from joining the Church? Or is there some other reason? It's a bit vague in its current form. Finally, does "growing faster" refer to the absolute number of new Catholics, or the number of new Catholics per capita? Thanks for your help, AlphaEta 15:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi AlphaEta, thanks for pointing that out, good observation and the open reference part of the reference template contained an error. I added some content and fixed the ref to address your comment here. Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Nancy. That clears things up quite a bit. AlphaEta 22:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wars in defence of Europe

Nothing is mentioned of the numerous Holy Leagues organized by the Church to defeat the Ottoman invasions of Europe. In particular, this was by far the most destructive and worrisome threat to Catholicism; Protestant powers never had the military might to go on the offensive. In the Netherlands they fought for independence, in England they fought for survival against the Armada, in Germany they fought, with substantial Nordic and French aid against the pro-Catholic policies of the Hapsburgs. Therefore, for such a grave threat, the important role played by the Church in what was effectively a defense of Europe is unfairly unmentioned. I can provide the know-how to add in, but I do not wish to disrupt the consensus-achieved material. Tourskin (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Very good point. I will have to go through my sources to see what they say about that and possibly add a sentence or two on that note if I can find a reference. I wont be able to address that immediately (I'm going to bed!) but give me a day or two. NancyHeise (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

During the 14th century, the Roman Catholic Church recieved numerous pleas for Crusader assistance for the Byzantines, who were facing further conquests by the Ottoman Turks. Initially the Church offered aid on the condition of unity between the Greek and Roman Churches, but neither the Union nor Crusades amounted to much. Constantinople fell in 1453, with Ottoman troops landing in southern Italy for an Invasion of Rome in 1480. Ottoman advances continued with the defeat of the Catholic Knights of St John at Rhodes, the end of the Kingdom of Hungary at Mohacs and culminating with the Siege of Vienna - the latter of which frightened even Martin Luther to call for united action. With the assistance of Venice, Spain and Austria, the Popes organized a number of Holy Leagues, since no European power had the resources to challenge the Ottomans single-handedly. Though the Holy League suffered heavy losses at Djerba and Preveza, the Ottomans failed to take Malta and the League finally tasted success at Lepanto. For the next 100 years, the Ottomans made no serious attempts at conquering central Europe again until the Holy League of 1684 liberated large parts of Hungary and the Balkans from Turkish control. With European dominance in gun technology, the Papacy ceased taking a role in mobilizing Europe's resources for defense.

Let me know what you think. Cut out or delete whatever doesn't need to go in!!!

Tourskin (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A link corrected. If too long for here (which I suspect may be the concensus view) the full version should go in the History article. I'm dubious about the link with gun technology in the last sentence. Would certainly need referencing. Once the Ottoman threat was over, or in between crises, the European powers concentrated on their internal quarrels would be the normal view. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, its too long, but that is so you guys can decide what you want to include. It was superior gun technology that allowed the Europeans particularly the Austrians) to remain ahead of the game, which then made time for messing around in Europe. Tourskin (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the point being made about the RCC basically acting as a government, doing what a government does for Europe for most of Europe's history is obscured by the details of the fight. It would be better to have a reference to a scholar who actually makes this observation and include the quote which would be more concise and make the point clearer to reader. The fact that the religious wars after the Reformation created the unique Western ideology of Religious Tolerance found no-where else in the world was made by scholar Diarmaid MacCulloch. I included his quote but someone else deleted it. I think that these scholarly observations are good to include since these are observations being made by experts who have pored over history and their views make the article interesting. NancyHeise (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Influence

I have restored this. It is an important section, sketching briefly over an important aspect of the Church's influence on the world at large. Some of this material is new, other parts were formerly buried in the History section before the reduction in length of that section. Having it under History was unsatisfactory anyway , since people wanting this information need to be able to locate it easily. Xandar (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I think that section will become a troll magnet. I think the article's ability to ever get FA will be eliminated entirely if we have a section listing only its acheivments because then you have to have a section listing its failings in order to be NPOV. I think it is best to follow the advice of Wikipedia's founder and put all of the positive and negative acheivements throughout the article, ours in history. Besides, I thought that section was an affront to what the Church actually has done throughout history. Its acheivments have not been to create architecture or advance science, its acheivements have been to spread the word of Jesus which eliminated paganism, human sacrifice, polygamy, eventually slavery and a host of other worldly ills that used to exist all over the world but no longer do because of Christianity. If we have a section just listing art and architecture, we cloud over the real and true acheivement of the Church. For these reasons, I am not in favor of keeping that section unless its first and most important point is that the Church spread Christianity throughout the world. NancyHeise (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have three univ. press scholary works on order about western civilization that discuss the contributions of the RCC so I will enhance this section after I get and go through these new sources. NancyHeise (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Benedict section improvement suggestions

I was wondering what others think about the Benedict section at the end of history. I think it talks too much about the pope when the article is about the whole church. It seems to contain too much theology and not enough current events. I am considering changing the name of the section back to Catholisism Today and making mention of:

• the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences with reference to the Discovery magazine article
• the pope's role in the United Nations and the frequent visits he receives from all the world's heads of state
• World Youth Day
• Mass conversions to RCC from people leaving Church of England including all the priests and bishops that keep converting [11]
• Notable recent converts like the son of the founder and leader of Hamas, Masab-Joseph Yousef and others like Anne Rice, Tony Blair and Magdi Allam.

I like the info about what Benedict is emphasizing including the wikilinks to his published encyclicals and efforts to promote faith and reason dialogue between Islam and the West. I think that should stay but could be more concise to make room for these other important omitted items. Any thoughts from others? NancyHeise (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The wider scope suggested for the section is good. I don't know whether CofE conversions can be considered "mass" though. There have been prominent conversions but not (as far as I know) tens or hundreds of thousands - which is what I'd consider a mass conversion. Xandar (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "mass" could be substituted for another more descriptive word. In England alone the Church has taken in 5000 new converts each year recently. Maybe it would be worthwhile to have a sentence or two explaining why since we have so much on the important English Reformation, it would be sort of like a follow-up and would make the article more interesting. I think we should also mention the size of the Church of England relative to the RCC since it is so small and this fact seems to surprise many English speaking people. NancyHeise (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It would also be notable to include the Catholic view of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism which can be found in Pope John Paul II's "Crossing the Threshold of Hope". I don't have my copy on hand but will in a couple of days and will update this section. NancyHeise ^talk 21:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Linking of References

I was just wondering if we could link the Refs........

We can make it this way

In Latin America, a succession of anti-clerical regimes came to power beginning in the 1830's.

References

Bibliography

• Stacy, Lee (2003). Mexico and the United States. Marshall Cavendish. ISBN 0761474021.

I think Linking the Refs will surely help the reader since the Footnotes section with 400 Refs is too. lenghty. So should I proceed slowly with linking the refs. Kensplanet (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I don't know if that will really help because if we start doing it now, we have to continue to do it with any new info and I have not seen this done on other FA's and certainly don't want to add more complication to the article that would make it more difficult for new editors to add info. I am not for this for these reasons but see what others think. Maybe this question would be better asked just before we get ready for nomination again for FA. Right now, we are re-hashing some things and we may even consolidate some refs or eliminate others to simplify. I don't think we would be ready for you to do this until afterward. Just wondering if the number changes when you add a new reference. If not, it really will make more of a mess than a help. NancyHeise (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Trimming

I'm a bit concerned that rather than making selective additions, the entire pre-trim former wording of the History section seems to have been restored. This rather negates my work on doing a sensitive trim, and simply returns matters to the way they were before the new MAIN History of the Roman Catholic Church article was created. The purpose of the new Main, added by Karanacs, and worked on by Ambrosius and others, was that the History section here could be shortened and lose non-essential detail. I didn't support as brutal a cut as suggested by Karanacs or Carlaude, but I thought the History section was probably getting a bit too flabby. Now we seem to be back where we were when the pressure for a cut was raised, so we do need to agree what level of detail we need here. The current level, less, more - and work towards that. Xandar (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, sorry, it was me who restored some areas that I thought had been trimmed into blah land making the ariticle quite lacking in informative value to reader. I support a trim but lets trim after we have already added the new info we want to add. I think that the new additions certainly make the information worthwhile and interesting to reader. I am still on an adding spree, I would like to discuss with you some trim ideas after a week or so. Are you OK with that? Some areas to be added:

• more info about the battle between the Holy League and Ottomans - this was the decisive victory that stopped the Muslim advance into Europe, an event that was planned by the Ottomans and stopped by the actions of Pope Paul V, and important RCC momment.
• Benedict XVI section redo to expand its scope
• Cultural influence, more refs and content as I get my three new scholarly sources on that issue.

I would like to maybe pass a note to Raul to ask if this article could be allowed to be a bit longer than other FA's considering the subject matter and the fact that we have to include all criticisms and accomplishments which requires a decent size history section. NancyHeise (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'm fine with that process. But I think we are going to have to try to trim the over-all article length down from the nearly 200k which it is now. There is fat that can be trimmed. But that can be done once we have the vital content worked out. Xandar (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, What do you think about trimming the Early Roman Empire section? I think it is too detailed and it is really not a subject of criticism that needs more explanation like the Reformation, Crusades, WWII, etc. The RCC history section can use summary style unless we are covering a specific criticism in an effort to follow Jimbo Wales' advice on putting criticisms throughout the article. All areas of history that are not specific areas of scholarly debate can be more concise I think. Thoughts? NancyHeise ^talk 03:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think too much has gone. The bits I added were a response to the FAC criticisms of this section and its sourcing by people like awadewit who did make a significant feature of the opinion that the early Church was little more than an assembly of differing schools of thought of roughly equal validity. If we're not to face that debate again, we need this or other referenced material to more or less setlle the issue.Xandar 23:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for replacement of Benedict XVI section - please give me comments

Catholicism Today

As in the past, the Roman Catholic Church holds a unique place in the world today as the pope is an internationally respected leader who regularly receives heads of states from countries around the world. He holds a seat at and speaks on occasion at the United Nations. On a recent visit to the United States, he was welcomed with particular dignity and his Masses were televised on the major news networks in their entirety. One reporter asked President Bush why the special attention to which he replied "Because he is a really important figure ... he speaks for millions... he comes as a man of faith. And ... I want to honor his convictions, as well."

In the Gospel, Jesus compares the Kingdom of God to the mustard seed, which transforms over time from a small entity into a large one. Some scholars have used that analogy to describe the Church today. For example, In contrast to the Crusades of the past, a May 2008 agreement between Benedict and a delegation of Muslims stressed that religion is essentially non-violent and that violence can be justified neither by reason nor by faith. Likewise, in contrast to the religious intolerance of the Reformation era, the Church has prioritized and worked for Christian unity between various denominations even though certain practices and beliefs still divide them. While it is true that during its history the Church was responsible for important advances in scientific knowledge, it had been criticized for stifling it in the 1600's when it sentenced Galileo to house arrest. It has since offered an apology for the debacle and created the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, an advisor to the pope which holds a membership roster of the most respected names in 20th century science, many of them nobel laureates including Stephen Hawking and Charles Hard Townes. When asked why she was a member of the Academy, geneticist Maxine Singer stated, "Many civilizations in the world are not directly affected by science and technology decision making, but they are affected by mandates and decisions of the Catholic Church." Another scholar noted that throughout its history, even through eras of internal corruption, the Church has not failed in its mission to bring the Gospel to the world. NancyHeise ^talk 05:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I like it, it's nice.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, when I read it the first time I felt the paragraph was trying too hard. The transition to Galileo is not...smooth. I would think it might be better to be forthright in statements of fact; all of it. Then follow up with acknowledgements of historical difficulties such as Galileo. What about the following:

In the Gospel, Jesus compares the Kingdom of God to the mustard seed, which transforms over time from a small entity into a large one. Some scholars think that this analogy has been fulfilled by the Church today. For example, in contrast to the Crusades of the past, a May 2008 agreement between Benedict and a delegation of Muslims stressed that religion is essentially non-violent and that violence can be justified neither by reason nor by faith. Likewise, in contrast to the religious intolerance of the Reformation era, the Church has prioritized and worked for Christian unity between all denominations even though certain practices and beliefs still divide them. During its history the Church was responsible for important advances in scientific knowledge. The Church also has the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, an advisory group to the pope. Within its membership roster are some of the most respected names in 20th century science, many of them nobel laureates including Stephen Hawking and Charles Hard Townes. Geneticist Maxine Singer, when asked why she was a member of the Academy, stated, "Many civilizations in the world are not directly affected by science and technology decision making, but they are affected by mandates and decisions of the Catholic Church." Another scholar noted that throughout its history, even through eras of internal corruption, the Church has not failed in its mission to bring the Gospel to the world.

I am just not sure the Galileo statement is necessary. I guess it could be tacked onto the end given the opening that is offered by the statement of "internal corruption".

I think something is needed; to expand up the analogy of the parable of the mustard seed and its fulfillment by the Church. What do you think? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest the following; I agree that the transition from unity and the reformation to Science could do with something - perhaps you could mention the renaissance as a transition point in the paragraph between talking about unity since the reformation and scientific stifling of Galileo?Gabr-el 06:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, in contrast to the religious intolerance of the Reformation during the Renaissance, the Church has prioritized and worked for Christian unity between various denominations even though certain practices and beliefs still divide them. Since then the Church has been responsible for important advances in scientific knowledge and has complimented this with an apology for the house arrest of Galileo.

Gabr-el 06:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following the article or talk page closely in a while, so I probably missed the discussion that led to this proposal. In my opinion, this proposed section does not belong in an FA-quality article. The tone appears to be more magazine-y and promotional than encyclopedic. It's also summarizing information that should already be in the article, and there is no need to do that, especially in an article that is already too long. Karanacs (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

On these points I would like to add that a number of editors felt the article needed a "legacy" section, a closing, summarizing paragraph (some would call that "magazin-y" and is a common ending to articles found on Wikipedia) which is what I am proposing to replace the current "Benedict XVI" section. On article length, SandyGeorgia has pointed out that there are two FA's longer than this one. Both are about obscure subjects and one is about an obscure religion. See [12] and [13] Several FA's approach this article's size of a readable prose of 80kb. I am not sure that we need to be too alarmed at the article's length especially when so many editors have asked for more expansion of the article through several FA's. When trimming has occurred, it has met with displeasure from other editors and I think the only way to gain true consensus is to allow the article to reach an appropriate length, something that is not unheard of on Wikipedia as per SandyGeorgia. NancyHeise ^talk 15:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Trimming has been primarily opposed by you and Xandar. Many others have asked that sections be trimmed or that weight be redistributed. I do agree that an ending section would be nice, but I don't think it should be a summary of points already in the article. Instead, a forward-looking section could wrap up the article fairly well. What changes are in progress or are anticipated or have been rejected? In a few short sentences, how does Benedict compare to his predecessors in terms of the direction the RCC should take? Karanacs (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Xandar and I intend to trim but I believe what some have in mind and what we have in mind are different ideas of how much to trim. This article's subject matter justifies a longer article length and our past attempts at trim have only led to reinsertion of material after it was reviewed by more editors at FAC. There are areas that could condense three sentences to one and I would like to make these areas more concise and simple. Benedict has not proposed any notable changes - all notable changes rejected were already done under John Paul II and these are already mentioned in the Vatican II section. The ending section I proposed is a statement of what Catholicism is today according to scholars. We can't use the ending paragraph to make predictions, that would be unencyclopedic don't you think? NancyHeise ^talk 15:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

New suggestion for replacement of Benedict section incorporating above comments - please give me comments

Catholicism Today

As in the past, the Roman Catholic Church holds a unique place in the world today as the pope is an internationally respected leader who regularly receives heads of states from countries around the world. He holds a seat at and speaks on occasion at the United Nations. On a recent visit to the United States, he was welcomed with particular dignity and his Masses were televised on the major news networks in their entirety. One reporter asked President Bush why the special attention to which he replied "Because he is a really important figure ... he speaks for millions... he comes as a man of faith. And ... I want to honor his convictions, as well." In the Gospel, Jesus compares the Kingdom of God to the mustard seed, which transforms over time from a small entity into a large one. Some scholars think that this analogy has been fulfilled by the Church today. For example, in contrast to the Crusades of the past, a May 2008 agreement between Benedict and a delegation of Muslims stressed that religion is essentially non-violent and that violence can be justified neither by reason nor by faith. Likewise, in contrast to the religious intolerance of the Reformation during the Renaissance, the Church has prioritized and worked for Christian unity. Another example is the Church's embrace of scientific advancement evidenced by its creation of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Responsible for important advances in scientific knowledge, the Academy members represent a "who's who" of 20th century science. The Church has complimented these efforts with an apology for the house arrest of Galileo in the 1600's. Another scholar noted that throughout its history, even through eras of internal corruption, the Church has not failed in its mission to bring the Gospel to the world. NancyHeise ^talk 16:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Since then the Church created"; then refers to what? Also, does the Church not seek unity for all Christianity? This seems to limit it to unity with just a select number of groups. I do think it was better than before; a good summary. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Good points, I just incorporated them, what do you think? NancyHeise ^talk 16:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That reads much better. One grammatical change; "another example is the Church's embrace" changing Church to the possessive. You always do great work and I appreciate it. Your diligence is exemplary. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, now I have to go away and blush for a awhile! NancyHeise ^talk 17:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really happy with this as a complete replacement for the Benedict XVI section. We're losing too much hard fact for a very soft brush. The "mustard seed" bit seems preachy (who are the scholars who say this?) The theme here (growth) doesn't link well with what is beneath (change) It needs rewording if it is to be retained. Relations with Muslims haven't been as smooth as this implies either, and Galileo should be in "Cultural Influence" rather than the Church Today section. We do need to concentrate on hard facts. Terri Schiavo and Regensburg have both been highlighted by other editors and need to be mentioned. I would propose something more like this: Xandar 23:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Catholicism Today

The Roman Catholic Church continues to hold a unique place in today's world. The pope is an international leader who regularly receives heads of state from around the world, and who holds a seat at the United Nations. The election of Pope Benedict XVI in 2005 saw, on most issues, a continuation of the policies of his predecessor, John Paul II. His first encyclical Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) discussed the various forms of love re-emphasizing marriage and the centrality of charity to the Church's mission. On his 2008 visit to the United States his Masses were televised live on the major national news networks. When asked why the Pope received such attention President Bush said: "Because he is a really important figure ... he speaks for millions... he comes as a man of faith. And ... I want to honor his convictions, as well." Following the controversey over Pope Benedict's Regensburg address, a May 2008 summit between the pope and a delegation of Muslims came to agreement that religion is essentially non-violent and that violence can be justified neither by reason nor by faith. Likewise, in contrast to the religious intolerance of the Reformation period, today's Church prioritizes and works for Christian unity. The Church's Pontifical Academy of Sciences has been responsible for important advances in scientific knowledge, and its members represent a "who's who" of modern science. However the cases of Terri Schiavo and others raised important ethical decisions regarding continued nutrition and hydration for persons in a vegetative state. While making exceptions, the Church ruled that "the provision of water and food, even by artificial means, always represents a natural means for preserving life." The Catholic Church faces many challenges, however as one scholar has noted; throughout its history, even through eras of internal corruption, the Church has not failed in its mission to bring the Gospel to the world. Xandar 23:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This also is good. However, for a world wide church with the majority of its members outside of the United States, I don't think the Schiavo case is of such importance that it needs to be highlighted. Maybe the what would be better is the highlighting the Church's ongoing fight for the respect of life in a world that has become accustomed to ignoring life to focus on convenience of personal choice. Schiavo is just one small part of that ongoing struggle. Just my two cents. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Schiavo case received a lot of publicity in Britain (I don't know about elsewhere), and is a good illustration of the pro-life issue, since abortion is mentioned elsewhere. It's also an interesting connection that a reader can pick up and read more about quite easily. Further to my comments above. They look a bit harsh on second reading, but that's not how they were meant. I think a new section is good, just that we need to keep some of the facts about recent events. Xandar 00:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I am OK with your rewrite, I think it is good. I am not sure we need to include Terri Schiavo, we already mention the prolife issue, I think it is not necessary to indulge any more. I think she belongs on the prolife page, not here. By the way, I have just finished a comprehensive trim that reduced page size to 77kb. I stopped at the end of Renaissance and may not be able to do more with this page until next week. NancyHeise ^talk 00:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I inserted Xandars rewrite minus Terri Schiavo. I also trimmed the rest of the article and it is now down to 75kb which I think is a reasonable size for this subject. One area of possible significant trim could be to eliminate the Liturgical year paragraph and replace it with two sentences plus the wikilink. The wikipage on that subject is pretty good. I reverted myself after actually eliminating that section because I think it is nice to have just the RCC version of Liturgical year in a nutshell on the page. If we get beaten up over page size at FAC, that is one area that could go though. NancyHeise ^talk 04:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What's left to do

I really like the present article, I think it is almost perfect. We need to check the references because some of them are not in proper format and this needs to be corrected before FA. I am printing the whole thing out and will go through to make sure that all books in the bibliography are used and that all footnotes to books are represented in bibliography.NancyHeise ^talk 16:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There are several things before going back to FA I think. Have we got all the necessary facts we need in there? That's one thing. Then, as per Raul's request, we need to get all the outstanding objectors to look at it again and come up with any specific remaining objections they may have before FA. Coeil also said that he would have a go over the article from the point of view of a copyedit, once we had the facts as we wanted them. Xandar 01:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I think those are good ideas but we have to realize that some objectors are just going to object it seems no matter what and these should not deter the progression of the article to FA unless they can give specific reasons. I think we need to hold them to this especially if they say it is POV - if they make that accusation we need to ask them to point out what criticisms are not mentioned with both sides covered. Right now, we do not have any weasel words and we have covered all notable criticism. I would venture even to consider maybe asking some people we know to come and take another look too - like all those who previously supported the article too, just sent out a standard message to all those who voted at the last FAC to come see the page again and offer comments.NancyHeise ^talk 03:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We have to realize that some objectors are just going to object it seems no matter what I totally agree. Any FA candidacy is for some a welcome occasion to repeat sterile anti-catholicism. Therefore we should not put too much emphasis on FA. Christ on the cross was not FA. I think however, the article is very nice as it is. I like the ending which has been very much improved since Nancy and I started it. Nancy's earlier comment on adding main articles should not be forgotten. This will take take some time, as several of the relevant ones are not up to snuff. (I am working on history of the RC, history of the Papacy and the recent popes - Paul VI - and their social teachings for the time being). But we need also new contributions in the area of theology both old and new and relation to science, technology, medicine etc. A question to Nancy: Should be put related templates (persecution, social teachings of the popes, etc, at the end and in the references? I would not like to put them into the text because of real estate considerations.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We need the outstanding objectors here though, before the FAC, so we can deal with outstanding matters now. Those who don't take the opportunity to discuss their specific points now will get less sympathy if they start raising endless matter once it gets to FAC. Hopefully we don't want another 8 week 800k FAC. Xandar 23:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in bringing the article to FAC, I think it is a worthwhile endeavor that improves Wikipedia. I dont think Raul is going to fail the FAC if objectors are just spouting anti-catholic POV's. I would like to create a standard message that invites all voters on the past four FAC's to come give us comments. Interesting to note is that there were so many supporters, not all of them the same, at each FAC but the opposers were always the same people and they all were people who knew each other and worked regularly with each other. This upset me very much at the last FAC because I felt they were not voting on the merits of the page but participating in some sort of buddy system to eliminate the page's possibility of making FAC, especially since they often put forth such anti-Catholic comments and did not follow Wikipedia written rules but were creating their own grading system and asking us to eliminate our most important sources including those necessary to meet WP:NPOV. I am committed to not getting upset with these people but I will not change the page to meet unwritten rules made up by individual editors and I will not eliminate valid sources. If Raul chooses to fail the page based on such comments then I guess we will just have to be happy with GA and forget FA. NancyHeise ^talk 21:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesuits etc

Jesuits of course do not have lay members in the order. I changed that sentence fullyaware of Jesuit International etc. I also added some templates at the end, which did not exist a few weeks ago. Nancy, If they are too much, take them out again. Cheers --Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I am OK with your edits, thanks for your much appreciated help. NancyHeise ^talk 22:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)