Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive2

Roman Catholic Church

previous FAC (17:08, 15 February 2008)

Check external links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment Nancy, I'll try to get a good long look at this tonight. Also will try to mine my library shelves for possible sources. Off the top of my head, for sources that oppose the concept of "one Church from the start"... look at the works of Bart D. Ehrman as a start. Specifically The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, which I'm rereading as we speak. Also Robin Lane Fox has written on the subject of early Christianity. Peter Brown (historian) was the acknowledged expert in late ancient history when I was in college, his The World of Late Antiquity: AD 150-750, Authority and the Sacred: Aspects of the Christianisation of the Roman world, and The Rise of Western Christendom would be especially appropriate. Getting into more depth (and more dense and scholarly) you have Ramsay MacMullen, whose Christianizing the Roman Empire: AD 100-400 is probably appropriate. Also dense is R. A. Markus' The End of Ancient Christianity. Ealdgyth | Talk 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE - I have removed this response because it clutters up the page.NancyHeise (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to removed text for context of subsequent responses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, please reread what I said. I didn't say "No church at Rome"... I said "one Church from the start", which is a different statement entirely. There are a number of scholars writing that feel that there were a number of different types of Christianity in the first century or two after Christ. Ehrman is one of those scholars. One of those types of Christianity is what became the Roman Catholic Church. Another became the Donatist church. Some others are Gnostic, and some were what is called Jewish Christianity. I haven't had a chance to read the article yet (I have HOPES of finishing up my revisions to William Longchamp someday!) but the last time I read it, it did have a regretable tendancy to assume that there was only one type of Christianity from Christ's death. There is scholarly disagreement with this view, and I must say that it is pretty extensive from what I've read. I'm not an expert in Early Christianity (I studied the High Middle Ages instead) but when even my college classes covered different varieties of early Christianity, it's pretty much a given that it is a significant viewpoint in scholarly circles. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, this article is called "Roman Catholic Church", not "Christianity". Why is anyone suggesting that we have to discuss other churches or the whole of Christianity? Does the FA on Girl Scouts USA discuss any other organization that helps girls? NancyHeise (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Because right now, the section on the history implies that there is only one church, and that it is the Catholic Church. The whole first part of the History section doesn't allow for scholarly opinion that there were other varieties of Christianity. Maybe if the History of the Roman Catholic Church article wasn't such a mess, it might not matter as much. Honestly, though, I really don't care. If my help isn't wanted, I have plenty else to do. I'm sorry if my opinion upsets you, and rather than be annoying, I'll just leave this discussion alone. Maybe User:Mike Searson can explain the issue better. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed response because it clutters up the page. NancyHeise (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to removed text for context of subsequent responses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that particular statement is that the Council of Jerusalem was just the START of the doctrinal differences. It didn't resolve them at all. They continued for another 150 years at least. Remember the exact texts in the New Testament weren't settled until the middle of the 300's. A number of scholars believe that there were a number of competing types of Christianity up until about 300 or so, perhaps a bit later. Even Eusebius wrote about them, although he called them heretics. I'll try to think of something that would make it clear without overburdening the article (I do understand that this is about the RCC, and that it shouldn't be dragged into a huge discussion of tangential information. But merely repeating the RCC version of things isn't correct either.) Ealdgyth | Talk 20:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

All of that is mentioned in the Church history. Please see the page. I added another sentence in the Roman Empire to make it clear that the Roman Church was not the only one and that there were competing beleifs. I am willing to insert more material but I really think that these things are clearly mentioned, even Arius is wikilinked and Vulgate as well when discussing the creation of the Bible. NancyHeise (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That new sentence, I can live with. Gah, wish I had plenty of time, I'd go work on the early Christianity articles, which are really in need of help. But the medieval stuff is just as bad.. so...

Check with others that that helps resolve things. I do still think you should read and use some of the books I've referenced above, instead of a National Geographic book on the Geography of Religion. But I really don't have time to devote to sourcing the statements to what I DO have on my shelves, so it's not fair of me to oppose if I'm not willing to do it myself. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have another reference and added another sentence to make it even more clear - please see the page, I think this should adequately address all your concerns. NancyHeise (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Works fine. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And lots more.

Random issues:

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

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

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

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

• 1c: Not good. Here are random samples (in which I found every item I sampled wanting in some respect).
  • Please audit the references for consistent, MOS-required formatting. For example: "The Roman Catholic Church an Illustrated History" (surely there's missing punctuation?). Hyphens instead of en dashes in a few pages ranges. The O'Connell book—does it start with "The" or doesn't it? There's a clash between the title in the reference list and the bibliography. Such sloppiness won't do in a serious, authoritative article.
    • WP:Foot subsection entitled Style Recommendations allows you to use a shortened form of the title in the text if the full title is in the bibliography. I believe the audit you suggest of the references has already been done by Karanacs with the help of SandyGeorgia.NancyHeise (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • All I've done in the references is identify which ones obviously failed WP:RS and which ones looked duplicated. I haven't done a comprehensive audit of the source formatting.Karanacs (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Nor have I; I have gone through a few times and left sample edits of minor MoS issues that needed attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 223: Why not send us directly to the "web site" that was the source for this NYT posting? Who knows what mistakes might have occurred in the replication.
    • Because we are trying to get away from self published sources. The New York Times is a very reliable third party source and we thought it was even better than using the self published source. NancyHeise (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't care how reliable you think the NYT is—there's absolutely no reason to link to its version rather than the original. Avoiding self-published links is to minimise self-promotion and POV; the display of an official text is not in that category. Tony (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any Wikipedia policy that would require me to eliminate using NYT in favor of a self-published source. Since I have been beaten over the head enough times over self published sources by Karanacs on this and another FA I did, I would prefer to keep the NYT piece. Thanks for your opinion, please respect that I have one too on this matter. NancyHeise (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Ref 228: Author cited on the web page, but not given here ....
    • The name appearing above the article is just below an advertisement for a book, not necessarily the author of the article. NancyHeise (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • OK Tony (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm uneasy that the history has drawn on rather too few books, but I don't know the area, and can't determine whether sufficiently broad sources have been used. It's just that there are a lot of sweeping assertions that I'd normally want to question, or check the detail on. For example: "By the mid-third century, persecution was extensive throughout the empire.[121] The ferocity of the persecution varied, with tradition holding Decius and Valerian I prominent among persecuting emperors.[125][126] In spite of these persecutions, the effective systems of Roman roads facilitated evangelization.[127]" OK, I'll take these assertions on trust, but many wouldn't.
    • These assertions are found in many of our over 30 books used, they are very basic historical facts that I dont think anyone is going to question. We eliminated one of the books we used that had the same information because another reviewer was uncomfortable that the book was not specifically written about the history of the Roman Catholic Church. We are doing our best to make everyone happy here :0 ) NancyHeise (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, two matters:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment I do agree that this is certainly not a vote, it should be a process where support is given if criteria are met and things that can be fixed to bring the article up the critera are fixed. Consensus to me means overwhelming agreement with one thing, and Wiktionary gives it at "general agreement". As such, while not necessarily a vote, I have found in my experience with many AFD's that the amount of supports (with valid reasons, not just "per [insert user name]" is is inversely proportional to the chances of the article being deleted, or in this case, the article being denied Featured Article status. If there are 100 supports with valid, sensible reasons and 5 opposes with valid, sensible reasons, it seems to me that there is a consensus that the article is worthy of being featured. Therefore, while this is certainly not a vote, it is a measure of support versus opposition. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 02:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta/archive1, which was not promoted with 25 Supports and 8 Opposes. FAC is not AfD; it is not a "measure of support versus opposition". If there are valid, actionable Opposes, they should be addressed and the conversation should stay focused on WP:WIAFA. I don't think anyone participating in this FAC wants to see the article pass and then get slapped instantly into featured article review once it appears on the mainpage and is exposed to a wider, critical audience; that's why FAC is not a vote and valid actionable opposes should be addressed before an article is promoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To illustrate the extent of some of the ridiculous nit-picking criticism of the article by certain people on this page. Here is a short passage from the Articles of faith section of the already Featured Article Islam, with similar criticisms made.

"According to the Qur'an all Muslims have to believe in God, his revelations, his angels, his messengers, and in the "Day of Judgment".[13] (Untidy sentence. too many commas, clumsy construction.) Also, there are other beliefs that differ between particular sects. (unprofessional clumsy prose) . The Sunni concept of predestination is called divine decree,[14] while the Shi'a version is called divine justice.n (explains nothing) Unique to the Shi'a is the doctrine of Imamah, or the political and spiritual leadership of the Imams.[15]

Muslims believe that God revealed his final message to humanity through the Islamic prophet Muhammad via the angel Gabriel. (clumsy language) For them, Muhammad was God's final prophet and the Qur'an is the revelations he received over more than two decades. (ungrammatical. Mixed tenses.) [16] In Islam, prophets are men selected by God to be his messengers. Muslims believe that prophets are human and not divine, though some are able to perform miracles to prove their claim. Islamic prophets are considered to be the closest to perfection of all humans, and are uniquely the recipients of divine revelation—either directly from God or through angels. (No reference) The Qur'an mentions the names of numerous figures considered prophets in Islam, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus, among others.[17] (Poor unprofessional English. Bad Grammar, adding "among others" after "including".

I could go on nit-picking and fault finding in the same way as some people here. However this is of featured aricle status. Lets have consistenccy here, folks. Xandar (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Xandar. While I do think the Roman Catholic Church article ought to be trimmed and tightened up, and the prose is not brilliant, in direct comparison to other FA articles it is pretty good. The push-me pull-you critique of FA candidates is always de-moralizing. While the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy is always invoked, don't forget that Wikipedia:Attack page is also policy. Mind you the critique of SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) and Tony1 (talk · contribs) is very good and must not be dismissed. Ultimately, the article has to be 'about' the Roman Catholic Church and worthy of FA status. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately this page needs to be readable and intelligible, to determine what valid actionable opposes are and if they have been addressed, and I'm working hard to keep it that way :-) Kudos to Nancy and comparisons to the Islam article (which is not the article at FAC) are not relevant to whether this article has consensus that it meets WP:WIAFA. If the two of you don't mind, this last discussion needs to move to the talk page, lest this FAC again get out of control and into personal issues, off the topic of WP:WIAFA. We are not evaluating Islam and we are not evaluating Nancy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please continue this off-topic discussion on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)