Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2008

November 2008

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:34, 15 March 2009 [1].

---

Byzantine navy

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

This article already underwent a failed FAC in October-November 2008. Since then, it has been greatly expanded and generally rewritten with far more details, although the general outline has remained the same. I have also managed to get access to the most up-to-date and comprehensive scholarly book on the subject, the Age of the Dromon, and am confident that the information included is correct, and reflects the current scholarly views. To prospective reviewers: please be as thorough as you can, and thanks in advance! Constantine ✍ 19:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support. Just like I supported the previous nomination, I will reiterate that this is a truly remarkable article well deserving of featured status. Its excellence lies not only in the should I say perfect referencing using works issued by the world's leading university publishers and prominent authors in the field, but also in the very engaging and captivating prose. Cplakidas' writing is something that I really admire, probably because it has always been difficult for me, as a non-native speaker of English, to reach such heights. The article is well-structured, appropriately illustrated, accurate and unbiased in its presentation. I found it particularly difficult to find even the slightest flaw, but I did detect one occasion of the deprecated date linking ("20 April 1453"). And what's of more importance, I believe the article should be more consistent in its usage of original Byzantine family names and not Latinizations (per the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium's conventions), e.g. Anna Komnene and not Comnena, Constantine Porphyrogennetos and not Porphyrogenitus, Euphemios and not Euphemius, Romanos Lekapenos and not Romanus Lecapenus (in the case of the latter two, both variants have been used in the article, which is inconsistent). However, I don't consider these to be shortcomings of enough significance to hold off my support, especially because I'm very confident that Cplakidas will be quick to rectify these. Wikipedia is in dire need of such impressive encyclopedic content and one should be able to recognize what is an actual flaw and what is just a minor issue that can easily be solved, and thus no reason to delay your support, I believe.
  P.S. By the way, any clue as to why the previous nomination failed? I did not see any objections and any clearly-specified points that remained unaddressed. Does a nomination have to gather a specific number of support votes? Todor→Bozhinov 20:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow! Thanks for such a ringing endorsement. I shall try and live up to your comments! As for the failure of the previous nomination, I assume that, based on FAC rules, the supervisors deemed there was not enough support. Only you actually voted in favour, and Johnbod suggested that it needed a thorough copyediting. I tried to find someone to do it, but no one really responded, and two days later, the nomination was closed. Lack of interest by reviewers can really kill a FAC. Let's hope this time is the lucky one! Thanks again and best regards, Constantine ✍ 20:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Ref formatting (using WP:REFTOOLS)

• The following ref(s) are spelled out more than once, a ref name should be used instead.

• Treadgold (1995), p. 67
• I. Heath (1995), p. 17
• Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), p. 113
• Haldon (1999), p. 77
• Treadgold (1997), p. 145
• Treadgold (1997), p. 277
• Treadgold (1997), p. 576
• Pryor (2003), p. 84

• The following ref names are given to different references, that needs to be fixed accordingly.

• TreadgoldB67
• Heath17
• Dromon113
• Tread145
• Tread277
• Tread576
• Pryor84

Dabs (using Dabs checker tool)

• Need to be fixed.

External links (using External links checker tool)

• Are found up to speed--₮RUCӨ 23:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I fixed the citations. However the dab links cannot be "fixed": the Great Schism is not even in the article (at least I can't find it) and the other two (Rus'–Byzantine War and Sieges of Constantinople) are very much meant to be included as such, to provide a list of the relevant conflicts. Following this, could I also bother you for an opinion on the article's quality? Any omissions/unclear areas? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 07:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I mainly only review articles for their ref formatting, dabs, and dead external links. But your dabs and ref formatting is found up to speed as well.--₮RUCӨ 22:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

"Sources and bibliography" ?

Pictures using thumb and fixed pic size attributes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• The first one is because some of the listed works have not been actually used as sources, but more as a general reading. I'll change it simply to "sources". As for the second, I don't understand what you mean. Constantine ✍ 07:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You use two different styles for defining the sizes of images. Please use only one, thumbs or fixed image size. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Constantine ✍ 13:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• To simply change the heading "Sources and bibliography" to "Sources," as you have now done, is a bit misleading. See these sections of Wikipedia:Layout. You need to differentiate between "works actually used as sources" and those offered as "general reading". Please make a new section, "Further reading," below "Sources," and migrate the general reading to it. Bishonen | talk 10:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC).

• Well, since the only title actually falling under the "general reading" category would be Ostrogorsky, I simply removed him. Is that OK? Constantine ✍ 13:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, certainly. Bishonen | talk 14:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC).

Futher comment. This article uses the {{Infobox War Faction}} template, the {{Infobox Military Unit}} would be more appropriate. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, if I remember correctly, this had come up at some earlier point. I chose {{Infobox War Faction}} over {tl|Infobox Military Unit}} because it had some extra fields like "Allies" and "Opponents", "Area of operations" etc. Personally, I am quite happy with it. If however it is absolutely necessary, I'll change it. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The allies and opponents of the Navy are those of the Byzantine Empire itself - unless the Navy was in civil war/extreme infighting with the Army I wouldn't use faction template.GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but not quite (the maritime allies and opponents of the Byzantines were fewer than their land counterparts, for one). I tried applying the {{Infobox National Military}}, but it doesn't have the fields I want, and, although I know that the policy is to use {{Infobox Military Unit}} for organized formations, it is more suitable for modern units rather than whole medieval armies. I cannot really put the Crusades or the Byzantine-Arab Wars, which were centuries-long processes, under "Engagements", there is no "area of operations", no space to mention the emperor as commander-in-chief and the droungarios and the megas doux as effective commanders, etc. Since to the reader, it makes no difference, I really feel we should leave it. I am sorry if I appear obstinate, but I really think the present box just summarizes the main points of the article better, which after all is the purpose of an infobox. Constantine ✍ 22:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose
• Violates NPOV. Gardiner is used exclusively to push the theses that the Arabs had no naval tradition and copied all. Medieval warfare source book says otherwise and mentions the lot of novelities introduced to naval warfare by technology transfer from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean. The Arabian peninsula did in actual fact have a seagoing tradition. But I know that it's hard to tell the difference between a Byzantine and a Muslim ship from the remains, even more so for warships.
• The ships section is incomplete. The pamphylia needs to be explained and the later highboarded warships.
• "Like their Roman predecessors, Byzantine and Muslim ships were equipped with small catapults (mangana) and ballistae (toxoballistrai) that launched stones, arrows, javelins, pots of Greek fire or other incendiary liquids, caltrops (triboloi) and even containers full of asbestos or, as Emperor Leo VI somewhat implausibly suggests, scorpions and snakes." I don't believe this about asbestos because it's no instant killer. Has the scribe made an error? You quote this directly from the source, please check a reliable secondary work on that.
• "Burning fiercely, it could stay ablaze even underwater for a short period. Despite the somewhat exaggerated accounts of Byzantine writers, it was by no means a "wonder weapon", and could not avert some serious defeats." I don't believe that. The earliest sources on saltpetre are Muslim and date centuries after the introduction of Greek fire. Please source how it could burn under water without oxygen or make it very clear that you only echo a highly suspicious opinion. Your sources possibly confused heating with burning because quicklime does heat up when reacting with water and as a result can create steam. This combined with a liquid flammable substance leads to a thermobaric bomb.
• Mention the countermeasures against Greek fire.Wandalstouring (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• At last a comment on the actual content... On point 1), could you provide some more details on the book, so that I can check it? Also, what both the Gradiner book and Pryor make clear is that there was a shared maritime experience, at least in the Mediterranean, because the Arabs did use much of the existing naval infrastructure and manpower and I think that is what I have stated. There is no explicit statement to the effect that they had no naval expertise at all, or that their ships were copycat Byzantine designs. The fact however that both Arabs and Byzantines often used similar terminology and ship names does imply that at least some designs were common to both, or at least very similar. I'll try to modify the effect of the relevant statements, nevertheless. On point 2), Pryor makes clear that there is not much info on the pamphylos, and there is not much to find on it even in as massive book as the Age of the Dromon. I'll try to include whatever else I can find, but the construction characteristics of Byzantine ships in general are very obscure. And, what exactly do you mean by "highboarded warships"? On point 3), you're right, lime was meant, though it was not intended as a killer: Leo says that when the jars are broken, the smoke would choke and confuse the defenders. On point 4), the "burning underwater" is a leftover from very early versions of the article. Somehow it slipped by. As for point 5), what exactly do you mean by "countermeasures"? The simplest and most effective countermeasure was not getting too close (ca. 10-20 yards) to the prow of a siphon-equipped Byzantine warship. Constantine ✍ 12:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• • 1)Try David Nicolle, Medieval warfare source book/2 ISBN 1-85409-307-X

It's a summary that points you to other detailed works. The transfer of maritime technology between the Byzantines and the Muslims should be highlighted as not only a one-sided affair.

I found Nicolle's account a rather partial one. Additionall,y he is definitely no expert on naval warfare, but more of a scholar with a broad scope, and as such often uninformed in detail, especially concerning the history of technology. Generally, it should not be overlooked that the early Arabs did not create a new navy, but stepped in the footsteps of the existing millenia-old maritime Mediterranean tradition, with their navy manned by Copts and other Christians. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the Arab impact on Mediterranean sea-faring (with a special view to the lateen sail, before Lionel Casson long attributed to the Arabs):

The lateen sail therefore predates the Muslim invasions of the Mediterranean shores, but this does not prove that some Arabs did not already have it. However, their maritime role before then was so confined that they seem unlikely agents for either its invention or its diffusion. Although Arabs were engaged in east African trade in the first century a.d., and others in the region of the Persian Gulf were reported to be seafarers in the third century, these were probably engaged in local navigation only. As late as the sixth century, when trade to Sri Lanka and beyond was conducted by Persian-speaking mariners, there is no mention of Arabs, who were clearly “playing no noteworthy part on the high seas.”30 Such Arabs as were mariners were south Arabians; the center of affairs in Arabian history abruptly swung to the northern Arabians on the eve of the Muslim outburst, and these people were emphatically not seafarers.31 Thus, when strategic opportunism impelled the Arabs to venture onto Mediterranean waters, they did so in Byzantine-style galleys, built and manned by Copts of Alexandria in their accustomed fashion, and in this way they won the great naval victory of Dhat al-Sawari in 655.32 Hourani assumes that the sails (if any) used by these galleys were square, on the presumption that the lateen was unknown in the Mediterranean for another two centuries. As Casson and others have since shown, however, the lateen was already well established as the auxiliary motive power for the Byzantine dromones. It follows that the Arabs learned their naval craft from the Copts and acquired the lateen sail in the same way. Copts, indeed, continued to supply the bulk of naval personnel for the Arabs in the Mediterranean for centuries.

I.C. Campbell: „The Lateen Sail in World History”, Journal of World History, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1995), pp. 1-23 (9-10) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Amen? Sorry, but it's only one opinion. Feel free to add this source's statement to the article, however, you'll have to live with conflicting views not much older. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• • 2) OK, I've always been wondering about that ship type. It might be a good idea to state that on some ship types information is rare.

High boarded ships of Galleass type were introduced in the very late Byzantine navy, but without guns, rather the high ground gave a decisive advantage in boarding. I saw picture of such ships as part of the Byzantine navy. It will take me some time to remember where.

• • 3)OK
  • 4)Change it, saltpetre was used by the Muslims for their Greek fire.(see for references)
  • 5)Wool soaked in vinegar was a popular countermeasure. Try Konstantin Nossov, Ancient and Medieval Siege Weapons (2006).
  • 6)I've been thinking about it and I'm really dissatisfied with your article structure. You have this extremely long section about the history of the navy that tells who when where rebelled and so on. After several sections it's totally boring. I suggest to split the history in three main phases and give for each phase history, structure, ship types, weapons and enemies(you should introduce their capabilities and the type of threat) and then move on to the next. These phases can be early period, middle period and late period as you have in the organization of the navy. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • 1)I'll check it if I can find it.
    • 2)Hmmm, I don't really know what to add on this subject. The Byzantines used mostly Western designs from the 12th century onwards, but in small numbers (except for the period of Michael VIII). It would be rather superfluous to describe the galeass in this article, when only a few examples of it must have been ever used by the Byzantines! The focus should be on the indigenous and distinctly Byzantine ship types. If you can find any concrete source however, please let me know.
    • 4)I've got some of John Haldon's notes on this issue. I'll go through them before making any changes.
    • 5)Ah, that's what you mean. OK, it'll be added.
    • 6)I have only been following the structure that seems prevalent in relevant books. I know the history section is very long and probably boring, but it's a summary of a thousand-year history. Only if I reduce it to the barest essentials can it be less "boring", and then the article will lose much of its essence. The ebb and tide of Byzantine fortunes, which was different in the different theaters, will simply vanish and become a bullet-list. If you have any particular areas were you think I go into too much detail, please tell me so. As for your phase proposal, I have thought of something similar before. My one objection is that the three sections would be receive very unequal treatment, owing to the scarcity of good information on the early and late phases. But I'll think on it. Constantine ✍ 14:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
      • 6) I've drafted a new structure here. The first section is rather short, but there didn't happen a lot compared to the other sections. The other two are of equal length and do cover threats, adaption and history of the navy. I've added a chapter on the Italian allies for the late navy. In brackets are suggestions for the content. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Points 4) and 5) taken care of, I think. As for point 1), I tried to clarify it, but sadly, I I can't find Nicolle's book either online or in any local library (bear in mind, I live in Greece). Buying it is out of the question right now, so if you want to add anything from it, be my guest. As for 6), the structure is interesting. One quibble: section 4 would, almost in its entirety, again refer to the middle period, not the one before or after. I intend to try setting up a restructured version in a sandbox tomorrow. Constantine ✍ 22:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I'll see when I can borrow Nicolle again or contact someone who has the book. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
          • I've done a very rough preliminary restructuring based on your proposal, and after considering it and moving the pieces around in my mind a bit, I don't really like it. One of the good things in the current article, as I've been told by several other editors, is its clean structure by thematic sections. If we were to adopt a chronological criterion as the primary division, it would mess this up. Since one of the main tenets of this article is to present the development of the Byzantine navy, or, more accurately, "the naval forces of the B.E.", as a single continuous story coterminous with the Byzantine Empire (i.e. from 330 to 1453) the chronological division would make even less sense. In that case, the "early navy", which was not very "Byzantine", but very much "late Roman", should be split off entirely and joined with the Roman Navy article, with which, indeed, there already is a considerable overlap. To put it bluntly, describing the liburnian in an article on the Byzantine navy would not really make sense. Similarly, the late navy was so much dominated by Italian influence (not to mention being very small and with scant details available on it), that any section dedicated to its ships or tactics would be a waste of space and a duplication of things better stated elsewhere. Most articles on historical entities I've come across begin with a history section to provide context and an overview, and then have several sections on the more specific topics: government, culture, military, etc. If the current structure were somehow faulty or misleading, I'd certainly accept any proposal for a reorganization. But if it is only meant to break up the long history section because it is "boring", then no. Historical articles with lots of detail do unfortunately tend to be somewhat packed (reading Pryor's book on the dromon, replete with obscure technical and philological details, was not a pleasure ride either). But in this particular case, I think the prose in itself is good, and it is only the density of information that provides a headache. Even if we adopted the new structure, that would not really change either, as the bulk of the history section (the Byzantine-Arab conflict etc) would continue unaltered. I do look forward though to any additions on the issue of Arab ships. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 19:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Remaining issues:

1. The Italian ship types of the Byzantine navy aren't sufficiently covered.
2. In naval tactics and weapons the rise of crossbows should be highlighted because it changed the structure of naval combat. (see Nicolle)
3. I'm still not satisfied with the article structure. The navy adopted to different threats and this isn't highlighted enough. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to cover point 1) without going into too much detail, as this is not the most relevant article. As for point 2), this may be true for Westerners, but I have seen no indication of it for the Byzantines either in books or articles. While crossbows may have been used at sea by the Byzantines, whether they "transformed naval warfare" for the Empire, when the Byzantine navy for the most part consisted of a dozen ships or even less, would be doubtful. A similar example are cannons, which also transformed naval warfare, but not for the Byzantines. In this case, however, we have clear source stating their non-use. On point 3), in terms of structure alone, I have given my reasons for so far refusing to do it. On the totally separate issue of "not highlighting enough" how the navy adapted to different threats, I beg to differ. The changing circumstances under which and the different foes against whom the Byzantines operated are very clearly mentioned in the history section. It is exactly this continuity in the narrative which I fear would be lost if we split the article up. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 16:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

1. 1 Needs more coverage because almost half of it's existence this navy depended on Italian type ships or used them.
2. 2 The crossbow is important beause it altered the number of marines and the availability of recruits.
3. 3 I don't ask yout to implement the structure I suggested. I ask you to highlight better how the navy adapted to different threats, because the Vandals were certainly different from the Muslims and the Rus. I don't ask you to highlight any more who, when and where a battle was fought, but by what means the Byzantines prevailed or were defeated. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

On point 1), I am trying to find more sources on the ships used by the Byzantines, but there is very little to go on. Furthermore, "half its existence" is a very gross exaggeration for the period late 12th century-1450s, when one considers that a navy practically did not exist for several periods during this time. I can not in good conscience add a description of the Italian galleys as complete as that of the dromon in an article about a navy that was not their primary user. Even more so since info on 13th-century galleys is scarce, and the 14th-century galleys, on which we know more, were used by the Byzantines in very small numbers. Also, as the links I provided show, there were different types of ships, and we don't know what kinds the Byzantine used anyway. The prevalence of Italian designs is noted and repeatedly emphasized, and their major characteristics are given. Anything more would derail the Ships section completely. The same (roughly) goes for the crossbow. No evidence for use by the Byzantines. There is also the fact that the Genoese (who were expert crossbowmen) seem to have lost most of their naval engagements with the Venetians, which leads me to doubt the veracity of how the crossbow "transformed naval warfare". I did however add a generic reference. I appreciate your remarks and want to have this article as comprehensive as possible, but please note that it is not titled "Medieval naval warfare", even though it has come to contain most of the stuff related to the subject.

As for point 3), I will try to emphasize the differences, but frankly, given the limited nature of our sources, unless the difference was major (e.g. Byzantine dromons vs Rus' monoxyla), there is little to go on. The section on tactics makes clear that winning a naval engagement against a similar-sized and equipped force was very much a matter of luck and generalship, and not related to technical or organizational aspects. Regards, Constantine ✍ 13:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Why are some citations "J. Norwich" but others are "MacGeorge"? Consistency is important. The only reason I could see to use an initial is to distinguish between two authors with the same last name. I don't see any in the sources.
  • No particular reason. Some refs (especially Norwich) were added by other authors. It can be easily fixed. Constantine ✍ 14:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • need to make them consistent with the others. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Done Constantine ✍ 15:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• What makes "Heath, Ian (1984). Armies of the Middle Ages, Volume 2: The Ottoman Empire, Eastern Europe and the Near East, 1300-1500. Wargames Research Group" a reliable source?
  • The same reason that makes "Heath, Ian; McBride, Angus (1995). Byzantine Armies: AD 1118–1461. Osprey Publishing." a reliable source. Its the same author. His academic credentials may not be comparable to many of the other authors listed here, but he is one of the few sources on late Byzantine warfare I have come across that even mention the navy. Constantine ✍ 14:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I was more concerned with the publisher on this, I'm unclear on their reputation for fact checking. I'm on the fence about it, it probably is reliable, but ... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, I understood as much. I anticipated someone would raise the question, actually. But the work is surprisingly good and thorough, often much better than the relevant Osprey books, if I may say so... Either way, he is used only as citation for two events and one for the Book of Pseudo-Kodinos, so there's not much of a chance he could have included something incorrect I suppose. Constantine ✍ 15:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I'll leave this out for other reviewers, but I do lean towards it being reliable, especially as it doesn't appear to be used for something contentious. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• OK, thanks for the effort!
• What about a 'redirect' between notes and references of the type used in Hitler? If there are not any guidelines for featured articles to the contrary effect, I would recommend it, as it helps a lot navigating between text and notes and back. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That is a good idea. I'll implement it right away. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support - As far as I can see, almost everything requested has been ammended, and with a small polish, this should become a FA.
• Support and make that strong if the issues raised in this review are fixed! Very well presented, informative, engaging, well-written. Everything a FA should be.

Comments -

• Question - It might be late in the day to suggest this, but wouldn't History of the Byzantine Navy be a better title for this article? No 'static' or 'snapshot' view of the navy is provided in the article (correctly IMO), and the tone of the lead suggests that the article will guide the reader through the historical progression. With a time span of 1000 years (and, as the article, says repeated decline/recovery) to suggest that there was a single identifiable "byzantine navy" is perhaps pushing it a bit far. I'd say the same about something like "Roman Army".
• Some minor points from the lead:
  • With the Muslim conquests from the 7th century onwards, the Mediterranean Sea ceased being a "Roman lake" - Surely it had ceased to be a Roman Lake before 455 when the Vandals sacked Rome from the sea? The point might stand for the Eastern Mediterranean though.
  • Shipping by sea is a tautolog - either 'transport by sea' or just 'shipping'
  • 'very existence of Byzantium - I assume that you mean the Byzantine Empire, but "Byzantium" could also be interpreted by a general reader as meaning the city of Byzantium/Constantinople. I think this should be made less ambiguous if possible.
• A major point for the lead: I think you should add a fourth paragraph briefly summarising the composition & tactics of the navy. Otherwise the lead does not summarise the whole article.
• The article ends rather abruptly with a discussion of Greek fire. I think there is definite scope for a short 'Conclusions' section to end the article. Not just a summary (the lead does that) but see if there any general conclusions that authors come to about the navy and its role. For example; Was a strong navy a prerequisite for a strong Byzantium? Although not necessarily easy to do, this would end the article nicely.

• I agree with Gun Powder Ma (below) about the infobox. I would be tempted to kill it completely. The article does such a good job of summarising a millennium history that the reader should be made to read it - infoboxes do so much to detract from the narrative. Also, it is impossible to sum up that millennium of history by simply listing Allies and Enemies (especially since they were often the same state). I really don't think that infobox brings anything to the article.
• I also agree with Gun Powder Ma about the disappearance of the ram. Surely the ram is too obvious to just have been 'mislaid'? There must have been some factor(s) which caused the ram to be abandonded? Lack of manpower? (Single banked ships might not have been able to generate the speed necessary to effectively ram (compared to a trireme for instance))
• Having re-read it (and copy-edited the first half for prose), I think it's true that the prose in the second half of the article needs a bit of a polish. I will try to help out with this.
  • I have now gone through the whole article rewording as I saw fit. Another set of eyes would probably help make this more complete!

MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Good observations. For the title, since the Byzantine navy is already a historical entity, it would be rather redundant, again, like the "Roman army" and the likes. If one were to separate the "Operational history" section into a different article, then "History of the Byzantine navy" would make more sense. For the other points: The Vandals did interrupt Roman hegemony, but their threat waned after 477, and with Justinian's conquests, Roman control was fully restored (explained in the article). On the other two points, action is being taken! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Having now read the article fully, I see that the Vandals are discussed. However, I still think the sentence in the lead is a bit misleading; it makes it sound as if there was complete continuity from Rome to Byzntium with no challenge in the Med until the arabs. This is, however, a very minor point.

• I added the Vandal "interruption" into the lead for completeness. A fourth paragraph will be added, and a conclusion section too. As for the infobox, two points: Venice (and Genoa) are listed in the "enemies" section as well. Venice was a loyal ally of Byzantium for two centuries (and a paid one for a further century) before 1204, and event he Ottomans were once allies of Byzantium under John VI. Nevertheless, that's the problem with infoboxes, and I would gladly do without it, only then someone would come and say "the article needs an infobox". If there are no objections from the current reviewers, I will however gladly consign it to the dustbin. The ram now... There is no claim made in the article as to why it was abandoned. The fact is merely stated. I will try to find some evidence on the process and the reasons. Constantine ✍ 10:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• I tried to reduce the tactics & ships section into a simple paragraph for the lead, but frankly, the result was not good. I only introduced a brief statement the re-establishment of a permanent navy and the introduction of the dromon as the point where the typically "Byzantine" navy takes over from the Late Roman one. Any suggestions however are welcome. Constantine ✍ 12:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the info box provide a third category like "changing alliance" or something? Alternatively, one could substitute the info on enemies and allies altogether by cats relating to the navy itself. Something like "Main ship" = "Dromon (type of galley)"; Crews = "lower-class free born men", "tactics" = "grappling, boarding, missile fire"; special weapon = "Greek fire", etc. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Not with one of the standard infoboxes, I'm afraid. We'd have to build one solely for this article. I am quite prepared to do it, but perhaps no infobox might be better. I am waiting for opinions on this. Constantine ✍ 12:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support. The overall composition and structure of the article, the subtle dialectic approach in describing and analyzing the chaging fortunes of the BN over a period of a millenium, the balanced views, and the broad basis of scholarship consulted, make a featured status for this piece of work well-deserved. A few minor points nonetheless
  • The article lacks illustrations both in terms of quality and quantity. Since the author had to contend with what Commons provides, and made the best use of it, this however should not detract from his work.
  • The right-hand box with Venice as "allies" irritates me. After all, Venice was instrumental in bringing down the empire and Constantinople in 1204. Similarly, another "ally" Genoa remained neutral in 1453 when it counted. I am aware that the box is only meant as a rough guide for the layman, but can't we do something about this black-white categorization? It does not seem fitting for an institution which could look back on a 1000 years of alliance and enemities.
  • The role of the ram is somewhat misleadingly perceived as a kind of lost wonder-weapon, whose lack somehow inhibited medieval Mediterranean warfare. However, the actual story is a bit more complicated. If I am not completely mistaken, the process by which the ram was abandoned was not like the story of a technology forgotten, but should rather conceived as a response to certain drawbacks, or the changing nature of naval warfare at the transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages. The article would win in stature if the transition from ancient ramming to medieval boarding and missile tactics can be more plausibly explained to the reader. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please see my reply to MinisterForBadTimes above for the latter two points. As for the first one, the dearth of good illustrations is sadly a fact. Constantine ✍ 10:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, I think that in terms of prose the article starts well, but deteriorates somewhat as the article progresses. A few examples:
  • "The Muslim advance in Asia Minor and the Aegean was halted, and a thirty-year truce concluded soon after." So the truce ended? Or the agreement to a truce concluded, and the truce began?
  • "... it is usually assumed that their naval efforts blended in with the existing Mediterranean maritime tradition ...". What does "blended in" mean? Seems a strange phrase in this context.
  • "... great care was shown to the navy". What does that mean?
  • "Muslim raids unfolded unceasingly". Seems very awkward. Do raids "unfold"?
    • Well, an attack or operation unfolds, so why not a raid? It is certainly less awkward than "raids were carried out unceasingly". Unless you have a better suggestion? Constantine ✍ 10:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "The Byzantines on the other hand were weakened by a series of catastrophic defeats against the Bulgars, followed in 820 by the revolt of Thomas the Slav, which carried along a large part of the Byzantine armed forces ...". What does "carried along mean"?
  • "the increasing fracturing" sounds wierd.
  • "During the course of the latter 9th and the 10th century ...". Latter ninth? Not sure what that's supposed to mean. Late-9th?
  • "The Empire's growing might was displayed in 942, when Emperor Romanos I sent a squadron which destroyed a fleet of Muslim corsairs from Fraxinetum with Greek fire." Sent the fleet where?
  • "... returned home after appearing off Acre due to the refusal of Count Philip of Flanders and many important nobles of the Kingdom of Jerusalem to help." Did they return home because of the refusal to help, or did they appear off Acre because of the refusal to help?

• In short, I think that the second-half of the article in particular still needs some copyediting to reach the level of prose required of an FA. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"blended in" was my humble addition today. Obviously, I am no native speaker, and I apologize for contributing to the presumed "deterioration" of the article. I will refrain from making further edits. However, I do think that the points you raised are in sum minor given the length of the article, and could be properly addressed, if the nominator is given sufficient time. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made only one point, which is that I think that the second half of the article needs to be thoroughly copyedited. I do not consider that to be "minor". What I listed above are simply a few examples of why I think that copyediting is required. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• I shall begin re-checking the prose now. I assume that by "second half" you mean the second half of the history section, no? Constantine ✍ 10:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• I mean the second half of the article, as I said. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Arab influences

Wandalstouring asked me to drop by with some further info from Nicolle ( Nicolle, David; (1996) Medieval Warfare Source Book: Christian Europe and its Neighbours, Brockhampton Press, ISBN 1860198619) regarding the transfer of maritime technology from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean. Rather than introducing yet another editor's ideas contribs into the equation, I'm just offering some quotes rather than editing the article itself. (I found some on rams, too, which seems to answer other questions raised above.)

David Nicolle quotes

(p.47)"Arabia had a far more important naval heritage than their initially cautious attitude to the Mediterranean might suggest. Pre-Islamic south Arabians had been raiding Sassanian coasts since the 4th century, and various other tribes from the Gulf and Red Sea regions also had a maritime tradition, the same peoples being selected as garrison troops for strategic coastal bases such as Alexandria following the Muslim conquest. [...on building the Muslim Med. fleet following Byzantine attempts on Egypt:] The bulk of the first marines were of Yemeni origin while Persian and Iraqi shipwrights were also brought from the Gulf to construct and man shipyards in Palestine and Lebanon. In fact it seems likely that Persian as well as Arab influence lay behind the spread of the triangular lateen sail from eastern seas to the Mediterranean. [...] From the 8th century onwards these new Muslim navies regularly raided the Byzantine-held islands of the western Med." (p.87) "By the mid 8th century [Arab] galleys were defending themselves against Byzantine Greek fire by using various systems of water-soaked cotton. But the Muslims' lack of timber may have stimulated a revival in the construction of very large ships; the economies of scale being at work. The change from hull-first to a more commercial frame-first construction had also been completed by the 11th century, together with the widespread use of lateen sails attributed to the Arabs as a result of Indian ocean influence. Stern sweep rudders were shown in 11th-century Islamic Mediterranean art, but only on small boats. A further wave of essentially Chinese maritime influence would, however, introduce the stern rudders to Islamic ships in the Indian Ocean, Gulf and Red Sea during the 11th century. Islamic and Byzantine Mediterranean warships were much the same, with a considerable exchange of technology and terminology. [...] The ship-breaking ram was finally ousted by the oar-breaking and boarding beak in the 10th century, perhaps as a result of the increasing value of ships resulting from a shortage of timber. " (p. 178)"During the 11th and 12th centuries most European galleys changed from the old alla sensile 'simple fashion' of having oars evenly spaced, usually at two levels, to the technique of grouping the oars on a single level supported by an outrigger. In this they were soon followed by Byzantine and Islamic fleets. On the other hand, Muslim shipbuilders were more advanced at building large merchant and transport ships with up to three masts."

Hope this helps the debate. I can look up further info if required. Regarding the rise of crossbows, Nicolle states that "During the 13th century armoured crossbowmen became a specialist marine elite". (p. 178). Do you need more than that? Wandalstouring also asked about high boarded ships - which I shall look into. Gwinva (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(p.47)Does Nicolle also gives his references? If Arab sailors were used in numbers in Med fleets from early on, there must certainly exist primary sources on which he relied.

As for the supposed introduction of the lateen by the Arabs into the Med, the use of both types of lateen already in Greco-Roman times has been long demonstrated by a number of authors (see, e.g., Campbell: The Lateen Sail in World History), with Lionel Casson leading the case. A selection:

• J. Sottas: An Early Lateen Sail in the Mediterranean, MM 25 (1939), 229-230
• H. H. Brindley, “Early Pictures of Lateen Sails,” The Mariner’s Mirror 12 (1926): 13
• Richard LeBaron Bowen, “The Earliest Lateen Sail,” The Mariner’s Mirror 42 (1956): 241-
• Lionel Casson, “Fore-and-Aft Sails in the Ancient World,” The Mariner’s Mirror 42 (1956): 3–5
• Richard LeBaron Bowen, “Fore-and-Aft Sails in the Ancient World,” The Mariner’s Mirror 43 (1957): 160–64
• Lucien Basch, “The Way to the Lateen Sail,” The Mariner’s Mirror 75 (1989): 328–32
• G. Percival Kaeyl, “The Lateen Sail,” The Mariner’s Mirror 42 (1956): 154

and many more

(p.87)His claim on the Chinese transmission, seems to be based on conjectures by Joseph Needham, which have been in my view convincingly refuted by Lawrence V. Mott, The Development of the Rudder, A.D. 100-1337: A Technological Tale, Thesis May 1991, Texas A&M University, p.92f.. Mott points out that the very idea of mounting a rudder was far from new in the Med, and that the technological differences between the Arab and the Chinese rudder were too fundamental to asssume a transmission process:

Mott quotes

It has been argued by Needham (1971:651-52) that the concept of mounting the rudder on the stern came from China and was transmitted to the Arabs by Chinese sailors...With regards to the transmission of the sternpost-mounted rudder to the Indian Ocean, while the concept of mounting the rudder on the stern may have come from Chinese traders, it was so modified and changed that it hardly resembles its origins except in the grossest sense. As noted by Needham (1971:653), Chinese vessels did not have a sternpost to which the rudder could be attached. Instead, it was suspended and held in place by an elaborate system of tackle. The idea of attaching the rudder to the sternpost in a relatively permanent fashion, therefore, must have been an Arab invention independent of the Chinese. Also, whereas the Chinese used tillers, Arab vessels used lines to control the rudder and did not adopt the tiller until the arrival of the Portuguese (Bowen, 1963:304; Ministry of Info, of Oman, 1981:112). This raises the question as to why the Arab sailors did not adopt the more effective tiller and yet borrowed the idea of a stern-mounted rudder. The above shows that the only actual concept which can be claimed to have been transmitted from the Chinese is the idea of a stern-mounted rudder, and not its method of attachment nor the manner in which it was controlled. Since that idea of putting a rudder on the stern can be traced back to the models found in Egyptian tombs, the need to have the concept brought into the Middle East is questionable at best. There is no evidence to support the contention that the sternpost-mounted rudder came from China, and no need to call on exterior sources for its introduction into the Mediterranean.

"During the 13th century armoured crossbowmen became a specialist marine elite". Is he referring to Byzantine, Muslim or Latin crossbowmen? There is strong evidence that the crossbow was introduced by the crusaders into the Levant, since Anna Komnena called the weapon new in 1098, while Arabs chroniclers named it henceforth "Frankish bow". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicolle says that the Muslim did also employed it and had a special arrow clip. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• A couple of points: contemporary historical texts clearly mention that in many cases, Arab navies were manned by Copts and other Christians. The Muslim navy in Carthage was built by Coptic shipwrights, and a large part of the crews sent to the sieges of Constantinople defected because they were Christians. Now, I also find it hard to believe that Persian and Iraqi shipwrights were needed to construct "shipyards in Palestine and Lebanon" from scratch, as is implied. This region had a naval tradition stretching back to pre-history, and had a great number of harbor cities. Persian and Iraqi shipwrights may have been relocated there, but I seriously doubt they provided the core of the Arab naval build-up. As for crossbows, the Byzantines may have already had crossbows in the 10th century: there is mention of cheirotoxobolistrai in the Cretan expeditions, but opinion is divided on whether these were deck-mounted ballistae drawn by hand (John Haldon), or crossbows carried by hand. George Dennis and Pryor are of the latter opinion. The new crossbows (tzangra) mentioned by Anna Komnene may have been of a different design and possibly more powerful, or, alternatively, the use of the earlier crossbows could have been discontinued. Constantine ✍ 10:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• From reading the excerpts from Nicolle graciously provided by Gwinva, I really don't see any major problems. He clearly states that "Islamic and Byzantine Mediterranean warships were much the same, with a considerable exchange of technology and terminology.", which is all we need in the present article. Anything more and this article will be derailed. We are not debating the exact nature of medieval Arab warships, or where each and every piece of nautical technology came from, but general outlines so that the correlation between the Arab and Byzantine navies is better understood. I have incorporated Nicolle's references to the section (including the one on Persian shipwrights, presumably he is basing it on primary sources), which ought to be OK now. Constantine ✍ 13:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, issue solved about the exchange of technology and who manned the Muslim ships(there were Yemeni settlements in the Levant that contributed marines, but that should be a minor issue here). Gunpowder Ma has contributed some sources about the introduction of the lateen sail. That ought to be incorporated because more large masts usually demand a different construction of the ship's frame and rigging. Also, the lateen sails enabled better cruising. This change seems to appear in the Late Roman/Early Byzantine navy. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree, preferably this should be added right after the newly-added section on the abandonment of the ram. If anyone is willing to contribute to that, he's welcome! Constantine ✍ 15:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma and I have added some info on the lateen sail and its origin. I have also added some more info on the late navy (Nicaean period, and negative aspects of the Komnenian reforms) as well as expanding the lead per MinisterForBadTimes' suggestions and making several copyedits. I invite the reviewers to re-check the article (esp. Malleus for prose), and also to offer their opinion on the issue of retaining the infobox or not. Best regards to all, Constantine ✍ 22:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support The page addresses an important subject on which there is relatively little scholarly comment available. What little is available is often sketchy and widely dispersed within books whose main concern is not the Byzantine navy. The most relevant sources are indeed referenced, in particular the Conway book on galley evolution and 'The Age of the Dromon.'

With regard to the above-the-waterline spur replacing the ram, I believe that there is some belief that it was intended for use as a 'boarding bridge' (see: Medieval Naval Warfare, 1000-1500 By Susan Rose, p. 132 and Renaissance War Galley 1470-1590 By Angus Konstam, p.8). This makes considerable sense when the difficulties of broadside to broadside boarding between vessels with rows of projecting oars is recognised.

The subject of the article is of considerable scope, particularly chronologically, and it covers it admirably. I don't think there is as fine a single-article treatment of the Byzantine navy available anywhere else, in any medium. I would reiterate my strong support for the 'elevation' of this article.Urselius (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Image concerns as follows:

• File:Saracen fleet against Crete.jpg and File:Reconquest of Crete.jpg — the links are no longer correct.

• File:ByzantineEmpire717+extrainfo+themes.PNG — was this created by translating the information/maps gathered in the book onto a public domain base map? If not, please do so, as a direct copy of the maps would be copyviolations.

The map is not directly copied from the book. I happen to think the map, and the original it was taken from, is remarkably inaccurate in its depiction of Byzantine Thrace (the Byzantines controlled Adrianople, Philipoppolis, Serdica (mod. Sofia) etc. at the time, but this has no bearing on its copyright.Urselius (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

After checking the source through Google Books, I agree. The maps in the book are more detailed and focus on the eastern Mediterranean. It is reasonable to say that the author likely created the base map from scratch or memory, adding the information from the book (which are accurate or not). Anyway, this is struck. Now if someone can re-locate the sources of the two images above, we can clear the image concerns. Jappalang (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Image sources re-linked directly to the files. Constantine ✍ 14:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please link to the page that is hosting the image, not directly to the file. The direct links to the file can be appended to the page, e.g. "[link to site] (specifically [link to file])". Jappalang (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'd done before, but the site doesn't allow direct linking: if you try to input the link directly, it always redirects back to the main page (e.g. [2] for the Byz. reconquest image and [3] for the Arab fleet. I have expanded the source info with a more detailed pat,h, so that their origin is verifiable, however. Constantine ✍ 18:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That is great, thank you for providing the path. Jappalang (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I tidied up the other images (licenses, rationales, etc), so they should be fine. Resolving the above should settle the image issues. Jappalang (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

All image issues resolved. Jappalang (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Well written, well referenced, illustration issues have been fixed. What is there not to like? Only issue a few redlinks such as Vitalian, Damian of Tyre and pavesade. I don't like redlinks and in any case they should be eliminated from an FA article. Aside from that I'm sold. Dr.K. logos 02:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• MOS cleanup; please see WP:MSH regarding the use of "the" in section headings. Please review WP:MOSDATE and WP:DASH and review throughout; when date elements have spaces, the endash is spaced, when the surrounding date elements are unspaced, the endash is unspaced. Also, quotes need to be corrected throughout: per WP:ITALICS, quotes are not italicized. I also found incorrect bolding, pls review for WP:MOSBOLD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, the italicised quotes were my fault! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments (Disclaimer: I was asked to help copy-edit by Constantine)
  • In the lead section there's an ambiguous their (noted in an embedded comment). Although it quite likely refers to the Byzantine Empire, it could be interpreted to mean Venice/Genoa.
  • In section "6th century…", 2nd paragraph, sentence beginning In 535, the Gothic War began by a double-pronged Byzantine offensive…, what were the two prongs? Also, wars are generally started by someone; perhaps it might be better if it read In 535, the Gothic War began with a double-pronged…
  • Same section, 3rd paragraph begins with this sentence fragment: In 541 however, the new Ostrogoth Byzantines.
  • During the 640s, the Muslim conquest of Syria and Egypt created a new threat. To whom were they a threat?
  • The sentence beginning The Byzantines followed this up with the destruction of the North African flotillas… should probably be split into two sentences.
  • The sentence beginning This "Byzantine Reconquest" was overseen by the able sovereigns… is uncited.
  • I got lost in this sentence: Continuing the policies of his predecessor, Michael III (842–867), he showed great care to the fleet, and as a result, successive victories followed: in 867, a fleet under the droungarios tou plōïmou Niketas Ooryphas relieved Dalmatia from Arab attacks and reestablished Byzantine presence in the area,[63] while a few years later, he twice heavily defeated the Cretan pirates,[64] temporarily securing the Aegean.[54]. It should be split into two (or more) sentences to make the meaning easier to follow.
  • Who is saying the quoted material that begins Byzantium's lack of a navy [...] meant that Venice could…? It just appears and is not attributed to anyone. The same goes for the extended quote in the section "Naval strategy, logistics and tactics" farther down in the article.
  • Another really long sentence that should be split: The fleet under John Doukas was subsequently used to suppress revolts in Crete and Cyprus,[16] and with the aid of the Crusaders, Alexios was able to regain the coasts of Western Anatolia and expand his influence eastwards: in 1104, a Byzantine squadron of 10 ships captured Laodicea and other coastal towns as far as Tripoli.[17]
  • In the section "Naval themes", each of the first three themes is introduced by its name in bold type, followed by a period, then a sentence beginning "It was…". Integrate the names and incorporate some variation in these descriptions, much like what is done for the other themes appearing below these.
  • In the section "Dromon and its derivatives", bold type is used for emphasis, counter to MOS:BOLD.

— Bellhalla (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help! I have gone through the list and addressed your concerns. Is there anything else you would like to remark on, aside from MOS issues? Regards, Constantine ✍ 23:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Happy to return to Wikipedia reading such a great article. Comments:

• The article is long, and I am not sure if the use of WP:SS is always the recommended one. For instance, is Byzantium under the Isaurians far more analytic than the section "Byzantine counter-offensive", in terms of a main article–summary relation? Anyway, comprehensiveness is above length, and sometimes choices in this field are subjective.
• History is replete with instances where galley fleets were sunk by bad weather". Such broad remarks make the reading more enjoyable, but, at the same time, I always fell my leaps asking "such as?"! Again, a somehow subjective comment related to the continuously unanswered question about how exactly we want an encyclopedis article written.
• Minor minor issue, but if Basch in your references is also in french, you should indicate that as you do with your first source.

Well-written, excellent research and referencing, nice use of quotes, images, captions. Comprenensive definitely! I am a little concerned about the length and SS issue, but I'll support this great article. I read it once, but I'll do it again, and if I find some issues I ommitted in my first reading, I'll come back here with further comments.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Yannis! It is a great pleasure to see you back! The third point has been addressed, and as for the second, I have added a reference to the massive Roman losses during the First Punic War. On your first concern, sadly, there are several such instances: the dromon article is much shorter than the current section in this article. Hopefully however, these articles will be expanded to justify their inclusion. Thanks for your support, and once again, welcome back! Constantine ✍ 12:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 18:40, 8 November 2008 [4].

---

Roman Catholic Church

Nominator(s): NancyHeise ^talk

This article has seen substantial improvement over the past three months. New scholarly sources were added as well as two new sections and an article trim - all in response to concerns from the last FAC. It received a thorough Peer Review with the help of several veteran Wikipedia editors. Over 54 editors, including many non-Catholics, were invited to come give comments during this last peer review. I feel this article is ready now to be listed as Featured and I invite you to offer your comments on the matter here. Thank you for your time and attention. NancyHeise ^talk 00:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Because of the size of this page, commentary has continued on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive5. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Although size will always be problematic, this is one of the largest and oldest institutions in the world and will probably have some of the largest issues and resources relating to it. So, yeah, it can't be helped. Content seems to be rather complete based on consensus. Formatting seems to be right based on consensus. Consensus has agreed to most of the stuff involved. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support as per previous FAC. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support as per previous FAC. This is an article I have watchlisted for sometime now, and have followed its development closely; and I have been dismayed by the hoops set by various reviewers who want ir to be all things to all people. Frankly I though the last FAC was a disgrace, and not because of the nominator. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. This is a comprehensive and very informative article on an organisation which has had a significant impact on Western civilisation. Given the size constraints imposed by wikipedia it will never be able to satisfy everyone, but I think it well deserves to be ranked among wikipedia's best articles. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support this is what FA's are supposed to look and be like. The current amount of them which fail the criteria is daunting. This article covers all relevant aspects in a great manner, and pretty much references every statement. As one of the dominant religions in the world, it's something that I and others can easily relate to. Well done. I just had one quick question: Could/Should the history section be at the beginning of the article, not half-way through? Domiy (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats not good reasoning Domiy. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't fret too much. It seems clear that he is supporting over "look and be like" and not the rest. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 'Referencing' and 'Coverage' (my own terms) part of the FA criteria? I'm pretty sure it is, so supporting an article because it covers those two especially well is indeed good reasoning. Need I start on my already raised discussions on how it's clear that some FA's are based on preference? If I was going for the "Look and be like" act then I would have supported and put 'as per previous comments by others' after such. I didn't do that did I? I supported for my own reasons, both personal and criteria-wise (more of the latter). Please read the comments carefully before making your own comments. It's not a rule on Wikipedia, it's a rule of life, one which is kind of hard-and dangerous-to fail. Domiy (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Domiy, I am so very much not going to argue with anyone's support vote! NancyHeise ^talk 13:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Image comment - I don't feel Image:Das Schwarze Korps Eugenio Pacelli Judenfreund Feind des Nationalsozialismus.jpg is warranted per WP:NFCC#8, and thus the article fails FA criteria 3, otherwise images checkout fine. This is a hugely difficult article to meet FAC#4, because of the age and scope of the subject, dont feel down-hearted if it doent pass. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the criterion 8 issue, which is certainly arguable, I would query the non-free nature of this image, which comes from an SS newspaper in 1937. Intellectual property rights of Nazi party material are greatly complicated by the war booty legislation of several countries passed after WW2, when the normal copyrights were abrogated. Generally this material is Government-released to PD in the US, and any remaining copyrights are held by the state in Germany and the UK. So this should be PD in US terms at least, if the scan was made from a US copy. I'm not sure how the terms (length) work in UK & Germany. I'm pretty sure the image status has not been assessed with this in mind. Has this issue come up before on Commons etc? Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a possibility it is PD, but you are correct it is complicated. If it is to be used as PD, the onus is on the person to changing the licence to prove it. Fasach Nua (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the image was very necessary since Pius XII has presently been called "Hitler's Pope" which would have been a surprise to the people of that age who felt differently according to the scholars whose works I read on the subject before creating the paragraph. The image grabs the reader, makes the page interesting and conveys a message that words cannot begin to approach, most notably by exposing the ugly racism of the Nazi regime. I have asked a veteran Wikipedia image expert to come and offer her comments in this matter so maybe that will help resolve the issue here. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 13:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OPPOSE - I don't believe that the image "conveys a message that words cannot begin to approach", and therefore I oppose promotion, failure to meet featured article criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The correct criterion is "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Where does "conveys a message that words cannot begin to approach" come from? It sounds like ad copy for perfume or something. Johnbod (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This comes from NFCC#1, "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" Fasach Nua (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't "come from" there at all - it is a wild extension of anything said in the policy. Please don't misquote. How many words do you think would be needed to convey the impact of the picture at all adequately? But in any case, German newspaper images seem to have a copyright term of 50 years, so it should be free. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the above opposition on the grounds that the image does indeed convey a unique message. The entire feature of the image is that it is an original poster, which conveys the point of view and overall significance of the issues of Nazi's during WWII. It is clearly not specifically replaceable and serves an important purpose. Fasach Nua, Wikipedia always needs a reviewer who cracks down on a certain issue at hand. Yours is the issue of images, and I'm sure your work is appreciated. However, please learn to grant slight leniency in more cases and accept that you can be wrong at times, so you don't always have the right to control FAC's the way you want simply over one issue. This article gains support for following the majority of the criteria, opposing on the grounds of an issue which is not even certain or actually going against the criteria is not actionable.Domiy (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Meeting "the majority of the criteria" is not grounds for promotion, meeting the criteria is the only grounds for promotion, and if the article fails criteria 3, then it fails the criteria for promotion. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The image was vetted by the last FAC process where it was approved by an experienced editor that SandyGeorgia asked to come to the page and go over the images for us. It has also passed through the extensive peer review and article trim since the last FAC. A consensus of editors approves of its use. NancyHeise ^talk 16:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of previous image clearance, but I may have missed it in the 1100 KB or previous FACs: please provide a specific diff indicating image clearance on that specific image. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Might refer to [5] Gimmetrow 05:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is wrapped up in policy such as WP:NFCC, not the opinion of a small group of editors in one particular place at one particular time. I have registered my oppose above, as the article fails to meet featured article criteria three. Fasach Nua (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Fasach Nua. Im sorry we can not make everyone happy here. There are some people who wanted certain content or images that were overruled by consensus. I wanted some things in the article that were eventually chopped and I also had to submit to consensus. Please understand that we all have certain points of view and that Wikipedia rules do apply here to help an article reflect consensus. That image has overwhelming support for inclusion in the article.NancyHeise ^talk 15:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Because other editors objected to this image too, I eliminated it and replaced it with a public domian image.NancyHeise ^talk 05:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed the sourcing at the PR and it is better. Meets the standards. I spot checked some of the sourced statements against the sources, and all are as accurate as can be when you are paraphrasing. I read through the whole article and made a huge pile of suggestions, which were implemented when they did not conflict with other reviewers. The article is within hailing distance of being a decent size, it's cut almost 3000 words in the PR. No article on this subject is going to please everyone, but it's vastly improved since the first time it came to FAC, and I have no hesitations supporting. It goes without saying the sources seem fine, and the links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, just to be picky:

in Catholic institutions, personnel and demographics, I don't understand what is meant by "women religious" in the sentence "The Church in Asia is a significant minority among other religions yet its vibrance is evidenced by the large proportion of women religious, priests and parishes to total Catholic population"

in Late Medieval and Renaissance, en-dashes are used in "anti–Catholic" and "Counter–Reformation", which should be hyphenated.--Grahame (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Your dictionary should help, although this should be made clearer for those unfamiliar with the term. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Grahamec, good comments here. I changed "women religious" to "religious sisters" to make this clearer and I eliminated the ndashes replacing them with hyphens. Thanks for your time and attention. NancyHeise ^talk 15:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Wow! This is an amazing piece of work. Dincher (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support – per last time. A dramatic improvement and the trim was certainly worthwhile. Caulde 20:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment in the section Ordained members and Holy Orders there is a reference to priests and bishops conducting "wake and funeral services" I've only been to one Catholic funeral, but I thought the wake was a less formal matter conducted in the pub rather than the church, would memorial or remembrance be less ambiguous? ϢereSpielChequers 22:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi WereSpielChequers, thanks for the inquiry. Yes, "wake and funeral services" is correct as it is the term used by the reference (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) to which the sentence is cited. I'll reproduce it for you here so you can see for yourself [6]. NancyHeise ^talk 22:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this, but it reads oddly to me too. In the UK & Ireland the wake is either or both of a party held at the home or a pub before or after the funeral, or a viewing of the body, not a service. Better restrict it to the usual term & just say funeral. Wake (ceremony) is not much use. Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nancy, I can't argue with that! However I have a new query in the section Roman Catholic Church#Catholic institutions, personnel and demographics is the phrase "The Church in Asia is a significant minority among other religions", I think I can see why the Church might put it that way, but should we? ϢereSpielChequers 23:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have simplified "wake and funeral services" to read just "funeral services" per your and Johnbod's comments here. I don't think it really changes the accuracy of the statement all that much since a wake could be considered a type of funeral service. Regarding the Church in Asia sentence, that is referenced to the Froehle book on Church statistics produced by the same source used by all major newspapers when citing Church statistics. I am not sure what you are suggesting here. Do you prefer to have it reworded? I am open to suggestions but I can't really think of a better way to say it myself, I welcome your ideas here. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 00:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ideally it needs a percentage of Asians who are Catholic, or if stats are available the Catholic church is the xth largest religion in Asia after Hinduism, Shia Islam etc etc. The current sentence reads like a church version of events rather than an independent view. That said I'm not convinced it is sensible to summarise the religion of a continent in that way... Perhaps an atlas of human geography would be worth looking at? ϢereSpielChequers 17:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added a percentage of Asians, good comment. I think you were maybe trying to say that the paragraph looked like a POV? That was not our intention, I thought it was "brilliantly" worded but I see I have failed to impress! :) I changed the paragraph somewhat and it now reads : "The Church in Asia is a significant minority among other religions comprising only 3% of all Asians, yet its vibrance is evidenced by the large proportion of religious sisters, priests and parishes to total Catholic population.[174] From 1975–2000, total Asian population grew by 61% with an Asian Catholic population increase of 104%.[178] Challenges faced include oppression in communist countries like North Korea and China.[179]" Does it still look POVish to you or have we reached "brilliant" yet? NancyHeise ^talk 16:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's much better thanks, I'm happy to concede "Brilliant" as in my eyes this is one of if not the best of the dozens of FA candidates that I've read, but I'm sticking with comment as I'm not sure if I yet feel qualified to vote on FAs. I've added two other links to the Mexican and Chinese bits though neither is an era I know much of so there may be a better link available. Two somewhat contentious areas that this covers are sex abuse and nineteenth century anti clericalism. In the sex abuse section I've mainly heard about things in a British and Irish context so was interested to hear that it was even bigger in the US, but I was wondering if allegations was the right word to use? Since some of these cases have resulted in jail sentences is there a risk that using the word allegations would imply that there is some doubt as to whether these incidents happened? Also in the nineteenth century bit it seems to concentrate on the episodes where the church lost power, without balancing this with processes like Catholic Emancipation in Protestant countries such as the British isles where the same ideology of separation of church and state meant repealing anti Catholic legislation (though this gets a brief nonchronological mention in Roman Catholic Church#Late Medieval and Renaissance). Also the Religious wars seem to end at circa 1700 rather than covering more modern religious wars such the Swiss civil war and the recent Bosnian War. ϢereSpielChequers 11:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with the links and your valuable comments. Regarding the sex abuse allegations, it is the right word to use because not every instance of sex abuse resulted in a lawsuit - some people just told the media or the bishop and the article text reflects the wording used by the sources. I did have a whole sentence that stated that many priests were defrocked, convicted or went to jail. That sentence was chopped in the article trim which was an effort by several editors, including non-Catholics who worked together to try to get the article size down to a reasonable kB. Evidently it was difficult or impossible for those with dialups to open the page until we cut the size. We even lost a lot of pictures in the process. The sex abuse section is wikilinked and consensus felt that it was sufficient to allow Reader to go read all the details of that issue. It received the same treatment as all other controversies in accordance with WP:Summary style. I also wikilinked Catholic emancipation in the Renaissance section per your comment here and the French Revolution is followed by info about Napolean re-establishing the Catholic church with wikilink to Concordat of 1801. Re: the Swiss civil war and the Bosnian war, these were conflicts in which the Church was not involved. If our scholarly sources mentioned an event, we gave creedence to that. Likewise, if something is not mentioned in these works, we consider that an indication that we should not either. We followed the lead on what to include or not based on our sources and, in the case of the sex abuse scandals and the Pius XII scandal, on how much media coverage attended the issues.NancyHeise ^talk 15:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, Scandals would be shorter than allegations and covers the issue of not all accused having been found guilty. The problem I have with allegations is that when combined with the idea of innocent until proven guilty it would imply to me a very different response than I understand the church and the courts to have taken. As for the nineteenth and twentieth century religious wars, I'm not sure I follow the logic as to which are included or omitted. If we are focusing on the Church as an institution then the two most important wars of the last 150 years would be the Risorgimento in which the church lost the Papal states on the Adriatic coast and then the Italian invasion after the withdrawal of the French Garrison during the Franco-Prussian war which cost the Pope all the remaining papal territories except for the Vatican itself. However I think that could be covered in a single sentence "Between 1860 and 1871 as a consequence of Italian unification the Pope lost all the Papal territories in Italy except for the Vatican city state. If we are covering wars in which Religion is a major motivation then I fail to see why the Mexican war in included in some detail but the examples that I gave are omitted, and especially I'm concerned at the way the Spanish Civil war is covered, that reads almost as if it was an anticlerical war rather than Fascist Coup against a coalition of regionalists, Basque nationalists, Socialists, Liberals, Anarchists and Communists (Beevor makes the point that in the Basque region at least the Catholic Church was on the side of Democracy). Also there is a sentence that seems to lump secularist and Marxist regimes together as negative to the church. While the Marxist regimes were certainly negative about religions there have been many countries with Catholic minorities where Secularism and its emphasis on Religious Freedom have been very positive for Catholicism - India being the most obvious example. ϢereSpielChequers 18:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Italian remarks are rather confusing the RCC with the Papacy (not the only ones on this page to do so) - obviously losing the Papal States made a big difference to the latter, but very little to the former, unlike wars which affected the ability of ordinary Catholics to practise their faith in various parts of the world. This is an odd time to be trumpeting the religious freedom of India, given the Anti-Christian violence in Karnataka of the last few weeks! Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod. As I said India is an obvious example of where secularism and religious freedom for all has been more positive for Catholics where they are a religious minority. Your example Anti-Christian violence in Karnataka is about the treatment of Christians under a Hindu Nationalist BJP government. ϢereSpielChequers 20:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the "Centre", as Indians like to call it, seems powerless to do stop it. Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

But the article singles out secularists and Marxists, not fundamentalists of other faiths such as the Hindu extremists in your example and Muslims in some other countries. ϢereSpielChequers 14:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again WereSpielChequers - I am assuming that my spelling is all correct if you are only commenting on content? :) Seriously, I appreciate your comments. I went back and looked up your issues in my best scholarly works and the Mexican war is included and your examples are omitted, sorry, I don't write this stuff, I am just putting facts on the page! The source also mentioned "Marxist and secularist" regimes - I would have been happy with just "marxist" but I have to be true to the source. The Spanish civil war is noted in great detail for its specific crimes against the Catholic Church and the murder of large numbers of innnocent priests and nuns simply because they represented conservatism - this was from a source written by a non-Catholic (but that shouldnt matter and doesnt per Wikipedia policy). I think your comment about the papal states is on target and I added information in the history section about its creation (see Early Middle Ages, third para) and loss (see Industrial Age, first para). Thanks for your time and attention. NancyHeise ^talk 06:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nancy, thanks for adding the bit about the Papal states, though I've changed if from late to mid century as the main events were in 1848, 61 and 70. But I must say I still find the article strange about the links between Fascism and Catholicism, it admits the links with Franco and peace with Mussolini whilst portraying the Church as against Hitler, and omitting his Catholic support from Zentrum. ϢereSpielChequers 14:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks WereSpielChequers, yes we omitted all mentions of Catholic political parties because they are not part of the Church. In Latin America, there are Liberation Theologists who support one political party over another, in the US there are both Catholic Democrats and Catholic Republicans, each with their own views on issues, and in other countries throughout the ages there have been Catholic people doing both good and despicable things. We have only tried to keep mention of the most notable events in history and the ones that directly relate to Catholic Church involvement. The history of the Church is such a vast subject it is necessary for us to use daughter articles to fully complete the picture. This article is meant to be a top article for this category which will enable Reader to find links to all these daughter articles that elaborate on each particular subject in greater detail. This is in keeping with WP:summary style FAC requires us to mention all notable controversies of which the Church's role in WWII is one of. NancyHeise ^talk 15:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nancy, I appreciate that where the Church is neutral between parties and has members across parties as in England and your example of the US then it would be unnecessary to refer to this in the article. However there have been many countries where the Church has been clearly associated with a particular party or parties; and in some cases where senior figures in the church have endorsed particular parties rather than try to work across the Political spectrum - Most of Europe's Christian Democrat parties have a specifically Roman Catholic origin rather than a general Christian one, and they have had a huge impact on twentieth century history. Specifically it would balance the mentions of the Pope's response to Hitler to mention how Hitler came to power through a coalition with Zentrum which gave his coalition the Roman Catholic vote. ϢereSpielChequers 11:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! I searched to find a source to reference for the Hitler coming to power suggestion but I found this which directly contradicts what you are suggesting. [7]. This is a Cambridge University Press book. I have to note also that this is not a notable controversy if there are some people suggesting that the Catholic Church Institution helped bring Hitler to power because I can't find any scholarly sources to back it up. In the United States, we have Catholic Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator John Kerry, and many more who are staunch abortion supporters who receive a lot of campaign contributions from the country's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. I can't put things in the article like "Catholics helped advance pro-abortion laws" just because some Catholics really do that. There has to be a definite link with the Church. That is why we don't have political parties in the article. We need official declarations from the top and the issue has to be notable for it to merit inclusion. Otherwise we have to put every person's personal opinion about what happened. Some people blame the financial meltdown on George Bush here in the US. Some people are blaming it on Obama and the Democrats. Depending on who you are talking to, you are going to get a different story. I think what you are asking for is not going to improve the article ans will cause us to have to add unnecessary article length that we do not have to spare giving vent to both sides of an unnotable issue. NancyHeise ^talk 17:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That the Christian Democrats in, for example, Germany and the Netherlands relate more closely to Catholicism than Protestantism is a highly questionable assertion; they are mostly very careful to avoid any such leaning. In Germany another party, the CSU is more explicitly Catholic than the Christian Democratic Union (Germany), especially so since reunification, when the CDU joined with the mainly Protestant Eastern party. Of course in Italy things are a little different, and Vatican support for the CD, especially just after the war, could be demonstrated. Solidarity in Poland - for a period - would be another case. Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The CSU is a classic example of my point. In some countries - though not England or the USA the Roman Catholic Church is not Politically neutral but has parties that in endorses. This may be a declining phenomenon but it is an important one and in my view deserves a mention, especially in twentieth century history. As for Zentrum's role in Hitler's coming to power, its almost thirty years since I studied that era so I don't have my school text books. But Hitler's rise to power#Seizure of control (1931 - 1933) covers it as I remember studying it:

"On 30 January 1933 Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of a coalition government of the NSDAP-DNVP-Centre Party." So the Catholic Zentrum was part of the coalition that put Hitler into power. ϢereSpielChequers 18:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Was this a political party that was created by or sanctioned by the Church? No. Were only Catholics members of the party? No. It is inappropriate to include this in the article because it is the actions of individuals who were not acting as representatives following the directives of the Church. NancyHeise ^talk 05:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually yes this and many other parties were created by or sanctioned by the Church, and while today's CDU is interdenominationally Christian, almost all the Politicians elected as members of Zentrum were Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church's involvement in Politics is a long and complex story and varies wildly from country to country, but it is important enough that in my view it should be mentioned within the article this book covers Germany and some of its neighbours ; and as a matter of balance, if the subject of Hitler is to be covered in the article then the role of Zentrum in the coalition that put him in power is part of that story Spartacus School net . As for the influence that the Church had on Zentrum in the 1930s well "The party dissolved itself on 5 July 1933 as a condition of the conclusion of a Concordat between the Holy See and Germany." ϢereSpielChequers 10:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no scholarship that says the Center Party was founded by the Church, or that the Vatican was responsible for Hitler's rise to power, I have been searching for an hour to find a source so I can include your concerns but it appears to me that your view is a POV that is not shared by scholars. It seems that the consensus is that Hitler's rise to power was a combination of many factors and it would be highly POV to state in the article text that the Church was responsible. Please read pages 445-449 in this [8] and [9]. I did find your arguement in a book called "Could It Really Happen? by Marvin Moore that was cited zero times on Googlescholar and was not listed as a reference anywhere when I searched regular google. NancyHeise ^talk 16:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nancy, I'm not trying to say something as simple as the Church put Hitler into power, I'm suggesting that the relationship between Catholicism and Fascism is more complex than the article portrays. I realise that is a painful issue for the Church, but I don't feel that section is currently neutral. I also think that the phenomenon of Catholicism in Politics, whilst it has certainly declined in recent years is important enough to merit a mention in the article. ϢereSpielChequers 09:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers, I fear you are very selectively quoting the historical background with respect to Catholicism and Nazism in Germany. In fact in the 1933 election the principal areas where the Nazi vote was LOWEST were the areas with the highest Catholic populations. The Nazi vote piled up in the Protestant regions of Germany. The Catholic Church was the church which resisted Nazi policies and principles the loudest and longest of any major group. These are facts. The coalition that brought Hitler to power was an emergency coalition after the 1933 election had created a situation where Hitler and the Nationalists had a Reichstag majority even if the Centre Party had allied with the Socialists and Communists. It fell apart in months as Hitler refused to be controlled or limited, and the Centre Party was dissolved along with the Socialists and Communists. In other words, as Nancy says, your claims are not borne out by the facts or by scholarly opinion. Such material does not appear in other major Encyclopedias under articles on the Catholic Church, and without mainstream scholarly support your objection to the non-inclusion of this POV is not valid. Xandar 22:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Further questions Reading the final judgment and afterlife section, I wanted to ask a few additional questions. In Marria Simma's book "Get us out of here", she states that souls often judge themselves after death. Instead of being sent by Jesus to purgatory or hell, they rather make the decision for themselves. Those who believe in God strongly and did follow in his command in earthly life automatically know they should go to Heaven, and hence are sent there. Poor souls in Purgatory are similar. Although they were followers of God, they did sin excessively throughout their life and hence do not feel that they are worthy enough of Heaven just yet, so they decide for themselves to be purified in purgatory. Those who go to hell are completely lost in faith and never believed in God and deliberately went against him throughout life. They go to Hell themselves as they would like to continue their evil ways and surroundings. It's all in the book I stated, I just don't remember the page number (Oops!). Additionally, how come the article doesn't include anything about apparitions? They indeed do have relevance to the Catholic church as they must be passed by it to be considered true. And there have been a fair number of them throughout recent history. Maria Simma again actually spoke to the souls in Purgatory, and this is a fundamental belief in the church. The same goes for the ongoing decisions regarding the apparitions of the Virgin Mary in Medjugorje, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Why have you not at least mentioned the process for this? Domiy (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be an idea similar to Contrapasso. However, there is nothing on the Catechism or in Aquinas that really supports the above. It would also deny the power of prayer in saving the departed. I would like a link to where the Catholic Church has reviewed the work and approved of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your inquiry Domiy, first, the final judgement and afterlife section, like all of the Beliefs sections, is referenced only to books that have officially been declared by the Catholic Church to be free of doctrinal or moral error. This stamp of approval, the Nihil obstat and imprimatur, can be found on the same page that has all of the book's publishing information like the copyright, publisher and ISBN. We felt that in creating an encyclopedia page, it was necessary to use only these kinds of books since it would have been very easy to find zillions of sources about Catholic belief that do not contain them. For example, Hans Kung, the famous Catholic theologian has written several books on Catholic belief but not everyone knows that he is a theologian who has been banned by the Church. Someone in the last FAC wanted me to include his works in the creation of the Beliefs section and we could not reasonably accommodate that request without running the risk of creating a beliefs section that was incorrect according to official Catholic doctrine. The book you suggested by Marria Simma does not have this official stamp of approval. Apparitions is a subject that has not been suggested to include in the article until your comment just now. I agree that this is part of the Catholic faith and I am open to including a sentence or two on the subject. However, some might say it violates summary style since we already have links to Lourdes, Fatima, and Roman Catholic Mariology as well as a whole paragraph on Mary in the Prayer and worship section. What do others here want to see, I'd like a consensus either for or against. Do we think the links are enough or do we need a sentence? NancyHeise ^talk 00:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I reworded the pilgrimage sentence at the end of the section on Mary and the Saints in the Prayer and Worship section of the article. It now reads "The Church has affirmed the validity of Marian apparitions such as those at Lourdes, Fatima and Guadalupe[121] while others such as Međugorje are still under investigation. Affirmed or not, however, pilgrimages to these places are popular Catholic devotions.[122] " I added a new reference to the Dr. Alan Schreck book as well as wikilinks to Marian apparitions and Medugorje. The link to Marian apparitions goes into great detail about how the Church decides what is valid and what is not. NancyHeise ^talk 01:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellently Done. You've pretty much hit the nail right on the head there. Although, it may be a little lose (lol). Perhaps you could very quickly be specific about what exactly people have had apparitions of. We certainly don't want to make mistakes to people as they may think apparitions can refer to people actually seeing God. Marian apparition does specifically refer to seeing the Virgin Mary, perhaps you could make this a tiny spot clearer for non-Catholics or others who are less knowledged. I know it appears immediately in the wikilinked article, but I'm not a big fan of taking this way out and expecting the reader to go to other articles to find out what something is. Since this is going/attempting to be a featured article, you should be as broad as possible and not rely too heavily on other articles. Domiy (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, good comment, the sentence now reads "The Church has affirmed the validity of Marian apparitions (supernatural experiences of Mary by one or more persons) such as those..." - NancyHeise ^talk 12:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Well I'm completely pleased with the article and I maintain my strong Support. Domiy (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Strong, well-balanced, article that relates information and provides references very well. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 23:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support as per last nomination. Can't believe it could be improved since then but it is. Student7 (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

< Collapsed, restated opposed moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive5#Vassyana> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I continue to have the same concerns that I have expressed in previous FACs and on the article's talk page before the current push for FA status. (1) the temporal and geographic variation in Catholic beliefs, practices, and influence is largely elided and overlooked; (2) the history section of the article is severely lacking in terms of key trends such as (a) the centralization of papal authority and the development of the church as a global institution rather than an Italian or European one, or (b) the growth and development of the church hierarchy, in particular the College of Cardinals, and the various economic and political drivers associated with it, and (3) the article is still largely written from the perspective of a Catholic looking out on the world, hence the overemphasis of doctrine and social teaching, and the neglect of the vast economic, political, cultural influence of the church. In this area, the article has doubtlessly improved since the first FAC, but is still far off the mark. Where such issues are not neglected, they are treated from a comically one-sided perspective. For example, the article cherry-picks in attributing the elimination of human sacrifice and other practices to the church rather than delivering any meaningful or nuanced analysis of the church's complicated role in colonization, the development of European identity, or relations with other religions. Finally, with relation to the modern church, it is clear that the article gives undo emphasis both to points of view and to subject matter. The discussion of PPXII and the image in particular (which I agree does not meet the fair use policies) is essentially a rebuttal to one specific criticism of Pope Pius XII rather than a true top-level summary of his significance as a pontiff. Again I believe that this article has improved, and that the content and effort that has gone into it could have spawned a dozen featured articles on Catholicism, but I am unready at this point to support this article, believing that the standard should be higher for more important topics. My concerns about summary style in previous nominations have been remedied in many respects, but I believe that the use of summary style would need further improvement if the current content were written from a more balanced perspective with reference to point-of-view, global coverage, and intertemporal variation. Savidan 16:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would be interested to know which of the FA criteria you believe support the view that different standards should apply to different articles. I would also be interested to know how you reconcile the inconsistency in apparently demanding "a true top-level summary of his [ Pius XII] significance as a pontiff" in an article not about Pope Pius XII. To include such an analysis would be in breach of criteria 4. Still, as you're making up new rules as you go along, I don't suppose that matters very much. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Malleus, for the purpose of clarity, I am referrinng to 1b ("Comprehensive") and comprehensiveness as it intersects with 2b ("Structure") and 4 ("Summary Style"). As for Pius XII, maybe its true that he need not even be mentioned in the article about the RCC. However, it seems absurd to me that it would be deemed necessary for for there to be a comprehensive defense of his record during WWII and nothing else. If anything is said about it, I would have assumed it would have been more open-ended and more about his importance to the RCC as a whole (i.e. the subject of the article) rather than a specific view point about a specific pope. This gets into my concerns about the apparent cherry-picking (perhaps to harsh a word, but exactly my concern) about the points that are deemed worthy of inclusion in this article. Savidan 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Savidan - I just wanted to note that the "cherry-picking" is a tad improper in describing this. Most of the inclusion is based on consensus, with consensus working on the trimming. If you have a suggestion, please remember that consensus works on the whole, and right now you are one among many. If you want to elaborate on the need for this and see if anyone else agrees, the talk page is a very appropriate place. However, I would not want to move towards including more (since this is a large page) unless over 8 editors agree that it is necessary at this time. The number may seem arbitrary, but that would represent about a quarter of the participants on this page right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Consensus as a principle is fine. Taking a straw poll issue-by-issue, however, will not determine the appropriate level of detail that a summary-style article should devote to specific issues. Unfortunately, it appears that this article has grown on an ad-hoc basis followed by various rounds of content being chopped. This has resulted in rather lop-sided and uneven coverage of sub-topics. I do not mean to disrespect any specific consensus that has evolved on any specific issue, but rather to point out that it appears that relatively little attention by comparison has been paid to the structuring and division of content within the article based on importance. Savidan 19:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Savidan, I appreciate your efforts to help improve the article, which I have to say were very sparse. I am not saying this in any disrespectful manner, but simply need to point out that you were not a common editor on the page who was giving us advice all the time and when you did, your comments were overruled by consensus of other editors. I have not been able to create an article to your liking because of your lack of involvement and because Wikipedia policy WP:consensus required me to respect the opinions of the vast majority of editors to the page whose opinions differed from yours. NancyHeise ^talk 17:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, you are absolutely right that I have not had the time to actively write the article with you and the other main contributors. In another universe, where I had infinite time to devote to Wikipedia, I surely would have been more involved. However, consensus does not overrule the FAC criteria. If the article is not comprehensive, neutral, or written in summary style (by which I mean writing about connected topics as they relate to the primary topic of the article, and maintaining a uniform level of detail based on an objective division of content, rather than devoting multiple sentences to specific points of view on specific sub-topics while ignoring others), then groupthink alone should not be sufficient for FA status. Savidan 19:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Savidan, you seem to want to substitute "the perspective of a Catholic looking out on the world" with the perspective of the world looking at the Church from outside, and not much interested in its religious message. The article, as you may know from the talk page, has been under enormous pressure to reduce its size, and there is unfortunately only room for very brief surveys of all these areas, but to suggest that "doctrine" and the small space alloted to to "social teaching" are reduced in favour of the more on the "economic ... influence" of the church seems strange indeed. Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that it would be possible to write an article which does not conform to either of those descriptions. However, it is apparent that the first has prevailed over large swathes of the article. I am very conscious of the concerns about article size. That is why I think this article should be a broad overview of the main topic that favors broad coverage over depth on any one subtopic. If you are pressed for space when writing about a large topic, then you shouldn't go into lengthy digressions (no matter how well sourced and written) over any one subtopic. Savidan 19:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Further to Savidan's concerns: 1) Catholic beliefs do not vary geographically, as is borne out in all sources, Trends in Catholic influence and practices are covered in the history section as relevantly as befits their notability. (2) the centralization of papal authority is covered to the extent necessary in the history section, as is the development of the church as a global institution. As far as the growth and development of the church hierarchy and the College of Cardinals are concerned, What vital and notable facts have been omitted? (3) the "overemphasis of doctrine and social teaching" as opposed to "the vast economic, political, cultural influence of the church." is an opinion rather than a breach of criteria. What is the right balance? Editors feel that most readers will want to know about the beliefs, structure and history of the church . We have decided to concentrate on verifiable facts rather than trying to provide a "nuanced analysis of the church's complicated role in colonization, the development of European identity, or relations with other religions." That is really beyond the scope of this article and would demand sifting a morass of largely unsubstantiated opinion. On Pope Pius XII the inclusion has been made in view of the notability of recent criticisms of the Church from some quarters on the issue of WW2, criticisms which editors at previous reviews have asked should be covered. WP Notability, Due Weight, and the need for factually verifiable content have been the prime considerations in deciding what can and cannot be included in a space-limited article. I think Savidan needs to state what specific important facts that he believes are missing from the article if he wishes his objections to be considered actionable. Xandar 21:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xandar, Malleus, Ottava Rima and Johnbod. It is impossible for me to act on Savidan's oppose because he does not specify his objections and consensus of editors do not support implementation of his suggestions which I find to be very vague. The recent extensive peer review and article trim was the result of several editors (including Ottava Rima, Ealdgyth, Karanacs, Dweller, Gimmetrow, Gabr-el, Xandar, Malleus, Johnbod and myself) working together to form a consensus on what should and should not be included in the article and everyone came to agreement on the content before we submitted to FAC. WP:consensus supports current article format, structure, size, weight, sources and text. NancyHeise ^talk 23:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that I have not read the history section recently, so I am not a party to any consensus on it. I did think that the rest of the article is much improved. From what the history section previously looked like, I think that Savidan has made some very good points. The history section often went into too much detail about certain issues without doing a good job of presenting the overarching themes in the history (like the impact of the RCC on medieval European society and politics). I repeat, though, that I have not had the time to read the history section recently. Karanacs (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The impact of the RCC on Medieval society and politics is easy enough to insert. I had some of this info in the article but the nature of such information relies almost exclusively on scholarly opinion and there are many different opinions. The editors of the page, (Karanacs too) decided that we needed to eliminate these opinions and just stick to the facts. The quote in question that she was opposed to was Francis Oakley and Thomas Bokenkotter's two different comments on how, even through eras of internal corruption, the Catholic Church succeeded in bringing the Gospel to the world, an event that had a significant impact upon society and politics. Another quote was from Diarmaid MacCulloch who stated that the end result of the Reformation wars was the unique creation of the Western notion of Tolerance. Consensus of editors specifically decided to include only facts, not scholarly opinions. Thus we left only those facts stated in the Cultural influence section referenced to a university textbook and Owen Chadwick. If you would like me to reinsert the previously eliminated opinions, we need a consensus because it was not my idea to eliminate them. NancyHeise ^talk 02:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't what Savidan is talking about. The two instances you've mentioned are very oriented toward the religious/moral issues. What Savidan mentioned above are the political ramifications of the RCC, especially in the Middle Ages. The section as it read a few months ago was doing a lot better at describing some of this, but it still read like a string of details rather than a broader overview of the RCC's political influence. I'm going to try to reread the article in the next few days - hopefully it is moved more toward that goal. Karanacs (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have placed some tidbits of information on this FAC's talk page that Savidan and Karanacs may want to consider including in the article if they wish to specify what it is that the article is lacking. My efforts there were to try and help bring out the specific complaint so we can then address it either by adding something to the article or coming to consensus against such addition. I hope this helps. NancyHeise ^talk 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The article clearly makes many subjective choices about which specifics to emphasize; that much does not seem to have been contested in the bulk of preceding discussion. In an article about an institution spanning nearly two millenia and touching nearly every corner of the earth, the present choices of emphasis don't make much sense to me. There is a HUGE paragraph and non-free image serving no other purpose than to list nearly every possible defense of Pius XII's actions during the Holocaust, but there is next to no coverage about the role of the Church in the development of European monarchies, foreign exchange markets, etc. It is obvious that the content choices made in this article do not reflect an objective attempt to determine the most notable features of the church's history, but rather represent a motley selection of axes to grind. I could explain further how the Pius XII paragraph is rather one-sided, but it strikes me as an even bigger concern that such a large portion of this article is devoted to this topic in the first place. This problem cannot be reduced to a short and simple list of comma fixes and word choices; it is clear that the organization and content choices of this article need to be rethought systematically: hence my ongoing point about the importance of summary style. Savidan 04:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Like yourself, I am always ready to see more on the the Middle Ages, and this version does now mention the tussles between church and state then for the first time, but we have to recognise most readers are more interested in the 20th century than the 12th. Personally I wouldn't consider the Church's infuence on "foreign exchange markets" - not I think much mentioned by Fernand Braudel, my main source of information on the matter - as demanding space given the constraints of the history section in particular. I don't think we have anything much on this in the History of the RCC article, which would be the place to expand it. Johnbod (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Savidan, you need to be specific about your oppose, we can not act on it until you do and the FAC instructions require reviewers to be specific. So far, you have given us broad swaths of disapproval but have not asked for any specifics to include. I have some comments to offer you:

• The paragraph you are saying is about Pius XII is not about Pius XII but about WWII and the Church. Wikipedia policy requires us to include all notable criticisms and the criticism of the Church and Pius XII is very recent and notable. As such, we were careful to include all facts relating to that criticism. I would like to know which facts in that paragraph you think we should eliminate to make the article better? I think that any eliminations will make the article less interesting, less valuable and possibly distort that truth. Because that paragraph has survived an extensive peer review and thorough trim with the help of many editors (listed above), I think it is safe to say that it should stay in present form. The picture was also vetted by the community including some picture experts who passed the picture in the last FAC.
• Here is a list of the sections of History in the article text that discuss exactly what you are asking for

<List of excerpts from the article placed at Wikipedia talk:Featured_article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive5#Article excerpts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC) >

This list shows that the article has not neglected the political or economical effects of the Church. If you can point out for us some notable fact we have omitted, we would be glad to include more info as long as it does not violate WP:summary style and the consensus of editors agrees to the addition. We have all already gone through the article and feel that what is missing is covered via summary style through the wikilinks to other pages throughout the article. Article size was of great concern to several people and we agreed to present content and size after much compromise and discussion. NancyHeise ^talk 16:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Savidan has several times been asked to supply specific actionable points in his oppose by stating specific notable facts which he would like inclluded or excluded, however the only things forthcoming have been vague generalisms that are totally unactionable, such as to "systematically rethink" the article - presumably based upon guesswork as to what precisely he thinks an article he likes would look like. I would suggest that the range of topics covered in this article is comparable to that in other major encyclopedias, and that without the specific criticisms that have been asked for, Savidan's oppose is in the nature of a personal critique, and not actionable.Xandar 22:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - While I do think that the extensive work done on the article in response to its failed FA's in the past have been helpful, I believe the article is ready for featured status now and simply because it can be endlessly improved, doesn't mean it should be here. Featured Status criteria is met, perfection and flawless are not among them, and it's time to pass this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support I have been watching the development of this article for a long time and fully support the changes it has been going through and the effort the editors having been making to come to a true concensus. Marauder40 (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Neutral. The article is greatly improved since the last FAC, especially regarding trimming excessive detail. I have to agree with other reviewers, however, that the article, especially the history section, is still written primarily from the point of view of the Catholic church, without appropriate weight being given to the views of secular religious historians. The dominant editors of the article have consistently thwarted this argument by framing it as a Reliable Sources issue rather than a Neutral Point of View issue. Yes, Catholic authors are more important here (by RS criteria), but that does not overrule the Neutral Point of View policy. The argument that "there isn't room" to present both points of view is disingenuous as the situation was exactly the same when the history section was twice as long. I won't belabor the individual points as they have already been well argued and rejected numerous times (here, in the previous FAC, and on the article talk page). The response is always "our sources are better" or "consensus doesn't support it". Your very loose definition of "consensus" cannot overrule the NPOV policy or the comprehensiveness requirement. Also I would like to point out that the History of the Roman Catholic Church sub-article seems to have abandoned any pretense of NPOV, and basically reads like a church primer on its own history. It even presents Jesus's resurrection from the dead as a simple fact without any qualification. Although that article is not up for FAC here, it is a stark reflection of the POV that is being promoted in this article. Kaldari (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Apart from Nancy moving stuff over from here, that article has been "under different managemnent" so please don't drag it in here. Is this all about say AD 0-400? You probably better had mention some issues that concern you in the current article, since in fact a lot has changed since the last FAC. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this primarily concerns AD 0-400. There needs to be some type of substantial discussion of the secular point of view for that time period, not just a few sentence fragments tacked onto the orthodox POV. Kaldari (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Kaldari for your comments here. I would like to ask you to be specific in your oppose because that is what FA criteria asks of reviewers to allow nominators to make changes. Are you suggesting that we ignore consensus and WP:Reliable source examples and WP:RS when deciding on which authors books to use? The Wikipedia criteria states that those books that are considered more scholarly are to be used over and above those that are not and gives us guidance on this. Which secular author would you like to see included in this article? Which POV have we not covered in our article? You need to help us understand your position if you want us to be able to act on your oppose. Thanks. I provide the following list of non-Catholic and secular authors used in creation of this article

• Roland Bainton
• Christopher Black
• Frank Bruni
• Henry Chadwick (theologian)
• Owen Chadwick
• J Duncan M Derrett
• Thomas Goldstein (Historian of Science)
• Justo Gonzalez
• Jeremy Johns
• Jacques Le Goff
• John H. Leith
• Ronald Numbers
• Henry Mayr-Harting
• John McClintock
• John McManners
• Mark Noll
• Philip Schaff
• Simon Schama
• Rodney Stark
• Timothy Ware
• Robert Wilken

I will finish this list later. But as you can see, we have not neglected non-Catholic authors or viewpoints. Some of our 79 books do not mention the religion practiced by the author so it is impossible to know that author's faith, even when googling their name. NancyHeise ^talk 18:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Nancy, of course I am suggesting that we ignore WP:RS. It is a dumb rule and I think we should just cite our favorite people (like the Pope[10]). I'm glad you reminded me that your sources are better so I don't waste my time in rehashing old issues in the belief that they will be actually considered. Kaldari (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: The author's specific religion is not relevant here. What is relevant is what point of view their works portray. A Protestant author could very well write a book pushing the Catholic viewpoint, while a Catholic author could write a book skeptical of some of the church's claims. Karanacs (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Karancs is substantially right that the author's religion should not be relevant. However, it has been raised a point of objection by Kaldari, who demanded the (supposedly lacking) inclusion of secular historians. It seems this is merely applicable when trying to denigrate Catholic scholars but not when non-Catholic scholars suddenly agree with them. BTW, there is no secular viewpoint. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs is right. On top of that, no Wikipedia rule would justify choosing an author because of the faith they personally practice, what matters is how scholarly are their works and how often these works are cited by other scholars - it just so happens that we have used scholars of many faiths, including Muslim, Atheist, agnostic, and Protestant (not sure if any are Buddhist). I am just wondering if your comment above about "It is a dumb rule and I think we should just cite our favorite people (like the Pope[11])." means that maybe we are doing something wrong by using a book by Pope Benedict? His book was used in creating part of the Beliefs section, an entirely appropriate use. It also sounds like you think your comments won't be considered. I can consider implementation of your comments if you will be specific - as FA instructions require of reviewers. I ask again, what POV have we not covered in our article? What authors, out of the tens of thousands who have written on this subject, do you prefer us to use. Please specify so we can then address. NancyHeise ^talk 20:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My link was to the use of the Pope as a source in the Early History section, not the beliefs section. Citing the pope is certainly appropriate in the beliefs section. Kaldari (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, I forgot about that one, here's the sentence: "At first, Christians continued to worship alongside Jewish believers, but within twenty years of Jesus' death, Sunday was being regarded as the primary day of worship because it was revered as the day of Jesus' Resurrection." The last half of the last sentence is referenced to the Pope Benedict book. It is a statment of Catholic belief, used to explain to Reader why Sunday was being regarded as the day of worship. Do you have a problem with this? NancyHeise ^talk 20:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have a problem with it. I don't want to rely on the pope telling me why Christians worshiped on Sundays in 20 A.D. That is a historical question. The pope is not an authority on history. Where is your insistence on the "best scholarship" in this case? Kaldari (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So Catholic scholars are no longer quotable, right? Not that we cannot improve by adding sources but there can be no legitimate objection to the current source. (PS. I see this has now been done. But the principle stands, must stand!) Str1977 ^(talk) 18:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Pope Benedict's quote can easily be replaced, I am getting to work on that now. NancyHeise ^talk 20:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the pope Benedict book with Owen Chadwick's A History of Christianity page 17. NancyHeise ^talk 21:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, only one of the article's Owen Chadwick citations actually specifies which book it is from (there are 2 in the bibliography). This needs to be fixed. Kaldari (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 03:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want a specific example of a change you could make to improve the article, it would be to replace the sentence in the history section about doctrinal authority being established in Rome with a few sentences explaining the different theories about the establishment of the orthodox church. You don't have to give each theory equal weight, but you do need to mention them. This is basic NPOV 101: all articles must "represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views". Bart Ehrman and other scholars work in this area is a "significant view". It may not be the most prominent or credible view, but it is a significant view and it represents a significant controversy about a very important piece of church history that is glossed over here. I'm not saying you have to write a paragraph about Bart Ehrman and his pet ideas, I'm saying you need to mention that they exist. This is consistent with both RS and NPOV. Kaldari (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And you are fine using an author who has been accused of scholarly malpractice by many other scholars per [12]? NancyHeise ^talk 21:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, that article says scholars accused National Geographic of "scholarly malpractice", not Ehrman specifically. Secondly, of course people are going to accuse anyone who seriously challenges orthodox views of being a fraud, a hack, etc, etc. The fact is, Ehrman's ideas about the origins of the church are significant (note, I did not say "reliable" or "factual"). Just the fact that they are commonly debated and criticized by academics and the public means they are significant. And believe it or not, there are people out there who actually think he and other scholars make a convincing argument. This view doesn't have to be presented as the factual history of the church in the article, but because it is a significant point of view, it must at least be mentioned, per WP:NPOV. Kaldari (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And even if 100% of Ehrman's research was revealed to be a total fraud, so long his ideas were still being debated and seriously considered by a significant group of misguided people, you would still need to mention that in the article to conform to NPOV. It would only be a violation of RS if you said "Ehrman's ideas are the truth" rather than "some people still agree with Ehrman's idea that...". Kaldari (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Since this is off topic, I have posted the excerpt of Scholarly criticism against Bart Ehrman for his work on Gospel of Judas on the discussion page with link. He was pilloried. Nat Geo hired who they thought was a professional and got someone who did not perform his duties conscientiously. Like hiring a roofer only to find the roof leaking when he has finished the job and already been paid.NancyHeise ^talk 03:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Kaldari. You are opposing based on the alleged lack of coverage of the views of certain "secular religious historians" on the early church. However you fail to specify exactly what views you would like to appear in the article. You mention the name of Ehrman, stating his (unspecified) views are significant, (which many might argue, considering him a fringe figure, most known for his works related to the Da Vinci Code,) but you don't state which view you consider to be missing, so that it can be examined. The early church section went through a rewrite between FACs with new material added from different sources, and reflects the mainstream view of secular and religious historians. So what precise other historical theory would you like to see added to the section as an alternate view? And what precise sector of opinion supports that theory? Xandar 22:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there is room for a mention, in text or notes, of the disagreement of other Churches over the early position of Rome - I'm thinking of the Orthodox in particular. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnbod, do you have a source to suggest? I have searched my most scholarly works and googlebooks (including Bart Ehrman) for some alternative view of Church origins and so far have not found this "secular view". Even Encyclopedia Brittanica's Roman Catholic Church article is the same as our presentation with even less discussion of alternative views, they only have a Catholic POV. NancyHeise ^talk 23:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There are really two different issues here: 1) The history section doesn't adequately explain the split between the Eastern and Western Churches and the fact that many early Christians (before the 4th century) did not recognize the authority of Rome. The section simply ignores the other branches of early Christianity (the Assyrian Church for example) and mentions only Rome as if it were the uncontested center of all Christianity. 2) Less importantly, there is no mention of academic theories that the Roman Catholic church exaggerated the pre-4th century role of Rome in shaping Christian theology in order to solidify its own authority. Personally, I would be satisfied if only #1 were addressed. Kaldari (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a sentence on each of those points is justified, even with space pressure. I'm afraid I don't have any suitably authoritative sources for the first (I don't think Gibbon will do), altough I might have for the second. Neither ought to be very controversial really. On the second, we have:"This was just one of many disputes between the Eastern and Western Churches, [which were growing apart during this time]." to which we could add/substitute something like "over Papal primacy, Rome's definition of which was not accepted in the East, the filioque issue, and as different languages, and political and cultural paths pulled the two halves of the Church apart." I'll dig around, or can Kaldari or Savidan suggest a suitable reference? On the first issue, the German Walter Bauer (d 1960) appears to be the daddy of the Ehrman etc school of scholars as listed by Vassyana above, but his article keeps emphasizing how isolated and against scholarly concensus his views were, at least in his lifetime. To the Chadwick-backed sentence in the article "... evidence of a presiding Roman cleric who exercised authority over other churches" it would be reasonable to add that this is not accepted by either all churches (Calvinists etc) or by all historians. I can't help with refs on that, as I've said. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the first and last paragraphs of Roman Empire section based on Vassyana, Savidan and Kaldari's comments. I would like to ask all three to read this section again and let me know if this meets to your satisfaction. I found two university textbooks on Western civilization that corroborate the information that the Church of Rome was considered a doctrinal authority, in my search of sources to use in order to create a section to your satisfaction, I kept finding more and more scholarly works that say the same thing that we have presented in the article. I found none that supported any other view. The Church of Rome was considered a doctrinal authority, was not the sole authority yet still held a pre-eminence because of St. Peter's position as leader of the Apostles. This is presented in these books as an historical fact, not the opinion of the Roman Catholic Church. Further, Bart Ehrman is not an historian. He is neither a professor of history. He is a professor of religion and Googlebooks classifies his books under the category of Religion, not History. His specialty is study of the New Testament, not Church history. There is no POV about Church origins that he could offer us that we could realistically use in the article. I have searched his books and he does not offer a POV of church origins. If you have seen this somewhere I would appreciate your help in finding it. I would like this article to cover all significant POV's but I can't include them if they do not exist in a book written by an historian that is categorized as History.NancyHeise ^talk 02:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

More to Vassyana's comments, Elaine Pagels and James Tabor are professors of Religion, not history, their books are classified by Googlebooks under the category of Religion, not history. NancyHeise ^talk 04:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, "New Testament studies" etc covers history as well as linguistics and religion, if only because there are hardly enough other sources for the field to be divided in the earliest period. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am researching one of Vassyana's other suggested authors right now in an effort to find the missing POV. NancyHeise ^talk 04:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's an excerpt from Elaine Pagels best selling book:

• "By A. D. 100,...Christianity had become an institution headed by a three-rank hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons, who understood themselves to be the guardians of the only "true faith." The majority of churches, among which the church of Rome took a leading role, rejected all other viewpoints as heresy. Deploring the diversity of the earlier movement, Bishop Irenaeus and his followers insisted that there could be only one church, and outside of that church, he declared, "there is no salvation." Members of this church alone are orthodox (literally, "straight-thinking") Christians. And, he claimed, this church must be catholic-- that is, universal.(The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. Published by Vintage Books. 1994)"

and here's one from Funk and Wagnalls encyclopedia: "ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, the largest single Christian body, composed of those Christians who acknowledge the supreme authority of the bishop of Rome, the pope, in matters of faith. The word catholic (Gr. katholikos) means "universal" and has been used to designate the church since its earliest period, when it was the only Christian church. The Roman Catholic church regards itself as the only legitimate inheritor, by an unbroken episcopal succession descending from St. Peter to the present time, of the commission and powers conferred by Jesus Christ on the 12 apostles (see APOSTLE). The church has had a profound influence on the development of European culture and on the introduction of European values into other civilizations. Its total membership as the 1990s began was about 995.8 million (about 18.8 percent of the world population). The doctrine of apostolic succession, that is, the continuous transmission of ministry from the time of Jesus until today. The doctrine is found as early as the Epistle to the Corinthians (c. 96), traditionally attributed to Pope Clement I...It is expressly affirmed in Roman Catholicism. It is identified with the succession of bishops in office and interpreted as the source of the bishops’ authority and leadership role. The most specific instance of these claims is that the pope is the successor of St. Peter, who was chosen by Jesus as head of his church (see Matt. 16:16–18). (Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia ©1998-2000)"

This reveals a stark agreement from authors of very different POV's. Did everyone look at the changes I made to the Roman Empire section per your comments here? We need to come to agreement. I think this reveals broad agreement on the present article text. Elaine Pagels is really a fringe, non-Catholic POV and even she is in agreement. NancyHeise ^talk 04:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please use sources in context. Pagels was discussing the demonization of heresies and other minority Christian groups, and the accompanying origin of the terms "catholic" and "orthodox". Rome taking a leading role in this process is not the same as Rome being the highest ecclesiastical authority. Pagels' comments should also not be misinterpreted to support the existance of a unified church. You are either unaware or neglect to mention that Pagels supports the "proto-orthodox" model. At this point, I am out of good faith, since you continue the trend you have consistently shown for ignoring context and discarding points with which you disagree.[13][14] Vassyana (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, you are accusing me of taking things out of context. You previously accused me of cherrypicking from history and making stuff up. Per one of the most respected editors on Wikipedia FAC who actually bought some of my sources (others are available on Googlebooks), she checked my wordings to the references and they all checked out fine [15] Now you are telling me that I am taking something out of context? I think you are continuing to try to paint me into something that has not been substantiated by your persistent personal attacks on me. No scholar (even Duffy) asserts that the Church of Rome did not exist in the first century and the article text is supported by the most scholarly works on the subject. Your oppose is just unfounded, even by your own favorite authors and I can not reasonably be expected to act on your oppose unless there are scholars to reference. I searched your noted authors for evidence of the missing POV you claim the article does not cover, it does not exist. [16] NancyHeise ^talk 14:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Break 1

• Comment In my opinion the "history" section should be toward the top, but I'm not sure what the concensus is. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support per previous nom. Take this article and put it side by side with other encylopedic works on the Catholic Church and you'll see that it holds its own. Majoreditor (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support: Everything is right in this article. Deserves to be featured. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 15:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Attempt at Summary of Oppose issues raised by several people

1) The SS image - there are other (better) versions on the web, and as far as I can see it should be possible to get a free one on Commons, which would deal with this issue

The image was OK'd by experienced Wikipedia editor that SandyGeorgia asked to come and examine our images in the last FAC. [17] SS image should stay per consensus of editors and per the OK already received. NancyHeise ^talk 06:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The image has been eliminated. this is not an issue and opposes on this item should be crossed off but they aren't.NancyHeise ^talk 14:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

2) The Apostolic and Early Christian Age - a) Theological diversity is covered, and we give - in cautious terms - what still is the conventional position: ie that there was great diversity, but there was a mainstream in the church. It still seems early to say whether Bauer & his followers will change this, though clearly they write plenty of best-sellers. b) the early position of Rome. I think there is room for an expression of the differing long-established religious views, which each have support from some historians, namely (and put very simply) the Orthodox position that there were doctrinal authorities from very early on, but that Rome's primacy was only recognised in a very limited and honorific sense, or alternatively the classic Continental Protestant position that early on there were no doctrinal authorities (good), but one or more later emerged (bad).

I added more info to this section to meet all comments. please see again. NancyHeise ^talk 06:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

3) The history of the Curia & centralized authority of the church is not covered. We do state the current set-up in what seems to me adequate detail for an article that is not about the Vatican or the Papacy, but the whole Church. But it is true the development of the Curia is not covered in the history section. I think at the least the emergence under Charlemagne of the Papal States, and the start of Cardinals in the 12th century are worth a mention. I also said on the talk page that the surely uncontroversial point that the centralized nature of church authority was unique among the large older churches, & this was worth saying near the opening of the article. Nancy could't find a reference on this - anyone?

I added more info on some of these points and I placed a note on the article talk page to gather consensus either for or against incorporation of Curia comment. NancyHeise ^talk 06:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

4) Papal Infallibility has been mentioned here and on talk. It is surely the one major doctrinal position that is unique to the RCC, and this is worth saying, as is that it had been a controversial proposal in the Church for centuries before 1870.

Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I added more info and wikilinks to history section and teaching authority section to address this comment. NancyHeise ^talk 06:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This sentence needs to be fixed, although I'm not sure what it's supposed to say: "Historians note that Catholic missionaries, popes, laymen and religious were among the leaders in the campaign against slavery..." Kaldari (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is strictly correct - "religious" means members of religious orders, and there is no short other way of saying it. It contrasts with "secular clergy" (ie diocesan ones), who should perhaps be mentioned, or just "clergy" be used here (though that excludes nuns). But they are unfamiliar terms to some. Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Religious is the term used by scholarly source. It is defined in the article and wikilinked in a section above the history section as well as in the lead. Do we need to spell out for reader what this means in more words or wikilink Religious again? I could go for another wikilink but not too keen on more words. NancyHeise ^talk 06:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. To keep things focused, here is a specific list of points that if addressed would change my opposition to neutrality or support:

• Some mention that not all scholars agree with the version of history presented. This need not take up more than a couple of statements in the article, simply noting the existence of opposing views and citing a couple of prominent examples (such as Bauer, et al's model of extreme diversity and Ehrman, et al's "proto-orthodox" model). — Vassyana 21:04, October 10, 2008 — continues after insertion below

• I'm not opposed to a further brief mention of such views if the right sources can be found. Xandar 23:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, I have researched this point and it seems to me that what you are calling the proto-orthodox model relates to the historical emergence of Christian beliefs and scripture - which is Ehrman's area of expertise - not the actual history of the Church of Rome - the institution - which is what this article is about. No scholar denies the existence of the Roman Church institution from the earliest days. I have inserted more information about the emergence of Roman papal primacy per your comments on this FAC. I have actually inserted a lot more info per your comments in hopes of pleasing you. But on this point, even after sincere research, I can not insert information on the proto-orthodox model because it does not relate to the historical emergence of the Church of Rome as an institution. NancyHeise ^talk 05:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Further, even Bauer notes and discusses the Church of Rome as an institution that exists from the earliest Christian times - there is no disagreement among scholars about the existence of this institution. Here's a link to Bauer [18]. Extreme diversity and proto-orthodox are issues that belong on the Christianity page, not on the Roman Catholic Church page because they do not pertain to the institution of the Church of Rome. NancyHeise ^talk 00:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The gradual emergence and development of scripture and doctrine goes hand in hand with the emergence of church structure, order and unity. The distinction is between the nebulous "proto-orthodox" and the orthodox Christianity that followed. Orthodox (small o) Christianity is synonymous in most historical models with the early Orthodox-Catholic church, is it not? Ehrman and related scholars do not dispute the early presence of a church in Rome, but they do dispute the Papal succession (which even Duffy notes the gaps in evidence for) and do dispute that the earliest church in Rome is synonymous with the later Church of Rome.

Regarding Bauer and his followers, there are a number of points where they diverge from the history presented in the article. For example, in that model the Council of Jerusalem predates the establishment of orthodoxy which arose relatively early in Christian history from a combination of Pauline and Petrine movements. As another example, both Bauer and Ehrman (along with their associated peers and students, and a host of other scholars) would take strong issue with the general spread of Christianity being associated with the history of the Roman Catholic Church. Vassyana (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This statement by Vassyana copied from above "Ehrman and related scholars do not dispute the early presence of a church in Rome, but they do dispute the Papal succession (which even Duffy notes the gaps in evidence for) and do dispute that the earliest church in Rome is synonymous with the later Church of Rome." is WP:Original Research on her part. I can not act on her oppose because it follows a logic that is not substantiated with any source. There is no distinction among scholars about when the earliest church in Rome suddenly became the Church of Rome that is still there today. There are discussions about the emergence and developement of scripture and doctrine, not the church as an institution beyond what we have already provided in the Origins and Mission section which includes all possible POV's on Church origin. I offer this excerpt from the Encarta Encyclopedida definition of the Roman Catholic Church as evidence to support my position here [19] "Until the break with the Eastern church (see Orthodox Church) in 1054 and the break with the Protestant churches in the 16th century, it is impossible to separate the history of the Roman Catholic Church from the history of Christianity in general. The distinct Roman Catholic view of history, however, is its claim to unbroken continuity with the church of the New Testament and its consequent acceptance as legitimate of the major developments in doctrine and structure that it has assimilated since then. The great shifts in culture, theology, and discipline within Christian history are not necessarily viewed, therefore, as deviations from some absolute norm of the apostolic church. They tend to be viewed, rather, as expressions in different and more elaborate ways of impulses that were already present from the beginning." NancyHeise ^talk 22:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• A few relevant points about the existance of other sees with exceptional authority besides Rome. I would prefer to see a specific mention of the similar authority of the Bishop of Alexandria (as affirmed by the First Council of Nicaea) and the later similar authority of the Bishop of Constantinople.

• I'm not aware of any exceptional authority held by Alexandria, other than that of the four patriarchs, of which Rome is one, and Constantinople later became one. The fact that Rome was just one of four patriarchal sees, doesn't however mean that Rome wasn't considered chief among those sees. Xandar 23:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Try #6 here, courtesy of the Legion of Mary. But we certainly don't want to get into these deep waters, however, as I said in my summary above, some mention of the Orthodox position is justified. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I added more info including mention of Alexandria. Please see the article again. NancyHeise ^talk 05:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

While the changes are a mild improvement, the mention of the other sees with primacy is presented in a very dismissive manner. It also fails to cover that the primacy of the other sees was equal with Rome in that each of the sees had exceptional and exclusive authority over their associated regions. The later similar authority of Constantinople is completely glossed over. Vassyana (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Related to the above, I would like to see a clearer picture of how and when the Bishop of Rome established more exclusive primacy and how it relates to the schism between the (modern) Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. Some information related to this point is present in the article, but the picture is rather muddled/incomplete.

I added information about the elevation of Constantinople, please see the last paragraph of Roman Empire. Please note that my text is meant to reflect scholarly sources, not present information in a dismissive manner. If there is some text that you think is dismissive and you have a better presentation that will still keep the sentence factual, I would welcome your suggestion. NancyHeise ^talk 01:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of how the text is characterized, the change is very minimal and fails to address my concerns, leaving the article with insufficient information and coverage. An example, as mentioned above, the article fails to mention that the primacy of the other sees was equal with Rome, in that each of the sees had exceptional and exclusive authority over their associated regions. Vassyana (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The sentence clearly expresses this fact - this is the sentence "Although this council sanctioned the primacy of three dioceses—Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch—Rome had certain qualities that destined it for particular prominence; it was considered the see of Peter and Paul, it was located in the capital of the empire, church scholars were desirous of obtaining the Roman bishop's support in doctrinal disputes, and it was wealthy and known for supporting other churches around the world.[212]". Everything in this sentence comes from my most scholalry source, these are the facts as presented by the most cited scholar on the subject. NancyHeise ^talk 20:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is a complex topic and could give rise to lots of disagreement. Much, for example, of the rivalry between Rome and Constantinople in the 1st millenium was due to the Byzantine Emperors hold over "their" Patriarch in Constantinople, and their anger at Rome flouting their wishes. A further sentence or two could be added here, but it would need careful handling. Xandar 23:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted more info on this. I had this info already in the article before but it got tossed in the trim. Please see first , third and fourth paragraphs of Roman Empire section in History NancyHeise ^talk 05:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The information added does little to clarify the picture, leaving it muddled and incomplete as before. Additionally, the article claims the Council of Chalcedon "solidified Roman papal primacy", when this is directly contrary to the facts. The Council attempted to elevate Constantinople, not Rome, giving it exceptional authority over the Church as a court of last resort. This lead to the historically prominent and vigorous protest from the Roman Pope Leo the Great. It's worth noting that Pope Leo's historical significance comes largely from his vigorous insistence on Petrine supremacy (and therefore the supremacy of the Roman See), such as in his famous disagreement with Dioscorus of Alexandria. Vassyana (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have placed an excerpt from Thomas Bokenkotter's "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" and another from Eamon Duffy's "Saints and Sinners" on this FAC's talk page to support the article text Vassyana is claiming to be false. NancyHeise ^talk 22:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The Bokenkotter quote makes my point rather nicely. It was not the Council, but Pope Leo the Great's response to it (and the accompanying consequences, such as conciliation by some parties) that lead to the solidification of Roman authority. Please note that Bokenkotter points out this disagreement "played a major role" in the later full schism between East and West. Regardless, this reponse does nothing to do address my concern stated clearly and repeatedly above that a principal topic is left muddled and incomplete. Vassyana (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, I can not please you because you don't agree with the scholars! You want a version of history that is not supported by scholalry works. Bokenkotter and Duffy both state that the council elevated Constantinople to rank "next after" Rome. The reason why Pope Leo was so upset was because he didn't want Constantinople to rank next after Rome, he wanted Alexandria to rank next after Rome because it was an apostolic church. (per Bokenkotter page 92) NancyHeise ^talk 20:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added text to clarify the extent to which Constantinople was elevated using Bokenkotter and I added more info on the causes of the Eastern schism both in Roman Empire and Early Middle Ages. NancyHeise ^talk 17:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

See User:Vassyana/FAC for a few examples of reliable sources that address my concerns. I am not insisting that that other prominent views dominate the article or receive anything more than a limited treatment sufficient to make the reader aware of the existance of such viewpoints and what they state. My disagreement is with the repetitive misuse of policy and guidelines in a fashion directly contrary to their underlying principles. My disagreement is with the cherry-picking of sources and censorship of other academic and prominent views. My disagreement is with the continual waving away of views, sources and portions of sources that conflict with a particular one-sided view of the topic. My opposition is not based on disagreement with scholars, but with the failure of the article in relation to feature article criteria and (more importantly) the presentation of all prominent views. Vassyana (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, your few examples at User:Vassyana/FAC do not bring us new information that we do not already have presented in the article. Where do your sources say there was no church in Rome before the fourth century - no where. Where do they say that the church in Rome before the fourth century is a different church than the one that eventually became headed by the church in Rome - the Roman Catholic Church- no where. I cite as examples of the nonexistence of your view your own examples User:Vassyana/FAC and the fact that no other encyclopedia's definition of Roman Catholic Church makes such a claim. I can not act on your oppose because it is made on your own incorrect assumptions of Church history that are not backed up by scholars. NancyHeise ^talk 17:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Those were just a few examples of sources that address some of my concerns. I never said they were comprehensive or addressed all of the issues that I raised. Again, I am not asking that other prominent views dominate the article or receive anything more than a limited treatment sufficient to make the reader aware of the existance of such viewpoints and what they state. Vassyana (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The viewpoint expressed by Schimmelpfennig and others has now been added in a sentence in the Roman Empire section.Xandar 11:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• A better examination of papal infallibility and the doctrine of infallibility in general (the Pope is not the only source of infallible teachings and doctrine, which is contrary to much of the public perception of Catholicism).

• A statement to this effect could be included.

More info and wikilinks were added to Teaching Authority section and History section (Industrial Age). NancyHeise ^talk 06:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The changes are minimal and do little to explain the matter. Vassyana (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that we do not agree on the detail needed to cover this matter. Some editors think the article is too long when we expound on issues in great detail. This issue is treated like all others, it is mentioned with a brief summmary (both in Beliefs and History), and wikilinked so Reader can learn more on another page. This is in keeping with WP:summary style. NancyHeise ^talk 22:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The assertion that bare passing mentions and wikilinks for a central, identifying and extensively discussed (in reliable sources) topic is in keeping with summary style is patently absurd, out of touch with both summary style and proper reporting. I expect any article about any topic to give some solid information about central, identifying and extensively discussed (in reliable sources) subtopics. Infallibility is unquestionably a central and identifying feature of the article topic that has received extensive treatment in a wide variety of reliable sources. Passing mentions and a couple of wikilinks fail to treat such a subtopic as required by the featured article criteria and policy. Vassyana (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added even more mention in Industrial section to this effect. Please see again. NancyHeise ^talk 17:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, a central, identifying and extensively discussed (in reliable sources) topic needs solid and substantive coverage. A single sentence that does little to nothing to explain the doctrine is far from sufficient. Vassyana (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This article covers 2000 years of history. HUGE topics have to be dealt with in one sentence. If you have a specific point with regard to this that you consider important and missing, please make it, otherwise demands for "more coverage" are impracticable. Xandar 02:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• A bit more detail on the Curia. How and when were they established? What about the role they played during the era of the Papal States? How did their purpose transform with the end of their civil authority?

• I really don't think the curia (civil service) are that important. Unless a case can be made for their importance, I think more material would just count as boring. to most users. Xandar 23:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I am against more data on curia for this reason and because the daughter article is in very good shape. Because summary style has been met here and many editors have asked for the article to be shorter in length, I think that more info on this subject would not please most editors. I am placing a comment on the article talk page to gather consensus on this issue. NancyHeise ^talk 05:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added more detail on the Curia - please see Council of Trent paragraph at the end of Late Medieval and Renaissance section of History, there is mention of the centralisation of Roman Curia with three references and a Note 6. Note 6 is new and contains more detail on Curia as requested by Vassyana but kept to a concise mention in sensitive consideration of the many editors who were concerned about keeping article size to a minimum. Please consider that I am attempting to make everyone happy and that such an endeavor is not always possible. NancyHeise ^talk 17:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Good additions. I would prefer to see a little more, but the info added is mostly sufficient. The only remaining point of concern to me here is the lack of mention of the Curia's civil role in the Papal States. (By the by, the additional information about the Papal States is a very nice addition to the article.) Vassyana (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I added mention of Curia's civil role during Papal States era. NancyHeise ^talk 02:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have stricked the appropriate opposing point. Vassyana (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• In general and overall, a little more representation of the Protestant, Orthodox and secularist views. It is not necessary to bog down the article with counterpoints galore or to add such outside views willy-nilly. Instead, I am simply looking for indications to the reader that other views exist on points where there exists alternate prominent views, such as with the point about the history presented.

• Again, I would echo those who say that Protestant, orthodox, secularist views per se, are not really relevant in this article, unless they are NOTABLE and on a specific notable matter. There are mentions of Protestant and Orthodox differences, but this is not a comparative religion article. Unless you have a particular issue(s) on which you believe such additional viewpoints are urgently needed I don't think we can run far with this in general terms. Xandar 23:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

While I have made significant changes to the article to address Vassyana's comments here, I agree with Xandar on this one, I do not feel that more inclusion of other views (we already have a summary of them in beliefs section) is warranted or wanted by consensus of editors. All POV's as required by Wikipedia have already been covered, more expansion is unwarranted and will only add unwanted size to an already large article. NancyHeise ^talk 05:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I take issue with the changes as a whole being presented as substantive or significant. For the most part, little more than wikilinks and passing mentions are added with some of the information being inaccurate (see above) and my concerns as a whole are certainly not met in a "significant" manner.[20] Vassyana (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have answered all of your comments Vassyana, I have made several edits to include the info you've requested here. There are no POV's missing from the article, Duffy's position mentioned in Origins and mission covers your assertion regarding Ehrman. Duffy is a more scholary work than any of Ehrman's. I was not able to incorporate one of your comments (the first) because it is a factually incorrect statement that is not supported by any reference. I don't think I can reasonably be expected to insert material for which no source exists. NancyHeise ^talk 02:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are only a few examples of reliable sources documenting points I have raised: User:Vassyana/FAC. There are plenty of sources. Vassyana (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana's examples do not refute my article text. The first source says this "Four worldwide councils provided an arena where the Roman bishop was able to exert growing authority." Evidently there must have been a Roman bishop in existence before the worldwide councils met for him to exert his growing authority. The next source, Duffy, is the very source we use to support the non-Catholic POV, I'm not sure what else we can do to present that in a more clear fasion, it is already presented. The following sources only confirm that a Roman Church existed in earliest Christian times. Vassyana's sources dispute when the first pope emerged, our article already presents Duffy's view, the most scholalry and most oft cited of all those sources. NancyHeise ^talk 22:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The cherry-picking is getting beyond absurd. The first source also states, in the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted: "Between 325 and 451, the foundations for the Roman Catholic Church were laid." The quote I provided also concludes with: "Recognition by imperial and ecclesiastical authorities of Bishop Leo's pretensions to primacy, based on the Petrine tradition, provides grounds for believing that Leo was the first of the Roman Catholic popes." The source was chosen as a fairly typical example of a prominent Protestant view of the Church and it seems fairly clear about its point. The use of Duffy in the article is completely insufficient. There is but a single closing phrase that he doubts the early existance of a Roman Bishop and the validity of apostolic succession. Nowhere is the viewpoint given any substantive treatment and, more importantly, there is little to no indication in the history section of such "dissenting" views. The three sources after Duffy are principally about papal primacy. Bromiley further clarifies my point about the Council of Chalcedon. Schimmelpfennig not only presents an example of a prominent view that Roman primacy was not widely accepted in the early period of Christianity, but also presents a prominent viewpoint that the Roman Church became very limited in its influence for a significant period of time. I am not claiming that any of these are majority views, nor that they should dominate the article. I am only asking that all prominent views are represented in the article. I am not asking that they receive anything more than a limited treatment sufficient to make the reader aware of the existance of such viewpoints and what they state. That is, I am only asking that the criteria are met and our fundamental policy is followed. Vassyana (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope this helps clarify my opposition and presents my concerns in a more addressable and less confrontational manner. If I can provide further clarification or there are any questions, please do not hesitate to let me know. Vassyana (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

With regard to your quotes, Baker and Landers book which seems to make the most extensive claims is an opiniotaed 1950s textbook and not an academic work for WP Reliable Source purposes. The reason it makes the claims it does is that it starts from the position that the Church did not become the Catholic Church until the 4th Century. I also feel that you might be reading more into some of the quotes from your sources than is actually there because of your own outlook. However, for comprehensiveness, it is certainly worthwhile to add a sentence indicating that the viewpoints of these writers exist. This has now been added in the Roan Empire subsection, centring on Schimmelpfennig.Xandar 02:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel that this article is being somewhat negatively treated because of its subject. Some of the opposition comments I have read in this article are non-actionable and irrelevant. Why would an encyclopedia on the Roman Catholic Church need to include views by such a large(r) range of other non-related historians. As per the list that the nominaot provided (mind you its still not complete as he said), the article is clearly generous in this case and goes over some perspectives of other historians. The article is predominantly written from a Catholic point of view because it is a Catholic article. The FA criteria clearly states that it should not go into un-related points like the opposers are saying. Stick to the Roman Catholic view for the Roman Catholic article. If you want views of some other historians, read their wikipedia article. Similarly, if you want views of Judaism or Orthodox religions, read the specific related articles. Domiy (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support This is about a contentious and broad subject, which makes it impossible to resolve all questions of balance and weight. In its current form it is good enough and further attempts to accomodate all views are unlikely to significantly improve it.--Grahame (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Break 2

• Comment - "While competing forms of Christianity emerged early and persisted into the fifth century, the Roman Church..." This makes it sound like no other forms of Christianity besides the RCC survived past the 5th century. Why do we mention the 5th century specifically? Could this be explained better in the text? Kaldari (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Very good comment. I eliminated the phrase "persisted into the 5th century" because even though some of these vanished, others are still alive today and it is beyond the scope of this article to attempt to clarify which ones lasted or vanished. That information is best left to the Christianity article which is wikilinked in the lead. NancyHeise ^talk 16:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. Although I still think the article suffers from some pro-Catholic POV issues, considering the good faith efforts you have made to address the specific problems that have been brought up, I am changing my vote above from oppose to neutral. Kaldari (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Kaldari, the article is only helped when editors like you have taken the time to come and spend a decent amount of time reading it and offering insightful comments like yours. NancyHeise ^talk 23:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I note the new FAC History of Indiana is longer than this. Must be all those middle initials! Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, History of Indiana is at 9,300 words and Roman Catholic Church is at 11,500 words, and a reminder, again, that of more relevance than word count is whether Summary style has been appropriately used in each article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• STRONG SUPPORT This article has seen substantial improvement since the last time it was nominated. True, not everything is covered, but it is broad enough for the space constraints and the other items which are skimmed over can be improved in their individual articles. Kudos to everyone involved in getting it to this point!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral. I agree with Fasach Nua that the use of the SS image is a violation of policy, as its inclusion does not significantly aid reader's understanding of the article and its removal would not hurt understanding of the article. There is no discussion of this particular cartoon at all; it is only vaguely connected with the text it accompanies. But I know how hard Nancy and others have worked on this article, and I know how good the article is in every other respect but that, so I can't bring myself to oppose outright either. If the image were removed, I would support. —Angr 09:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Updated: See below.

Angr, I appreciate your comments here. Please understand that I have to respect everyone's comments and that picture has overwhelming support for inclusion. It is what FAC criteria asks of pictures, that they capture Reader's attention and draw them into the article. I think it is unmistakable that is what this particular picture does - a factor that is irreplaceable. I think it is very important to include since Pius has been highly publicly criticized for not doing enough to help the Jews during WWII and this picture irreplaceably communicates to Reader exactly what the Nazi's thought about Pius. Nowhere have we found words to describe the Nazi position of Pius XII. We have words to describe what they did to the Church but the picture makes a statement for which we do not have words. Also, that picture meets all qualifications for inclusion per this editor that SandyGeorgia asked to come and evaluate our pictures in the last FAC [21] NancyHeise ^talk 15:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that diff before, but I simply disagree with Kelly's conclusion, and his/her opinion is not the only one that counts. I stand by what I wrote above. I feel that image is being used in violation of Wikipedia policy and so I cannot in good conscience support the FAC. On the other hand, I feel that the image's violation of policy is not significant enough to counteract all the excellent work that's gone into this article, so neither can I in good conscience oppose the FAC. So I say "Neutral" (or, if you prefer, Abstain). —Angr 16:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Angr, you know that I respect your opinions very much. You are a very reasonable and knowledgeable Wikipedia editor with whom I have only had the most upstanding interactions and enlightening conversations. But since Wikipedia works on consensus, I am required to respect this policy. The picture has been vetted by a very large number of editors - there are at present 16 supports on this page and there were 9 very experienced peer reviewers who commented in the last peer review - the picture has overwhelming support for inclusion. How can I now, with only two people's comments here on FAC, delete this most important picture that makes a most important statement on a very controversial issue - an issue for which we do not have words to describe? NancyHeise ^talk 16:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, without going through and looking at every comment here and at the last peer review, I suspect that not all 16 FAC supporters or all 9 peer-reviewers actually thought much about this one image and to what extent it meets WP:NFCC#8; after all, it's just one image tucked into the middle of truly ginormous article, and of course most people are going to be interested in what the article says rather than image issues. (All the FAC supporters and peer-reviewers didn't notice all the links to disambiguation pages that I cleared up earlier today either – there's simply far too much to this article for everyone to notice and comment on everything.) If there were a discussion in the text about this particular cartoon and its significance, that would also be enough for me to switch to support. However, don't worry about this too much – WP:FAC only says "Nominators are expected... to address objections promptly", and this is an Abstention, not an Objection! :-) —Angr 17:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Angr, the very last part of our last peer review was an involved review of all pictures by several veteran editors. An involved repicturing of the article ensued with some pics being tossed - what was left was what everyone agreed to include. [22] This is not an issue that was overlooked in the last peer review. There was also another discussion on pictures on the talk page that took place during the peer review and before submission to FAC. That talk page is not archived and the discussion is listed under the title "Picture". Here's the link [23] Since this issue has been so evidently discussed both at peer review and on talk page where numerous editors have visted and commented on many different issues, there is also this policy to consider Wikipedia:Silence and consensus which states that silence on an issue implies consent. There have been no objectors to use of this picture either at peer review or on talk. I appreciate that you have not voiced an oppose but I am also required to respond to people's comments and I just want to make sure that you know that this issue was properly addressed prior to bringing the article to FAC. The Nazi picture was just a non-issue, it was accepted by all as an entirely appropriate use of the picture and this was by both Catholics and non-Catholics alike. NancyHeise ^talk 17:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, then this is a case where consensus has decided to ignore Wikipedia policy. Unfortunate, but it's not the first time and won't be the last. —Angr 20:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Aw cmon Angr ... you know application of that policy to this situation (picture) is highly a matter of personal opinion, not a strictly black and white interpretation. I appreciate your comments but would be much happier if you were supporting instead of neutral. I guess I won't be able to convince you with my excessive efforts to win you over to my side - at least I tried! NancyHeise ^talk 21:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The image Angr did not like has been removed from the article and replaced with one that is released to public domain. NancyHeise ^talk 05:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nancy has rightly made yet more changes, recognizing the controversial character of the text on which I commented. But, as well as suggesting by the use of the phrase "the Church" that the Eastern bishop Ignatius thought only the Western Church was catholic, a note within the lead attributes to a particular writer, as the only source for its statement, an idea that he explicitly rejected, it presents as fact a questioned unsourced statement that is contradicted by reliable sources, and it suggests, against the evidence of the documents themselves, that there is only one name by which this Church refers to itself in important documents. Soidi (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The first of these defects seems to have been remedied, but the idea that the Church has a single "official" name has again, against Nancy's wishes, been suggested in the text. Perhaps this too can be fixed when those who inserted the suggestion will respond to a renewal of the citation request that they have hitherto deleted without responding to it. Soidi (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I can not act on this oppose because it is placed here after sincere efforts were made to please Soidi yet talk page consensus ultimately ruled against this opposer's positions and interpretations. I am siding with consensus of editors and the article text that best reflects the meanings of the sources. The article talk page sufficiently documents the discussions and consensus. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 01:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not start by no longer insisting on citing in support(!) of a statement a source that disagrees with the statement? Soidi (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The phrase with which, as a result of further changes by Nancy, the article now begins is inappropriate as an opening, and is criticized by several editors on the Talk page. Soidi (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This was changed to a form that you, Karanacs, and TSP have all agreed to. The lead sentence has now removed all qualifying or descriptive statements and states simply "Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church...." leaving further information regarding the name in the note following the sentence. I am in agreement that this is the best way to deal with this issue and will avoid any future challenges to lead sentence accusations of POV one way or the other. NancyHeise ^talk 05:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral. Soidi (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC))Oppose, as long as it makes the claim that "Catholic Church" is the one name that the Church uses officially. Nancy claims that there is a consensus in support of this claim, but since other names, including even "Roman Catholic Church", are in fact used in official documents of the Church, it is demonstrably false. See here. But for that, I would support. Soidi (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Accepting Soidi's position would require me violate WP:consensus. Soidi has provided no references to support his/her position. The article text that he/she opposes is supported by two WP:RS sources, one with a link and the other with a quote that have been vetted by peer reviewers and many other article editors besides myself. I do not consider this an actionable oppose. For anyone who's interested, here are the discussions on this issue [24], [25], [26], [27] - as you can see, for the past six months that "official name" has been in this lead sentence, in the three instances when this was questioned, consensus of editors always supported the use of "official name is Catholic Church" and not always the same editors which reveals a large consensus for its inclusion. I want to point out that none of the peer reviewers objected to using this term in the last peer review here [28] which can also be interpreted as consensus per WP:silence and consensus. The sources supporting the article text expressly indicate in which situations the Church may use Roman Catholic Church instead of Catholic Church and both sources indicate clearly that Roman Catholic Church is not the official name and Catholic Church is. NancyHeise ^talk 15:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You have supposedly read WP:CCC: "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable." What better reference than the official documents of the Church in which the Church does call itself by names other than the single one you favour? Many such documents could be cited. To simplify matters, I referred you to a simple straightforward one, but you prefer to keep your eyes closed to it. Soidi (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for supplying a link to a document by Pius XI in Latin [29], I read the one in English here [30] but could not find any mention of Roman Catholic Church as you suggest. Even if it did, our references do state that it is used in some documents for some reasons (examples being when it is required by certain governments like England) but go on to state that Roman Catholic Church is not the official name but Catholic Church is. My references support the article text and your references do nothing to refute what already exists in my references. Consensus has again been reached as it has been every time this issue has been brought up. I would like to make you happy Soidi and win your support but I can not be expected to delete an important notable fact from the page and insert language that is not supported by any reference as you are asking me to do. NancyHeise ^talk 19:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you just use the Find function on your computer on the text of the encyclical. You will find the sentence "Idque accidit propterea quod in Sancta Ecclesia Catholica Romana, Civitate Dei, bonus civis unum idemque est ac vir probus." Then do the same on the English version, which has this translation of the sentence: "This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing." After that you might care to explain how a papal encyclical is not an official document of the Church, officially using the name that you say it never uses. (Must I repeat that it is only your interpretation of the two sources you mention that makes them say that "Catholic Church" is the only name that the Church uses officially?) And while you are at it, would you also explain how the all-embracing phrase "officially known" really means no more than "officially named by the Church itself, regardless of how it may be officially known by governments etc." Soidi (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, is the encyclical signed "I, Pius XI, of the Holy Roman Catholic Church" ? No. It is signed just Catholic Church. The fact that a papal encyclical or a pope will use the term Roman does not negate official name - which is explained and supported by my two references. Believe me, you are not the first person to try and convince a majority of editors in this manner that Catholic Church is not the official name. No one has succeeded with this argument because they can not prove that the mentions constitute an offical name. Our two references tell Reader that the Roman Catholic Church is used occasionally but specifically state that it is not the offical name and Catholic Church is. You are asking me to eliminate an important, notable fact that goes against consensus of editors and two solid references. NancyHeise ^talk 20:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the encyclical is not signed "I, Pius XI, of the Holy Roman Catholic Church". Nor is it signed "I, Pius XI, of the Catholic Church". It is signed "Pius Papa XI" (Pope Pius XI). What follows from that? (And yes, I do know that in the actual signature "Papa" is abbreviated as "Pp.")

The Church, which in its official documents refers to itself by various names, has never declared any name to be its one official name. Not even your two sources say it has. The first shows something different, namely that "Catholic Church" has been used officially (as has "Roman Catholic Church") and argues that "Catholic Church" is the "proper" name. Only in your imagination/interpretation does that first source claim that "Catholic Church" is the one and only official name of the Church. The other source says that, in 1889, the Church authorities disliked "Roman Catholic Church", did not use it officially, and replaced it with one or other of two expressions. Perhaps that was true in 1889. It is obviously not true for later years with regard to official use of the name "Roman Catholic Church", as dozens of Church documents show. Take for example the simple example I gave you at the beginning: the title of the official document of the Holy See Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church. Only in your imagination/interpretation did this 1889 writing say that "Catholic Church" was the one and only name used officially by the Church.

The Church's own documents are of far greater significance than the opinions of writers of 1889 or even later. That is why I have not considered it important to mention that there are also writers who - speaking expressly about the "official name" of the Church, and so not needing to be interpreted as doing so - state that the official name of the Church is "Roman Catholic Church". Take Our Religious Traditions by Sterling Power Lamprecht, published by Harvard University Press in 1950, which says: "The Roman Catholic Church has the two adjectives, Roman and Catholic, in its official name" (p. 31); or, if you want something more recent (in any case, 1950 is decidedly modern in comparison to 1889), The Sacred Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions by Arthur Carl Piepkorn, Philip J Secker, Robert Kolb, published by CEC Press in 2007 (ISBN 0979528402, 9780979528408), which on page xxxv says that the adjective "Roman" is a part of its official name. (It isn't my fault that this morning Google is no longer showing texts from this book, as it did a couple of weeks ago, when I first found it and took note of the page number; if you have access to a library, you can probably check that it is so.) Surely that is enough to show that Wikipedia cannot, on the basis of opinions expressed by some but not all writers, present your view, a view that flies in the face of the Church's actual usage, as "an important, notable fact". Soidi (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite these isolated refs, it is surely wholly untenable that "Roman Catholic Church" is the Church's official name, and it seems implausible that after 2,000 years, the Church has not yet decided upon one for itself. You surely know that instances of internal self-titling as the CC outnumber those as the RCC by several hundred to one. I repeat that it is unfortunate that the many thousands of words devoted to various contradictory oppositions to the wording concensus has established do not result in additions to Catholicism, the proper place for these points. Several attempts at other wordings have not produced one that is more accurate, or helpful for the reader. Everything in this article is necessarily compressed because of size constraints, and to cover all the nuances of the churches name would breach WP:UNDUE here, though Catholicism has the space for that, or a new article purely on the history and variants of the church's name would be justified. Johnbod (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't I who say that "Roman Catholic Church" is the (unique) official name of the Church. That is the view of Lamprecht and of Piepkorn, Secker and Kolb - and of others. It goes against Wikipedia principles to ignore completely their view (which is not mine) and to present an opposing view not just as the only opinion worth considering, but as an actual fact.

You surely know that the name most used by the Church in its official documents to refer to itself is simply "the Church". It outnumbers "the Catholic Church" perhaps even by as much as "Catholic Church" outnumbers "Roman Catholic Church".

The proper place for information on the name(s) officially used by the Church governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him is in the article that deals with that Church, not in an article that deals with the notion of Catholicism. Soidi (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither of your references is a Catholic source, published in a Catholic source. My reference by Kenneth Whitehead is published in the most respected Catholic newspaper and most respected Catholic Television station. There are many Protestants who claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the name of the Catholic Church. No where are they published and framed in a Catholic publication. I believe Kenneth Whitehead's book excerpt on the Church's name describes its clearly official use when he states that it is the name with which the popes have signed the Vatican documents, and expressly omitting any use of the term "Roman" at the request of the English Bishops. I am not sure if you know why the English bishops were requesting this but it was because of Protestant pressure to force the Catholic Church to use Roman Catholic for POV reasons. We would be omitting an important notable referenced fact by not stating the official name used by the Church herself and we would be inserting POV in addition. Soidi, you can not expect us to grant your request when we have superior references and the obvious explanation by Whitehead why. NancyHeise ^talk 19:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

So the only reliable sources are Catholic sources, except for the Church itself, whose actual practice is quite irrelevant! Perhaps not everyone in the Wikipedia community would agree with your assessment of sources, according to which yours are superior to all others. You take the form in which the Pope signed Council documents as proof of a choice of official name for all circumstances always. You take at face value what Whitehead said about the English bishops at the First Vatican Council, the Council that declared: "The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth ..." (For the text see EWTN.) The use of "Roman" by an ecumenical council is for you only something in an inferior source. And although Whitehead does not say what was in the mind of the English bishops at that Council, you know what it was. You know also some "obvious" explanation by Whitehead that completely eludes me but that explains the use of "Roman Catholic Church" in the simple example of an official Holy See document that I gave, not to mention the encyclicals of Pius XI and Pius XII. Duh! Soidi (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, this is what your own link states: "I, Pius, bishop of the Catholic Church, with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the profession of faith which the Holy Roman Church uses, namely:...". Soidi, this link like all of your others, does not refute what our two references support. You have voiced your complaint and your oppose. I have answered you at length. I think the best place to discuss this now is the article talk page. NancyHeise ^talk 00:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with your action suggestion, though not, of course, with the idea that the use of "bishop of the Catholic (or catholic) Church" in Pius IX's profession of faith (and its traditional use by Popes when signing decrees of ecumenical councils, which caused discontent to one Catholic bishop whom I know and who, while maintaining that he too is a bishop of the Catholic Church, had to sign merely as bishop of a particular see - an indication of the real meaning, in such documents, of "catholic" in the formula used by the Popes (instead of "Bishop of Rome"), but not by the other Catholic bishops) proves that "Catholic Church" is the one and only official name of the Church. Soidi (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Note - this oppose seems to be a continuation of disruption by the user. Many of his arguments have lacked any kind of proof, and he has relied on unstandard sources, etc, in furthering said arguments. There is a very clear name, and there is a very clear source for that name. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

note to FA director regarding Soidi's oppose Editors overwhelmingly decided on the sentence "Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church (note1)" as evidenced on the article talk page here [31]. They then overwhelmingly supported the note following the sentence as evidenced here [32]. Objectors arguments over the name sentence and the note were soundly rejected as evidenced by these votes. Soidi was the only person to suggest any problem with the note and his arguments were soundly rejected by both the vote and this dicussion here [33]. I don't know what else I could be doing to find the most correct sentence or note. A group of 15 editors have exhausted this subject and come to a consensus conclusion that is documented on the article talk page as linked in this response. NancyHeise ^talk 15:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a very naive opposition: I am not a scholar expert in this intricated domain. Here are however my feeling after reading the lead and the first section. The lead does not read well. It is IMHO no brilliant prose but the result of many edit wars and strange compromises: For example, "The Church looks to the pope, currently Benedict XVI, as its highest human and visible authority in matters of faith, morality and Church governance.[5]" seems to have been written to avoid to say that the highest authority of the Church a level below God is the Pope. Is God not human? Is God not visible? Moreover it seems the authors wanted to list all the powers of the Pope in order to say that the Pope has a limited authority. Which matters are relevant for the Church except "faith, morality and Church governance"? Could one say this in a simpler way: "The Church looks to the pope, currently Benedict XVI, as its highest authority after God." The first section is written in the catholic POV only. According to this article, the Church "traces its foundation to Jesus and the Twelve Apostles" and "Some scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus". Does this mean that the other scholars don't agree? If so, who are they and which are their arguments? Why are both topic "Origin" and "Mission" mixed in one section only? The question of the orgins is a question of faith and a question of historical fact which has nothing to do with the mission of the church - except if one adopt the purely naive catholic POV and declares that the mission was "founded upon Jesus' command" as if Jesus would have been able to predict the future and was therefore defined from the origin on. Vb (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vb, thank you for taking the time to come see the page. I appreciate your efforts to help. I will respond in order of your comments and invite you to give us some ideas that you think would improve the article.

1)"The Church looks to the pope, currently Benedict XVI, as its highest human and visible authority in matters of faith, morality and Church governance.[5]" seems to have been written to avoid to say that the highest authority of the Church a level below God is the Pope. Is God not human? Is God not visible?

• Answer: The sentence is factual and referenced. Making a statement of belief as you have suggested "The Church looks to the pope, currently Benedict XVI, as its highest authority after God." in the lead would be pro-Catholic POV. On the other hand, eliminating "human and visible" would be non-Catholic POV that would then make the entire sentence turn into a false statement by stating that the pope is the highest authority. We have stated in the Beliefs section that the Church believes it is led by the Holy Spirit (God). I eliminated "and visible" so the sentence now reads "The Church looks to the pope, currently Benedict XVI, as its highest human authority in matters of faith, morality and Church governance.[5]" which is what it looked like when I first submitted this page to this FAC.

I don't think stating that the Church considers God as her highest authority is a pro-catholic POV. This is a well-known fact that the Church believes in God. I think the current wording "earthly" has the same meaning but read better and is clearer than before.

2)The first section is written in the catholic POV only. According to this article, the Church "traces its foundation to Jesus and the Twelve Apostles" and "Some scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus". Does this mean that the other scholars don't agree? If so, who are they and which are their arguments?

• Yes, this means that other scholars don't agree. There are thousands of scholars, we give named examples of each POV except the strictly Catholic one which can be found by clicking on the two references. As required by Wikipedia, we gave space to each POV regarding the origins of the Church. The scholars chosen are those whose works were the most oft cited and were the most respected in their fields following the guidelines set out for us in WP:reliable source examples. We added wording to make it more clear that other scholars disagree. NancyHeise ^talk 17:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe changing the word "trace" with "believe" would be better. The Church doesn't need any proof to believe she has been founded by Jesus. "Trace" implies IMHO looking for historical traces which may be doubtful or questioned.

That would be factually incorrect. The church historically "traces" its foundation to Jesus and the Apostles as evidenced by the historical document of Irenaeus first list of the bishops of Rome in the second century. This is not just belief, this is "traced" via historical documents. The fact that some scholars are not sure of the accuracy of this document is evidenced by the existence of scholars such as Eamon Duffy whose position is included in this analogy. NancyHeise ^talk 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the wording should be changed and precised in order to convice the reader this is not only a matter of faith but also based on historical investigations. The authors should use a more precise formulation in order to avoid the catholic-POVed feeling a naive reader has when he reads it. [User:Vb|Vb]19:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There is already wording there "Some scholars agree 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." I don't know what else we can say that would make this more clear. NancyHeise ^talk 17:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I humbly suggest you the following "The Church believes, on the basis of the 'document of Irenaeus', that...". Because each time you say "according to the Church" or "the Church thinks that" it is difficult for the profane to distinguish between an opinion based on historical facts/documents or based on faith. Vb 20:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

3)Why are both topic "Origin" and "Mission" mixed in one section only? The question of the orgins is a question of faith and a question of historical fact which has nothing to do with the mission of the church - except if one adopt the purely naive catholic POV and declares that the mission was "founded upon Jesus' command" as if Jesus would have been able to predict the future and was therefore defined from the origin on.

• Because the question of origin and mission in the Catholic POV is intertwined, these are mixed here. The non-Catholic POV does not give a position on the Church mission or we would have included it as well. Mission logically should precede Beliefs because it tells Reader what the Church is supposed to do (spread the Gospel) before it then gives Reader a summary of that Gospel. NancyHeise ^talk 20:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible non sequitur here, but I noticed someone making the change ", as its highest human and visible authority in matters of faith," to ", as its highest human authority in matters of faith,", to respond to objections above, and... I wonder if it seems clumsy and perhaps somewhat misses the point. (I didn't read all the above tho) Would it not be better to say ", as its highest earthly authority in matters of faith," ? Umm, you know, everything in its place? Shenme (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I changed "human" to "earthly". Thanks for the suggestion! NancyHeise ^talk 01:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Your answer shows up exactly my point. The sectioning is POVed. The fact that, according to the Church (or better to say her believe, there are many christian historians), both missions and origins are intertwinned, does not imply that this article must do that too. The article should not mix both belief and knowledge. Vb 10:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The entire origins paragraph is a mix of belief and history. Both sides of the POV are based on belief - each has the same documents in front of them - particularly Irenaeus' second century list of bishops of Rome beginning with St. Peter. The Catholic POV believes this historical document proves they were founded by Jesus, the non-Catholic POV believes they are not sure of its historical accuracy so they just say they are not sure. NancyHeise ^talk 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I still think one can split the paragraph into two distinct ones or make clearer why both should be mixed. [User:Vb|Vb] 19:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no FAC criteria being violated by our presentation. Solid consensus supports present article structure and you are asking me to violate that consensus. Logical flow of the article states what the Church is (Lead), Where did it come from (Origins), What does it do (Mission) - to spread the Gospel, What is that Gospel it is supposed to spread (Beliefs, Practices and Worship), Who makes up community (Community), and so on - this is the most logical and proper format. NancyHeise ^talk 17:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My suggesstion of splitting the section is utterly in agreement with the sectioning you just explained I think it would even be better fitting to it if we had a splitting of the section. Vb 20:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Break 3

• Oppose but the article is promosing if the following major issues could be reviewed:

Note 337 states “Einstein, for instance, in an article in Time, paid tribute to Pius and noted that the Church alone 'stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign.' “ But the reference doesn't check out since I can find no mention of Pius in Einsteins comments as published by Time. [34] Furthermore Einstein doesn't say its the Roman Catholic Church who “stood squarely” as is suggested by this note, its simply the Church which in the context of the article seems to be the Christian church as a whole. There has been some debate as to the apocryphal nature of the remarks attributed by Time to Einstein but there is a letter that was being auctioned recently that purports to be from Einstein to a Christian correspondent asking him to confirm if he indeed spoke the words quoted by Time and once again, if its authentic, its the Christian Church as a whole and not the Roman Catholic Church in particular that Einstein alludes, not as the article currently suggests.[35] — Taam 15:52, 18 October 2008 — continues after insertion below

• Thank you for coming to the article to offer your valuable comments. I did not know that anyone was disputing the meaning of Einsteins comments. They are mentioned in one of my most scholarly works, a university textbook for decades on Church history and in many high quality publications such as the Weekly Standard [36]. To avoid the controversy altogether, I eliminated the sentence in the article text and replaced it with another from a scholarly source quoting the Israeli historian and consul Pinchas Lapide [37]. Thanks for helping to uncover a little known and maybe new controversy that we would rather avoid being in the middle of! NancyHeise ^talk 20:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The Time article is in the public domain and the error was easily caught but this doesn't inspire confidence regarding the "scholarly sources" being used. I will work my way through the rest of your replies as time permits. Taam (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps since Skeptic Magazine seems to be the only one disputing Einsteins words, the scholars dismissed it. I do not write the scholarly sources, I just find the ones who fit WP:reliable source examples definition of top sources. Skeptic Magazine would not fit in that category but I eliminated Einstein in the article text anyway to make you happy. NancyHeise ^talk 02:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In this instance it doesn't take the Skeptics magazine to find out that Einstein didn't mention Pope Pius or the Roman Catholic Church as the article claimed - all a person has to do is click on the link supplied and read the Time article. I suspect was has happened is that your source has just repeated a common legend in apologetics circles without checking the primary source. Taam (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Taam, I do not have to do original research and audit the findings of scholars. If someone is cited in scholarly works, especially as often as Einstein is cited, I am justified by Wikipedia policy including the statement. I deleted it to please you. NancyHeise ^talk 21:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, scholars are not infallable, if you see a blatant mistake which is easily verifiable would you continue to use because it flatters the Church? Taam (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Neither would I eliminate information that appears repeatedly in the most scholarly works just because a Wikipedia editor tells me to do so - but I did anyway to please you but you remain unpleased I see. NancyHeise ^talk 17:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The body text states : ”After the war historians such as David Kertzer accused the Church of encouraging centuries of anti-semitism, and Pope Pius XII of not doing enough to stop Nazi atrocities.[336] Prominent members of the Jewish community such as Albert Einstein contradicted the criticisms and spoke highly of Pius' efforts to protect Jews” I think this is ambiguous since Einsteins supposed comments in Time Magazine doesn't exonerate the Church for historical persecution, he only mentions what was happening in the 1930's.[38] I cannot believe there is any Jewish or Christian scholar who would deny historical oppression. After apparently dismissing any charges the article continues “Even so, in 2000 Pope John Paul II on behalf of all people, apologized to Jews by inserting a prayer at the Western Wall that read "We're deeply saddened by the behavior of those in the course of history who have caused the children of God to suffer, and asking your forgiveness, we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.” which makes the Pope seemly apologise for things that never happened. Compare this to what the Church says: ““Despite the Christian preaching of love for all, even for one's enemies, the prevailing mentality down the centuries penalized minorities and those who were in any way "different". Sentiments of anti-Judaism in some Christian quarters, and the gap which existed between the Church and the Jewish people, led to a generalized discrimination, which ended at times in expulsions or attempts at forced conversions. In a large part of the "Christian" world, until the end of the 18th century, those who were not Christian did not always enjoy a fully guaranteed juridical status. Despite that fact, Jews throughout Christendom held on to their religious traditions and communal customs. They were therefore looked upon with a certain suspicion and mistrust. In times of crisis such as famine, war, pestilence or social tensions, the Jewish minority was sometimes taken as a scapegoat and became the victim of violence, looting, even massacres.”[39]. The whole section seems a gloss over, no mention of the “perfidious Jews” that formed part of the Good Friday liturgy up until the late 1950's, nothing about how Jews were made to dress differently[40] - and so on... — Taam 15:52, 18 October 2008 — continues after insertion below

Thank you for your comments here. I have clarified the sentence to show that the prominent members of the Jewish community spoken of were defending Pius XII, not the accusation againt the Church for encouraging centuries of antisemitism. Very good catch. As mentioned above, Einsteins comments were omitted and replaced by those of Pinchas Lapide. There are a number of prominent Jews whose comments we can choose to place in the article but these seem to be the most notable and talked about. Pinchas Lapide's comment appears in several scholarly works on the subject. Persecutions of all non-Christians including Jews by Catholics during the Inquisitions is mentioned in that section of history. Muslims were persecuted along with Jews and maybe in an even greater fashion since they were completely driven out of Europe while Jews remained. Since there are many different peoples of many different religious beliefs, I did not feel the article would be helped to name every single group that was persecuted because they were not specifically singled out - equal persecution happened to all non-Christians except during the Spanish Inquisition and we have specifically mentioned Muslims and Jews as special targets there. The article does not omit any notable controversies. NancyHeise ^talk 22:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked up the link you gave which quotes Pinchas Lapide but it points out that Lapide does not support his claims with sources and then goes on to desrcibe "one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the Vatican" i.e help given to Nazi war criminals. I think this is another example of the concerns about sources. Taam (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The source states that Lapide is an Israeli historian who interviewed survivors after the war. (supplemented by Rabbi David Dalin here [41] He compiled his figures from these personal interviews. Where to you find "help given to Nazi war criminals" by the Vatican? Please provide a link. NancyHeise ^talk 17:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The link was the one you supplied and the text about help given to Nazi war criminals is on the same page. The point was that the source you supplied says Lapide didn't give any factual basis for claimed figures of people helped yet you are using him as a reference source here, do you understand my confusion? Also the second link you give to support Lapide doesn't give any evidence to support figure claimed by Lapide either. Taam (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Taam, If a scholarly work cites someone, I can include that cite. I do not do and am not allowed to do WP:original research and audit the findings of scholars. I have included in the article text, an oft cited comment by a notable Jew, one who is an historian and a former consul who interviewed survivors. As with all of those Jews listed who defended the Church against attacks of those who felt they did not do enough, there are people who try to explain away why they would have defended the Church. Some say Golda Meir's defense was based on politics. I just include facts. The facts are that several prominent Jews defended the attacks on Pius for whatever reasons, perhaps even because he actually did what they say he did. I can include individual statements of any one of them to offer Reader an example of the defense, I chose Lapide because he is mentioned in several scholarly works - some of which are meant to discredit his work. That does not change the fact that he made the statement and based it on interviews with survivors as per Rabbi David Dalin here: [42]. I am justified including this notable statement. Please understand that I have worked very hard to please you but it seems you do not want us to have any defense of the Church included here and you want great expansion on the crimes of the Church against Jews. I don't understand why you feel as if we need to say more than what is already there. We have omitted no notable facts and all are wikilinked to daughter pages where Reader can learn more in great detail. NancyHeise ^talk 21:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The article states:

Pinchas Lapide declared Pius XII "was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands" and quotes ^ Deák, p. 182 , but Deak says that Lapide doesn't quantify these figures and goes on to mention there use by Pat Buchanan, and I don't think he means this to validate there accuracy. Michael J. Walsh in his book “The Popes” says that some commentators claim that the Pope gave help in secret to Jews seeking refuge, with many Jews being hidden in Catholic institutions , all under his direction, but that actual evidence is hard to come by. Furthermore Lapide is quoted in LeMonde (December 13th 1963): "I can affirm that the Pope personally, the Holy See, the nuncios, and the whole Catholic Church have saved from 150,000 to 400,000 Jews from certain death”,[43] which is somewhat less than the articles numbers. It seems we aren't dealing with facts here and whilst Deak and others accept Pius did try to help Jews in certain ways we shouldn't be putting into an encyclopaedic article such quotations. If you insist in keeping it in then we can balance it with quotations from other scholars who don't seem to be in sympathy with what's being claimed in terms of the numbers quoted. Taam (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Taam, this is a link to the actual page of Deaks book [44]. He calls Lapide "The respected Israeli Historian and Religious thinker, Pinchas Lapide". He does not negate Lapide's figures nor does he provide facts to negate them, he calls Lapide a "respected Historian", he says that the figures were used by aplogists. I do not see how we are supposed to turn a blind eye to this oft quoted and notable comment. Doing so would be blatant anti-Catholic POV.NancyHeise ^talk 20:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

He says he doesn't quantify his figures. A scholarly source must give a basis for how numbers are quantified. The onus is on the source who makes the claims to substantiate them. This isn't being overly critical since other scholars are more forthright on the issue of supposed hundreds of thousands saved, e.g Michael Phayer “The physical extermination of the Jews took place on the largely catholic continent of Europe.. We are faced with the plain appalling fact that many of the worlds greatest mass murders were born and raised Catholic -Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and Rudolf Hess, to mention only a few. The small number of Catholic rescuers are obscured by the mountain of evil cast over them by these perpetrators...{the] church was a sleeping giant that awoke too late to exploit its organizational potential to save Jews in a concerted effort...”We Remember the Shoah exaggerates not a little when it asserts that the pope personally or through his representatives saved “hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives””[45]Taam (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Your link to a Vatian document which you have quoted from states this just prior to your chosen quote: ""In the Christian world—I do not say on the part of the Church as such—erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people and their alleged culpability have circulated for too long, engendering feelings of hostility towards this people".(8) Such interpretations of the New Testament have been totally and definitively rejected by the Second Vatican Council.(9)" You seem to have glossed over this. :) NancyHeise ^talk 01:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubts about how people use biblical texts, so there is no need for me to gloss over it as you suggest. Is the description of "Perfidious Jews" that appeared in the Good Friday liturgy an example? Taam (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfidious means "faithless". To a Christian, a non-Christian is faithless. To a Muslim, a non-Muslim is faithless. Is this a notable controversy that we need to mention here? The word "perfidious" was removed from the Good Friday liturgy in 1959. The present liturgy prays for the conversion of the Jews - so they will know that their Messiah has already come. This is an act of love for Jews from Catholics although a small minority of Jews might find it offensive, it is not meant to be. Perhaps there are loving Jews who also pray for us Catholics to be converted to their faith - also an act of love. I am sure God would see both as acts of love and be happy either way. I don't know why we have to put anything in the article to cover this insignificant issue. NancyHeise ^talk 16:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfidious does not simply mean faithless, its perjorative meaning deliberate and being culpable. Look up some dictionaries. Taam (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Look up not dictionaries but histories. Perfidious gained it pejorative meaning only over time. When the prayer was worded it simply meant "infidel" in the Christian sense. (Consider the word "sinister", which in Italian only means "left"!) The change in meaning led to the change in the wording, albeit with delay because of it is not easy to change traditional wordings (an attempt in the 1920s or 1930s failed).

Ah, and what actually is the relevance of this regarding an overall article on the RCC? I see none. Haven't some complained about too much detail? Str1977 ^(talk) 21:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Str, will try and find out more about it's historical use. When I double checked my understanding with a Catholic scholar it seemed to confirm my own understanding:

3. "The word "perfidious" in the old Good Friday liturgy referred to the rejection of God's Son the Messiah by the Jews who called for his crucifixion. He had given them proofs of who He was, but they closed their eyes and ears to them. Though it may be counter-productive to make this point in today's age, this willful blindness to the truth is spectacularly evidenced by the Sanhedrin when they received the report of Jesus' Resurrection from the Roman guards at His tomb. There were 16 guards on duty, only 600 yards from Pilate's government house and residence; they were certainly not all asleep, for sleeping on watch by a Roman soldier was punishable by death. If the Sanhedrin believed their report, they knew a miracle had happened. If they disbelieved it, why did they not denounce them to Pilate and have the apostles arrested for stealing Jesus' body, either with the complicity of the guards or because of their negligence? But the Sanhedrin did neither, instead bribing the guards to say that Jesus' disciples had stolen His body while they slept, and promising to protect them from Pilate. They must have known or at least guessed the truth, and yet refused to believe. In any case, the expression "perfidious" cannot logically apply to Jews apart from the circumstances of the crucifixion, except under a theory of collective guilt, for which see the first paragraph under #1 (above)."[46] Taam (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not see the relevance of this argument nor of including any mention of it in the article. This is not a notable criticism and is best left to the article Criticism of the Catholic Church which is also wikilinked in our article. NancyHeise ^talk 02:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You made a point about the misuse of biblical texts and I asked in reply if the Good Friday liturgy was an example. As it turns out the Catholic scholar quoted above does use biblical texts to justify the "perfidious" tag to some Jews of the period, but there was no suggestion on my part about including it in this article. 18:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to get scholarly opinion on the the issue of the Good Friday liturgy. The only account I could find on-line regarding the issue of “pro perfidies Judaeis” is here: [47] where the author refers to different positions (with references) but in the end concludes that the Latin term is not simply a state of non belief but rather “against the faith”, that is the Jew knows the truth but stubbornly refuses to acknowledge it. Although this seems to verify the opinion of the Catholic scholar given below. Taam (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The article states “Prior to the start of World War II in the 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, Pope Pius XI warned Catholics that antisemitism is incompatible with Christianity.” The encyclical doesn't mention anti-Semitism specifically and the reference given to support the claim doesn't check out, i.e the words the article attributes to Mit brennender Sorge, and by extension to Pius XII, were in fact supposed to have been spoken by Pius XI to visiting Belgian pilgrims in the Vatican[48] which is a lot different to an encyclical broadcast to the world. On the subject of anti-semitism it is indeed true that Pius XI intended to publish an encyclical on this subject but he died and Pius XII decided not to publish it.[49] — Taam 15:52, 18 October 2008 — continues after insertion below

Repaired, this was an error of the efforts to trim the article that combined the two. I repaired this by breaking them out. Thanks for this important comment, it is very helpful. NancyHeise ^talk 22:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The article says of Mit brennender Sorge “it described Hitler as an insane and arrogant prophet” . The encyclical doesn't mention Hitler in particular and this assertion seems way over the top in its zeal to exonerate the Church. Common sense says that a Pope has to be very careful of every word spoken, think what happened a couple of years ago in the immediate aftermath of comments spoken by Pope Benedict. In “We Remember the Shoa” it simply states “Pope Pius XI too condemned Nazi racism in a solemn way in his Encyclical Letter Mit brennender Sorge,”[50] — Taam 15:52, 18 October 2008 — continues after insertion below

I removed mention of Hitler and changed to sentence to read exactly as it appears in the source. We are trying to paraphrase our scholarly sources and the source says "it described "the Fuhrer himself as a 'mad prophet possessed of repuslive arrogance.'". We changed "Fuhrer" to say "Hitler" and did not see this as an error since the only Fuhrer in Germany at the time of the encyclical was Hitler. NancyHeise ^talk 22:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree the encyclical doesn't mention Hitler nor does it mention the Fuhrer? That being so is it not better to quote from "We remember the Shoa". I don't think, in view of the importance of this encyclical and the need for accuracy, that even prefacing it with "In the opinion of x". Rest of reply to follow as time permits. Taam (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The article sates “Pius XI later warned Catholics that antisemitism is incompatible with Christianity”. It should be made clear that Pius was speaking to a group of Belgian pilgrims, I.e not an encyclical. More to follow on this subjectTaam (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Taam, I have placed in the article text, an exact quote from a university textbook that has been used for decades. This is the most scholarly work on the Catholic Church that exists, it has a bibliography that is 43 pages long. Per WP:Reliable source examples it fits the definition of top source. Please read the book reviews and you will see that it is held in top esteem. That source is actually quoting another scholar so we not only have one scholar's opinion in that source, we have two. Both agree that Mit Brennender Sorge is talking about the Furher who at the time was Hitler. Do you have a better scholarly source that says otherwise? Is there any scholarly source out there that says Mit Brenneder Sorge was talking about someone else besides Hitler? If it wasn't talking about Hitler or condemning Nazism, why all the persecution of the Church that followed? I do not understand your objection to this highly sourced sentence. NancyHeise ^talk 16:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Further, regarding Pius XI later warning to Catholics that antisemitism is incompatible with Christianity - When a pope speaks, it goes to the whole church. The statement by Pius has reached the entire church, it is in the works of university textbooks and many other scholarly sources so I do not see the benefit other than to introduce unnecessary article length in specifying that he is speaking to one particulary group when in fact, the entire group has heard his message. NancyHeise ^talk 16:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly thank you for correcting the serious errors pointed out previously. My distinction between an encyclical and words spoken to a group of Belgian pilgrims is the same one used by the Catholic Church in one of its most important documents dealing with anti-semitism. "Pope Pius XI too condemned Nazi racism in a solemn way in his encyclical letter "Mit brennender Sorge," which was read in German churches on Passion Sunday 1937, a step which resulted in attacks and sanctions against members of the clergy. Addressing a group of Belgian pilgrims on 6 September 1938, Pius XI asserted: "Anti-Semitism is unacceptable. Spiritually, we are all Semites."[51] There is such a thing as an "Heirarchy of Truths" in the Catholic Church. This is such an important section that you should stick closely to what the Church says herself says not what any invidual thinks she says, and avoid the over the top hyperbole. My suggestion is to simply take what "We Remember the Shoah" says. Taam (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have used what WP:Reliable source examples considers the top source - university textbooks and scholarly sources written by history professors and published by University presses or others with similar standards. We are specifically discouraged from using self published sources in articles about themselves unless we are compiling a section such as "Beliefs". The section you are discussing concerns history and thus we have used the appropriate sources. "We Remember the Shoah" would not be considered more scholarly and does not meet WP:RS definition of third party. NancyHeise ^talk 02:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

My initial point was that the article text ""the Fuhrer himself as a 'mad prophet possessed of repuslive arrogance.'" was clearly over the top and that a Pope has to be very carefull in what he says and anyhow there is no explicit mention of Hitler. I can find no other scholarly sourcrs that make the blunt assertions stated here but there are plenty that reflect the assertion made in "We remember the Shoah". Consider the following scholarly commentery on Mit Brennender Sorge" and compare it the extreme claim made by your source: “The encyclical is not a heatedly combative document ...The German episcopate still entertained hopes of some modus vivendi with the Nazis and therefore they counselled caution. Consequently the pronouncement is not directly polemical..but diplomatically moderate in its allusions to the situation in Germany. This is understandable considering the fact the Catholics in the Reich were only a minority..””[52]

The article should state that the Pope spoke to Belgian pilgrims, i.e it was not an encyclical. As has been pointed out the words spoken to the pilgrims were never recorded in any official papal document, nor in L'Osservatore Romano because they were informal and spontaneous even though other Catholic newspapers covered the story.[53]Taam (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Taam, you are asking me to use less scholary works and non WP:RS sources (We Remember Shoa) instead of those deemed by WP:Reliable source examples to be top sources, most often cited by other scholars, published by univeristy presses or others with similar standards and those used as university textbooks. When faced with this situation, Wikipedia policy notes that we use the most scholarly source, not the less scholarly source. NancyHeise ^talk 21:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The comments about the limited circulation of Pius comments is from one of your own sources so presumably there can be no objection here. Further Michael Phayer also points out it was spoken to Belgian pilgrims.[54]. Another scholarly work is “Approaches to Auchwitz”[55]. Martin Rhonheimer notes same “ Sympathy for the increasing distress and misery of the Jews certainly seems the best explanation for the words of Pius XI to Belgian pilgrims in September 1938, which are constantly cited for apologetic purposes. With tears in his eyes the aged and ailing Pope cried out spontaneously: “Anti-Semitism is inadmissible. Spiritually we are all Semites.” The words were a reference to liturgical texts in the Missal that the Belgian pilgrims had just presented: the phrase in the Eucharistic Canon, after the narrative of institution, about the “offering of Abel, Abraham, and Melchizedek.” The Pope’s words were never officially published; they were reported later in some Belgian papers.” He adds “In any event, the Pope’s words remained without influence on official Church policy. They were a one-time emotional outburst of a large-hearted and impulsive man who counted Jews among his personal friends.” “What is essential, however, is that we ascertain the facts and not mistake the Church’s condemnation of racism for a defence of Jews in general. What is at issue, then, is not the question of guilt or innocence of individuals but recognition that the Catholic Church contributed in some measure to the developments that made the Holocaust possible. ..Well-intentioned Catholic apologists continue to produce reports of Church condemnations of Nazism and racism. But these do not really answer the Church’s critics. The real problem is not the Church’s relationship to National Socialism and racism, but the Church’s relationship to the Jews. Here we need what the Church today urges: a “purification of memory and conscience.” The Catholic Church’s undeniable hostility to National Socialism and racism cannot be used to justify its silence about the persecution of the Jews. It is one thing to explain this silence historically and make it understandable. It is quite another to use such explanations for apologetic purposes. ” [56]. I think this article in some ways reflects the apologetics that the author mentions above, albeit some small changes have been made to improve. Some more scholarly refs: [ [57] [58] [59] [60] [61][62] It is important to scholars to set the context of the Popes words and they highlight where and when it was spoken. The article would have it that the Pope was speaking to Catholics in general, e.g an encyclical etc whereas it was to a group of Belgian pilgrims and its reportage was limited to Belgian Catholic papers and one Catholic paper in England based on the info in links given above. If scholars make this important point the article must also, otherwise it exaggerates the significance of the Pope XI words – they didn't even make it into the L'Observo Romano. Please reflect the scholarly consensus

Even reference the ref you use for the “mad prophet” Hitler stuff states specifically it was addressed only to Belgian pilgrims.

Regarding the “mad prophet” claim in the article. I have checked and can find no other scholarly works that could support this view as a consensus or even minority view so I ask once again that it be deleted. This combined with the omission of the “Belgian Pilgrims” qualification , the erroneous claim that Mit Brennender Sorge condemned anti-Semitism, the erroneous attribution to that encyclical of words spoken informally to visiting pilgrims, and all having the effect of exaggerating the Church and Popes response to the Nazis , and all in one little segment of the article, is a real concern over the use of sourcing generally. Taam (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have placed on this FAC's talk page evidence to support my article text. See [63]. You are asking me to eliminate notable facts that are mentioned in dozens of scholarly sources. I can not reasonably be expected to act on this as it goes against Wikipedia policy as well as the truth. NancyHeise ^talk 00:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, Firstly I have never suggested deleting the words of Pius XI as you suggest on the talk page link given. All I ask for is that the body text says, like the scholarly sources given, that it was addressed to Belgian pilgrims and not as the article currently suggests Catholics in general. If you include this text then there is no disagreement. As it stands the article exaggerates .

Yes, Taam, I already inserted your wording, I was hoping you would strike this comment. NancyHeise ^talk 20:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Hitler as "mad Prophet" which I would like to delete since the Encyclical doesn't name Hitler or the Fuhrer explicitly as the text suggests, I think this is becoming another urban myth similar to how Einstein was supposed to defend Pope Pius and the Roman Catholic Church etc but then we find out it isn't true by reading the original Time magazine article.

The quote from Duffy doesn't mention Hitler/Fuhrer as "mad prophet" in Mit Brenender Sorge.The only quoted reference , other than blog type sites, I can find to the Robert Martin book is from the EWTN web site which states "The document, which referred to Hitler by name as "a mad prophet possessed of repulsive arrogance," was smuggled into Germany, where it was read by all of the German Bishops from their pulpits." Of course the encyclical doesn't mention “Hitler by name” as the mad prophet, anyone can look it up and see that this incorrect. I don't know if its the EWTN article or Martin's book that is exaggerating but based on google search it's not a scholarly source.[64]

The Baltimore Iconoclast is not a scholarly reference, suspect he's just repeating what's been heard.

Vidmar does indeed say mad prophet but no reference even to the section in the encyclical where a person may be directed to (and find out it doesn't name Hitler/Fuhrer), nor to any external authority which references the primary source. He also says it was pilgrims to whom Pius spoke, not to the church in general as the article would suggest.

Bokenkotter's book also says "mad prophet", and gives a reference, not to the Encyclical section itself, where once again we could easily find Hitler is not mentioned by name. Could you confirm his reference for this is A. Rhodes, "The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators"? Anyhow it was Bokenkotter who writes in the same book “Einstein, for instance, in an article in Time, paid tribute to Pius and noted that the Church alone 'stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign.” yet we now know it wasn't correct by looking at the Time article on-line. I suspect he may be quoting Dalins book which is all over Catholic apologetics sites claiming the same thing.

You reference “Keepers of the Keys: A History of the Popes from St. Peter to John Paul II” by Nicolas Cheetham - Page 284. Could you possible quote here what the author says and the reference he gives -thanks.

Yes, it is already here. [65] NancyHeise ^talk 20:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This issue here is scholarly consensus. The encyclical doesn't mention Hitler or the Fuhrer by name and the sources you mention above are reading that into the text, or more likely, they are in the main referencing secondery sources rather than primary. They are entitled to their opinion buis it representative of all scholarly opinion? I cannot find such consensus on the internet resources . I have no doubt that you can obtain sources that repeat what they have read elsewhere but have never looked at the primary source to confirm. In addition to the scholarly refs given yesterday my library has another two which deal with “Mit brennender Sorge” the first is Saul Friedlander 's “Nazi Germany and the Jews – The Years of Persecution 1933-39” and there is no mention of Hitler as mad prophet (p190) Incidentally he also mentions explicitly that it was Belgian pilgrims that were addressed in private and not Catholics in general as the article suggest (p251). Nor does the second source ,Hans Kung “The Catholic Church – A Short History” (p188) ,use the term. Both sources are critical of Pius but it can be argued that this is already alluded to in the article. Taam (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Taam, scholars are qualified to determine what the encyclical is discussing. That is why Wikipedia requires us to use scholarly sources when creating a history section. I gave you numerous examples of its use on this articles talk page. I really only need one. My most respected scholarly source is the one used to reference the sentence. I can't delete this, it is a referenceable and notable fact noted by many scholars. Further, the comment by Pius to Belgian pilgrims occurred when the pope snubbed Hitler by leaving Rome when Hitler was visiting Rome. The pilgrims came to him at Castel Gandolfo to hear his words instead of hearing them in the normal venue of St. Peter's Square in the Vatican. The popes words to pilgrims every day in the Vatican are recorded forever and printed in Catholic News services like the one to which I subscribe. I changed the sentence to read "Pius XI later warned a group of pilgrims that antisemitism is incompatible with Christianity." NancyHeise ^talk 22:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly the Pope didn't snub Hitler as you claim, Hitler refused to ask for an audience which broke all diplomatic protocol and the Pope retaliated by going to his summer retreat home. This from the Falconi book you reference through Bokenkotter. You say you only need one reference to use this opinion as fact. If that is indeed the rules then we can introduce a balancing quotation which takes a different point of view, with a scholarly ref.Taam (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You gave on the talk page the following from Bokenkotter to substantiate the articles claims:

"And when Hitler showed his increasing belligerence toward the Church, Pius met the challenge with a decisiveness that astonished the world. His encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge was the "first great official public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism" and "one of the greatest such condemnations ever issued by the Vatican." But the citation given, which also appears in the current article, doesn't check out, in fact the source actually says : “What is, in any case, beyond doubt is that the encyclical that came out on 14th March certainly cannot be described as an anti-Nazi encyclical.” which is the the opposite of what the article says. My suggestion is to take it out these quotations otherwise I can provide scholarly refs which give an alternate view. The one I gave earlier this week is an example. Taam (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to convince us that a top scholarly source has a citation that doesnt check out, you need to provide a diff. Right now, there is not evidence to back up what you are saying here and I have already provided other scholalry sources that say the same thing as Bokenkotter which is a top source per WP:reliable source examples it is a university textbook written by a professor of history, it has been a university textbook for decades and has a bibliography that is 43 pages long. It is the very definition of scholarly source. I cant just eliminate referenced text because you don't like it. You are asking me to be the scholar and go to primary sources and interpret them, Wikipedia does not allow that, it is called WP:original research. We have to have it said by a scholar, then we put the fact into the article. If a fact is repeated by many scholars, it carries even more weight which is why I placed all those on the talk page. I can not act on your oppose if you are asking me to violate Wikipedia policy. NancyHeise ^talk 20:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I quoted directly from Falconi's book, what are you suggesting? In fact reading from the notes I made on checking a reference copy Falconi goes on to say "So little anti-nazi is it that it does not even attribute to the regime as such, but only to certain trends within it, the dogmatic and moral errors widespread in Germany. And while the errors indicated are carefully diagnosed and refuted, complete silence surrounds the much more serious and fundamental errors associated with Nazi political ideology....." (p229) I give you what the book says, if you disagree go check yourself otherwise fix this problem. Remember it was you who highlighted Falconi on the talk page as being the authority for Bokenkotter, you can't just simply ignore when somebody points out a citation error on the basis that the mistake is a scholarly one and therefore above correction. The "mad prophet" epithet has to go also since its an opinion purporting to be an incontrovertable fact. Taam (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Taam, the source Bokenkotter cites for the "mad prophet statement is not C. Falconi, but A. Rhodes The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1973), p. 205 . I have ordered both of these books to provide actual quotes below the Bokenkotter, Vidmar and Duffy quotes on the FAC talk page. I am justified in quoting from top scholalry sources and I am not allowed to do original research as you are asking me to do here. As much as you do not like what these scholars have said, they have said it and you are not justified in asking me to delete the fact. NancyHeise ^talk 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

But A. Rhodes is expressing an opinion, he is reading that into the text and there is no unanimity amongst scholarly works that this is the case. We can't present as fact in a Wikipedia article what is opinion. I went back to the Falconi text today and he says that the encyclical offers Hitler an olive branch if he will restore the prosperity of the Catholic Church in Germany. For exactly the same reasons as the Hitler mad prophet epithet it would be wrong to include this in the article because it's only an opinion and not incontrovertible fact. As it happens I then found what Bokenkotter uses in his book as "the first great official public document to dare to confront and critize Nazism, its on p230 and not p117 as referenced on the talk page (unless the point is duplicated there - I don't have the book only a copy of these pages). However this doesn't solve the problem because it seems to be taking Falconis words out of context, i.e the page before Falconi is describing how the encyclical is not ant-Nazi and of "the complete silence surrounds the much more serious and fundamental errors associated with Nazi political ideology..The encyclical is in fact concerned purely with the Catholic Church in Germany and it's rights and privledges...aimed at avoiding a definate breach with the regime, even to the point of offering in conclusion a conciliatory olive branch to Hitler if he would restore the tranquil prosperity of the Catholic Church in Germany. But that was the very thing to deprive the document of its noble and exemplary instransigence. Nevertheless, even within these limitations, the pontifical letter still remains the first great official public document to dare to confront and critize Nazism, and the Popes courage astonished the world. It was indeed the encylicals fate to be credited with a greater significance and content than it deserved" There is no mention of "one of the greatest such condemnations ever issued by the Vatican." as quoted by Bokenkotter unless its from another section of the book or a revised edition. I think anyway there is enough above to show Falconis comments are being selectively used to flatter the encyclical, i.e it misses out all that is negative before and after "the first great official document.." and therefore is inadmissable in this article. Taam (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Taam, I can not eliminate article text supported by scholarly works, escpecially one that is used by so many universities as the standard text on the history of the Church. You are picking apart a highly respected scholarly work that is used by scholars themselves to teach the subject. It has been a university textbook for decades (over 30 years) with several reprintings and updates. I realize that you don't like what this scholar says but Wikipedia does not allow us to do WP:original research which is what you are asking me to do. Evidently, the Mit Brennender Sorge was controversial enough to cause the Nazi's to shut down all the presses that printed it and begin an outright repression of and negative publicity campaign against the entire Catholic Church. The facts that scholarly works say what they say and the evidence surrounding the Nazi reaction are certain logical indications that perhaps indeed they were as harshly critical of Nazism as these sources say they were. I am not here on Wikipedia to participate in a blog which is what is happening here. I am just placing notable facts on a page. These comments are notable. I made several changes to the article in response to your comments here. I have even placed substantial text regarding Mit Brennender Sorge which I had to defend against others who thought it was too much on the issue. I want to make you happy but I can not do WP:original research which is what you are asking me to do. I have ordered the two books cited by Bokenkotter and will be placing their quotes here to support the text. Bokenkotter's book, as a scholalry work has been vetted by many other scholars and received stellar reviews in academic journals. All of these scholars are experts in history subjects. If the book made any errors, they would have been eliminated long ago. I have to rely on these scholarly works and I can not rely on a Wikipedia editor whom I don't even know! No offense : ) Peace. NancyHeise ^talk 04:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Because Taam has made incorrect statments here regarding my sources, I bought the two books that Bokenkotter cites regarding Mit Brenneder Sorge and I have placed the excerpts from these books supporting our article text here on this FAC's talk page [66]. So I not only have one scholar saying this, I have many saying it. I can not delete text that is cited to several top scholarly works no matter how much an opposing FAC reviewer dislikes it. NancyHeise ^talk 18:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

In the section “Catholic institutions, personnel and demographics” it mentions the substantial increase in world wide Church membership but this seems to be misleading. The world population has risen by 69% during the period mentioned in the article whereas the Church membership has increased by 72.78% . There is also the lack of balance, typical for the article as a whole outside the beliefs section, in that there is no mention of the substantial decline in the West, by way of example UK and USA.[67]. This is a significant and should be included in the article. Would I be correct in saying that the membership figures claimed in the article count so called “cultural catholics” I.e ones who do not practice the faith but hang on to the description as an expression of group identity? I think the article would be enhanced if we know exactly what counts as a Catholic. — Taam 15:52, 18 October 2008 — continues after insertion below

I am sorry you do not approve of the sentence mentioning the substantial increase in membership in the world wide Church. It is a solidly referenced fact, it is a very notable fact that would make the article substantially incomplete and incorrect if we do not include it. The rest of that section tells Reader where Church membership has increased and all are referenced to the same source that is used by major newspapers. There is not a substantial decline in membership in the West as clearly indicated by our sources. The substantial rise in Secularism is noted in Europe and US but in both of those areas, Catholic membership has increased although not as fast as in other areas of the world. You would be incorrect to claim that membership figures count "cultural Catholics" unless you can find a source stating such. Church membership figures are supplemented by the reference to the CIA World Factbook which compiles figures from census reports, as you know, these reports include people who self identify themselves as belonging to one religion or another. NancyHeise ^talk 23:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions the “substantial” increase in numbers but the reference given doesn't check out – yet again. All there is is plain statement of numbers, no mention of “substantial” increase etc. If a scholar made this claim they would have to factor in overall increase in world population in order to try and make the point this article is suggesting. It is the Catholic Church herself who is concerned about the decline in Europe which is not reflected in the article. Please see the article “The Catholic Church Withers in Europe”[68] It is not sufficient to mention in passing secularism, the reader has to know what the concerns are of the Church regarding the decline in Europe. This is significant and can't be ignored in the article. “In some of Catholic Europe's largest dioceses in Germany, France, Italy, and Ireland, the percentage of Catholics who attend Mass regularly has slipped to as low as 20 percent, and in a few cities, like Paris, has reached as low as the single digits, according to figures compiled by the church.” For these reasons I am doubtful about another source for the statement “Secularism has seen a steady rise in Europe, yet the Catholic presence there remains strong” it sounds as if somebody is trying to gloss over the serious concerns of the Church regarding Europe. Does the source actually say this? Does the source really try to suggest that though secularism is affecting Europe the Church is somehow unaffected , indeed strong? It would be an incredible indictment of your “scholarly” source if this was indeed the case. Europe is commonly referred to as “post Christian” and the Catholic Church is not immune from this as you can see from the article link supplied. Please let us know what counts as a catholic in these figures.Taam (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen numerous studies on this. Secularization, materialism, etc are often cited, as is the Abuse scandal. There is also strong evidence for the changing of the Mass into the Vernacular as a reason in decline in 1969, my own experience is the V2 reforms were gradual in my parish, however in others they smashed statues, tore out altar rails, introduced altar girls, and literally shocked the congregations into this new way of worship rather than what was a 14 year period of adjusting. Pope John XXIII had a tough dilemma in trying to reconcile the Church with the Modern World, some think he went too far, some not far enough. Unfortunately, these are not usually published by eggheads and bookworms and the ones that are do not carry a Nihil Obstat by a local Bishop so the printed sources are not allowed to be introduced into the article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

More information on secularism was added to Industrial Age section of History. NancyHeise ^talk 22:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your link to a 2005 article discussing decline in Catholic Mass attendance in Great Britain, I want you to see this [69] which discusses the general decline in Church attendance in England with the Anglican Churches being hit the hardest. It shows the Catholics have suffered much less. However, this more recent article from 2007 [70] shows that the Catholic Church has recovered mainly because of immigration. As you can see, our article text is correct. NancyHeise ^talk 00:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

We are not discussing the Anglican Church etc, but the Roman Catholic Church. The Church hasn't recovered anything, the gain in numbers has been at the expense of other countries through economic migration, there is no increase in numbers within UK nationals. Taam (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Taam, I think you missed reading this link [71] I provided above. I also offer you this link to the Encarta definition of the Catholic Church [72] it supplements my source. The sentence you are disputing is referenced to the very same source used by all major newspapers when reporting on Church statistics. I am sorry that you find it unbelievable but I am just placing facts on the page, not making them up. The reason why "Secularism has seen a steady rise in Europe,yet the Catholic presence there remains strong" is because even though Catholic weekly Mass attendance has declined (per your reference), people there still self identify themselves as Catholic in government census', they still get married in Catholic Churches and they still have their children baptized. My source actually gives the number of Catholic priests and nuns and the large majority of them are in Europe. My article text mentions the rise in secularism (fact) and it gives the other notable fact that the Catholic presence there remains strong (fact). I can't just eliminate half of the story just because you don't like it. If its a fact, we include it. NancyHeise ^talk 16:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I eliminated the word "substantial" from the church membership sentence per your concerns even though I disagree with the elimination. I think it is evident from the numbers but we can let the numbers make that clear all by themselves. NancyHeise ^talk 20:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

So you agree that the source citation was in error? Also by interpreting the data, i.e an increase over the 1970's figure, you have to provide a context, i.e the change in world population otherwise a person may conclude without sufficient data that there has been a "substantial" increase when it may reflect ( i don't know) in the main a pro rata expansion in world population. I suggest just stating what the Church membership is at present. ::Taam (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you also confirm that the source you cite in the article does in fact say the Church is strong in Europe because the tone of this contradicts sentiments expressed by Pope Benedict. The new citation you introduce , Encarta, also doesn't check out with regard to Europe being "strong" , there is a non too subtle difference bewteen saying something is intrinsictly strong as against a relative measure of strength, i.e they are comparing one geographic catholic area with another Catholic area, not saying as the article suggests that Europe is strong.Do you follow? I suggest you stick to what the Church says with regard to her status in Europe and her concerns . With regard to your point as to what counts as a Catholic -- I think this is good and relevant to the article and it will enhance the section by explaining to people what these figures mean in reality. Another suggestion: should not the article state what is the minimun duties expected of a practicing Catholic, e.g mass attendance, confession and communion on an annual basis? Taam (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The following article gives links to the relevant Church documents. [73]Taam (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have placed an excerpt from the source on this article's talk page so you can read the entire paragraph for yourself. It explicitly says the Catholic presence in Europe is strong, please go see the excerpt here [74].NancyHeise ^talk 01:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The concerns of the Church herself seem the more reasonable, and I think the article would be enhanced by including a sentence or two in the great decline in practicing Catholics. Taam (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We have mentioned this in the "rise of secularism". We have omitted no notable issues. The great decline in practicing Catholics is not a referenceable fact. The one area where Secularism is most on the rise, according to our best source and the one used by major newspapers, the one whose excerpt I placed on the discussion page does not concur with this and directly contradicts it. NancyHeise ^talk 21:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There has been considerable comment on the decline of the Church in certain areas and this should be reflected in the article and not just globally treated as secularism. The article should briefly state what the issues are. If comments from within the Church in Europe are not acceptable then the following is a scholarly reference from Philip Jenkins writing in 2007 "Particularly worrying for Catholic authorities is the precipitous decline in practice in several nations that in the 1960's would have been regarded as heartlands of the faith. In Italy and Spain, church attendance has been in steep decline since the early 1990's, and each new survey depicts the situation in grimmer terms than a predecessor from a year or two previously. The hard core of observant Catholics, long the bedrock of Catholic power, has contracted steadily, to become an aged remnant....In the Cologne archdiocese "for every one baptism, there are three funerals...in the words of one Dublin professional: "I don't go to church, and I don't know one person who does. Fifteen years ago, I didn't know one person who didn't..."[75]

This is already in the paragraph on Europe noting the rise of Secularism. Taam, you want a detailed analysis in an article that is not about Catholic Church statistics. This is just one section of an entire article. We have already noted that Secularism has risen in Europe, it is a fact we have included, yet you keep hitting us with more articles about that exact subject that we have already mentioned in keeping with WP:summary style. Europe has seen a decline in Church attendance (rise in Secularism) but not in Church membership. It just has not risen as much as the rest of the world which has seen an increase in Church membership (and attendance) everywhere else. NancyHeise ^talk 00:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Divorce, Annulments, and the Catholic Church: Healing Or Hurtful?" By Richard J. Jenks 2002:"Not only has church attendance declined but many have left the Church. Figures have indicated that individuals were leaving the Catholic Church at a higher rate than any other major religious denomination...."[76]

This is not talking about worldwide and my article already covers the rise of Secularism in Europe. NancyHeise ^talk 00:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

From the independent Gallup survey, 2002 “The decline in church attendance among Catholics is part of a long term phenomenon that precedes the current scandals afflicting the Church. Gallup data from the 1950s and 1960s show that about three-quarters of Catholics reported attending church within the last seven days” this is compared to 31% in 2001.[77]

If you will see, Gallup is not a worldwide poll and thus I can't use it. NancyHeise ^talk 00:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

None of the scholarly sources I can find describe the current position of the Church as “strong” in the areas mentioned. This article talks of “largest” this and that, membership “is growing” here and “growing faster” there and its “vibrancy” here, yet no reference to the acute problems facing the Church in major parts of the world other than one passing link to the article secularism. But this linked article doesn't mention anything about the decline of the Roman Catholic Church membership who actually practice their faith. This coupled with the flattering use of statistics indicates its written from a Catholic apologetics perspective rather than a scholarly overview that reflects the true state of the Church. The single reference given describing the Church as strong in Europe doesn't begin to reflect the scholarly opinion of what's happening .

I have added more information about secularism and its effects on the Church in the Industrial Age section of History. NancyHeise ^talk 22:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The CIA fact book which you give as a reference states that Roman Catholics make up 16.99% of the worlds population compared to 21.1% for Muslims. This should be in the article in order that the reader can get a true overview relative populations.[78] and not how it is at present which flatters the Roman Catholic Church in comparison to others.

Should we also cite how may Buddhists and how many Hindus and how many Jews? Why just Muslims? Why mention any other group. We already have the link to Worldfactbook in the reference. All readers can click on it to see that info, just like you did. NancyHeise ^talk 01:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you insist in trying to show how Church membership has increased in numerical terms rather than percentage terms of world population since 1970 then for balance it needs to show how practising membership has declined over the same period. The alternative is to simply state what the current membership is along with the percentage who actually practice the faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taam (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, from the same source used by all major newspapers, the one we have used in the article, I have added this information. World population between 1950-2000 increased by 117%, Catholic population increased by 139%. It increased in every continent worldwide, including Europe in spite of the rise of Secularism in Europe already noted in the article text. The rise in Catholic population in Europe was less of a rise than in other areas of the world but it still was an increase, not decline like you are asking me to say in the article text. This is from the same source used by all major newspapers. Your sources are discussing certain areas of the world and are not more authoritative than the one I am using or else the newspapers would be citing them instead. NancyHeise ^talk 01:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the population figures which now give a context. Can I assume that the source is scholarly and therefore charts the changes in practising Catholics over a similar period of time? Could you supply the data? The article mentions the RCC is the largest organised religion but in order to put it in perspective it would be helpful to state it is the second largest religion in terms of membership using your CIA factbook as a source. Taam (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Taam, the article is not Christianity, which is the worlds largest religion with 33% of the worlds population claiming to be Christian. Muslims, according to the World Factbook make up 21% of world population and is the second largest religion. Roman Catholic Church is "the largest organized body of any world religion" - this sentence is referenced to Eamon Duffy's Saints and Sinners. The sentence does not say it is the largest world religion and because RCC does not comprise all of Christianity, I don't see why we would compare ourselves to another Religion. That is inconsistent comparison like apples to oranges. Why don't we compare ourselves to the largest Islamic denomination or something, I don't know, it just does not make sense to do that here. Comparison to Islam is already made over at both the Christianity and Islam articles where it is more appropriate. NancyHeise ^talk 22:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact it was the Vatican who pointed out that Islam had now overtaken her. "Vatican: Islam Has :::::::::"Overtaken" Catholicism: "For the first time in history, we are no longer at the top: Muslims have overtaken :::::::::us," Monsignor Vittorio Formenti said in an interview with the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano. Formenti compiles the Vatican's yearbook. He said that Catholics accounted for 17.4 percent of the world population - a stable percentage - while Muslims were at 19.2 percent. "It is true that while Muslim families, as is well known, continue to make a lot of children, Christian ones on the contrary tend to have fewer and fewer," the monsignor said." [79]. This is obviously noteworthy, it's the first time in history it has happened. I think it's necessary to avoid accusations of bias, i.e "we are the biggest this" kind of stuff. I would be agreeable to taking out all claims about relative size etc, including this one, and just simply state what the membership figure is and where it's growing in particular and where it's not doing so good. Otherwise I will come agasin once I receive the demographics book you mention in the article.Taam (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That would omit notable facts. We have to include notable facts. If an institution is the biggest, why is that POV? Why is that not just fact? I am not going to include a comparison to Islam because it is not a comparison of apples to apples. Islam is a world religion, Christianity is a world religion. Catholic Church is one Christian denomination that only makes up over half of Christians. I think what you are asking for is unreasonable and an attempt at POV. There were several non-Catholic editors who discussed whether or not to include the statement by the Vatican but they all came to this very same conclusion, it is not notable and does not compare apples to apples. Please see the discussion on this issue and consensus to leave it out here [80]. NancyHeise ^talk 23:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It matters not that you or anyone other editor thinks it's an false comparison, it's sufficient that an notable person and authority in the relevant organisation doesn't. Taam (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the “Cultural influence” section all I can hope for is that a Catholic scholar will appear here that you will listen to and this will will lead to its deletion or a complete rewrite, for this section detracts from the rest of the article by its broad brushstroke and exaggerated tone that is hopelessly unbalanced. The appalling use of images is particularly noteworthy. A common tactic in Catholic apologetics circles is to justify what happened to the native population of the America when Columbus arrived by referring to the human sacrifice of the Aztecs as if two wrongs make a right. But read what Columbus says of the Tainos on his first arrival. “They traded with us and gave us everything they had, with good will..they took great delight in pleasing us..They are very gentle and without knowledge of what is evil; nor do they murder or steal..Your highness may believe that in all the world there can be no better people ..They love their neighbours as themselves, and they have the sweetest talk in the world, and are gentle and always laughing.” This use of such powerful imagery without proper context attempts to cast a slur over all the indigenous population of the America's whilst glossing over the cultural carnage that took place with the arrival of Columbus. I also note that it is the Catholic Church herself who keeps alive the idea that human sacrifice, I.e Calvary, is pleasing to God. You have no right to look down your noses at people who shared the same basic idea as you do now. You are using pictures and images the same way as the Nazis to demonize whole races and peoples. Imagine if someone added to this article a picture of St Faustina ,who was recently canonised, showing her vision of the reality of the Eucharist, I.e baby Jesus being ripped apart and eaten alive? How about adding a picture of Jew with the special dress they were made to wear by the Church and put it side by side with an image of the Nazis using the same technique? When the following quotation of Pope John Paul was added in order to try and balance the over the top claims made it with regard to women , culture and the rights of other peoples it was deleted: “In March 2000 Pope John Paul II prayed publicly for forgiveness for sins committed by Christians with regard to the rights of peoples, cultures and religions as well as sins against the dignity of women and the unity of the human race.” — Taam 15:52, October 18, 2008 — continues after insertion below

Wow, this is a very sweeping condemnation of an entire paragraph. I anticipated controversy over this section and that is why every sentence has at least two scholarly sources supporting the article text. It might surprise you that the sins committed against native peoples by their colonizers were not sanctioned by the Church and that historians have noted that the only voice speaking out against those abuses was the Church, this is mentioned in the history section - see the first paragraph of Late Medieval and Renaissance section in History. Further, the Cultural Influence section that you object to here is full of extremely notable facts that, if deleted, would make this article substantially incomplete. The image is entirely appropriate, referenced and explained. Is it not a notable fact that Aztec culture was changed by the spread of Christianity to the region by the Catholic Church? Did they not stop sacrificing humans as a result? We can not just decide to omit this notable fact simply because some people mistakenly attribute the crimes of colonizers to the Catholic Church institution (a common problem for the Church). The quote by Pope John Paul II clearly indicates that he is praying for all Christians, not apologizing for the actions of the Church institution - the subject of our article. The colonizers were Christians who committed sins against the natives but that is clearly different from the actions of the Church which, as our referenced text reveals, fought against these abuses. NancyHeise ^talk 23:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Pope JP2 doesn't make the kind of distinction you try to make between Church and its members, "“At the end of this Millennium the Catholic Church desires to express her deep sorrow for the failures of her sons and daughters in every age. This is an act of repentance ("teshuva"), since, as members of the Church, we are linked to the sins as well as to the merits of her children.”. [81] There is absolutely no attempt at balance in this section, no exposition of cultural carnage claimed by indigineous peoples, no mention of the texts destroyed during Christian evangelization. Nothing of substance about the debate regarding slavery through the ages never mind serfdom, nothing about contrary opinions regarding womens positions, nothing about inculturation, nothing about the annulment "scandal", nothing about the roots of rennaissance art etc, just ridiculously simplistic claims that could have been written for a non too discerning child. After all the bother with sources mentioned above I have grave doubts about taking the claimed citations at face value. I think maybe we have to now introduce secular historians/scholars to try and introduce some NPOV. Up until now I have tried to use Church's own documents but we are not making progress. When Pope JP2 apologised regarding some of these same things you deleted his comments. They should go back in. He wasn't just saying it to be kind or sympathetic - he wasn't a liar.Taam (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This getting absurd. "Pope JP2 doesn't make the kind of distinction you try to make between Church and its members, "“At the end of this Millennium the Catholic Church desires to express her deep sorrow for the failures of her sons and daughters in every age." There you have the distinction between "the Catholic Church" and "her sons ans and daughters" - the two are of course linked and hence the mother expresses repentance on behalf of her children but doesn't negate the distinction expressed in the same sentence. BTW, repenting is not apologising. And "simplistic claims" cannot be overcome but more but contradicting simplistic claims. And if I remember correctly, "secular historians" are already there. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Its the part which follows your quotation that seems most important : "since, as members of the Church, we are linked to the sins as well as to the merits of her children.” The article would have the Church taking credit for things done by its members deemed good, e.g ending human sacrifice, whereas when they do bad they are put at a distance. Taam (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

So it seems most important? I have read the entire quotation and have referred to both elements. Yes, the Church and her children are linked but they are nonetheless distinct. That's what the quote says, contradicting your earlier statement. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have a ref that contradicts how I understand it then please point me to it. At present my interpretation seems reasonable. Taam (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. One can hardly take objections serious if they are coupled with such vitriol and personal attacks against another editor, Taam. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have offended but please realise the pain it causes to others when they perceive that whole peoples such as the indigenous peoples of America are all being treated as evil through the emotive use of images without any proper balance or context. Same applies to how Jews have been treated down through the ages. Taam (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as you go around insulting people left and right I don't want to hear of your pain. Pain is no excuse for incivility. And no, the picture does not portray all indigenous Americans as evil - the victims of the Aztect after all were indigenous Americans too. BTW, I do not like the image too because it goes too much into detail. Furthermore, you seem to think that indigenous Americans were murdered in some Catholic crusade. That is nonsense. Many were killed by Spanish (and Portuguese) invaders bent on riches. Many were killed due to the influx of new diseases (which is a sad fact but not anyone's moral fault). Your views on the Jews are also not very balanced but I cannot spend more time on this now. All in all, if you want to be taken seriously, moderate your tone and stop the personal attacks. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I made no mention of a Catholic crusade, in the formal sense, in the America's. Nobody is denying the effects of disease, but if the Europeans never arrived then there would have been no deaths, either by disease or cruel treatment, and this indeed is an example of what is missing from that section allong with all the other factors that contributed to cultural catastrophe that took place. Columbus was quite open about his motivation - gold, and spreading Christianity. It's just not balanced to simply raise the issue of Aztec human sacrifice in this section and ignore everything else that influenced the cultures of the Americas with the arrival of Christianity. I think if you read my contributions you will find that in the main they revolve around dubious citations, some on really important issues, though you may disagree. With regard to communication skills I think we can all learn patience with one another and be more civil to each other; even better if we practice what we preach. Taam (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Taam, I have not said you had said that but that you seemed to think that. You "in the formal sense" confirms this. The issue of diseases doesn't belong here as it was "the Church" that brought in diseases. I just mentioned it because any claim that all the Indios that died were all murdered is wrong. Fact also is that neither Cortez nor Pizarro - the actual conquistadores - made their incursions for religious reasons, let alone sent by the Church. Hence, it was not the Church that killed those Indios. I have no intention of browsing through your contributions. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It might interest you that before Columbus arrived the culture was polygamous, practiced slavery and infanticide, as well as human sacrifice on a grand scale. I have not made any personal judgements in the article about whether America was better off before Columbus arrived, I just placed facts on the page, facts from several scholarly works, one of which is a university textbook on Western Civilization. Incidentally, the native Americans contributed to the disease exchange by giving Europeans Syphilis NancyHeise ^talk 01:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This is what Columbus says of the people he met:"“They traded with us and gave us everything they had, with good will..they took great delight in pleasing us..They are very gentle and without knowledge of what is evil; nor do they murder or steal..Your highness may believe that in all the world there can be no better people ..They love their neighbours as themselves, and they have the sweetest talk in the world, and are gentle and always laughing.”Taam (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes and they were enslaving each other, sacrificing each other in great numbers, practicing infanticide and polygamy. They were very very nice slave traders, human sacrificers, baby killers and polygamists! I am just kidding here, I mean no ill will, I actually have enough American Indian blood in me that I could legally belong to the Cherokee tribe but I choose not to. None of this has anything to do with the article. The information there are solidly referenced facts that makes no judgements about whether any of the practices were bad or good. When Christianity arrived, certain cultural practices got tossed, fact. Period. No emotions need to be stroked over the issue and no harm is meant by stating facts. NancyHeise ^talk 21:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you disagree with what Columbus said? It doesn't fit in with your assertions which you seem to apply in blanket fashion to all the indigenous peoples. There is no balance, its basically the standard Catholic apologetics tactic of picking out the Aztec as the epitomy of evil and then using them as representatives of all the indigenous peoples prior to the European invasions. There is no mention of the loss of indigenous cultures, just a simplistic black & white painting where the "facts" ensure we know who the good guys are, the Europeans and how the bad guys got it coming to them. This doesn't seem like scholarship but propaganda. P.s on a personal note you never did answer the point about the Church perpetuating the idea that human sacrifice is pleasing to God. Do you not believe Jesus was sacrificed for your benefit and that you really eat his flesh and blood in the mass? At face value the Aztecs shared your belief in a certain way. Also your comment about the the Europeans catching syphilis as if this was the fault of the people who were invaded seems a little strange Taam (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Taam, you seem to want to discuss things unrelated to improving the article. You deny that scholars, not me, are saying the Aztec practice of sacrificing humans ceased with the spread of Christianity to the area. I am not writing a pro Catholic blog. I am putting facts on a page, facts I am getting from university textbooks on Western Civilization and you are somehow turning it into some sort of emotional upset - like I am harming someone by just telling the truth. I am sorry if you do not like the truth but Wikipedia does allow us to place facts, especially from scholarly sources, into the article. I do not see the benefit to anyone, Aztecs included by glossing over this notable cultural change that happened when Christianity was introduced to the region. Evidently, the scholars find it worthy of mentioning, I do too. I will not answer your quite vicious attacks on Christian faith. I am not writing a blog. You need to go to another website if you want to have that arguement.NancyHeise ^talk 01:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not attacking the Christian faith to say that Jesus death was a sacrifice, nor is it an attack to say that the real presence is the flesh and blood of Jesus (at least not to a Catholic). Human sacrfice appears all over the ancient world and its in the bible as well - according to works of Catholic scholarship I have. One would have thought the Aztecs required little in the way of conversion to new rituals which echoed in a certain way what they already believed. What I object to is the superficial way it's handled in this section for the reasons given before. Taam (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The "loss of indigenous cultures" was inevitable, whatever old world culture had arrived in the Americas, Catholic, protestant, muslim or Atheist. Blaming the loss of Aztec, Sioux, Hawaiian or Viking culture on the Church is just impractical romanticism. I fear, Taam, that you are coming at this article with just such a romanticized, anti-Christian view of events. If not one Catholic priest had landed in the Americas there would probably have been fewer Indian survivors. As far as human sacrifice goes, recent archaeological and historical research has revealed that it was not only an Aztec phenomenon, but rife among the Mayans, Incas, and other Indian tribes of North and South America. Most practiced human sacrifice to a greater or lesser extent. The Aztecs were merely the most excessive and organized. Xandar 22:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the argument "if we didn't do it, somebody else would have" justifies what took place in the cruel treatment handed out and the devasting effect on their cultures. I don't have a romantic notion of human nature being perfect anywhere or in any peoples. Perhaps I am conditioned by the writing of Catholic scholars from the 1930's who when writing of comparative religions could do so with generosity of heart whilst being truthful - no demonization of peoples and a willingness to see whatever good they could in different cultures. But I doon't want to argue anymore as we seem to be on different wavelengths completely Taam (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion that we place a picture of the special dress Jews were made to wear by the Church and put it side by side with an image of the Nazi's using the same technique is really an interesting suggestion. Yes, the Church is accused of encouraging anti-semitism, this is included in the article. But there is no scholarly source to reference what you are suggesting here and I think it would border on anti-Catholic POV to push that issue in such a way. Here's a reference to the special dress you are talking about [82]. Incidentally, I live in an area with a very large Jewish population, many of my friends and neighbors are Jewish. One of my children goes to a school that is comprised almost entirely of Jewish kids. I can tell you that they are still wearing special hats that distinguish them from non-Jews and they do so by choice! :) NancyHeise ^talk 00:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a Jew who voluntarly wears a cap as a religious observance justifies the forceable imposition by the Church to all Jews to mark them out from the rest of the population? This seems beyond belief! Does that make it right that the Jews being made to wear the yellow badge as well? [83] or be forced to wear a tattoo? Lets get back to the subject of images, if you wish to include such a picture then there must be proper balance, i.e the cultural carnage that took place with the arrival of Columbus not just simply pick out the Aztecs, the usual device for Catholic apologists who want to "justify" what happened to all the widespread and diverse indigenous groups. This is not a personal attack, but if you can see nothing wrong in what you suggest about Jewish dress enforced segregation then I don't think you are capable of appreciating the issues surrounding the colonization of the America's. Taam (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks again. It is indeed historically wrong and unjustifiable to put either into this overall article. And surely everything must be placed within its own context, not transport across a thousand years into a totally different context. Distinction by dress was common in the high middle ages and early modern period, not just between Christians and Jews but between all kinds of groups. That wasn't the case in the 20th century. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No way was I suggesting putting such images in the article, the purpose was to get the ones already there out by trying to see things from anothers pewrspective. The Jewish Encyclopedia says the following:

Badge: Mark placed on the dress of Jews to distinguish them from others. This was made a general order of Christendom at the fourth Lateran Council of 1215. At the instigation of Innocent III., the decision of the Council ordered the Jews, in the following terms, to bear a Badge:

"Contingit interdum quod per errorem christiani Judæorum seu Saracenorum et Judæi seu Saraceni christianorum mulieribus commisceantur. Ne igitur tam damnatæ commixtionis excessus per velamentum erroris hujusmodi, excusationis ulterius possint habere diffugium, statuimus ut tales utriusque sexus in omni christianorum provincia, et omni tempore qualitate habitus publice ab aliis populis distinguantur."

From this it would appear that the motive of the order was to prevent illicit intercourse between Jews and Christian women; but it is scarcely doubtful that this was little more than a pretext, the evidence of such intercourse being only of the slightest (see Abrahams, "Jewish Life in the Middle Ages," pp. 93-95). It was no doubt the general policy of the Church to make a sharp line of demarcation between the true believer and the heretic; and the Badge came as the last stage in a series of enactments in the twelfth century, intended to prevent social relations between Jews and Christians, the chief of these being the prohibition of Christians becoming servants of the Jews. The Badge had a most deleterious effect upon their social relations; and the increasing degradation of the position of Jews in Christendom was due in a large measure to this outward sign of separation, which gave the official stamp of both Church and state to the discrimination of social status against the Jew." Based on this I don't think my comments were unreasonable. Taam (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We have Jewish hat which accesses a wider range of sources than any of those mentioned above, and yellow badge, not quite so thorough. I don't myself see it a a necessity to link to mention either in the article, though we could, nor that not doing so prevents the article from mentioning any form of behaviour by any non-Christian culture at anyt time in history. Like most of the very detailed opposes, you are understimating the amount that can be crammed into this article. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually this article does mention distinctive clothing in one of the refereces to the Inquisitions section. One of the John Vidmar quotes mentions that once the inquisitions were established, the pyromania that characterized lay attempts to squash heresy ceased. It goes on to mention that instead of burning people alive as lay people did before the inquisition, heretics were made to wear distinctive clothing among other mild measures - I say mild because wearing distinctive clothing is really a step up from being burned alive. However, distinctive clothing is just one of the punishments. Another was house arrest. I do not see the value of adding more mention than we already have. Taam seems to want more info on just Jews but Jews were just one of the groups who were considered heretical. Doesn't it violate WP:summary style to go into detail when it is alreay mentioned in the wikilinked daughter pages and we also have mention in the quotes to the references? I don't think the page would be improved by more detail on this and I would push for making sure there is mention that distinctive clothing was a step up from what Lay people were doing to those considered heretics. In order to give both sides of the story. NancyHeise ^talk 01:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Distinctive clothing, including coloured badges, was actually introduced by Muslim Caliphs for both Christians and Jews from the 8th Century onwards. Later use of this in Europe was only a spread of the practice. Xandar 22:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions the persecution of the Church but fails to mention the persecution of paganism etc. In the past she has been accused of behaving inconsistently, claiming toleration and liberty for herself, but being intolerant of other religions. This was denied on the basis that they worshipped the one true God and it could not be considered persecution when acts were taken to suppress other religious traditions since "error has no rights".[84][85] I think the article must deal with this issue in order to be NPOV

Please specify what persecution we have omitted from the article. We have mentioned Crusades, Inquisitions and the rest of the controversies surrounding Catholic Church history whether they are the persecutions of the Church or by the Church. If I am missing a specific notable persecution, please help me make the article more complete by mentioning it. NancyHeise ^talk 23:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The persecution of pagans becomes really extreme during the reign of Theodosius, late 4th century, when not only was organised pagan cults forceably suppressed but even the devotions of a family in their own home. The penalty was death. Pagan temples were smashed by Christian mobs.[86]. They were encouraged by Fathers of the Church. See the on-line Catholic encyclopedia re Theodosius and "We remember the Shoah" re smashing of temples. If you are going to make once again a distinction between the Church and it's members then please note what Pope JP2 said "“At the end of this Millennium the Catholic Church desires to express her deep sorrow for the failures of her sons and daughters in every age. This is an act of repentance ("teshuva"), since, as members of the Church, we are linked to the sins as well as to the merits of her children.”. [87] I think this qotation should be included along with some more relevant points from this document.Taam (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We placed persecutions in the article in due weight to that given by scholarly sources. Persecutions of other religious believers by secular rulers does not fall under the list of deeds of the Catholic Church institution and have no place in the article unless they affected the Church or were sanctioned by it, or in the case of some of the secular inquisitions, if the Church was blamed for it anyway. NancyHeise ^talk 02:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The head of the Catholic Church didn't distance himself from the sins of her sons and daughters when he asked for forgiveness. They are notable words spoken by the Pope and ought to be included in the article. Taam (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We have not omitted the apologies of the Pope in the most notable sections. PJPII made many apologies and I do not think we are required to included every single one. I am very glad he made those apologies, I just wish others would accept those apologies. NancyHeise ^talk 21:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Taam, in response to several of your comments here, I have added substantial wording to the WWII section including mention of We Remember; Reflections on the Shoa and Pope John Paul II's apologies. I hope you will find this to your liking. Please see the article again and let me know. I do not want to add any more text to the article about persecution of Jews because it is already mentioned here and I think it is best mentioned here. We have links to both Inquisitions and Crusades and the persecutions of the various groups are discussed in detail there. Specific mention of persecution of Jews is also mentioned in Spanish Inquisition. If I start adding more expansion only on Jewish persecution, I have to discuss all others and then either the article size is blown or we introduce undue weight. At present we have omitted no notable facts and wikilinks lead Reader to other articles with more detail in keeping with WP:Summary style. I ask you to please be a little more understanding that the entire picture of the Church has to fit on this one page. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent contribution and well written.Taam (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion: In the section “Catholicism today” it makes mention of President Bush's remarks about Pope JP2 but I think the article would be enhanced by a reference to JP2 and the Vaticans position regarding the war in Iraq. [88].

Good comment, added mention and included link. NancyHeise ^talk 23:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise I think the article has the making of featured status, but at present I could not treat it even as good article no matter how superficially it conforms outwardly to wiki standards. Taam (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Break 4

Oppose. Because of my limited time, I have seen only the first part of the article, and even if it is better than in the previous FAC (thanks to NancyHeise and other editors!), it contains too many small problems to vote otherwise: — Ioannes Pragensis 19:44, 19 October 2008 — continues after insertion below

• (The church) "is made up of one Western church (the Latin Rite) and twenty-two Eastern Catholic churches, divided into 2,782 bishoprics." - it is not clear whether the 2,782 bishoprics are the whole church or the Eastern Churches only.

To make this clear I changed "bishoprics" to "sees" with a link to Episcopal See since Sees is the term actually used by the source, the Annuario Pontificio. NancyHeise ^talk 21:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

But it is still not grammatically clear whether "divided into 2,782 sees" refers to the whole sentence or to the Eastern Churches only.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the word "all" to "divided into 2782 sees" to make clear that it refers to the whole sentence. NancyHeise ^talk 18:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Citations of long documents (eg. Lumen Gentium) in references should contain chapters - one should be able to find the source without reading the whole document.

OK, I identified chapters for Lumen Gentium cites. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 22:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Catholic faith is summarized in the Nicene Creed and detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church." - should also mention Bible & Apostolic tradition as the "primary" sources of faith according to R-C church in the intro.

I disagree with this suggestion. The sentence in the article text is factually correct. The Catechism is the official and global Catholic detail of faith which includes the Bible and Apostolic tradition. The Bible and Apostolic tradition as "primary" sources of faith are discussed in the following section under Teaching Authority. No facts have been omitted and no sentence is incorrect. NancyHeise ^talk 21:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I speak about the introduction, not about the body of the article. It is very strange to mention the new Catechism there and not the 1900 years old Bible.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The article states: “Catholic faith is summarized in the Nicene Creed and detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.” Does the source really say this? It's not correct. The catechism itself states its a summary. “It lies at the origin of the Roman Catechism, which is also known by the name of that council and which is a work of the first rank as a summary of Christian teaching.”[89] This issue about sources is getting worrying. The point raised by -Ioannes Pragensis is sound. The Catechism teaches that “It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls." which in turns draws on the Council document DEI VERBUM Taam (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Taam. From the same link you provided we read "III. THE AIM AND INTENDED READERSHIP OF THE CATECHISM 11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium. It is intended to serve "as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries".15 12 This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful." The Catechism is the point of reference on the "organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine" and includes "Sacred scriptures" et al. By following Ioannes suggestion, we would then have to make the lead much longer than it already is and not more correct. NancyHeise ^talk 17:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

So you agree the article is wrong? i.e the catechism is not a "detailed" exposition of the Catholic faith as it claims but a "summary" Just to repeat what the Catichism says of itself.

“It lies at the origin of the Roman Catechism, which is also known by the name of that council and which is a work of the first rank as a summary of Christian teaching.”[90]. Could you also please confirm what the citation you give to support the "detailed" version actually says. Also can you confirm that the article will indeed reflect what the Church teaches: " sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others."Taam (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Taam, you are incorrect. The Catechism is the source of Catholic belief because it combines in one place Catholic doctrine on sacred tradition, sacred scripture and magisterium. It is a detailed explanation of Catholic beliefs. It is not as detailed as each individual component (scripture, tradition and magesterium) but it is much more detailed than the Nicene Creed and is more authoritative than any of its individual components alone. The whole RCC article is a summary, a one page glance of the world's largest and oldest institution. I think it is reasonable to conclude that what you and Ioannes are asking will not help anyone acheive that end. NancyHeise ^talk 02:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Catechism is of course not "more authoritative than any of its individual components alone" - the Church still reads from the Bible and not from the Catechism during the masses. It means in my opinion, that the introduction is not balanced if it mentions the Catechism and does not mention Bible.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I added text to incorporate your comment here. Please see lead again. NancyHeise ^talk 10:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Formal Catholic worship is ordered by the liturgy" - more often, "liturgy" is synonymous with "the formal worship"

This is not clear for all people, especially non-Catholics and I think on that basis we are justified in keeping that sentence. NancyHeise ^talk 21:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It implies that "liturgy" and "formal worship" are two different things. I do not think that it is the best possible formulation.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to say "Formal Catholic worship, termed liturgy,...." NancyHeise ^talk 18:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Some scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus..." - the wording of the paragraph looks a bit one-sided (WP:NPOV); there are many other scholars and theologians who believe otherwise (eg. that the establishing of papacy in its current power was a rather lengthy process), not only Duffy alone, and it should be mentioned, including their principal arguments

Thank you, I added a sentence to make clear that other scholars disagree and that Duffy is not alone. His view is presented because he is the most oft cited work of all opposing POV's. NancyHeise ^talk 22:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Sacred scripture or the Catholic Bible consists of the Greek version of the Old Testament—known as the Septuagint—and the 27 New Testament writings found in the Codex Vaticanus and listed in Athanasius' Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter." - not exactly true: R-C church regards the OT books from Septuagint as canonical, but does not prefer their Greek Septuagint versions as THE canonical version; it uses mainly the Neovulgata translation for its normal agenda and the Hebrew originals for scholarly purposes. Moreover the Codex Vaticanus has no special position in the definition of the R-C canon - it was created hundreds of years after the definition of the Christian NT canon. - In this regard I can only repeat what I have said in the previous FAC: the low scholarly quality of sources (Schreck in this case) leads to the low quality of the article.

--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"the low scholarly quality of sources (Schreck in this case)" that you are referring to is our source The Essential Catholic Catechism written by Dr. Alan Schreck, professor of Theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, a Catholic university respected for its orthodoxy in the United States. This book is a scholarly work as defined by WP:Reliable source examples and, like all of the sources used to create the Beliefs section, has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur declarations from the Catholic Church that the book is free from doctrinal or moral error. Your statement that our sentence discussing Sacred scripture is not exactly true is not referenced to any source. Our sentence is referenced to a source that the Catholic Church has deemed to be free of doctrinal or moral error. I do remember that you once insisted that we use the swiss theologian Hans Kung as a source since you considered his works to be more scholarly. However, we could not do that since he has been banned by the Catholic Church from teaching as a Catholic. Please respect that we have sources that meet both with Catholic Church approval as well as WP:Reliable source examples. FAC criteria does not require more. NancyHeise ^talk 21:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My principal objection is not that the source is not FAC-ready, but that the assertion is not exact. It is true that the canonical NT books are the same as the books contained in the Codex Vaticanus - but it is clear that the Codex is much younger than the Canon, and therefore the definition of the canon is not dependent on the Codex. But your sentence seems to imply it.

And regarding the Old Testament problem, it is very easy to find the sources that speak about the principal role of the original Hebrew text in the R-C scholarly work. For example this Bible intro on Holy See sites says "Where the translation supposes the received text - Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be - ordinarily contained in the best-known editions, as the original or the oldest extant form, no additional remarks are necessary." And regarding Vulgata/Neovulgata translation, it has been used since Middle Ages and reaffirmed in the Council of Trent as the sole, authorized Latin text of the Bible (Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Fourth Session, April 8, 1546). The Septuaginta translation is important from two reasons: 1) it was used by the early Christians and influenced NT, and 2) its selection of books later became the Old-Christian OT Canon. But the translation itself was (and is) used by the Greek Orthodox Church, not by the Latin-speaking Roman Church.

In Wikipedia, we are trying to establish an error-free wersion, not the doctrinal-or-moral-error-free version :-)--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ioannes, you make statements here that are incorrect.

1)First, your comment "Moreover the Codex Vaticanus has no special position in the definition of the R-C canon - it was created hundreds of years after the definition of the Christian NT canon." is directly contradicted by: Schreck, Alan, The Essential Catholic Catechism (1999), Published by Servant Publications, ISBN number 0569551286 p. 23, quote "In caring for the flock of Christ, one of the bishop's chief tasks was to ensure that correct doctrine was taught. So it was the bishops who needed to discern which writings and teachings being widely distributed were truly God's word for the whole church-and which were not. Their determination was officially announced in a decree of the Council of Rome in A.D. 382, under Pope Damasus, and confirmed by the Third Council of Carthage in A.D. 397. The present list of New Testament writings was first founded in the Codex Vaticanus from Rome around A.D. 340, and in St. Athanasius' Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of A.D. 367."

2)Second, your comment " The Septuaginta translation is important from two reasons: 1) it was used by the early Christians and influenced NT, and 2) its selection of books later became the Old-Christian OT Canon. But the translation itself was (and is) used by the Greek Orthodox Church, not by the Latin-speaking Roman Church." Per my New American Bible which has Nihil obstat and Imprimatur declarations from the Catholic Church, page xxvi How the Bible Came About "The Alexandrian Canon was translated into Greek by Jewish scholars and became the Scriptures commonly used by early Christian authors. Today Jews and most Protestants accept the Palestinian Canon as the Bible; Catholics follow the Alexandrian Canon, and thus include the additional books sometimes called the Deuterocanon."

My article text is factually correct and referenced to a Nihil obstat and Imprimatur source. It's correctness is supplemented by what I have just offered you above. Some of your statements are incorrect as I have pointed out and my efforts to win your support would make the article factually incorrect. I am very sorry that you disapprove of the sources and sentence but you have not proven them to be incorrect. NancyHeise ^talk 16:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

1) Sorry, my fault, the "hundered years" is really not correct. My memory already does not work perfectly. But still, even if Codex Vaticanus is one of the oldest surviving examples of the list (although the date 340 is not in all sources, somewhere they give a bit later date), but as far as I know it did not played any special role in the definition of the Canon. I would prefer wording like "the 27 New Testament writings. The oldest evidence of the selection of 27 NT books is from the half of the 4th century, from Codex Vaticanus and Athanasius' Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter."

2) Your citation of the New American Bible is correct, but your interpretation in the article is not. NAB says that the earliest church used Septuagint (or -to be more exact- the majority of Greek-speaking members of the church used it) and that Septuagint influenced Old Christian OT Canon. Both is true. But it does not mean that "Sacred scripture or the Catholic Bible consists of the Greek version of the Old Testament—known as the Septuagint" as you write in the article. It means only that "list of OT books of the Catholic Bible is the same as the list of books in Septuagint". The books in THE Catholic Bible are Latin, not Greek.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ioannes, I changed the sentence to include the words "first founded". Now it reads "Sacred scripture or the Catholic Bible consists of the Greek version of the Old Testament—known as the Septuagint[43]—and the 27 New Testament writings first founded in the Codex Vaticanus and listed in Athanasius' Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter.[44]" I can not change anything about the Septuagint because it is factually correct and referenced to a scholarly source. The New American Bible is "The" Catholic Bible. Mine has Nihil obstat and imprimatur declarations and as cited above, supports Dr. Schreck. Dr. Alan Schreck's book also supports the wording in the sentence as it presently exists. There is no information in any of my sources to support your suggestions. I can not make changes to fit your requests if I can not find a source to reference it. I'm sorry, I really want to make you happy but I think that you are mistaken. Please see this FAC's talk page [91] for Schreck's quote that supports the article text. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 09:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, thank for the excerpt from Schreck. I agree with what Schreck writes: "Catholics recognize ... the writings included in the ancient Greek version of the Old Testament ... known as the Septuagint." But it clearly does mean that Catholics recognize the writings themselves (i.e. the list of the books), and not the Septuaginta translation in its wording. I cited the Trent decree which says clearly: "the said old and vulgate edition, which, ... has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic". Vulgata of Trent contains the same OT books as Septuagint, but in Latin translation. Therefore your wording above is incorrect, should be something like "Sacred scripture or the Catholic Bible in its Old Testament part consists of the same books as a Greek version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint". Septuagint is not a part of Vulgata, it is a different translation of the same books from Hebrew / Aramaic, plus it contains some later parts written in Greek.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your observation, this was not obvious to me. I have added the words to make clear that the list of books is the same. The sentence now reads "Sacred scripture or the Catholic Bible consists of the same books listed in the Greek version of the Old Testament—known as the Septuagint" NancyHeise ^talk 14:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I am not able to judge fine facets of English, but the sentence is still not exact: "Bible consists of the same books listed in ... Septuagint" - Septuagint is not a list, it is a Bible translation. But I really have no idea how to formulate it both exact and nice.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed it again, now it reads "Sacred scripture or the Catholic Bible consists of the same books found in the Greek version of the Old Testament—known as the Septuagint[43]—" NancyHeise ^talk 18:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK,--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Vulgate is partially based on the Septuagint for those books for which Jerome could not find earlier Hebrew or Aramaic versions. The rest is based not on the medieval masoretic Hebrew text, used for modern translations, but on older hebrew texts, now vanished. Xandar 15:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Another remarks:

• "Catholic teachings have been refined and clarified by councils of the Church, convened by Church leaders, at important points throughout history" - the wording "important points" looks slightly exaggerated, some councils were held at relatively "normal" times

OK, removed "important points". NancyHeise ^talk 14:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The first such council, the Council of Jerusalem, was convened by the apostles around the year 50" - the Council of Jerusalem is usually not listed as one of the Catholic Ecumenical Councils linked in the previous sentence. Moreover the word "convened" is used two times in two lines of text.

Reworded to make this clear. I also added reference to Schreck. Jerusalem was the example set by the Apostles from which the Church then justified the 21 later councils. Please see the sentence again. NancyHeise ^talk 14:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is better now.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• " teaching authority of the Church, which includes infallible pronouncements by the pope,[45] pronouncements of ecumenical councils, and those of the college of bishops acting in union with the pope to define truths or to condemn interpretations of scripture believed to be false" - should be clearly stated that the teaching authority includes both "infallible" and "not-infallible" pronouncements of church leaders about faith & moral.

I reworded this to a more concise version. Please see sentence again because I eliminated "infallible" and just clarified what comprises the Magisterium. NancyHeise ^talk 20:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Infallible is also discussed in Industrial section of History, I just added more on it today in response to FAC comment by Vassyana. NancyHeise ^talk 17:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• "According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Jesus instituted seven sacraments and entrusted them to the Church" - almost everything in the chapter Beliefs can be "according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church" but why to stress it just here? The number 7 sacraments comes from the Middle Ages and was established by the Council of Trent as binding doctrine.

I wish we could eliminate 99% of the Accoding to Catholic teachings, According to the Catechism, etc but other FAC reviewers in the last FAC were insistent that we begin almost every statement of beleif in the Beleifs section this way to make undeniably clear to Reader that we are giving statements of Church teachings. I would be happy to insert another According to.... if you would like to speculate on how to begin that sentence. I can not just say "Jesus instituted seven sacraments...". Also, we do not expand upon history in the Beliefs section Readers wanting to know more can visit the daughter pages. Please understand the importance of keeping the page length a reasonable size. A LOT of effort has been expended over months of negotiations to come to the recent final agreement on article size. I understand the historical developement of sacraments, The Council of Trent officially confirmed there were seven just as previous councils determined the books of the Bible. However, that does not change the fact that this Belief of the Catholic Church that they were instituted by Jesus which is all the information needed in this Beliefs section. More info is available to Reader by clicking on the link in keeping with WP:summary style. NancyHeise ^talk 14:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"Accoding to the Council of Trent..." is about equally long as the current wording. To mention the earliest codification is very natural and it gives a non-trivial information to the reader. The article mentions that Catholics believe that sacraments were founded by Jesus in another place.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, changed sentence to say "According to the Council of Trent..." NancyHeise ^talk 17:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Through the passion of Jesus and his crucifixion, the Church teaches that all people have an opportunity for forgiveness and freedom from sin, and so can be reconciled to God." I think that the central Christian doctrine deserves more than one sentence here. At least mention the Resurrection and its meaning - it is not explained here in contast to many less important details - and the connection of the Passion and Resurrection with Baptism and Eucharist.

This would violate our article structure which is explaining Catholic beliefs along the framework of the sacraments, a unique quality of the Catholic Church. Baptism is explained in the previous section that is discussing Original sin and Resurrection is discussed in Eucharist. We are not giving Reader a detailed account of Catholic beliefs, we are mentioning and wikilinking to provide a short summary of those beliefs. Can you find a basic Catholic belief that we have not summarized and wikilinked? It sounds as if you want to see the entire story put together in just the Jesus section. NancyHeise ^talk 17:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Forget what I just said, I see the value in adding this information into the Jesus section, please see the section again, I added a sentence with reference to Schreck. Sorry for the griping. NancyHeise ^talk 18:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, it looks better now.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "There are three states of afterlife in Catholic belief. Purgatory is a temporary..." - why the explanation starts with the less important, temporary state? It should start with heaven as the principal goal of Catholics, and then discuss the remaining two states.

OK, I changed it to begin with Heaven, then Purgatory, then Hell. NancyHeise ^talk 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "An alternate or extraordinary form of Mass, called the Tridentine Mass, is celebrated primarily in Latin..." - many parts of the article are written mainly from the today's perspective, although the R-C Church has a long history. It is especially clear here: If we mention the Tridentine Rite, then we should start with the information that it was the standard Latin rite for centuries. Its very limited use today is hardly worth to mention.

I disagree that this needs to be changed or expanded. The sentence is factual, there are two forms of the Mass. I think you may have missed reading Note 3 at the end of the Tridentine Mass sentence which gives Reader more information like what you have suggested. NancyHeise ^talk 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

But the current wording sounds like if the Council of Trent established the rite as an exceptional possibility. The information is factually true, but out of context, with undue weight on the current use of the rite, and therefore misleading. I suggest to drop the whole thing ("An alternate ... Protestant belief") and perhaps use it as a note in the description of the traditionalist movement after the Vatican II.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What you are proposing is a very controversial thing. The Tridentine Mass has become more popular recently since Benedict's encyclical and several churches in my area offer it. I don't speak Latin so I dont attend but I know people who do and I know these people would be really offended at what you are suggesting here. If the Church accepts two forms of Mass, why would we only put one in the article text and leave the other in a footnote? That doesnt make sense and lots of people would interpret that as pushing a POV against traditional Catholics. The article already states that the ordinary form of the Mass is the most common celebration of the Eucharist. It says this in the first sentence of the paragraph discussing these two forms of Mass. Neither does any sentence say that the Council of Trent "established the rite as an exceptional possibility", it says "An alternate or extraordinary form of Mass, called the Tridentine Mass, is celebrated primarily in Latin. Standardized at the Council of Trent, it reaffirms that the Mass is the same sacrifice of Jesus' death as the one he suffered on Calvary, contrary to Protestant belief." It says this Mass was standardized, meaning that it was being practiced in various unstandard formats before the bishops all got together to agree on one standardized form and that this form reaffirmed (the Catholic dogma) that the Mass is the same sacrifice.... (which) is contrary to Protestant belief. Ioannes, you have helped me with wording suggestions before. I welcome more suggestions if you think this could be worded any other way. I thought the sentence was both clear and concise. NancyHeise ^talk 18:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Close. What actually happened was the Mass needed to be codified as part of the Counter-Reformation. It's not like there were all these various Masses being said "willy-nilly" all over the world, but there were "innovations" going on, similar in theory to the Abuses with the Pauline Mass. Pope Pius V had the Mass codified in order to save it. In a sense, it made the Mass truly "catholic" as it was the same Mass said the exact same way everywhere in the world. Certain rites having a long codified tradition were exempt: Mozarabic,Carmelite, Carthusian, Dominican and Ambrosian. There's so much more that could be said and should be said, but I'm not the best at summarizing, so any additions I'd make would add too much to the article. The Tridentine Mass is gaining in popularity again, as it is free from abuse and is perceived as more reverent. I attend both, if I sleep in and miss the Latin Mass, though...I end up "Church Shopping" as some of the Novus Ordo Masses are downright irreverent to me. (Banging drums and clashing cymbols during the Great Amen makes me want to choke someone out as does Pop music during the Eucharist). At least the proper English Translation will be out this year or next and that should ease some concerns. Attend one sometime(you can follow along in English), it will change your appreciation for the Eucharist.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, Nancy, for us foregners the wording must be extra clear :-) but in this case the problem is rather in the placement and in the due weight. The information about the Tridentine rite belongs to the History section and should be very short if any. The information about the new possibility to use this form today belongs to the modern history if it should be here at all, and it must be put in connection with the conservative Catholics, who insisted on this rite for long years. Here in the section about liturgy it is very POV to stress only this extraordinary possibility and not to mention many ordinary alternatives as for example different Eastern rites used (with modifications) in the Eastern Catholic churches. But I think that this would be too detailed for this level of explanation.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No Ioannes, the article text would be incomplete without mentioning there are two forms of Mass, ordinary and extraordinary (Tridentine). This is not something just historical, it is a presently practiced form of Mass and is mentioned in the Eucharist along with the ordinary form and all of the other rites. It's historical significance is mentioned in the note following the sentence. I do not understand why you want to single out this rite and move it out of this section where it rightfully belongs. NancyHeise ^talk 03:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• "(Tridentine Rite) reaffirms that the Mass is the same sacrifice of Jesus' death as the one he suffered on Calvary, contrary to Protestant belief" - is it really the single most important thing on the Tridentine Rite?

According to a consensus of Wikipedia editors over months of negotiations - yes. NancyHeise ^talk 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but is it true also according to the church historians? I have not a book about the Concil here, but somebody should research and source it - or drop the whole sentence according to my previous comment.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is already referenced, to Peter Kreeft's book Catholic Christianity page 326-327 where you will read his explanation and see that his explanations are footnoted to Council of Trent (1551) DS 1651 and Council of Trent (1562) Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, c. 2: DS 1743; cf. Heb 9:14, 27 and Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1641. NancyHeise ^talk 18:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not say that it is an factical error. I only suspect whether this is really the most important fact about the Tridentine Rite.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the most central key distinguishing factor talked about in my sources covering this rite.NancyHeise ^talk 03:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• "These dogmas, focus of Roman Catholic Mariology, are considered infallible." - Are there any "fallible" dogmas in the R-C Church?

Are you asking me my personal belief? My answer would be "no". The meaning of infallible is wikilinked in a previous section so Reader can learn more about what that declaration means in Church language. Do you think we need to wikilink it here too? NancyHeise ^talk 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Nancy, your personal belief is only yours. But what I'm trying to say is that both words "dogma" and "infallible" have probably the same meaning in the R-C context, and therefore one of them can be dropped to simplify the sentence and to remove the unnecessary pleonasm. Perhaps in the form "These teachings, focus of Roman Catholic Mariology, are considered infallible." or "These dogmas, focus of Roman Catholic Mariology, were announced in 19th century." or whatever you like.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I changed the sentence to your suggested form "These teachings, focus of Roman Catholic Mariology, are considered infallible." Because dogmas is an important wikilink that I had to eliminate to accomodate your sentence, I put it into a sentence in the Eucharist section discussing Transubstantiation. NancyHeise ^talk 18:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OK.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• There is a well-developed anthropologic and sociologic literature about the folk R-C spirituality (pilgrimages, cult of Mary, prayers...) and its historical development, should be cited and considered.

Ioannes, are you going to continue to oppose if this information is not included? Really, I want you to please click on the wikilinks and see that we have made this article a certain length by much compromise leaving more detailed information like what you are suggesting here to the daughter articles. I have to be respectful of all FAC reviewers and there are several here who supported the article only after participating at length in the efforts to eliminate content to make the page a reasonable size. NancyHeise ^talk 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is hard to achieve, because the literature is very vast and interdisciplinar (history, sociology, psychology, anthropology, gender studies...). But at least an example, one two sentences with citations would greatly enhance the chapter. Otherwise it is too onesided.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think what you are asking for here is something that is very long and detailed issue and really belongs in the Roman Catholic theology page, not here, the Roman Catholic Church institution. Our article wikilinks to Roman Catholic Mariology and Dogma (Roman Catholic) where what you are asking for is already covered. NancyHeise ^talk 18:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite opposite, I invite you to include non-theological, secular approaches to this theme. There are no links to such information in the current wording.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you are asking. Do you want me to include secular psychologist analysis of Marian apparitions in this Beliefs section of the Roman Catholic Church article? Why don't we then place commentary and analysis of all of the Church beliefs? Why do you just want to do this for Marian apparitions? There is an atheist Sam Harris (author) who thinks all Catholics and religious persons are wackos for our beliefs. I am not sure it would help the article to include the opinions of every single non-believing person and I am sure it would make the article violate article size limits. Maybe that belongs to Criticism of the Catholic Church which is also linked in the article. Presently, Marian apparitions is already linked in our article and this includes a criticism section. If you take a look at the FA Islam, you will see that criticism of their beliefs is not treated that way. I do not want to give RCC any different treatment on this issue. NancyHeise ^talk 02:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The sacrament of Matrimony in the Latin rite is the only sacrament not conferred by a priest" - perhaps "under normal circumstances" should be added; exceptionally laypersons may also baptize; and "priest" should be replaced by "ordained person", because the Holy Orders are also not conferred by priest.

I can not find a source to reference the addition of "under normal circumstances" for the sacrament of Matrimony. I added text to Ordained members and Holy Orders to clarify who can administer the sacrament of baptism. NancyHeise ^talk 23:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I put my objection not clear enough. You write "The sacrament of Matrimony in the Latin rite is the only sacrament not conferred by a priest", but in fact there exist another sactrament -Holy Orders- not conferred by a priest. This is a contradiction. Moreover under the danger of death even a layperson may baptize, and under normal circumstances a diacon. Another contradiction. It does not need a source, it needs just logic. The information in the sentence is simply misleading.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You are very correct, thank you for catching that breach of logic. I changed it to read " The sacrament of Matrimony in the Latin rite is not conferred by a priest..."NancyHeise ^talk 02:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• "may enter the cloistered consecrated life either as monks or nuns." - why "either"? Would not be better "may enter the cloistered consecrated life as monks or nuns"?

OK, eliminated "either" NancyHeise ^talk 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The majority of those wishing to enter the consecrated life..." - is there any statistics proving that they are really the majority? Cite it please.

OK, added reference. NancyHeise ^talk 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "or those never baptized may be received by participating in a formation program" - those never baptized may be received only by being baptized (of course after a formation program in most cases)

This section is factual and referenced and I do not think it needs any further expansion to make clear. sacraments of initiation is wikilinked and provides Reader with all the info needed here. NancyHeise ^talk 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There is only one way how to be fully received in a Christian church, and this way is the baptism.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The section makes that clear in the first sentence. The rest of the paragraph is added detail that does not contradict the first sentence. The Catholic Church accepts the baptism of those baptized in other Christian denominations. The formation program and sacraments of initiation are the way adults baptized in other Christian denominations are recieved into the Church, the sentence is factually correct. NancyHeise ^talk 18:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And why not "may be received after participating in a formation program"? This makes clear that the real receiving act (baptism) succeeds after the program or as its final step.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• "by condemning female infanticide (as well as all other forms)" - not clear what are the all other forms

Expanded. It now reads "Christianity improved the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infanticide was more common)" This is referenced already and is what we were trying to make clear with the previous sentence. I think this is a better. NancyHeise ^talk 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The Church has frequently been criticized for the house arrest of Galileo" - there are many other cases of persecuted and even killed thinkers which should be mentioned (Hypatia of Alexandria, Jan Hus, Giordano Bruno). Generally the chapter sounds too positive - what about the pogroms against Jews in Catholic Europe for example, the first predecessors of the later Nazi atrocities?

I added Giordano Bruno and wikilink. However, Hypatia of Alexandria is not even mentioned in my four most scholalry works and Jan Hus was a protestant reformer, not a scientist or philospher like Gallileo or Bruno. The section is discussing culture, not reformation. It would also be inappropriate to single out Hus here because the Reformation wars and persecutions are already covered in that section of History with notable burnings of reformers by both Protestants and Catholics omitted because of space considerations. Regarding the pogroms against Jews, which ones were directly sanctioned by the Church? None except what we have already mentioned in Crusades and Inquisitions sections. Jews were not the only group labeled as heretics and persecuted by the Church. Many groups were and we mentioned this. I do not see how just mentioning Jews would keep the article balanced. I do not see how more information on these persecutions would keep article size down. All notable controversies are mentioned and wikilinked. NancyHeise ^talk 15:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Jan Hus was not a protestant reformer (he was burned at the stake 100 years before Reformation started) and he was a very influential teacher on the Prague University. He was not only theologian but also a linguist and helped to develop the Czech language. Pogroms against Jews were started directly by the members of the Crusade movement, which was initiated by the Pope. (It is true that the Pope did not considered this possibility to raise money for the Crussade, but on the other side he was responsible for the movement and there were always priests and monks in the crowds of Crusaders.)--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The passage is about science, and in this respect neither Jan Hus, nor Giordano Bruno are relevant. Neither were executed for science - although this is sometimes alleged in the case or Bruno because he had some advanced ideas about the universe. Both were executed for serious heresy in matters of faith, Bruno, for claiming that he was divine, and persisting in that claim. Every person executed for heresies in every faith cannot be mentioned in the respective articles. With reference to "pogroms against the Jews being initiated directly by members of the Crusade movement," that is a complete distortion of the facts in that it implies that the Church supported the pogroms when the opposiite was the case. Pogroms were started by unofficial groups, often inspired by a desire to relieve indebtedness to jewish moneylenders. In most cases the Jews were officially protected by the Church, and ran to the local bishop or church for what protection they could offer. Church reports of the events, and church preachers condemned the European pogroms and their proponents. Xandar 15:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• " the concept of the primacy of the Roman bishop over other churches" - this is the hard-core R-C reading of the history. The Orthodox reading says that it was the primacy of the Roman bishop between other churches, not over them. As far as I know, modern historians think that the Orthodox reading is more close to the historical reality of the first centuries. The primacy over other (Western) churches was fully developed after the Great Schism, that is 1000 years later.

Ioannes, these facts are referenced to the most scholarly sources per WP:reliable source examples. I searched to find a scholar who supported the Othodox version of history and came up scarce. Even if you look at the definition of Roman Catholic Church in both Encyclopedia Brittanica and Encarta, they give an even more Catholic POV version than what we offer. NancyHeise ^talk 15:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In "A Lion Handbook : The History of Christianity" (edition 1992) on page 228 is written: Greory the Great "criticized the Patriarch of Constantinopole for using the term 'Ecumenical Patriarch' asserting that such a title belonged only to the bishop of Rome. When his Eastern counterpart refused to agree, Gregory dropped the dispute reather than share it and called himself instead 'servant of the servants of God'." It can serve as example that the papal primacy was rather weak in the time, not a direct power over other Patriarchs as it is interpreted today in the R-C church.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have made new changes, I think I have found the perfect NPOV language that also matches the sources. I changed it to read "Two decades later, a decision of the Council of Chalcedon to elevate Constantinople, the see of the Eastern Church to a position of equal administrative authority as Rome in their respective jurisdiction but to "rank next after" Rome on doctrinal issues marked the beginning of a long power struggle between the sees and added to the continuing breakdown in relations between them.[219]" What do you think? NancyHeise ^talk 12:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• "in 391 this Biblical canon was translated into the common language of Latin creating the Vulgate" - not exact; the translation/revision work took more than 20 years to Jerome, and there existed older translations before Vulgate.

I changed this to say "by the end of the fourth century" although the sentence is referenced. NancyHeise ^talk 16:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Chapter Early Middle Ages: The rise of Islam and the loses in Africa and Near East should be at least briefly mentioned - it is too important to drop.

added mention of Islamic military threat. NancyHeise ^talk 17:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It was not only a threat. It was a real loss of large number of countries and cities including those very central for Christianity like Jerusalem, Alexandria, Carthago.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the mention to include mention of all the areas lost to Muslim armies. Please see again, I think it clearly presents the situation to Reader now. NancyHeise ^talk 11:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Eastern Europe and its evangelization both peaceful (Saints Cyril and Methodius) and warlike (Charlemagne, crusades against "pagans") should be mentioned

I disagree, evangelization during Middle Ages is already mentioned at length (we can't be expected to include all) and the wars against the pagans were not sanctioned by the Church. We have to be careful to keep the article focused on the subject matter, the Catholic Church, not go into other subjects like the History of the World or the like. NancyHeise ^talk 16:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Many wars against pagans were conducted by the Teutonic Order, the Catholic monks-knights. The mission of Cyril and Methodius is 1000 times more important than the visit of Benedict XVI to GW Bush, and therefore does not deserve less place.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have added sentence and wikilink to Teutonic Order in High Middle Ages and I have added sentence and wikilink to Cyril and Methodius in Early Middle Ages noting one of their major contributions in addition to spreading Christianity. Please do not belittle my reference to the Benedict visit to the US (he came to visit the country, not specifically GW Bush) it is important to reveal to Reader the respect that world leaders have for the head of Catholic Church and the place of the Church in the world today. NancyHeise ^talk 18:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• "theologians such as Thomas Aquinas worked at these universities and his Summa Theologica was" - the sentence looks grammatically wrong to me; the subject of the first part are theologians, therefore the second part should have "Aquinas'" instead of "his" (sorry if I am wrong here, my knowledge of English is not perfect).

I do not claim to have perfect grasp of English either and I am much inferior to you in language department since I can only speak one language fluently. However, with my limited knowledge, I believe the sentence is correct. We don't repeat a person's name in a sentence if it has already been introduced. NancyHeise ^talk 16:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

But would it be possible to find a wording where the words "Aquinas" and "his" are nearer to each other than in the current sentence? I have still a feeling of grammatical discontinuity when I read it.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I made a minor change to this effect but it is not much different than before. I think this is a minor issue, please don't fail me for it :) NancyHeise ^talk 17:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• "to reside under French influence in the fortified city of Avignon" - no need to stress the fortification, most of medieval cities were fortified.

I think the editor who inserted this sentence was trying to impress upon Reader that the pope resided there in part because it was safe, unlike Rome at the time. I would like to respect that editor's contribution and leave "fortified" if it is OK with you. This is really a minor point. NancyHeise ^talk 16:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you like it.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• "These challenges developed into the Protestant Reformation" - the sentence should add a short description what was the Protestant Reformation - what demanded Luther, what was the response of Rome, how the schizm developed at its beginnings - otherwise the uneducated reader will not understand the following text.

Ioannes, Protestant Reformation could be a very large paragraph. What you are asking goes against WP:summary style and all our efforts to keep article size down to something reasonable. Some people with dial up computers have trouble loading the page if it goes above a certain kB. Protestant Reformation is wikilinked and this treatment was agreed over many months of negotiations with many editors. I would like respect this. NancyHeise ^talk 16:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish a large paragraph. I wish only one short sentence to inform the reader whether the Protestant Reformation was a state, a church, a movement, a disease or whatever :-)--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I added some clarification to the Protestant Reformation sentence to make this clear. NancyHeise ^talk 11:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hussites deserve to be shortly mentioned as foreruners of Reformation

This is covered in the link to Protestant Reformation. NancyHeise ^talk 16:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I am too Czech-centric just like you are US-centric ;-) let it be judged by other editors than we two, it surely not a big error to drop the Hussites.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre should appear briefly

This is covered in the link to French Wars of Religion and was not a Church sanctioned persecution. NancyHeise ^talk 16:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that readers probably know the term "St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre" better than the term "French Wars of Religion". I agree that the link to the later would be enough from the theoretical perspective, but from the practical one I would prefer both terms (like "French Wars of Religion with the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre as their turning-point").--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I added mention of St Bartholomews Day Massacre. NancyHeise ^talk 11:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If I can abuse your patience, I must say that now the space given to the French religious wars looks too big relative to their importance - would it be possible to make it shorter?--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I trimmed it - please see again. NancyHeise ^talk 02:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Counter-Reformation: it was not only cultural and ecclesiastical movement, it meant also a state-sponsored persecution of non-Catholics in the Habsburg domain; should be mentioned perhaps including its notable victims (John Amos Comenius...)

This was not a Church santioned persecution. The Spanish Inquisition is discussed and wikilinked and treated in the same manner as all other controversies. The article is about just the Catholic Church, not what all Catholics or rulers were doing. Much negotiation has been spent over what and how much to include. I have to respect that. NancyHeise ^talk 16:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not true at least in the Austrian Habsburg domain, whose history I know better. The church (especially the Jesuite order) played an important part in the persecution. Burning of Protestant books by the Jesuite cs:Antonín Koniáš is proverbial in the Czech language to this day. And do you think that the atrocities of both sides of the religious wars would be possible without at least tacit agreement with the respective churches?--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ioannes, you are incorrect here. Any involvement in the Spanish Inquisition by religious was done outside of Church approval. "Pope Sixtus IV objected to the use of church courts and government for these trials and persecutions and went so far as to have the Spanish Ambassador to the papal court arrested. He also demanded that the accused be allowed to appeal to Rome, be told the names of hostile witnesses, and be allowed to have legal counsel. Furthermore, personal enemies and former servants of the accused should be disqualified. Ferdinand flatly refused and the pope lost all control over the process." from The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages by John Vidmar, a scholarly work with notes and bibliography. This is also mentioned in the book The Spanish Inquisition by Henry Kamen and is noted in our article text in the High Middle Ages section. NancyHeise ^talk 11:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not speaking about the Spanish Habsburgs, but about the Austrian Habsburgs. There was no State Inquisition here, the dirty work was conducted mostly by the religious orders working hand in hand with the State armed forces. It is true that there were tensions between the Pope, the Emperor, the Archbishop and Jesuites even here, but it does not change the fact that the Catholic Church was active on the side of the secular rulers in this issue. Of course this was the time of cuius regio eius religio and it was nothing exceptional for a denomination to oppress its religious opponents, but still it is a valid dimension of Counter-Reformation.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have been searching for a reference to use for additional article text. This must not be a very notable event because there seems to be zero mention of this event. Do you have a source in mind that you think I should use? I am willing to add text to please you but I think this is may not be as notable as you think it is. NancyHeise ^talk 03:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I found mentions about the "dark" side of the Counter-Reformation in all standard reference books I own. Most of them are Czech or German (because the events were centered in Central Europe), but in "A Lion Handbook : The History of Christianity" (edition 1992) on page 421 we have it too: "Counter-reform was a second major Jesuit preoccupation in the second half of the 16th century and throughout th 17th century. In France, in what is today Belgium, in southern Germany, and most noticeably in eastern Europe, the Jesuits led the counter-attack against the Protestants. Using literally almost any means at their disposal, they recaptured large areas for the church of Rome. They aerned a reputation as 'the feared and formidable storm-troops of the Counter-Reformation'." This is in fact the most important aspect of the Counter-Reformation in countries like Bohemia and is mentioned in almost every book about the subject here.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ioannes, I did some research into the Jesuits and added text to the article to address this issue. The text I added is cited to Lonnie Johnson's Central Europe published by Oxford University Press and cited 34 times according to GoogleScholar. I did not use your book because it is only cited 3 times per Googlescholar and is not available for viewing on Googlebooks. I also added wikilink to the Austrian Habsburgs. What you are calling the "dark" side is not really a Church controversy but I included it anyway per your comment here, please see last paragraph of Late Medieval and Renaiisance section. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 23:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• "resulted in a small breakaway movement called the Old Catholic Church" - small perhaps compared to the whole church, but nevertheless relatively big and influential in Germany of these days; "breakaway" from the Roman perspective, but traditionalist Catholic from their own perspective; is there a more neutral wording possible?

Yes, I changed it to eliminate small and breakaway, please see the sentence again, I think it is very correct and NPOV and matches the source well. NancyHeise ^talk 18:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Chapter Industrial age: Hugh McLeod's book on Secularisation in Western Europe, 1848-1914 is the classic about the period's religious development, would be nice to cite it

Ioannes, I thank you for your help here. I have already used sources that meet WP:reliable source examples If our information in the article is incorrect or sourced to non-scholarly works, I would consider using another book. Please consider there are 50,000 books written on the subject of the Catholic Church and we can not be expected to eliminate good sources to the whim of every reviewer. Our information is correct and sourced and I would like to not be expected to change my sources if they meet FAC criteria, which they do. NancyHeise ^talk 17:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You can of course select another book (although this one is good) but should not ignore the whole branch of literature to this problem.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for being flexible. I added article text to the first paragraph of Industrial Age that discusses these developements and referenced them a Cambridge University Press book by John Francis Pollard. NancyHeise ^talk 17:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The records of Dachau concentration camp alone" - bad link - points to the city, not to the concentration camp.

repaired. NancyHeise ^talk 16:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Even though some priests collaborated with the regime" - even some laypersons and bishops collaborated. Should be "some Catholics collaborated".

The reference is referring to clerics so I changed "priests" to "clerics" which would include bishops, I dont think it would be appropriate to mention lay people. NancyHeise ^talk 16:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Chapter Second Vatican Council discusses many things beyond the Council - the name should be expanded

renamed to "Second Vatican Council and beyond". NancyHeise ^talk 20:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• The paragraph starting with "Major lawsuits emerged in 2001..." looks too lenghty and too US-centric

This is English speaking Wikipedia, and this scandal mainly occured really in English speaking countries of Ireland, Australia and mostly US (not so much in England). This issue was of great concern to many Readers who visited the page. The paragraph when through a trim at peer review with 8 editors commenting and helping. Present size is a result of that collaborative effort which I would like to respect. NancyHeise ^talk 17:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am the nineth, and I would like to put it in dimensions comparable to the importance of the incident at least in the context of the history of English-seaking Catholic Church. This looks like "recentism" in its purest form.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please respect the months of consensus worked over this sensitive area of the article. I can not act on this comment because I can not omit any sentence without omiting notable pieces of a notable controversy that many editors actually wanted more expansion on. This paragraph was a tremendous compromise and I do not see fit to change it because of one person's comment. NancyHeise ^talk 02:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• The part starting with "On his 2008 visit to the United States..." - the same problem

Again, this is English speaking Wikipedia and the sentence introduces Reader to the importance of the Head of the Catholic Church as respected by the most populous country in the English speaking world.NancyHeise ^talk 17:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Following the controversy over his Regensburg address," - it should briefly explain why is the address controversial

This is a minor issue that is treated like all others, mentioned and wikilinked. NancyHeise ^talk 17:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• The chapter titled "Catholicism today" should change its title to "Pope Benedict today" :-) (or it should really speak about its theme, which is what I would prefer)

I disagree. The chapter spells out several important themes relating to the Church. These are:

1)It continues to be an important worldwide institution important to other nations. 2)Church policies have remained consistent from one recent pope to the next. 3)Catholicism today is different in regards to its relations with other religions than in the past. 4)Catholicism today is different in regards to its relations with science than in the past. It is unreasonable for us to be expected to exclude mention of the importance of the Pope to the world in discussing the importance of the Church. I thank you for all of your comments, many of which helped improve the article and for which I made many edits to the article. Please understand that some of your comments are directly in conflict with collaborative work with many editors over months of negotiations. Article size is a concern. FAC criteria have been met and no notable controversies excluded. If we were to be expected to make edits to incorporate all the information you have asked us to expand upon, we would significantly violate our article size considerations on which we worked so hard to find agreement. Per WP:summary style and respecting the consensus of editors who decided together what to include and what to exclude, I can not reasonably add mentions of all your items here. All are found in the wikilinks to daughter pages and summarized in article text. NancyHeise ^talk 17:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Best regards,--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ioannes for your excellent FAC review. I appreciate very much your time and efforts here. I have spent the greater part of my day answering your comments, many of which have improved the article. Please do not be offended at the ones I disagreed with and please consider that there are many editors both Catholic and non-Catholic who have worked together for months finding consensus on what to include and what not to include. Some of your comments would require me to violate certain considerations important to others such as page size and WP:summary style. I did not think I would be able to possibly create an article that would be pleasing to every single FAC reviewer as they often have different ideas of what the page should look like and these ideas often conflict. I have attempted to find the most agreeable form of the article to most viewers and I think we have found that. I appreciate your participation. NancyHeise ^talk 19:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Break 5

• Due to the inaction (and frankly, hostility) towards my earlier comments, I am going to have to formally oppose this nomination. The article is both un-comprehensive and lopsided in its coverage. As Nancy says above, "we were careful to include all facts relating to that criticism [of Pope Pius XII]" (her emphasis). That comment explains a lot about how this article was constructed; it gives undo emphasis to certain subtopics (2 paragraphs plus a picture just to defend Pius XII's record during the Holocaust) rather than establishing a top-down, summary style organization, evenly distributing emphasis. For example, the following words are never mentioned: Papal States, Usury, Antipope. These three topics are an order of magnitude more historically significant than these specific rebuttals of a specific criticism of a specific pope. In fact, antisemitism itself is only discussed in the article as it relates to Pius XII. The article's strength is supposed to be theology, but it mentions neither Scholasticism or Thomism. I'll give a few more examples to illustrate this same problem. Several encyclicals are covered in depth (if I may dare a guess, chosen because certain editors had axes to grind), but the article never discusses encyclicals in general, or even the types of papal writings (encyclicals, apostolic constitutions, etc.) and their varying levels of importance. Similarly, several papal elections are detailed (chosen at random this time, I believe, rather than by any bias), but never the development or process of the conclave as a means of papal succession (dare I mention Papal appointment, which was more or less the norm for 1000 years). Several sentences about the nuances of regulations relating to homosexuals in the priesthood are included (even a sentence presenting the church's stated rationale, that the ban was a response to child abuse, as a fact!) but nothing is said about catholic social teaching about heterosexuality as a whole; there is also excessive treatment of the topic of women in the priesthood but nothing about the overall relationship of the church to gender roles (Periculoso, etc., etc.). I've already mentioned how the article attributes to the RCC a causal role in eliminating infanticide and human sacrifice, but says nothing about the real topic that these are a subset of: colonization and forced conversion.
• Short version: this article's exceptional referencing and prose are deceptive because its text is more often than not a minute detail of a sub-topic. This article needs to be rethought in terms of summary style. It should not be a collection of all facts relating to a few select issues but rather a meta-level summary of the RCC as a whole. Savidan 18:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Savidan for coming back to give us some specific concerns to address. Your previous oppose was a general swipe at the entire article suggesting that its only hope was a complete rewrite. Evidently it was offensive to several editors. I don't think that you have really read the article because you suggest we are omitting things that we really have included.

• Papal States are mentioned in History section and wikilinked in Industrial Age.
• Usury is not mentioned but easily added and

I added mention of usury in the first paragraph of High Middle Ages, please see. NancyHeise ^talk 21:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• antipope is not a term specifically used but the disputes involving antipopes are mentioned and wikilinked like Western Schism where Reader can click and go on to read about antipopes because not only are they discussed there, they are also wikilinked.
• Scholasticism and Thomism are not specifically wikilinked although other wikilinks that lead to them are included in the article like St. Thomas Aquinas and his Summa Theologica. I did not see the value of adding every conceivable wikilink to a subject when one or two might lead Reader to the rest of them.
• Your comment about different types of papal writings is a very good idea for inclusion and I will be working on adding that tonight.

I researched this topic and after going through various works and trying to decide how to fit this into the article, I think it is best left to the Roman Catholic theology article than this Roman Catholic Institution article. Presently, this topic involves the issue of Infallibility of the Church which is discussed and wikilinked in the Teaching Authority section. When reader clicks on that link it takes them to where these different writings are discussed in detail including a chart with the varying degrees of "truthiness". Inclusion in this article is way too much detail and goes beyond WP:summary style.

• Papal appointments are discussed at length with the Investiture controversy covering that.
• A lot more information about anti-semitism was recently added in response to Taams comments. Please see the World War II section again, specifically regarding John Paul II's apology and discussion of We Remember:Reflections on the Shoa. I think it is very NPOV and gives a generous swath of space to the issue.
• Catholic social teaching is mentioned and wikilinked in the Beliefs section under Nature of the Church and Social Teaching.
• I am not sure what you're talking about excessive treatment of women in the priesthood or our lack of treatment of the overall relationship of church gender roles. We have a whole paragraph in the Ordained Members Holy Orders section making church policy clear.
• Periculoso is a controversy? No, it is part of the Church history that no one except you has asked for inclusion. Now that you have asked, I can fit it in there somewhere I think.
• Also, the Church did not colonize anyone nor did they force conversions. They followed colonizers and provided an alternative religion to natives. Core Catholic doctrine states that sacraments are only valid for the person who receives them with the proper disposition, force is specifically denied by the Church as a proper disposition. I searched on Googlebooks for Catholic Church and forced conversions and found nothing about colonizers [92] here's one about the Orthodox forcing conversions (after the schism with Catholic Church) [93] and there is a lot about forced conversions to Islam. I don't think that Catholic Church forced conversions is a controversy that is notable. Do you have any scholarly works to offer to support your version?

NancyHeise ^talk 21:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Nancy, the point that I think I have made very clear is that this artilce is too focused on arbitrarily selected specifics rather than holistic topics. Part and parcel of this problem is the discussion of specific [antipopes, elections, encyclicals, whatever] instead of the overall topic itself. This article is very uneven in its emphasis, including dozens of points about minor issues but paying only lipservice to some overarching trends, concepts, and themes. Far be it from me to say that the RCC was responsible for colonialism et al. However, it certainly should not be the case that the article grab topics like human sacrifice and infanticide out of context and say that the Catholic Church was responsible for their elimination. It seems like the article wants to have it both ways: that the RCC was responsible (i.e. overemphaisis of importance) for everything "good" that ever came out of the "West" and not a significant driver in anything "bad" that ever came out of it. The real issue here is how much power the church had over everyday life in various parts of the world. The reduction in infanticide is just one element of that. Savidan 21:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Savidan. Your specific points have been answered or shown to be erroneous. Your remaining objection above is non-specific and unactionable, being a generalised statement that you do not like the tone of the article. In an article covering a 2000 year history certain specifics must be selected. Those are the ones that have been generated by NOTABILITY, controversy and general debate by editors and critics over a period of years. The fact that some positive aspects of the church actually appear in the article seems to dismay you, but Wikipedia is not meant to be a platform for promoting solely negative viewpoints. If there are solid specific points or omissions of overriding importance you think are missing from the article, you are free to raise them and argue that their omission is so important as to seriously unbalance the article, but an unspecified dislike of the article is not an actionable oppose under WP policy. Xandar 23:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Savidan, thank you for your participation here. I appreciate your comments very much and I want to work with you to make the article better. Please specify what "bad" came out of the Church that we have not mentioned and we will mention it. Also, please respect that several very intelligent and learned people have worked together to create the present article. A reviewer in the last FAC commented afterward that he thought the whole article needed to be rewritten but Raul, the FA director stepped in to discourage that by asking him how a rewrite would be better than what we presently have already. Wikipedia works on consensus and the article reflects what consensus of editors wished to see in the the article. FAC is the only place where we add personally identified specifics in order to please FAC reviewers. At times, when I felt that certain comments were unsupported by scholars I have not acted on such comments but I am doing my very best to make everyone happy and I really would like to make you happy too. The Cultural Influence section is referenced to top sources identified by WP:Reliable source examples as the best. One is a univerity textbook on Western Civilization authored by 7 history professors and another is a university textbook on the history of the Church that has been used for decades with three rewrites. I am not making stuff up about the Church, these facts are what scholars have said about the Church's cultural impact and I did not omit anything, meaning if they had mentioned any "bad" cultural influences, I would have included them. Perhaps some men might think that ending polygamy was a "bad" cultural influence. I did not make personal judgements, I just put facts on the page as the scholars presented them. If you find another source that lists some bad cultural influences, please help me out here. NancyHeise ^talk 23:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. First I would like to say that my impression from the article as a whole is similar to Savidan's: there are parts there which are certainly not well ballanced. If I apply Raul's Razor ("An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie.") then the article fails: I can easily tell where the sympathies of the majority of the writers lie - with the right wing of the US R-C Church :-) .

Moreover I tried to compare the text with some other language versions:

• While we have only a short (and not perfectly exact) phrase "The Roman Catholic Church, officially called the Catholic Church," German WP has a whole chapter about the name (de:Römisch-katholische Kirche#Zur Bezeichnung) where they discuss the history of the name and its alternatives ("one, holy, catholis and apostolic Church", "Roman Catholic" as the name of only Latin ritus etc.). I do not think that we need such a detailed chapter, but on the other side the information shoud be sketched and clearly linked.
• In light of your (I believe mistaken) assertion that "there are two forms of Mass, ordinary and extraordinary (Tridentine)", the German article is also interesting in that it presents the 6 principal "ordinary" rites at least by the list of Churches using them. But in fact in one ritus there can be more ordinary forms of the Mass - for example the four different Eucharistic prayers in the Latin liturgy or John Chrysosthomos and Basilius liturgies in the Greek ritus.
• The chapter de:Römisch-katholische Kirche#Verbreitung shows the distribution of the church in the world - something I miss in the English article.
• The French article generally looks very bad, but it discusses (or tries to discuss) the important problem of Filioque (fr:Église catholique romaine#Expression de la Trinité dans la confession de foi (Filioque)) in the context of East-West church relationship. We have only a link without a single word of explanation.
• Moreover it lists the new church movements in the R-C church and divides them into charismatic - liberal - conservative (fr:Église catholique romaine#Autres communautés) which is also an important point - to show the growing differentiation and polarisation in the Church itself.
• The Polish article (btw the pl interwiki is wrong, should be pl:Kościół katolicki) is generally much worse than English, but I liked two graphics there: Map of Christianity in the Roman Empire (chapter Dominująca religia Cesarstwa) and the "tree" of schisms in history (at the very end of the article - should be of course simplified/restructured to include teh schisms relevant to the R-C Church).
• The Latin article (la:Ecclesia Catholica Romana) is of course very short, but ironically it mentions Thomas Becket. If you are oriented towards English-speaking catholicism (as you say in the case of long paragraphs about sexual abuse by priests and of the Benedict-GW Bush meeting) then it is question why do not include the most important figures and events of the English / Irish / US church history? Or why not to make the current US history shorter?
• The Spanish article gives the etmology of the word "catholic" - the greek meaning and the first Church use (es:Iglesia católica#Etimología) - a good idea, I think.
• It analyzes the "marks of the true church" according to the R-C theology (es:Iglesia católica#Notas de la Iglesia). It is too lenghty there for our purposes, but a link / short mention would be nice in the begin of the article.
• Another good idea is the chapter es:Iglesia católica#Financiación about the budget and financial issues of the church. It is something we can hardly miss at least as a short mention with appropriate link(s).
• Similar chapter is also in the Italian version (it:Chiesa cattolica#Risorse economiche) - perhaps better structured.
• The Slovak version is interesting in that it has the whole chapter about the Liturgical Year (sk:Rímskokatolícka cirkev#Rímskokatolícky kalendár). Too lenghty for our purpose there, but because it is an important and somewhat distinctive mark of the church, we cannot omit it as we do currently - I suggest 2-3 sentences in the chapter about liturgy to mention at least the main feasts and periods of the Liturgical Year.

I know that it is a lot of work, but I hope that the inspiration from the foreign versions can helps us to make the article better.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ioannes, you are asking for a rewrite here. I do not agree that we have to follow other Wikipedia articles that have received less attention and scrutiny than this one. The ideas you present are not new and we (I say we as in many editors, peer reviewers and FAC reviewers) have tossed them because we did not want this information, we did not think it more important than what we have selected to include. For instance, the Liturgical Year you are asking to include was included for many months but we trimmed it out of the article in the last Peer Review because the article length was more of a concern. We have summarized Liturgical Year and Wikilinked it to a page that gives Reader that information. Another example is your suggestion for maps and graphics. These were in the article early on and were tossed quite readily by editors who wanted different images. We have Catholic institutions and personnel section which covers that with words and a chart instead. I think you are suggesting that your own personal taste should trump the work of a consensus of editors over months and this is not your job as a FAC reviewer. As far as your comment about POV (sympathies), please note that most of those people who voted to support the article are not Catholics. NancyHeise ^talk 19:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Nancy I am asking for (or in some cases only suggesting) including these details not as complete rewrite, but mostly only as small expansions in the length of sentence or two. I for example do not wish to have a whole chapter about the liturgical year, but on the other side I do not agree with the current situation when we have about 200 words and some 17 references about the US sexual abuse cases and no single sentence about Easter, Christmas etc. - my editor did not found the word "Christmas" in the text at all. The reader will not know what are the main Catholic feasts after reading the article - which is not a sign of a good article about a religion.

And regarding the POV, I may be wrong, but it is how I perceive the article. Take for example Tridentine Rite (and at the same time the lack of the much older rites used in Eastern Europe by Uniats). Or the "spin" in the description of the Regensburg case (it is referred about a would-be solution, but not about the problem). Or the unsophisticated citation of GW Bush, who is a politically dead person for most of the today's world.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ioannes, the litugical year was a paragraph that included all the major feasts including Christmas. It was decided at Peer Review and agreed by several editors to eliminate the whole paragraph and leave it a sentence with a wikilink. I don't think that youre comments are the only valuable comments ever to have been made on the page and since I have been the one to have these discussions with many editors, I am respecting the opinions of other editors including you. However, you can not expect me to change everything according to your every whim when several editors looked at the paragraph and agreed to replace it with what we have presently in the article text. We are creating an article that reflects WP:summary style. You belittle our coverage of the sexual abuse scandal. You want me to reduce it. That paragraph was the result of many months of discussions between editors, two peer reviews and three FACs. It is a notable controversy that some wanted me to expand. Please understand that I can not be expected to please everyone especially when the comment is a personal preference not specifically a FAC criteria. I did not think the Regensburg was "spun". If you have a better wording, I welcome your suggestion. When I first placed the section on the page, the Regensburg address was disclosed in entirety but several non-Catholic editors felt it was not notable enough and was too long of mention and that wikilink was good enough and preferred since article length was becoming an issue. However, I have added some article text to the Regensburg to make clear why it was controversial. NancyHeise ^talk 21:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Additional comments from Ioannes Pragensis were added to the talk page due to the length of this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Continued oppose I don't have access to the reference you are citing (Schreck and Barry) but I have some doubts about the section "Final judgment and afterlife". While the "final judgement" is a corner stone of the catholic belief based on the evangiles, the question of the "particular judgement" is less clear (see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08550a.htm). The distinct level of both dogmas should also be mirrored in the article. Vb 20:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you Vb for your comment. I have placed my answer to your inquiry on this FAC's talk page here [94]. As you can see, our article text is referenced to a source that is declared by the Catholic Church to be free of doctrinal or moral error. The link you provided to the New Advent site is not more authoritative than our scholarly source. NancyHeise ^talk 21:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The Oppose above is the second one placed on this page by Vb. I think we are only allowed one per editor? NancyHeise ^talk 20:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Break 6

I would further like to point out that I have answered satisfactorily almost all of Ioannes comments listed but they remain unstruck. I am not sure if she intends to strike the comments I have answered. I have also answered at length Vassyana's comments by insertion of significant amount of text to address her concerns. Her first comment I can not answer because it is not backed up by scholars, I can not add text if I can not reference it to any scholar. Taam has asked me to eliminate text that is oft repeated in scholarly works and is asking me to look at original documents in another language in order to come to my own conclusion instead of relying on top scholarly sources that are used by universities as textbooks. Savidan is asking for a rewrite based on his own personal choices of what is important ignoring the work of a consensus of editors both non-Catholics and Catholics over months of work. I have been accused of POV in creating this article but these opposing FAC reviewers have not shown any instances where I have omitted the opposing POV in the article.

• I would like to list for you the contributors and reviewers of this article that are known non-Catholics:

- *user:Malleus Fatuorum - *user:Ceoil - *user:Michael Devore - *user:Storm Rider - *user:TSP - *user:Angr - *user:Garzo - *user:David Underdown - *User:Ling.Nut -

• For comparison, these are the only known Catholics who have worked on the article:

- *user:NancyHeise - *user:Xandar - *user:Tourskin - *User:Mike Searson -

• Further comparison, significant editors and reviewers whose faith is unknown:

- *user:Ealdgyth - *user:Karanacs - *user:Ottava Rima - *user:Soidi - *User:jbmurray NancyHeise ^talk 21:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, I update the issues slowly, but today I worked on the foreign language versions of the article for hours in order to give you as much time as possible to solve the issues. I simply cannot give you more time. And regarding the POV of the article, I gave my reasons above and I think that the issue does not depend on the religious preferences of involved editors. It depends on the text itself and we must work on the text now.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to specify what article text is POV. NancyHeise ^talk 21:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

On POV claims, the disputed text needs to be identified specifically. Further to Ioannes Pragiensis more specific points:

• English Wikipedia has a whole article dealing with the name and the differences around the concept Catholicism. Due to the extreme constraints of space in this article, repeating any of that in RCC was dismissed by editors. Launching into the subject would require considerable length and detail to satisfy all viewpoints, and would duplicate the other article, which is wikilinked for those (few) who would be interested.
• Again detailing four other minor forms of mass beyond the major forms of the Latin, Tridentine and Eastern Churches goes beyond the sensible scope of this article, and would be of interest to an infinitesimal proportion of the readership.
• A section on world distribution did exist, but was removed by editors for reason of space constraints. I feel a brief mention does have some place in the article.
• Filioque is important only as a trigger of the breach with Orthodoxy. The actual doctrine is obscure in the extreme but would take a great deal of space to explain intelligibly. Again, those (very few) readers interested in an explanation of the precedence of the Holy Spirit have a wikilink to follow.
• Church movements such as Liberals, traditionalists and Liberation Theology are already detailed in the Vatican II and beyond section.
• Maps of Christian growth etc are nice, but space constraints, and the duplication of other articles forbade this.
• Thomas Becket is interesting, but not a "must have" figure in a world Catholic history. The issues of church-state conflict in that period are already covered. His name could be wikilinked in, but is that really a FA issue?
• The "marks of the church" are an issue that I do not feel is that vital. Catholics would agree with them, since they were written by the Church, non-catholics would disagree. Does it deserve the space?
• I'm not sure what budget and financial issues there are that "need" discussing. The Church, like most other churches, never has the amount of money it would like. Is that news? The Spanish article has an incomplete list of countries where the Church receives or received some form of state subsidy, while the Italian article lists estimated church income (but not expenditure) in italy, France and the USA. The information is extrmely patchy and therefore pretty useless. The church does not function financially as one unit but as thousands. Religious articles do not attempt to produce balance sheets. This is not a starter. Xandar 00:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, appeal to FA director etc. I'm hurt that I'm not included in Nancy's list of non-Catholics. :-) More seriously, there are only two major issues, as i see it: "POV" and "What to leave in, what to leave out." We all have mentioned repeatedly that the RCC is huge. In a topic this size, when it comes to deciding what to leave in and what to leave out, the article will always be The Wrong Version (where is that link)? In a topic this size, we can never finish, we can only stop. This article has been through.. how many FACs? And extremely respected editors have crawled over it like ants on a dropped piece of candy. I very very seriously suggest that the "What to Leave In and What to Leave Out" issue be declared permanently dead, or—I am not joking, even to the slightest, teensiest degree—FA for this article will simply be an impossibility. The only other issue is POV. I haven't seen old issues about the Americas addressed etc. i suggest we make a very very very very short section titled Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church which includes a {{Main}} link to Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church and be done withthat issue as well. Really, I have been on Wikipedia for two years, and unless we sinply choose an edning point, I'll be typing text in an RCC FAC two years from now. I swear, I am not being facetious. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the general thrust of your comments, but a Criticism section is a very bad idea. Any relevant criticism should be integrated into the article in whichever section is appropriate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ling Nut, I just added you to the list. Gosh where have you been? Thank you for your comments. What old issues about the Americas? Also, what criticism of the Catholic Church have we omitted? I followed Jimbo Wales advice when structuring criticism in a way that it exists throughout the article. He expressly advises against a criticism section saying it becomes a "troll net". From WP:Criticism

"In many cases they (criticism sections) are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." - Jimbo Wales

Please specify what you think we need to include but please consider that the idea of a criticism section was squashed a long time ago. Presently, Criticism of the Catholic Church is listed as a main at the top of the History section. NancyHeise ^talk 01:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• All I'm saying is, have we reached the point of diminishing returns?
• It's not tht I am enamored of Criticism sections. I agree that they are troll magnets. I actually would prefer to avoid having one. But—my goal here is to say "Enough is too much! We simply cannot cover all the criticisms on this page! We cannot do justice to the mountains of books that have been published that are critical to the RCC (no offense intended). We cannot do justice to the breadth and depth of the theological and historical arguments! We will explicitly acknowledge them, but hash them out elsewhere." If all that is true, then when do we realize that we are thrashing about at the margins of the achievable and even the desirable?
• I'm serious: These issues cannot be dealt with in a manner that is satisfactory to everyone. The issues are real and, and had we but world enough and time, we could debate them forever, for they "deserve this state". But we only have this forum and these editors; we have already dedicated a wordcount and time expended that is "Vaster than empires, and more slow" (see table, temporarily in my user space here)
• So when do we just acknowledge that we cannot conjure the perfect recipe that includes all information and acknowledge all criticisms, and call it a day? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support We have reached (and perhaps surpassed) the point of diminishing returns. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - This article is an excellent summary of the Roman Catholic Church, and is presented in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. It satisfies WP:FACR. AdjustShift (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Wow, I hope that this embarrassment of an article will not be featured. An article on the Roman Catholic Church might, one presumes, include some criticism of the role that this church played in history and still plays now? If that is a reasonable presumption, and I think it is per WP:NPOV, then the current article does not make the grade. The lead contains no criticism whatsoever, despite being way too long. In the rest of the article, the only critical section I found was

The Church has frequently been criticized for the house arrest of Galileo and the burning of Giordano Bruno. However historians of science, including non-Catholics such as J.L. Heilbron,[192] A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg,[193] and Thomas Goldstein,[194] have argued that the Church had a significant, positive influence on the development of civilization. In contrast to scholars such as Ramsay MacMullen, who take a negative view with respect to the loss of ancient literature with the rise of Christianity,[195] they hold that not only did monks save and cultivate the remnants of ancient civilization during the barbarian invasions of Europe, but the Church promoted learning and science through its sponsorship of universities and Catholic schools throughout the world. Presently, the Church operates the world's largest non-governmental school system.[196]

which is effectively a whitewash. The whole structure of the piece contradicts WP:WTA. There are many more embarrassments in the structure of the article, and I for one do not want Wikipedia to be embarrassed. Geometry guy 00:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

and the main NPOV criticisms you think should be included are? Johnbod (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Which part of "there is no criticism of the Roman Catholic Church" did you not understand? Geometry guy 01:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Geometry guy, Johnbod is not a Catholic, neither are most of the support votes on this page nor most of the editors who have improved the article together over the past several months. I am sorry you do not like the wording structure of the second paragraph of Cultural Influence. It has been through peer review and was the form approved by several editors, including non-Catholics as appropriate and factual, supported by solid references. The last sentence of the lead contains a summary of notable criticisms agreed and has long been agreed to over months of many editors coming to the page. You are the first to make such a suggestion. The lenght of the lead is appropriate because Wikipedia policy allows it to be longer in certain instances. This article's subject matter as one of the world's oldest and largest institutions allowed it to fit into the exception category. Could you please be more specific about what POV you think we have omitted from the article? NancyHeise ^talk 01:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The beliefs of editors are not relevant. Neutral point of view is non-negotiable. I have challenged non-neutrality in articles related to science, medicine, Judaism and Christianity among others. Non-neutrality is not something that is okay because a quango of editors have approved it, and it does not matter whether they are Catholics or not. The last sentence of the lead is "Modern challenges facing the Church include the rise of secularism and opposition to its pro-life stance on abortion, contraception and euthanasia." I am underwhelmed. There is absolutely no historical criticism. I have spotted many other points in the article which are non-neutral, and will detail them in due course if necessary, but frankly, if you find the analysis of Galileo above neutral (it palpably violates WP:WTA!), then you don't get it, so you've got 18 hours to respond to that. Then, maybe, more from me. Geometry guy 01:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You sound angry. Please realize that all information in the article is referenced to scholarly works. The article has been combed by numerous editors, non-Catholics at that, who have removed any hint of POV language. You need to specify your objections so we can address them. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 01:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought we'd agreed that this section needed working on for neutrality (in the talk page section "Lack of Neutrality")? I've not yet been able to work out a better wording yet, though, without knowledge of the content of the criticisms offered by Ramsay McMullen or any other critics. The neutrality of the section has also recently been criticised under the headings "Caption to Aztec image", "Revulting" and "Totally Disputed Tag". If Geometry Guy can suggest additions to improve neutrality, he is very welcome to (though of course, subject to the usual consensus). TSP (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

TSP, I cannot believe you are treating the anonymous author of the "Revulting" (sic) piece on that article talk-page as a serious objector! Apart from the grammar and spelling of Grade 3 pupil, the observations were laughably extreme anti-Catholic legend.. The "damnable" Church "invented slavery", "caused the Dark Ages," (not the Huns then?) Now come on! Xandar 00:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No, I'm not angry actually. I'm disappointed. I was a little too optimistic about when I might be able to add more detailed comments, so I've adjusted that above. Yes, it does seem to be well referenced, but the sources are chosen to support the approach. I have a lovely book on the history of Christianity published by the Vatican that is full of references to scholars who have studied the Roman Catholic Church. It isn't neutral. As I said before, this isn't about the editors, who have done fabulous work. It is about the text. Please explain why it uses non-neutral prose in the paragraph I cited, and I will provide further examples of problems. (post ec: I will try to address this tomorrow.)Geometry guy 02:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the section of the talk page entitles "Lack of Neutrality" is not discussing Cultural Impact section, it is discussing the last paragraph of the article which was in a form that is different than it is now. Here's the link [95]. Further, the Cultural Impact section is referenced to 14 different books, two of which are university textbooks, one on church history the other on Western Civilization. All the others are scholalry sources published by university presses and written by scholars. Some people thought we were being POV in this section at first but when they checked my sources realized that I was just putting facts on the page as presented by the scholars. I have repeatedly asked that if anyone has any more cultural impacts that we have left out to please put them forward. I have already placed all of those listed by all of these 14 scholarly sources. NancyHeise ^talk 03:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There may be reasons for the exclusion. If there are no reliable sources to completely back up the criticism, then such information should not be included. What criticism are you refering to? I can go on all day about the absolute garbage that is being portrayed by the media and others. It relates back to my initial point raised; FA can and always will be biased at times, and this is another one of those articles that sparks attention. We've already established that some users are putting forward pathetic arguments solely to prevent this from becoming Featured. The criticism the church faces is ridiculous; the inclusion of such information would be more heavily considered POV in the opposite sense. What are we talking about here? The fact that some people believe the church, or the Vatican, is stealing millions of dollars worth of money and history? Need I remind of the very heavy tradition of the Catholic church being a major contributor to charity and also encouraging others to give generously? I hope not, otherwise it would show you have little knowledge of the subject and therefore you have no actionable oppose here. I can go on all day about the criticism. This article is realistic and covers everything broadly. There is already a completely different article entitiled 'Criticism of the Catholic Church' which already answers all these unrealistic requirements of inclusion. At the very maximum, the link to that article should be included in this one so users can go there if they want an expandature on stupid criticism aroused from the world. Domiy (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Still Neutral, I'm afraid. The non-free image I objected to above has now been replaced by a free image. I know I said I would support if that happened, but the fact that there is still ongoing discussion about whether the article is comprehensive and NPOV indicates to me that the stability criterion #1e is still not met. —Angr 06:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I think the article is comprehensive and neutral. The sources in the article are scholarly, and that's a big plus. Given the nature of the article, it will never satisfy everyone. I read the article several times, and I think it deserves to be a FA. AdjustShift (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Domiy, please don't worry when people come to offer their honest opinions of the article. We dont get emotional here, we just put facts on a page. Of course if a criticism is notable and supported by scholars we include it - that is a requirement of WP:NPOV and a FAC criteria. I want to know what notable criticism have we not included. Honestly, I have not heard the one about the church stealing money but if it is noted in scholalry sources we include it. We already have included the corruption of the middle ages as well as all of the times property and wealth have been confiscated from the Church by secular governments. Actually we havent included every mention because it is too numerous to fit but we gave the general picture here. Does anyone have a link to a source mentioning the Church stealing money? Also, Criticism of the Catholic Church is listed as a main article at the top of the entire History section. That is the most prominent exposure for that article to have in this article. I think what some people are calling POV is really just surprise at reading facts that they never knew before. For instance, so many people were incredulous to believe that the Church had any impact on Western Civilization as noted in the first paragraph of Cultural Influence section, yet editor after editor checked my sources and -yes- these are notable facts mentioned in seriously top scholarly works. Another editor who opposed the article above, Taam, was telling me that I should not be saying that the church is the biggest this or largest that because it was too POV. He did not realize that being the largest Christian denomination is a notable fact, not POV. Some editors could not stomach a sentence I had that ended the whole article that quoted Francis Oakley where he stated that through the Church, throughout history and even through times of internal corruption, people still managed to encounter the Gospel, a fact that significantly impacted Western civilization. The actual quote is on this article's FAC page here[96] I removed the sentence to try and make these non-Catholic editors happy. I have made many concessions and persistently asked for non-Catholic editors and FAC reviewers to offer their version of what a factual statement should say to make sure it is NPOV. I don't know what else I can be doing to make the article NPOV. If anyone reads the article and thinks it has POV, please put forward a version of the suspected sentence that you think would be more NPOV that still contains the necessary facts. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 11:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Continued oppose Let me add those two sentences from the lead which show why the article makes to me a POVed impression:

1)"It has defined its doctrines through various ecumenical councils, following the example set by the first Apostles in the Council of Jerusalem.[12]"

The Council of Jerusalem is treated here as an historical fact. Of course there are proofs which support Church's belief in this event but are they enough solid to present this event as a fact. Better would be "It has defined its doctrines through various ecumenical councils; the first one being believed (supposed?) to be the Council of Jerusalem."

2)"On the basis of promises that Jesus made to his apostles, it believes that it is guided by the Holy Spirit and so protected from falling into doctrinal error.[13][14][15]"

"On the basis of the evangiles (citation), it believes that..." One should not forget that Jesus isn't either proven to have existed at all.

I hope it helps! Vb (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vb, Thanks for you continued comments. I have answered them in order below. Thanks.

1)The Council of Jerusalem is treated as a historical fact by scholars. There is not scholarly debate over the historicity of this council. It is referenced in the lead to Schreck, one of our sources for the beliefs section because the lead sentence is a statement of church belief. In the History section, the sentence mentioning the Council of Jerusalem is referenced to Henry Chadwick's "The Early Church", a scholarlry source that is considered "the" most authoritative work on the Early Church and is cited 141 times by Googlescholar.

2)The assertion that Jesus is not an historical figure is not a subject of debate among scholars. His crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is recorded by Josephus and Tacitus two early and independent non-Christian witnesses. The sentence is referenced to our Schreck book as well as direct links to the two Gospels cited by the Shreck book as the basis for this belief. Although I disagree that more clarification is necessary I added to the sentence so it now reads "On the basis of promises described in the Gospels that Jesus made to his apostles, it believes that it is guided by the Holy Spirit and so protected from falling into doctrinal error." NancyHeise ^talk 17:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The Josephus paragraph has been widely criticized, but whether Jesus was historical or not is off-topic here. Writing an article on the Roman Catholic Church without assuming Jesus existed is a nightmare I would not wish to inflict on anyone! Geometry guy 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course I agree I was going a bit too far with discussing the exitence or not of Jesus (although the Josephus and Tacitus being far from undebated documents: the Roman historians had not really the same idea of objectivity than modern historians). However one has to say that the Church does not believe in Jesus but in Jesus as depicted in the Bible (i.e. on the Bible where all the apocyphes have been removed by the Church itsself) and the Catholic tradition. It means that "promises that Jesus made to his apostles" are no historical facts but simply things written in the Bible. I think it is much less POVed to write "Based on the Bible (cite the paragraph)" than "Based on the promises...". Moreover the more I read this article the more I realized how POVed it is. Another example : the first paragraph of history: "The Catholic Church considers that it began on Pentecost when, according to scriptural accounts, the apostles received the Holy Spirit and emerged from hiding following the death and resurrection of Jesus to preach and spread his message.[203][204] According to historians, the apostles traveled to northern Africa, Asia Minor, Arabia, Greece, and Rome to found the first Christian communities,[203][205] over 40 of which had been established by the year 100.[206]" The Pentecost is not an historical fact but an event the Church believes it happened (just as the Council of Jerusalem). Historians are cited to support the Church's belief that the apostles travelled in the mediterranean world but not to say that the Pentecost may just be a mythical event. I simply think one should not speak about the Pentecost in the history section but in the beliefs section. The more I read the article the more I agree with Geometry Guy and think the article is a mix of belief and fact statements in an utterly biased structure. I therefore turn my opposition into a strong oppose and believe it is not possible to turn this article into a NPOVed article within a reasonnable amount of time. Vb (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed the lead sentence per your comments and it now states : "On the basis of promises described in the Gospels that Jesus made to his apostles, it believes that it is guided by the Holy Spirit and so protected from falling into doctrinal error.[15][16][17" Also, we are required by WP:NPOV to provide all significant POV's. The Church's POV of when it historically began is a significant POV we have to include in the history section and is cited to two sources, one a historian and the other a beliefs source. The Council of Jerusalem sentence is cited to Henry Chadwick, the most authoritative and respected historian on the Early Church whose book is cited more than any other. It is a notable fact mentioned by many historians as well as the Church. Do you have a scholarly source to offer that says the Council of Jerusalem never happened? I tried to find one on Googlebooks but there are none. NancyHeise ^talk 03:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Vb. I believe your opposes clearly fail on the grounds of unreasonableness. We clearly state what are scriptural accounts and what information comes from historians. You want us to deny anything from scriptural accounts or church history a place in the story of the Church. That would be impossible for any religion. You even call recognising the existence of Jesus and the Apostles POV! All your objections are simply pushing an extreme rationalist POV and could not be accommodated by any editors. I think a good test is, How would your objections impact on any other Encyclopedia article on the subject? Clearly they are unreasonable. Xandar 23:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Further comments. I've added more examples of non-neutral point of view on the talk page.

Whenever I encounter NPOV disputes, my favourite rule of thumb is "On reading the article can you tell what is the point of view of the editors". In this case, it is easy to tell without doubt, so the article fails. I sometimes wonder if we should be honest and tear down Pillar 2 and replace it with "Wikipedia reflects the consensus view of its editors". I think it would be sad if we did.

If we don't go that way, then there are plenty of other examples, beyond those I listed on the talk page, which show that this article does not reflect consensus. Geometry guy 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I support Geometry guy's position. Randomblue (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Geometry Guy, your entire list of sentences you claim are POV does not offer a version of the sentence that you think would be NPOV. All of these sentences are paraphrasing the sources, these are not things that we just made up ourselves. Also, user:Ealdgyth is the respected FAC source checker and she said this about our paraphrasing "Support - I reviewed the sourcing at the PR and it is better. Meets the standards. I spot checked some of the sourced statements against the sources, and all are as accurate as can be when you are paraphrasing. I read through the whole article and made a huge pile of suggestions, which were implemented when they did not conflict with other reviewers. The article is within hailing distance of being a decent size, it's cut almost 3000 words in the PR. No article on this subject is going to please everyone, but it's vastly improved since the first time it came to FAC, and I have no hesitations supporting. It goes without saying the sources seem fine, and the links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)". It also might help if you go see the article Roman Catholic Church in Encyclopedia Brittanica, it would definitely never pass for NPOV at this FAC. Sometimes facts are surprising to people because they do not know the history or subject matter but that doesnt mean it is POV to place a fact on a page. It would be POV not to. NancyHeise ^talk 22:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Geometry Guy's oppose contains some emotive language, but very little in the way of specifics. Saying that you don't like the fact that the article states Catholics made great inputs into scientific/cultural progress is not an actionable oppose. Calling things a "whitewash" unless specific referenced points are made in the way of NOTABLE allegedly false or missing facts, is merely an indication of your own personal POV. Many people have an anti-Catholic POV and can see nothing good in the Church. Any article not mirroring their own personal view of the Church will, to them, appear to be POV. However Wikipedia is here to present an article based on verifiable facts, balanced and weighted, not to represent any pre-formed outlook. Actually I find your comments surprising from someone who praised the completely uncritical and adulatory article Islamic Golden Age.So if you wish your objection to be actionable in line with the FA process you need to provide specific referenced and verifiable points that can be directly addressed. Xandar 23:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

He has now provided some specific issues on the talk page, and very strange they are. Johnbod (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

He has listed some passages he doesn't like, however he has still not produced specific verifiable criticisms of them, or sources to back whatever challenge he wishes to make. Xandar 00:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ, I think he has, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. One criticism that really can't be addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am responding to Geometry Guys oppose in detail on this FAC's talk page here [97]. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 01:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(←) WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, which this isn't, and isn't relevant here. In contrast, my criticisms are firmly grounded in WP:NPOV policy and guidelines such as WP:WTA. They demonstrate that the article fails featured article criteria 1b and 1d. There is no requirement for reviewers to provide alternative prose or alternative sources. For the latter, you could start with Gibbon, who has a completely different point of view (not one I agree with, but one which is unrepresented). Concerning Islamic Golden Age, I would be highly critical of its point of view at FAC. I didn't praise it, but merely noted that it agrees broadly with the facts as I am understand them, and suggested that some of the sources might be unreliable. I'm disappointed that an editor would want to dig through and misrepresent my contribs in order to discredit my comments here. — Geometry guy 07:13, 28 October 2008 — continues after insertion below

I didn't "dig" through anything. It sprang out when I looked at your talk page. And the Islamic Golden Age comments of yours were made for Peer Review, which is a prequel to FAC, so the same considerations and standards should apply. However was surprised to see your reaction to the two articles being very different. Xandar 14:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, I did not contribute to the peer review. Furthermore, peer review is used for many purposes (e.g. a prequel to GA, or just asking for advice on an article with few contributors), and this peer review was not initiated as a prequel to FAC. However, rather than dwell on this, I would like to note that I have been extremely impressed by the good nature of NancyHeise's response to my comments (which were initially quite bellicose, I freely admit). Geometry guy 20:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the verifiability of this article. It is simply not neutral. Many passages represent the "pre-formed outlook" of the Catholic Church. Concerning Galileo, the passage immediately dismisses the affair by wheeling out a number of sources to redirect attention to the fostering of science by the church. Notably absent is the 1992 apology. Geometry guy 07:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You have still failed to produce sources that refute what is in the passages you complain of, or which add any significant and notable facts. You claim there is no requirement for you "to provide alternative prose or alternative sources." I would say this is clearly implicit in the process, which is meant to be constructive and to lead to agreement and consensus. If you refuse to say what changes think are required, or just say "that's wrong" without providing any proof that can be evaluated and discussed, then your oppose becomes merely an expression of personal POV, and therefore non-actionable. Editors are not meant to have to guess at what you mean and what information you are challenging. You ned to be precise, clear and specific. Nancy hs provided clear references to support all the text you don't like. If you wish to procede with an objection you need to state precisely what alternative should be in the artcle and back it up. Xandar

If my comments are invalid, then I have no problem with them being ignored. My perspective is: does the article meet the criteria or not? I have provided examples which show that it doesn't. I'm surprised that I have to explain them, but will try to do so. Geometry guy 20:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Note To FAC Director on this article's talk page here [98], I have provided the exact quotes from the sources referencing the article text that Geometry Guy thinks is POV. If you take momment to read through those quotes and note the reliability and top "scholarlyness" of the sources, you will see that I have several sources that say the same thing, indicating scholarly consensus. In addition, those quotes make statements in terms that are even more POV than what I chose to use for article text. I am not the scholar writing these books, I am just the Wikipedia editor putting those facts on the page. NancyHeise ^talk 07:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• More comments. I was naively hoping that when I highlighted non-neutral prose structure that other editors would read the relevant guidelines and say "oh yes, let's fix it", but I accept that my initial comment did not encourage such an approach. Instead the focus has been "this is what the sources say, and we've even toned them down a bit". I was hoping not to have to write an lecture on WP:NPOV as it applies here because I think editors would find it patronising. But if I must, I will. I don't have time to do so today, nor do I have much time to search for other sources. They surely exist, however. I did a simple check on the issue of midwives, and found a source immediately. I've commented on the talk page. Editors may choose to tear down the source, but I hope that instead they give the issue due consideration. Geometry guy 21:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support FAC - It's very long, and very over ref'd and over linked, but a decent encyclopedic treatment of the subject would actually be very very much longer. 2,000 years or so of history is a lot to include in a form designed for a 10 min. max read. Many of the oppose comments seem to be picking at very small items, with the exception of Geometry guy. However, I find his NPOV comments to be uncompelling. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - "Wow" worthy effort writing the article and getting it through this FAC! Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to FA Director

Per FAC criteria " if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it". All major English language encyclopedias name their articles on this subject "Roman Catholic Church" and relegate intricate further information on the name issue to a later section. This article's lead sentence with the name has become an issue at this FAC which was discussed at length on the article talk pages over a period of two weeks begining on October 13th. Over 15 regular editors of the page commented and discussed the issue at length. We held several votes on proposed changes to the lead sentence on the article's name. Our last vote was the result of these discussions and resulted in our largest majority (11 for, 3 against) supporting one form of the lead sentence. The vote is here: [99]. When one editor challenged the note in that sentence, we held another vote here [100] which resulted in 8 for and 1 against. I consider this a consensus of interested parties as defined by WP:Consensus. As such, I changed the lead sentence to the form agreed to by editors. Xandar, an opposer has reverted me. I do not want to edit war with him and he and another opposer have placed the article up for RFC over this issue. I am not sure that I will be able to go through another FAC for this article and I am not sure if Wikipedia rules allow a distinct minority to obstruct an article from becoming FA by creating controversy unsupported by the vast majority of editors to the article. I would like some advice on whether I should withdraw the candidacy of this article based on the actions of these two or not. NancyHeise ^talk 17:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, the line you quoted refers primarily to Manual of Style issues, not to content issues. I don't believe this has risen to the level of an edit war yet, so the article does not currently fail that FA criteria. This is an issue that has been debated ad nauseum with no clear resolution. The content issue should continue to be addressed at the talk page (not here). Karanacs (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There has been no genuine attempt to get consensus on a change to a longstanding compromise on the article name. There was a sudden overnight vote on one form of wording but not the others, which was by no means representative of article contributors. Sudden votes are not the means to find consensus on a significant and controversial change. I have not referred anything to RFC - whatever that is. But the content issue needs addressing and discussing properly and coolly as Karanacs suggests. Xandar 19:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggested to Xandar to conduct a new vote comparing the sentence he prefers with the current consensus sentence. I will not participate but will agree to whatever consensus agrees to do. He began a discussion on the issue here [101]. NancyHeise ^talk 22:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The results of Xandars poll are being formulated here [102] with it seems from today, overwhelming support for use of this version of sentence "Roman Catholic Church, officially called Catholic Church". Some of those who previously supported the "or" sentence have chosen the "officially" sentence which is the one we had for many months including through our last peer review and was in use when we submitted the article to this FAC. I am going to agree to use of this sentence too since it seems to be what most editors prefer. We have not closed the voting and I will keep checking to see if it remains as is. I thank Xandar for his perseverance and apologize for my previous tantrum over the issue. NancyHeise ^talk 02:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I haven't read this in its entirety and will try at some point. But browsing through I paused at Cultural influence and my jaw dropped. The POV is totally pervasive. "Aztecs were practicing human sacrifice, which ended with the spread of Christianity to the region by Catholic missionaries." Isn't that nice. Might we also add: "In order to achieve this milestone in human betterment, Aztec society was ruthlessly conquered and much of its population obliterated by warfare and diseases such as smallpox." We're told that Catholics took a lead in opposing slavery and Dum Diversas gets nary a mention. We're told that denying a right to divorce is an improvement in the lives of women. The second paragraph, meanwhile, is classic "yes, but" strawman-ing. I mean really. Marskell (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Need I remind Marskell that NPOV states that POV is required based on the sources, and rationalize it any way you want, there are hundreds of thousands of books out there that verify the above depictions and views. To not include those statements would be putting in a "truth" that Wikipedia is not allowed to determine. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are books to confirm such statements and my suggestion is not necessarily removal. There's also an entire corpus of post-colonial work that would, to say the least, present a very, very different picture. I find the depiction of the Aztecs borderline offensive. Take what was, pre-Cortes, one of the most complex societies in the world; reduce it to caricature by singling out its worst practices; praise the Christian (Europeans) for bringing the light of civilization. Classic colonial apologism. Marskell (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

An entire corpus would not even amount to the libraries and libraries filled with text to the contrary. You may find the depiction offensive, but a large portion would find the Aztecs offensive and the depiction true. Mind you, most of the post-colonial work comes out of a post-Marxist critical bent that wishes to propagate socialist theory by attacking traditional foundations and depictions. To say the least, its propaganda. Aztecs killed many, many people. Their society had human sacrifice as one of its foundational beliefs. To say pointing this out is problematic is rather disturbing. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article is not saying what Marskell is claiming. It merely says: "Most significant was its role in the spread of Christianity throughout the world, a process which ended practices like human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide and polygamy in Christian lands." There is also a picture saying: "Aztecs were practicing human sacrifice, which ended with the spread of Christianity to the region by Catholic missionaries." I'd prefer the removal of the picture because it is really going into too much detail for that article (but apparently not detailed enough for some) but nothing in what the caption says is wrong. There is no justification of any crime (unless one thinks human sacrifice a practice protected by the principle of religious freedom, that is). Marskell's comments also put things like conquistadores killing for different reasons and even diseases into a single pot with the spread of Christiantiy in Latin America. Remember, this is not an article on that history but on the (R)CC! Are you really blaming the (R)CC for diseases brought to America? Then we should also mention the horse brought to America! Str1977 ^(talk) 17:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Marskell, I appreciate your coming to the page to comment. Another opposer questioned our Cultural Influence section too. I answered him on this FAC's talk page here [103]. As you can see, there are multiple university history textbooks and top scholarly sources to support our article text. Dum Diversas is not credited with starting slavery in Africa because it was an institution in Africa for centuries before Europeans arrived. The mention that Europreans are blamed with the obliteration of much of the native societies through disease is already mentioned in the History section of the article. The scholarly sources mention denying a right to divorce as an improvement for women, not us. We just put facts on a page. NancyHeise ^talk 16:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are some sources for Dum Diversas (1452) that suggest it was enacted in reaction to the threat of Islam because the New World had not yet been discovered (1492) when it was announced. [104], [105], [106]. In addition, the papal bull Sublimis Deus (1537) condemned slavery for the Indians in the New World and the final papal condemnation of all slavery, including the centuries old African slavery was issued in 1839, six years after it was first condemned by the first worldwide entity to do so, Great Britain. It was not until 1865 that slavery was made illegal in the US and even later in Brazil. It is difficult for us to attribute to the Church, the creation of African slavery because no scholarly work attributes it - there are many blogs that do but those do not suffice for WP:RS. NancyHeise ^talk 19:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(o/d) @Ottava. Your comments on Marxism and socialism are plain silly. I'm not even going to go there. "Aztecs killed many, many people." So have Catholics. Our article makes little mention. I don't dispute that the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. I dispute presenting that as the only aspect of their civilization worth mentioning and positioning Catholics as their enlightened saviours. Certainly human sacrifice is loathsome—as is the logic of "we kill you to save you".

@Str1977. No, the Church obviously cannot be held to account for disease; any group of Eurasians would have brought smallpox and typhus across. I mention it because if not for the viral devastation of local populations the spread of Catholicism in the New World—which this article clearly celebrates—would likely not have been possible.

@Nancy. Absolutely the enablement of slavery had as much to do with the Ottomans as with the New World. And absolutely it was practiced before, during, and after the Portugese and Spanish colonizations (by secular and mercantile interests, by Africans, by Protestants, by Muslims, and by boatloads of others). I'm not arguing against any of that. I'm saying that specific Papal bulls allowed for it and legitimized it. That's indisputable. To mention that Catholics argued against slavery—which I don't deny—without mentioning the Church's pronouncements in favour of slavery is glaringly POV.

"The scholarly sources mention denying a right to divorce as an improvement for women, not us. We just put facts on a page." It's just a fact that denial of divorce is an improvement for women? Are you being serious?

I have just finished the history section. The treatment of Pius XII is a POV joke. My oppose remains. Marskell (talk) 08:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean you've actually read some of the article now? As I said on the talk page, your view is invalid if made before reading the whole article. If you don't like the material on Pius, produce specific and verifiable criticisms. This is all referenced material, and is not a "joke" just because it doesn't fit your prejudices. Your objection at this point is non-actionable and invalid under the rules, since it does not make specific points or back them up. Xandar 13:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You're quite mistaken about the validity of my initial post: there's never been a rule at the reviews that you must read the entire article, which is impossible to prove anyway.

I've also made specific concerns known. To recapitulate:

• "I dispute presenting human sacrifice as the only aspect of Aztec civilization worth mentioning and positioning Catholics as their enlightened saviours."
• "To mention that Catholics argued against slavery—which I don't deny—without mentioning the Church's pronouncements in favour of slavery is glaringly POV."
• See Pope Pius XII, itself an FA and decently balanced article. Compare with the POV paragraph on the Holocaust we have here.

These are what jumped out but I feel at the level of phrasing the problem is pervasive enough that this is going to take quite a bit of work.

But listen: adding "bad stuff" isn't necessarily the answer. Removing the gloss is the other option. This is broadly what they did at Islam and it worked. It's a concise, clinical article that avoids value judgements of the type I'm criticizing here. Marskell (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added mention of Dum Diversas in the first paragraph of Late Medieval and Renaissance section of History per your comments here. Scholarly sources supporting article text on Cultural Influence section regarding women and divorce are reproduced on this FAC's talk page here [107]. Pope Pius XII is only part of our paragraph on World War II and the Church. We had to mention the controversy surrounding him thus we gave both sides of the POV. All scholarly source supporting article text on that paragraph are also listed on this FAC's talk page under responses to Taam. We have not excluded POV's that WP:NPOV requires us to include which includes the side that you seem to disagree with. I can't eliminate text that is sourced to several top scholars just because people don't like it WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We are required to put facts on the page, even those some people disagree with. We are allowed to use the picture of the Aztecs. It is a public domain photo depicting exactly what Aztecs are famous for doing. The caption is referenced to a university textbook on Western Civilization. Placing notable facts on a page is not POV. Not placing them on a page is. NancyHeise ^talk 21:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph, Nancy, is hagiography. There is a single sentence hinting at questions surrounding Pious XII, which is immediately strawman-ed away. Again, the POV problems are inbuilt on the level of phrase. Marskell (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen any of my sources used to create this paragraph described by any scholarly academic journal or reliable book review as being "hagiography". Do you have a referece to cite that says my sources are inaccurate apologetics? Have I omitted any opposing POV? What other criticism of the Church existed other than the ones we have included - specifically that the Church promoted centuries of anti-semitism and Pius XII did not do enough to stop the Nazi's? These criticisms are already in the article text. Am I being POV by including the facts from scholarly sources (one is the university textbook most often used by universities for decades on Church history - Bokenkotter) that give the otherside of the story? NancyHeise ^talk 17:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support, due to the fact that it is adequately in following with the outlines of the featured article criteria. This is one of the better quality articles on Wikipedia that I have come across. Reading through the FA history of this, it is long over due and its hard to imagine how it could be improved further. Which other encyclopedia has a CC article which is better than this one? It should be passed so the people who managed to get it to this level can (hopefully) get to work on other Catholic related articles, that are in need of attention much more than this. - Victory's Spear (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I'm going to support this, although I have my worries that there could be or already be some problems. (if you wanna know - I'm worried about bias). It does meet featured article criteria and has a lot of "meat" to it. I hope to not have to see anoth 445-kb article FAC for this again. But this is my rationale, so I'm gonna stick with that.Mitch32^(UP) 23:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Reluctant Oppose. This is an extremely well-written article, and it is obvious that a tremendous amount of work has been put into it. Unfortunately, I agree with some of the above comments that the article violates NPOV because the article is clearly biased. The main problems lie in the cultural influence and history sections. While the Catholic Church has done many great and wonderful things over the years, it has also done a number of very bad and destructive things over its 2000 year history. The good is heavily emphasized and the bad is very much downplayed, or left out entirely. You're either going to have to chop out much of the positive spin, or add in more of the negative points about the Church's history in order to eliminate the bias. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Your oppose is not specific and therefore not actionable. Anyone can come to any article and allege that because it doesn't agree with their personal viewpoint that it is POV. Simply saying you want more bad stuff about the Church is facile. Specific points have been discussed and addressed to death and beyond in this and the 4 other FACs. Any points raised at this stage need to be very specific and well-referenced. Xandar 11:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Another clearly POV objection. The article should be neutral, not pandar to people's prejudices. See also the FA Islam. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

These viewpoints are widespread and are undiscussed, misrepresented or dismissed in the article. Also, comparison with "Islam" is tricky, as this article is not "Christianity", and so it has a different focus. When writing about an organization which has had such power within and influence upon Western civilization, fair treatment must be given to both positive and negative viewpoints about that influence. Geometry guy 17:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

To be included in Wikipedia viewpoints have to be scholarly views from Reliable sources, not prejudices, or "I think that x happened". What has been included in the article are viewpoints from reliable scholarly sources. When people produce verifiable information from such sources supporting alternate views, this can be included inproportion to the weight and importance of the subject and the number of reliable supporters of that viewpoint. WP:UNDUE However objections based on unsupported personal views are invalid. Xandar 23:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Break 7

• Comment. Those objections still being made at this time tend to be on points of view. This can be endless, since thousands of people have different points of view about the Church that are not always accurate or well-founded. They then bring them here, alleging that the article is biased because it doesn't fit their preconceptions. Already in this FAC we have had one objector saying there is too much about the Nazis, and another saying, equally strongly, we need more. I think that an objective view needs to be taken to cut out this. Such objections, if persisted-with need to be compared with other encyclopedic treatments of the subject to see whether objections on inclusion, non-inclusion and weight of specific issues are valid. If the process does not expose significant bias, those should be ignored as POV-based. Xandar 11:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• For a definition of NPOV at the WP:NPOV policy page, please see WP:YESPOV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know how I can respond to this latest oppose by Rreagan007 because there are no specifics to address. Article text supporting Cultural Influence section comes from several university textbooks and scholarly sources reproduced on this FAC's talk page here [108]. We did not just make this section up by ourselves. We are just putting the facts on the page as scholarly consenus puts forth in their own evaluations of the Church's cultural influence. I think what some people here are calling POV is really surprise on their part that they never knew these facts. That does not mean we should eliminate them. Also, what "bad" done by the Church is not discussed in the article? Please be more specific. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 21:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let’s take this quote: “Christianity improved the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infanticide was more common), divorce, incest, polygamy and marital infidelity of both men and women in contrast to the evangelized cultures beginning with the Roman Empire that previously permitted these practices.” That statement is not necessarily untrue, but it is clearly biased. I could write a statement saying, “Catholicism holds women down by continuing to deny them access to divorce, contraceptive, and abortions.” That statement would be equally true, but also equally biased. If you can’t see that bias then you won’t get any of the other bias I could point out in the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That sentence is clearly is toned down from the way the scholars presented these facts which are reproduced on this FAC's talk page here [109]. Also, the opposing POV is included in our article text - you did not copy the following sentence. I reproduce the whole thing for you here: "Christianity improved the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infanticide was more common), divorce, incest, polygamy and marital infidelity of both men and women in contrast to the evangelized cultures beginning with the Roman Empire that previously permitted these practices.[188][192][193] Critics, however, accuse the Church and teachings by St. Paul, the Fathers of the Church and Scholastic theologians of perpetuating a notion that female inferiority was divinely ordained.[194]" The scholars give reasons why condemnation of divorce improved women's status, please read the sources I reproduced on this articles talk page [110], these are university textbooks, not POV's. NancyHeise ^talk 23:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The exchange directly above offers more clear evidence that some of the opposers have either misunderstood, misinterpreted, or else not properly read the entire text of passages they are objecting to. Xandar 23:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The second sentence does not at all present the view that condeming divorce, contraception, etc is bad - it just says that some believe the church taught that females were inferior. These are two separate concepts. Karanacs (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, the scholars discussing the cultural impact of the Church do not discuss contraception and condemnation of divorce is one of those things they go into great detail about being good for status of women. I provided these quotes on this article's FAC page. Contraception is discussed in history section under Second Vatican Council and beyond. NancyHeise ^talk 18:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that your sources present opposition to divorce as empowering for women, and that view should continue to be represented. Rreagan007 is trying to point out that a great many scholars think that opposition to divorce is actually supressing women. This view is not in the article. Karanacs (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, I have been searching for a source so I can put this view in the article. I am in no way opposed to inserting this view. I have to have a source to reference it. The closest thing I can find after much searching was this [111] which really goes on to say that the Church prohibition has a positive effect on society by influencing people away from exercising their legal right to divorce. Please understand that I am doing my best to incorporate people's ideas of NPOV but it is not always possible to find a source that says exactly what people want me to say. NancyHeise ^talk 22:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, Nancy, you are doing work that opposers need to be doing. It's not up to you to find sources to support an opposer's position. He should supply such sources. If the opinion is as widespread as he claims, they should as Mr Wales says, be easy to find. I believe the argument of Rreagan007 that “Catholicism holds women down by continuing to deny them access to divorce, contraceptive, and abortions.” is a fallacy since it presumes that divorce, contraceptives and abortions are things that are good for women. That's a case that needs making first. Many women, (perhaps more than men,) oppose all these things, and don't think this opposition "holds women down." Some think that men benefit more than women from these things, increasing cervical cancer among women for example, while giving men easier access to recreational sex. The use of abortion in some countries to selectively kill girl babies is another factor. Other countries have policies of forced abortions. Start introducing these issues top the article, and BOTH sides have to appear to be NPOV. It can't just be "(some) women condemn the Church on abortion, divorce etc." So that just lengthens the article without tipping it.Xandar 13:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Xandar I think we are not supposed to rely on opposers to find sources. They bring up certain issues and we find sources. If it happens that there are no reliable works to reference their position we come back and let them know. If they want to help find sources we welcome their help. I am OK with that arrangement. I am actually spending time on this article for two reasons - to bring it to FAC and also to possibly learn things about the Church I did not know before and to help others learn too. We are supposed to be enjoying this process -which I am - because it is a fun hobby and we meet new and interesting people in the process. I wish we all could lighten up a little on this project. Last FAC I was very upset after it failed and took a vacation to get over it and refocus and that is when I realized that it really should not turn into a bad experience for anyone for any reason. No article getting a brown star is more important that treating other people, especially people who disagree with our religion, respectfully. I think we can only help the article move forward if we consider that opposers are people who are very nice people that either know something we don't or need to know something we know or both. NancyHeise ^talk 16:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm curious as to why following a comment about the (very important) Cluniac reforms, the article digresses to discuss Jewish usury, which is important for an article on Jewish history, but not so for this one. Given the size issues, surely this is one sentence that can be binned. --Dweller (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dweller, usury was specifically requested to be added to the article by user:Savidan in this FAC. It is part of the economic history of Europe in the Middle Ages and does not mean what it means today. Usury was defined as any profit from lending including what we would consider reasonable lending rates. Jews were the primary lenders because the Church forbade usury yet the large monastic houses also provided a type of economic credit in spite of the Church ban. NancyHeise ^talk 17:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dweller has a point that the article should not be focusing on what Jews did, though, but on what the monastic houses were doing. It should be enough to say something along the lines of "Despite a church ban on the practice of money-lending, many large monastic houses offered a type of economic credit". No mention of other religions necessary. Karanacs (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh OK, I inserted your wording, thanks for the help. NancyHeise ^talk 18:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Better, thanks guys. --Dweller (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support - This article is exceptionally well referenced and IMO provides a neutral history of the Catholic Church. Its example should be emulated by all other church articles on Wikipedia. --^StormRider 17:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This thread worries me. Happy for the discussion to be centralised there. --Dweller (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a reference and explanation to that conversation, I hope that helps make things clearer. NancyHeise ^talk 01:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support And a massive congratulations to Nancy and her collaborators. What an achievement. Not only is the topic massive, but the amount of POV and OR that I've seen flying around has been extraordinary. Not to mention ill-informed comments and questions from ignoramuses like me. And it all seems to have been done so very commendably calmly. Peace to all men? An excellent example, anyway. Seriously, this is a sound exception to WP:POLE - the pushers have been dealt with so sensibly and pleasantly, I think they've all gone off for a cup of tea and forgotten about this pushing business. I look forward to seeing this on Main Page in the near future and a jolly good thing, too. --Dweller (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The new section on "origins and mission" is much better than the one I criticized above. I think now it has reached a correct NPOV status. You see that was not that difficult: the editor must simply base their statements on the Gospels not on interpretation of it by wikipedians! The editors who wrote that brilliant prose should also re-edit the other sections (for example history) and present (for instance) the Pentecost in a NPOV tone. Vb 11:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.249.227 (talk)

Hi again Vb, thanks for the encouragement. We are presently taking a very serious look at NPOV issues and working on rewordings of some identified statements that sound POV to others. The Pentecost statement in history was not mentioned as POV but I will take a look at it too per your comment here. Do you have a better wording to suggest? NancyHeise ^talk 17:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires us to include all significant POV's including the Church's POV. The section of history mentioning Pentecost is the first sentence that says this "The Catholic Church considers that it began on Pentecost when, according to scriptural accounts, the apostles received the Holy Spirit and emerged from hiding following the death and resurrection of Jesus to preach and spread his message." - This is the POV of the Church regarding its historical beginnings. I think that an encyclopedia article would be incomplete if it did not offer Reader this information. I would like to know what you consider POV about that statement. NancyHeise ^talk 00:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:31, 8 November 2008 [112].

---

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Nominator(s): David Fuchs

Did you know? That the first entirely CGI sequence in movie history was in 1981's The Wrath of Khan? That the film is credited as resurrecting the Star Trek franchise? That it helped launch the nascent VHS format's adoption in homes? If you didn't, then you didn't read this article. Thanks goes to Alientraveller and Protonk for fixes and reviews as well as Ruhr for providing helpful comments as always at peer review. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Images all check out: the 2 non-frees are appropriate and rationaled, Roddenberry's is free with appropriate notification of such. --MASEM 18:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I won't have time for a more in depth review until the weekend, but for now have a quick look through for overlinked terms. Do we really need to know what a television series is? :) Steve ^{T • C} 19:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I ran through everything besides the lead. I did another run-through and removed a few more linkies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• quick comment also - groovy read. I'm glad to see a variation in references (not just one good source and some simple other links). Readability off the toollink is maybe a touch high, but I don't think worth fussing. If individual sentences and paragraphs are evaluated for clear prose that will likely adjust those numbers.--Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • How are you determining what's a good result on the readability tool? Feel free to take to my talk if you think it not relevant for this page. Steve ^{T • C} 19:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I was just thinking that a gradelevel readability of mid-US highschool is a bit high, general readability newspapers and magazines aim for about 7th/8th grade level. Makes it more accessible to a broader spectrum of readers. Not something that should be taken as an oppose to FAC for the article though. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - That's a terrible picture of Gene Roddenberry, or rather the back of someone's head. In this particular case I would prefer to see a fair use image or no image at all, rather than such a poor quality photo. Kaldari (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You would find it hard to defend a fair use image when free alternatives do exist. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you crop out the someone-else's-head? Giggy (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If the source image was of high-enough resolution, I would probably have photoshopped out that stuff, but as it is that's infeasible given the position. I'm trying to get a free picture of Nicholas Meyer, but no one has responded back to me yet (If I did get it, I would probably replace the gene shot.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

comments

• What makes http://trekmovie.com/ a reliable source?
• http://www.tvguide.com/News-Views/Columnists/Ask-FlickChick/?posting=%7B4833BDB0-FD07-4671-BAA4-9D7103467119%7D deadlinks

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed the refs. The deadlink unfortunately isn't archived (yet). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments I have some concerns about there being sufficient context for the unfamiliar reader. Now, I for one have seen this film many times, and am familiar with the Star Trek franchise, as I assume the primary editors of this article are as well. But it's important to make sure you aren't assuming too much of the readers. For example, the year of release wasn't even mentioned in the lead; I had to add it. There's other problems in the lead. Who's Kirk? Is he the protagonist? The lead makes it seem like Khan is the main character, when he isn't. Who plays Kirk? The character and death of Spock is mentioned an entire paragraph before the actor who played him is. Try and find someone who's unfamiliar with the topic and ask them to go through the article and give you feedback on its accessability. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose; I think the prose could do with another pass to eliminate redundancies and ambiguities. Examples and other issues follow; none are unfixable during the lifetime of this FAC. Please take any seemingly-snarky comments as being firmly tongue-in-cheek:
  • Infobox:
    • Nicholas Meyer is linked twice, as are Harve Bennett and Jack B. Sowards. Infobox linking shouldn't be done for purely aesthetic reasons.
    • "See table"; that's not a table it's linking to.
      • Strike both. Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Lead" section:
    • Missing information that's included in most, if not all, film articles: in which year was the film made and released? Who stars?
      • Almost done. The new wording ("based on the Star Trek science fiction television series, released in 1982 by Paramount Pictures") makes it sound as if the series was released in 1982. An "and was" after the comma might do the trick. Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Done. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "The film is a sequel to the original series episode "Space Seed", in which Ricardo Montalbán reprises his role as the genetically-engineered tyrant Khan Noonien Singh." This makes it sound as if Montalbán reprised his role in "Space Seed", not Wrath of Khan.
      • Done. Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Mix of in-universe and out-of-universe wording: "The film concludes with the death of Spock, beginning a story arc that continues to Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home in 1986." While technically correct (they do go back in time to 1986, after all), I don't think this is quite what you meant. Or is it? Either way, clarify.
      • Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Use of "movie" and "film". I recommend picking one (my choice would be the latter) and sticking with it throughout.
      • Explanation accepted. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "Nicholas Meyer was made director after writing a final script for the film in twelve days, without accepting a writing credit;" He was made director because he wrote the script in twelve days, or simply after? The article body doesn't make this clear either. Indeed, it doesn't really say how Meyer came to be involved at all. Also, there's no need for a semi-colon there; a new sentence would be better.
      • Much more understandable, ta. Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Some redundant wording: "for the film"/"of the film", "Upon release", etc.
      • Done. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "Production used various cost-cutting techniques to keep under budget, including utilizing old miniatures from past movies." One film, the original series, and other TV projects, so no plural, or switch "past movies" to "previous Star Trek projects" or similar.
      • Another. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "The film is considered one of the best films of the franchise..." By whom? Also, "films" is redundant.
      • Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • It might be confusing to some to have two piped "Star Trek" links that go to different articles.
      • Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Plot" section:
    • There's no particular need to cite the plot summary; the film itself acts as a primary source. But it’s your choice either way, just thought I'd let you know.
      • Your choice, not an oppose issue. Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • A couple of instances where "which" should be replaced with "that".
      • Done. Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Some redundant wording throughout: "itself", "externally", "in order to" (to), "The film opens with a female Vulcan in command of the USS Enterprise..." Why not mention Saavik's name here, instead of wasting words at the end of the paragraph?
      • Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "Project Genesis" is not the device itself, but the project/process. Suggest piping with "Genesis Device" or recasting the sentence to make clearer. Keep capitalisation (or not) of "Genesis Device" consistent throughout the article.
      • Strike, though I do recommend retaining the link to Project Genesis. Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • It always seemed to me that for a genetically advanced superman, Khan was pretty stupid to fall for Kirk and Spock's blatantly transparent code transmission. Nothing to do with the article, I just wanted to get that out there. :)
      • What was I thinking? Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Cast" section:
    • The first line of each entry is a fragment. It really doesn't work when you follow it with properly-constructed prose.
      • Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Some redundancies: "the two actors'..." Might work better simply as "their". "...stated in promotional interviews for the film that..." Why not replace this whole bit with "said" or equivalent? "...Meyer's desire to direct him in scenes." As opposed to at the supermarket?
      • Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "Khan's anger at the death of his wife justifies his pursuit of Kirk." Is this still Montalbán's opinion? It reads like that of a third party. "According to Nimoy, he reasoned..." "Nimoy reasoned"? Several uses of "...in the film" or similar. Only use where necessary to disambiguate. "...as per the script" isn't needed; the scene is in the film, isn't it?
      • Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "Meyer made it clear in film commentary that..." Again, there's no particular reason to say where he said this. That information is in the citation, and naming the source in the text should only be done if it's contradicting another reliable source or is controversial in some way. Check for other instances throughout.
      • Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "...which the costume department took into consideration in designing Khan's outfit." Feels tacked-on to an already long sentence. Consider separating.
      • Removed rather than rewritten? Fair enough. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "...would crack up the audience..." A little familiar, perhaps?
      • Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "Shatner called the actor on the phone and persuaded him to return." Why not "Shatner persuaded Takei to return"? Is it relevant that it was on the phone?
      • Another. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "Meyer was looking for an actor who looked beautiful enough that it was plausible a wandering womanizer such as Kirk would fall for her, yet could also project a sense of intelligence." Suggest removing "wandering" as irrelevant, and adding a "who" after "yet" to disambiguate.
      • Struck.
    • "Kirk's son, who has grown up to be a scientist like his mother." A similar kind of scientist to his mother, or "a scientist, like his mother"?
      • Done. Steve ^{T • C} 09:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "Meyer said that what he physically liked about Butrick" Meyer's body reacted with a liking for Butrick? Um.
      • Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Protégé, protege, or protégée? The latter is used in the plot section, the second in this section.
      • Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "Alley was so fond of her Vulcan ears that she would take them home with her after filming." As in during the shoot at the end of the day, or as a souvenir at the end of filming?
      • Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "Saavik tears up and cries." Redundant "tears up".
      • Done. Steve ^{T • C} 12:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Production" section, "Development" subsection:
    • How are you choosing whether to use The Motion Picture or Star Trek: The Motion Picture throughout? It might be better to choose one and stick with it.
      • Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • More redundant "to the film"s, "movie's" and the like. "Its" might be more appropriate in a couple of places.
      • Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Why is omega linked?
      • Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "As preproduction of the film began in earnest..." Unnecessarily verbose. "As preproduction began..."
      • Done. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Meyer just... appears. What brought him on board?
      • Done. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "...in twelve days which he described as "'Hornblower' in outer space" He described the twelve days as "Hornblower in outer space"? :)
      • Much clearer. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "naval texture or Khan's Captain Ahab undertones" and, rather than "or".
      • Done. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Production" section, "Design" subsection:
    • Instead of "fall", use the date if available. 1) "Fall" is a US-centric term; 2) Autumn in the US is Spring in Australia.
      • Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Instead of "production began", to resolve the potential ambiguity ("production" can also encompass pre-production), it might be better to use "principal photography".
      • Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • To be honest, I think the whole of this section could do with another pass. Examples include: "Meyer said that he did everything within budget to change the look of Star Trek in order to create a nautical atmosphere". There are two ways in which that can be read. "The original ship miniatures were used when possible, or else modified to stand in as a new construction." Plural suddenly switches to singular.
      • Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • More redundant "for the film", "the film's", "in order to"s, etc.
      • Another. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "Costume designer Robert Fletcher decided to use the dark red due to the strong contrast it provided with the background to create The Wrath of Khan's naval-inspired uniforms, which would be used in the films until 1996's Star Trek: First Contact." A little tortuous, consider splitting and reordering the statements.
      • Done. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "...Fletcher think it been stolen."
      • Another. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "specially designed" How about just "designed"?
      • Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Production" section, "Filming" subsection:
    • What does TV production schedule mean here, exactly? Most TV shows are shot in a week; the shoot for Wrath of Khan presumably lasted longer than this. Is there anything on how long the shoot lasted?
      • Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Redundant words throughout: "$46 million cost", "of the film", etc.
    • Unnecessarily verbose throughout. Example: "Scott plays "Amazing Grace" on the bagpipes during the scene, which was James Doohan's idea" could be pared down to "Scott's playing "Amazing Grace" during the scene was James Doohan's idea." Even that "during the scene" might be unnecessary.
      • Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "soft-landed" --> "soft-landing". Lose the semi-colon and start a new sentence. "Meyer objected to the changes, but did not stand in the way of the modifications." Either "to the changes" or "of the modifications" is redundant; I'd go with removal of the former.
      • Another. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Production" section, "Effects" subsection:
    • Link to Constitution class starship?
      • Done. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "the effects team sought to simplify the complicated effects of The Motion Picture." Not of that film, but of similar effects in this one.
      • Another. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "the Ceti eel shots..." Ceti is capitalised here, but not earlier in the article.
      • To clarify, Ceti Alpha is capitalised, so this should be too, as well as the other instance. Fixed. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Special Effects Supervisor shouldn't be capitalised.
      • Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "Ralston... used a string tied to the eel in order to inch the model across the actors' faces before entering the ear canal." Before Ralston entered the ear canal? ;)
      • Done. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "The team spent a significant amount of time and detail on the sixty-second sequence;" "spent a significant amount of... detail" doesn't really mean anything.
      • Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Themes" section:
    • "...compounded by McCoy's present of reading glasses for Kirk's eyes." As opposed to those for his feet?
      • Done, and sorry for how snarky this one sounded. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Our old, redundant friends "for the film" and "of the film" crop up again.
      • Gone! Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "unbeknownst" is such an ugly word; have you got anything better?
      • Much. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Release and reception" section, "Critical response" subsection:
    • "what was seen" --> "what were seen".
      • Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "While many publications felt that Spock's death was dramatic and well-handled..." Weasel wording; citing "many" to just two reviews is problematic.
      • Struck, but are there any good cites that reflect properly on the film's critical reception? Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "Negative reviews of the film also focused on the acting of the aged stars." Were the actors' ages a factor in the criticism of their acting? If not, remove the word. If so, clarify so it's less an implication.
      • Done. Steve ^{T • C} 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Release and reception" section, "Home video" subsection:
    • "In a speech, Meyer..." Doesn't matter that it was in a speech, in an article or elsewhere.
      • Done. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "The four hours of bonus content and expanded director's cut of the movie were favourably received." Cited to just two reviews, I don't think that's enough to make that sweeping statement.
      • Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Cast" section:
    • I'm not entirely sure the layout conforms to Manual of Style guidance, but I can't find anything specific other than this, which is just a recommendation really. Generally speaking in film articles that feature cast sections as prose entries, the text isn't on a separate line to the "[actor] as [character]" entry. Examples include Changeling (film)#Casting or Iron Man (film)#Cast. If you keep it as is, there's no real reason to bold the names if they're on separate lines, it's more to make them stand out in text-heavy entries such as those. Again, this is your choice as far as I'm concerned, but be aware that someone else might come along armed with a better MOS link. Steve ^{T • C}
      • To keep the out of universe tone, the actors' names should go first. And "Shatner and his film nemesis Khan..." mixes OOU and IU tones disconcertingly. Use either "Kirk and Khan" or "Shatner and Montalbán". Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 15:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Release and reception" section, "Critical response" subsection:
    • Rotten Tomatoes is not a reliable source for the statement "Critical response to The Wrath of Khan was positive." The site is only really reliable for judging the critical consensus of films released after about 2000; for films before then, they're pretty selective (for example, Fight Club, which split critics right down the middle in 1999, has a very high score on the site too). If you note the dates of the reviews on the page, they range from this year all the way back through the 00s. Only two pre-date 2000.
      • Newer wording places less emphasis on it as a retrospective statement. Steve ^{T • C} 15:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Check for appropriate use of the non-breaking space throughout (e.g. "$97 million").
    • KHAAAAN! Sorry, I mean 'struck'. Steve ^{T • C} 15:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

}}

• I'll give it another pass once you've either resolved (or successfully ignored!) these, as they may be obscuring other issues. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 12:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review (I seem to be particularly blind to which/that grammar issues...) I've reformatted the cast section. It's still in the bullet form but there's not longer a separate line for each actor and I've removed the sentence fragments. I also believe I've done everything in Cast up to the Lead so far. On 'movie' and 'film', however, I used the two words to reduce redundant-sounding prose, and since they're basically interchangeable I'd rather leave that be. I'll leave you a note when I've gotten to all your concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've gotten to most of your remaining issues. About the cast, I think it's somewhat awkward to have the actors first, as it doesn't provide context to the story. As for Rotten Tomatoes, it's not used to say it was well-received on release; it's used to provide a snapshot of aggregate reviews and point out its the highest-rated movie in the series. Finally, I've gone through and removed many of the 'of the films', etc., but I'm loath to remove all of them as I feel it makes some parts a bit unclear otherwise. Finally, about Meyer, I added a bit of an introductory language for him, so see how that works. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep an out-of-universe perspective. The actors are more important than the characters. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the nonbreaking spaces and reformatted the cast section. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• So what's going on with the inconsistent italicisation of Star Trek? Italics for when referring to TOS, no italics when referring to the franchise, right? Steve ^{T • C} 22:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Aye. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Okey-dokey. Can you have another look at the lead, the last line in the plot section and Koenig's entry in the cast section? I think the "Star Trek" mentions here are italicised where they shouldn't be. The one in the lead, for example, is actually saying "the television series of the Star Trek franchise". But I may be wrong, which is why I haven't just gone ahead and changed it. Steve ^{T • C} 22:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I changed all of them besides the last line in plot; the speech is originally from Star Trek the series (and hadn't been adapted to other series yet) so I kept it like it is. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry I didn't get back to you yet. Other than a couple of other bits of wording that can be tweaked on the fly, the only thing that's really standing in the way of a support vote right now is whether it's comprehensive enough. Several sections seem a little light on what I might expect to see (especially the filming section). This is highly likely to be down to the fact that the film is 26 years old, but I just wanted to be sure, so I'm planning of checking a few places tomorrow to see what else can be found. I'll let you know one way or the other by the close of play Monday. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 20:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks again. If you find any sources, be sure to pass them on :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
            • Hi. Unfortunately, and trust me I do feel like a complete tool for this, my oppose will have to stand for now on comprehensiveness grounds. It seems there are a lot of articles, some from peer-reviewed journals, available that would definitely flesh out certain sections if even a few of them were used. To prevent this page getting too long, I'll post them to the talk page of this FAC shortly. Obviously, nowhere near all of them need to be used; there's going to be a lot of redundancy between them, and probably between them and what you already have in the article, and some of them probably only mention the film in passing. But it just gives an idea as to the wealth of information out there, and you should definitely take a look at the list to see what you can get hold of. Again, you have my sincere apologies for making you jump through all those prose hoops and then dumping this on you; it really wasn't my intention. You've done a bang up job of this article so far. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 23:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

←I've begun crawling through the sources. Some are already in the article (a few); I added one or two more to reception. As for the rest I can't find them on any online database, on their websites, or in my library. I've put some requests in for Interlibrary Loan, but it remains to be seen if they can find them. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Support Comment—Fairly decent so far, but I think it needs more work before I'll support it.

• I know the Plot section has been edited down to tighten the prose, but to me it has become very dry and unappealing. It reads like a technical writing exercise and lacks a certain engaging element. I'm not real happy with it.
• "Khan takes control of Chekov and Terrell and hijacks the Reliant." I don't much care for this sentence. It needs to be clarified in this sentence that Khan uses his control of Chekov and Terrell to perform the hijack, rather than performing the hijack himself. I tried to fix it but another editor re-introduced the issue.
• The "Cast" section needs a lead-in saying something to the effect that much of the cast reprised the roles they had played in the original 1960s Star Trek television series. (The lead is intended as a summary of the article, but this fact is not mentioned after the lead.) You could also mention that Majel Barrett, the then wife of Roddenberry, was not part of the cast (after appearing in the first film). Any chance you could find out why? Is it related to Roddenberry's reassignment?
• "...larger than it really was using forced perspective...", "...utilized camera and set tricks to..." and "...closing monologue were added to positive response...". These seem somewhat ambiguous, at least to me. Perhaps 'camera-and-set tricks'.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • I (and other) editors have fixed most of the above. To the Majel Barrett part, I didn't find anything in my research about her absence. It makes sense if Roddenberry was moved up he wasn't in a position to place her anywhere, but that's just speculation. As to the prose, is there anything in specific you find unappealing? Better to be direct than cloud up the prose with "Meanwhiles" and redundancies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I reflected on what I bothered me about the plot section, and I think it is the fact that too many sentences begin with a character's name. I.e. "Khan does this; Khan does that; Kirk does something; Spock does something, Khan does something else, etc." It just seems a little on the stilted side.—RJH (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I've tried to reword and reorganize some parts, or else use personal pronouns where it won't be too confusing... I can't do too much without compromising the clarity. Take a look now? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Much improved now. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Star Trek! Whoo! (Tamping down my own excitement - why aren't there more Trek FACs?) The article as it stands is generally well-written and organized (exceptions outlined below). However, like Steve, I have some concerns about comprehensiveness:

• Spock's death was intended to be irrevocable, the only reason Leonard Nimoy reprised his role. Negative test audience reaction to the character's death led to significant revisions of the ending without Meyer's consent. - These sentences don't flow with the second paragraph of the lead, which discusses the nitty-gritty of making the movie. What about recasting them as part of the writing of the film?

• The significance of the first paragraph of the plot is entirely unclear to someone unfamiliar with Star Trek and the movie. I'm not even sure if we need to explain the training mission in such detail. Perhps one sentence or two?

• Nichols noted that she advocated on Gene Roddenberry's behalf to the producers over elements of the film, including the naval references and militaristic uniforms. - It is not entirely clear what this means.

• Meyer attempted to change the look of Star Trek to match the nautical atmosphere - The "nautical atmosphere" of what? Since this is the beginning of a new subsection, we have to be especially clear.

• The last paragraph of the "Filming" section is disorganized. Rather than a clear presentation of information about Spock's death, it is a random collection of facts. I would suggest reorganizing both the second and third paragraphs.

• We learn, for example, that test audiences reacted badly to the scene twice.
• It is unclear to a reader unfamiliar with the film what the "remember" sequence is.
• The tone of the ending was changed from dark and final to what exactly?

• The "Filming" section is thin, as it focuses almost exclusively on the death of Spock. Also, the "Music" section could do with an expansion. I checked the MLA database for articles on the "Wrath of Khan" - here are three that looked helpful. From Steve's list on the article talk page, it looks like there are many more sources from which to cull information.

• Goldsmith, Jeff. "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan". Creative Screenwriting, 2007 May-June; 14 (3): 14.

• Jenkins, Henry. "'If I Could Speak with Your Sound': Fan Music, Textual Proximity, and Liminal Identification". Camera Obscura: A Journal of Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies. 1990 May; 23: 149-175.

• Byers, Thomas B.; "Commodity Futures: Corporate State and Personal Style in Three Recent Science-Fiction Movies". Science-Fiction Studies, 1987 Nov.; 14 (3) (43): 326-339.

After a few more weeks spent researching and adding information, I think this article can easily become featured. If you need help obtaining any of the sources listed by myself or Steve, let me know. My university subscribes to many databases. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Withdrawn by nominator. [113] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 16:04, 4 November 2008 [114].

---

Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette

Nominator(s): Lazulilasher (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria. I began working this article after the spotlight alerted WP:France that it would be the weekly collaboration. Lafayette's story always fascinated me, so I worked on expanding the content. I feel the article is ready after 2 months of work, an in-depth GA review, a peer review and a MILHIST A-class review.

The marquis de Lafayette was a fascinating character in the Age of Revolution. I hope you find the article worthy, and I await your comments. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• The lead states nothing about his life after his imprisonment in Austria. I got the impression that he died in prison, or died shortly after being released, from the lead. I had to read the article to discover otherwise. 204.193.198.179 (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yep, good point. I expanded the lead to include his activites after imprisonment: Chamber of Deputies, July Revolution, visit to the USA, and death. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/served/lafayette.html
  • http://www.nndb.com/
  • http://www.friendsoflafayette.org/data/timeline.html (current ref 34 ... it is lacking a publisher also)
  • http://www.lafayette.edu/press/magazine/Jan07/slavery.html
  • http://www.crookedlakereview.com/articles/101_135/129fall2003/129minor.html
• The Crawford ref is lacking a publication date. (It's originally published in 1907, so that's the date you'd use)

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out withe link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, source listed above 1-3 were removed and resourced to more reliable works. The 4th was written by Lafayette College archivist and published in their alumni magazine. I would consider it reliable, but if not I can go dig up something better; it may take a day, though. The Crooked Lake was removed and re-cited to Cloquet. The Crawford ref was fixed. Thanks Ealgdyth, Lazulilasher (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

On the archivist, I'd really prefer to see something done by a historian at least, and it'd be better to have it by a historian in a historical journal. What we have now is someone writing outside their field and in an alumni magazine which isn't exactly a place you expect to see serious history being presented. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. Ok, rectified. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • The treatment of the French Revolution is a mass of POV. In a page on the events of 1791-2, the words Legislative Assembly are never mentioned; we are left with the impression that Lafayette's arrest and that of his wife are the acts of a street mob, not of the elected legislature during a coup - or, perhaps, a civil war. (The solitary use of Assembly is calculated to confuse the reader; this is not the National Constituent Assembly of 1789-91.)
    • Furthermore, as mentioned below, the wrong party within the Assembly is mentioned.
    • The fundamental problem here is likely to be that one recent concise history of the French Revolution has been consulted, instead of the standard sources. It may well have been checked hastily; what editors do not understand, they cannot explain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • A review of Lafayette's family which omits Madame de La Fayette is hardly comprehensive.
  • 25,000 livres ($30,000 in the 18th century). The date is 1770, two decades before the existence of United States currency; what is this supposed to mean, the piece of eight? More importantly, what is the conversion supposed to convey to the reader? In terms of purchasing power, this would be closer to $500,000 (2008).
  • Collating with ANB reveals that the problem with Lafayette's commission is that Deane's authority had been challenged; we should mention and explain this.
  • His return foiled Gates' plan to assume control of the army. His return to Albany, or to Pennsylvania from Albany? And in either case, how did the appearance of a single aide foil Gates' plan?
  • So what, if anything, did Lafayette do at Monmouth? If the answer is "not much", why spend a paragraph getting him there?
  • He initially viewed slaves as property and, after meeting with American spy James Armistead, urged their use as soldiers during the revolution. A misunderstanding; all proposals to arm slaves included their eventual emancipation, if only from military necessity.
    • Lafayette's promotion in 1783 to major-general in the French army is omitted.
  • In 1784 Lafayette returned to America, visited 11 states, ANB says ten. Maryland's grant of citizenship is omitted.
  • In 1789, Lafayette was elected to the Estates-General. In preparation, he worked with Thomas Jefferson on a document called the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen". He prepared a draft, one of several, of that Declaration; he consulted with Jefferson in the process. These do not add up to the assertion made here that Jefferson was the author of the Declaration.
  • The Estates General convened on 5 May 1789 and Lafayette was a member of the noble Second Estate. When King Louis XVI encountered difficulty with the Estates General, he closed the meeting room of the Third Estate, the vast majority of the people who were neither clergy nor aristocracy This confuses the Third Estate, which was the vast majority, with its deputies, some 600 men.
  • The next day in response to the dismissal of Finance Minister Jacques Necker, Camille Desmoulins organized an armed mob. In response, the Assembly authorized a National Guard, appointing Lafayette as commander and electing him vice-president of the Assembly. No mention of the royal army, under Victor-François, 2nd duc de Broglie, outside Paris. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • On October 6, 1789, Lafayette intruded into the National Assembly in uniform, but alone; the resulting view of him as an ineffective Cromwell contributed non-trivially to his eventual fall. We should not, of course, adopt this as our PoV, but the occurence and consequences should be mentioned.
  • The Jacobins offered a reward for his capture or death....On September 1792 soldiers led by Jacobins arrested Lafayette's wife, Adrienne, but later released her. This is most unlikely. Jacobin does not equal revolutionary, and on August 19 and September 10, 1792, the Girondins were still in power; see Vergniaud. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • As chaos grew in France, Adrienne was again arrested by the Jacobins. Many negative descriptions of the Great Terror of the summer of 1794 are reasonable, but chaos and tyranny are clean different things. We are not entitled to any POV, least of all Burke's.
  • On 22 January 1795 Adrienne was released. The fall of Robespierre seems to be missing.
  • Adrienne lived in his cell with him and finally, in September 1797, after five years' imprisonment, Napoleon released the family. From their captivity at the hands of the Austrian government, which is not here stated. Try liberated. And while the status of the Treaty of Campo Formio is somewhat unusual, This was at the request of the Directory and as a result of the Treaty of Campo Formio drafted in 1797. does not describe it well.
    • And it was signed October 17, 1797 - according to our article; what is drafted doing in this sentence? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Lafayette's effort to improve his estates when he was in internal exile under Napoleon is omitted.
  • In 1804, Napoleon crowned himself Emperor after a plebiscite in which Lafayette did not participate. So? Was this a risk, or not?
  • Lafayette's politics in 1834 should be explained.

• • Badly written:
    • In 1790, Lafayette renounced his claim to the nobility title. Not idiom.
    • Lafayette created a control point allowing a more orderly retreat. Jargon.
    • His return foiled Gates' plan to assume control of the army. Melodrama; where's "Curses" and "again"
    • The flank scattered, and Lafayette organised a retreat while the British remained indecisive. Armies are not indecisive; they may be stationary.
    • In 1784 Lafayette returned to America, visited 11 states, and provided the Congress with news of trade negotiations. Indiscriminate collection of information; this is two sentences rammed together.
    • In 1804, Napoleon crowned himself Emperor after a plebiscite in which Lafayette did not participate. Lafayette is the subject of this life: Lafayette did not participate in the plebiscite of 1804 approving Napoleon's coronation as Emperor.

• More follows. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• As a minor annoyance, the article has been through a style war. It was originally in American English, with the American format for dates; both appropriate for an American major-general. The spelling was switched to British English, for no particular reason, and the dates to the international format. The spelling has been reverted, properly; Lafayette has strong national ties to the United States. Can we also switch the dates back to the format customary to the nationality most likely to be assigned reading about Lafayette? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ya, do whatever you want with the dates and spelling. I am a hobbyist, not an expert. I didn't know the sources I was using were so horribly POV. So, whatever...I was trying to summarize his involvement in the French Revolution, that's all. The goal was: provide a concise summary of Lafayette in the Revolution. I'll look these over, and see what I can do; it will be a few days, as I am without reliable internet access. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • A public library may be more helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • One other suggestion, with which a public library will be particularly helpful: It is very useful to consult the lives of contemporaries of the subject. The scattered references to Lafayette in a life of Washington or Robespierre will tend to concentrate on the more notable incidents, and they will tend to present Lafayette as a human being, with a concrete political program, rather than as a hero (with a list of Plutarchian virtues) or a villain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support (i did provide some editorial comment, to Lazu's work)
  • i applaud the work to improve to this point
  • compares favorably with Daniel Boone, Stephen Trigg, and George Washington, Battle of Trenton. we have 12 GA-FA articles in American Revolutionary War - (actually Trenton should be a FA also)
    • For what it's worth, I tend to agree. The treatment of Washington's presidency is appalling, and Daniel Boone comes close to copying out a single modern source. This is also better than Daniel Webster; but all this is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • the POV is much improved (there is a pro-anti war out there)
  • i would like to see more in legacy, by way of conclusion. Pohick2 (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    • True enough. Where's Pershing? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
      • lol, it wasn't an existence discussion, but a benchmarking discussion, how do i know what a FA is but by comparing to another FA. hey Lazu, don't let the snarky nerds get you down. we have a lot of work to to in this stub field. btw, in re foiled, the Conway Cabal letters were sent to Lafayette, who turned them in to Washington (the joke was on them). Pohick2 (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Ok, I'm back. Sorry I was away for so long; my um computer was stolen. I'll try to address everything that's possible, within the time frame. Although, we may not have enough time to get these things done before the deadline. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
          • • Renomination is always possible; although I would think there is a substantial job of reading before they can be addressed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - What about those tags on the article? They are rather worrying. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • They're mine; see the comments above. To which I would add that I deplore the absence of Jean Sylvain Bailly, revolutionary mayor of Paris - and Lafayette's coworker. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't add Bailly because I was concerned about detail. He might be mentioned earlier. Regardless, I'll put him back. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I only read through the American Revolution sections, and I do not believe that the prose is quite ready for FA status. I've listed some examples below of issues with the prose, but that is not a comprehensive list.

• A small MOS fix: In page ranges, often the last number is not abbreviated properly (for example 392 until 394 should be 392–4).
• Do sources ever tell the full name of Madame de Chavaniac?
• "on 24 April his grandfather died" - which grandfather?
• May need to make it more clear in the article that Lafayette was part of his title, not his surname. The way it is presented in the lead confused me a bit and it is never addressed in the body of the article.
• The prose in the Education and marriage section needs lots of work
  • "Through an arranged marriage he had his way with " - huh? This obviously doesn't mean what it sounds like to me...so what does it mean?
  • "their educations." - education is the plural - no s
  • What education was Marie Adrienne getting? Women didn't usually go to school in this time period
  • In what year were they "accidentally" introduced?
  • It is confusing that her father is first introduced at the duc de Noailles and then her mother later as the duchesse d'Ayen. I see from the article on the duke that he inherited the de Noailles title later, but readers shouldn't have to click the links to understand what is going on. Either this should be reworded, or a footnote added.
• Is there any information on whether Lafayette was very interested in the military before his marriage, or did he join because he was expected to?
• Was it unusual for a Marquis to take an active role in the military?
• More issues with ambiguous prose:
  • " De Broglie invited the young Lafayette to join the Freemasons, for whom the American Revolutionary War had become an issue. When " - this doesn't say what "issue" the Freemasons took (could be interpreted as either for the colonists, for the British, or against any war at all), and implies that he was invited to join because the Freemasons did not like the war.
  • next sentence: "When the Duke of Gloucester, King George III's brother and colonial policy critic, travelled through the region, he was invited to dinner with de Broglie and his men" - he who? King George II, Duke of Gloucester and de Broglie and Lafayette are all potential antecedents when you first read "he" (although de Broglie is quickly eliminated)
  • "and colonial policy critic," - not sure what this means - did Gloucester disapprove of the British handling of the Americas or did he support the Americans in the revolution?
• Is there any information on what experience Lafayette gained while in the French military before he joined the American cause?
• All quotations need to be cited directly, even if that means that subsequent sentences have the same citation. For example the "friend and father" quote is not cited directly.
• There are some comma issues in the article (too many or not enough depending on the sentence).
• "created a control point" - I am not sure what this means
• There is a lot of passive voice that would be changed to active voice. Active voice generally provides better prose. One of the most glaring to me was ""and was recommended for the command of a division in a letter to Congress on 1 November"
• "General Howe led a further 6,000 soldiers" - can we get a full name and wikilink for Howe, please?
• There are a lot of awkward prose constructions - (as an example) "Louis XVI, pleased with the soldier after Lafayette proposed schemes for attacking the British"
• When he first went to America, he left a pregnant wife (1777). What happened to that baby? The first child to be mentioned was born in 1779
• The return to France section seems a bit off. Lafayette went to France, then "received news" his wife had given birth to a son (but wasn't he in France already), then in March 1780 he "left Adrienne"....
• Make sure verb tenses are consistent - in "After the revolution" skips from "visited' to "would address" and back to "visited"
• I am confused about how he "formed views in the US that he later applied in France". It says that he viewed slaves as property but suddently apparently had an epiphany where he didn't think so anymore. Are there any details on how his time in American changed his views?
• I wouldn't consider the Moland House website to be a reliable source. It is essentially self-published.
• I also question the use of Valley Forge National Historical Park and Mountvernon.org. Surely that information is in one of the books?

Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Ok, thanks for the good review Karanacs. I am going to attempt more of these tommorow. I don't know if I have enough time; regardless, all of this feeback will be good for improvement for the article. Thanks much. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 13:48, 4 November 2008 [115].

---

London

Nominator(s): User:Thehelpfulone

previous FAC (05:06, 10 June 2008)

Self Nomination: London's back again! The last FAC failed with sourcing issues, that of which I have now fixed. I put it through another peer review, and now hope it meets the FAC criteria. I will of course be happy to make any changes to it if you don't think it meets the criteria! The Helpful One ^Review 16:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw: Too many opposes, I've got some work to do! The Helpful One ^Review 21:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - there are issues to address.

• Images
  • The architecture gallery is unnecessary. I don't think it makes the article better.

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 17:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Is Image:Westminster-abbey.jpg the best quality image available for Westminster Abbey? It seems a bit dark, and it's low resolution.

Replaced with Image:Westminster abbey west.jpg. The Helpful One ^Review 18:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • There should be more variation on aligning images to the right, and a few to the left. (though not directly under section headings) The history, economics, and education section appear suitable for a left-aligned image.

Done. The Helpful One ^Review 18:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sources
  • What makes http://www.demographia.com/dm-lonarea.htm a reliable source? What's "Southest England"? and it's not clear where they get their numbers from.

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • What makes world-gazetteer.com a reliable site? I have no idea who runs the site? and not thrilled with the pop-up ads that get past my pop-up blocker.

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Is ontarioarchitecture.com (Canada?) really a good source for describing architectural styles of London, when there are thousands of books [116] that cover the topic?

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • On the topic of architecture in London, the Wikipedia article mainly cites two websites - http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/London:+architecture and londonarchitecture.co.uk While these sites might possibly be reliable, I think there must be higher quality, more reliable sources to draw upon for this section.

Removed the first one, looking for an alternative to the second one. The Helpful One ^Review 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions about some of these sources were raised at the last FAC, and don't seem addressed yet. I have not been through the rest of the article with detailed checking of sources, but again it appears that a lot of web-based sources are being used, when surely a huge amount has been written about London in more reputable or scholarly sources. I would like to see better sources for this important topic. --Aude (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.history.ac.uk/cmh/lpol/ - this appears useful for finding quality sources about London, among other places to look. --Aude (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - because a number of the sourcing issues from before still remain, as well as a few new ones.

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?men=home&lng=en&des=wg&srt=pnan&col=adhoq&msz=1500&geo=0 (note this was raised at the last FAC)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.demographia.com/ (note this was raised at the last FAC)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.citymayors.com/index.html (note this was raised at the last FAC)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/index.html (this was raised at the last FAC)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • http://web.archive.org/web/20070123080157/http://www.y-axis.com/verybritish/VisitOverseas.htm (this was raised at the last FAC)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.chr.org.uk/legends.htm

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.london.diplo.de/Vertretung/london/en/02/An__Embassy__in__Belgrave__Square/Churches__in__London__Seite.html

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • http://londonarchitecture.co.uk/
  • http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/london/thames.htm

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/ (this was raised at the last FAC)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.londononline.co.uk/

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.euromonitor.com/

Why it's it reliable? It's the website link for the information regarding the study. The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/London:+architecture (this was raised at the last FAC)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.travellondon.com/templates/attractions/index.html

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.spoonfed.co.uk/london/

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.infoplease.com/

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.allstates-flag.com/fotw/flags/cwn-beg.html (this would be reliable for the flag, but it's not necessarily reliable for the information being sourced to it, that London hosted a games in 1934) Also the title of the link is incorrect here, it's not the British Empire Games Website but "British Empire Games". Adding the "Website" there implies that it's an official site, which it's not, its from Flags of the World.

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.thetravelinsider.info/britain/londonundergroundtravelinfo.htm (this is being used to reference the number of riders on the Underground, which really would be better sourced to an official site, not a tourist site)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • http://geography.about.com/od/urbaneconomicgeography/a/busiestairports.htm

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 4 (World Gazetteer) has an incorrect publisher and link title. I make the titles as "World Metropolitan areas" and the publisher as World Gazetteer.

Removed the reference. The Helpful One ^Review 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please note that a publisher of a website isn't the url of it, but a name. So instead of current ref 3's publisher being www.statistics.gov.uk, it should be Office for National Statistics. the WORK would be www.statistics.gov.uk. You'll need to check all your references for this, as a number of them have this issue.
• Current ref 7 has an incorrect publisher listed. Should be Office for National Statistics.
• The following sources need page numbers:
  • Current ref 11 (Mills, David...)
  • Current ref 17 (Sassen, Saskia...)
  • Current ref 41 (Pepys, Samuel..)
  • Current ref 71 (Collins English Dictionary...)
  • Current ref 72 (Oxford English Dictionary...)
  • Current ref 120 (Sassen, Saskia...)
  • Current ref 169 (Colin Larkin...) Note that the author should be listed last name first for this reference also.
• Current refs 18 and 19 refer to wikipedia articles? Or are you referring to the study? If so, you need more information than given, including publishers, and page numbers.
• Please spell out lesser known abbreviations such as CILT, used in the references.
• I find the history section being sourced to The Museum of London and the BBC websites to be a bit ... underwhelming as far as sourcing. There are plenty of printed works on the history of London, they should at least be consulted for differing scholarly views on the history.
• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jX8ZAAAAIAAJ&q=rebuilding+of+london&dq=rebuilding+of+london&pgis=1 is a google search snippet, which don't allow the full context of the work to be understood. It's always best to consult the printed source and read it to get the full context of the author's meaning.
• Current ref 78 (LondonA History) is a book. it should be formatted as such, with an author, publisher, and page numbers. Hopefully the whole work was consulted rather than just the google books search that's presented.
• Is it UK Met Office or Met Office? Current ref 82 (Greenwich 1971-2000 averages) gives UK Met Office, but current ref 85 (Met Office the Great Smog of 1952) gives Met Office.
• There is no need to run publisher names into the link titles. Examples include (but this isn't exahustive) current ref 81 (BBC News..) Current ref 85 (Met Office..) 58 (BBC...) etc.
• Current ref 91 (Guardian Unlimi8ted Money) is lacking a publication date. Also, the title is incorrect, it should be "Super Rich".
• Decide if you're going to use BBC or British Broadcasting Authority, and be consistent.

Done. The Helpful One ^Review 19:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 104 links to a web page summary of an article. Are you referencing the article itself? If so, you need to format it like an article, not a web page. If you are just referencing the summary/abstract, what makes this a reliable source?
• Current ref 137 (London: architeture) is lacking a publisher.
• http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/living_environment/open_spaces/ deadlinks
• Current ref 171 (London Event Listings) is lacking publisher and last access date at the very least.
• Current ref 215 has the incorrect publisher listed. It's not "London External" but rather the University of London.

Done The Helpful One ^Review 19:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• A number of your last access dates are in ISO format, and should be made consistent with the rest of the article.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I read the page in entirety and made some very minor comments on the article talk page. I agree with Ealdgyth's comments on sources which also seem to be minor and easily corrected. If these corrections are made, I have no problem Supporting. I thought it was a great article, very interesting, in good format and included helpful information that one might use if considering a vacation there. I liked the prose and I felt it met FAC criteria. NancyHeise ^talk 18:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment — Thehelpfulone, are you going to find reliable sources to replace the numerous {{fact}} tags that now exist? Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going to look for some sources now - I left out 2 of the unreliable sources still in there, because they are used quite a bit, and will do those once the others are completed. The Helpful One ^Review 19:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The sourcing remains unimpressive. The "History" section, for which there are hundreds of books available, is almost entirely sourced to websites, even if reliable ones. The architecture section is even worse. No mention, or link, is made to Squares in London, when the garden square is London's unique contribution to archiecture; there is next to nothing on housing in general. There should be a picture of a square too, now the gallery has been removed. The reference for the statement "Most buildings in London date from the Edwardian or Victorian periods" is subscription-only, & looks far from authoritative. A look at both public/office buildings, and housing in most of London shows that the statement as made is highly unlikely to be true. The "average" building in London is probably a 1930s semi. The section jumps from the Great Fire to Battersea Power Station. No mention of Wren churches, Hawksmoor, or the significant late 17th or 18th century areas that remain largely intact - Soho, St James, Bloomsbury, never mind Regency or Victorian areas. With arguably the best museums in the world, but schools & universities few would make such claims for, the museums should not be tucked away under "education" right at the end. Equally there is only a passing mention that there is a "theatre district", when London theatre is one of the things that make it distinctive among the world's large cities. Without going overboard, pulling together a section on "visitor attractions", with statistics etc, would seem sensible, since the article will inevitably mostly irritate more than inform actual Londoners, & is likely to be used mostly by visitors. The prose remains unexciting & sometimes unacceptable - "Later important depictions of London from the 19th and early 20th centuries are the afore-mentioned Dickens novels, and Arthur Conan Doyle's illustrious Sherlock Holmes stories." Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:14, 1 November 2008 [117].

---

House's Head

Nominator(s): --Music26/11

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. I just got it up to Good Article status, so most of the minor problems are fixed. The lenght of the production section seemed a bit short, but I noticed Greatest Hits (Lost) which has a shorter production section. --Music26/11 14:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• What makes the following sources reliable:
  • [118] (deleted) [119] (is the blog of the writer of an actual newspaper, see next link)[120] (is the online editon of an actual newspaper, per here and here) and [121] (deleted)? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Add http://tvdramas.about.com/od/tvshowsaz/a/foxmaysweep08.htm to that, as well. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

About.com articles are written, or at least checked by subject experts. At least, they were, last time I checked. - Mgm|^(talk) 04:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post.2C_Gawker_and_About.com discusses this. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Quoting SandyGeorgia: "Anyone can write for about.com and there is no fact checking or editorial oversight". –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Have these issues been addressed? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The above issues have been addressed, I'm still working on the issues below.--Music26/11 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Why is Academy of Television Arts & Sciences italicised in one ref (9) but not in the preceding one? check.--Music26/11 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• What makes the followin reliable sources?
  • http://www.tvsquad.com/2008/05/13/house-houses-head/ has been deleted.
  • http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show/house/houses_head.php reliable source, per here
  • http://goldderbyforums.latimes.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1106078764/m/340102161
  • http://tvdramas.about.com/od/tvshowsaz/a/foxmaysweep08.htm has been replaced.
• Please spell out lesser known abbreviations (such as BBM) in the references

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. check.--Music26/11 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Ealdgyth - Talk 11:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to show where they are used outside of Wikipedia, not that they are used in Wikipedia articles. Quite frankly, GAs are not often checked for reliable sources, and older FAs weren't either. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for my late reply, I've been busy with school, anyhow, I think I took care of most of your comments. I've added some reliable sources that prove the references used in the article, I'm still looking for sources for the LA times forum and TV Squad, I would like to hear your comments on my work so far.--Music26/11 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I've deleted or replaced most sources you found unreliable, I think a few of them are reliable per the statements listed below:

• [122] (AllTV (the star-ledger)) is used in the GAs Eggtown (Lost), There's No Place Like Home, Miles Straume, Goodbye, Toby, Succession (30 Rock), Subway Hero and Cabin Fever (Lost).
• [123] (Sepinwall blogspot) is a website hosted by the the writer of The Star-Ledger (the link listed above), who, in my opinion, is a professional recapist.
• [124] (The Envelope Forum) is used in the GAs One of Us (Lost) and Flashes Before Your Eyes and the FA Greatest Hits (Lost)
• [125] (TV without Pity), is reffered to in the FAs Through the Looking Glass (Lost), Greatest Hits (Lost), The Beginning of the End (Lost), Nikki and Paulo and Soprano Home Movies and the GAs The Constant and Two for the Road (Lost).
• [126] (TV Squad). I've seen this links in so many GAs and FAs, I hardly can't understand why you doubt it's reliability. But here's a list. GAs: Ana Lucia Cortez, House (TV series), Cabin Fever (Lost), Rosemary's Baby (30 Rock), The Other Woman, The Rural Juror. FAs: Martin Keamy and The Shape of Things to Come (Lost).

Note: I'm referring to the websites, not the links themselves.

All the other minor errors are fixed.--Music26/11 22:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This is why I hate TV Squad and BuddyTV when they are used in articles, because those reviews typically have nothing to say that is encyclopedic and editors are using them to bloat reception sections. See--" Jay Black of TV Squad quoted "I know that I spent the whole hour with the same goofy look on my face that Christopher Walken had when he saw heaven in the movie Brainstorm". He also said that House is funnier then Two and a Half Men."--The first part tells us absolutely nothing about the episode, and the second part doesn't even seem to be directed at this episode but a general statement about the series. Critical reviews should be analytical, with context provided for explaination. If Critic A says Omar Epps's acting sucked in this episode, we need context as to why it sucked. Simply stating it doesn't provide any real value for the article. If the reviewer doesn't say why, then the review itself probably isn't useable. Please go through your critical reception information and make sure that it doesn't read like a promotional piece for the episode, or simply provide one-line statements that vaguely identify the reason why a critic might appreciate or not appreciate the episode. This goes all the way to LA Times and the other more professional news organization sources in the article. Even their critics can leave simple one liners to describe their feelings. It should not be the point of editors to find a single sentence that describes the critics opinion (because those are usually vague), but be able to paraphrase their thoughts. There is too much direct quoting going on. Quote as little as possible and paraphrase as much as possible.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I took care of most of them (in the "Reception" section), I left a few though, because they're pretty clear. I'd appreciate it if you'd took another look.--Music26/11 20:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for 1a at least - prose needs proofreading ("check for a the bus driver") and a lot of work to improve the fluency. Lead needs to be shorter and more focused: for instance, you don't need to explain the plot in that level of detail when the plot section is directly underneath, or mention to whom an award was lost. It should be an overview with minimal minor details. Trebor (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on that during the weekend.--Music26/11 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Check out Pilot, if you haven't already, which is currently still a FAC, but I believe it is FA worthy. Anyway, look for key points like it's prose etc.

Sunsetsunrise (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Images - Infobox image needs a stronger rationale to be there (and I wonder if that's the best one - I'm thinking it might be better to use one of the shots near the end of this episode where House has all the other docs with picture badges to try to recreate the scene before the critical flashback). Two free images are fine. --MASEM 20:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - 1a. concerned that there are serious issues with prose. All the content is there, I believe, but there are some glaringly bad sentences in there, i.e. "she either slapped a hand over her mouth. Or possibly screamed her my TV." --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:14, 1 November 2008 [127].

---

Economy of Ohio

Nominator(s): Jd027^talk

I am nominating Economy of Ohio for featured article status because I believe it meets the requirements to do so. Significant improvements have been made to the article since its last FAC, and Economy of Ohio is now a "Good Article." The sources are varied, and there is a reliable, governmental source that is constant throughout the article. The article is not overly verbose, while at the same time gets the point across. Comments? Jd027^talk 22:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• Ref #7 is a barelink; needs to be formatted correctly.
• What makes http://autos.aol.com/cars-Honda-Accord-2007/expert-review (ref #7) a reliable source?
• What makes http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/ohio/housing.html (ref #24) a reliable source?
• Again with http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_statetaxrate_OH.html (ref #25).

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• • All fixed. Jd027^talk 23:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now.
• It would be nice if the lead could be fleshed out.
• The economy of Ohio includes many historically strong industries, such as motor vehicle manufacturing, more traditional industries, such as agriculture, and new and developing sectors such as the information industry and food processing. - Awkwardly worded. Might be better if the comma after "industries" was removed.
• Some of the largest food processing plants in the world are also located in Ohio: the world's largest yogurt processing plant is operated by Dannon in Auglaize County, Campbell's operates the world's largest soup processing plant in Napoleon, Heinz operates the world's single largest ketchup processing plant in Fremont, and General Mills operates the world's largest frozen pizza processing plant in Wellston. - If I were speaking this aloud, I'd run out of breath!
• Wal-Mart is by far the largest single employer in Ohio,[2] with approximately 52,000 Ohio employees. - Remove "by far".
• The largest Ohio employer with headquarters in Ohio is Kroger, with approximately 36,500 employees, and headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio. - "The largest Ohio employer ... in Ohio". Also, as we know we're talking about Ohio, no need to specify that in city names.
• If Ohio were to be its own country, it would rank between Turkey and the Netherlands in its nominal gross domestic product. - Relevance?
• The last paragraph of the General statistics section is very choppy.
• Don't force image sizes.
• Ohio ranks 1st in the production of Swiss cheese out of all 50 states,[1] 2nd in eggs,[1] 3rd in tomatoes,[1] 6th in soybeans,[1] and 6th in corn for grain.[1] - As long as it's the same ref, you only have to cite it once at the end of the sentence. This happens a lot in the article.
• The frozen food industry is the largest sub-industry,[1] surpassing even the state of California by $700 million in frozen food shipments,[1] in which Ohio ships $2.4 billion dollars of frozen food shipments annually. - Removee "even".
• Ohio also ranks 1st out of every state in the United States in frozen food shipments and Ohio's frozen food industry accounts for 20.7% of the United States' frozen food processing. - Remove "out of every state".
• I see quite a bit of overlinking. For example, you have three of the same links in some sentences: Major food processing companies in Ohio include Chiquita Brands International (Cincinnati), Kroger (Cincinnati), T. Marzetti Company (Columbus), The J.M. Smucker Co. (Orrville), and The Iams Company (Cincinnati).
• Ohio Casualty, a subsidiary of Liberty Mutual, Fairfield, Ohio. - Why is "Ohio Casualty" bolded?

I'll provide some more later. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please see WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images regarding the placement of images within sections (not above), no left-aligned images under third-level headings, and the order of items within sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Query Thanks that's an interesting read, a few questions did occur to me and I wonder if you have sources that cover any of them:

1. I don't know Ohio but I would have thought a geography section would be useful, whether it said that the economic activity was evenly spread across the state or more likely that historically towns x, y and z had most of the economic activity but since the 30s the economy has moved to areas a, b or c, whilst d,e and f parts of the state remain agricultural.
2. Ohio isn't an island, so there will be commuters crossing the state boundary. If the numbers balance this is a minor point, but if Ohio is a net importer or net exporter of commuters then this would be a significant part of the economy. Also unemployment is relevant here especially if there are particular structural concentrations.
3. Most of the article concentrates on the Private sector - though a particular airbase appears in the list of major employers. I would assume that the Public sector would be an important part of the economy, this would be worth covering especially if the state has markedly more or less than its fair share of Federal spending.
4. Most references to market share are US specific and ranked by state but US states are not of uniform size - though this might not matter much if Ohio is an average size state. But I would find the comparators more meaningful if they were in terms of x% of the Ohio economy is financial services compared to y% of the US on average and z% of OECD economies.
5. Trade. I didn't see a reference to how national or international the Ohio economy is. For example X% of Ohio goods and services are sold within Ohio y% in the rest of the US and Z% internationally, whilst a% of Ohios imports come from the US and B% internationally with (hypothetical example) with China, Canada the US states of Illinois and New York as the main trading partners.
6. Skills. There is mention of some white collar and IT businesses but an indication of how skilled the Ohio workforce is in terms of graduates, apprenticeships or literacy vis a vis US or international standards would be relevant as it is the main driver of much of the "new economy" ϢereSpielChequers 13:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

this might be an interesting source re Cleveland and Cincinnati and structural economic decline. ϢereSpielChequers

• Comment, is the constant repetition of the same citations truly necessary? See the Information section, for example, where the same reference ([8]) is repeated fifteen times in a row. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 15:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment — it doesn't appear that the nominator has made any effort to resolve the issues raised. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for a simple reason: Ohio has existed as a state for 205 years and this article covers at best 10 of those years (not coincidentally, the last 10). Put some serious effort into an economic history section, and I may well revise my opinion. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

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