Talk:Catholic Church/Essjay's edits

This exercise is a pain in the butt and I doubt it will turn up any issues. However, I am convinced by Firsfron that we have to do it to deflect any criticism related to Essjay's fraud. ("Hate the sin, not the sinner." Losing Essjay is a real loss to Wikipedia)

I propose that we find every edit that Essjay ever made to this article and review it. I'm not sure how good the edit counter is but we know that there are at least 24 edits to review.

If we want to be really thorough, we will also review Essjay's comments on this Talk Page but that's of secondary importance.

If you go back to the earliest edit in the edit history and then page forward using your browser search function to look for "Essjay", you should be able to find all of the edits that he ever made.

I suggest that we list each edit here according to the format of my first entry below. If the edit looks OK, just provide the diff and a comment saying that it looks OK. It would be good if at least one other editor looked at the diff and provided a "looks good to me, too" confirmation. After that, only objections need to be recorded.

--Richard 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this who thing is a mess. I am not a regular contributor on this page, but would be happy to check behind you (or whoever) as a second set of eyes. If you list the edits (as you did below) I will verify. -- Pastordavid 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

May 12, 2005

This may require review. Possibly already has been. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no POV objections, other than it may be too much detail for the article and might benefit from cleanup/consolidation. It is unsourced, probably a more pressing problem. I am no expert on hierchiachal clergyware... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nor am I. There may be problems with it, though. Essjay's entry reads: The honorary title of Monsignor may be conferred by the Pope upon a priest at the request of the diocean bishop. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: members of religious orders may use the title "Monsignor" only if they are bishops or archbishops.(emphasis mine)[1] It is possible things have changed since then, or that I am misunderstanding the meaning. In fact, it does not matter at all, if this content has been removed and doesn't appear elsewhere in Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement in Roman Catholic Church, which is exact, was, I think, simply copied from Monsignor. In most English-speaking countries nowadays (excepting those with, for instance, Spanish influence, like the Philippines, "Monsignor" is not used of bishops or archbishops. Lima 05:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a source? Firsfron of Ronchester 07:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Monsignor, which I think is the place to discuss such matters, gives this source. Lima 08:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I was talking about the text Essjay added: The honorary title of Monsignor may be conferred by the Pope upon a priest at the request of the diocean bishop. Where does that site say anything about priests being conferred the title of monsignor? Old sources indicate only bishops and archbishops receive the honorific. And, as the edit was made here, I would prefer to discuss it here, with the rest of the text. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

An edit conflict prevented me from posting the following earlier:

Perhaps I misunderstood Firsfron's request. I was only thinking of the item Essjay inserted, as a whole. Perhaps Firsfron wants a source for some specific point in it. Perhaps for what may be Firsfron's interpretation of the insertion as claiming that all priests, even religious, may be given the title of Monsignor. No they cannot, nor can those under a certain age, nor ... There are conditions, including that not more than a maximum of 10% of the diocesan priests of a diocese can have the title ... But the insertion was making no attempt to list all such limitations, nor did it need to.

Or is Firsfron's interpretation that, in some cases, the title can be conferred only on bishops? Essjay was writing about - or rather, what Essjay copied was considering - the honorary title that is conferred by the Pope. In countries where "Monsignor" is used of bishops even in English (it is always used of bishops in French, Italian, Spanish ...) this title is not just an honorary title conferred, like a knighthood, on an individual, but a title that automatically belongs to all bishops, whether they belong to the diocesan or the religious clergy. Apologies, if I have misunderstood.

If, as now appears, Firsfron refuses to accept as verifiable that priests who are not bishops may be given the title of Monsignor, well then, section 26 of the source I have given is the answer to his refusal. Lima 08:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Firsfron finds Lima's stilted comments baffling, and would like to ask Lima for further clarification, but is afraid of the reply; seemingly the answer will either be full of stilted jargon or Luna will accuse Firsfron of "vindictiveness". Either way, the end result will be unsatisfying. Firsfron simply desired a link which provided verification of Essjay's edit which stated that the honorary title of Monsignor may be conferred by the Pope upon a priest at the request of the diocean bishop. Since the word "Priest" is used only once in the link provided, and not in the context of the Pope granting one the honorific, Firsfron is forced to assume (perhaps incorrectly) the statement Essjay added to the article is incorrect. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should thank Firsfron for injecting humour. It is good to have something to smile at. (If there is an implicit enquiry about why I refer to him in the third grammatical person, it is because I am not writing on his Talk Page, but addressing others, not just him.) I confess I do not immediately understand his latest remark. But, since I have now searched in vain for the word "Monsignor" in the present text of the article, I take it that Essjay's edit has already disappeared from it. So I just repeat the question I put below: Are we fact-finding the article, or are we instead putting Essjay on trial? Lima 09:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay is not "on trial". He already "pled guilty". Unfortunately, no diffs can be shown, as all his pages were deleted per his request. Jimbo explains what Essjay's last letter cannot (because it was deleted).

If these edits still exist on Monsignor or elsewhere on Wikipedia, and no suitable reference can be found (one that states the honorary title of Monsignor may be conferred by the Pope upon a priest at the request of the diocean bishop, as Essjay wrote, which seems quite different from the statement that members of religious orders may use the title "Monsignor" only if they are bishops or archbishops.[2] then it seems to me they should be deleted. However, if no trace of this edit is found anywhere, this particular point is completely moot.

I realize I am completely out of my element: it is a topic not well understood by most lay persons, and certainly not by me. I am simply attempting to make sure the content of the encyclopedia wasn't damaged by an individual "playing the part" (Essjay's words). Firsfron of Ronchester 09:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

On a matter unrelated to fact-finding the article, perhaps I ought to explain that in the Catholic Church the clergy are classifed as either "diocesan" (another word for the same class is "secular") or "religious" (also referred to as "regular", i.e. living according to a "Rule" - Regula in Latin). Religious clergy (i.e. "members of religious orders") take a vow of poverty, which makes it inappropriate for them to be given honorary appointments ("Chaplain of His Holiness" etc.) that give the holders the right to a special form of dress and the honorary title of "Monsignor" (originally a title for bishops, all bishops, whether diocesan or religious). Lima 10:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we conclude that we have found no Essjay-originated element in this article that requires to be corrected? Lima 09:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we cannot at this point. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not? What element of that kind remains in the article? Lima 10:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Firsfron's reply would be but mine would be: Because we know that Essjay made at least 24 edits to this article and we have only discussed 10 of them. We've made a good start and I'm pleased to say that nothing really egregious has shown up yet so I remain confident as I did when we started that it is unlikely that we will find any serious problems. However, I reluctantly accept that we must go through this stupid and tedious exercise if only because the media has now started reporting that "Wikipedia editors are reviewing Essjay's edits". What Wikipedia editors? I guess that means us. --Richard 00:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you expressed it better than I could have, Richard. Not all the edits in this article have been checked (or re-checked, considering they were possibly checked by someone long ago, when they were made), and it would be a good idea to finish this tedious chore so that we can say the edits were checked.

While there has been some grumbling about this being "a hurricane in a teacup", the unfortunate event has been covered by ABC, CNN, and the BBC, as well as a number of respected newspapers: hardly a "teacup", and it is a serious knock to Wikipedia's credibility; already Jimbo is formulating new plans to help with the credibility issue. Essjay's claims and his edits are under intense scutiny by the media on an international level. As Essjay made more edits here than almost anywhere else, it would be nice to be able to say something more than, "Well, we were going to check all the edits, but someone asked that we close the discussion less than twelve hours after the discussion page was created, and we had checked some of the edits, so that seemed like it was enough."

No one here is forced to participate. I had no 'net access yesterday and have only been able to continue now, but it is very late here. I will continue checking diffs again beginning tomorrow. If someone beats be to it, so be it. If, after discussion, all the edits are found to be fine (by users who haven't already stated they think this process is unhelpful and who haven't attempted to close the discussion before most of the edits were examined), the discussion can be closed and we can all move on (though I have been slowly going through the other two articles as well). I think/hope that the case will be that everything's fine, but as one or more source has stated that Essjay used "Catholicism for Dummies" for his sources, I don't know what to expect just yet. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading your comments, Firsfron, Richard, and Lima, regarding Essjay's opinion on whether the title of Monsignor may be conferred upon a Catholic priest vs. a bishop. I don't know whether it would be helpful at this late date to assure you that, indeed, in dioceses in the U.S., at least, many priests who are not bishops have received the title of Monsignor. Our pastor is a priest with the title Monsignor (the URL of the parish directory is http://www.standrewapostle.org/PastoralStaff/staff.html.) I think I can find lots more examples, if it would be of help to you. When one goes into the confessional booth, it can be tricky, because you're supposed to start with "Bless me, Father, for I have sinned . . . " But if Father is a Monsignor, then it is more proper to remember to say, "Bless me, Monsignor, for I have sinned . . ." (As if you don't already have enough to worry about!) Ivain 03:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation, Ivain. That's all I needed to clear up that bit, which was unclear to me. Again, thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

--In the article there is no trace of this edit, so there is nothing to correct. Lima 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

May 13, 2005

Revert, with note left on talk page. Discussion may need to be reviewed. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on talk page here, where Essjay claims the work cited is reputable. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue of group identity names is often contentious, although there is a policy on it: WP:NCI (Self-identification). I cannot answer for that group, but in principle this should be straightfoward. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue was thrashed out and settled on Traditionalist Catholic. Lima 05:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't settled. Non-traditional Catholics decided for traditional Catholics that "traditionalist Catholics" and not "traditional Catholics" is the proper term, even though traditional Catholics use the latter. 75.46.74.131 21:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

--This edit only made the term used correspond to the title of the article referred to, so there is nothing to correct. Lima 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on May 22, 2005

Essjay rewrites this section. There was apparently an edit war with user:Boothy443. Boothy is subsequently blocked, though I do not know the circumstances behind this particular block. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say there was an edit war? And it seems Boothy443 was blocked a number of times, but mainly for vandalism, 3RR, civility issues, etc. and not for anything connected to this particular edit. He seems to have been mostly reverting vandalism here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No, no edit war here (I was fooled by Boothy's rv edit summary, and didn't check further). However, this is not the revertion of vandalism; it appears to be additional material added by Essjay. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; I was unclear. The pronoun was in reference to Boothy, not Essjay. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem; understood (now). Firsfron of Ronchester 23:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Both the original and new suffer from being less than encyclopediatic; this gives both moderate POV concerns. New is considerably longer with additional content. Rewording and consolidating could improve things tangibly; sourcing would help greatly to incorporate appropriate new content. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I mistaken in thinking that the whole of that edit has long disappeared from the article? Are we fact-finding the article, or are we instead putting Essjay on trial? Lima 08:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

--In the article there is no trace of this edit, so there is nothing to correct. Lima 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

June 1, 2005

Reverting removed section Firsfron of Ronchester 22:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks ok as reversion of unexplained deletion. --Richard 22:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, too, for the record. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Other than returning his additions (among other things) in his first (?) edit which could be improved, this action was better done than not (I agree with above). Not an endorsement of perfection of the reverted content. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

--In the article there is no trace of this edit, so there is nothing to correct. Lima 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

June 20, 2005 20:21

What of these? These may also be the same ones which Essjay/another user claimed Essjay was an expert during the content dispute. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit above looks OK. I might like to have kept some of the text that he deleted but I know not everyone would agree with me. I think our focus should be to look for any egregiously bad edits especially those that might be factually incorrect or POV. --Richard 00:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Lots of material changing here so its hard to generalize but I suspect Richard's right: some content was improved and some may not have been. Kudos for the sectional organization though. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

--In the article, the parts affected by this rearrangement have been completely rewritten, so there is nothing to correct. Lima 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

August 12, 2005 23:28

Readded "particularly on doctrinal grounds." Seems minor, and doesn't seem to be present in the current article. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK. --Richard 22:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also. Wording for style may be debatable but I do not object to it on POV grounds. The issue it qualifies is however probably the most historically contentious issue wrt neutrality in the entire article. I would not be surprised if some others might reasonably and in good faith disagree with me about its POV. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

--In the article there is no trace of this edit, so there is nothing to correct. Lima 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

August 20, 2005 20:29

This is linkspam removal. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the specific link, the edit looks to be OK as a "linkspam removal". --Richard 21:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Same conclusion. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Thirded" ;-) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

--Nobody has suggested that this link be reinserted; there is nothing to correct. Lima 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

August 28, 2005 20:42

This edit looks OK to me. --Richard 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of one sentence (which appeared to be POV).  Done -- Pastordavid 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Seconded; without "[RCC] sees itself as...", or similar construction, this would be objectionable. Baccyak4H (Yak!)

--This was removal of an evident falsehood, so there is nothing to correct. Lima 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

July 15, 2005 15:29

Reverting vandalism. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK as removal of fake AFD. --Richard 22:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No problems here. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

--This was a useful edit, so there is nothing to correct. Lima 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

August 3, 2005 22:50

Small removal. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Looks OK. --Richard 22:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

--Not only has "nothing really egregious shown up" needing correction, but nothing even minor. It is disrespectful to other editors of this much-visited article to presume that in all this time they might all, absolutely every one of them, have failed to fix an Essjay edit that really needed to be corrected. Lima 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

While what you say is true, the presumption you speak of may not indeed be presumed (not be me at least, I think I have made that much clear); it certainly isn't the rationale for checking the edits. The motivation was expressed by Richard as the first paragraph of the page: while Richard and I (and you, Lima?) deem it unlikely that the article was permanently corrupted due to Essjay's deception (if anything here can be "permanently corrupted"), it may be conducive to have evidence that yeah, other users did examine his edits just to make sure.

In the end, being able to say that no, no damage was imposed via his false appeal to authority, and indeed many of his edits were unequivocally constructive, may actually be a boon to the project. Especially since the editors checking ave a pretty diverse opinions on how policable the article pages are: they will include one suspicious that the page's editors can effectively police edits made under an appeal to authority, two editors not worried about that, but with varying levels of enthusiasm towards the imperative to demonstrate "yes his edits were checked", even if actually doing such will bring no harm (I am in this category), and one who thinks the exercise is a waste of time and perhaps even disrespectful to other editors. And at least one other editor has also chimed in as well. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Comments

Interrupting for a second, let's realize that the talk page is just that. It may be accumulating evidence of the scope of Essjay's deception, but it should not impact the credibility of the project like the article proper should. If anything, there may be lessons learned in where and how such fraud works and where and how it does less so. This may actually be useful in the imminent policy update scramble that will be forthcoming to try and avoid a similar incident. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page comment is relevant, as Essjay's edits are claimed to be from a NPOV perspective, and "his fine professional credentials" are mentioned. Are these edits still in the article? Firsfron of Ronchester 22:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The above-referenced Talk page comment of June 23, 2005 12:15 refers to the "Criticisms" section, an often difficult and contentious section. We can look over this section more carefully but I wouldn't worry too much about it. This section gets a lot of scrutiny (a euphemism for POV pushing and edit warring).

"I just happen to have spent my life studying the Church", in response to this content dispute. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The above-referenced Talk page comment of June 30, 2005 4:48 is very assertive and opinionated but seems to generally on the money. Since it is a Talk Page comment, I wouldn't spend any more effort on it. --Richard 00:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Only wish to agree that his "spent my life" discourse is indeed "generally on the money". He wasn't adding nonsense, and even if so it's only the talk page. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

edits with respect to anti-semitism

Among Essjay's edits discussed above were the qualification of several passages about anti-semitism, and the position of the church towards it today. Looking at them, for example [3] and the later edit using similar language [4], the comments were made above that there were no similar passages present in the article now.

On Aug 12, 2005 there was a section Anti-semitism, within a larger section called "Criticism", referring to a main article"Relations between Catholicism and Judaism" ,and there was in June 06 a section of "Perspectives on the Catholic Church", there is not one now. There clearly was a decision to move he sections elsewhere. Not even the discussion of the Inquisition mentions Jews.

I am not necessarily urging that such sections be restored; the achieved balance in the article should not necessarily be disturbed. It is obvious enough there is criticism from Christians of other denominations, from those of other religions, and from the altogether unreligious. Perhaps there should be links to help people find it.

But I cannot help wondering whether Essjay may in this article have made better edits than some of those made by others. DGG 00:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)