Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mike Searson (talk | contribs) at 14:10, 5 March 2008 (→Roman Catholic Church). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Roman Catholic Church

previous FAC (17:08, 15 February 2008)
Check external links

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

STRONG SUPPORT It's very well written and on a great topic. THE KC (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
There shouldn't be a "criticism" section, as that is POV and unencyclopedic; positive and negative reception is kept to the same section where to topic is discussed. And as much as you may want it to be, the whole article shouldn't be about church scandals. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia Guidelines there should not be a criticism section as it becomes a troll net. Criticism has been addressed as suggested by venerable Jimbo Wales throughout the article. The section on child abuse is covered in the last paragraph on Church History in subsection titled Vatican II and beyond. NancyHeise (talk) 23:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From my point of view, regardless of wikipedia guidelines, the catholic church has been criticised and failing to mention that is unencyclopedic, sorry. Also, do you think one meagre paragraph gives ample weight to such a prevalent problem within the organisation --Hadseys ChatContribs 23:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All facts are there, considering that the article is not supposed to be POV one way or the other, we included mention of all criticisms and provided wikilinks to pages where those criticisms are then covered in depth. The child abuse scandals are wikilinked as well as having an entire paragraph in the history section devoted to that topic. Yes, we thought it was enough. NancyHeise (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved concerns from ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: criterion three concerns regarding: Image:Miguel Pro.gif
    • Per WP:RAT, “A separate rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article”. No rationale is provided for use in Roman Catholic Church. This is a moot point given:
    • Per WP:NFCC#8, “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”. The topic is the Roman Catholic Church, not Miguel Pro. Mr. Pro does not even appear to receive a single mention in the article prose. Removal of this image is not expected to constitute a detriment, as it does not contribute significantly to our understanding of the topic (Roman Catholic Church) or the section (The Modern Era). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the man's correct title is Father Miguel Pro. Miguel Pro was a Roman Catholic priest executed by an atheistic secular government (the tin-foil hat squad might even say freemasonry). Although I did not add the image, I think it's appropriate in the article as it shows a martyr for the Catholic Faith in Latin America during the Cristeros war, in the modern era; I also believe he is a candidate for cannonization.--Mike Searson (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do not use honorifics or titles (my use of Mr. was wrong, but Father is worse). Your comments do not address my concerns and are not grounded in consideration of policy. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 11:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The title was not used in the article, so I don't see the point of what you just said other than it being a case of "do as I say and not as I do" as you used an incorrect title to begin with. I was only pointing out that the gentleman in question was a Roman Catholic priest who was being martyred for his faith in the modern era, which is what that section is about. I guess if the image was of the Church being the persecutor, no issue would be raised at all.--Mike Searson (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per comments by elcobbola, I have changed the description message in the Miguel Pro image to adhere to Wikipedia policy and make the connection between use of the picture and the article. Thanks for bringing that up. NancyHeise (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see; then as a lengthy direct quotation from the Catechism, it should be {{blockquote}} formatted. JGHowes talk - 19:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just made an edit using a blockquote template that I think will address this situation, please see page again and let me know if it still needs something else. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine now. Changed my vote to Support accordingly. JGHowes talk - 00:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm not knowledgable about the issues with the pictures, but the article's text is clear, well-written, and NPOV on a topic that inspires a lot of POV. Coemgenus 16:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A lot of hard work has been invested in this article, but deep flaws still pervade the article. The church history section still ignores the majority view in reputable sources, relating a (traditionalist) version of early Christian history, rather than with the early history of the Roman Catholic Church as discussed by academics. For example, one of the earliest mentions of the Roman Bishopric's primacy in authority occurs in the 4th century in the First Council of Nicaea. Even then, the Roman Catholic Pope (Bishop of Rome) was not the sole authority, as the Bishop of Alexandria was granted similar authority. (The Bishop of Constantinople supplanted the primacy of the Alexandrian Pope in relative short order.) There is a complete lack of reliable discussion of the centralization of orthodox Christianity and the unification of papal authority. The article briefly touches on infallibility, but this area is still thin/insufficient (considering is it vigorously discussed in reliable sources and considered an identifying feature of the Church). The article veers into inaccuracy on multiple points. I will address one example on the topic of infallibility. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis has been specifically stated by the Church, on multiple occasions, to have not been issued ex cathedra. Therefore, it is not an exercise of papal infallibility. Instead, it is considered an infallible teaching by virtue of its uniform and universal teaching by the whole body of bishops (the universal ordinary magisterium). The teaching of the Immaculate Conception was declared in 1854, sixteen years before the 1870 declaration of papal infallibility (the article states it occurred after 1870). (However, it is considered one of the two modern dogmatic invocations of papal infallibility.) There is only a passing mention of the Roman Curia, which is utterly insufficient. There are many similar issues with the article, but for the sake of length I have only provided a few examples. This article fails to properly represent the body of reputable sources, lacks completeness and contains obvious inaccuracies. As such, it should not be promoted to FA unless the article undergoes a source audit and drastic rewrite. Vassyana (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vassayanas concerns were discussed in previous FA and after collaboration with other editors, the decision to deal with the issues discussed was agreed to be dealt with exactly in the manner addressed in the article. Thus Vassayanna does not represent a consensus position. I am surprised by her persistent oppose even after discussion and addressing her concerns with consensus of editors agreeing to current form. Thanks for your comments again but I disagree that changes need to be made to the article. In depth discussion on the various opinions of church beginnings would have to be its own page and would make this aritcle go off subject. We editors of this page agreed to place the quote from Eamon Duffy in the Origins section based on our best sources which are also the best recommended by Wikipedia and this sufficiently alerts the reader to the opposing view which is also discussed in the first paragraph of Church history. Regarding Papal Infallibility and Roman Curia, like many issues on Roman Catholic Church, these are topics that have their own wikipedia page. Our attempt to keep the article of sufficient size required us to make mention of the issue to let reader know what it is and then provide a wikilink for them to find out more. This is necessary on a top article like this with so many wikipedia pages stemming from this one. We all felt it was enough of a mention that did not deserve any more space. NancyHeise (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV requires that information presented in reputable references to be presented in proportion to its prominence in the body of reliable works. A mere passing mention (as though it were a small minority opinion) inaccurately casting the position as a simple quibble is most certainly not adequate. Additionally, the factual inaccuracies in the article are not addressed by this response. It should also be noted that NancyHeise has previously inaccurately declared "consensus" on issues. On both points (scholarly opinion and consensus-calling), see the previous FAC for more information and examples. Vassyana (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also added a new reference from Congregation of Doctrine of the Faith to show Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is infallible contrary to Vassayannas assumptions. The consensus for placement of the Eamon Duffy statement is correctly documented on the talk page of Roman Catholic Church. This was a direct response to Vassayannas concerns raised in previous FA and was sufficiently addressed in an NPOV way with consensus of editors. The sources used were also determined to be the best. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Vassayannas accusation that our mention of Immaculate conception is incorrect. Our mention is correct. We do not say when the doctrine was proclaimed, we mention it as one of three documents declared infallible, the statement is accurate. NancyHeise (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I did not state it was not infallible, but rather that it is inaccurately credited to papal infallibility in the article. The source you added states that "it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium" (as I stated above myself). The Pope simply confirmed the bretheren (recognizing the infallible doctrine established by the universal ordinary magisterium), which is a distinct action from making infallible declarations ex cathedra. The Immaculate Conception is also still improperly listed as having occurred since 1870 (when it was declared sixteen years previous). These are glaringly obvious factual inaccuracies and need to be corrected (along with the other accuracy and presentation issues). Vassyana (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article specifically states: "Since 1870 when this doctrine was affirmed". Vassyana (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vassayanna, you are taking it out of context, this is the entire paragraph that is talking about papal infallibility : "In 1869-70, the First Vatican Council affirmed the doctrine of papal infallibility.[112] This doctrine states that when a pope "speaks... as the pastor and teacher of all Christians... defining... a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the whole Church," he "is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished for his Church to be endowed...." This does not mean that the pope is always infallible or even that all his teachings are infallible, but only applies to certain specifically defined pronouncements.[9] Since 1870 when this doctrine was affirmed, there have only been three Church teachings declared infallible, the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.[113] " I think a reasonable person would be able to see from reading the whole paragraph that it is not saying that any of these documents were proclaimed in 1870. Also, if the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith clarifies a popes teaching as infallible, then we can factually say that the teaching is declared to be infallible. I stand by the wording and facts presented in the article and I think your comments are unfounded and incorrect. NancyHeise (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are blatantly obvious problems with attributing a declaration from the 1850s as occurring "since 1870" and falsely including an infallible doctrine established by the "ordinary and universal Magisterium" among declarations of papal infallibility. This knee-jerk rejection of my criticisms not only flies in the face of the plain facts, but borders on nonsensical. Vassyana (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there are blatantly obvious problems with attributing a declaration from the 1850s as occurring since 1870. This article does not do that. Also, this article specifically states that there are three doctrines declared infallible, it does not say that the pope declared them infallible. The wording in the article is correct and you are making false assumptions here that are not in the article. NancyHeise (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence of contention in the article is: "Since 1870 when this doctrine was affirmed, there have only been three Church teachings declared infallible, the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis." The matter is very complicated and is disputed by theologians -- this sentence could be right or wrong in many different ways. I suggest a modification of the sentence which will avoid some of the difficulties of the different sorts of infallibility that Vassyana has pointed out, as well as other ambiguities. Perhaps: "The doctrine of the Assumption proclaimed by Pope Pius XII is an example of the exercise of the rarely-used charism of papal infallibility."The.helping.people.tick (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in hopes of winning Vassayannas support vote, I added significant language and another University Press reference to address the church origins conflict. I placed this information in the first paragraph of Church history. It appears that the majority of historians do not support Vassayannas position on church origins but it is now mentioned and properly referenced to show both sides of the issue with each receiving equal space in both the Origins paragraph at the top of the article and the opening paragraph in Church History. Thus this issue has two whole paragraphs devoted to it now. Also, I have added,with the help of TheHelpingPeopleTick more information in the paragraph on papal infallibility that may clarify what she was opposed to. PLease take another look and let us know if this is satisfactory. If it is unsatisfactory, I would like to know why with references to show your reasons since I have now used three of the best sources required by Wikipedia and they show both sides of the issue in accordance with NPOV. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not at all satisfactory. Even a casual perusal of modern scholarship about early Christianity reveals that the clear overwhelming majority of experts consider the early faith to have been diverse and that even the earliest centralized authority was divided among multiple patriarchs as late as the fifth century (besides the Bishop of Rome, the Bishops of Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople wielded similar authority over their regions). Also, the use of Duffy to support the claims is highly questionable, since he admits quite bluntly that "all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles". This "throw a bone" approach is not at all acceptable. Appropriately and accurately presenting the current state of scholarship is non-negotiable. Vassyana (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have provided multiple top reliable sources for my content per Wikipedia reliable sources policy that support the content I have in this article and you have not provided any sources for your continued oppose position, I think I have done enough to prove my position, I have a direct quote from Duffy supporting the opposing view in the origins section of the article. As you yourself have stated Appropriately and accurately presenting the current state of scholarship is non-negotiable. Just to be sure that these positions represent the current state of scholarship, I spent part of this afternoon in Broward County Library trying to find all the "clear overwhelming majority of experts" that you claim to refute the church origins as portrayed in this article. I just want the truth to be told in this article, I am not trying to build a position. The next best source, per Wikipedia guidelines I was able to find was "The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity" edited by John McManners and published by Oxford University Press. This book is a collaboration of 18 top univerisity professors and scholars. A quote from page 36 says this "Towards the latter part of the first century, Rome's presiding cleric named Clement wrote on behalf of his church to remonstrate with the Corinthian Christians who had ejected clergy without either financial or charismatic endowment in favour of a fresh lot; Clement apologized not for intervening but for not having acted sooner. Moreover, during the second century the Roman community's leadership was evident in its generous alms to poorer churches.....Roman bishops were already conscious of being custodians of the authentic tradition or true interpretation of the apostolic writings. In the conflict with Gnosticism Rome played a decisive role, and likewise in deep division with Asia Minor created by the claims of the Montanist prophets to be the organs of the Holy Spirit's direct utterances." This book goes on to discuss the earliest example of the Roman bishop exercising jurisdiction mentioning the discussion about Easter between Polycarp and Anicetus before then telling us that in the 190's Victor, then bishop of Rome threatened the churches of Asia Minor with excommunication for not celebrating Easter on a certain date. The authors then go in to state that the Roman Churches had long been exercising leadership before the mid-third century. You may find all of this information on page 36 of this top reliable source. It seems that the statement in this book about Clement's letter alone refutes Duffy's position about no ruling bishop in the first century. Obviously, the clear consensus of historians, even Duffy refute your unsourced position that the church did not exist until the late fifth century. Enough said. NancyHeise (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana, you wrote "Even a casual perusal of modern scholarship about early Christianity reveals that the clear overwhelming majority of experts consider the early faith to have been diverse and that even the earliest centralized authority was divided among multiple patriarchs as late as the fifth century (besides the Bishop of Rome, the Bishops of Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople wielded similar authority over their regions)." I am curious to know a) which section or sentence of the article you object to and b) what "modern" sources are you thinking of. Also, could you expand on what a "throw a bone" approach is? As a bit of an expert in the Roman Catholic Church, I find your comments somewhat mystifying. I don't think the article says anything contrary to what you write, but what you've written is unsourced and more specific than a WP-sized article on the RCC can accommodate. The editors of this page are aware that each sentence of this article summarizes many books, and that the treatment is necessarily cursory -- that is the nature of encyclopedias. The approach we've usually taken is to cites other articles, referenced as Main Article or Further Info. "The early faith" that you mention as being "diverse" is often a faith that is not Roman Catholic (here I am thinking of various gnostic sects that used a fair bit of Christian language). And there were, as you mention, a number of important sees in the early church, but this article does not deny this. Maybe it would be helpful if you restate your remaining reasons for opposition? That would help the editors address your specific objections. Thanks! The.helping.people.tick (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will dig up some example sources detailing what I am referring to. To summarize, the early history of the church is made synonymous with an traditionalist version of early Christianity. For example, equating the early Catholic Church with the Council of Jerusalem is in accordance with Catholic beliefs, but is not in accord with the majority of current reputable sources. The article presents the relationship as fact, but this is simply a traditional religious belief not an assertion in accord with non-Catholic scholars. The "throw a bone" approach is to make a weak passing mention in response to criticisms. That's just "throwing a bone", making a minimal effort at appeasement, rather than actually addressing the substance of a concern. The point about diversity is that there was no "Roman Catholic" faith in earliest Christianity and even the preceding "proto-orthodoxy" took time to develop. Even with the advent of the age of Constantine, often associated in the popular mind with the establishment of the Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome did not possess sole authority as a patriarch. "Roman Empire (30–476)" uncritically presents the history of early Christianity, as a whole, as the history of the early Roman Catholic Church. The problem is so obvious to me that I find it deeply perplexing that it is not seen and understood by others. Vassyana (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vassayana, It appears to me that you think this article is about Christianity, it is about the Roman Catholic Church. The wording I have in the article refers to the Roman Catholic Church origins and its history. I have given equal space as required by NPOV to both sides of the argument for Roman Catholic Church origins. These are referenced to the top Wikipedia required sources and I have provided extensive quotes from these books to support my entries. What I have not done is go off subject into a long discussion about the various other churches and their histories. As some scholars and the Catholic Church believe the origins of the church begin at the beginning, so the history section properly includes the earliest beginnings and properly mentions that not all scholars believe it to be so. That is not throwing a bone, especially when I have given the most profound statements and conclusions reached by the authors of these books after considering all the evidence as I have done with Duffy's statement. I await your efforts to provide top reliable sources to refute the top reliably sourced wording and content that exists in this article's current form. NancyHeise (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "equating the early Catholic Church with the Council of Jerusalem is in accordance with Catholic beliefs, but is not in accord with the majority of current reputable sources" -- Are you (or your current reputable sources) suggesting that the Council of Jerusalem is not part of Roman Catholic history? Or that it simply never happened? Or that it was actually Lutherans who met at Jerusalem? Or that the Council of Jerusalem decided on doctrines that are incompatible with Roman Catholic beliefs? I just don't see the thrust of your criticism here. Re: "there was no "Roman Catholic" faith in earliest Christianity and even the preceding "proto-orthodoxy" took time to develop" -- I think I may be starting to understand your POV, but it appears to rely on the rather idiosyncratic idea that the Roman Catholic faith is essentially tied to Rome, whereas "it traces its origins to the original Christian community founded by Jesus," as the article states. Now, this is rather uncontroversial. Most reputable critics of the Church, and many of the not-so-reputable critics, recognize that the Roman Catholic church does not start in Rome, and acquires the name sometime after its founding. Are you suggesting that this article should start not with the group that would eventually be called the Roman Catholic Church, but with the first documented use of the name "Roman Catholic Church"? If it were a history paper, I would argue with you on methodological grounds. Since this is WP, you'll need some (quite a few) sources that take that approach. Re:"Even with the advent of the age of Constantine, often associated in the popular mind with the establishment of the Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome did not possess sole authority as a patriarch." Please give a reference to one historian who dates the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church to the bishop of Rome's possession of sole authority as patriarch. As far as I know, that is an idiosyncratic minority position that is rightly not mentioned in the article. Re: ""Roman Empire (30–476)" uncritically presents the history of early Christianity, as a whole, as the history of the early Roman Catholic Church." Are you saying that we should include mentions of the Arians and Docetists as other types of Christians? I am perplexed that you are perplexed, since "the problem" that you are referring to seems so ill-defined to me. If you want to continue insisting on a "source audit and drastic rewrite" as you did in your initial oppose vote, I am quite interested to know what WP reliable sources you think we need to include throughout the article "to properly represent the body of reputable sources" in the manner you are suggesting. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have more completely reviewed several sources. While the traditionalist version of early Christianity and early Church history is incompatible with the modern understanding of early Christianity, very few sources specifically discuss it (the modern understanding) in relation to the Catholic Church. Such scholars form a small minority in relation to works discussing the Catholic Church. As such, the principles no original research and proper weight in large part are opposed to my opposition. I simply ask that all sources discussing the early history of the Roman Catholic Church specifically relate to the RCC, rather than early (including early orthodox [small o]) Christianity or the early "Christian Church". (I am asking no more than the standard that counters my opposition be applied equally to the article.) If that concern is addressed, I will withdraw my opposition and support. Vassyana (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- There have been extensive improvements to this article, specifically dealing with the issues raised when it was last nominated. The article is much improved, and the work put into it by the dedicated contributors deal well with the concerns that were previously expressed. It now appears to meet the criteria, and should be granted FA status. One thing to keep in mind is that with all articles dealing with religion (beliefs, institutions, people), there will always be heated discussions that pop up, just due to the nature of the subject. This should not be a bar to FA status. Rather, it just requires increased vigilance. Fortunately, there are clearly many editors watching this article and dealing with vandalism and POV issues (on both "sides"). The article, as it stands now, is an appropriate cadidate for FA status. --Anietor (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Numerous prose issues, organization issues, citation issues, conprehensiveness issues. Since this is a long article, I'll be adding to my assessment as I go through. Please note that any prose examples are just examples; fixing those alone won't fix all of the article.
    • There is inconsistency within the article on whether "the Church" is capitalized or not. I recommend that they all be capitalized when referring to "the Roman Catholic Church".
    • The last two paragraphs of the lead don't flow well. In the paragraph on church belief, the last sentence just seems tacked on. The last paragraph is actually two thoughts - one about the demographics of the church and the other about Church history. I would split these into two paragraphs and rewrite the section on Church history. What is currently there is way too vague.
      • CommentI disagree, this form is the most concise and accurate form that will not make the lead too long. The history of the RCC is two thousand years long, there is no other appropriate summary that would fit in with the FA criteria of having a concise lead.NancyHeise (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is there an Origins section and a History section? It seems to me that these should be combined so as not to duplicate information.
      • Comment The Origins and Mission section addressed for the reader how the church came into being and why it is here. This is good form and creates a proper beginning to the rest of the discussion in the article. The history section opening paragraph was expanded to include mention of the origins to address Vassayannas concerns in this FA comment page and to let the reader know why the history section begins at a certain time instead of another as well as to build criticism into the article by showing the reader that not all historians agree on its origin date. Since this was such a major issue that has been substantially debated throughout the life of the article including on the last FA and this one, I feel it is important to have this addressed in the article in this way to avoid future problems and make the information plain.NancyHeise (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also think that the Mission section should be incorporated into beliefs or should be eliminated. It really reads as more
      • Comment I disagree that this would improve the article. The mission statement is a separate function of the beliefs section. The mission statement is to preach those beliefs which follow in the next section, it is logical flow for the mission section to preceed the beleifs section and to follow Origins. Any other presentation would eliminate logical flow. NancyHeise (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the sections discussing actions depicted in the Bible do so in present tense. Should this instead be past tense, as the article is assuming that the events actually happened? For example, "After his death and resurrection, Jesus appears to Peter asking him to "feed my sheep" and "tend my sheep"." -> should it instead be "appeared"? and "In the Gospel of John, Jesus makes this promise," instead of" made"
    • I have a problem with so many instances of Scripture being inserted into the text without appropriate transitions. That makes it appear more like preaching than like an encyclopedia article.
    • The article could benefit from a copyedit to reduce redundant phrasing. This would make tighten the prose and make it more compelling. For example, in the first paragraph in the Beliefs section, three sentences in a row refer to promises, "Jesus making this promise....Jesus makes this promise....In the light of these promises". A word change or a change in the prose to eliminate the redundancies would make it read better.
      • CommentI disagree that more copyediting is necessary. I like the flow. It appears that many other editors are of the same opinion and it has been copyedited three times since last FA. I appreciate your opinions but please understand that we all have opinions on these kinds of issues and we have really gone over this quite carefully and are in agreement. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor quibble: When there are multiple references for one sentence, put them in numerical order, so that you don't see [22][5], etc. (It should be [5][22] instead)
    • The second paragraph of the Beliefs section begins with "Eastern Orthodox belief differs from that of Roman Catholic" ... This changes the focus of the article from the RCC toa different church which has not been mentioned in the article before. I'd recommend reorganization so that the focus is always on the RCC.
      • Comment so you want other protestant denominations mentioned, but not other Catholic denominations? --Mike Searson (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentThis section speaking of the beleifs of other denominations should remain just as it is. It was added by an editor who was making the point that we need to show how the RCC beleifs relate to other Christian denominations. It is part of the process of incorporating criticism into the article as recommended by Jimbo Wales. I don't think the article would be very helpful to the reader if we eliminated that section, I think it makes the article more informative and helpful to an inquiring reader. NancyHeise (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of the beliefs and Biblical knowledge is presented as fact. Although I realize that from the Catholic Church perspective it is, to others that is not so clear. The problem with sentences like "Catholic belief includes the existence of spiritual beings called angels. They are God's servants and messengers who possess intelligence, will, and immortality." is that it makes an explicit assumption that yes, angels exist ("they ARE"). This can be reworded in this case to be "Catholic belief includes the existence of spiritual beings called angels, God's servants and messengers who possess intelligence, will, and immortality." This is repeated in many instances throughout the article
      • CommentAgain, this is a matter of personal preference, not Wikipedia policies being violated here. It is clear from the beginning of the whole section entitled Beliefs that the following section is what the RCC beleives. We don't then need to change every sentence to make that same point over and over. NancyHeise (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:ELLIPSIS. The quotations in the article do not all follow the proper format.
    • The last paragraph in the Original Sin section does not flow well.
***CommentAgain, this is a personal opinoin that doesnt necessarily reflect the majority of editors who have agreed with current form.  Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "According to Catholics, this promise is fulfilled in Jesus, the "lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."" -> this isn't just according to Catholics however. I worry that this wording is too narrow. Other Christian religions believe this too
      • Comment this article is about the Catholic Church, I believe it's out of scope to include other denominations, maybe if you brought forth some specific examples it would help here? --Mike Searson (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I would combine the Sin section and the section on Jesus and Holy Spirit. The information in both is highly related and there is some duplication in the information presented.
    • " often as a person who is in a state of grace desires" -> Non-Catholics are likely not going to understand the reference to "state of grace", and that is not defined in the article.
      • Comment I addressed this, but fear it may make me type out more, for example, it is a requirement to fast before Communion. Most modern Catholics fast 1 hour prior, some fast from midnight the previous night (older practice); also communion is only to be received once per day. Should I flesh this out as well--Mike Searson (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "be still alive in heaven" -> that's an oxymoron. If you are in heaven you are physically dead. This probably needs to be reworded.
    • "Although the Catholic Church establishes, believes and teaches that it is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church," -> I'm not sure about the use of "Establishes" here. Other churches disagree with this. I'd remove that and just leave "teaches"
    • I would take out the (see Holy Orders) in the Apostolic Succession section. This is described in more detail later in the article.
      • Comment, I see your point and almost changed this the other day, but did not want to end up writing an encyclical. It's important in Apostolic succession, particularly with other denominations and the Church recognizing their sacraments, clergy, etc (Anglicans/Episcopalians are recognized as having valid Holy Orders due to succession, whereas other denominations do not, which is how some converts to Catholicism are "married clergy")--Mike Searson (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is Apostolic Succession really the write title for that section? It deals a little bit with Apostolic succesion and then goes into papal infallibity (without a transition between the two thoughts in this paragraph). I'd work on the transition and rename the section.
    • Need a citation for "Pilgrimages to Marian shrines like Lourdes, France and Fátima, Portugal are also a common form of devotion and prayer asking for her intercession." The citation should be for the fact that it is common. I don't know that that is true today.
    • It doesn't appear that Catholic mass is wikilinked in the article (or at least I missed it). That should be added.
    • "At Mass, Catholics believe that they respond to Jesus' command to "do this in remembrance of me" -> Those unfamiliar with the Bible will have no idea what this means. Do what?
    • "This was called the Tridentine Mass and endured universally up to Vatican II and the vernacular Mass known as the Novus Ordo Missae" -> is this supposed to be implying that the vernacular mass came out of Vatican II? The sentence doesn't actually say that.
    • "re-presentation " or "representation"?
    • I'd recommend reorganizing the section on Mass. I'd start with the paragraph beginning "There are seven sacraments of the church..." Then I'd add a transition sentence such as "The Eucharist is celebrated at Catholic mass." and then go into the paragraph beginning "Catholic mass is separated into two parts". Then I'd end that paragraph with "Catholics are required to attend Mass on Holy Days of Obligation, including Sundays." Then I would have the last paragraph. I don't think you need any of the history of the mass here, because that is in the History of the Church section below. I think the new way would flow better.
      • CommentI disagree with reorganization and elimination of history mention of mass. I don't think Karanacs suggestions will make the paragraph better and several knowledgeable people, including myself have used the actual sources to create the paragraph just as it stands now in the proper order. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To help with flow again, I'd start the Liturgy of the Hours section with "By canon law, priests and deacons are required to pray the Liturgy of the Hours each day.", then let the rest of the paragraph continue as it is.
    • Would it make more sense to have Devotional life/Personal Prayer section right under Mass? They would transition well together, and I think the Liturgy of the Hours section would be good right after that.
      • CommentLiturgy of the Hours in the RCC is an extension of the Mass that is considered more important than any other form of personal devotion. It is right after the mass because of this. NancyHeise (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Devotional life section is a little awkward. The first half flows okay together, but then there are three sentences of a row which are just examples " Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is...Benediction is..Lectio Divina is..." I think I would not include these examples in here, but if you want to leave them in, please try to redo the paragraph so that it flows well.
      • CommentIf I were to do what Karanacs suggests here, it would leave the reader with less information and no wikilinks to pages where he or she could learn more. The article is more encyclopedic and helpful to an inquiring reader without Karanacs suggestions based on personal opinion. NancyHeise (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Community first paragraph, there is no transition between dioceses and the definition of laity. Please reword so that this flows better. The rest of the paragraph doesn't flow that well together either.
    • While I very much appreciate Nancy's efforts to incorporate more books into her sources, I still think that too much of the article is sourced to one or two books. This does not provide the breadth necessary to ensure an NPOV and to ensure comprehensiveness. Books from multiple viewpoints should be sought out and used in more depth than is currently being done.
      • CommentIf the person reviewing this page would please count the number of books used here, I would very much appreciate it. There are multiple sources and the sources used often were so used because they were the best. These have been supplemented by other sources to compliment. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that per WP:RS, self-published sources should not be used. The following are self-published sources.
    • Reference 25 does not have a publisher
    • Reference 23 has the name of the newspaper misspelled
    • In references, newspaper names should be italicized
    • The University of Virginia is not the publisher of Number 78 (Encyclopedia Britannica). They gave the gift of their 1910 copy of EB to google books to be scanned.
    • Books that have multiple authors should have ALL of the authors names spelled out, not just the author as "Multiple Authors". See 93 (medieval Times to Today) and 96 (Europe and Russia). 104 (multiple coathors in book by Gentzler, Yvonne)
    • Citations are not all formatted consistently. See 107 and 90 for two different ways that quotes are handled, etc.
    • Reference 120 (Robert Scheina) does not appear to be formatted properly
    • Ref 121 is not formatted properly
    • ref 124 (Woolner and Kurial) does not have a publisher
    • Should Vatican city be mentioned in this article in more than the infobox and a caption? It is interesting that the Pope is also the monarch of the small state, and I think it should be incorporated into the article somehow.
    • Is it necessary to include the names of the Roman emporers who initiated persecutions? I'd remove the whole sentence, as it is not really necessary to this, a summary article since the sentences before and after it do a good job of emphasizing the persecution.
    • "Diocletian who is remembered for his efforts from 300AD onward" - his efforts had to end at some point, so "from 300AD onward" is perhaps not the best phrasing
    • "Roman roads, mails" -> I'm unsure what "mails" means in this context
    • CommentThis was a copyedit from our very skilled British friend Xandar, I think the use of the work "mails" is excellent and clear that it means mail delivery. Please don't change this, it is really great prose. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "which addressed the heresy of Arianism and " -> that is definitely POV. Heresy is a matter of opinion, and while the RCC might believe it was heresy, others did not. Rephrasing to "which addressed Arianism and " would eliminate the POV.
    • Do we know when the Oriental Orthodox Churches broke away? Eventualyl could mean in the 4th century or the 19th.
    • "In 530, Saint Benedict wrote his Rule as a practical guide for monastic community life. The rejuvenated monasteries were important contributors to the communities around them" -> What rejuvenated monasteries? There is nothing in here to link Benedict's rule with a monastic rejuvenation.
    • "With the breakdown of civil administration, the Catholic Church performed many social and governmental services, including making and enforcing laws, collecting taxes, and operating schools and farms. " -> What breakdwon of civil administration? The previous sentence is talking about libraries, and the fall of the Roman empire would have been at least 60 years before judging on the chronology in the article thus far.
    • "Feudal lords who rebelled risked excommunication a severe penalty that facilitated peace" - I know what you are trying to say, but this doesn't really say it. Perhaps reword to something like "A feudal lord who rebelled risked excommunication, and fear of that severe penalty often led to peace"
    • I think this article is not comprehensive without some mention of the tremendous impact the Church had on art.
    • "Pope Innocent III declared a crusade, encouraging secular rulers to stamp out this heresy." - again, the use of heresy here is POV. The word "teaching" or "belief" could be substituted to return this to NPOV.
    • "inquisitions rarely took part in witchcraft trials, and areas in which the inquisition was strong had less witchcraft hysteria" - I don't see why this is necessary. Yes, some Inquisitions barely if at all prosecuted some things, but I don't think this needs to be so detailed.
    • "In Europe, the Renaissance was a period of renewed interest in ancient and classical learning, and a re-examination of accepted beliefs" -> This sentence could probably be removed. It doesn't really add anything to the section and doesn't make a good transition with the previous paragraph.
    • The paragraph on the English reformation is really out of order. the Elizabethan Religious Settlement happened long before her excommunication by Pope Pius V. I don't know that it is even necessary. I'd say that everything after "Similar laws were enacted in Ireland" really does not need to be in this article as it has very little to do with the RCC
    • The French Wars of Religion are wikilinked twice in one paragraph-that is not necessary
    • First paragraph of Age of Reason section has two disparate thoughts - Japanese persecution and further reform. This should probably be split into two paragraphs.
    • I think the information about the expansion of the Church in the Americas is flawed, as it focuses on the end of the process and totally ignores the middle. The California missions were the last to be established - there were missions in South America, Mexico, Texas, and New Mexico centuries before those were established, and they did just as much or more damage.

Karanacs (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Comment Obviously we can expand and expand on history forever, the books used for references are sometimes several inches thick. We are trying to be concise here and thus we made mention of the most notable events. The California missions are more notable than the others and they are thus mentioned. Some of my reliable sources do not even mention the other missions. Sorry but I don't have reason based on my present sources to expand on these least notable of Spanish missions while I am sure that they existed and we could find sources to supplement, I dont think that the article is meant to include every detail of every event in history. NancyHeise (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have discovered that not all the editors of this page see things the way Karanacs sees them. Sometimes Karanacs can make huge lists like this one of things that are sometimes really not in any wikipedia policy, it just happens to be her opinion. Although I have spent days sometimes answering her comments, they just seem to keep coming no matter how good an article is and how many editors agree with me. I think this time I will pass on all these potential changes seeing that there is a substantial number of Wikpedia editors who do not view the article as Karanacs does and I would not want to lose their support vote by changing things they might like. While I will go through and check the capitalization of the word Church, I do not believe any prose or content should be changed in this article due to Karanacs comments listed here. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, if you look on the talk page of the article, you will see that three editors agreed to use the lower case in referrring to church in accordance with Wikipedia policy. This decision was made after reviewing the policy and discussion between the editors. I will not be making that change.NancyHeise (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, could you just be consistent? There are some cases where it is capitalized and other cases where it is not. As long as it is consistent, that will be okay. Karanacs (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might be advantageous to note that the requirement that “prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard” is not something that can be explicitly and precisely defined in policy. Karanacs’ comments appear to have been made entirely in good faith and are absolutely relevant to a featured article criterion (1A). Editors evaluate different aspects and have different standards; summary rejection of Karanacs’ comments is disrespectful to the efforts she’s put forth and contrary to principles of collaboration. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- :Nancy, I am very sorry that you don't seem to understand that I am trying to help you improve the article. No article is ever perfect, and refusing to consider any comments just because they come from me is not assuming good faith. I will continue to list areas I believe could be improved here in the hopes that other editors of the page are willing to WP:AGF and actually consider whether the changes could help the article. Karanacs (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misunderstand my comments as something insulting. I respect Karanacs comments but I realize that they are her opinions, not wikipedia policies. What I was referring to can be described first in her comment to capitalize Church when other editors of the page have agreed to lower case after careful study of Wikipedia policy on the matter. I did not summarily discount Karanacs comments, I read them all and I do not agree that her position represents that of the other editors of the page, changes in content and prose based on her personal opinion, that are not Wikpedia policies are a matter of personal preference and I have agreeed with the other editors on those issues after much discussion already. The page has had three copyedits since last FA. The issue of having origins in both top of article and in history section is a matter of relevence. The top section gives the reader immediate knowledge of where the Catholic Church came from and why it exists. The history section discussion is to let the reader know that the section begins at a point in history that is not agreed by all historians as the origin of the church. I can't change these paragraphs to suit Karanacs personal opinion without destroying relevant content and purpose and thus making the page less informative and relevant to the reader. I appreciate Karanacs opinion but I would like the respect also of being able to disagree on matters of personal preference. Please note that the other editors of the page are very knowledgeable on the subject and have approved of the content and prose. I don't want to disrespect their opinions either, especially when it looks as if the majority of opinions on this page agree some have specifically mentioned the good prose and content. Thanks. No disrespect intended here. NancyHeise (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. I can pick at little details; for example, Eastern Orthodox belief differs from that of Roman Catholic mainly on the issues of papal infallibility, the filioque clause and the Immaculate Conception of Mary but is otherwise quite similar -- well, there are other doctrinal differences, such as purgatory, the corporeal assumption of Mary, etc. However, that's covered by the otherwise quite similar clause. The article is a fine overview of a complex topic. Majoreditor (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I will be addressing all of Karanacs comments regarding sources, adding authors and Italics for newspapers and replacing those deemed not OK. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Roman_Catholic_Church/archive2&oldid=196037281"