Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 18

History article and main template
The template is used incorrectly in the History section, since this article isn't a summary of History of the Roman Catholic Church (unclear why the History article is so bad, while the History is in this article, but at any rate, the template is incorrect.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a gentle hint, is it not? As, for instance, is this.  What if we simply cut the entire history section from this article, and pasted it over what's currently at History of the Roman Catholic Church?  We would then replace it with a summary here.  In a stroke, many of the problems raised at FAC would disappear...  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think (I could be wrong :-) this possibility has been raised and resisted many times (check talk archives). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Removing the History section is not really possible. The article needs an origins section, which would have to go at least as far as Nicea in the 4th century, and probably cover the split with the Orthodox as well. The reformation would be hard to avoid mentioning. The article also neeeds to discuss Vatican II and other current issues. With those covered, pressure to cover other historical controversies would grow, and we would be back in the same position. People could accuse the article of POV in omitting the Crusades and Inquisitions for example. Some history has to be here, and having a cut-down history section would cause more problems than it solves with respect to BALANCE, POV and DUE WEIGHT. The current history article is a fairly detailed timeline, which can be improved later. But we need to get this article finished firat. Xandar (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather than saying that such a change "is not really possible," I think that this a good opportunity to do a rethink, and consider all the various possibilities. I also don't think that it's particularly helpful to revise the article thinking all the time of "what people could accuse" it of.  Better to think more positively, and less defensively: how to make this the best possible article, fulfilling all the goals of Wikipedia and all the criteria for FAs, including but not limited to NPOV. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have to say that the level of change you posit would completely destroy the article, requiring a complete re-envision and re-write from top to bottom. Certain history has to be here, as stated in my previous post, and numerous important issues now covered in the History section would need to be dealt with somewhere else in the article. The sort of complete "start again from scratch approach" required to do this, is unnecessary. It is not what we are about here - which is taking the existing article forward. Xandar (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) No. I disagree. I am not sugesting a re-write from top to bottom. I am suggesting a discussion of possible structural changes. As I've tried to explain (but could do at more length were others open to such a discussion), structural changes do not require a re-write, and certainly do not mean "start[ing] again from scratch." Please stop suggesting otherwise. You are misrepresenting me. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Message from FA Director
I am copying and pasting this from   "Sandy asked me to look at this nom - apparently it had grown so large that it was interfering with her ability to load the FAC page. I've decided to fail this nom. First, I'd like to say I think the article is very good. It's long and somewhat over-referenced (although I don't consider over-referencing to be a major problem), but I think that's to be expected with an article of this visibility/notabaility/inherent controversiality. What I'd like to see from all the remaining objectors is a list of specific problems with the article in its current form.

I'd like the nominators to take some time and address the remaining issues prior to renominating this. I do want to see this featured, but it's not there yet. Raul654 (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)"

We intend to renominate this for FAC in accordance with Raul's comments here. Objectors please work together with us and make a list on this talk page. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A suggestion: nominators might want to be proactive about organizing this better. A list won't make sense when some things need to be done before others.  Organization and sourcing, for example, needs to be sorted out before prose concerns (for example, it doesn't make sense for prose people to comment on text that might change).  A more helpful first pass (after everyone has had a break, since many people are off for the summer, and this one article really depleted all of FAC and reviewers need to catch up on other neglected FACs) migth be for the nominators to sort and organize the opposes, set a working order (prioritize), and take it from there.  I'm not certain on this, but I suggest that organizational issues should be tackled first, sourcing second, POV should resolve during sourcing, and then prose and MoS review last.  Or something to that effect.  Asking everyone to list concerns now could result in a duplication of effort, since text will be in flux, and all of the objections are already listed on the FAC.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We do need a list of ALL opposes from remaining objectors asap, so that they can be organized and worked on systematically. We don't really want opposes coming in piecemeal, so the same things are being gone over again and again. Yes. I think we probably do need to look at factual opposes first, then deal with the prose concerns. But we DO need opposers' specific and detailed prose concerns that exist with respect to the article as it is now. Without that, we would be working blind. A lot of those objections were still FAR too vague at the FAC to be identified or worked upon. As late as yesterday, many people had still not listed all their specific objections to the text, or were talking vaguely about "examples" etc. We need the cards on the table now so that only a final polish is needed when this comes back to FAC. Xandar (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments posted by JBMURRAY

 * I provided my thoughts on the page to which Raul654 originally posted. And per SandyG, I agree that this should be the opportunity to do a thorough rethink of the article structure, in the first instance. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * JB and Sandy, Raul did not asd us to rewrite the article, he said he wanted all objectors to provide a specific list of objections for Xandar and I to address. We need that list to be able to do our part. As intelligent as Sandy's suggestion is, I dont think it is practical to tell everyone not to come give us a list until some other person has come by and provided thiers. To my knowledge there are not sourcing problems or organizational problems that were raised at FAC that were with merit. If Raul wants to see this article become an FA, it would really help if opposers were asked to read the FAC criteria and examine the article based on that criteria, then give their comments based on that criteria. NancyHeise (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, my suggestion would be that this would be an opportunity for a rethink, while the article is not under the glare of the FAC. Ideally, too, it could be a chance to work out a more productive relationship with fellow editors. For instance, I would definitely drop a note with Ceoil, for a start.  And perhaps there are others in WikiProject Catholicism who could help out.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to hear your suggestions on all issues. Thank you for speaking up. I just gave Ceoil a star for her help and I agree that it would be a good idea to ask for her help again. For more productive relationships with fellow editors, I am also in agreement with that. NancyHeise (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would hopefully see the article as on the Home Straight, rather than needing some sort of restart as jb seems to be suggesting. A huge reworking would risk losing all that we have attained so far through six months of FA work and a long period before that.  Of course now is the time to bring up issues with structure and concerns insofar as they reflect on or violate the FA criteria, but basically what we want to do is nail down all the remaining addressable objections concerned with the article as it stands and adress then systematically. And of course other interested editors are welcome to help. Xandar (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

JB Murray - your comment ("And per SandyG, I agree that this should be the opportunity to do a thorough rethink of the article structure, in the first instance. ") implies that you think a major rewrite is in order. Given how long and detailed the article already is, and how much work that implies, I'm reluctant to believe that is warranted or desirable. With that said, what specifically did you have in mind, why do you think that would be better than what we have now? Raul654 (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. (Mostly no.)  Here, as clearly and succinctly as I can make it, is what I mean by a "thorough rethink."  Obviously, other editors are free to disagree, or to agree with some of my suggestions and not others.  Some of the following is procedural; most is not.  Some suggestions may be more practical than others.
 * There should be a broader team of editors working on this article, and ideally the team would include some of those who reviewed at the last FAC. Obviously, this may not be possible, but it would I think help enormously for a whole variety of reasons.
 * The structural issues that should be re-thought include a) the placement and role of the "History" section; b) the content and role of the "Demographics" section; c) the overlap between the "Origins and Mission" section and the "Church, works of mercy, and Anointing of the Sick" section; and d) the possibility of a final section, perhaps on "Benedict XVI and the Future." But I think that the editors should be open to other possible structural arrangements.
 * There are a number of key sources that have caused much dispute at FAC. One is Vidmar; I would also add Norman.  And there have been many suggestions for other sources to use.  Plus there are problems about when to use which sources.
 * I don't think the above need necessarily involve major re-writing of individual sections. If anything, I think that changing the sources could be more involved than moving sections around (or exporting content to other articles).  On Mario Vargas Llosa we did such a structural reshuffle, in fact more major than this, at a late stage: it was almost solely the work of User:Lincolnchan98, and it was an inspired and very beneficial move.  I think that the editors should be open to such a move, though its precise details may be a matter of discussion and trial and error, and as such I do not want to be prescriptive.
 * Once that is done, then editors can work with details of prose and style. I expect that the article will not be ready for that for some weeks; I should be back from my imminent travels by then, and am willing to volunteer already to help with editing for criterion 1a.
 * I hope that this helps explain what I mean further. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Raul, We sought consensus to move Origins and Mission section after the last peer review and again at the last FAC. There is no consensus to move that section. Right now the logical flow of the page is this : 1. Where the church came from and what it is supposed to be doing (Origin and mission - to preach certain beliefs ) 2. What those beliefs are (Beliefs) (see structure of FA Islam this article follows that structure) 3.Prayers and practices and who makes up community of belivers 4. Demographics 5. History NancyHeise (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Again: This is the opportunity for a rethink. That means revisiting previous discussions.  Others have raised their concerns with the structure.  I am also raising my concern with the structure.  Rather than falling back on previous discussions, why not ask ourselves "OK, could this structure be improved?" --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, FAC reviewers have never asked us to remove the Norman book. It is a university press book by a highly respected author and church historian Edward Norman. No scholar accuses him of POV, only wikipedia editors here. Likewise, the John Vidmar book is a peer reviewed scholarly work by a notable church historian. Together, these two books represent an apologist view of Church history that is used far more infrequently than our sources that are considered critics like Duffy, Bokenkotter, le Goff and others. FAC criteria and Wikipedia policy require us to include this viewpoint and I have done so. Rarely is Norman and nowhere is Vidmar used alone as a citation, they are always a double to another source, usually Bokenkotter or Duffy to show reader that historians of various POV's agree on the article text (sensitive areas include the quotes from all sources). FAC reviewers who are asking for the removal of Vidmar and Norman do so for no justifible reason and would result in a page that is more not less POV. NancyHeise (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Re. Norman, please see mutatis mutandis what I say about Vidmar below. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) More generally, I am concerned that this discussion is being carried out as though it were the continuation of the FAC. People are being asked to state objections, and the article's primary editors are responding by defending the article as it (mostly) is already. I am not speaking here as an FAC reviewer. I am no longer an FAC reviewer, as there is no FAC to review. I am speaking here as someone who is simply suggesting ways to improve the article, and procedures to ensure that it is in the best possible state it can be before it is submitted again to FAC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A discussion should not exclude my opinion. NancyHeise (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course not. I am not suggesting that in the slightest.  What I am suggesting is that it be a discussion, rather than a series of objections (which could all too easily be read as aggressive) followed by defensive comments.  This is the pattern we've had at FAC.  Let's change it.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * JB, my comments are not made in a spirit of controversiality - I guess I need to include more smiley faces at the end of my senteces or something :) NancyHeise (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a fan of the smiley. :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * While a little necessary reorganisation is not beyond the scope of this review, the primary mission as suggested by the FA Director, is to consider remaining objections to the existing article on its way to FA status. As I stated above, we are not in the business of trying to re-write the article again from scratch. There is no need for this. When editors of the article respond to objections and suggestions, this is not about being "defensive", it is about finding the best wording for the article and deciding whether or not a particular suggestion a) improves the article, b) is factual and verifiable, c) is right to be included/excluded on the basis of Due Weight and balance with respect to the subject matter. As I have posted in the section above, removing the History section is not practicable or desirable. Even though Islam and Christianity have main history articles, they still require significant History sections within the core article. Xandar (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought the goal was to get this topic to pass FA. At the current response rate, I do not see that happening; some of the objections cannot be met with only a bit of prose tweaking. Karanacs (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The comments of most reviewers were that if the article was not FA standard, it was pretty close. In other words, we do not need massive article re-writing. The object here is to find what genuine and justifiable objections remain that stop the article reaching FA status. In other words, assessors needs to show that specific POV matters need correcting by reference to scholarly sources, what specific textual matters need correcting, or where factual errors or important omissions exist. A requirement for a huge re-write would need exceptional justification. Xandar (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) Again, I am most definitely not suggesting "trying to re-write the article again from scratch." Please stop claiming that I am. That is a misrepresentation. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You may not have suggested that in so many words, but the suggestion to cut out half the article - namely the History section - would amount to the same thing. Removing the history section would still leave certain historical topics which would have to be covered in the main RCC article somehow things like Origins, Great Schism, Reformation, Modernism etc. So we would end up having a smaller History section AND a diversion (as has happened with Islam and Christianity. In addition many other issues of importance (eg Monasticism, Art, Architecture, Inquisitions, heresies, Liberalism, Traditionalism, anti-clericalism, Communism, Fascism, Liberation Theology, Development of the Papacy, Foreign Mission, Infallibility, etc. etc.) are dealt with in the History section. All of these, and more would have to be dredged out of the History section and re-written elsewhere in the article - in other words, a virtually complete re-write. Xandar (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

POV Quote of Pope Benedict XVI? --:))) (Comments posted by AMBROSIUS2007)

 *  Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A quotation of Pope Benedict XVI in this article on the Roman Catholic Church was removed with the threat of a POV. It will be restored in due time. A papal quote of the Pope in this topic is more than appropriate, provided it fits in the overall context. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This way of going about things ("It will be restored in due time") doesn't really help, as it encourages the notion that this is an antagonistic, rather than a collaborative process. It also really doesn't prepare the ground well for a future FAC.  Again, I agree that it would be nice to have a concluding section; but as I have said, I do have problems with the particular concluding section that you suggested.  (And I wasn't the person who deleted it from the article.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What quote? NancyHeise (talk) 06:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This one. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I see. As a Catholic, I agree with Pope Benedict on all points (and I like him very much) but I think that inclusion of that quote would make our article appear propaganda - ish instead of encyclopedic. We have to be careful to fulfill the meaning of an encyclopedia without crossing the line to propaganda. Notable facts are key. Where a quote will help make clear to reader the substance of a notable fact, we include the quote. My personal favorite quote from Benedict was during his first speech after his election he said "The Church is alive because Christ is alive!". (I agree with him wholeheartedly) I wish there were some place to include that quote here but I am sure it wouldn't go over too well with the FAC people. Making FAC people happy is turning out to be quite a difficult task! :) NancyHeise (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great quote! Thank you for sharing it. My favorite of Pope Benedict's is here. I know this is off topic, but I do enjoy the wisdom shared in quotes from great people. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think Pope Benedict is a little underestimated onn some of the things he says. Because he isn't as charismatic as Pope John-Paul, people tend to see him as this grey administrator. Xandar (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent quote Storm Rider. Xandar, in the US, his visit was televised on all major news channels. They all showed the entire papal Mass wherever he happened to be celebrating it. I was astonished at his welcome by the people of the United States. I have never seen anyone's visit covered so extensively or anyone welcomed more warmly by everyone from the President to the average person on the street than Pope Benedict. His visit truly had an earth shattering effect here for everyone Catholic and non. I did not get to see him except from the television. I was travelling and I watched one of the papal Masses from a television at a US airport set to one of the major news channels, I think it was CNN. NancyHeise (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I think us older models remember the equally warm 1979 welcome which John Paul II received in the US. all went well, until that idiotic nun in Washington D.C. accused him of sexism in front of nation-wide TV cameras. JP sitting in his chair, acted as if he was sleeping. -:)) This reminds me of another nice JP story in 2004 in St. Peter. The old Pontiff sitting half asleep in his chair listening to an endless sermon of Bishop Marx (now in Munich). Vatican officials tried to tell the good bishop to come to a close, to no avail. So they turned off his mike. The Pope smiled: "Marxism finally kaputt" ... Thanks Storm rider, very nice quote. This confirms Cardinal Friedrich Wetter's label of  Benedict as "The Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart of theology"  --Ambrosius007 (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

←At least he's not the mass-murderer that the previous one was. Here, I'm being deliberately provocative, and my purpose is to bring to the foreground the fact that your article, IMO, does not give adequate coverage of the many social and policitical issues surrounding the RCC. Polly Toynbee, granddaughter of the great British historian, has her biases, but needs to be answered. I remember this memorable article in which she reflects on the funeral of the previous vote-winner. TONY  (talk)  07:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, please be professional about this. I understand you have deep hatred for the RCC that you don't hide - at least you're honest which I like. The controversy described in your link to an unusable opinion column is already included in the article text under Vatican II. We have omitted no notable controversies. Calling the previous pope a mass murderer would probably cross the NPOV line for a neutral Wikipedia article. No one was forcing people to have sex with AIDs sufferers. NancyHeise (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Before things escalate, I would like to remind all editors about Wikipedia policy. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Improvements ?

 *  Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Xandar wrote above:::Yes. We really do need a comprehensive list of specific objections from remaining objectors. Xandar (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I agree, although it will never be possible to make everybody content on such a huge undertaking as this one.

**List for possible improvements


 * Sexual behavior Tighten, shorten sex and sex abuse scandal §, as this is an article about the Roman Catholic Church and not some problems of the Church mainly in the USA, the info on which is incomplete: it does not mention the 1992 incidents and resulting reforms of the USCC.
 * I have suggested a rewrite of this paragraph a couple of sections above. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Catechism Indicate in a few words achievements and possible shortcomings of the post Vat II era such as regained clarity: 1992 Catechism, and vocal opposition.
 * Supportive mains Some sections refer to mains which are not really supportive of the text and only vaguely related. Other sections do not list any mains. We need a list of topics of articles to be added or written, to support and expand on this article.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Very useful suggestions. I think we will probably have to archive this talk page, though, and start a new one with all objections/comments/suggestions on one page. Xandar (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow and someone else suggested we write a conclusion for the article. I have some ideas and will put something together but we should all collaborate on such an effort. Maybe mention of the fact that there is no earthly institution that has lasted as long as the Church or any that holds such an international position as evidenced by its seat on the United Nations. Perhaps mention of Robert Novak's conversion to the Church and his statement that said something to the effect that with all the scandals the church has seen throughout its history, that it must be divinely ordained to have survived this long. (actually I just searched for that online but could not find that exact statement but I did provide a link to his conversion story above) Or we could mention the charity works, I am ordering a book that gives church statistics that may help. I think a nice overview of this type would appease some reviewers concerns that the article ends on kind of a POV note with the US sex scandals. NancyHeise (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that WP articles don't have conclusions. In general this is for good reasons, which are tied to the WP goal of NPOV: they do not make an argument, so do not in that sense need to conclude.  However, sometimes this does make for at best abrupt endings.  I would say that a final section for this article would say something about the transition from JPII to Benedict, and the state of the church at that point.  It would mention the controversial aspects of that transition (many people expected a Latin American; Benedict's WWII past), but also the positive fact that JPII left the church in much better health then he found it, as well as that Benedict has started out fairly cautiously.  One might mention the small furore about Benedict on Islam, and indeed that the relation between the church and Islam may well prove to be one of the themes of coming years.  I dunno, something along these lines is what I'd suggest. Something that takes stock and looks to the (near) future. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is far too early, writing about the pontificate of Benedict XVI.(who by the way is cleaning up the mess of his predecessor in several areas).   A small friendly reference or quote from him would be a nice ending to this  truly  great article --Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am open to all ideas on a closing section. This was recommended by several editors and your points here are very good ideas. I am sure we will all be able to come up with something acceptable if we put it all on the table and piece it together from there. Thanks for your suggestions, JB. NancyHeise (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have ordered a new book that supposedly gives a global view of the Church including its schools, hospitals and missions. I would like to take some time to go through this (when it arrives) and maybe consider a closing section that includes this information that several editors have asked for the article to include. I think it would make a nice closing and you all can add your particular desires stated above to round it out. Give me some time here. NancyHeise (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Beliefs (Comments posted by IOANNES PRAGENSIS)
I am not happy with the part entitled Beliefs. In my opinion, it has the following problems: It is impossible for me to support the FA status of the article until this will be solved.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Level of explanation: it only summarizes important RC beliefs like a short catechism, but the text should have a university level: it should present not only facts, but also the history behind them, conflicts surrounding them, dates and names of authorities who formulated the key dogmas. Moreover it shoud make more clear what is a "specific" RC teaching, and what is common with other Christian churches. It should concentrate more on the specific RC beliefs (eg. Mary, Pope) and only mention the common Christian "base" (eg. Trinity, Baptism).
 * Organisation of the chapter: Should follow the traditional outline of RC Systematic theology books. That is eg.: 1) Methodology / sources (Bible, Tradition, Magisterium) 2) God/Relevation/Trinity 3) Man/Sin/Salvation/Jesus 4) Church/Christian life/Eschatology
 * References and sources: It almost does not cite the university-level books about the subject. It is impossible to find names like Henri de Lubac, Hans Küng, Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger, Edward Schillebeeckx in the references, who are/were the real experts in this field - we have only lots of citations from the Catechism and its derivatives...
 * While I agree with many of your points, I think this article is probably not the best place to include all of the history and conflicts surrounding each of the beliefs. The beliefs section is supposed to be a summary of Roman Catholic theology, which might be a better place for more detailed information about how the beliefs came to be widely accepted. Karanacs (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, it is impossible to compress it all in one single article. The presentation must be very selective and link more detailed articles. But even the short presentation should read as a part of a university lecture and not as a part of parish preparation for the first Holy Communion with 12 years old children.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any policy or guideline that sets out exactly what the desirable level of articles is, but I think most Wikipedians are aiming at a level somewhere in between these two, or at least if a university lecture, not one for theology students. From Writing better articles:"Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and worldviews. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to fully explain the subject."  Almost the only thing not complained about by anyone in the last FAC (as far as I recall) was the tone or level of the text, which seems to me carefully pitched at the same level throughout, and at a similar level to other articles with a lot to get in. WP:SUMMARY is also relevant here. As Karanacs says, Roman Catholic theology and similar articles are the right place for the great majority of what you mention above. Johnbod (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree there. A lot of 12-16 year-olds do read Wikipedia. Our target audience is ordinary, curious people - not Theology graduates! For those seeking to go deeper into Theological concepts, there are other articles. Xandar (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Karanacs, Johnbod, and Xandar. Comments in the previous FACs directed us toward a definition of RCC geared to the reader who knows nothing about it, not the theology graduate. The issues raised by Ioannes Pragensis would be more appropriately dealt with in the Roman Catholic Theology article - I was going to work on that one when we got through with RCC (if that ever happens!) :) NancyHeise (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) I agree with Johnbod about the level and target audience for Wikipedia articles. On the other hand, I do agree with Ioannes's third point, about sources. It is at least expected (I think) that writers of Featured Articles have consulted the most important sources in the field. Their job is then to translate those sources for a general audience. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * JB - what sources do you want us to use? We are already using many of those used by EB and all meet top criteria per WP:Reliable source examples. Ioannes Pragensis mentions use of Hans Kung for Beliefs section - he was banned by the Vatican from teaching Catholic theology - I do not know what kind of Beleifs section we will end up with if we start using banned theologians. The sources we used are third party, university professors books with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur designations. We can have banned theologians books to create beliefs or those deemed by the Church to be free of moral and doctrinal error - I think the latter would be more appropriate in creating a factually accurate, error free Beliefs section. NancyHeise (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. Here my point was in fact general, not specific: I was agreeing with Ioannes's general point about the kinds of sources that WP articles could use, while agreeing with Johnbod about the level and target audience for WP articles.
 * But on specific sources, here's another way of looking at things: rather than arguing for or against Vidmar (or Norman, or whoever), because that argument has gone on far too long, I think... Let me ask you whether you think Vidmar is essential?  What if, for some reason, you were unable to use Vidmar's text.  Would there be other sources you could use?  What would they be?  It's rare, in my experience, especially for such a broad and important topic as this, that any one secondary source is absolutely essential. I personally have no thoughts on Vidmar, for or against.  (I do have opinions on Norman, or at least the way he's used; let's put that aside for now.)  But given the amount of opposition that the reliance on him is causing, if I were working on this article, and whatever I thought about his book, I would look for other sources. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel misunderstood :-) I do not say that the text should be too complicate or highly technical. I only think that the point of view or the article should be "academic" (see things in context, use university-level books, compare with other belief systems, enable reader to understand how the RCC theology "works", be systematic). Compare it with the similar article about Islam: although still far from perfect in my eyes, it does not simply repeat the Five pillars, but gives a comparison with other religions ("Muslims believe that parts of the previously revealed scriptures ... had become distorted—either in interpretation, in text, or both."), describes how the doctrine was established ("It was compiled in the time of Abu Bakr, the first caliph, and was standardized under the administration of Uthman, the third caliph.") and says us, how the different sources of doctrine relate ("The Sunnah is seen as crucial to guiding interpretation of the Qur'an"). Nothing too technical. If it is possible for Islam, why not for RCC?--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an example or two of a specific change that might be made to this article? That might help make sure that we are all thinking along the same lines. Karanacs (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Karanacs, Johnbod, Xandar and NancyHeise.  However, to illustrate my above point on main articles, the persons and topics  mentioned could make  interesting main articles, giving the reader a choice to expand even further.  --Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should have more main articles. We were going to update and improve Roman Catholic Theology when we finished with this one but that will have to wait. This article serves as a hub for all other articles on Wikiproject Catholicism and I am all in favor of providing the links in this article that will lead reader to all the others. Thanks for your comment. NancyHeise (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * @Karanacs: Take for example the first few sentences: "The Catholic Church's beliefs are detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Catholic teachings have been refined and clarified over the centuries by councils of the Church convened by Church leaders at important points throughout history. The first such council, the Council of Jerusalem, was convened by the apostles around the year 50. The most recent was the Second Vatican Council, which closed in 1965." I would write something like (and sorry for my bad English): "The core Catholic beliefs, similar to those of other Christian churches, are based on the Bible and the tradition of early Christian councils and theologians, called Church Fathers. These beliefs are interpreted by bishops (called Magisterium in this role) and theologians. In some disputed or important cases, councils or popes formulate some beliefs as dogmas, that is binding formulations believed to be infallible. Since 16th century, many Church authorities produced summaries of doctrine called catechisms, most autoritative being the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) and the current Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992)." I think that this gives much more detailed overview over the sources and internal workings of RC doctrine without being too technical.
 * @NancyHeise: I would say that the banned Hans Kung is not only acceptable here, but rather desirable. Because we are trying to acheve not only the correct picture of the RC teaching, as you mention, but also WP:NPOV: therefore important dissident voices should be heard. We cannot base the whole chapter only on the materials of the official church itself. Of course, one must clearly state what says Kung and what says the pope if there is a difference between the two.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ioannes: I'll take another look at Islam. but your suggested revision (above) does raise a lot of new problems, which arise from trying to define things on the run. 1. Core Catholic beliefs may be similar to other Christian churches - but which beliefs are similar, and which aren't? The reader wouldn't know this. 2, Tradition is not made up just from the Councils and Church fathers. 3. The passage would give the impression that infallible dogmas are just produced out of the blue by Councils and Popes - which, is of course, not the case. I have sympathy with your ideas on organisation of the section, but re-writing as you suggest would cause a lot of headaches such as those above. To explain these things properly within the paragraph would require a lot more text.
 * On Kung, I'm not sure what view of his you consider important enough for an individual mention in this article. It already mentions that his views on the Incarnation and Infallibility were condemned. His books are popular in Germany and cause some stir in Liberal circles, but his teachings are marginal in the church. Xandar (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Xandar: 1. Relation to other churches - I believe, that the reader should be informed (later in this chapter) about the most important similarities and differences. Not in the very first sentences, but later. 2. Of course, but I do not intend to say it. The sentence says only that the early councils and theologians are the heart of the tradition. 3. OK try a better formulation or explain later in more detail. Kung: He is by far not marginal here in continental Europe, but I do not know the situation in USA. In every case I do not think that the problems with Kung deserve much mention in the text, I only suggest to use his (and other known experts) books as source instead of the present literature.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can not use Kung as a source because he is banned by the Church from teaching Catholic theology. The sources I have used are written by University professors of theology and their third party published works have Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur declarations by the Church which means that the Church declared them to be free of doctrinal or moral error. When creating a section like Beliefs, I must use such books with these designations or I risk creating a Beleifs sections with errors. NancyHeise (talk) 03:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * NancyHeise, please consider these things: 1. We are on free Wikipedia here, not in the church, and therefore church bans are not relevant as a criterium for selection of sources. I tend to stress the opposite: as we try to acheve WP:NPOV (one of the most often cited problems with this article!), we need also sources independent on the church itself. 2. Even works with Imprimatur can contain errors, and they do (by the way, early Kung works were all published with Imprimatur). 3. The opposite is true, too. Revered books like the New Testament and works of Church Fathers were first published without Imprimatur. The same is true for many church samizdat books here in the former Communist Europa. The system of Imprimatur is relatively young and does not cover all published books. 4. Even with sources all Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, one can create a distorted summary of the RC doctrine just by dropping important features and giving undue weight to others. Which in my opinion happened in (y)our article, as I tried to demonstrate during the nomination.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, it was a frequently raised objection or query during the FAC that this or that might not actually be the position of the church. The language and style of the catechism is not exactly crisp, and being able to refer to Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, which after all exist for just this purpose, was I think useful, and will remain so. Otherwise you step into the "show trials of the scholars" we have seen with Vidmar, Norman, Duffy, Awa's guy from the Discovery Channel, and would certainly see with Kung (not himself the crispest of writers, as i recall). Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this article is alreay so long, that any addition must truly be an necessary one. If Küng, why not Bosch or any other Catholic writer who disagrees with this  or that? An article about the Church should therefore stick with Church teachings. The Church, as Pius XII said, always had a "lively public opinion", but to expand on this would be another atticle. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Once more: I do not think that we should unconditionally discuss Kung in the chapter. It is really not such important. We should mention Luther and Calvin here, sure, these dissidents are really too important for the current RC teaching to be dropped out, but Kung is still not neccessary. What I am trying to say is that we should use university-level references including perhaps Kung (and Ratzinger, for example; ideally they should come from all main directions to achieve neutrality) and that the structure of the chapter and its spirit should correspond with the whole RC theology and not only with a RC catechism. I do not speak about detailed themes of the chapter now, but about its sources, spirit and structure.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Peter Kreeft and Dr. Alan Schreck are our university level references. These are not pop culture books but serious works by respected university professors. They are third party published works, not self published Catholic Church sources (although we used the Catechism and Canon Law as refs too in response to Karanacs comments requiring us to show the link with official Church publications on Beliefs). The fact that they have Nihil obstat and imprimatur means that we can rely on them to be free of error in constructing an encyclopedia article that gives reader a summary of Catholic Church beliefs. The section already describes the differences between Catholic Church beliefs and other Christian denominations in the opening paragraph of Beliefs section. We do not need more discussion in beliefs section. The fact that there are dissenting theologians is part of the history section under Vatican II where Hans Kung as well as his dissenting beliefs are described. NancyHeise (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let us see. Kreeft, Catholic Christianity: 1. Kreeft is a philosopher, not an expert in Systematic theology, 2. The book describes itself as "summary of Catholic doctrine, morality, and worship in a popular format with less technical language," (from the Editorial review, on-line on Amazon.com) that means it is perhaps better than Catholicism for Dummies, but intended for the same audience. Clearly not university level reference. Schreck, The Essential Catholic Catechism: 1. The author really is a professor of theology, but at a small university and internationally unknown. 2. The book itself is at about the same level as the previous one: "This popular summary of the faith is designed for general readers" (from the Editorial review). Summary: Both books are one or two levels below the Catechism itself and bot are not acceptable as sources for serious academic work.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Both meet the requirements of WP:RS and top qualifications of WP:Reliable source examples. Dr. Peter Kreeft is a notable professor of Philosophy at Boston College, hardly an obscure university and he has written over 25 best selling books. Google books calls his book "This book is the most thorough, complete and popular catechetical summary of Catholic belief in print that is based on the universal Catechism." Use of his Nihil Obstat Imprimatur book Catholic Christianity is clearly appropriate for this article. Dr. Alan Schreck is professor of Theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville - one of the most respected Catholic universities in the United States. His Nihil obstat, imprimatur book The Essential Catholic Catechism also meets WP:RS and WP:Reliable source examples top qualifications and is also clearly appropriate for this article. According to Google books "While intended for all readers, the book is especially valuable for inquiry classes, candidates and catechumens in the RCIA, pastors, teachers and...".   These books are used by university students as references. I am not sure which Wikipedia policy you think I am violating by using them but please point out to me the written Wikipedia standard you are using for the article. NancyHeise (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are probably not violating any formal standards and moreover I am not inquiring it. Do not take it too personally. I am interested in the Wikipedia article, not in you nor in the funny Nihil obstats and Imprimaturs. I am only saying that there are much better, much more academic sources in the field than the cited catechetical/introductory handbooks. And since "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation," (WP:FARC, introductory sentences) it should have the very best references. Nothing more, nothing less. I am not saying that you do it wrong, I am only asking why not to do it better. --Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ioannes, the sources you suggested are not better than what we have now, in fact they are unacceptable for the Beliefs section here. You have a vision of what you think the Beliefs section should be that is not congruent with what all other editors want. Your ideas and sources are terrific for the article Roman Catholic theology but not here where we are providing for reader a basic summary of beliefs as the topic of the article is not Roman Catholic Theology but Roman Catholic Church, the institution. Based on that analysis, yes, I think our sources exemplify the best work and professional standards. NancyHeise (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think one of the main problems here is that we have different concepts of what the Beliefs section is for. The editors of this article, and many others, use the Beliefs section to set out for readers the established and formal teachings  of the institution or Faith concerned. It is not to set out the views of groups or factions who disagree with those beliefs or hold different ones. For this purpose alone, the sort of references we have used - the catechism, and books with imprimatur - are the best sources. Why? Because readers need to know what the Church actually believes and teaches - nothing else. It is in other parts of the article that differences and criticisms can be given due weight. This is largely the pattern followed in Islam, for example. Xandar (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Decadency in latin America (Comments posted by AGRE22)
This article has nothing, about the catholic decadency in Latin America.Pentecostals cult(or churches) are empiting catholic churches in Latin America, since at least 1960 decade.In fact, in 1958, catholic church had 25% of World's population.Today, just about 15% of World's population belongs to Roman Catholic Church.In 1950, just about 20% of babies were in islamic families.Today, more than 50% of babies are in islamic families.Only in Sub-saharan Africa has great catholic growing today.Agre22 (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)agre22
 * Pentecostals in SAmerica get a passing mention in the text. They can be overemphasized, and remain a minority group. Demographically we can easily add a line of figures of the distribution of Catholics by continent. Growth has been biggest in Africa, and I think Asia, but I'd have to check. Xandar (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a brief mention of the Latin American Pentecostals in the appropriate place; I disagree that much more is needed. As I've said, a concluding section could mention future challenges, including the church's relations with Islam. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I remember reading an article about Pentecostal movement tapering off in Latin America. It said that while Catholics may have left the Church to become Pentecostals, that after three years of it polls showed they returned to the Church. The article provided a growth chart for Pentecostals and that it had not grown in the past three years after experienceing a boom. I'll have to look that up. As far as percentage of world population. We have the statistics and the growth of the church in the demographics section. 17% of world population is RCC. In actual numbers, the RCC population almost doubles from 1970 to 2007. In 1970 it was 18% of world population. In United States it is 25 % of population. NancyHeise (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that it's a rather complicated issue, and varies a lot from country to country. Guatemala is a country in which the turn to Pentecostalism has been particularly marked, for instance, under rather unusual circumstances.  (Stoll, who wrote the book I cite in the article, is an expert particularly on Guatemala.)  The same is not true in, say, Argentina.  Brazil is an interesting case, however, where there is also the strong presence of various religions of African derivation.  Anyhow, the whole issue of Catholicism in Latin America is interesting and important, but deserves its own article; this one is long enough already. (Which is not to say, by the way, that what it says about the region could not be improved, as I've pointed out.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that kind of detail is best left to a daughter article. We are supposed to mention all controversies and notable events in summary form and then wikilink it to lead reader to greater detail if that is desired. NancyHeise (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC opposition comments summary (Comments gathered by KARANACS)
Raul and Sandy have both suggested that the results of the last FAC be looked at closely to see where the article should go from there. I took the liberty of summarizing the opposing comments from the last FAC and trying to group them so that it made the most sense. I am not trying to argue each of these points, just to cut through the 700kb of text into something workable. The reviewers didn't believe these issues were addressed, so they'll likely oppose on the same grounds next time. I'm not advocating that this all be worked on at once (I think you guys deserve-and need-a break), but I wanted to get it down while it was still fresh. Karanacs (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please keep this list intact, adding to the discussion sections below this section. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Prose flow, punctuation issues, and grammatical errors - This is the last thing that should be worked on. Before the next nomination we should specifically ask several users to do a copyedit.
 * Concerns about Jargon/church euphemisms
 * History section issues:
 * Several reviewers expressed concern that specific sources advocated a very specific POV, which leads to certain paragraphs tilting towards POV. It would be better to use either a neutral source, or at the very least make it clear that alternative viewpoints exist within the church. The combination of the examples made reviewers doubt the strength of the sources as a whole. Examples:
 * Norman's stance on liberation theology and the info from his book used in the Latin America paragraphs (I believe this was fixed, but this is an example)
 * Using a quotation book as a source - left open the potential for "cherry-picking", which is another way of saying tilting toward POV. Best practice - don't use quotation compilations
 * The Vidmar book is (and likely will again be) highly disputed because it is written by someone with a very particular POV and published by a press with a very particular POV. It would be better to use university press books instead if at all possible.  By relying so heavily on this book in the history section, the article follows Vidmar's views of what is important in the history without necessarily seeing what other academics feel is important.
 * Vidmar was also under attack because the book contained factual inaccuracies (albeit in the areas not used in the article) and has not been cited by any other authors, which means it might not be well-regarded
 * Several reviewers thought the text in the article went a little beyond the text in the sources. This can often be fixed by adding qualifiers (according to so-and-so) or being more specific.  In particular, this mentioned the WWII info, but might not be only there
 * Concern that the history section is misleading because the section omits religious decisions by secular rulers that had great impact on Protestant peoples by reinstating Catholicism (or it is too quick to distance the RCC from those decisions), while detailing religious decisions by secular rulers that had a negative impact on Catholicism. Several reviewers thought this gave the article a pro-Catholic POV and/or that it made it fail the comprehensiveness criteria.
 * Concern that the article does not mention (or only glosses over) negative impacts of various RCC decisions or reforms (such as the Counter Reformation) while giving more space to the positives - this leads to a pro-Catholic POV.
 * Issues that the history section presents some Catholic beliefs, such as Pentecost, as fact. People who are not Christian might not believe that Pentecost ever happened.  This gives a slight pro-Catholic POV.
 * Several reviewers at several of the FACs have expressed concern that the article presents the Church of Rome as a doctrinal authority. The fact that both sides of the argument can present multiple books to lay out their position means that the article should present both sides equally; some reviewers believe this tilts to the pro-Catholic POV.
 * Several reviewers have expressed concern that the article presents the RCC as THE Christian church in the first few centuries AD rather that give it the proper weight as only one of many sects. This could likely be fixed with more neutral wording.
 * Several reviewers have pointed to recent issues facing the RCC that are not covered well; among these are reproductive ethics, Christology, and the missionary issues facing the church in Africa
 * Concern that word choices used in the history section lend themselves to a pro-Catholic POV.
 * Coverage of the RCC's charity missions (and missionary work in general) should be expanded, or at least stronger language be used to convey how massive this is and what effect is has on local populations. (this could even be a good place to talk about the missionary issues facing the church in Africa).
 * The article glosses over the controversies related to Vatican II
 * Not added to the FAC, but adding here: 30 refs in the lead, including double and triple refs on individual clauses (typically only surprising or controversial facts are referenced in the WP:LEAD because it's a summary of facts already cited in the article).  Also, incorrect use of .  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem eliminating refs in lead except that we were specifically asked to put them there by FAC reviewers. The battle over the use of the term "official name" was quite lengthy and the three refs after it were put there in response to stauch opposition by several editors who could not provide a ref to refute the text. I think that elimination of any refs in lead will result in more of these types of battles in the future. NancyHeise (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of above points

 * Norman's book us a University press book and Edward Norman is an extremely highly respected scholar - no POV accusations lauched by fellow historians, only wikipedia editors.NancyHeise (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Many if not most historians have a particular point-of-view when they write a book. In the real world, this POV is not an issue; it is only an issue on WP if one POV is presented more so than another that is equally accepted in the real world. Karanacs (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Norman's book is only cited in few instances. Duffy, considered a critic is used twice as often as Norman. NancyHeise (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Balance is not just citing this scholar X times and that scholar Y times; it is making sure that the article text is representative of the consenus of scholars. If Duffy is used to cite non-controversial things and Norman is used to cite controversial things, that would be an inappropriate balance (I'm not saying that is the case, just giving an example).  To satisfy this type of objection, it will be necessary to look at everything that is cited to the source that is considered to have a POV and either a) make sure the statement is noncontroversial, b) make sure the statement has the consensus of historians, or c) include an alternative viewpoint. Karanacs (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Where can you point in the text that I have done what you constantly accuse me of here? You always say this but never can point to any factual inaccuracy or "inappropriate balance". NancyHeise (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The quotation book reference is a double to the reference to the Thomas Bokenkotter book. The Bokenkotter book is one used for decades as a text in many universities. The Bokenkotter ref includes the quote from the book that explicitly names all of the people named in the text as being quoted in the quotation book. There can be no accusation of cherry picking when two sources say the same thing. NancyHeise (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason why the quotation book can't be removed if the information is found in another book? Karanacs (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we can easily remove it but since it is in a sensitive section, we prefer to have double citations so we are not accused of "cherry picking" or other POV violations that we are constantly accused of. NancyHeise (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the book itself was the partial cause of an objection, I think it would be better just to take it out. Karanacs (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Vidmar book The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages by notable church historian John Vidmar is a peer reviewed work that meets WP:Reliable source examples as a top source. It serves as a double citation in every place it is used in the article text. Coupled with another historian like Bokenkotter or Duffy or Norman, Vidmar's book helps reader to see that the sentence being referenced is one that multiple scholars agree upon even scholars of varying POV's. Use of his book is essential to create the ability to say that the article text is NPOV, not built around historians considered to be critics. FAC reviewers who insist on the removal of this book do so in violation of WP:RS and FAC criteria. There is no wikipedia policy or justifiable reason for FAC reviewers to insist on this book's removal other than their own POV. NancyHeise (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in WP:RS or WP:WIAFA to say that a book must be used if it is peer-reviewed. Thus removing this book does not violate either WP:RS or wP:WIAFA. Karanacs (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No scholar accuses Vidmar of factual inaccuracies, only wikipedia editors who have searched in vain to find a bad review of Vidmar's peer reviewed scholarly work that was used in the article to satisfy FAC criteria. NancyHeise (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in WP:RS or WP:WIAFA that says we can't use this book. Removing this book just because some FAC reviewers have a particular POV is violation of wikipedia policy. I am supposed to use a book like Vidmar especially if he supplements the POV spectrum in an article that overwhelmingly uses sources considered to be from the critic POV. NancyHeise (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The bigger problem is that there is only 1 review of that book and it is not cited anywhere; that means that other historians are not relying on it. There are likely other books that could be used where a multitude of reviews exist, or where the other books have been cited by other historians, thus establishing that those books have more of a consensus among historians. Karanacs (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The bibliography of the RCC article is not lacking in use of other historians besides Vidmar. Vidmar is one of many. His book is peer reviewed twice as well as a googlebooks review. Vidmar is a very notable historian whose work is respected enough that he has been interviewed by television networks and is tapped by Smithsonian Institute to teach classes on Church history. There is no justifiable reason for me not to use his respected work. NancyHeise (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Norman or Vidmar should be huge issues now. Both fulfil FA criteria for sources, and both are backed up by other refs (One reason for the multiplicity of references in the article.) Unless people have objections based on areas they think the books are wrong, or where too much emphasis is placed on these sources, I don't think we can ban their use. Xandar (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I was asked on my talk page to register my objections from the FAC to the RCC talk page.
 * Many thanks to Karanacs for making the summary above. I could not do a better job than what she has done in detailing the issues!
 * The source problem has been summarised; it does not satisfy the criterion 1c and is not reliable. I will take another approach to illustrate the problem using a hypothetical situation. Take someone who obtained a history degree from a reasonable institution. He/she becomes a professor at a small private institution of his/her religious identity. A related supporting arm of the religious institution publishes his/her history book (for all practical purposes, this is a self-publication). The book is basically ignored by scholars (no reviews, no citations) except among those that subscribe to his/her particular brand of religion. The book has a clear POV toward that particular religion. Now if we were to cite this source for one of our featured articles, then the reputation of neutrality and quality of Wikipedia is at stake. There are many examples of this non-neutral, self-published type of publication. As an example, see here which is a book on Martin Bucer. The author of this book, David Lawrence, claims a Ph.D in European History from University of Kansas (Vidmar has a Doctorate in Sacred Theology). Lawrence is a professor at Lipscomb University in Tennessee, a small church institution similar to Vidmar’s Providence College in Rhode Island. Like Vidmar’s book, Lawrence’s book has a strong POV-orientation and there are no scholarly reviews. These books serve the purpose of "preaching to the converted". They should not serve as source material for our articles.
 * On a related note, I agree with jbmurray that it should be possible to write the article without Vidmar. I also agree with Awadewit that other sources (for example, the Cambridge History) should be consulted and used for the origin section. A major rewrite should not be necessary, but work has to be done in verification with solid sources. The use of the neutral sources should reduce the POV in the article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion of FAC opposition comments summary
Nancy, can you please leave Karanacs' original list intact? This will help avoid 700KB of unreadable opposes. I'm going to clean the rest up now, copying to here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Prose flow, punctuation issues, and grammatical errors - This is the last thing that should be worked on. Before the next nomination we should specifically ask several users to do a copyedit.
 * Prose flow, punctutation issues and grammatical errors were addressed by many experienced editors who have gone through the article in the past two weeks. NancyHeise (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Concerns about Jargon/church euphemisms
 * Concerns about Jargon - Be specific. NancyHeise (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Several reviewers thought the text in the article went a little beyond the text in the sources. This can often be fixed by adding qualifiers (according to so-and-so) or being more specific.  In particular, this mentioned the WWII info, but might not be only there
 * Text going beyond sources - Please be specific. Where has text gone beyond sources? NancyHeise (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Concern that the history section is misleading because the section omits religious decisions by secular rulers that had great impact on Protestant peoples by reinstating Catholicism (or it is too quick to distance the RCC from those decisions), while detailing religious decisions by secular rulers that had a negative impact on Catholicism. Several reviewers thought this gave the article a pro-Catholic POV and/or that it made it fail the comprehensiveness criteria.
 * pro-Catholic POV - One FAC reviewer wanted us to elaborate on the history of France in a particular section of history. It was elaborated upon in a later section in an area relevent to the history of the Church (Revocation of Edict of Nantes) - Text was added in response to this reviewers concerns. NancyHeise (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Concern that the article does not mention (or only glosses over) negative impacts of various RCC decisions or reforms (such as the Counter Reformation) while giving more space to the positives - this leads to a pro-Catholic POV.
 * Concern re article glossing over neg impacts of various RCC decisions or reforms (counter reformation) - Please be specific. What negative impacts of counter reformation are not discussed in the article. The FAC reviewer you mention stated that the Spanish inquisition was an effect of the counter reformation. This is a factual inaccuracy on the part of the reviewer, the Spanish inquisition was a secular inquisition and is covered in depth in the article. NancyHeise (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Issues that the history section presents some Catholic beliefs, such as Pentecost, as fact. People who are not Christian might not believe that Pentecost ever happened.  This gives a slight pro-Catholic POV.
 * Concern that pentecost stated in history section as fact - Pentecost is not stated as fact in history section. This is the sentence "The Catholic Church believes its inception occurred on the day of Pentecost when, according to scriptural accounts, the apostles emerged from hiding following the death of Jesus to preach and spread his message.[181][182]" The sentence clearly uses the word "believes". Should we not include mention in the history section of when the Church believes it began? This is an article about the RCC and that is an important fact to include here. NancyHeise (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Several reviewers at several of the FACs have expressed concern that the article presents the Church of Rome as a doctrinal authority. The fact that both sides of the argument can present multiple books to lay out their position means that the article should present both sides equally; some reviewers believe this tilts to the pro-Catholic POV.
 * Concern that text presents Church of Rome as doctrinal authority - The only reviewers making this claim are Awadewit and Vassyanna. The sentence about Rome being a doctrinal authority is referenced to three top sources, two university presses. No other editor has supplied any university press book (or any book university press or no) stating anything to the contrary. NancyHeise (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Several reviewers have expressed concern that the article presents the RCC as THE Christian church in the first few centuries AD rather that give it the proper weight as only one of many sects. This could likely be fixed with more neutral wording.
 * Concern over RCC being presented as THE Christian Church - This is what the text actually says regarding the other many sects "Although competing forms of Christianity emerged early and persisted into the fifth century, the Roman Church retained the practice of meeting in ecumenical councils to ensure that any internal doctrinal differences were quickly resolved.[18]" We have included this fact. NancyHeise (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Several reviewers have pointed to recent issues facing the RCC that are not covered well; among these are reproductive ethics, Christology, and the missionary issues facing the church in Africa
 * Reproductive ethics are discussed in Lay members, Marriage section as well as Vatican II and beyond section. Christology is not notable and missionary issues facing Church in Africa can be added. NancyHeise (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Concern that word choices used in the history section lend themselves to a pro-Catholic POV.
 * Concern that word choices in history section are pro-Catholic POV - Please be specific. NancyHeise (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Coverage of the RCC's charity missions (and missionary work in general) should be expanded, or at least stronger language be used to convey how massive this is and what effect is has on local populations. (this could even be a good place to talk about the missionary issues facing the church in Africa).
 * Expand coverage of RCC's charity missions. - Agree. NancyHeise (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article glosses over the controversies related to Vatican II
 * Concern that article glosses over Vatican II controversies. - Disagree, several paragraphs are devoted to this as well as wikilinks to daughter articles. NancyHeise (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note: These are not necessarily my concerns, but the concerns that were outstanding on the FAC page. Details can be found on those pages. These are likely concerns that will appear at the next FAC unless they are addressed to the satisfaction of the reviewers. Karanacs (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Jargon helpers?
Above, Nancy asked for help in identifying instances of too much jargon in the article. I think the article has tremendously improved in this respect in the last few months, but apparently there is still jargon that might be difficult for people without any knowledge of the Catholic Church (or of Christianity). User:Tuf-Kat was the one who primarily mentioned this at the last FAC, so he may be able to help. I'd also recommend personally contacting one or more of the people listed as Islamic experts at WP Islam. In particular, I've seen that User:FayssalF is a highly respected Wikipedian (I don't know the others on that list). Or you might leave a general message at WP:WikiProject Islam or WP:WikiProject Hinduism. These are users who are most likely to be unfamiliar with RCC practices and might be the best at identifying potentially problematic areas. Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On that note, maybe we should post a message to Wikiproject Judaism and Buddhism so as not to appear prejudiced. I am worried though that some may consider it proselytizing and I dont want to start some kind of online religious war just because we wanted to ask some non-Christians for their opinions on jargon. Maybe you know of some nice neutral editors of different religions that are not likely to turn the talk page into a blogosphere. That would help us to learn from their opinons without having to fight the non productive battles that we sometimes have to fight on this page - I could name some editors but I think that would be unprofessional. I think you know what I am talking about. NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't even notice WP Buddhism. I think you may be right in your concerns, and it would likely be wiser to approach individuals rather than the whole wikiproject.  I don't recognize any of the usernames on WP Hinduism or WP Buddhism.  Taking a look at the members on WP Judaism I see User:Orangemarlin - he is active at FAC and might be a really good resource.  On that list I also recognize User:Avruch; he's currently running as an administrator and people say he's really good at helping resolve conflicts (so hopefully wouldn't try to create one ;))  And from the WP Islamic one, User:FayssalF is an arbitrator, so if he had time and the inclination to help he'd likely be a very easy voice.  I'd say just be careful what the message says.  Maybe something along the lines of:  A group of editors is trying to bring Roman Catholic Church to FA status.  At this article's previous FAC there were questions raised about jargon.  As it is often difficult for people who are very familiar with a religion to recognize where we are using jargon, we are asking several people who have self-identified as members of wikiprojects for other religions to help us identify potentially confusing areas in the wording.  If you don't have time or would be uncomfortable reviewing the article, we understand.  However, any suggestions you can provide to point us to areas that need prose changes would be very appreciated.  Karanacs (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to respectfully disagree here, and will use this opportunity to raise a broader point which I've been trying (perhaps too subtly) to get across for a long time. It is *far* better to hash things out pre-FAC rather than have a Big Fat Nasty Surprise if the article is featured and hits the main page.  So far, this article (via FAC) has been exposed to a mostly sympathetic audience.  Nancy might not understand how unpleasant a mainpage bashing can be, or that it often leads to an extended stint at WP:FAR (that is territory that Mike Searson understands best).  I say expose the article now to as broad an audience as possible, to save trouble later.  And, I do wish Nancy and Xandar would understand that everyone is working together (the idea of editors vs. reviewers needs to stop) to assure that, in the event the article becomes featured and hits the mainpage, there won't be a nasty surprise when the article is exposed to a less sympathetic audience. Now is the time to get the issues on the table. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, Sandy is making sense here and I agree that we want all Big Fat Nasty Surprises to happen before the next FAC rather than after. I am willing to address that battle but I am not ready to do it until August. If nobody minds, I am going to put off the Jargon shopping at the various wikiprojects until I actually have the time to spend addressing the issues raised. I have ordered some new sources for this article and am going to be spending some time travelling and reading those books. I will update the article if I see anything beneficial. One of them should be helpful in creating a closing paragraph and insertion of info regarding schools, hospitals and other missionary works worldwide. Thanks for the advice. NancyHeise (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good thinking, Nancy; get as many ducks in a row as you can, but invite others in later when you're ready. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of FAC closure
The following message was left on numerous editors' talk pages:

 suspension of nomination
 * The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director because the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.
 * Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the re-start nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page.  Thank you. Xandar (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the FAC was not "suspended" because "the page had again grown too long"; it was failed, hence the term restart doesn't apply. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to argue over this - FA director said this copyied and pasted from   "Sandy asked me to look at this nom - apparently it had grown so large that it was interfering with her ability to load the FAC page. I've decided to fail this nom. First, I'd like to say I think the article is very good. It's long and somewhat over-referenced (although I don't consider over-referencing to be a major problem), but I think that's to be expected with an article of this visibility/notabaility/inherent controversiality. What I'd like to see from all the remaining objectors is a list of specific problems with the article in its current form. I'd like the nominators to take some time and address the remaining issues prior to renominating this. I do want to see this featured, but it's not there yet. Raul654 (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by NancyHeise (talk • contribs)


 * Please note the key sentence in the above I've decided to fail this nom. Karanacs (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ... because "it's not there yet". Anyway, Xandar has adjusted the message he's left on editor talk pages, so the situation is resolved.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the nom was most definitely closed as unsuccessful. It was not suspended. Raul654 (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The only reason given was size of the article. However the status on closing is not that important. What IS important is getting to the bottom of all genuine issues left unresolved so that we don't have another FAC of that length again. Xandar (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Promised research (Comments posted by AWADEWIT)

 *  Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Awadewit said she'd be back in a week with sources to support her insupportable position -that was two weeks ago. I cant work with this. - First, I already included a single source for my claims in the FAC - what I promised were additional sources. Second, I am extremely busy writing my dissertation and two conference papers. Many editors on Wikipedia ask me to review articles and I also edit articles as well. Please try to understand that all of us have multiple demands on our time. I hope to be able to get to this soon. The resistance I met at the FAC and the snide tone I encountered above, however, do not in any way make me want to dedicate my extremely limited time to this endeavor. I understand you are frustrated, but you are pushing editors who might otherwise want to help away. Awadewit (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All of us have time problems. If you are objecting to an article, and intend to keep your objection standing, you need to back it up. Article writers and editors do not have to accept your view of history without solid proof that it is accurate - especially when it goes against the majority of cited references. If you term this "resistance" perhaps you misunderstand the objection process. You did not withdraw your objection and provided very little to back it up. You should have done one or the other, and been prepared to come to an agreed consensus. Xandar (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than provide no sources, as you claim, I actually did back up my objection with reliable sources - both the points about the early church history and the point about the 18th century. Instead of constantly accusing editors of misunderstanding the process, you might consider carefully thinking about their objections. Awadewit (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Others asked us to do things that were unthinkable, like Awadewit's comment to eliminate the first part of the history section - something that is unsupported by any historian (whom she promised to come give sources to support her position that there was no Roman Catholic Church prior to the 4th century). - This is a gross misrepresentation of what I asked for at the FAC and I provided a source for my claims at the FAC. This is an example of why I am reluctant to continue any efforts to research and/or edit this article. Awadewit (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You said that you wanted the position that the Church didn't begin until the 4th or 5th century to be in the article. That is undeniable. The only source you provided was a single fringe historian, who has been connected with the Da Vinci Code, and you provided nothing specific even from him. This is not enough to alter the article to reflect a tiny minority position. You do have to ENGAGE in the FAC process. We are always glad of constructive help and criticism, and have taken many suggestions from FAC editors, but we cannot do your research for you, or accept your beliefs as facts when they go against the scholarly consensus. Xandar (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked that a misleading series of insinuations be removed from the article based on the work of a tenured professor of religious studies, Bart D. Ehrman, and I gave a reference to his published work. Yes, he has written another book assessing whether or not the Da Vinci Code is factually accurate. Check out his credentials and the reviews of his works if you are skeptical. I would never ask anyone to accept a claim without evidence and I am glad that you demand it as well. Since the scholarly consensus is that the Church did not coalesce until the fourth century, however, I am glad that we agree that this fact should be changed. For references, see The Cambridge History of Christianity (2006), Hastings, A World History of Christianity (1999), Frend, The Rise of Christianity (1984). It will take me some time to type out the relevant quotations on the article's talk page and I'm not sure how much research I am expected to do for you, but that is something to get you started. Awadewit (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Awadewit, Xandar is not agreeing with your position, he is disputing it, please read his response again. If you want to know how unlikely we are to use Bart Ehrman as a source, please read this article in the Chronicle Review accusing him of "scholarly malpractice". He is portrayed here as a radical historian who has been roundly criticized by his fellow scholars. In addition, none of your sources assert that there was no Roman Church before the 4th century. NancyHeise (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood me again - Xandar agreed that we should use the scholarly consensus. I pointed him to that consensus, which is that the Church did not coalesce until the fourth century, so I assumed he would want to use that consensus. Second, I see you have pointed to reviews of Ehrman's Judas book, not the book I was citing. I have cited a much less controversial book, with much less controversial material. You have now written "none of your sources assert that there was no Roman Church before the 4th century", but you seem to continually misunderstand what I am saying. Of course there was a Roman church. There was also one in Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, etc. As the books I am pointing to amply demonstrate, Rome was not the center of Christianity, but the RCC article suggests that the Roman Church was, especially doctrinally. That is what I am trying to change in the article - this emphasis on the Roman church being at the center of Christianity in the first four centuries - it was not. These books amply demonstrate that. I assume since you can confidently assert what these books say, that have said that you have read all of them? Awadewit (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We are of course happy to look at information you want to bring forward, though this will probably take a day or two. My understanding, based on the scholarly consensus, however, is that Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus etc all considered themselves part of the catholic or universal church with Rome as its centre. Xandar (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not seen evidence of this, actually. For example, in the second century Quartodeciman controversy, Roman authority was rejected. It is until later that Roman authority is asserted and recognized. Awadewit (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article text acknowledges the other churches and never says that the Roman Church was "the" center of doctrinal authority. The text says it was considered "a" doctrinal authority and the sentence is referenced to three of our WP:Reliable source examples top references to Edward Norman, John Vidmar and John McManners (quotes provided). Why should we eliminate such a statement coming from these top sources - John McManners book is one used by Encyclopedia Brittanica as one of their sources. Edward Norman's book is a university press as is John McManners. Vidmar provides yet another layer of scholarly opinion. NancyHeise (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See statements on sources below; also, it is the overarching tone that comes through the paragraphs - see the differences in our two versions, for example. Awadewit (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While those scholars do say what is in the article, if a large number of other scholars feel differently, then both sides should be included. That is the essence of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Karanacs (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * First, no scholar asserts that the Roman Church did not exist from the beginning. Second, we do not include radical opinions. If an opinion is so difficult to find that we dont even have any scholars or university press books saying it, then we dont include that opinion. I have repeatedly asked for some source to back up these claims but get none. Ehrman was Awadewit's best offer and he is not a respected scholar per Chronicle Review where he is described as receiving the harshest criticism from his fellow scholars. NancyHeise (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Origins and mission paragraph was recently amended to reflect this with a ref and quote from Duffy. NancyHeise (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want a review of the Ehrman work I was referring to, try the one from America: National Catholic Weekly. You might prefer Ehrman to the 1500-page, 2-volume Cambridge book I cite below. Awadewit (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The review, while complimentary to his exposition of the old texts, is not so complimetary about the arguments he draws from them, accusing him of using loaded language and creating "vast amorphous conspiracies." Again, Ehrman's is a viewpoint, but no more than that. Xandar (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Long promised research and suggested revision
The Catholic Church believes its inception occurred on the day of Pentecost when, according to scriptural accounts, the apostles emerged from hiding following the death of Jesus to preach and spread his message.[182][183] According to church tradition and many historians, the apostles traveled to northern Africa, Asia Minor, Arabia, Greece, and Rome to found the first Christian communities,[182][184][185] and over 40 were established by the year 100.[184][185] From the first century, the Church of Rome was recognized as a doctrinal authority because it was believed that the Apostles Peter and Paul had led the Church there.[15][186][187] The apostles had already convened the first Church council, the Council of Jerusalem, in or around the year 50 to reconcile doctrinal differences concerning the Gentile mission.[17] Although competing forms of Christianity emerged early and persisted into the fifth century, the Roman Church retained the practice of meeting in ecumenical councils to ensure that any internal doctrinal differences were quickly resolved.[18]

My first step in analyzing this section was to look through the sources:
 * Vidmar, John, The Catholic Church Through the Ages. Paulist Press.
 * From UserRelHistBuff at the recent FAC: "I have taken a look at the book through books.google.com and unfortunately, it is not a scholarly work. It is written for a particular audience in mind, it is not neutral, and it makes incorrect statements. He is a professor of theology, not a professor of history." - I agree with RHB. Awadewit (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Schreck, Alan. The Essential Catholic Catechism. Servant Publications.
 * I already stated at the FAC that the "History" section should not make theological statements - that is what the "Doctrine" section is for, so a catechism is an inappropriate source. Awadewit (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hitchcock, Susan Tyler; Esposito, John L. Geography of Religion. National Geographic Society
 * This appears to be a coffeetable book, but I haven't had a chance to verify that yet. I have to go to a separate maps library at my university. Awadewit (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Bokenkotter, Thomas. A Concise History of the Catholic Church. Doubleday.
 * This book has footnotes and an annotated bibliography. This appears to be more scholarly than the others. Awadewit (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Norman, Edward. The Roman Catholic Church, An Illustrated History. University of California Press.
 * This book has no footnotes and only a brief "Further reading". This is essentially a coffeetable book. It is not a scholarly book. Just being published by a university press is not enough to make something scholarly. Awadewit (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * McManners, John. The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. Oxford University Press.
 * This book is better than the Norman, but it still lacks footnotes. Illustrated, popular history books are not scholarly. Awadewit (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Two important conclusions stand out from this analysis of the sources:
 * 1) The editors of this article are using mediocre sources. If they aspire to featured article status, they need to do some serious research. They cannot rely on illustrated histories, which are not scholarly works, and they must dispense with sources that have been demonstrate to be subpar, such as Vidmar. I believe that one reason the "History" section is so poor is because it is based on this kind of research. If the editors really want it to improve, they are going to have dig in their heels and do serious work.


 * 2) These are all general histories. During the FAC, it was frequently claimed that the article reflected a "scholarly consensus". However, general histories do not establish a scholarly consensus and certainly non-scholarly books do not do so. Only experts in the field can establish a scholarly consensus. Therefore, I investigated what experts in the early history of the church have said about it to see what the consensus was. My conclusions follow.


 * I think your definition of "scholarly works" may be a personal one. Publication by a scholar or a University Press is by definition an indication of such a work, with or without footnotes. For example, the Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, without footnotes, is used as a source by Encyclopedia Britannica. The sources meet FA requirements. Many FA articles are sourced from websites and magazine articles. However if you have additional scholarly works to bring forward, this is not a problem. Xandar (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a personal distinction - I am a scholar and I would be laughed out of my field if I did not provide footnotes and a works cited. Furthermore, it is clear that you do not understand the difference between a "Works Cited" and a "Further reading". The Encyclopedia Britannica does not cite its sources - it gives suggestions for "further reading". Please try to make these distinctions. They are extremely important when trying to figure out how scholarly a book is. Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I began my search with The Cambridge History of Christianity: Volume 1: Origins to Constantine, edited by Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young (2006), and The Cambridge History of Christianity: Volume 2: Constantine to c. 600, edited by Augustine Casiday and Frederick W. Norris (2007). Cambridge collections like this are useful when beginning a quest for knowledge, since they bring together important scholars in a field. The first thing to notice is the structure of the book, which describes all of the different "Jesus Movements" (part 2) and all of the "Regional Varieties of Christianity in the First Three Centuries" (part 3). The structure of the book itself hints at the importance of the variety of Christianities during this time. In the section on "Regional varieties", for example, there is a chapter on "Asia minor and Achaea", a chapter on "Egypt", a chapter on "Syria and Mesopotamia", and chapter on "Gaul", a chapter on "North Africa", and a chapter on "Rome". Let us see what the "Rome" article by Markus Vinzent says:

It begins with its thesis: "The perspective adopted here is that Rome absorbed many cross-currents from around the early Christian world, and, far from itself generating or disseminating a specific theology, the Roman church was fragmented and subject to repeated internal upheavals in the first three centuries. Time and again, this church found itself affected by controversies imported by immigrants from around the empire." (397)

Here are some helpful elucidations:
 * Nature of early Roman Christianity: "Unlike Asia Minor or Egypt, Rome hardly produced its own Christian authors, Many early Christians of the first century - especially the leading representatives - were immigrants, as also most prominent theologians of the second and third centuries, some of whom stayed in Rome, or even suffered martyrdom in the city, while others only spent time there as visitors....This confirms the dominance of immigrants in the congregational groups. Even in the third and fourth centuries, Rome remained a place of debate, and a burial and pilgrim centre in elaborate catacombs, rather than a birthplace of theology." (399-400)
 * The article describes what brought the Christian community together and how different generations of scholars have described it. Nineteenth-century scholars believed it was institutions ("hierarchy, creeds, doctrinal statements, sacraments"), twentieth-century scholars beleived it was social forces such as "Christian ethic" and "missionary success". More recent scholarship, however, "has highlighted the tensions and struggles that arose from disputes" (400).
 * Quote from Peter Lampe in essay describing Roman Christianity as fractured: "Christianity in Rome flourished in several of the poorest and most densely populated districts...[It] indicates social 'fractionation' between many small cells that lacked central coordination" (400).
 * Differences between Christian and non-Christian sources: "Yet, the different groups certainly thought of themselves as cells of one church. Christian sources point both ot the unity of the church throughout the empire, and to the continuous tradition from the apostles through the named succession of the bishops of Rome. From early on, they claimed that the Christian movement was important and had an impact on the political scene. The bare support for this in non-Christian sources, however, makes us ask whether the Christian sources reflect more than wishful thinking or agpologetic, missionary aims." (400-401)
 * Description of Roman church: "Clement wrote to Corinth on behalf of the church in Rome as a whole, but probably there was no unitary congregation; rather, he was the secretary for a group consisting of the leaders of many scattered house churches. A variety of different Christian communities is attested by Hermas, who constantly please for unity. The mid-second century material suggests a number of small communities, based in households, only loosely held together, often led by immigrants. 'Schools', too, such as that of Justin, would have been house-based. This situation continued for a long period of time, with different congregations acknowledging one another by passing around a portion of the communion bread, but actually remaining farily independent." (404-405)
 * When did a monarchical bishop of Rome arise? "There was a long process before a 'monarchical bishop' gained supervisory authority over all the communities. Exactly when this happened is a matter of considerable debate." (405) Vinzent offers several theories which I won't go into here. You can read them.
 * With the election of Novation and Cornelius as popes, the church schismed. Some Christian churches supported Novatian and some supported Cornelius (411-412).
 * According to this article, "providing an example of the importance of the oneness of God's church, Cyprian handed to Cornelius' successor at Rome, Stephen, a tool which the Roman bishop would turn in his favour- the most prominent scriptural text in Roman church history. Cyprian quoted Matthew 16:18f....to affirm the importance of the one church that was built on Peter, the rock. Stephen in return insisted that he was the one occupying the seat of Peter at Rome." (411-12)

Here are some broader statements that put this in context from Bokenkotter as well as some statements to support the above view:
 * "The spread of the Church beyond Jerusalem occurred very gradually as the disciples carried their message to the numerous Jewish communities scattered along the Mediterranean coast." (18)
 * "It was at Antioch, it seems, that they took the revoltionary step that would have the revolutionary consequences for the spread of the Church and the history of the world. Here they first preached the Gospel to the Gentils and dared to baptize them. And they made this city the center of missionary work among the Gentiles." (18-19)
 * "The traditional Catholic view of the organization of the Church is that Jesus himself organized it by appointing the twelve apostles and giving them authority to assume control of the Church after his death. This is the picture presupposed and developed by Luke particularly; but many scholars, including some Catholic ones, view this conception as a retrojection of the alter-developed Catholic system into the primitive era. To mention only one objection to the traditional view: If the twelve apostoles were put in charge by Jesus, why do they so completely disappear from the subsequent history of the Church? Many historians, therefore, prefer the theory that the primitive Church only slowly organized itself and shaped its system of authority in response to a variety of situations that existed in different localities." (30)
 * In order to combat what they viewed as heresy, the Church developed a three-pronged approach: "a specially commissioned ministry was established; an authoritative list of apostolic writings was issued; and a rule of faith or creed was drawn up" (32). The ministry was a system of governance was set up by 150 or 160 (notice how this author does not explain the various theories like Vinzent does - one hint that this is a more popular book). The canon was not finalized until 380-90. The Council of Nicea (325) officially recognized the primacy of the sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch (34-35).

I could offer more quotes, if you like, but they really do just support this same view of a fractured Roman church that only slowly gained authority over other Christian communities, and, frankly, I am tired of typing. Somehow we need to convey this idea. Here is a version of beginning of the "History" section, that I think better reflects both the sources I found and the material I read in the best of your sources:

''During the first century, small Christian communities spread out across the Mediterrenean from Jerusalem. They communicated by letter and slowly began to form a cohesive whole. At the center of the Roman Empire, Rome received many immigrants from these new Christian communities, who formed a variety of religious groups and academic schools, often with differing and sometimes contrasting beliefs. While these groups in Rome often varied theologically and were only loosely connected together, they may have considered themselves part of one larger group. It is not clear when the bishop of Rome became a dominant force over the entire Christian community, but it 325 the Council of Nicea officially recognized the primacy of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch over other Christian communities.''

Shall we revise together? Awadewit (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Awadewit, first I would like to address your attacks on our sources.
 * Hi. Could you phrase this better, Nancy?  Rather than calling the work that Awadewit has done an "attack," perhaps better a "critical evaluation."  Note that she evaluates each source differently; it's certainly not a blanket attack.  You may disagree with some aspects of her evaluation.  But you'd be getting onto a better footing if you were'nt to characterize it as an "attack." (By the way I am so impressed at the effort she has put in.  That would seem worth acknowledging.)
 * Also about sources, see the note I left, and to which I've referred now several times. Are (say) Vidmar and Norman essential to this article?  If so, how?  What do they provide that no other source could or would? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * JB, per WP:NPOV:

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority." We are required to present the Catholic apologist view of Church history which Edward Norman and John Vidmar offer uniquely that no other historian source offers. This is not a fringe or tiny minority view, this is a significant POV that this Wikipedia policy requires us to include. NancyHeise (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Nancy, I'm aware of the policies, both relevant and irrelevant. Again, the point is that I'm suggesting you do not characterize Awadewit's comments as an "attack" on this article's sources.  If we continue thinking in terms of "attacks" and (so) "defences," the discussion gets polarized.  You do not have to agree with Awadewit.  But it would be of great benefit to this article if you could work together.  Please note that Awadewit has offered to collaborate with you.  I strongly suggest you take her up on this.  She is one of this encyclopedia's very best article writers.  Frankly, if you and she can work together, then this article will fly through FAC.  Believe me. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Awadewit
 * RlHistBuf's concerns about the John Vidmar book have been addressed and refuted. There is no Wikipedia policy that would support removal of Vidmar and there are Wikipedia policies that require us to keep him. Specifically the requirement that we have all significant POV's of history included in the article. Per WP:Reliable source examples, John Vidmar is a notable professor of theology and Church history per his very reliably referenced Wikipedia page. His book, "The Catholic Church throughout the Ages" is a twice peer reviewed scholarly work with bibliography and footnotes. Although wikipedia editors here have accused his book of containing factual inaccuracies, please note that no scholar makes the same claim. NancyHeise (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That it is so easy to poke holes in his book, though, should alert us to its problems. There is no policy requiring us to keep factually inaccurate books. Why not just find a better source? Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please point me to the scholar who has poked holes in this book? No book review mentions any factual inaccuracies. Just because a wikipedia editor thinks there is a factual inaccuracy (there wasn't) does not mean a book is factually inaccurate. If a book has good reviews and meets WP criteria, we use it. If a wikipedia editor comes along and says it stinks and cant find any reference to back up the claim, we dont toss a good source. There has to be some scholar saying the same or else it is an unprovable claim as is the case with Vidmar. NancyHeise (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My concerns have not been addressed or refuted. You only claim the book is a good source arbitrarily by fiat. I have demonstrated errors in the book. You ask for book reviews that mention its inaccuracies. The answer is that, in general, scholars do not review non-scholarly works; in fact they ignore them. They only give positive or negative reviews in journals to scholarly works. The fact that the book is completely ignored by scholars is already damning evidence. In any case, based on the author's credentials and the publisher involved (see my statement above in the "Comments gathered by KARANACS" section), I have shown that the book is meant to push a particular POV. Several times I have been asked to place my objections on the table; I don't see much use in this if I get a "parrot" response back. Frankly, I am shocked by your rejection of Awadewit's offer to collaborate. Collaboration is normal procedure as the article is not owned by one or two editors. And you will be getting one of the best collaborators on Wiki. I strongly suggest that you take her offer (maybe after she has finished her dissertation though). --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If scholars dont review non scholarly works, and you state that Vidmar's book is non-scholarly, then why does his book have two scholarly reviews (one by Thomas Bokenkotter and the other by Graduate Theological Union of Berkley? ). Why also does it contain footnotes and a bibliography? You cant eliminate a perfectly good source without evidence to support your position. Inclusion of Vidmar as a source satisfies WP:Undue, one of the pillars of Wikipedia and one which he uniquely satisfies well along with Edward Norman. Together they represent what FAC criteria 1c requires. NancyHeise (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Edward Norman's book is not a coffee table book, see - it includes bibliographical references and index. . It meet all qualifications of WP:Reliable source examples. Edward Norman is one of the most notable and respected Church historians in the world, his peer reviewed book is published by a university press. Please also point me to the Wikipedia policy that determines whether a book is a coffee table book or not. Also please tell me which Wikipedia policy denies us the ability to use a coffee table book if it were?NancyHeise (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also please tell me which Wikipedia policy denies us the ability to use a coffee table book if it were? - This is an amazing response. We need to use the best sources, not mediocre sources, for a featured article. Furthermore, I have seen this book - it has a "Further reading" section with only a handful of books, not a real "Works cited" section - those are very different things. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why does this library call it a Bibliography? . NancyHeise (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because they make mistakes. Nancy, I have seen the book. Do you want me scan the page and send it you? Really, this becoming silly. Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Alan Schreck - is a Nihil obstat Imprimatur third party published book written by theology professor Dr. Alan Schreck of Franciscan University of Steubenville. It is one of the sources used for creation of the Beliefs section. The history section has one citation to his book where it states that that Catholic Church believes it originated on Pentecost. This is a statement of belief as well as a historical statement from the POV of the Church - which Wikipedia policy requires us to include. Elimination of this fact would make the article significantly violate WP:NPOV. NancyHeise (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is a good source for the "Beliefs" section - I have already stated that. The article already states the Catholic POV regarding the origin of the church - in the "Origins and mission" section. To confuse that with what historians accept in the "History" section is not a good idea. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Geography of Religion by National Geographic Society - per WP:Reliable source examples "There are many other sources of historical information, but their authority varies. A recent trend is a proliferation of specialized encyclopedias on historical topics. These are edited by experts who commission scholars to write the articles, and then review each article for quality control. They can be considered authoritative for Wikipedia." This is what Geography of Religion is. In addition to being a collaborative effort by over a dozen top university professors, it meet our own Wikipedia policies. NancyHeise (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * John McManners Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity is a scholarly work that Encyclopedia Brittanica also cites as one of its sources used to create its Roman Catholic Church article. Just because a book has picture does not mean its not scholarly. I dont think I need to defend John McManners anymore here. NancyHeise (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. Britannica lists it as "Additional reading". Furthermore, just because a book is written by a scholar doesn't make it scholarly. It has "Suggested reading", but no real "Works cited" and no footnotes, so it is not a scholarly book. Awadewit (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect, copied from the Encyclopedia Brittanica list of sources that were posted to the last FAC, it is listed as a main source see "Large-scale works are Hubert Jedin and John Patrick Dolan (eds.), History of the Church, 10 vol. (1986–89). John McManners (ed.), The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity (1990, reissued 2001), is useful. Roland H. Bainton, The Horizon History of Christianity (1964, reissued as Christianity, 2000), is a well-written, beautifully illustrated, comprehensive introduction to Western Christianity through the centuries and includes references to modern Catholicism worldwide"NancyHeise (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked the online version myself - in fact, I double-checked it. It is listed as as "Additional reading" and notice the wording here - it is describing to the reader how the works are useful. You do not seem to understand what an additional reading section is - it is not a list of sources used for the article. I am sorry, but you are just wrong and insisting that you are right will not make it so. Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thomas Bokenkotter's book has been used as a textbook in university classrooms for decades, since you don't have a problem with it, I will say no more. NancyHeise (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Eamon Duffy's book, Saints and Sinners, which is used for more cites than any other source in our article is also used by Encyclopedia Brittanica as one of their sources for creation of their RCC article. NancyHeise (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. It is listed as "Suggested reading". I didn't mention this, as it is not part of these two paragraphs. Awadewit (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect per which was posted to our last FAC to help us see what sources Encyclopedia Brittanica used for creation of its article. NancyHeise (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure why you are so invested in these sources. I am trying to help you see why these sources are not scholarly and why there has been resistance to them at FAC. Pointing out weaknesses in the article's sourcing is not an attack against you. Replacing weaker sources with stronger sources is part of the process of moving an article towards FA. The best articles on Wikipedia have at their foundation the strongest scholarship. Defending mediocre sources rather than replacing those sources when the opportunity arises will make it harder to make this article featured. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I could not agree more with Awadewit on this. And I'm likewise puzzled why you resist hearing what she is saying.  Again, do you really think that the sources currently used are essential? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not consider you sources to be stronger and your suggestion to eliminate both Vidmar and Norman would make the aritcle violate NPOV when these are both notable professors whose works meet top criteria. I am the one who is puzzled at your insistence. Your comments about Ehrman really puzzle me. Why would anyone use a book from an author who is recently accused of perptrating such a major scholarly fraud as the Gospel of Judas? This is a hot topic in history academic circles and Bart Ehrman is specifically named in the Chronicle Review as receiving the harshest criticism of all. You promised research to prove that the Church did not exist until the 4th century but your research proves that it existed from the beginning. Our text specifically mentions the gradual developement of the church as an institution - as your sources also state. Your sources have offered no new information. NancyHeise (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * All of my scholars are notable scholars whose books have bibliographies and footnotes as well as specifically meeting WP:Reliable source examples. JB does not like my use of the word "attack" but that is essentially what you have done by blanketly claiming that all my sources stink and yours are somehow better. If my sources meet the top criteria of Wikipedia policies, you can not come here and tell me they have to go. I have read your excerpts from the books you have chosen and do not see where we must make any changes to the article. There are no factual inaccuracies that you can point out to us or facts we have not included. The Origins and Mission section identifies for reader that not all historians agree on when the first pope emerged. Duffy is probably the most recognized and most respected historian and his view has been given more sentences on the matter. Your earlier assertion that there was no Roman Church until the 4th century is proved false by your own research presented here as well as by Duffy's statement that there was a "Christian community in Rome" before Peter and Paul ever got there. The fact that they met in homes does not refute the fact that this community existed and the discussion on when a first pope emerged is covered already. Why should be expand upon the fact that Christians met in homes? Does that somehow mean there was no Church? Even St. Paul's letters refer to these communities as churches even though they met in homes and Duffy expands upon this. I think it is off topic to go into more detail than what we already have in the article and your sources do not prove that there was no Roman Church but they clarify that there was no official Church building meeting place and what is already discussed in the Origins and Mission section cited to three of the world's top historians. NancyHeise (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * JB does not like my use of the word "attack" but that is essentially what you have done by blanketly claiming that all my sources stink and yours are somehow better. - This is untrue - I even used Bokenkotter in my presentation. Awadewit (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All of these scholars are notable scholars whose books have bibliographies and footnotes - They do not all have bibliographies and footnotes. I spent over an hour at the library precisely to check this out and detailed the results on this page. Awadewit (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have done my best to show you the difference in emphasis between the two versions of the opening. One emphasizes Roman Christianity and one emphasizes the diversity of Christianities from which a dominant Roman Christianity emerged. That is a significant difference. It seems to me that you have not read my version at all and are focusing on tangential quotations that I did not include in the suggestion but provided as background research as a courtesy to the editors on this page. When you have decided to calmly look at the proposal, please leave a note on my talk page. Awadewit (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Awadewit. You have collected some interesting research, and I don't want to comment in detail until I have had a chance to read some more of the sources you put forward. However as a preliminary comment, I can't see your sources saying what you are seeming to draw out of them. The Roman church was founded by immigrants, yes. Many theological ideas came from outside Rome. Nobody would deny these things. However I would certainly not find support for statements such as the one you propose saying "these new Christian communities, ..formed a variety of religious groups and academic schools, often with differing and sometimes contrasting beliefs." That is taking, to my mind, far too big a leap from the source material. I would be highly surprised to find a mainstream source which depicted the historic church as just one of many "contrasting" christian communities. That is a huge statement to justify. Anyway, I will see what I can locate of the Cambridge History. Xandar (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that the material does indeed support this view. I did not quote extensively from part 2 of the Cambridge History, which describes all of the varieties of the "Jesus Movements" (but I did mention it), and I tried to give a feel from the Rome article of the debate that took place in the city. I really am tired of typing. Please do look up the book. It is very detailed. When you have had a chance to do this, please leave a note on my talk page. Awadewit (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article text states that there were competing forms of Christianity. Why do you insist that we have not represented this? It is in the Roman Empire section of History. NancyHeise (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not what I have said. What I have said is that overall impression of these first two paragraphs is that Roman church dominates Christianity from the beginning. My version is slightly different and more accurately reflects the sources. There are subtle nuances that are important here. Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that The Cambridge History of Christianity: Volume 1: Origins to Constantine is 740 pages, and Volume 2 is 784. For the period they cover we need/can only fit perhaps 400 words. Such extreme summarization is actually better done by professional historians, in the shorter histories that are being used. With multiple authors, no doubt a thousand widely different summaries can be justified by references to the larger works, and using them can risk being OR. I'm not saying at all they should not be used, they should not replace the other books. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we are risking OR when I consulted multiple books and they all said the same thing (I just didn't want to type out everything). Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On that note let me offer what Eamon Duffy states about the Roman Christian communities that meet in different houses. Per his Saints and Sinners book that we use as one of our main sources page 8: "The Christians of the city were thought of by themselves and others as a single church, as Paul's letter to the Romans make clear. The social reality behind this single identity, however, was not one congregation, but a loose constellation of churches based in private houses or, as time went on and the community grew, meeting in rented halls in markets and public baths." This confirms that although these Christians met in different houses, they and others considered themselves a single Church. None of this is a point of contention among historians and our article text is factually correct. In addition, the article text has a whole section on the different points of view regarding the emergence of the Roman bishop or pope - see Origin and mission section. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC) NancyHeise (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We are now beginning to discuss what should be emphasized in the article - this is what I wanted to do all along. How should we discuss the emergence of the church? That is not an easy question. And by the way, they did not necessarily consider themselves part of the same church. For example, Peter and Paul themselves did not see themselves as part of the same mission. Paul was preaching to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. Peter did not believe that one could become a Christian without becoming Jewish first - there was a huge debate in early Christian churches over this topic. People did not agree. Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * People did not agree, but that does not mean tey were in different Churches. Peter and Paul disputed, but settled their differences and came together. Paul preached to gentiles and Peter to Jews, but as part of the same church. I don't see evidence for separate church bodies. Xandar (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to get hold of a copy of the Cambridge History quickly - it is not carried by our Library system and costs over £100 (or $200) per volume. However I see that it is not actually a narrative history but a long collection of essays covering different aspects of each period, written by individuals with differing viewpoints. A review published by the Society of Biblical Literature said "there is no continuous narrative. The interlocking topics create unavoidable repetitions. Although the volume conveys some basic information on each topic, it assumes an understanding of the broader outline of church history in the first three centuries and in some cases requires a rather advanced knowledge." In other words the book does not provide a complete or comprehensive overview of the early church. It leaves important material out, and may therefore not be a suitable principal source. This seems to back up the comments made by Johnbod above, that extreme summarization would be needed to make use of this source. I think we need to find something more accessible and comprehensive. The same sort of problems arose with relata refero at the 3rd FAC when he used opinions from a similar Cambridge compendium on South America. The essays in the Cambridge books seem to be places where people express advanced opinions rather than sources centred on providing what we need, which is a framework of solid, verifiable fact. Xandar (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course they have different viewpoints - all scholars do (I'm sure you realize that "scholarly consensus" is actually a very complicated thing and is built of smaller and larger agreements). Scholarly consensus is built from books like these, so if you want to see how the consensus emerges, you have to read these books, not popular narratives. To say that the book does not provide a "complete" or "comprehensive" view, though, is ridiculous. That is exactly what it does do: experts in each field have written essays on their area of expertise. One does not need a long narrative to achieve comprehensiveness. It is very bold of you to say that it "leaves material out" without having read it. I really tire of this endless debate over sources. The editors here defend non-scholarly works and then attempt to say that most scholarly works brought to them are "incomplete" and "not suitable". Such arguments are silly and only reveal ignorance of scholarship. If you want a more accessible book, that is another matter (and that is why I recommended Ehrman in the first place), but this book is fully comprehensive and one of the most scholarly works you are going to find on the subject. However, do note that more accessible books will not be considered as scholarly. Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was quoting a full academic review that said: "Although the volume conveys some basic information on each topic, it assumes an understanding of the broader outline of church history in the first three centuries and in some cases requires a rather advanced knowledge," In other words the book does not give an overview, or tell the whole story, it assumes that the reader already knows the basic facts. A problem I have found with this Cambridge series before. One therefore has to read the comments in them in parallel with the basic facts gleaneed from elsewhere. Xandar (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Further to the suggested passage from Awadewit above, this is the most problematic part: Christian communities, who formed a variety of religious groups and academic schools, often with differing and sometimes contrasting beliefs. While these groups in Rome often varied theologically and were only loosely connected together... It puts forward as fact what is very much a minority theory that the early church was little more than a loose collection of people with contrasting beliefs. Xandar (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a minority theory. This is a fact. In fact, the Bible itself demonstrates this. As I explained above, even Peter and Paul disagreed about who should become Christians. Then, take for example, the Marcionite controversy in early Rome. Or the Gnostic Christians. These kinds of details, available in the Bible, in any theological or scholarly work, demonstrate that there were contrasting views of Christianity at the time. Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, as with Justin below, the Marcionite controversy was a 2nd century thing, and whether there was Xtian gnosticism in the 1st century is certainly not an agreed matter. Perhaps your "During the 1st century" means "from", in which case I would be much happier with the passage. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have always thought, since Awa first raised it, that the difference between the various positions here is not as great as both sides tend to claim. In terms of the 1st century, the real evidence for what Roman Christians got up to, or believed, is surely extremely thin - was there then anything that could be really be called a Christian "academic school"? I remember, Xandar, you were insistent that groups such as the Gnostics were separate from a very early stage, in which case the phrasing becomes more appropriate. Myself, I'm not so sure. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In the essay I read on "Rome", it describes Justin Martyr as having a school. What you mean by "separate" is the key here. Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather neatly, he was born in 100, according to our article. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My problem with the phrasing is not that different groups emerged, it is that this passage assigns equality to the groups, in age, in legitimacy, in centrality, contrary to the evidence and to accepted history for nearly 2000 years. Mainstream history, backed up by the evidence we have from the period, is clear - that a core church with established Apostolic teachings existed from shortly after Jesus's death, and that while other opinions and groups may have arisen after this, they were divergences and break-aways from the central core of mainstream belief. What Awadewit puts forward in her suggested passage is very much a minority point of view, which I don't think has much solid support. As we said to relata, there are two levels of support needed for WP inclusion. 1) That a sizeable academic group holds this view - in which case it could go in as a minority opinion, depending on the notability of the group. 2) That there is verifiable factual proof of the events that support the beliefs of the people in 1, and overturn the facts already established. Only with 1 and 2 both satisfied can it be written into the article as a factual statement. (The only exception is when there is a clear academic consensus - which there is not.) Xandar (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But even the apostles didn't agree and what the "central core" was is anything but clear. This is a restrospective view of history - we assign legitimacy and centrality to the group that won out. For example, Peter's theology lost out to Paul's. The Catholic church doesn't make every male undergo circumcision as Peter thought they should! Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "verifiable factual proof" of any position as to the beliefs of 1st century Christians in Rome, and how much they were "loosely connected together" is surely extremely thin on the ground, and the latter phrase could mean many things. Both Awa's text and your remarks above seem to assume a distinctiveness to the "groups" at this period that I doubt the evidence justifies at this period, and you seem to be assuming that in effect only one "group" represented the RCC, which goes even further.  Johnbod (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, could you suggest a version as well? Awadewit (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please consider Eamon Duffy's statement per Saints and Sinners page 8: "The Christians of the city were thought of by themselves and others as a single church, as Paul's letter to the Romans make clear. The social reality behind this single identity, however, was not one congregation, but a loose constellation of churches based in private houses or, as time went on and the community grew, meeting in rented halls in markets and public baths." This confirms that although these Christians met in different houses, they and others considered themselves a single Church. I also found this nice link that gives commentary from some detailed historical records I recommend reading the whole page 200 at least. The book's author is a theology professor at Xavier Univ. but Theology professors teach Church history which is part of the Theology degree.  NancyHeise (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at Awadewit's suggested text for the start of the Roman Empire section, I would see something like the following being supportable from the sources that we have available:
 * The Catholic Church believes that it came fully into being on the day of Pentecost when, according to scriptural accounts, the apostles emerged from hiding following the death of Jesus to preach and spread his message.[182][183] According to church tradition the apostles preached in northern Africa, Asia Minor, Arabia, Greece, and Rome. [182][184][185] It is certainly clear that small Christian communities spread out across the Mediterrenean from Jerusalem in the 1st century, and over 40 had been established by the year 100.[184][185] They communicated by letter and slowly began to form a more cohesive whole. As the center of the Roman Empire, Rome received many immigrants from these new Christian communities, who were still often divided into Jewish and Gentile groups. 
 * ''The apostles had already convened the first Church council, the Council of Jerusalem, in or around the year 50 to reconcile doctrinal differences concerning the Gentile mission.[17] Although competing forms of Christianity emerged early and persisted into the fifth century, the Roman Church retained the practice of meeting in ecumenical councils to ensure that any internal doctrinal differences were quickly resolved.[18] From the first century onward, there is growing evidence that the Church of Rome was recognized as a doctrinal authority because it was believed that the Apostles Peter and Paul had led the Church there.[15][186][187]

In the first few centuries of its existence, the Church defined and formed its teachings and traditions into a systematic whole under the influence of theological apologists such as Pope Clement I, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr and Augustine of Hippo.'' Xandar (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I see that has gone in - it looks good to me. The crucial or potentially controversial part is "From the first century, the Church of Rome was recognized as a doctrinal authority because it was believed that the Apostles Peter and Paul had led the Church there.[15][186][187]" - the slightly stronger wording now there. The refs are Norman, Vidmar & McMasters (is it - Oxford Illustrated Hist). At least two have useful quotes at the ref. But this is exactly the sort of place where a ref to a really detailed source like the Cambridge history (or several) is needed. The ones now used can be rolled into one big note perhaps, to avoid a string of refs -  Epistles_of_Clement could usefully be linked. It seems to me the objections to the history section last time really boiled down to a few points like this, and the objections to using only general/concise histories at these points are not unreasonable - and anyway will clearly not go away, even if they are unreasonable.  I won't try a version myself, as awa suggested, as I don't have any of the same books, nor really specialised ones, and I hope that with specialist referencing on this point, this version should be generally accepted - "a doctrinal authority" is a very limited claim after all. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Linking Clement is a good idea. On refs. I can't get hold of Cambridge - probably for weeks, it would take an inter-library loan - and as has already been said, it has problems for use in this article. there doesn't seem to be the ideal text for disputed points readily available. I will keep looking. Xandar (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Although competing forms of Christianity emerged early and persisted into the fifth century, the Roman Church retained the practice of meeting in ecumenical councils to ensure that any internal doctrinal differences were quickly resolved" is misleading, surely? The first ecumenical council was in Nicea in 325, nearly three centuries after the meeting in Jerusalem. Before that there are regional councils, which continued to be how most disputes got discussed after Nicea. N p holmes (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The word "ecumenical" could be replaced. I can't think of an ideal word at the moment "ecclesiastical" maybe? "local and regional" might be more accurate. Xandar (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am copying and pasting the quote from John McManners who is not a Catholic POV source "^ a b c d McManners, Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity (2002), pp. 37–8, Chapter 1 The Early Christian Community subsection entitled "Rome", quote: "The 'synod' or, in Latin, 'council' (the modern distinction making a synod something less than a council was unknown in antiquity) became an indispensable way of keeping a common mind, and helped to keep maverick individuals from centrifugal tendencies. During the third century synodal government became so developed that synods used to meet not merely at times of crisis but on a regular basis every year, normally between Easter and Pentecost." This infers that these councils met prior to the third century as well as after. I would argue that the text correctly reflects the reference and eliminating it or changing it ( I agree we can eliminate "ecumenical") would be inadvisable based on the source. NancyHeise (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But the reference doesn't support the wording. For context, H. J. Sieben in Lexicon für Theologie und Kirche VI (1997) 345, s.v. Konzil writes of councils "belonging to the life of the church from the earliest period (in Asia Minor and Rome from from the end of the second century …, in North Africa from the middle of the third century)".  That's my translation of "Die seit frühester Zeit (im Kleinasien u. Rom seit dem Ende des 2.Jh …, in Nordafrika seit der Mitte des 3.Jh … z. Leben der Kirche gehörenden Konzilien." But I'll leave you to decide what's right. N p holmes (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

bibs and bobs (Comments posted by TONY)
Points from Tony—As I've said elsewhere, I think this article was getting close to the mark; but I agree with Raul's decision to archive, let everything cool down, and start with a fresh nomination after further tweaking. I think you'll find the next nomination less traumatic. A few points from a small portion of text, first half of this.
 * "Although the Church considers Jesus to be its ultimate spiritual head, as an earthly organization, its spiritual head and leader is the pope." Can you make it clear whether the middle phrase refers backwards or forwards? If the latter, removing the comma after "organization" might be acceptable to you.
 * Nancy did this. Xandar (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "The cardinals, who also serve as papal advisors, may select any male member of the Church to reign as pope, but that person must be ordained bishop before taking office." I pointed out the unnecessary contrast ("but") in this awkward sentence, but it remains. Is this code for "The cardinals, who also serve as papal advisors, may select any male who has previously been ordained as a bishop in the Church to reign as pope." Is there an issue with female bishops? Or bishops who've gone on to higher office and are thus no longer bishops? Unclear. The "but" has to go, I'd say.
 * Nope, "as any male member" may be elected, including lay persons and priests, the but must stay. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's actually a bit of "Did You Know? type information. Theoretically any male Catholic can be chosen as Pope, it doesn't happen but it could. The BUT means that a non-Bishop would have to be ordained and made a bishop, rather than that the individual could actually remain Lay and BE Pope. Xandar (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I see it now: potentially a two-stage process. But it's still not well expressed. "...., but if not already ordained as a bishop, this must occur before taking papal office" would be so much clearer (or similar, if you can think of a better wording). TONY   (talk)  16:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reworded. Xandar (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Men with transitory homosexual leanings may be ordained deacons following three years of prayer and chastity, but men with deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or those who are sexually active are not ordained." Sorry to be picky, but it's just told us that the Eastern CCs ordained married men (all branches, I presume); now you're telling us that they cannot be sexually active with their wives. BTW, who decides on the boundary between transitory and deep-rooted homosexual "tendencies"? And "tendencies" that are not acted on, but remain fantasies in the mind of a candidate priest, are OK? (BTW, most unfortunate picture adjacent.)
 * You're seeing things I'm not seeing. I'll have to look again. I don't think the point about transitory v deep-rooted tendencies needs going into further. On the eastern question, that needs a check. Xandar (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find any rule stating married Eastern clergy must be celibate. That certainly doesn't apply to married western clergy from other denominations who get special dispensation to become priests in the Latin rite. The point is about being actively homosexual. This probably needs clarifying in the text. Anyone can have a tendency toward a pattern of behaviour, but actively carrying out that tendency is the concern. This is because active homosexuality is extremely strongly condemned in both the old and new testaments. Xandar (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "The Church teaches that women have different yet equally important roles in Church ministry." This is perilously close to POV; frankly, I see it as spin by the Church, since women are as clear as the nose on my face not equal to men in the RCC; my face, anyway. This needs to be worded in a more neutral way, so readers cannot accuse WP of pedalling RCC spin on the role of women in the Church. I'm referring to the whole para of text about this point. And "all-male" doesn't have an en dash. TONY   (talk)  04:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, your last point is somewhat disturbing. If the Church teaches that ...(insert whatever), then it is not POV, it is simply factual. In this instance, the Church teaches that women have different roles in the Church, but they are equally important. Others may disagree with the Church and say they are not equal, but that is opinion and does not invalidate the reality of the Church's teaching. Did I miss something or are you really saying the Church can't teach something that you think is patently false with your nose? --Storm Rider (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

←[Edit conflict, so Mongoose's reply was to my previous version] The Church can certainly teach something (let's concede that there's probably considerable variation in how hard-line a position is taken by the members of its ministry throughout the world); but how WP reports this needs to be couched in balanced terms, not a bald statement of hard-line conservative teaching, with a rider buried way down in another section or not at all. WP should not be treating the subject as a monolithic, monocultural entity all totally entranced by its central authorities. That is not the RL situation. There's a delicate boundary: if the article includes the statement that "The Church teaches that popes have never had sex", the article needs to balance this with evidence that popes did have sex. Merely repeating the 2008 line of the Church establishment on anything that is likely to be contentious, for which there's conflicting evidence, or that involves highly subjective value-judgements, is a problem, unless couched in terms that show that many Catholics (laity, ministry), not to mention other christians and non-christians, do not entirely go along with it. The fact that in the case of women, the falsehood is both patently obvious and deeply embedded in the structure and governance of the institution, doesn't help; many Catholics do not allow their overall adherence to cloud their deep misgivings about this part of the ideology. The one rider, buried in the middle of the para: "... its position on an all–male priesthood has been criticized as evidence of a discriminatory attitude toward women,[154]" is, as I find all too often in this article, grammatically and contextually subordinated to the official line— "While its position on an all–male priesthood has been criticized as evidence of a discriminatory attitude toward women,[154] the Church believes women are called to fulfill a different and complementary role (my italics)" and not allowed the oxygen of a stand-alone sentence that has more external referents than merely one scholarly text (Bokenkotter 2004:496). "Different and complementary" was the line used through much of the 20th century against women who strove for vaguely equal rights with men in the whole of society. That question has been partly resolved at large, and the fact that the RCC is mouthing the same old line in the 21st century needs to be put into perspective. I'm not saying you have to bad-mouth the RCC, though; it's delicate, the angle you need to achieve.

A WP article on such a controversial institution as the RCC must be critically balanced. It's a hard task to do this, but achievable. TONY  (talk)  06:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly there must be room for more critical analyses of Church doctrine in a "proper" Wiki article. However, we cannot overly focus on this "critical" aspect at the risk of swinging the article in the opposite direction. Likewise, we must take into account the context of the article; a plain description of what the Church believes is more appropriate for outlines such as the Beliefs section, whereas other sections may have a different focus on the "critical" aspect. In any case, such elaborations usually find better place in the sub-articles of the subject.
 * I would also kindly request that you refrain from subtely inserting personal opinion into your talk entries (e.g. "the falsehood is patently obvious"), as this distracts from the purpose of the discussion and tends to belittle (unintentionally) those who would argue otherwise. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * With regards to the para on the all-male priesthood, I think that simply rearranging the sentences and changing the structure a bit to shift emphasis would resolve any issues (something like "The Church has been criticized...because this position is seen as discriminatory...but it has responded by expressing its belief that women have a complementary role to play). I would, however, appreciate an elaboration on what you may think. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mongoose, I feel much better about your proposal and hope that it will be acceptalbe to all. When we state "The Church teaches" anything we are not stating that the teaching is true, but rather a factual statement about what the Church teaches. I have a visceral reaction to a complaint that because another disagrees with the teaching it is somehow POV. Disagreement with a teaching or doctrine is not relative to a church's article. If the Church teaches different, but equal, then I see no need for qualification--Storm Rider (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How about we say something like "Just as God created men and women with equally importatn, different and complimentary roles to play in procreation of and parenting of children, so the Church views men and women's roles in Church ministry as equally important, different and complimentary". Actually I am kidding but the sentence reflects the true reason for the Church teaching that others may call discriminatory. The Church does not think it is being discriminatory but helpful to men and women's fulfillment of their true roles in God's plan. It views the feminist notion of being equal and same as men as truly harmful to women's ability to fulfill their roles in every situtaion and does not promote discrimination of women in the workplace. (Church teaches that women are equal, different and mutually complimentary with men - different from feminists who view women as equal and same as men) I will go through my sources to see if I can find a better sentence to reflect the Church's true position and keep in mind all the above comments regarding wording. I appreciate this discussion here. I think it helps us ultimately come up with a more clear and understandable text. NancyHeise (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I added some clarifying text to respond to the comments here - please see that section again. NancyHeise (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that leaves too much in the way of Papal quotations in the passage, which in this case tend to be in rather dense language. Also it doesn't incorporate Mongoose's suggestion, which I think goes some way to addressing Tony's point. I have re-edited a bit to do this. Xandar (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

My outstanding issues from the last FAC - (Comments posted by DWELLER)

 * Comments from Dweller

Object based on:
 * Article cites one scholar as suggesting the Catholic church was founded by Jesus. Now, I'm now religious expert, but I'm sure there are fairly hefty ("notable") opinions that disagree. Fine to include this one, but needs to be balanced. The balancing opinion doesn't need to be lovingly dissected (or rebutted) but omitting it means POV
 * The article provides the best scholars opinions on all views of the foundation of the Church. Norman, McManners and Duffy are the most respected scholars of various viewpoints - omission of Norman would make the article POV as he represents a significant point of view. The balancing opinion is factually portrayed. McManners is not a church apologist and his view supplements Duffy's lengthy piece. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I must have missed the opposing view. I'll review. --Dweller (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I see the problem. That paragraph opens with an opinion about the foundation of the Catholic church, but then goes on to dissect various views of when the Pope's role may have begun. If indeed the institution and the office are one and the same, it should be clarified. If not, the article needs more work than that. --Dweller (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. If you take a look at Awadewit's comments that say the church organization did not coalesce until the 4th century, you will understand why we have this section here. These three highly respected scholars opinions reflect that the church had an organization well before the 4th century. I think we need to add that all of these scholars agree the church existed in the beginning and that Peter was its first leader. I will do some work on that (not today). Thanks for your comments. NancyHeise (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I added a bit to one of the existing sentences and included the quote to support the text. If you wonder why the size of the aritcle is so huge, it is because we have so many references that include quotes. Because so many points have been disputed, we were required to include all these quotes so dissenters could see what the scholarly opinions really are. Several sensitive areas have several references with quotes from a variety of scholars on the same subject so reader could see that the article text reflects a consensus of scholarly opinion from scholars of various POV's. NancyHeise (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The calculation of article size using Dr pda's script, for example, does not include refs or quotes that are included between ref tags; the quotes are not affecting article size. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I know that. Dweller did not know why the article size (pre-Dr pda's script) was so large and I was explaining this to him. The article size - pre Dr Pda - is huge because of all the refs and quotes that are then omitted using the script. In short, the article is not so long, it is just very well referenced. NancyHeise (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article size, per Dr pda's script as explained at WP:SIZE and after subtracting refs and the quotes in the refs, is 74KB readable prose, which is quite large; if the article passes FAC, it would be one of the five largest FAs, that is, the top 5 out of FAs.  The size is not due to quotes in ref, it is due to the more than 12,000 words of text.  The response to everything raised during several FACs has been to add more text; Jbmurray and Karanacs have suggested a re-structuring of the article, and Dweller raised concerns about size (along with the ongoing concerns about sourcing and POV).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sandy, regarding size, I think that an article like this should be expected to be longer than others and many editors have stated this. Dweller states below that the size is OK with him and JB's suggestion of restructuring was responded to by Raul above. Xandar and I and other editors are going to work to address any issues over the next two months including size. However, help from you would be appreciated when FAC reviewers start asking us to expand and add text. You are very silent when that happens and I wish you would step in and say something in our favor once in a while on that issue. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Doing that would go beyond what I consider my role to be; correcting a misunderstanding about how to interpret WP:SIZE data is simply a statement of fact.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * NancyH: "JB's suggestion of restructuring was responded to by Raul above." That's a misrepresentation.  Raul queried what I meant; I explained; and since then, he hasn't responded (which is fine), and you have responded in very small part, to which I again replied.  That's very much an open discussion.  Indeed, there are lots of open discussions here.  To take just one very small instance, which is a holdover from the FAC, I'd be interested in your views on my rewrite of the article's final paragraph.  Or should I just be bold and put it in the article itself? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not know you rewrote the final paragraph. Where is it? I think you should put it on the talk page first and let everyone comment before you replace what is there. Also, I was responding to Sandy's comment regarding restructuring. Raul commented that he did not see that as being necessary but asked what your ideas were. Not all editors of the article think it needs restructuring and I think that better ideas have not come forward yet. I appreciate your input but I may not always agree - do not think that I am being controversial (OK I am disagreeing but not being controversial if that makes sense) and I always like everyone no matter how much I may disagree. Even if I don't put a smiley at the end of my sentence which I will always do with you since you are such a fan :) NancyHeise (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You can find my paragraph here. It's been archived, but I've pointed to it a number of times; I know this talk page gets busy, but...  Anyhow, about the process of discussion...  Of course you don't have to agree!  (What a boring world that would be ;) ).  I was just saying that, in my view certainly, that discussion has yet to begin properly.  I'm trying to urge people to rethink.  NB Raul didn't so much say he didn't think it restructuring was necessary: he said it sounded like a major rewrite.  I tried to explain that, in my view, you could restructure without such a major rewrite.  NB about better ideas...  I'm not trying to put forward any particular solution; however, I am trying to indicate that there's a problem, and perhaps we could work collaboratively on seeking a solution. (And about other open discussions, have you had a thought about my comment on sources: in short, I asked if you could write the article without, say, Vidmar.  How would the article change if you did so?)  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, your rewrite is much better than what we have now. I'm going to insert it now. I'm sorry I did not see it earlier, thanks for doing this it is very well done. NancyHeise (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fall of Man / fall of man?
 * Per WP:MoS we are supposed to capitalize certain religious events like the Exodus or the Great Flood - the Fall of Man falls into that religious major event category thus we capped it. NancyHeise (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. I was unclear. I mean that I saw it with both usages in the article. --Dweller (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not see the other usage but will investigate. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The messianic texts of the Tanakh make up a small minority of the Christian Old Testament, as a matter of fact, given that the vast bulk of the Tanakh is made up of texts irrelevant to the issue and even in the few arguable texts like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel etc, the messiah is not overtly mentioned and is alluded to occasionally only in the Hebrew text.
 * You are incorrect on this point. The article text is correct. The Tanakh comprises all the books of Moses, the propets and more - this is the majority of the Christian Old Testament. The sentence does not state that the Tanakh "is" the Old Testament and the clarifying language allows us to use the actual wording. NancyHeise (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, it seems I was unclear. Sorry. What I mean is that the vast majority of the Tanakh is not even by the most generous of interpretations, "messianic texts". Yet, because of an ambiguity in the text, it seems that the article is saying the opposite. I thank my stars English has no nominative and accusative suffixes, but in cases like this it would be helpful. You need to reword to show that the subject of the sentence is the Christian OT, not the Tanakh. --Dweller (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe it could be fixed with a comma or rewording - will work on that, thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Penance section could do with a link to an article about Confession.
 * Ensure citations follow punctuation - an example at current number 95
 * I have great concerns re WP:SIZE. This article crashed my browser. Long articles are excusable (I'm about to nominate one myself) but this is massive and needs a careful but effectual prune, most particularly of the overly long history section. Yeah, it's a long and important history, but summarise it and point people to the daughter article(s) Credit where it's due - I think the authors of the article have handled a number of negative issues sensitively and NPOV in the History section.
 * The article would be worthless if it gets chopped - no one wants to see that happen. We tried it once already in the last FAC. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's hyperbole. Are you seriously suggesting that not a single sentence could be cut without rendering the article "worthless"? I have to disagree. Strongly. --Dweller (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that each sentence has been argued over for months - yes I think it would not go over too well with the rest of the community. NancyHeise (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I do agree on the WP:size point. This article is massive.  I feel that its size, or rather breadth of content, is justified.  However, any change that reduces length without substantially short-changing content should be pursued. Lwnf360 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On size. the article was far shorter before the FACs. You will find, reading the above, that most editors want matter adding. That is why the History section in particular is so large. In order to maintain Balance and DUE WEIGHT, we have to give each historical period and each important event a fair amount of coverage. So if people want extra sections on Latin America, the Reformation, Inquisitions, Liberal and Traditionalist movements, these must be added without reducing the Due Weight given to other notable events. Material is added as concisely as possible, in keeping with fair coverage of the issues. However on many issues there are controversies that require significant detail and which would quickly gather objections if we attempted to gloss over them or redirect to another article. So there is extremely little that could be cut without removing important information or unbalancing the article. Things such as missions, monasticism and architecture may not be as sexy as the Crusades, but they are every bit as important to the history of the Church. Xandar (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article truly cannot be reduced in size to any meaningful extent, then (gasp) perhaps it is one of those articles that just cannot reach FA quality? We can't espouse as the highest possible quality an article that crashes browsers and is much larger than the suggested maximum in our own guidelines. Please can someone calculate the readable prose size of the article at present? --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * With thanks to The Rambling Man, who's pointed me in the direction of the nifty tool apparently on every FAC page, which hasn't stopped me from not noticing it ever! It's 74K readable prose, which is less than I thought it'd be, but still pretty long according to our guideline. I feel a little less strongly about this now that I realise it's some way short of 100K readable prose (can't believe there's as much as 70K+ that's not, but there you go). Interested in the opinions of others; I'd be prepared to strike this element of my objection if persuaded (as ever) and I'm eminently persuadable now that it seems less of an egregious problem than I thought. --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In short, this is a terrific piece of work. Huge, impressive and... not FA quality yet. I may well have made some errors above, especially where my lack of erudition comes in, but, I suspect I've hit at least some bullseyes. --Dweller (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

NB I won't necessarily be watching this page, so please do drop me a line at my talk if there's major progress on these issues. Cheers! --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. NancyHeise (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Copying some of my comments from the FAC (Comments posted by INDOPUG)

 * Check out the Kenneth King link.
 * There's a stray "January 22, 2002" without links: be consistent. In any case, since the article is not American, shouldn't international dates (1 January 2008) be used?
 * "best reflected in Pope Paul VI's statement"--who says its "best reflected" in that statement?
 * This has been reworded per your comment here. NancyHeise (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Could those two stubby sentences/paras in the Lay members, Marriage section be merged with the ones preceding them? Looks/reads better.
 * Done. NancyHeise (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this article addresses the very lay reader (me) yet: The first mention of anything related to the Bible is "founded upon Jesus' biblical command". Yet nowhere before this is it explained what the Bible is supposed to be, nor is it linked (anywhere throughout the article).
 * eliminated unnecessary use of biblical - Bible is explained later in next sectionNancyHeise (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Link Peter first time
 * Done. NancyHeise (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Any reason why the Spanish Inquisition is told entirely from Edward Norman's viewpoint? The references point to many scholars but both quotes following the initial statement are from him.
 * Eliminated one of his quotes and reworded. NancyHeise (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That paragraph uses the word "inquisition" eight times in nine sentences, by the way. (not a sign of fantastic prose)
 * Agree. I eliminated some uses but maybe could be improved even more. NancyHeise (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do some of the books in the Bibliography have GoogleBooks links? We aren't advertising them you know.--indopug (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Certain books were only used for one cite to a particularly sensitive subject and the url was added so reader could see direct quote. I did not know this was inappropriate as the cite book template has a url space already included in it. NancyHeise (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain this is a problem; let's get more feedback before you delete google book links. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually think Google Book links are useful (and better than, say, Amazon.com book links because Amazon is actually selling the books; Google is not). Also, if a person can search inside a specific book at Google Books, then that's even better. Gary King ( talk ) 18:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your posting, we will be addressing all comments over the next two months. I appreciate your attention and comments. NancyHeise (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Restoring my edit that Xandar reverted (Comments posted by TEMPSHILL)
A couple of weeks ago, I removed two crazy defensive statements in the section about pedophilia. Xandar reverted my edit, stating in the comments it was because it was because I removed referenced material without discussion.

Xandar, I did mention why on the talk page, and will do so again. The references do not support the claim in the article that the rate of child molestation attributed to American Roman Catholic priests is far exceeded by American public school teachers. That is why the sentences have been removed. I would add that even if it were supported by any references, this claim would be irrelevant and doesn't belong in the article. As I stated earlier on the talk page, an article about an accused murderer doesn't include a defensive statement that there are many thousands of other murderers around. Tempshill (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, my proposed re-write of this section aims to address this problem (among others). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Tempshill, the sentences you removed were referenced sentences where the refs speak directly about the Church and public school abuse and compares them. You were incorrect to remove them. I like JBmurray's rewrite of the paragraph and I'm going to insert it since I think it is worded better and doesn't lose any content or references. Thanks JB, Im sorry I didnt pay more attention to that earlier. I appreciate your work. NancyHeise (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"in community"
I tagged two "in community" statements with jargon tags - need explanation. Tempshill (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I added some explanation per your tags. NancyHeise (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Unwatch
I'm seeing good progress here, and editors working better together now, so I'm unwatching ... please ping me if there are any "process" questions. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

also unwatching
I'm also unwatching this page. I feel that I have practically begged the major editors here to think about how they can work with rather than against those who are trying to offer good faith suggestions as to how the article can be improved. Unfortunately, they continue to characterize those suggestions as attacks. I fear that when this article is re-nominated to FAC, we will merely see a repeat of the polarization and ill humor of the last FAC, which did little good to anybody. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we will decide never to put it up for FAC again if you and Awadewit persist in making unsubstantiated claims against our top sources and insisting on removal of our Catholic POV sources that WP:NPOV require us to use. I have added links to refute what Awadewit is saying about our sources yet because of your personal friendship or past working relationship, my hard evidence is discarded in favor of her unsubstantiated personal opinion. That is not collaboration, that is bullying. NancyHeise (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not about personal opinion, Nancy. Many people have offered alternative sourcing and provided sourcing but if they do not agree with the several books you have used in the article you label them fringe theories.  Jbmurray is a well-respected college professor in real life - he knows what he is talking about when it comes to sourcing.  Awadewit is in the final stretch of graduate school - she also has a great deal of experience in finding quality sources, and both of them have extensive FAC experience, so they've seen other articles of this type come through FAC.  Many, many FAC reviewers have questioned your sources or other aspects of the article, and the vast majority of the objections are met with instant defensiveness.  No one is attacking you, but that seems to be the way you are interpreting their comments about the article.  Everyone has acknowledged that you have put in a tremendous amount of work, and the article is worlds better now than before you were involved.  However, from your contributions on WP, history does not seem to be your primary interest.  It might make sense to listen to others who do have that as a major interest and who also have an extremely thorough understanding of WP policies.  I've summarized above the objections to the last FAC.  If you continue to insist that the objections are invalid and do not address them (including the sourcing issues raised), the article will never pass because the same objections will be raised again.  That said, I think it would be a great idea for you to take a break and work on another article that might be less stressful before coming back to this one.  I suspect that with the sources you have, and the interest you have in the topic, you would be able to get Roman Catholic theology ready for an FAC nomination pretty quickly.  Karanacs (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This kind of comment is why I complained to Raul. You consider these people experts yet they have made comments that are very incorrect with regards to our sources. JB did not even know who Edward Norman was when he got to the page and Awadewit was telling us the RCC did not exist before the 4th century. Together with yourself, if I did what all of you wanted on this article, it would not only not make FAC but would lose GA also. I consider it contrary to the goal of achieving FA when we are asked to toss sources that meet WP:RS and WP:Reliable source examples as all of my sources meet (and that are even used as sources for the Encyclopedia Brittanica article as in the case of Duffy and McManners). Awadewit wanted us to use Bart Ehrman as a source - a historian who is being accused of scholarly malpractice for perpetrating the Gospel of Judas fraud as per The Chronicle Review here . Somehow, I am not as convinced as you that anyone here could claim to be an expert. NancyHeise (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nancy, stop misrepresenting my statements right now and stop asserting falseholds. I explained all of this to you before on your talk page - why must I do it again? Awadewit (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, if you can say the same thing, but use different sources, you would find yourself walking a more peaceful path by satisfying these reviewers. Sometimes it is better to stop spitting into the wind when all that happens is your eyes seem to water overly much. I reject any need to use a specific historian including Ehrman. He is more cutting edge in many areas and few would consider him to walk the middle ground (though he is fascinating to read; he provides boundaries to some rather important areas; i.e. he plays on the edge). BTW, Ehrman is not being accused of malpractice in the same sense Myer is; he is being accused of running pell mell into commercial profit for so quickly taking a faulty translation to market. Had he at least waited a short time to hear the reviews of their work by their fellow historians he would have saved himself a huge headache. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Storm Rider, if I were to work with these reviewers I would have to rewrite the entire history section using different sources. Raul even stated to JB that he did not think that was necessary and that a rewrite would not be better than what we have now. Who is to say that the next source I use, that also satisfies Wikipedia top criteria just as my current sources, would not be skewered by some other reviewer who does not like something about the author based on personal opinion not on verifiable facts? If my sources meet Wikipedia top criteria, I should not be asked to remove them. I have followed Wikipedia rules that require certain balances between authors of all points of view per WP:Undue weight. These reviewers have asked me to remove them which would violate this "pillar" of Wikipedia policy. Edward Norman's book is a Yale University Press, peer reviewed source from one of the world's top historians. John McManners book and Eamon Duffy's books are in the same league - together these authors comprise what Featured article criteria 1c requires of a Featured Article "factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". In addition to these authors, the text makes extensive use of the Bokenkotter book, a university textbook for decades, Koschorke book which is a documentary sourcebook with commentary, John Vidmar's book which supplements Norman's apologist view and is never used as a solitary citation but supplements other POV's particularly in sensitive areas, there is also Le Goff and Justo Gonzalez as well as many other sources. I do not think anyone can accuse me of not using different sources or working with people. What I can't swallow is being asked to rewrite the entire history section because someone has a personal opinion about my sources that I have provided links to refute and they have provided none to support. NancyHeise (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think rather than these endless arguments about the qualities of individual sources, which are coming to resemble imaginary sports team discussions, it might be useful if Awa were to produce new drafts of a short section or two here for discussion. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe she has already done that. See here. --Peter Andersen (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since it is difficult to decipher throught that link, I am posting her rewrite here copied from above: "During the first century, small Christian communities spread out across the Mediterranean from Jerusalem. They communicated by letter and slowly began to form a cohesive whole. At the center of the Roman Empire, Rome received many immigrants from these new Christian communities, who formed a variety of religious groups and academic schools, often with differing and sometimes contrasting beliefs. While these groups in Rome often varied theologically and were only loosely connected together, they may have considered themselves part of one larger group. It is not clear when the bishop of Rome became a dominant force over the entire Christian community, but it 325 the Council of Nicea officially recognized the primacy of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch over other Christian communities.


 * I would like to offer that the article already discussed the church origin in Origin and mission and that the issue of the emergence of a Pope is also covered there. I personally think that her suggestion goes into too much detail about the subject in an article that is supposed to be a summary and is not an area of scholarly contention anyway. All scholars agree that the church existed and grew as time passed. Per Eamon Duffy's Saints and Sinners page 8: "The Christians of the city were thought of by themselves and others as a single church, as Paul's letter to the Romans make clear. The social reality behind this single identity, however, was not one congregation, but a loose constellation of churches based in private houses or, as time went on and the community grew, meeting in rented halls in markets and public baths." This confirms that although these Christians met in different houses, they and others considered themselves a single Church. Why is it so significant to elaborate on the fact that they first met in houses? The sentence about the Council of Nicea recognizing primacy would be a useful addition to the text. NancyHeise (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nancy, please understand that I empathize completely with your position. This may be a situation to draw a line in the proverbial sand and state clearly you will not proceed further. On the other hand, if there is an alternative, a middle ground, search for that and take it. Personally, I disagree with the reviewer's recommendation. Vidmar plays a supporting role in this issue and he is being attacked as if he is the one and only historian being used to support a controversial position. This is nit-picking to an extreme. Regardless, it is a worthy thing to stand on principle, but sometimes we are able to glimpse another way where we can more easily, quickly go around that which has been blocking our path. Take a few deep breaths and determine what is most important and go from there. Peace --Storm Rider (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * jbmurray, in the process on this page, your main suggestion has been the impracticable one of removing the History section - something that I have responded to above, giving clear reasons why this would amount to completely re-writing the article - something that would sabotage a year and more of work for no good purpose. Another issue of yours was the demand to remove two perfectly acceptable sources from the article, namely Professors Norman and Vidmar. We have bent over backward on this issue, to the extent of over-referencing the article and double referencing most quotes. Historians representing the main segments of opinion are a requirement for a good article, and no good reason has yet been put forward for eliminating these representatives. Since no-one can point out any particular instances where these historians are inaccurate, and few reputable additional sources have been offered, I am beginning to think that this is a bogus issue with no relevance at all to the FA criteria. As has been said earlier, people who refuse to engage in this review process and then come back at FAC with opposes they could have discussed here will deserve to be ignored. Xandar (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Further to the suggested passage from Awadewit above, this is the most problematic part: Christian communities, who formed a variety of religious groups and academic schools, often with differing and sometimes contrasting beliefs. While these groups in Rome often varied theologically and were only loosely connected together... It puts forward as fact what is very much a minority theory that the early church was little more than a loose collection of people with contrasting beliefs. Xandar (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have always thought, since Awa first raised it, that the difference between the various positions here is not as great as both sides tend to claim. In terms of the 1st century, the real evidence for what Roman Chritians got up to, or believed, is surely extremely thin - was there then anything that could be really be called a Christian "academic school"? I remember, Xandar, you were insistent that groups such as the Gnostics were separate from a very early stage, in which case the phrasing becomes more appropriate. Myself, I'm not so sure. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're going to discuss Awadewit's comments, it might be best to do that in the right section. JB has disorganized the page by starting another section here. I'll copy the last few comments to Awadewit's section, above, and respond there. Xandar (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

ppxii image
I think the fair use rationale for this image in the Pope Pius XII article is strong; however, I think the rationale for using this image in this article is quite weak. It's one thing to use it when the image depicts the actual subject of the article, but its replaceability grows exponentially for a topic of this nature. IMHO, this article should strike for only free images. It's one less thing to worry about at FAC, and there's a glut of free images to choose from. Savidan 21:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the Pius XII controversy is one of the biggest controversies of recent times for the RCC and for Pius XII. This image satisfies what the rationale demands : that it irreplacably expresses what can not be expressed in words. It is proof that the Nazi's did not view Pius as a friend and I think it's inclusion is irreplacable. NancyHeise (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Elcobbola and User:Black Kite are very well-versed on images. I'd suggest asking one of them to take a look and see what they think. Karanacs (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In an article whose scope is as wide as this one, to claim that any specific representation of any specific controversy about any specific pope is absolutely necessary is a bit of a stretch. It might make a point that you personally find important, but it doesn't even put a dent in the ability of Wikipedia to give an educational and thorough portrayal of the Catholic Church, especially given the thousands (if not millions) of free images that exist in relation to the church. Again, I do support the image's use in the ppxii article, but think the massively greater scope of this article makes it far less justifiable. I certainly cannot support making this article featured (which I think we all share as a goal) while it uses copyrighted images so fast and loose-ly. Savidan 21:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Small bibliographic note

 * McManners, John (1990). The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198229283. - In my research, I discovered this error. This book is not authored by McManners, it is edited by him. It is a collection of essays, so all of the page numbers need to be cited to individual essays. Someone needs to fix this. Awadewit (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That would mean that the essays should each have their title and author listed, I believe. Karanacs (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just returned this book to the library and I have ordered my own on Amazon so I dont have to keep renewing it. It is a consolidated work of over 12 university professors put together and edited by John McManners. NancyHeise (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To save some typing, they are listed here. I think it is only necessary to say eg: Collinson, Patrick, in McManners, John (ed)....., especially as the titles of the sections just define the period covered.  Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC Task Force and a way forward
"Roman Catholic Church" is one of the most important articles on Wikipedia to bring to FA status. The Church has shaped the lives of millions of people throughout history. We can all agree on that. What we need is a solid plan to do that. Unfortunately, I think that the current plan might not be doing the trick - it is driving away editors who initially wanted to help after the latest FAC. Whatever the editors here think of my opinions of the Catholic church, I ask them to give my opinions regarding this FAC bid a fair hearing. I have more experience in this area than almost any other Wikipedian and for several days I have been thinking of a way that this article might succeed.


 * 1) Goal: The goal should be a quality article, not an FA; in fact, the goal should be the best article we are capable of writing. If we strive to use the best scholarship, actually exceeding the requirements of WP:RS, and if we strive to have stellar prose, for example, the FAC criteria will be a breeze. A really well-conceived, well-researched, well-written article cannot fail FAC.


 * 2) Task force: This article has a gigantic scope. It covers the belief system of a major religion, the 2000-year history of that religion and its institutions, and a description of those institutions in its current-day incarnation. This is a massive undertaking. I propose that NancyHeise and Xander, who seem to be the driving force behind the article, form a task force for this article, and start recruiting people to focus on these different sections. In so doing, they can recruit medieval historians for those several paragraphs, experts on missions for that section, experts on theology for those sections, etc.. They can recruit people from the FAC, if they so choose; asking them to contribute rather than asking them to list their objections might secure their "support" vote next time around. It would go a long way towards restoring peace, anyway. They can go to various WikiProjects asking for help; they can ask writers of other FAs on similar subjects. There are many ways to find experts on Wikipedia. The whole point to recruiting individual experts, though, is so that no handful of people is responsible for researching this entire subject - it is much too massive for just a handful of people to do. An organized team could do an excellent job, however. Some sections will be rewritten and reorganized and some sections will stay largely the same. At the end, however, we will know that the article has been combed over by people who have done substantial research in one specific area, we will have stacks of good sources, and we will have a dedicated group of people working together. At the end of the research and writing phase, we can have excellent copyeditors come in and fix up the wording and make the article flow together and MOS gurus come in and fix our dashes.


 * 3) Timeframe: I realize that what I am proposing will take months. However, I believe that a dedicated task force will produce a wonderful article and that once that article reaches FAC, the article will have much less trouble passing. We will have ensured quality research for every section of the article and we will have an expert to turn to if any questions arise; we will have dedicated time specifically to working on prose; and we will built up a reputation as a project interested in working with serious editors.

I hope the editors here will consider this plan. Awadewit (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good plan, but the implication (from forming the task force) is that you are planning a major rewrite. (If you are not, please correct me) After all the work that has gone into this article as is, I can see why some people (Nancy and Xandar) wouldn't want to go forward with such a big undertaking. Raul654 (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Not necessarily. One of the major objections at the FAC was to various parts of the "History" section, so I think that will probably receive the most attention (and I believe Karanacs has already started working on reducing its size), but it is worth having people comb over the rest of the article just to make sure. That is why I said "some sections will be rewritten and reorganized and some sections will stay largely the same". There were many fewer objections to the "Beliefs" section than to the "History" section. I suggested Nancy and Xandar as coordinators because this article is clearly important to them, but clearly anyone could really do the coordination if those two editors are just too exhausted. I also thought that some organization of volunteers might assist the disparate efforts going on here and might inspire a sense of collaboration, if you see what I mean. Awadewit (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Raul. I had already considered asking actual experts to come see the article and have already been in touch with one who took a look at the article already. I have notified at least three others one of whom I spoke to in person. I would like for Awadewit and others who are not experts in Roman Catholic Church or its history to please respect that others may not be listed on WP:FAN but we may have something to offer the article that she does not. No one is going to want to put time into this project if sources are tossed just because someone doesnt like them - not based on Wikipedia written policies. The fact that Encyclopedia Brittanica uses some of our sources and the fact that certain books are essential to meet Wikipedia policy pillars like WP:Undue (Vidmar and Norman) means that we need to stop the attacks on present top sources and work together. I am unwilling to keep spending time on this project if I have to keep defending sources that clearly meet Wikipedia's top criteria, are peer reviewed, are University presses by notable top authors and/or have footnotes and bibliographies. If the people I have contacted are watching this page, and I know at least one of them is, it is going to be impossible for me to procure help if they think the effort is futile based on what has happened with the source arguments from people who are not following Wikipedia policy. No one can work together with anyone if one party insists on repeatedly violating the written rules. I am unwilling to work on the project if the written rules are going to be disrespected and ignored. NancyHeise (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you do find experts to look at the article - I would welcome their input. Also, I can assure you that they are not going to be driven away by my statements. I work with professors all of the time and have done so on Wikipedia frequently. In the meantime, I am going to have cease watching or editing this page at all. It is simply pointless for me to continue. I may not be an expert in RCC history, but I do know how to do research - I teach people how to do it, as a matter of fact. I know the difference between different levels of scholarly works. I have tried to show you how your sources could be improved but you have rejected all advice. You do not need Vidmar and Norman for WP:UNDUE - you need sources that demonstrate that POV. I'm not even sure why you would want to use poor examples of the Catholic POV in the RCC article - it makes no sense. Insisting that the article retain weaker sources rather than trying to find stronger sources to replace them does not make sense. Also, I cannot work with someone who continually misrepresents their own sources (which do not all have footnotes and bibliographies). You are still claiming that the EB uses some of the sources in the article when I have repeatedly explained to you why that is not the case. You say you cannot work with people who violate the rules, but I have violated no rule and the sources I have presented here are impeccable and the information all sound. I am sorry that you have been unable to learn from it. Awadewit (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please tell me how Vidmar's The Catholic Church Through the Ages is not a scholarly source when he has two peer reviews of his book one by Thomas Bokenkotter in the academic journal Catholic Historical Review (published since 1915) and the other by Graduate Theological Union Berkley, where Church history is part of the curriculum? His book also has footnotes and a bibliography (I am looking at them as I write this). It is written by a notable professor (John Vidmar) of Church history who teaches Church history at the Smithsonian Institute as well as Catholic universities (presently Providence College). Edward Norman's book is written by the world's most renowned scholar from the Catholic POV from the oldest and most respected school of history in Great Britain from one of the oldest and most respected colleges Cambridge University. It is a University Press book with a bibliography. These two books represent the Catholic POV required by WP:Undue. The Duffy and John McManners books we used in the article are used by Encyclopedia Brittanica as sources. I can not work with you when you keep making these claims that my sources are not OK - they are top sources. If we cant follow Wikipedia rules on sources we will have to keep dealing with people like you who claim to be experts and then want us to toss all our work out the window and start over with sources they decides are better - not based on any written Wikipedia policy. When do we stop having to toss sources for the next "Wikipedia expert" if we can't adhere to written Wikipedia policy? We will forever be tossing the article whenever the next self proclaimed "expert" comes along. I am unwilling to go down that road and that is why I am insisting on keeping the top sources we have - they meet written Wikipedia guidelines. If you can find a scholarly review in an academic journal that condemns our sources as radical POV's or containing factual inaccuracies, then you can ask us to toss our sources but until then, you have no written Wikipedia policy to support your position and I have all the policies to support mine. NancyHeise (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nancy, I fully understand and support that you are proud of the progress you have made, but that should not be a reason for not attempting to improve the article further (even articles that have passed FAC should be open to improvement). I cannot count the number of times that people have tried to explain to you why Vidmar is a bad source.  You have chosen to disregard those arguments, and in some cases I believe that you are misinterpreting either the argument or facts about the source.  Regardless, it is your right to refuse to spend your time implementing someone else's suggestion.  The problem with this is that you want this article to become a Featured article. Your comments at the FACs, on this page, on your talk page and those of various other editors have shown a pattern of vehemently resisting efforts to change the article. If you believe that the article is perfect the way it is, it may be time to let go of the dream of bringing this to FA and instead work on a related article (I firmly believe you could get Roman Catholic theology to FA in a short amount of time).  In its current format, this article is going to attract the exact same objections it got in the last (two?) FACs, which means it is unlikely to pass. If you don't understand the need for or refuse to make the changes, then I worry that this article's next FA experience will be the same unpleasant mess the last one was. Karanacs (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Karanacs, I think the edit history of this article is proof enough that I am not "vehemently" against changes to the article.NancyHeise (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been glancing in on this page now and then, and I am surprised at this idea that the article is balanced because it has POV sources on one side and critical sources on the other. It shouldn't have any POV sources, but only critical ones, by which I mean those written objectively by scholars critical of sources ("critical of the church" is not what "critical" means in this context). Duffy, for example, is an excellent scholar. I haven't read the book cited but I have read his The Stripping of the Altars: it is a wonderful and original piece of scholarship which advances the idea that far from being a decaying religion at the time of the Reformation, orthodox religion was a vibrant and potent phenomenon. Although I regard the book as critical (it criticises many conventional views, for example), it is not an attack book against Catholicism, far from it. The best scholars can't be lined up into POV camps, in my opinion.


 * Similar difficulties have occurred at the Martin Luther article. There are Lutheran editors there (often very good people), and they believe that scholars at Lutheran Universities are suitable sources for the article: they are not, especially when unaffiliated scholars abound. By the way, Awadewit is spot on that there is more to the assessment of a source than whether a book has footnotes or is published by a university press. University presses have to make money too, which is why they produce coffee-table books, illustrated books, educational books and the rest: they each have to be evaluated on their merits. The reputation of a reviewer is not significant either: experts in a field will often review books in their field and, knowing the aim of a book, may be generous within those limits. If I were the main editors, I would ditch the sources that the reviewers object to: if, as you say, they are part of double refs, then nothing is lost except the questioned sources. qp10qp (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) I think what Awa suggests is a useful approach, and the most realistic one for getting the article promoted at its next FAC. I'm not sure it will in fact involve massive rewriting, though I'm also not sure that Awa is right to suggest that the history section was especially the cause of objections - it just attracted a different crowd of objectors. However I think recruiting specialist editors in all the different fields will prove very difficult. As I've said above, both detailed specialist scholarly works, and general surveys by professional historians should be used, because the amount of compression required throughout the history section should not be attempted solely by editors here working from very specialised works. Often references to the detailed books should be by way of footnotes for further reading of fuller treatments. I may have a go at the sample passage above later.  Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to point Karanacs and Qp10qp to WP:Undue which is part of WP:NPOV - one of the five pillars of Wikipedia which requires us to include all significant viewpoints. Please also read the section called "Balance" under the same policy. I do not think that the FAC director will fail this article for FA if we are using Vidmar and Norman to support the Catholic point of view we are required to include in the article as a balance to the other sources of varying mainline POV's. Raul, correct me if I'm wrong. NancyHeise (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My two pennysworth: First of all lets stop arguing about sources. If anyone has better sources, bring them forward for evaluation. But concentrating on removing existing sources is just causing unnecessary friction. With regard to Awadewit's proposal.. She seems to be proposing a root and branch review and re-research by some "task force". This raises two points. 1) What is the aim of this root and branch review? I have been for keeping this current review focussed on objections to the existing text, finding out which matters are still in contention, and basically dealing with those, finishing and polishing the article, which as many people have said, is either already at FA status or very close. I don't see how some unfocussed re-researching and attempted re-writing of the entire article is going to aid in this. In what way would this new researching be better than what has already been done over the past year or more? A huge amount of work has gone into this article already from many different hands, and the implication that this should all be swept aside for some new approach is unjustified in my view - especially with the difficulties that there have been in getting specific objections to the current content. While not hostile to a reasonable amount of well-supported change and improvement to the article, I would not support a wholesale reorganization without VERY strong arguments being brought forward as to precisely why that would be absolutely necessary. 2) While having additional editors working to improve the article is good, etsablishing a team as suggested, is not a question of just clicking our fingers and summoning the required "experts". By all means lets have people genuinely interested in producing a good accurate article, but on the whole I do not want to see us diverted from the task of improving this already Good Article, by an unnecessary attempt to rewrite from scratch. Xandar (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am with Xandar whose judgment and logic I always find impeccable. I have emailed several RCC experts on history and theology asking for a professional review of the article. Some I know are very busy men and I explained to them why I thought this Wikipedia article was an important and worthwhile project. Fishing for experts via email - I hope we can catch a big one. NancyHeise (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * NancyHeise wrote: "I would like to point Karanacs and Qp10qp to WP:Undue which is part of WP:NPOV - one of the five pillars of Wikipedia which requires us to include all significant viewpoints. Please also read the section called "Balance" under the same policy." Nancy, the idea is that we represent all points of view through neutral, third-party sources, not that we use them all as references for information. For a controversial topic, therefore, like, say, a Polish-Russian dispute, the solution is sometimes to use non-Polish and non-Russian secondary sources. qp10qp (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Qp. I would disagree with your evaluation. To quote WP:NPOV: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. ... The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". ... To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups. A balanced selection of sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view." In other words, we NEED to present historians who represent the major points of view - such as Norman and Vidmar. Xandar (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I love you Xandar. OK, I love everybody else even though they can be major pain but you just get it right here every time. :) :) :) NancyHeise (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, but this does not mean that you cite a biased historian. You cite a neutral historian who gives a balanced account of the different views, and by that means will the difference of views be properly reflected in the article. Of course you can cite a biased opinion from someone like the Pope (though you should do even that through the intermediary of a secondary source). But the policies do not require you to cite biased historians as sources of information. You are both resisting me on this; but I would ask you to step back for a moment and think carefully about what I am saying. I am not attacking your article but trying to suggest how to make sure that it becomes a FA.qp10qp (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, almost every historian used has been accused of bias by somebody in the last FAC. Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) Qp, I appreciate your desire to make this article FA, but I think you are misunderstanding policy. First of all, there is no such thing as a "neutral" historian. That is a myth that only exists in a perfect world. Each historian is affected by their own experiences and culture. We are talking about qualified historians providing support for different perceptions of the same events. Norman and Vidmar are certainly qualified to be used as RCC historians. In fact, I would say they are eminently qualified. As has been said multiple times, their use is balanced by using other historians, which is the very essence of NPOV.

It is disturbing to see so much fuss over something that is a no brainer. You have two historians being used and their viewpoint is balanced by using other historians. What your proposal means is that faithful Roman Catholic historians are not capable of speaking neutrally about their Church or that their scholarly work cannot be trusted. That it is required to use those who are not neutral and not Catholic. That is strong language, but I am more crass than either Nancy or Xandar and I am more prone to impatience. My objective is not to offend you, but to provide a reflection of your stance. Are you really saying that a the balanced approach being used disqualifies this article from gaining FA status? Storm Rider (talk)


 * To answer Johnbod: the odd thing here is that, according to what Nancy and Xander are saying, they are deliberately choosing these historians for their bias. I have never come across a historical process where one does that. One often has no choice but to use certain historians despite their bias, of course—say Tacitus, Bede, or whatever. But the first thing one does in drawing up a list of sources to write about history is to find the best ones. Only when there aren't enough high-quality sources does one willingly use biased ones.


 * In answer to the other commentator above, I should say that I did not participate in the FAC. But it is clear from what those who object to certain things say that the article cannot become an FA unless their objections, which include changing some sources, are met. The editors here interpret the policy to mean that partisan historians should be allowed their say as a matter of balance and as a matter of right. As a history graduate, I have never come across such an approach; but, more to the point, I don't think that's what our plicies are suggesting at all. Your point that I don't want Catholic historians used is very far from the truth: Duffy is very much a Catholic, yet his approach seems to me scholarly, despite the fact that he has been set up in opposition to Vidmar and co. The truth is that Duffy, in The Stripping of the Altars, contributed a great deal to the revision of views on the pre-Lutheran church that has taken place in the last couple of decades, which has involved a dismantling of anti-Catholic historiography. For the period I know about (1500 to 1630), I also recommend Diarmaid MacCulloch's Reformation.

To illustrate that the problem of misinterpretation might be the real obstacle to this article's success, take the following:

"Scholars such as Edward Norman believe the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus and that the historical record confirms that it was considered a Christian doctrinal authority from its beginning.[15] Some scholars like John McManners cite a letter from Pope Clement I to the church in Corinth (c. 95) as evidence of a presiding Roman cleric.[32] Others, like Eamon Duffy, acknowledge the existence of a Christian community in Rome and that Peter and Paul 'lived, preached and died' there but doubt that there was a ruling bishop in the Roman church in the first century, and question the concept of apostolic succession."

The balancing of sources which the editors have arranged here, according to their interpretation of Wikipedia policy, is between a faith-based history and a source-based history, in this case between Norman and Duffy. To my eyes, this is (while acepting Johnbod's point that no historian can be truly neutral) a balancing between non-academic and academic history: the first starts with faith (with a pronounced bias) and seeks evidence to support that faith; the second starts with the sources and makes judgement dependent on them. This style of balance is a highly idiosyncratic arrangement for any history article, including one on Wikipedia. The balance spoken of in Wikipedia's policy is between points of view, not between faith and historical inquiry. The clash between POVs which needs balance is that between the historical players (popes, reformers, saints, heretics, church spokesmen, with their various documents and decrees, etc.) not that between historians. We shouldn't be using historians with partisan agendas to reference information. qp10qp (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Qp10qp, Storm Rider is the editor whose comment you are responding to here. He forgot to sign his name but it is recorded in the edit history of the page. I have changed the text to read "Scholars such as Edward Norman note that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus....." The sentence is followed by a reference that contains Norman's actual quote. He is not making a statement of belief, he is making a statement of fact based on his research as a historian. Just so you know, centuries of historians hold this view shared by Norman. This point of view is one that, if omitted from the article, would make the article violate WP:NPOV per Xandar's and Storm Rider's comments just above yours here. We are following Wikipedia policy. NancyHeise (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is that you need to have historians saying what the Catholic Church believes, not what they believe themselves. If the Catholic church believes that it was founded by Jesus, that's fine: let a historian say that it believes that. There should be a frame between the historian and the faith. It needs to run like this: the Church believes that/ its reason is that/ the sources we have are/ disputes occur about ... but the minute you associate a scholar with the church's official view, the scholar is no longer providing information, he is part of the information, and he will not be seen as objective. Religion and faith have two aspects: one is subjective and doesn't have to be proved objectively; the other is external and should be written about objectively by historians. It is not the Catholic Church and its official historians versus critics which is the balancing act required. In this case (and I am only speaking of this instance because it is the first in the article), the article says that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus and that it was the doctrinal authority from the beginning; in the note, Norman just says that Jesus founded the church, not the Catholic church. The second quote, if read carefully, jumps ahead in time somewhat, slipping from the apostolate into the bishops. This is blurry history indeed, and I think you'd do well not to attempt to use Norman to gloss this incredibly fragmentary sequence of events, some of which is clearly dependent on scriptures. What is needed is a statement of the church's beliefs about what happened and some commentary on the documents by unaffiliated historians. qp10qp (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Some points: 1)Edward Norman does not work for the Catholic Church and is not their "official historian" in fact he was an Anglican for most of his life. 2)The name of the book in which he states "The Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly life." is The Roman Catholic Church, an Illustrated History and that statement is made in the first section of the book entitled "Catholic Origins". He is not talking about any other church but the Roman Catholic Church. 3)His position is held by many historians now and for centuries, Catholic and not thus we would create a factually inaccurate and incomplete article if we were to exclude this point of view. 4)There is no Wikipedia policy that I know of that states that Jews cant write history about Jews and Hindus about Hinduism or Muslims about Islam. We are allowed to have Catholic authors. the only way anyone can exclude a Catholic author is if there is a scholarly review of the book used that says it is a radical POV. Written Wikipedia policy does not allow radical POV's. We may not eliminate Vidmar or Norman because neither the authors nor thier books have been pegged as radical POV's by scholarly journals.NancyHeise (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Further response to Q, the entire first para in Origins and History document what the Church believes its history to be. The second para is what historians say. I think that is pretty good organization and logic that can not be improved upon. NancyHeise (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You've misunderstood everything I said. Totally. qp10qp (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet again we seem to be making a mountain out of - not perhaps a molehill, but a very straightforward point. Although it was met by incredulity by several reviewers last time, the belief that Jesus founded the Christian Church is shared by most major denominations - Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox, although the nature of the "founding" is open to interpretation. I would be more interested to hear about any denomination that does not believe this, or historians who think that Jesus was opposed to others continuing to spread his teachings after his death! The evidence is mainly scriptural & Norman should not be denigrated for expessing this view. The Catholic twist on this is that Peter was given special status, resting again on an interpretation of scripture (this time of course one that is disputed by the Orthodox & Protestants). Again historians, as opposed to Biblical scholars, are really not much help here. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Johnbod for that excellent commentary. We would have an incredibly incomplete, POV and factually inaccurate article if we did not include Norman's view. NancyHeise (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) Q, please understand that I am not Catholic, I am LDS. As such you might know that I would strongly disagree with Vidmar et al in regards to the point being made. I think that position allows me to take a pretty objective stand in regards to this specific issue. The topic of this article is the Roman Catholic Church. Its history section should reveal to the reader what the Catholic Church believes of its history and origins. It should not focus on what a secular historian says about its history; however, that should be included to demonstrate an opposing view or elucidate a potential weakness of a given position. You are attempting to fold a topic of faith into a topic of truth or a secular topic as if we were talking about the evolution of the green beetle; that is beyond the position of a historian and certainly beyond the role of Wikipedia. Does this make sense to you?

The purpose of the article is to provide a space where a reader can understand what the RCC is. The article does that well. More importantly, it does that in a neutral manner. It is clear that this article is about RCC beliefs, doctrines, concepts, etc. I would say that this article's primary purpose...to share with the reader what Catholics say about their church. IMHO, the article would be worthless if the scholarly perspective of the faithful were absent. I think it is impossible to take a topic of faith and force it to be a secular topic. --Storm Rider (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is true of most of the article, although many things like organizational matters are not really "topics of faith" but matters of fact, but the history section, at least after the New Testament period, should be addressed like any history subject here - I think everybody is agreed on that principle, though very different views exist on what that means in practice, with a given wording. The weight to give to, say, the Spanish Inquisition, is not in itself a matter of faith - the Church itself essentially downplays rather than denies its harmful effects, and historians vary greatly in their treatment of it. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * QP. you seem to believe that there is a "Faith" view of Catholic origins, and a separate, distinct, and clearly defined "Historical" view of the origin. This is not the case. The "Faith" view certainly exists. But there is no single "academic historical" view. There are differing academic views, which are reflected in the article. Because the interpretation of Norman and similar historians is similar to the Traditional account given by the Church, does not mean that this is not a valid academic interpretation. There is no law that says the only valid academic view is the one which opposes the Church's account. There is as much, if not more, 1st and 2nd century evidence to back the position that the Church was founded by Jesus and developed through Apostolic succession, than there is to oppose it. Norman is one of those historians who accept this evidence. Others look at the same evidence and say with Duffy, perhaps the early lists were not accurate, or perhaps Clement was not writing as Bishop of Rome as generally supposed. But there is no proof for their "perhapses" and so both academic views are valid and should be presented. Putting the Church view as just a "Faith" view, and the anti-view as the "academic scholarly" view, as you have suggested, would be false. Xandar (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I would like to dissociate myself from the interpretations placed on what I have said. I happen to believe that the best historians on the Catholic Church for the period I know about are Catholic. qp10qp (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Qp, thank you for sharing that position. As a side note, I hope that we both would say that a Catholic historian is also a believing Catholic. In this article it is clear to me that the Church should have the opportunity to state clearly their position of, for example, Apostolic Succession, i.e. that from Peter to the present day there is a single, continuous line of authority. Of course, I think that may be balanced by an opposing view, but that is secondary to the topic at hand. Does this make sense to you? I find often that when it comes to topics of religion there is a sense that articles should really focus on how wrong a religion is, rather than allowing the religion to first describe itself, its history, its beliefs, and its doctrines. It is like first setting the table for evening repast and then discussing the merits of each dish, rather than moving straight to the buffet and fighting over first servings.
 * Johnbod, I understand your point and I agree with you. We all understand what it means to whitewash history and that is not what I support. One thing that I have long admired about many Catholic scholars is their willingness to acknowledge shortcomings while maintaining faith. If you think that the article is not appropriately addressing events, then it is encouraged to bring those to the fore. However, it is not appropriate to attempt to limit reputable sources. They are either reputable or not; the references we have been discussing are all reputable and the treatment appears to be balanced. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia Brittanica article only gives the origins of the Church from the view held by Edward Norman - no Eamon Duffy or any other scholar's perhapses are discussed. The Church began in Jerusalem according to their version and Peter was the likely leader of the Roman Church later on per them. The go into Irenaeus list of bishops and apostolic succesion, discuss the council of Nicea awarding primacy to the three dioceses and why Rome won out over the others as a doctrinal authority (Peter and Paul being one of the reasons). The then mention the Council of Chalcedon and how it solidified papal primacy of the Roman bishop. There is no mention of the stuff Awadewit proposed or Qp10qp's objections to using Norman's view - which was the view put forth by EB. I suspect that the creators of the EB article are more expert than any of us so we should consider who it is that is pushing a POV onto this Roman Catholic Church article. It is obviously not Edward Norman or John Vidmar. NancyHeise (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking outside the box
Here's my view on this, for what it's worth.

It's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to get this top level article to FA when the articles on which stands, such as History of the Roman Catholic Church, are not themselves FAs. The way to focus the discussion is to deal with each specific in turn, not the whole shooting-match at one go. So why not try to get the History article to FA, for instance, and then the RCC article can build on that achievement? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I want to work on history of anything ever again after dealing with the self proclaimed source experts who dont follow Wikipedia policy. NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article History of the Roman Catholic Church only needs to be FA (or close) if we are using it as a (main) article for RCC, and using summary within RCC. We are not doing this, for one reason because the article you refer to is largely a timeline. Unless we were to make that article a (main) we don't need to bother with it now. It is a separate article. It was suggested that we transfer most of the History section of RCC to that article, but there are good reasons not to do this. 1.) We would suddenly be trying to produce TWO fretured articles at the same time, with twice the problems. 2.) History of the Catholic Church should be a lot more detailed than the history section of the current article, requiring a maor piece of work. 3.) Summarizing the current RCC History section would again produce endless and unnecessary problems. It is better not to move on to other articles until we finish dealing with the article we're on. Xandar (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, even if you are using the history as a Main article, that does not mean it must be at FA status or close. In my wikipedia experience, I have found that it is easier to write a good summary of a complex article if you write the detailed article first, as Malleus suggests. I also understand why Nancy might not want to work on another history article again, however.  I think you guys could bring Roman Catholic theology to FA status fairly easily, though. Karanacs (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * First, please know that my efforts here are to make the RCC article complete and accurate - even if we dont get it to FA which seems possible based on the swath of reviewers who hold sway over the process and do not follow Wikipedia policy regarding sourcing or NPOV. I intend to bring this aritcle up to its best possible condition and then ask Raul to take a look and offer advice as to whether he thinks I should submit it for FA. Perhaps he already knows that the swath of FA reviewers comments are off base and wants me to put it through anyway or perhaps he is going to consider opposes based on what I would consider invalid positions. I have ordered three new sources that I intend to use to write a conclusion for the article and beef up the Demographics section with interesting and useful data. I will not be putting that info forth until I finish reading those books (which have yet to arrive) so I dont really plan to proceed with another FA until maybe after my kids start school again in August. In the meantime, I would like to ask all opposers in the last FAC to spend $11 for a one month subscription to the online Encyclopedia Brittanica. You will see how great the present Wikipedia article really is and how much it is really NPOV when you compare it with their version. NancyHeise (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be best not to approach Raul. As the featured article director, it would be a conflict of interest for him to give an opinion on the article before it is nominated. With the stances that have been taken on sourcing issues on both sides of the debate, I really don't see anything changing in future FA nominations. As long as the current sources are used in the history section, I suspect that we will simply see a rehash of the last FAC. I am glad that you found additional sources for the demographics section, though - that section is a little weak content-wise and it will be interesting to see what else you might be able to add. Karanacs (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Karanacs, I will ask Raul and let him tell me himself. I know you are trying to be helpful but sometimes you have given me answers that are incorrect so I will stick to my original plan, thanks. I think that the sourcing objections are all very off base and incorrect. I think that Raul is intelligent enough to see through those objections. NancyHeise (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching this exchange for quite some time, mostly having stayed out of the action to let those involve respond on their own behalf. It would seem, however, that this would probably be a good time to express my own views. Frankly, I really think that there has been a great misunderstanding as to what the intentions of the article's critics really are. Firstly, there is the impression that certain sources (i.e. Vidmar and Norman) are being panned as not meeting Wikipedia criteria. In fact, it seems that an entirely different argument has been made altogether: the sources just aren't that great. Just because a source is scholarly (or so I believe the argument goes) doesn't mean that it is particularly good. Next, there is this assumption that somehow the critics of the article are trying to "push POV" or don't understand/are subverting Wikipedia policy. Frankly, I don't see how such an approach is in anyway productive. Differences in opinion are supposed to be resolved through intelligent discussion, not blocked out by accusations of malicious intent. Honestly, I am very disturbed by the back-biting comments made by certain editors here, the uncharitable and accusatory attitudes presented when valid (or even just semi-valid) concerns are put forward. Not only have these driven away some fine Wikipedia editors, but the negative tone continues even afterward, which is more shocking because those editors, having de-watched the article, cannot respond immedietely. What ever happened to assume good faith, or is that only reserved to those who make the project run according to what "we" want? Moreover, whatever happened to Christian charity? I find it disappointing that, in an article about the world's foremost Christian institution, built upon the blood and toil of countless generations, I find so little of it. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the back and forth is not so uncharitable as you imagine. Christian love does not require absolute obedience to the desires of others and specifically requires Christians to tell people the truth. I am truthfully telling people how I feel about their comments. Your comment here  What ever happened to assume good faith, or is that only reserved to those who make the project run according to what "we" want? Moreover, whatever happened to Christian charity? is something I would like to ask all editors on the page to assume. I know that I do not like being accused of being a POV and I have been persistently accused here just because I want to include all historical viewpoints in the article as required by WP:NPOV. It is a mystery to me why reviewers have insisted on the removal of two top sources by top notable professors who offer the view of Catholic history put forth by Encyclopedia Brittanica and whose citations are overwhelmingly balanced by sources of all viewpoints - they are just a small part of the entire spectrum. Such persistent requests to violate Wikipedia policy have left me wondering what agenda is being pursued here by these reviewers - yes - I have begun to question their good faith. I feel bullied by reviewers who seem to have one agenda - to keep this article from including the Catholic viewpoint of its own history, a significant viewpoint held by a significant number of people in the world. NancyHeise (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * NauticalMongoose. What happened to YOU "assuming good faith?" The majority of the criticism of Norman and Vidmar is invalid since 1) These sources are largely used as per WP policy to witness to the pro-catholic point of view. 2) They are generally used as citations for uncontroversial information, and 3) No critic has yet come up with any single incidence where these sources provide false or unreliable information. Simply demanding the removal of these sources because they are Catholic is not a valid FAC challenge. With respect to uncharitable and back-biting comments, I would advise you to read FAC 3 and 4 and the talk pages to see some of the false and exceedingly uncharitable comments made by certain parties against some of the editors you complain of. In making no mention of these, your comments seem extremely one-sided. You make generalized complaints of editors being "driven away", yet we have spent all our time trying to get editors to come and make their objections specific, and not just generalized, unspecific and wrecking comments. Have you looked to see how many changes have been made to this article by editors in response to FAC comments? Check it out. It runs into many, many hundreds. So please DON'T just walk in after six months of work and adaptation and self-righteously accuse editors of being unresponsive! And it is strains belief to imply as you do that none of the objections are influenced by POV. Many objectors made POV allegations without specifying what they objected to, and it has been the hardest possible work to get any specific objections out of them. Some of those who have made clearer objections have made no secret of having opinions that they have wanted the article to express. All we have demanded is verifiable proof of these assertions before we include them as other than points of view. Other editors than us have expressed these opinions. So, at this point in time, your comments appear extremely unconstructive and unhelpful. Xandar (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Mongoose, if I have added to the uncharitable environment I apologize. It has never been my intent to incite conflict or bad feelings. It is also difficult to see Xandar and Nancy pushed to limits, which I am sure causes them to react in the use of language much stronger than they would normally use. I have a more cynical view of things on Wikipedia than most; for example, I think it would be nearly impossible to get an article on this topic accepted by FAC. Religion is just too controversial a topic and few things will cause such reaction as this specific topic. Nancy and Xandar display a hope that is beyond me; I would have quit some time ago rather than face the onslaught they have. When criticism cannot be clarified in specifics, then it amounts to "I just don't like it", which is unworthy of any process on Wikipedia. How is an article meritorious if it is not balanced? Why would we not want to know the essence of the Catholic position rather than just the opposing view or something less than the viewpoint of the RCC? Though I can understand your disappointment, your expression of that disappointment is less than helpful. Can you assist by providing some specific solutions to how these waters may be navigated? --Storm Rider (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)