Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 45

Suggestion III, Cryxic (Ongoing)
The History section should be moved to the front of the article. This Suggestion does not involve content disputes, although future ones will. Here we're just talking about the location of the section itself. UberCryxic ( talk ) 03:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Raised again very recently. Little support because it is so long, & article orders are not governed by policy. Was not a big issue at FACs. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with this suggestion. Organizations almost always have history sections first - and I did bring this up at FAC (and would do so again if necessary).  We can easily merge the first part of the Origins and Missions section with the history, so that the very beginning of the article doesn't change much.  It would just push the rest down, and since the TOC is the very first thing, people could skip around if they choose. Karanacs (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recall you getting much support at FAC on moving the history. Given all the fairly recent disputes over the origins & the very earlier history I'm very surprised at your comment on this point. I thought the need to keep the church's own beliefs as to its origins and the historical account, or lack of one, completely separate, had finally been accepted by all during the last discussions on these bits?  Both need to be in, but kept very clearly apart. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There were so many opposes on some of the FACs over so many other points that it isn't really worthwshile to say that X is not a valid argument because only 1 person mentioned it. As for combining those sections, I think they would fit very well together (the first sentence of history actually summarizes the Origins section and could be removed).  I'd then move the second sentence in history (about the first Christian communities) to be in the second paragraph, and we now have a nicely flowing account of the Church foundations, discussing both Church beliefs and that of historians, while keeping the two pieces in separate paragraphs. Karanacs (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Origins section is part of the history; I see no valid reason for it to be separate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mixing up theologians & historians in one section takes us straight back to Achives 37-40 late last year, where, in so far as anything is ever agreed here, there was a clear consuensus from a very large number of editors, eventually including Nancy & Xandar, to keep them apart, and for very good reasons. I strongly suspect that anyone with the patience to reread those endless threads would find you agreeing with it too. Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree - its not in line with how other encycledias treat the subject. Also it disrupts the logical flow of ideas which should be as follows:
 * What is the subject, (Catholic Church lead) how did it originate, what does it do (Origin and Mission - spread the Gospel), What is that "gospel" - (what does it believe) (Beliefs), who does this, who are the people that belong (Holy Orders, Religious, Membership), etc.
 * The last item is its history (what has been done so far). Readers wanting to know about Church history will google something about Catholic Church and History and probably go to the Wikipedia specifically for that topic, not come here.
 * What kind of reader is going to click on this page? The ones who want to know the items that come before History section. Maybe that's why the other encyclopedias do this too.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 21:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nancy, please be careful before you overgeneralize your intentions onto our readers ("readers wanting to know about Church history ..."). You have no data to back that up other than your personal opinion. "The logical flow of ideas" that you put forward is also your opinion. Just because the history is not what you would be looking for absolutely doesn't mean that others wouldn't come looking for that in this article. Other encyclopedias may very well have a different structure (although when I searched Enclyopedia Britannica online, they list History first, followed by Structure, with Beliefs and Practices last), but on Wikipedia it is generally common practice to have the history of an organization come before any other information about that organization. I checked quite a few articles on particular religious organizations/denominations and found that the majority (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) had history first. Exceptions were Anglican (no history section), Russian Orthodox Church (history second), and Orthodox Church and Pentecostalism, which had history near the bottom. This looks like a clear consensus that religious articles tend to have history first. Putting that aside, "origins" is history. Granted, it's the Church's version of their history, but that doesn't make it any less history. Karanacs (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The one can of worms we have actually managed to seal, & you want to open it up again! Johnbod (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Karancs, Encyclopedia Americanna and Worldbook Encyclopedia put history last. As you just noted, there are other articles on Wikipedia that put history last. There is no Wikipedia policy that says we have to put it first. The vast majority of commentators - I would say 99.999999999% of them to this page never have asked us to put history first. I think in the past two years, there may have been one person who wanted this but obviously there was no consensus - neither was it asked for at FAC or peer reviews. Because I have been present for all of these events and remember them well, I don't think there is a vast consensus - or even a minor consensus to do this. It also disrupts the logical flow of ideas. I don't know if EB has a separate article for Catholic Church history but chances are, if they list it first, they don't. But Wikipedia does have a separate article so we are certainly in our right minds to think that a Reader searching for that particular page would go there first before they would come here.   Nancy Heise   ''' talk 22:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Numerous people have asked for this on this very talk page. Every time they are pointed to some really old version of "consensus" or told the section is too long for the top, and then you insist that no one ever asked (and yes, it has brought up at FAC)??? How many people, besides you and Johnbod (and I assume Xandar) have explicitly asked for the history to be last? I also note that the article previously had the history first - that is, until January 16, 2008, when you (Nancy) changed it, with the justification that you were following the guidance of Islam, which is an article on a religion (like Christianity), not a particular denomination. You essentially changed the article, without consensus, to reflect a layout that is not the norm for an organization/denomination. Karanacs (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is one good practical reason why we don't have the history section first, and that is that it is necessarily long, and, if placed first would drown out the whole article. I would think the priority of most readers coming to the page would be for information on the Church TODAY - its structure, leadership, organisation, beliefs and practices etc. That's four topics to the one of history. Therefore these topics need to be first - as borne out by the Orthodox and Pentecostal articles. The Orthodox Church too has a long history. If we place history first, many readers not interested in history will give up on the article before reaching the section they want. The Church as it is today is the most important aspect of the article. I can't see a good reason for moving the sections about anyway.  Xan  dar   00:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Distinctions in this context between "denominations" and "religions" are hair-splitting. The main reason for this is length, and Islam is far shorter, both as to its history section & overall, than this article. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Karancs and UberCryxic raise valid points; most organizations place the history section first. It's not a bad idea for this article to follow a tried-and-true approach. I certainly don't think that we can point to the Orthodox Church article as a good role model; it's quite a mess. Majoreditor (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Like you, Xandar, I'd guess that many people will come to the article wanting to read about the Church as it is today. That section is currently the very last one in the article. I don't know how typical I am, but I'm interested in the Church's positions on the moral questions facing us in the 21st century, and I'm interested in how those positions are regarded outside the Church. I'm also interested in the impact the Church has had on the development of human civilization throughout the last 2000 years.


 * I'm a little less interested in the structure of the Church, and I'm pretty glazed over by the time we're into talking about oblates, though I (genuinely) accept that others will come to the article for different reasons.MoreThings (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's quite obvious that a Wikipedia consensus exists that history goes first for an organization article (at least 70% of the denomination articles have this layout, and the number is likely higher, I stopped looking). To go against the WP consensus we need a pretty darn good reason.
 * It does no good to speculate on why readers are coming to the article - we simply don't know and any speculation is just interpolating our own prejudices on others. This is an invalid justification for any particular organization scheme.
 * Length should not be a consideration either. The flip side to that argument is that people who are interested in the history would have to scroll through a really long article to get there. We have a consensus on this page that the history section is too long and needs to be trimmed anyway.  If people aren't interested in history they can use the TOC to move to another section.
 * Karanacs (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely so; if the history section is long and boring, trim it. There are reasons we encourage shorter articles, and have tables of contents. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Xandar makes a fundamental error when he says "There is one good practical reason why we don't have the history section first, and that is that it is necessarily long, and, if placed first would drown out the whole article." I agree, but the actual problem is that the history section is unnecessarily long - if it was trimmed there would be no problem putting it first. Haldraper (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at most religious articles: They actually place the belief system and other aspects first and history low down: See Buddhism, or Confucianism, or Taoism, or Hinduism, or Orthodoxy or Islam, so there is absolutely no need to change our layout on that score. As far as the length of the History section is concerned, we are covering 2,000 years of history with many elements that readers want to see covered within the article, and others which are equally important while less contentious. Therefore the article must be as long as reasonably necessary to highlight major topics with due weight. We cannot arbitrarily cut bits that certain people don't happen to be interested in.  Xan  dar   01:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The length of the history section has been discussed many, many times before. Personally, even if it were far shorter, I agree that the beliefs etc should come first here. In many articles on Protestant denominations, where you tend to need a degree in theology to even understand the differences with neighbouring denominations, the history is more appropriate as first section after the lead. That is less the case here.  Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Johnbod and Xandar. I would also like to point to a longstanding consensus on this article about layout.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 21:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's because the article is The Catholic Church, and not Catholicism, that my instinct is to come here expecting a fairly strong emphasis on the historico-political angle. If you think in terms of what it is, what it's done, and why it did it, then you can certainly explain the roots of why it did it in terms of a belief system, but what it's done, and even what it is, need a much broader interpretation.  For a long time it was a political entity at least as powerful as the major European nations, and it had a comparable impact on Western and global history. I think the history section deserves a pretty good fistful of column inches, preferably at the top of the article.MoreThings (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The history section belongs in the article, obviously. But my contention, one I have held for a long time, is that there is far too much recentism. The "industrial" to "present day" sections, can be merged down from three headers into one. On a whole, a lot of information, which at the end of the day is going to be of minor significance in the 2000 year history of the church has too much focus. History is very important, but the last two hundreds years of the overall 2000 have far too much airtime. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with your statement in theory but the problem is if most of the things mentioned in present day aren't mentioned it will never pass FAC. There will be to many complaints of white-washing, etc.  A person following the detailed/long talk page realizes that many of the recent stuff doesn't amount to a lot in the 2000 year history of the church, but the people that come in for the FAC don't. Some can be cut out, but a majority have to stay in. Marauder40 (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We obviously can't get rid of all of it, but I think the recent stuff should be extremely concise and neutrally worded. If we can get all of the history section to that point, then we would have a very strong argument at FAC, and I think we'd prevail. Karanacs (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My original concern here was not about size, but now that it's been mentioned, yes the History section should be a little shorter. Some more summary style couldn't hurt it. The same applies for the entire article, which is unjustifiably gigantic (190 kb now...down from the 195 during protection, but it's still a dinosaur). UberCryxic  ( talk ) 17:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * PMA is correct: we should trim the History section. Let's also move it to the front of the article as suggested. Daughter articles wikilinked to this article will provide details. as Karanacs says, if it's done in the right way it should overcome objections at FAC. Majoreditor (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose the move to the front of the article. I think the sections on the Origins of the church adequately covers what we would ordinarily look for as the 'history' per se of the organisation, how the Catholic church came to be. As for the removal of the most recent material, it's a simple argument per recentism. Just because wikipedia has editors in the 21st century, does not mean that our articles should reflect this bias. As for the charge of 'whitewashing', it is just as bad, if not worse to expand things beyond their proper measure. This article represents the entire organisation throughout the world, not just the last 40 years in America. 08:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion V, Cryxic (Ongoing)
This one is on content. In Cultural influence, I propose to remove the word "slavery" from the following sentence: The church rejected and helped end practices such as human sacrifice, slavery,[note 9] infanticide, and polygamy in evangelized cultures throughout the world, beginning with the Roman Empire.

I submit this Suggestion for a simple reason: the claim is not true. Slavery ended largely due to the actions of modern and secular states. In 1794, the French government abolished slavery in its colonies, and the radical liberals who made the vote in the National Convention were distinctly anti-Catholic and anti-Christian in general (most were atheists or deists, in fact). The British abolished the slave trade and slavery in the early 19th century largely from pressure by the Whigs, and Catholicism was not an important factor. Slavery ended in the United States after a brutal war. Again, Catholicism was not a factor. Abolitionism in many Western countries did have strong religious support, but Protestant support, not Catholic. Catholicism is not known for helping to end slavery. That claim is totally ludicrous and I propose that it be amended as suggested. UberCryxic ( talk ) 02:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you are a Napoleonic Wars specialist, but actually world history does not centre on the French Revolution. Slavery was universal in the Ancient World, and pretty nearly so in Migration period societies, yet somehow by the end of the Middle Ages it barely existed in Western Christendom, but remained as prevalent as ever in the Islamic world. And the French Revolutionaries did not freely abolish slavery at all; they only offered citizenship to the well-off blacks who were already free in 1791, and then in 1793/4 had to offer it to all to pursuade the rebels to help them against the English who were invading - see Haitian Revolution. The situation is far wider & more complex than your reductionist ideas allow, and something should be said about the CC and slavery.  The topic is worth expanding on a bit in a more nuanced and accurate way. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be refreshing to see some additional sourcing on the topic. At present there's just one citation for the note on the CC and slavery, and it's an non-scholarly magazine. Surely we can find additional source material. I'll guess that some editor has researched this before and may have something on hand. Majoreditor (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine expanding on it in a "more nuanced and accurate way," but I would also appreciate specifics. As in, tell me what you think the article should say exactly. The Haitian Revolution definitely pushed the French, and in 1794 the National Convention did, in fact, abolish slavery altogether. They didn't just extend citizenship; by that point, they decided to get rid of the whole institution. The claim that it "barely existed" was, I suspect, made to be deliberately vague. It's not true, of course, since slavery in the Middle Ages did exist in plain sight of the Catholic Church. That's what the current text screws up: it explicitly states that the Church helped to end slavery, but slavery did not end in the Middle Ages, which is something your own deliberately vague statement acknowledges ("barely existed" implies it existed to some extent). In the following discussion, I assume we are ignoring serfdom, which was often involuntary and effectively like slavery. For just one source...


 * Slavery from Roman times to the early transatlantic trade (1985) p. 3:


 * Throughout the Middle Ages slavery persisted in the lands around the Mediterranean and the regions linked with it, even though it occupied a far less important position than it had in Roman times...During the thousand years from the end of the Roman empire to the beginning of European expansion in the Atlantic, slavery was a social and physical reality in the Christian world. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 03:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A highly selective quotation, & a position he admits many scholars would disagree with. He also says (start of Pt 2) the position was wholly different from the Islamic world. I'm no specialist on the topic, but I'm puzzled as where these slaves were in say 15th century England or France. He says later they weren't in agriculture. Does he mean indentured apprentices? Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The thread "Dum Diversas" above deals with the same issue (one of the 19 threads started on this page in the last week). Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Take out the entire sentence; it is quite simply wrong. The church did not end slavery either in the ancient or the modern world; it did not end human sacrifice, polygamy or incest in the Roman Empire; they were already illegal in Roman law, and the law was enforced by such emperors as Julius Caesar, Claudius, and Diocletian; were they Christians? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We continue here to consolidate the discussion. That the "fall" of slavery in the Middle Ages was not due to Christian teaching...


 * The Cambridge Economic History of Europe (1966) p. 248:


 * At fist sight it may seem astonishing that the very warlike Middle Ages had so few slaves. Here religious considerations intervened. Not that Christianity proscribed slavery as such. At least the prevalent form of Christian doctrine that soon became official did not.


 * (and this is the very important part, on which John and others may be confused)


 * p. 249:


 * On the other hand, the Church refused resolutely to sanction the enslavement of Christians, true Christians, that is, Catholics. By so doing she merely extended, but so widely as to alter its whole character, a rule that had come down from the most remote past of pre-Christian civilizations.


 * This last part, in particular, highlights the fundamental difference between what the Church did in the Middle Ages and what the French did in 1794. The former was not doing anything that hadn't already been done in human history (ie. protecting your own group, which became so massive that it gave the illusion that the Church had eliminated slavery). The French abolished slavery outright and completely across all their colonies, with absolutely no distinctions. In other words, the French decision was ideological and principled, an accurate reflection of abolitionism as a movement in the modern world. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 03:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely so. For another example of opposition to making slaves out of free members of a group, see Solon. The Church did not propose the emancipation of Christians already held as slaves by Christians, even as late as the time of Daniel O'Connell. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not consolidating the discussion, but diffusing it! Please don't call me John. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok...what do you prefer that I call you? Johnbod (full alias)? Sorry I didn't know it was a sensitive issue. This section is now the hub of our attempts to improve the article. Please continue the discussion here and we'll communicate more effectively. Thank you. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 04:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But the clergy showed thenselves as little prepared as the philosophers had been to overturn the institution of household slavery. By their hesitation on that issue, they doomed themselves from the outset to an honorable ineffectiveness on the issue of marital infidelity. Most infidelity took the form of sleeping with one's own slaves; it was simply one assertion, among so many others, of the master's power over the bodies of his dependents. Peter Brown, The Body and Society, p. 23. That's two heads of this nonsense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Slavery and infidelity can both go. That list seems more like an ego trip for the Church rather than an accurate portrayal of its history. We now have two reputable sources confirming that slavery existed in the Middle Ages (implying, quite obviously, that the Catholic Church could not have ended it) and that Christian doctrine was not responsible for the end of slavery as an institution, merely the end of slavery for some Christians (Catholics). UberCryxic  ( talk ) 04:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet the prohibition of incest stemmed from the imposition of Roman law in Egypt [in 212], and had culminated in the edict of the pagan emperor Diocletian. The Christian clergy may have benefited from the change, but they did little to initiate it.. Op. cit. p. 250. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the fundamental stupidity of that entire sentence is that a lot of those things it claims the Church ended have not actually ended, regardless of who you give the credit to for mitigating them (liberals, Catholic Church, or whatever). Slavery still exists, albeit far less noticeably, in those "evangelized cultures." It's not the institution it once was (now relying more on clandestine international trafficking), but it&mdash;as a pure technicality&mdash;exists (well, for the people being trafficked and suffering from forced labor and inhumane treatment, it's more than a "technicality," so my apologies to them). Infanticide also still exists in those cultures (again, not as notable as it was in the past, but it exists). UberCryxic  ( talk ) 04:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's one fundamental stupidity; the other is claiming responsibility for the mitigation and outlawing of these (such as has been done) to the Catholic Church, as an institution. Some Catholics deserve such credit, as do some Protestants, some Jews, and some atheists - but that's a different claim. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the rest of the sentence: At last, in the year of the City 657,[[97 BC] Cneius Cornelius Lentulus and P. Licinius Crassus being consuls, a decree forbidding human sacrifices was passed by the senate Pliny, Natural History 30.3.

Polygamy was also illegal at Rome; it was one of Anthony's scandals that he (like Caesar) had asked to be exempted from this law. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have more to come, but let this be a preliminary salvo. The following reputable and scholarly sources provide important information that everyone engaged in this debate needs to appreciate and understand.


 * Slavery and social death: a comparative study (1982) p. 72:

(that Christianity actually legitimized slavery)

Christianity was to provide institutional support and religious authority for the advanced slave systems of medieval Europe and of the modern Americas...Christianity was not alone among the major world religions in legitimizing slavery.


 * The Encyclopedia of Christianity: Si-Z (2008) p. 34:

Throughout most of their history, Christian churches and their theologians have unfortunately accepted slavery as God’s will for some persons, especially when those persons have not been Europeans.


 * There are no slaves in France (2002) p. 27:

(a bit of scholarly and intellectual history, which is useful knowledge to possess in our debate)

''Mallet, Le Clerc du Brillet, and many later writers on the history of slavery credited Christianity with the abolition of slavery in early medieval France...The role of Christianity in the abolition of Roman slavery during the Middle Ages was an object of passionate debate by professional historians of the nineteenth century. In 1884...it was asserted that…the Catholic Church sought to stamp out slavery and to ameliorate the conditions of the serf. That notion was challenged by arguing that the Church had little to do with increasing manumission during the Middle Ages, historians citing secular social motives instead. More recently, the influence of Christianity has been overshadowed by economic or sociopolitical analysis of the problem.''


 * The Historical encyclopedia of world slavery, Volume 1 (1997) p. 59:

(on a major Christian thinker and slavery)

Augustine apparently believed slaves should accept their condition and make the best of it.


 * Christianity and Social Systems: Historical Constructions and Ethical Challenges (2008) p. 51:

(supporting my point that slavery never went extinct in the Middle Ages)

Slavery never completely disappeared from Europe during the Middle Ages.


 * The Western Heritage: Since 1789‎ (2000) p. 736:

Christian scholastic thinkers in the Middle Ages had portrayed slavery as part of the natural and necessary hierarchy of the universe.

More modern stuff...


 * Western Civilization: Alternate Volume: Since 1300 (2008) p. 591:

(On the French Revolution)

When the National Convention came into power, the issue was revisited and on February 4, 1794, guided by ideals of equality, the government abolished slavery in the colonies.

And just for some fun


 * A house divided: the antebellum slavery debates in America (2003) p. 60

statement by Jefferson Davis (this is how religious people typically thought about the issue, then and at all times prior)

Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God...It is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages.

These sources accomplish a number of important tasks...


 * They invalidate the blatantly false assertion that the Catholic Church ended slavery in the Middle Ages. They do so by revealing two important facts:
 * 1)Slavery did not end in the Middle Ages.
 * 2)Slavery declined in the Middle Ages, but scholars do not attribute that decline to the Catholic Church. They largely attribute it to gradual social developments of a secular nature.


 * They show that, by and large, Christianity actually legitimized and supported the institution of slavery, as did other major religions throughout the world.

Based on the above (overwhelming) evidence, all instances throughout the article saying that the Church somehow influenced the decline or the end of slavery should be permanently removed. UberCryxic ( talk ) 05:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thorough research. Refreshing. However, you are asking us to delete article text that we do not currently have.
 * The article never says "that the Catholic Church ended slavery in the Middle Ages" as you are asserting. The article text says "helped end"
 * Our article never says that "slavery declined" either - it give reader information about religious orders that started the good work of buying slaves in order to set them free.
 * The Catholic Church did legitimize and support slavery - we already have this in the article in the discussion surrounding Dum Diversas which Karanacs wants to cut and I want to keep for exactly the reasons you are stating here.
 * Our article goes further than your sources though, by telling Reader the actual things the Church did to "help end" slavery "Pope Gregory XVI challenged the power of the Spanish and Portuguese monarchs by appointing his own candidates as colonial bishops. He also condemned slavery and the slave trade in the 1839 papal bull In Supremo Apostolatus, and approved the ordination of native clergy in the face of government racism.[361] which is cited to Eamon Duffy's Yale University Press book "Saints and Sinners". - I would consider this "helped end".
 * Here's additional text that has since been chopped out of the article even though it is quite important "In 1521 the Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan made the first Catholic converts in the Philippines.[300] The following year, the first Franciscan missionaries arrived in Mexico, establishing schools, model farms and hospitals. When some Europeans questioned whether the Indians were truly human and worthy of baptism, Pope Paul III in the 1537 bull Sublimus Dei confirmed that "their souls were as immortal as those of Europeans" and they should neither be robbed nor turned into slaves.[301][302][303] It is referenced to Bruce Johansen (2006). The Native Peoples of North America. Rutgers University Press Johansen, p. 110, quote: "In the Papal bull Sublimis deus (1537), Pope Paul III declared that Indians were to be regarded as fully human, and that their souls were as immortal as those of Europeans. This edict also outlawed slavery of Indians in any form ..." and Klaus Koschorke, Klaus (2007). A History of Christianity in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, 1450–1990. Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Co p. 290. - which constitutes "helped end" slavery - especially since slavery was practiced by North American Indians until then.
 * Richard wrote our current note on the Catholic Church and slavery that is linked in the Cultural Influences section - it is very correct - we just haven't referenced it yet. He composed it from article text we used to have in the article and a prior discussion we had on this issue which resulted in a consensus to put it in the present note. We can reference it now as long as we are on the subject. I can do this on Thurs if you like.   Nancy Heise   ''' talk 08:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I was the one who proposed deleting the Dum Diversas text (Karanacs subsequently acceded to the suggestion). My point was not that we should not discuss Dum Diversas but that it was sitting there at the beginning of a section with no context either before or after the sentence to explain to the reader why he should care about this information.  The next sentence proceeded to discuss something unrelated and thus the Dum Diversas sentence stuck out like a sore thumb.  It was as if we were throwing out breadcrumbs here and there over several sections and expecting the reader to pick them up and infer what we wanted him to know about the Catholic Church and slavery.  THis is why we need to identify important themes.  If this is an important theme, then let's set up the theme early on in the History section and then tie back to it whenever we need to.  Alternatively, we can break out the theme as a separate section.  However, it is absolutely poor writing style to leave little hints here and there hoping the reader will "read our minds" and understand why we are doing this.  No self-respecting writer would do this on purpose but a committee designing a horse might wind up with a camel at the end. --Richard S (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But they did not "help end slavery," at least not to any significant extent. Issuing papal bulls is about as meaningful as the typical bill recycled through a Congressional committee. What "helped end" slavery, and what "ended" it outright (if we're going to use that term, which isn't totally true), was meaningful and decisive action by nation-states in the last two and a half centuries. Plus, the very phrase "helped end" is so deliberately vague and tendentious that it leaves one wondering (ie. me, but also others) whether it's pushing a POV or not. We should either tell readers what actually happened&mdash;that modern nations eliminated slavery in the last two and a half centuries&mdash;or we should not bother them at all with cryptic terminology. I favor the latter approach. Either way, you face various problems: slavery has technically not ended, and the Catholic Church did not help in any meaningful way to "end" it.  UberCryxic  ( talk ) 08:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nancy is correct that some Catholics did speak out against slavery, and that their opinions - when added to the opinions of other (non-Catholics) who also felt strongly about the issue - were influential in ending/diminishing the widespread enslavement of certain peoples. Some of the Catholics who spoke out were popes, which, I think, makes Nancy err on the side of attributing abolition to the Church itself.  In my opinion, this is an incorrect jump.  Yes, in the 16th century the Popes said "don't enslave the Indians", but they didn't say anything about the enslavement of African peoples - an enslavement being actively practiced by the Portuguese, who had been granted civil and religious authority over the region by the Pope.  The pronouncement was good to have yes, but it didn't have any real effect (even in South/Latin America - slavery was condoned in Mexico, an officially Catholic country, until the 1820s).  Yes, it is important that individual members of the Church were part of the conversation about slavery, but I don't think the involvement was of a great enough extent to credit the Church with helping end the practice. Karanacs (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that on this occasion I agree with Karanacs well intentioned and sincere attempts at balance. I spent a lot of time last year researching the influence of the Church with respect to slavery which I presented on this talk page (sourced from Catholic scholarship) but, consistent with the normal stonewalling, it was largely ignored. If everyone would take 5 minutes to read the article mentioned by Nancy above as as great example of Papal blanket anti-slavery decrees, Sublimus Dei, it certainly doesn't hold up. The most accurate assessment of the true situation was given recently by PMA who asserted that the Church was no better or worse than the rest of the world, I just wish he would stop assuming that everyone is as knowledgeable as himself and spend more time explaining, granted that it made no significant difference when I attempted the same. Taam (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is now the last 3 sections in Achive 33 I think. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * By UberCryxic's logic, we would be forced to say that Martin Luther King, Jr., did not "help end" segregation in the United States because he didn't take "meaningful and decisive action" the way the Congress did; all he did was give a bunch of speeches. In the real world, however, people recognize that sometimes words do prompt people to actions that they otherwise would not have undertaken, and everyone knows that MLK really did "help end" segregation in the United States. The point being that UberCryxic's claim refuses to let anyone other than the actual nation-states that ended slavery to be credited as having "helped to end" slavery, which is just silly, because, first of all, the people who "help" to do something have to be people other than the people doing it (i.e., someone other than the nation-states had to be involved for there to be help of any kind) and, secondly, because we know that nation-states do not operate in a vacuum and do not simply ignore outright the court of public opinion (which court is at least plausibly capable of being influenced by actions of the Catholic Church). Whether or not the Catholic Church actually played a meaningful role in helping to end slavery may be still to be decided (although personally, I think the collection of evidences presented, which UberCryxic rejects, is actually sufficient for justifying the claim), but to rule it out a priori because the Church was unable to actually do the work of passing the laws to end slavery is both unfair and not how language actually works in this case. On the issue of the factual information as to whether the Church encouraged the end of slavery or promoted it throughout history, I notice that many of UberCryxic's supposed sources (1) fail to distinguish clearly between Catholicism and other forms of Christianity and (2) seem to be making rather broad historical claims. Nevertheless, we all know that people and institutions may change their minds. John Kerry was for the War in Iraq before he was against it. So maybe the Catholic Church was for slavery (resigned to, or accepting of, would probably be more accurate though) before it was against it, but the fact that the Church may at one time have been supportive of or indifferent to the plight of slaves says nothing about whether or not, once it (may have) changed its mind, it actually did something meaningful and useful to "help end" slavery. Even Abraham Lincoln was committed to merely preserving the Union with or without slavery before he decided to go the whole nine yards and actually try to abolish slavery. 68.33.37.127 (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The trouble is that when these links are followed, they show you are quoting highly selectively, and always in the direction of your (perhaps unwisely) pre-announced POV. For example you have twice quoted the Cambridge Economic History of Europe but not the passage, imediately after one you have quoted "one of the finest achievements of Christian ethics was the enforcement of respect for this maxim [that free Christians could not be enslaved], slowly to be sure, for it is still being recalled in England early in the eleventh century, but in the long run most effectively." This would make a fine ref, from an unimpeachably independent source, for a limited claim such that the church "helped end" slavery, but of course we are never going to hear of anything going in a similar direction that comes up in your researches. Following other links you provided has similar results. For example the very interesting book on Ancien Regime slavery. That is without going into the big picture that the Enlightenment, French Revolution, etc, occurred in societies formed for a thousand years in a Christian, for most of that period Catholic, environment rather than a Hindu, Confucian etc one. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That brings up a very interesting point. Where do we draw the line between "Christianity" the religion and "Catholic Church" the institution? Karanacs (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In talking about the Western Middle Ages we don't normally need to. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To the anon above: generally speaking, even the speeches, official pronouncements', or various writings of people from the Church or those associated with it do not indicate that the Church actually wanted to end slavery or tried to end slavery. Yes, you might come up with some isolated cases here and there, but the general history of the Catholic Church reveals that it was very much interested in preserving hierarchical social institutions (slavery, serfdom, patriarchy, etc). None of the modern and secular states that actually abolished slavery were "prompted to action" by the words of the Catholic Church. And like I mentioned above, where religious support did exist for the abolition of slavery, it usually came from Protestants, not Catholics. It doesn't matter how you want to play around with the words: the Catholic Church did not end slavery, it did not "help end" slavery, and it did not "influence" any of the major actors of the last three centuries who actually ended (well, "ended") slavery. "End slavery" and "Catholic Church" should not appear in the same sentence together unless that sentence is something like "The Catholic Church did not help end slavery and was instrumental in its longevity as a prominent institution of human history."

Johnbod: you are the one quoting selectively, and I already spoke about the part you mentioned. The following is the sleight-of-hand being used to say the Catholic Church "helped end" slavery: Church says Catholics can't be enslaved, gets historically lucky in converting much of the European population (supports serfdom instead), and by default you're claiming it "helped end" slavery...when that was never really its goal, and never really what it did anyway. But even the description I've given is not really supported by more modern scholars, who, in general, do not attribute the decline of slavery during the Middle Ages to the actions or the statements of the Catholic Church. UberCryxic ( talk ) 17:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe even the sources you have selected say that. Many of the are concerned to correct over-statements of the church's actions & attitude in this respect by pre-20th century historians, which I have no problem with. But they give, as the Cambridge History does, the church some credit among the other factors. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Cambridge History says this"
 * On the other hand, the Church refused resolutely to sanction the enslavement of Christians, true Christians, that is, Catholics. By so doing she merely extended, but so widely as to alter its whole character, a rule that had come down from the most remote past of pre-Christian civilizations.
 * "But so widely as to alter its whole character"...that's the fundamental point: because there were so many Catholics, it could seem like the Church "helped" end slavery, even though that was never its goal. And again, it never really ended the institution during the Middle Ages anyway. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 17:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The comparison between MLK in 50's America and the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages is completely bogus. MLK mobilised a mass movement of oppressed people with the aim of pressuring a powerful elite (the Kennedys/Johnson) into granting them civil rights. In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church was the powerful elite. Catholic monarchs and states were involved in slavery/slave trade and the Church had the power to do more than issue papal bulls against it but chose not to (these were people remember who believed their eternal souls were at risk if they were excommunicated). MLK did not have that power, or the guns to outshoot the racist cops in the South, his only choice was to "give a bunch of speeches" appealing to Northern politicians. And while we're at it, I reckon his "I have a dream" oration has inspired and moved more people (including me) than any papal bull. Haldraper (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the spirit of your comment, but the difference between the Catholic Church and the American presidents back then is that the latter actually cared about the poor and the oppressed. They were on the side of MLK. The Catholic Church has, in general, always been on the side of monarchies and established institutions, after emerging from the jaws of the Romans, of course. Before then, Christians were the rebels. But after that episode, changing the fundamental structures of society has never been part of the Catholic mission. The issues mentioned or alluded to in that sentence&mdash;abolition of slavery, gender equality, etc&mdash;are distinctly modern phenomena that drew their impetus from the French Revolution. It's very aberrant and anachronistic to start crediting an archaic institution that distinctly fought hard to prevent the materialization of the modern world. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 17:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that explicitly says the Catholic Church helped end slavery? Tom Harrison Talk 17:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there are also reliable sources that say they did not end slavery (or help end...the semantics are driving me nuts here). From the research I've done in the last few days, it seems that many historians in the 19th century and even in the 20th century credited the Catholic Church with reducing slavery in the Middle Ages. In more recent times, however, scholars have generally ignored the role of the Catholic Church in "ending" slavery or denied it outright. Instead, they've emphasized general sociopolitical developments without invoking religious authorities. Also bear in mind that we are only talking about the Middle Ages. No neutral scholar in his or her right mind would credit the Catholic Church with ending slavery in modern times, and I would be surprised if anyone found that kind of reference (but pleasantly so). UberCryxic  ( talk ) 17:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In general I agree, although "ignored" is not right - "downplayed" would be better. I notice by the way we have Catholic Church and slavery, a rambling, incoherent and contradictory account, which ought to benefit from all this learned discussion here, but as usual probably won't. We don't even seem to link to it. On subjects this big, you can ref most positions to RS. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I very much doubt it given that it didn't. Who is the Catholic Spartacus, Toussaint L'Ouverture or John Brown?. Haldraper (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Toussaint Louverture was a "fervent Catholic", according to our article. But all these are figures remembered for military reasons. You would be better asking who was the Catholic William Wilberforce etc, and you can pick up many names from the article I mentioned, bad though it is. Medieval art often shows saints liberating (usually Catholic) slaves - panel 7 of the 11th century Gniezno Doors shows Christ appearing to Saint Adalbert in a vision instucting him to do so.  Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've said this before but no one seems to have taken it on board so I'll try to say it again more explictly. The reason you are having this debate is because you want to turn this into a yes/no decision. Did the Church "help end slavery" yes or no? Well the answer is "yes" and "no". Someone mentioned MLK. Well, MLK was never for segregation whereas the Church did accept slavery as an established institution of society and worked to mitigate its more egregious evils. Someone else mentioned Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln is perhaps a slightly better though by no means perfect analogy. He was not the "emancipator of the slaves" that popular myth makes him out to be. I won't rehash all the details but his primary goal was not the abolition of slavery.

At the end of the day, the truth is that Catholic Church has both condoned slavery as a practical fact of life at some earlier points in its history and condemned it at later points in its history. If we just accept that 2000 years is a long time and both the Church and Western society have changed during that period, we can more accurately represent what happened at different points in time. It is also reasonable to consider that what the Vatican says and what the hierarchy and the faithful do can be two different things. In the antebellum South, the U.S. hierarchy interpreted In Supremo Apostolatus to apply to slave trading but not to slave ownership. The fact that most U.S. Catholics at the time were whites living in slave-holding Maryland and Louisiana might have had something to do with that position.

The truth is that we are arguing over whether the one word "slavery" can be included in a list of "good things" that the Church has done. (and many of the other items in the list are also being challenged).

If we can abandon the attempt to attack or defend the Church on this (and other issues!), we can more easily arrive at an NPOV description of its history. What if we do away with the sentence in question altogether and replace it with a series of sentences on each of the items. For example, vis-a-vis slavery, we could use my earlier sentence which went something like this "Although the Church initially accepted slavery as an established social institution and worked primarily to mitigate abuse of slaves, it later opposed slavery first of Christians and eventually of all human beings." To me, this neither attacks nor defends the Church, it just states what happened. One could say the same thing of the United States or most European nations. I don't think it is possible to say definitively who gets how much credit for ending slavery. I think abolition was an evolution in the social conscience of Western society that took several hundred years. The Catholic Church as well as some Protestant churches contributed to this evolution. We should not attempt to judge specific individuals too harshly unless we take into account the mores of the time in which they lived.

In any event, any detailed treatment of specific individuals and/or actions is way outside the scope of this article. If you have an interest in the details, come help improve Catholic Church and slavery.

--Richard S (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been suggesting something along these lines, although I think the strong line against enslaving Catholics should be mentioned. This is not the same as an outright ban on all forms of slavery, but as far as the vast majority of people in Europe by the Reformation were concerned, it had the same effect. Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Richard, your perspective is refreshing and represents exactly the kind of context and nuance that this article currently lacks in its efforts at making the Catholic Church seem responsible for the rise of the modern world. By and large, I agree with your characterization because it's historically accurate. I too support removing the current sentence altogether, and I also support including your sentence with the following modification: "Christians" should be replaced with "Catholics." There is a difference, and we have a reputable academic source that highlights that difference quite clearly. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 20:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I too think the way forward is to cut the sentence - whose only function is POV-pushing - and replace it with more nuanced/rounded sentences on each of the issues mentioned.


 * On slavery, Richard's suggestion is a good start, however I think a couple of things need firming up: "it later opposed slavery first of Christians and eventually of all human beings." When are we talking about when we say the Church 'later' and 'eventually' opposed slavery? In Supremo Apostolatus, the Papal Bull issued by Pope Gregory XVI in 1839, clearly condemned slavery:


 * "We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort... that no one in the future dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples... We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this trade in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in these Apostolic Letters"


 * However slavery continued in Catholic countries - Brazil until 1886, Cuba until 1888 - and in the American South until the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. What action did the Church take against those Catholics who owned slaves after 1839? Excommunication, exclusion from the sacraments, public censure from the pulpit, refusal to accept financial donations? I see no evidence they did any of that. As UberCryxic has pointed out, the religious people involved in the abolitionist movement were predominantly Nonconformists (Baptists and Quakers). Haldraper (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've wondered before (though probably not "out loud") whether we even need a cultural influence section. It seems that much of what is in this section could be folded into the history section, where appropriate context might be better given.  Do we even need to talk about slavery in this article?  Karanacs (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Much the best solution. Granting everything Richard would say, this is not a cultural effect of the Catholic Church. If Las Casas had never lived, there would still have been an abolitionist movement. It is that some particular movements (including abolitionism) had members inside the Church of Rome as well as members outside. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Although the Church initially accepted slavery as an established social institution and worked primarily to mitigate abuse of slaves, it later opposed slavery first of Christians and eventually of all human beings.

There are several problems with this, besides the absence of sources. If that were fixed it might alleviate most of the other problems:
 * worked primarily to mitigate abuse of slaves, is weaselworded, and I think it is still false of the Church as an institution.
 * opposed slavery first of Christians No, it opposed the slave-trade in free Christians (during the High Middle Ages, chiefly). Did it ever oppose Christians who were already slaves continuing in slavery? The Churches of Maryland and Louisiana did not.
 * eventually [opposed slavery] of all human beings. I have no doubt that Benedict XVI does; so do almost all 21st century institutions. It conveys no information; leave such comments to the article on the Wahhabi, who do not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2 was not 'chiefly during the High Middle Ages'; the hard work was done in the Early Middle Ages, and during the High Middle Ages it became largely an accepted thing that you could not enslave Christians. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Reading the text of Sublimus Dei (to which our article links) reveals that the key phrase is the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ. This prohibits the reduction of anybody into slavery; by implication it may prohibit the slave trade. But this was issued in 1839; the web of international treaties against the slave trade had been in place for decades, and most major slave-holding countries had long since abolished it - the United States in 1807. It prevented little; and for those already in slavery, it does nothing. It liberates nobody. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But the key point is that this is drawing original conclusions from a primary source; all my comments show is that such conclusions tend to be unsourced and dubious - that's why Wikipedia frowns on them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is quite heavily referenced to academic sources, supporting the same conclusion. What seems to have happened is that the bull was nobbled by the Spanish crown, and subsequently withdrawn - it was issued in 1537, less than 10 years after the Sack of Rome. It was clearly ignored by the Spanish authorities anyway. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I seem to be confusing with in Supremo Apostolatus above; but if the 1537 bull was ignored in the Americas, does it really count as a cultural effect? What secondary source says so? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 09:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs makes a good point: if it's turning out to be so insanely controversial, we don't even have to mention slavery at all! As I see it, it's an important part of the history of the Catholic Church, but not central by any stretch of the imagination. It could be left out. What is absolutely unacceptable is the current version, which just blithely credits the Catholic Church with helping to end slavery and does not explain the complicated relationship that readers need to know about. UberCryxic ( talk ) 22:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is important enough that a link to a (hopefully much improved) Catholic Church and slavery should certainly be hung somewhere, & I think there should be a short bit in the history section, concentrating on New World slavery, but covering the whole hisory very briefly. The claim here is in fact pretty limited. There should be a "cultural influences" section - it is after all one of the "broader themes" Karanacs wants more of. The present wording has problems, if only because of overcompression. The science & art stuff would only get lost if dispersed to the history section. Johnbod (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can accept something like Richard's suggested wording for the Cultural Influences section:
 *  "Although the Church initially accepted slavery as an established social institution and worked primarily to mitigate abuse of slaves, it later opposed slavery first of Christians and eventually of all human beings." 
 * It is a very broad outline, but with a link to the specific article, something along these lines would roughly reflect the sun of sources. And here we are talking of what the Church said and did - not what any so-called "Catholic countries" did. As far as mitigation goes, the treatment of slaves was regulated by Codes in South and central America that treated slaves as persons with rights to family life and to attain freedom, rather than as chattel goods - as in the United States and UK and Dutch colonies. As a further point for Cryxic. The proposal to liberate the slaves in the French revolutionary National Assembly was put forward by Abbé Grégoire.  Xan  dar   01:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so we're clear: are you referring to 1791 or some other year? The article mentions Gregoire's great efforts in 1791, although that vote was not about abolishing slavery. Slavery in the French colonies was abolished in 1794, and I don't know if Gregoire brought that up or not. Either way, the National Convention in 1794 (probably the most radical year of the Revolution) was filled with rabid anti-religious Jacobins. But yes, Gregoire was a famous example of a very liberal Catholic priest. It should be said that many Catholic priests in France actually supported the Revolution, but the Church itself, of course, did not. I support Richard's version, but I insist that "Christians" be replaced with "Catholics" per the very reputable source I presented above. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 03:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * After all this debate we might as well If we are going to get it right, which Richard's draft doesn't really do. I would suggest:

"Although the Church accepted slavery as an established social institution, it slowly succeeded during the Middle Ages in suppressing new enslavement of Christians, except as a punishment, while long continuing to accept the enslavement of others, such as Muslims and pagans." That can be referenced from several books linked above. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Johnbod's sentence gets the part about the Middle Ages and enslavement of Christians right. I'm not sure exactly when this enslavement of Christians thing became considered a bad thing but it seems that enslavement of Muslims was considered to be an exception to the prohibition against slavery (the rationale being that they were enslaving Christians so it was OK to enslave Muslims).  Starting sometime around the beginning of the Age of Discovery, the Church starts forbidding the enslavement of Native Americans but it is not so clearly against the enslavement of Africans until much later (maybe as late as In Supremo Apostolatus?).  My concern about Johnbod's proposed sentence is that it doesn't give the Church any credit for opposing slavery because it focuses on how long it continued to accept/sanction it instead of indicating that the Church did indeed come out and oppose it.
 * I agree that we have to distinguish between what the Vatican does and what the local hierarachies and lay people do. However, to me, that doesn't mean that we indicate only what the Vatican does and gloss over what the local hierarachies and lay people do.  It means that, if there is a significant variance between what the Vatican pronounces and what actually happens "on the ground", then we should mention that.  (e.g. the fact that the Spanish ignored the papal bull and the antebellum bishops in the U.S. interpreted In Supremo Apostolatus to apply only to the slave trade).  I don't mean that we have to mention these examples explicitly.  We could just say something like "...eventually coming to oppose slavery although some Catholic countries continued to allow slavery until the late 19th century."
 * --Richard S (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The "Muslims" were considered "enemies of Christ", which was the quasi-technical term also used in Dum Diversas etc. That last bit would be very dubious - after 1837 the official position was very clear (finally). What "Catholic countries" do you mean? Not Leopold's Congo. Perhaps some South American countries run by oligarchies. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Late 19th century would be Brazil, although the difference between slavery and the abominable labor practices of the  Congo Free State and Peru is largely a matter of whether there was a market in individual human beings. The last sentence seems to suggest "It isn't a real Catholic country, it's an oligarchy". Come, now, when, in the name of the Lion of Saint Mark, has the Chutch objected to oligarchies? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say, rather, that Johnbod's text chiefly gives credit for a side-effect: It is quite true that by the late Middle Ages, the Irish, Norse, and Lithuanian pagans were no longer trading in newly taken Christian slaves. By 1100 (1400 in the Eastern Baltic), none of them were pagan, and they were no longer raiding Continental Europe, which had organized states capable of repelling them.


 * On the other hand, Catholics (chiefly laymen, of course) continued trading in Muslim and Orthodox slaves; slaves and unfree persons continued to be held across Europe. If a source can be found making Johnbod's argument, or Richard's, that would be a different matter.


 * That the Popes joined the tide of liberal opinion against the slave trade, sixty years after Woolman and thirty years after Wilberforce, may be of interest to some academic arguments over modernism; but is it a signficant point in 2000 years of Catholic history? Is it a widely held point of view? Is it notable? Does either proposed text represent it without misleading the reader?


 * My proposed text would be much more concise, and I hope less controversial:




 * I don't foresee anybody new coming along and complaining of the pro-Catholic or anti-Catholic bias in that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 09:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's missing the point. The achievement was that prisoners in intra-Christian wars were no longer enslaved, which both in pagan antiquity and "barbarian" societies they routinely had been. It was a long hard grind to pursuade, for example, the Irish to stop doing this. Maybe I should add a few words to explain, if so acute a reader has missed it.  There are refs in the links assembled above: p249, pp 59-62, both from essentially economic studies, and at the CC & S article. This usefully summarizes the historiography re the influence of the church in the decline of medieval slavery Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a much more interesting and limited point. Wars between Catholics or Western Europeans would be better, since the Venetians routinely enslaved Christian Serbs - and so eastwards. Which of those sources, before I check the links, ascribes the change to clerical influence? But pending checking this, I could support, for example, Catholics stopped enslaving the prisoners in wars with each other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All, but not solely to Church influence. Some of those also say, which all seem agreed on, that war was the main source of new slaves. The Venetians didn't I think so much enslave themselves, as traffic - as with other commodities, the origin of slaves once enslaved tended to become lost.  In this article we are pretty clearly not discussing Byzantine slavery.  I don't mind changing "Christian" to "Catholic". Here's another take on an overviewJohnbod (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would read that overview as saying that the view of the direct influence of the Church on slavery is now somewhat dated. There was much 19th century argument about the Christian abolition of ancient slavery (intended to suggest that modern slavery was unChristian). Sir Moses Finley, Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology discusses this at length; it provided much sound scholarship on the evils of ancient slavery, although the central contention is not sound - it may also have done good in its own time. This seems a branch of the same rhetoric, last held by Marc Bloch, seventy years ago; the surviving contention that slavery fell out of use with the spread of Western European cultural forms (which included the spread of Christianity), may well be consensus among modern scholars (together with economic explanations) - but is not what the sentence under dispute says or implies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

All of this discussion would be great over at Talk:Catholic Church and slavery. However, I think we are focusing on too much detail for this article. My basic thesis is that in the first few centuries after its founding, the Church accepted slavery as an established part of the social fabric. Today, in the year 2010, the Church opposes slavery. The transition from acceptance to opposition didn't occur in a single year, a single decade or even a single century. It was a slow evolution. To argue whether secular society changed the Church or the Church changed secular society is kind of like debating the chicken-and-the-egg question. Clearly, they influenced each other and one can find arguments on both sides. The basic thrust of my proposal was to state the initial position (the Church accepting slavery but counseling the humane treatment of slaves) and the final position (the Church opposing slavery). Both of those are fairly indisputable facts. Everything else is historical interpretation which is not the appropriate level of detail for this article. This is probably not the article to discuss how effective the Church's opposition to slavery was in actually ending slavery. Save it for the article on Catholic Church and slavery. --

PManderson wrote "If a source can be found making Johnbod's argument, or Richard's, that would be a different matter." I'm sorry... it's unclear to me which argument of mine, you are referring to. Can you clarify so I can either find a source or retract the argument? Thanx. --Richard S (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Although the Church initially accepted slavery as an established social institution and worked primarily to mitigate abuse of slaves, it later opposed slavery first of Christians and eventually of all human beings. This is unsourced, and I have criticized it above; it seems to be half false (when did the Church as a body work to mitigate abuse of slaves?) and half trivial (Benedict XVI opposes slavery - as do almost all present day institutions). I do not see that the article benefits from it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a good source which describes the "original" position, I suppose - the Church's teachings during the latter part of the Roman Empire. Geoffrey S. Nathan, The family in late antiquity: the rise of Christianity and the endurance of tradition.   The chapter on slavery begins p 169. The Google preview is limited - if you want specifics from any page not listed let me know and I can transcribe. Karanacs (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, if I do want more, I will find a copy. I did not mean to deny the Church initially accepted slavery as an established social institution, which is true, obvious to almost any reader of Philemon, and consensus among ancient historians (see also Finley, as well as Brown and de Sainte Croix). Nathan is yet another source for the claim that the economy of chattel slavery was already beginning to gradually fall out of use before Constantine - a chief cause that captives ceased to be enslaved.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard, what do you say to the idea that we not mention slavery at all in Cultural influence? UberCryxic ( talk ) 18:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like Uber's comments just above about the slavery issue regarding the Church but I also like Richard's nice slavery note. I think the note is too long and needs sourcing which I am offering to do but maybe Uber could take a look at it and trim it up a bit so its not so long. I would like to see a note that merges Uber's ideas into Richard's note that ultimately makes it more concise.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 21:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose removing the term. Mostly due to the United Stateism, Anglo-centric contention that removing would be based on. The word "slavery" itself in secular humanist and recent identity politics currency, is used mostly in reference to the slavery of black Africans brought into North America. "Slavery" itself is a much, much wider practice than that and the Church has historically opposed it in many places, including in South America, with the creation of the Jesuit Reductions. Reading through the commments, Johnbod comes to tackling this correctly. We must remember, there is whole world out there where Catholicism pervades that is outside the realm of the English-speaking world. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a mention, akin to Richards wording, is useful to have in the cultural influences section, especially with a link for those who wish for more detail.  Xan  dar   01:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Very well, let us have a non-anglophone instance: what did the Church of Brazil do against slavery, as an institution? On the other side of the Parana, the Paraguayan settlements are a matter of definition; some would call the entire system a collective form of slavery.


 * With this exception, and one other, I have made entirely Old World arguments against this claim. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PMAnderson has now removed the whole sentence citing this section as evidence supporting its removal. I do not see a consensus for doing that. I see Yorkshirian, NancyHeise, Xandar, Johnbod, Richard and Uber agreeing that some mention is warranted. Certainly ZERO editors on this talk section have agreed to the removal of the rest of the sentence regarding polygamy, abortion, infanticide, etc. This is evidence of his disruptive editing.   Nancy Heise   ''' talk 21:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No I have changed my mind. I don't want slavery mentioned in that context with the Catholic Church. If the issue is this insanely controversial, it's not a bad idea to just ignore it from the article altogether. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 21:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK but that still leaves 5 editors, out of a total of 9 in this thread who have not agreed with complete deletion of the sentence. Evidently there is not a new consensus supporting PMA's edit.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 22:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Slavery - Ways to move forward
There are three approaches here:

1) spread out discussion of slavery throughout the History section as a theme that keeps getting revisited

2) mention slavery in the Cultural Influences section

3) say nothing at all about slavery

I think doing #1 is hard to do well and risks giving undue weight to slavery as a major theme in the history of the Church which I really don't think it is. I think we are converging on a consensus with respect to #2. I could accept #3 but I think other editors would not and so I suspect we will wind up having to go with #2. --Richard S (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree for slightly different reasons. There is another option:

4) add a very few lines brutally summarizing the whole history, with lots of links, at a single appropriate point in the history.

-I think I favour this, probably in the "Age of Discovery" which is the crunch point for the church and slavery, as our readers feel, probably correctly. None of them show signs of giving a monkey's about the degree to which the church did or did not help medieval Slavs etc. This is one of those areas where no mention is taken as inherently demonstrating pro-Catholic apologetics bias, regardless of the motives that led to the lack of coverage. Or the same summary could be in "cultural influences". Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I support (3), as always; I could support (4). Let's see a draft of these few lines. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If we have to include mention of slavery, then I think AGe of Discovery is the most appropriate place for that discussion, which will, hopefully, actually be a "brutal summary". Karanacs (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I favor 3): say nothing at all about it in Cultural influence. I'm fine with what's there now in History. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 20:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I favour (2). If not that, then (4). The thing about not mentioning it in "Cultural influences" is that people looking for the topic might probably look there, rather than running through the history section.  Xan  dar   21:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think 1), however hard, is the best answer.


 * 2) doesn't work for POV reasons and can't be referenced (i.e. the claim that one of the Church's contributions to culture was 'helping to end slavery').


 * 3) isn't ideal but better than 2).


 * 4) is no more workable than 2): what would be the "single appropriate point in the history" given the Church's complicated relationship with slavery in the late Roman Empire, Middle Ages, European colonisation of South America and Africa and nineteenth century American South? Haldraper (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can go for either 1 or 2. We can't even consider saying nothing at all about slavery - we were hammered in one of our FAC's about slavery and it is a significant issue in the Cultural influence of the Church. I think its unencyclopedic as well as incorrect to leave it out.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nancy, forgive me if I have lost track of this during all the discussion: which source says that it is a significant issue in the Cultural Influence of the Church? Do we have a source that explicitly says that the Church helped to end slavery? --Richard S (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (Now in CC & S): According to the Cambridge Economic History of Europe "one of the finest achievements of Christian ethics was the enforcement of respect for this maxim [that free Christians could not be enslaved], slowly to be sure, for it is still being recalled in England early in the eleventh century, but in the long run most effectively." - now in the CC & S article. From 2000 This usefully summarizes the historiography re the influence of the church in the decline of medieval slavery.   Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnbod. That saved me from having to re-read the voluminous discussion. That quotation seems to refer only to the abolition of slavery of "free Christians" in the Middle Ages. Now, we could read the phrase "in the long run most effectively" in the above quote to mean that the prohibition of enslavement of free Christians in Europe ultimately had an indirect on the influence the subsequent abolition of slavery worldwide (culminating in the abolition of slavery in Brazil and Cuba in the late 19th century). Seems like a stretch to me. Does anyone actually make such an argument explicitly or is that original research on our part? The phrase "in the long run most effectively" could also be read more narrowly to mean the enslavement of free Christians in Europe was slow but ultimately came to be universally enforced. Such a reading would make no inference about the influence of the Catholic Church on the abolition of slavery with respect to people of all races and faiths.

My perspective is that the Catholic Church has influenced first the mitigation and eventually the aboition of slavery over the centuries while at times participating in the institution as slaveholder and sanctioning its practice by Catholics. If we are to insist on mentioning slavery as an important issue, we should be careful to mention all the points in the preceding sentence. To just say that "the Church helped end slavery" is true but open to attack due to the ancillary issues.

--Richard S (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of those are specifically about the "long" Middle Ages. I agree we need to cover the Renaissance & Early Modern period, where the picture is confused, but on the whole less creditable. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There are indeed two phases. 1) Pre new-world colonialism, gradual abolition of slavery. and 2) The restoration of slavery following New World discovery. In both the principle of legally "legitimate" versus "illegitimate" (iillegally acquired by wrongful seizure), ownership of slaves was important.  Xan  dar   00:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * From Rodney Stark's For the Glory of God, same book also says medieval church condemned slavery on page 327.
 * From Alvin J. Schmidt's Under the Influence; How Christianity Transformed Civilization pages 272-290 are under the Chapter heading "Slavery Abolished: A Christian Achievment" ends the chapter with this "Thus, the effort to remove slavery, whether it was Wilberforce in Britain or the abolitionists in America, was not a new phenomenon in Christianity. Nor were the efforts by Martin Luther King Jr. and the American civil rights laws of the 1960's to remove racial segregation new to the Christian ethic. They were merely efforts to restore Christian practices that were already in existence in Christianity's primal days." This book is scholarly source, a secondary source that is also widely used as a university textbook. I bought it after doing a search to see what universities were using.
 * I've always found this quote from Edward Norman interesting with regard to slavery - its in a section that is constrasting Moorish Spain with Christian Europe - from The Roman Catholic Church, an illustrated history page 67 quote: "Today, a markedly uncritical attitude to Moorish Spain seems prevalent. It derives, however, almost wholly from artisitic and cultural judgement. The political and social arrangements of the Moors are generally ingnored by the modern enthusiasts, for Moorish Spain comprised a series of autocracies which completely failed to develop anything like the representative institutions, the judicial system, or the concepts of individual liberty that evolved in medieval Europe. It was, additionally, a slave society, with a slave economy. All those placid courtyards and sparkling fountains, that poetry and art, rested upon the existence of one of the largest slave populations the world has ever seen. In the absence of any doctrine of individual rights, the slaves of the Moors were also subject to infelicitous indignities: at the court of Cordova in the tenth century, at the very height of that great city's most astonishing artistic accomplishments, the Emir maintained a palace harem of 6,000 women and 13,000 young boys. It is not surprising that Spanish Christians found Moorish moral standards defective, nor that they should have sought what is now termed regime change." Nancy Heise   ''' talk 04:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We want, and already have, more specialized sources than these. I am working on Catholic Church and slavery to get that better before presenting a boiled-down version for here. Meanwhile for Haldraper's requested "Catholic heroes of Emancipation" series, Early Modern division: Montesquieu and the radical priest Guillaume-Thomas Raynal - from this short & certainly independent article I found at Sublimus Dei: "Religions and the abolition of slavery - a comparative approach", W. G. Clarence-Smith, Professor of the Economic History of Asia and Africa, University of London, retrieved 11 August 2009

Present
I agree that the page just fizzled out before and we needed a final section the Church today to tie it up. However, I don't think Nancy's text does that for one simple reason: it's nearly all about the Pope rather than the Church, apart from the final sentence which everyone agrees is POV (for different reasons) and is unreferenced anyway.

I have a proposal to fix this: we move the Institutions, personnel and demographics section to the end of the page given that it does describe the current state of the Church. Haldraper (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Karanacs (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I have been searching other encyclopedias to see how they treat their Catholic Church articles and have found that in nearly every case, they end their articles with a discussion of the reigning pope's actions and a summary of challenges faced by the Church.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On that note, the most significant issues that should probably go into this section should probably be the following (I provided several sources if anyone would like to experiment with crafting some article text)
 * the new ordinariate formed for Anglicans to come into the church
 * The increased allowance of use of traditional mass - maybe Mike Searson can help with that, he's more of an expert on that I think.
 * Benedict XVI's travels
 * His efforts to try to mend issues with Society of Piux X folks although this is not accomplished, it was just discussed. They are still not reconciled and maybe this isn't notable enough - I'll let others decide
 * maybe go into some of Pope John Paul II stuff like world youth day, his travels, apologies (someone deleted the apology listed after the World War II paragraph), his serious efforts at mending old rifts
 * We could also mention how Catholic institutions are suppressed/prohibited in many Muslim countries. (I see someone deleted this from the article without gaining consensus.)
 * And mention the persecution and violence against Catholics in Iraq, India, Phillipines and efforts between Catholic Church and Muslim leaders to end religious violence - this NYT article also lists other countries where the violence occurs.
 * Could also discuss rift between Catholic politicians in various countries who do not support Catholic doctrine against abortion and bishops who are considering denying them the sacraments? This is an issue in the US, not sure about other countries.
 * Maybe say something about oppression of the Church by secular governments who have passed laws that require the Church to go against its beliefs in order to provide services. I was thinking of the Catholic adoptions services that have recently closed in UK and USA  and the debate over conscience laws in the medical field in the US.
 * We should be able to craft a decent summary paragraph with this - these other encyclopedias are able to do it concisely and neutrally - we can too.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Despite the fact that "other encyclopedias are able to do it concisely and neutrally", the above list is neither and potentially constitutes the basis of a long, POV text on how the Church is oppressed/persecuted by other religions/"secular governments" and the "challenges" it faces.


 * I maintain that the Institutions, Personnel and Demographics section provides a NPOV means of ending the page. Haldraper (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should do both what NancyHeise proposes AND what Haldraper proposes. The "Institutions, Personnel and Demographics" section clearly describes the present-day Church.  So too, does the list presented by NancyHeise although it seems incomplete to me.  Nancy's list doesn't include issues such as debates over ordination of women, homosexuality, abortion, contraception.  Are there no reliable sources that consider these as "challenges" that the Church faces?  How about the shortage of clergy?  Are there no nations that face a shortage of clergy?  --Richard S (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we should not do what Nancy proposes. This is not the place for a weepy list of the sorrows of the Church or a travelogue of the past two popes. We are not a Sympathetic Point of View, nor an indiscriminate selection of information; even on the biographies of the popes in question such things would be marginal.


 * In brief, Nancy wants a fan site. She should go create one; if it contains enough neutral sources, we could even link to it. But this article should not be one; that's policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe something about the fact that very few young people seem to want to become members of a celibate clergy, something about the current 'situation' in Ireland or something about a possible (?) divergence between the Pope's guidance on contraception and the actual practices of ordinary married catholics? But I guess this fan site is as unlikely to touch such contemporary issues as it is to explore past issues such as the Crusades and the Inquisition. --Tediouspedant (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The eminent monk Paphnutius opposed the requirement of a celibate clergy at the Council of Nicaea, on the grounds that not everyone can endure it; the Council did not require it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We certainly need something contemporary. Some but I think not all of Nancy's list should be included. At the least a hanging-rail (not a coatrack, oh no) for links "Issues facing the church today include ....". There is somewhat too much on the Popes. Do we have an article on clerical recruitmenmt today? I can't see one. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a hanging-rail, please. That's what See also sections are for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nancy's list is a long one. But some of these issues are certainly relevant, including the traditional mass. But it mustn't be too much about Pope benedict though.  Xan  dar   00:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Responding to Septentrionalis/PMAnderson's comment "Nancy wants a fan site" - this is really in violation of WP:assume good faith. I placed a relevant list of items with links to try and help improve the "Present" section. I did not propose text but was hoping that editors on this page could work together to create a decent ending for the article. You come to this page and make lots of personal attacks against good faith editors but I dont seem to ever see you proposing any sources or anything other than griping. You are welcome to participate in this project but I don't see your attitude helping us work together towards improving the article - rather - what I see - is a concerted effort to create a "battleground mentality".
 * Responding to Richard those issues are already discussed in the Second Vatican Council section. Women's ordination is not an issue, it is not being discussed as a possibility in the Church but was put to rest by Pope John Paul II whose ruling was considered very final - this already discussed in Second Vatican Council section. Abortion, contraception and homosexuality are not being discussed either. Abortion and contraception have always been condemned by the Church since its earliest days (remember our work on Ten Commandments page?) and I'm not sure what you mean when you mention homosexuality. Homosexual inclinations are not considered sinful but homosexual acts are - this is a Church belief - its not being debated or contested by anyone in the Church. Do you mean mentioning something about the Church's political battles regarding abortion in various countries? I think that is a present day issue we can include. Maybe you also mean battles against homosexual marriage as well? That is probably OK to include but I think that is affecting only a handful of countries, its certainly notable in the United States.
 * Responding to Johnbod, I suggested a lot on the popes because that is how Encyclopedia Americana and Worldbook Encyclopedia end their articles. I was just trying to follow what appears to be scholarly consensus formatting but I'm open to new ideas too. Nancy Heise   ''' talk 03:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have incorporated the comments here into the article. I moved the Catholic Instituitons section to the bottom under the heading Present and added to the paragraph about Pope Benedict. I will reference my new text when we come to agreement here. This is the version after I finished my last edit tonight. . Let me know what you think. Thanks.   Nancy Heise   ''' talk 06:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Nancy, the assumption of good faith does not require me to ignore the page of evidence of Nancy's bad faith, it merely requires me to wait for it. But it exists, and this proposal merely demonstates that nothing has changed. 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PMAs continuous personal abuse, disruptive editing and incivility are a major hindrance to progress in a good atmosphere on this article.  Xan  dar   02:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There are still serious POV issues with this section, hence the tag: the "challenges" the Church faces are clearly only seen as such from the POV of the Church and as others have pointed out it is a phrase more approriate to a 'mission statement' than an encyclopaedia article. Like the alleged oppression/persecution/discrimination against the Church by other religions and "secular governments" however I can see why Nancy is pushing for its inclusion.

Where I struggle to see her logic is when she replaces clear statistics such as percentage points with vague phrases - "a slight decrease...steadily rising...decreases in the US and Europe" - especially when they both come from the same sources, the former journalists' paraphrasing and the latter them quoting the 2007 Pontifical Yearbook. Haldraper (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The percentage points Haldraper prefers are not the clearest way of presenting the information, and in fact are rather obfuscatory in their effect. The simple phraseology is better. And once again, Haldraper, you are making insinuations about the views and reasonings of editors, and not discussing the actual facts on their merits. Can you do that please, and avoid the personalisations?  Xan  dar   02:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK Xandar: "a decrease of one half a percent" or "an increase of 3.1%" may not be "the clearest way of presenting the information" as you say and may even be "rather obfuscatory in their effect". However, that is the way the sources present the data - rather than as raw figures - and it is still clearer than the vague phrases we've got now: ""a slight decrease...steadily rising...decreases in the US and Europe". Haldraper (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Xandar that we want to use language that is readable. If any Reader wants to know the exact percentages of the minor points then all they have to do is click on the citation that leads them to the online article. Haldraper you are making a big fuss over a tiny matter. I have given in a bit to your views but I don't see the same from you. Both sides have to try.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 20:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just reiterating my opposition to a "Present" section and much of what is on the list above. That is giving undue weight (and the list as given reflects a very Church POV) to the last few years of history. Haldraper's suggestion of moving the demographics section down is an excellent one. This provides the perfect snapshot of what the Church is at present - how many members are there, where do they live, etc. Karanacs (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just want to remind you Karanacs that our Present section follows the example given by other major tertiary sources such as Worldbook Encyclopedia and Encyclopedida Americana which both end their articles on the Catholic Church with a Present section that discusses the very same things I have proposed. I am so tired of having my proposals labeled POV when they are just offering Reader the basic facts that appear in every other tertiary and scholarly source.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 22:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Xandar's reversions
This compound diff restores two pieces of text which nobody defends as they stand, even the reverter, on the plea that there is no consensus to remove them. This is disingenuous and unacceptable; if this continues, I shall conclude and say to ArbCom that it is impossible to make progress until Xandar is banned from this page.

In one case, the Spanish Civil War, everybody, even Nancy, agrees on a short text; the open question is whether the text as it now stands is short enough or should be shorter still.

In the other case, the miscellaneous and factually challenged sentence on how the Church ended slavery, human sacrifice, and a number of other things with which she had little or nothing to do, the sentence as it stands was undefended, unsourced, and every word of it is contrary to reliable authority.

Johnbod has some much more specific points about the laws of war in the early middle ages; his last post on the subject suggests he doesn't think them important enough to mention in this article, but if he does, I encourage him to add them, with sources.

There is also an ongoing discussion about whether and where to mention slavery at all; but nobody proposes to say what this sentence does; most people seem to want Dum diversas mentioned, if anything is - and this sentence does not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the length of time it took to post this. I edit-conflicted with Richard's assessment that "helped to end" by itself is simply not enough; proposals for a longer and more balanced discussion of slavery are still in order. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And with me above. I certainly think the point should be included, & will try to expand my draft. But as I explain above, editing the actual article is writing on water & I do it very little. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The principle of editing in these circumstances is that the current text stands until there is a consensus to replace it. This is well known. PMA may not like some of the text, but it is not up to him to take out longstanding referenced text from the article on his say so. What we are trying to do is gain a consensus on substantive changes and not to go back to edit-warring and tit-for-tat changes to the article text. Even if we follow BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS, then the procedure is that when a "bold" change is reverted, we proceed to discuss and reach consensus. In this it is best to achieve a form of wording here on the talk page - rather than produce anarchy on the article text by people removing and substituting material at random - which ends up being disruptive.  Xan  dar   23:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Xandar, I agree totally about conferring before removing any text or references - but I can't see how adding a short non-controversial and fully-referenced paragraph on Catholic contributions to science at the end of the High Middle Ages section constitutes "replacing" the text. If that was in the wrong place why not relocate it rather than removing it? --Tediouspedant (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Xandar's edits. The science bit is a little too much detail I think although I do like it. We already have sufficient article text on science and appropriate links for those wanting to see what the detail provided. This section really doesnt need more science but rather more about Catholic education and Missions if we are to follow the examples of other encyclopedia's allocation of weight to items here.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 03:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

<-- I am removing the clothespin from my nose just long enough to acknowledge the message I left at Tediouspendant's talkpage.

I am glad we got some healthy new blood at this page (Tom, Uber, Mamaj), but the behaviour of many otherwise good editors on this page continues to disappoint, and new blood like that little science stunt is something the project is clearly better without. Please, everyone drop the chips from your own shoulders and remember this is meant to be a serious and respectable reference work. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stepping in and saying something. We need that kind of help.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 03:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone has understood my point. The way this article is edited there is not the slightest chance of getting proper neutral or balanced coverage of any significant controversies - such as the treatment of Galileo and other scientists, the Inquisition or the Crusades. This should not be a space for axe-grinding, but nor should it be a page reserved solely for hagiography and apologetics. The fact that I can add a brief paragraph on Science and the Church in the current style of this article (with highly selective use of verifiable pro-church facts and complete evasion of major problematic ones), absurdly co-opting Galileo as a Catholic Scientist embraced by the Church, and get the response from Nancy that The science bit is a little too much detail I think although I do like it proves my point. If we really can't achieve full and fair coverage of major differing POVs in this article then I suggest that an introductory note is added explaining that this article gives the official position of the Church, together with a link to another article in which all the past and present controversies surrounding the Church are properly explored. --Tediouspedant (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe we are progressing, with incredible slowness, towards "neutral or balanced coverage of any significant controversies", and already have it on some. Unfortunately many editors here, on both sides, do not recognise or accept those animals when they see them.  Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed? What progress do you see? The revert warring for unsourced falsehoods continues apace. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what that very mixed bag of a diff is supposed to show, except continuing instability. But some passages do get improved, and then left alone. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It shows an exact reversion of much material by a dubious editor (read the summary) ; but I will try again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A few words on
 * The church rejected and helped end practices such as human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide, and polygamy in evangelized cultures throughout the world, beginning with the Roman Empire.:

It has been discussed at some length above. No-one defended it; no-one agreed with it; it is unsourced, polemical, and contrary to reliable sources. That is consensus and reason to remove - and the burden of adding or retaining material rests on those who would include it. Our reverter, despite mentioning BRD, has not actually discussed content.

I am therefore removing again; and if anyone reverts without actual discussion of what good this falsehood does the encyclopedia, I will tag this article as inaccurate; as well as concludiong it is hopeless, a waste of the time of good editors; if that happens, I shall therefore request permanent protection until Xandar and Nancy are banned, as they deserve to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are the person who deserves to be banned, PMA, for your completely negative and disruptive attitude to this article and all attempts to move towards an orderly settlement of problems. 90% of your contributions here have been antagonistic or disruptive. Despite several requests from editors to not make contentious or substantive edits until consensus has been reached you repeatedly go to the article and remove longstanding referenced material, and then start edit wars. You have several times expressed the intention of getting the article permanently locked, and seem to have little intention here but to provoke trouble, raise the temperature and disrupt discussion. Please stop.  Xan  dar   02:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Removing the phrase beginning with the Roman Empire would help. The rest of the sentence should be able to pass muster. Majoreditor (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd have to see some sources. Let us consider case by case:
 * Human sacrifice: where, when?
 * Slavery: not so much wrong, as undue weight and misleading. The reader will naturally think of ancient or 19th-century slavery, which were much more extemsive than other systems - and which the church did not "help end"; Johnbod's assertions about the end of such slavery as there was in the Middle Ages are, if notable, better asserted directly.
 * Infanticide: again, where, when?
 * Polygamy: There may be some truth to this, although polygamy is (necessarily) relatively rare in those cultures which support it; there aren't enough women for every man, or most men, to be polygamists.
 * But in short, insofar as specifics will support this, the specifics would be better, more neutral, and more informative, than this vague generalization. We are not here to write "the Roman Church is GOOD" any more than "the Roman Church is BAD". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So far we have only (recently) discussed slavery. I agree the wording "beginning with the Roman Empire" is not ideal - neither human sacrifice nor polygamy were big in Roman culture, and as the Zuma family show, polygamy is by no means "ended". The statement surely has/had the usual battery of references, and the claim is actually fairly limited. Whether ending polygamy is or would be "GOOD" is something one could ask President Zuma about - the text does not actually state anything of the sort.  I have objected to the removal of all reference to slavery above; I don't feel so strongly about say infanticide (one might add suicide to the "helped" list too, not that that has been "ended" either), but I think you are seriously over-reacting.  Slavery is the only one on the list where the church's stance has ever been ambiguous. It has AFAIK always been clearly & strongly against the others, & there is certainly less human sacrifice about than there used to be.  I don't agree at all with your points about slavery above - how was "19th-century slavery .... much more extemsive than other systems" - it wasn't. I am working at the other article towards a better passage on slavery. I suspect this sentence can quite easily be reworded in a more satisfactory form. Johnbod (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The five systems which can be described as full-fledged chattel slavery societies, in which slavery was the productive basis of a market economy, were Greece, Rome, the West Indies, the United States, and Brazil. Our reader is even more likely to think of the first four, as opposed to 10th century England or Dalmatia, because they are staples of anglophone mass culture.  "Slavery" as a translation of a local status is far more common, but the statuses are far less pervasive in the society - and often significantly less oppressive.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I presume you are restricting yourself to Western/Christian societies here? In England in 1086-9 (Domesday Book), when slavery was already well in decline, slaves were 10% of the population, & doubtless more productive than many.  I forget the estimates for earlier medieval societies, but they are a lot higher than most people realize.  Altogether slaves were a much higher proportion of the population of the "Western world" in 750 than in 1750, though geographically more evenly spread.  Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am not restricting myself; for my source (the book by Finley cited above) did not. What is your source? If you are engaged in synthesis from Domesday Book itself, what word are you representing as "slave"? Not servi = "serfs", I hope; to translate that as "slaves" is as much of an anachronism as to translate miles/knight as "footsoldier". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, nor am I using a rather old source like Finlay. "Servi" = both serfs and slaves, which is often rather a problem for historians, but I think Domesday makes it clear which is meant. The 10% figure is often seen, including I'm sure in Peleret, cited in the CC & S article. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Finley, not George Finlay. Published 1980, revised and expanded 1998; the number of chattel societies has not changed since then. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Johnbod's comment also marks one problem with sentence and article alike: both rely on a lurid lime-lit view of human history. How much human sacrifice does he suppose there to be in 1 AD, and where? In Britain, certainly; how often is debateable, but it was ended, not by the Church, but by the Roman government. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I imply there was any? Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why, yes. If you did not intend to, you should rephrase " there is certainly less human sacrifice about than there used to be." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If I were you, I would now start jumping up & down throwing accusations about my words being twisted in the most ...[fill in blanks] .... and its [again] ... and .... somebody should ...[again].... But I'm not, so I won't. Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Have I ever protexted being misunderstood myself? It's the misrepresentation of others' comments - and of printed sources - I object to. But I am relieved to see that that is not what you intended to write; it is what I read, even now. I would appreciate a clarification, so I can see what you did mean. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Slavery has been an unchallenged institution in virtually every human society, except Christian society. where it has been challenged and slowly abolished, first in the medieval period - and then, when it was revived on the New World Plantations. With regard to Human sacrifice, this was prevalent in Celtic societies of the pre-christian period, and in Nordic and Baltic-slavonic societies. Human sacrifice was also prevalent throughout pre-columbian America, and in some other societies. Infanticide has been practiced in a variety of European societies with sickly infants. Polygamy is also widely documented around the world. It is often a status thing, where those of high status have many spouses and those of low staus, none.  Xan  dar  02:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are low staus, you don't get no women, you don't even get a second 't'. In what sense was infanticide got rid of in Christianised cultures - have you heard of a thing called the history of the twentieth century? Sayerslle (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Child abandonment was moved from hillsides to churches or hospitals, though it has been argued that classical hillsides functioned as recognised informal centres for picking-up as well as dropping-off. I hesitate to say this, as I'm not likely to be overly interested in your analysis, but I don't see what you mean about the 20th century at all, nor why this should be the fault of the CC. Nowadays Sex-selective abortion is the main means of not having girls, which is what it tended to come down to. Even you can't accuse the CC of promoting that. Our articles in this field aren't great; the very PC Early infanticidal childrearing gives a flavour of the issues here. Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures was I think mostly of older children (the article is rather vague), so falls under human sacrifice rather than infanticide.  Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It has also be argued that the actual function of pre-modern hospitals was infanticide and euthanasia, their mortality managing to be much more severe than mere abandonment in the streets. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Florence Nightingale's hospitals actually killed more soldiers than had died previously, left in barns - but intention is everything.  Xan  dar   20:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Miss Nightingale was attempting to run a modern hospital, complete with antisepsis. By and large she succeeded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

← Rates of infanticide during the late 20th/early 21st century in predominately Christian countries are lower than in, say, much of India or China. See, for example, the current issue of The Economist. Majoreditor (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Cultural influences - taking a broader perspective
Could it be that what we are talking about is the development/evolution of a number of moral/ethical norms in modern Western society to which the Church is certainly a contributor but not necessarily the sole or even the primary force?

What are we really trying to say about slavery? That it existed in Greco-Roman society but eventually evolved into serfdom and then ultimately into the civil liberties/civil rights ethos of today. How much contribution did the Church have in this evolution? Some, maybe even a lot. It is credited by some by helping end slavery in medieval Europe but did it inveigh against the serfdom that took its place? I haven't heard of it doing that. Like the rest of Western society, its record is not lily-white. The Pope sanctioned slavery of non-Christians and this was used to enslave first Native Americans and Africans. Certainly, 18th and 19th century abolitionism was not driven by the Catholic Church.

While human sacrifice and polygamy may not have been elements of Roman civilization at the time of Christ, they were elements of various "pagan" cultures which eventually dropped these practices after being converted to Christianity. Presumably, it's not too POV to present these changes as salutary events. However, the Catholic Church was not alone in effecting these changes. Protestant missionaries also inveighed against these practices and convinced the peoples that they evangelized to abjure them eventually. I don't know much about the Orthodox but presumably they affected the peoples that they converted in similar ways.

I don't know whether infanticide was present in Roman civilization at the time of Christ but it has been and is an element of certain non-Christian cultures. Once again, cultures which have converted to Christianity have dropped this practice in accordance with Christian sanctions against them. And once again, we are talking about all Christians, not just the Catholics.

I think then that what we are saying is that Christianity has played a part in ending these practices or, at least, in getting governments to make them illegal. We could argue whether the sanctions against a particular practice originated in Christianity or were already present in Judeo-Greco-Roman society. However, at the end of the day, I think we should be more interested in Christianity's role in spreading these moral norms than in nailing down exactly where the norms originated from.

This is an article about the Catholic Church but we should still be a little careful not to give the impression that the Catholic Church deserves sole or even primary credit for something that all Christians have done and still do. Moreover, some actions were made by secular governments which were nonetheless motivated by a combination of Christian and secular moral sentiment. By the time you get to the 19th century (and maybe even before that), it is hard to be 100% clear whether a government action is based on Christian morals or a developing secular morality. Certainly the secular morality of Western civilization has its roots in Christian morality.

I think the "Cultural influences" section would seem less like pro-Catholic cheerleading if we drafted a somewhat more nuanced sentence that more accurately portrayed the history of Christianity vis-a-vis the prohibition of these practices in Western (and ultimately the "global") society.

--Richard S (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I largely agree. Of course it is much easier dealing with pre-Reformation Europe, where the CC was the only game in town, & had much more influence than later - though even then it often took centuries to change entrenched attitudes, & many never were. I don't really see why the church should have "inveigh(ed) against the serfdom that took its place". A very tough life no doubt, but that seems very 20th century POV to me - in the long run it worked out pretty well for many European serfs. When there were specific problems and injustices, bishops no doubt got inveighing, just as they do today, but perhaps with more effect. But we don't need that here. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, here's the sources and quotes:
 * Most significant was its role in the spread of the Christian religion throughout the world, a process which ended practices like human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide and polygamy in Christian lands. Historiansnote that Catholic missionaries, popes, laymen and religious were among the leaders in the campaign against slavery, an institution that has existed in almost every culture. Christianity improved the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infanticide was more common), divorce, incest, polygamy and marital infidelity of both men and womenin contrastto the evangelized cultures beginning with the Roman Empire that previously permitted these practices.


 * This quote comes from the Cultural Influence section of the article. It is referenced to seven scholarly works. Listed below.
 * Kohl, Infanticide and the Value of Life (1978), p. 61, Contribution entitled Infanticide: an anthropological analysis by L Williamson, quote: "Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule."
 * Thomas Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church university textbook for decades here's one, another , another another  another   p. 56 "Roman law allowed abortion, imposed no criminal penalty for abandonment of a child, and even permitted infanticide. It was only through Christian influence that these crimes were eventually outlawed. Divorce was consistently condemned by the Church, in keeping with its absolute prohibition by Jesus."
 * Owen Chadwick, A History of Christianity Barnes and Noble reprint p. 242 "During most of the Middle Ages the work of freeing slaves by ransom was regarded as a good work; and orders of monks, such as the Mercedarians, were founded to win liberty for slaves. ...The leaders in the campaign against slavery were of five kinds: the intellectuals of the Enlightenment; the more humane of the American and French revolutionaries; Catholic missionaries in the Americas (the Jesuits never allowed slaves in their settlements); some radical Christians such as the Quakers..., and devout English evangelicals let by the parliamentarian William Wilberforce. Britain did not finally abolish slavery itself until 1833."
 * Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners Yale University Press p. 221, "Gregory had a low opinion of the effects of state patronage in the Americas and the Far East. He condemned slavery and the slave trade in 1839, and backed Propaganda's campaign for the ordination of native clergy, in the face of Portugese racism. His disapproval of the Portugese misuse of the padroado (crown control of the Church) went further."
 * Mark Noll, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis University of North Carolina Press (book review from The Journal of American History here p. 137 "Cochins main concern however was to present a detailed defense of the Catholic Church as working throughout the centuries to apply 'abolute principles' of Scripture that defined "the equality of men before God, the lawfulness of wages, the unity and the brotherhood of the human race," the duties of mutual love to neighbors and the Golden Rule. Cochin put into the present tense what he claimed the leaders of the Catholic Church had always done: "Occupied moreover, before everything the enfranchisement of souls, they seek to make of the master and the slave, two brethren on earth, and of these brethren, two saints in heaven. To those who suffer they say 'Wait!' to those who inflict suffering, 'Tremble!'"
 * Noble, Western Civilization the Continuing Experimenthas numerous authors who are profiled here and is a university textbook here's where it is listed by a Cornell Univ. professor   p. 446, "The most chilling tribute, however, was in humans for sacrifice. When the wars of expansion that had provided prisoners came to an end, the Aztecs and their neighbors fought 'flower wars'—highly ritualized battles to provide prisoners to be sacrificed. Five thousand victims were sacrificed at the coronation of Moctezuma II (r. 1502–20) in 1502. Even more, reportedly twenty thousand were sacrificed at the dedication of the great temple of Huitzilopochtli in Tenochtitlan." p. 456, quote "The peoples living in the Valley of Mexico believed that their conquest was fated by the gods and that their new masters would bring in new gods. The Spaniards' beliefs were strikingly similar, based on the revelation of divine will and the omnipotence of the Christian God. Cortes, by whitewashing former Aztec temples and converting native priests into white-clad Christian priests, was in a way fulfilling the Aztecs' expectations about their conquerer."  "
 * Noble, Western Civilization the Continuing Experiment has numerous authors who are profiled here and is a university textbook here's where it is listed by a Cornell Univ. professor   p. 230, "Women's lives were not as well known as men's. 'Nature produced women for this very purpose.' says a Roman legal text, 'that they might bear children and this is their greatest desire.' Ancient philosophy held that women were intellectually inferior to men, science said they were physically weaker, and law maintained that they were naturally dependent. In the  Roman world women could not enter professions, and they had limited rights in legal matters. Christianity offered women opposing models... Eve.. and Mary...Christianity brought some interesting changes in marriage practices. Since the new faith prized virginity and celibacy, women now had the option of declining marriage. ...Christianity required both men and women to be faithful in marriage, whereas Roman custom had permitted men, but not women, to have lovers, prostitutes, and concubines. Christianity disproved of divorce, which may have accorded women greater financial and social security, although at the cost of staying with abusive or unloved husbands. Traditionally women were not permitted to teach in the ancient world, although we do hear of women teachers such as Hypathia of Alexandria (355-415).... Some Christian women were formidably learned. Until at least the sixth century the Christian church had deaconesses who had important responsibilities in the instruction of women and girls. Medical knowledge was often the preserve of women, particularly in the areas such as childbirth, sexual problems, and "female complaints." Christianity also affected daily life. Churchmen were concerned that women not be seen as sex objects. They told women to clothe their flesh, veil their hair..Pious women no longer used public baths and latrines. Male or female, Christians thought and lived in distinctive new ways. All Christians were sinners, and so all were equal in God's eyes and equally in need of God's grace. Neither birth, wealth, nor status was supposed to matter in this democracy of sin. Theological equality did not, however translate into social equality....Thus in some ways Christianity produced a society the likes of which the ancient world had never known, a society in which the living and the dead jockeyed for a place in a heirarchy that was at once earthly and celestial....Strictly speaking, catholic Christianity would be the one form professed by all believers. A fifth century writer said that the catholic faith was the one believed 'everywhere, all the time, by everyone.' It is no accident that the Catholic Church grew up in a Roman world steeped in ideas of universality. The most deeply held tenet of Roman ideology was that Rome's mission was to civilize the world and bend it to Roman ways."
 * Rodney Stark, professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University The Rise of Christianity, Princeton University Press p. 96 "Because infanticide was outlawed, and because women were more likely than men to convert, among Christians there were soon far more women than men, while among pagans, men far outnumbered women. p. 102 "In Athens, women were in relatively short supply owing to female infanticide, practiced by all classes, and to additional deaths caused by abortion. The status of Athenian women was very low. Girls received little or no education. Typically Athenian females were married at puberty and often before. Under Athenian law, a woman was classified as a child regardless of age, and therefore was the legal property of some man at all stages in her life. Males could divorce by simply ordering a wife out of the household. Moreover if a woman was seduced or raped her husband was legally compelled to divorce her. If a woman wanted to have a divorce, she had to have her father or some other man bring her case before a judge. Finally, Athenian women could own property but control of the property was always vested in the male to whom she 'belonged'." p. 103 "Although I begin this chapter with the assertion that Christian women did indeed enjoy considerably greater status than pagan women, this needs to be demonstrated at greater length. The discussion will focus on two primary aspects of female status: within the family and within the religious community." p. 106 "These differences are highly significant statistically. But they seem of even greater social significance when we discover that not only were a substantial number of pagan Roman girls married before the onset of puberty, to a man far older than themselves, but these marriages typically were consummated at once."   Nancy Heise   ''' talk 21:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Without gaining consensus, PMAnderson elimated the entire sentence from Cultural Influence section regarding slavery, polygamy and infanticide.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 21:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

PMAnderson did the right thing in removing that sentence, which was atrocious due its lack of context and POV pushing. UberCryxic ( talk ) 21:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PMA cites this section for removing that sentence, 5 of the 9 editors there do not agree with complete removal, that's not a new consensus. If you don't like the way something is worded, please propose alternate text but we can't just eliminate things that are so oft mentioned in so many sources. The citations for that sentence are after the following sentence in an appropriate format per WP:Cite. I have also listed the sources and quotes above and offered some new ones in this same section. Slavery was also an issue discussed in one of our FAC's where a big debate took place over what to mention. No one suggested saying nothing.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 22:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic opposition to divorce should be mentioned, in a neutral fashion, in any final version of this bit. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem here is attempting to write one sentence that covers the Church's attitude to infanticide, slavery, human sacrifice etc.: you could write a book on each of those. The disputed sentence doesn't actually attempt to do so, being just weasel-worded cheerleading for the Church.


 * I have two problems with Nancy's list:


 * Some of her claims aren't even backed up by the sources she quotes from and just seem to be WP:OR/WP:SYN:


 * "its role in the spread of the Christian religion throughout the world, a process which ended practices like human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide and polygamy in Christian lands" is a very sweeping claim that is not made by any of the authors she cites.


 * Similarly, "The leaders in the campaign against slavery were of five kinds: the intellectuals of the Enlightenment; the more humane of the American and French revolutionaries; Catholic missionaries in the Americas (the Jesuits never allowed slaves in their settlements); some radical Christians such as the Quakers..., and devout English evangelicals let by the parliamentarian William Wilberforce" is a long way from "Catholic missionaries, popes, laymen and religious were among the leaders in the campaign against slavery".


 * I'm also concerned at the use of Bokenkotter and Duffy as sources yet again. The page already relies far too heavily on them in contravention of WP:INDEPENDENT and unnecessarily so given the number of non-Church sources available on these issues. Haldraper (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Chadwick cites missionaries, Bokenkotter and Duffy cite Popes and Laymen. The sentence used to have the cites next to the word supported but someone moved them. I have offered Bokenkotter and Duffy because if you take a look at the bibliography of Encyclopedia Brittanica and many other scholarly works on the Church, you will find these two books listed in all of them. They are obviously very well respected sources in mainstream history academia. Neither source is in violation of WP:Independent, neither is published by the Church or endorsed by it.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 22:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Bokenkotter is a Catholic priest, Duffy is a member of the Pontifical Historical Commission: neither is a third party source per WP:INDEPENDENT. Do either of them describe popes as "leaders in the campaign against slavery"? If they are "well respected sources in mainstream history academia" I doubt it somehow. Haldraper (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is constructive to try to ban (or burn) sources for being Catholics or non-Catholics. The key WP requirement is that they are academically sound sources. If you have other sources, bring them forward, and we will compare and contrast and see which are those that represent the various proportionate academic viewpoints. There has been far too much criticism of individual authors etc here, and too little of attempting to propose and reference a good fair, NPOV text.  Xan  dar   23:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And as I have said previously, WP:INDEPENDENT is not a policy, it is an essay, Haldraper's interpretation of it is erroneous, and it refers in any event to the issue of NOTABILITY, not content issues.  Xan  dar   23:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we leave all this behind? A note like this is not the way to do it. I am adding material and cohersion to the CC&S article, which is already infinitely more detailed than this. In due course this can be brutally summarized for here.  I think slavery should probably only be mentioned in the history, but other family & social issues should be briefly covered in the cultural influences section.   Johnbod (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Second page protection
It's obviously up to Tom to determine what's best for this article's stability, and I appreciate his even-handed involvement in this process. Tom has really epitomized the best qualities in an administrator at Wikipedia. Unlike the first page protection, I actually agree with this one. However, I'd also like to say for the record that&mdash;compared to earlier editing disputes that I went back and analyzed for this article&mdash;the general behavior has improved significantly. The edit warring is still insane, but that's down from apocalyptic, so I really think we're making progress here. Good job everyone. UberCryxic ( talk ) 03:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My latest edits to the article were implementing the agreement by most editors discussed here . Haldraper's edits were to tag some of what I added (no problem with that) and to delete others without discussion (problem). PMAnderson's edit was to delete solidly referenced text with no consensus .(problem)  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 21:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion VI, Cryxic: Self-Imposed Moratorium (Dead)
The hallmark of honesty, I've always thought, is self-criticism, and to that end I'd like to propose something new, if you're brave enough. I suggest that this second page protection be lifted on the condition that the following users agree not to edit this article for one month starting from when the protection is removed, except in cases of obvious vandalism as defined by Wikipedia, and obvious vandalism only. Other editors and administrators can always be notified to fix tendentious or other kinds of bad edits, given that this group will not be allowed to do that (this condition is meant to be deliberately brutal: vandalism only). The users that this moratorium should apply to are:


 * Myself (UberCryxic) - I've been here for a week, but I'll include myself to give the process legitimacy.
 * Haldraper
 * Karanacs - agree
 * Pmanderson -let's try it; but recommend revisions below.
 * Sayerslle - o.k.
 * Nancy Heise
 * Xandar
 * Johnbod - ok, see below
 * Yorkshirian
 * Mamalujo
 * Majoreditor
 * Richardshusr - agree

I'm crazy and disciplined enough to do this. I hope you are too. Obviously, however, this can only work if you all agree to do it. This will never work if only one person imposes self-moratorium. I don't think this proposal will result in substantial changes or improvements to the article. What I mainly want to test is how disciplined this group is. If we can't get the discipline right, this article will be a quagmire forever. If you feel like you have done wrong by this article in the past and want to confess your sins by adding yourself to this list, do not hesitate to do so. No one's perfect.

I do not propose any punishment whatsoever for someone who breaks the agreement. It is assumed that we are all quasi-stable, semi-rational human beings who would be able to comply with such an agreement. The only thing that will be tarnished if you break it is your reputation. UberCryxic ( talk ) 04:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Uber, you'll need to better explain your rationale why you want editors who have contributed so much to this article - such as Karanacs, Johnbod, Pmanderson, Xandar, Haldraper and Nancy to not edit the article for one month. These editors, despite their differences, have done much to improve the article over the past couple of years. How exactly do you think this article will improve by de facto suspending them for thirty days? I'd also like to understand your reasoning for excluding a major contributor such as Richard. Majoreditor (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Majoreditor, for what I hope is intended as a compliment. I assume the reason that I was left off Uber's original list is that, while I participate somewhat in discussions on this page, I do not edit the actual article much and edit war almost not at all.  The reason that I do not edit the article much is exemplified by my most recent experience when I was slapped down for introducing unsourced text.  I readily admit to a lack of access (or commitment to getting access) to sources and defer to the learnedness of other editors.  I tend to argue more from a commonsense approach rather than being able to quote sources.  Sometimes that gets me in trouble but a willingness to be flexible and admit that I'm wrong usually compensates for any errors that I make.  Despite the fact that I don't think I've "done wrong by the article", I have added my name to the moratorium list to indicate support for what I think is Uber's intention.


 * I think Uber is saying that we need to hash things out on the Talk Page instead of editing unilaterally and edit-warring in response. So, that a one-month moratorium is equivalent to a one-month protection of the page except that it doesn't keep newcomers out the way that true page protection would.  If this is the intent, then I support the proposal.


 * --Richard S (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Richard has it exactly right. Thank you for agreeing to this Richard, although I left you out deliberately because I think you are as close as we can come to "neutral" on this article. As for everyone else...look, sometimes people just need a break. This break is long enough to teach us all a lesson and reflect on what has happened to this article over the years, but also short enough that you won't feel permanently alienated from editing in the future. Major, like I said in my introductory remarks, I don't think this step will result in a significant improvement of the article from us (although certainly we hope others will do a good job), but look all around you: this place just flirted with Arbcom, the article has suffered five failed FAC nominations, it's constantly edit warring, and the suspicions between the editors are deep. It seems like a break from all major parties is exactly what's needed. I think I was above and beyond fair in my list since I included all the big players as well as myself (very much a new and not-so-big player).


 * Now, what I left out of my introduction is the following: during this self-imposed moratorium, we can still be very active here in the talk page, trying to hammer out consensus for some of the article's most pressing problems. In other words, it won't all be wasted time. It's just another way of suggesting we refocus our energies here in the talk page instead of going back and forth with the article itself. I am glad to see Richard step up and show some character. I hope you all follow that kind of sterling example by adding "agree", like Richard did, next to your names. This proposal will only be valid if everyone agrees, so please act quickly. Thank you. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 06:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As explained above recently, I rarely edit the actual article, so this means no real change for me. But there should be an exception when a draft passage here really gets wide consensus, which does sometimes happen. I'm less optimistic this will make much difference though. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally have no problem making this promise - I very rarely edit the article itself. However, I don't see that this moratorium will actually make any difference. There were weeks of discussion in Nov/Dec on certain issues, and changes were made to the article based on consenus from those discussions. NancyHeise was deliberately taking a break from the article (as she has mentioned) during that time frame, and when she returned last month she began reverting the changes to be closer to the state it was in when she last edited. Not editing for a month will stop the immediate edit wars, but it will take a much larger personal commitment to result in any real change. Karanacs (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I predict it will make no difference. (The list is incomplete, btw; it should include the other parties and the commentators on the late ArbCom petition; but all the party who like the present apologetic text need is one revert-warrior.) A mutual bar from the article and the talk page might actually accomplish something; it would permit a fresh set of eyes to evaluate the article without being inundated with the current slosh. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But what the heck, let's try the experiment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with everyone above who says this will make no difference, as I explained initially. That's kind of the point: whenever some of the people "try to make a difference" (as of late) on this article, it ends up on Arbcom or protected. I generally like WP:BOLD, but I think most of us have been a little too bold, including myself. Less boldness and bravado, more calmness and consensus. That's what this article needs. Karanacs, if you agree to to this, can you please indicate so in the list above? I just want the tally to be quickly updated. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 20:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we have not been bold enough. This article violates core policy, and is frequently nonsense; still, after years of effort. But this is another way. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't see this working. First of all, the list is incomplete, with quite a few interested parties left off, Secondly, other people with strong POVs may come and make major changes which then could not be reverted. Thirdly, people could edit under Anons. Finally, once the period of "retraint" ended, there would be a rush to make edits.
 * It would be a lot simpler and more effective for everyone to just agree not to change the existing article text substantively, until there is a specific replacement wording for a section agreed on this talk page. This then leaves people free to revert non-consensus changes. That generally worked during the naming mediation, without the need for page protection. I'd just say protect the page until major disputes are resolved and text changes implemented, except that this would prevent non-contentious changes, and make a rolling review more difficult.  Xan  dar   21:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see that this idea will do anything to help because we need to be able to make changes to the article text to see what version and sources are being proposed. Our problem is not with all of these editors, it is with editors who, without coming to consensus, revert long agreed, sourced article text after having a one day discussion with three editors - completely ignoring the fact that there are numerous interested editors to this article who might want to have an educated say about it. PMAnderson and Haldraper are by far the worst offenders in this area. My last changes to the article inserted text according to the discussion in this section here . Immediately and without further discussion, both Haldraper and PMAnderson dove into the article with accusations of POV against me - for just offering a sample text that was discussed and sourced on the talk page. PMAnderson then deleted a whole - extremely sourced sentence - from the Cultural Influences section for which there is no consensus. Neutral POV does not mean that you delete mentioning major facts that are cited to secondary sources as well as university textbooks on Western Civilization just because they are good things (even though the text doesn't make a judgement on whether or not they are good.) What is needed is for editors making changes to do so after coming to agreement on the talk page with other editors - like what I did in my last edits. Haldrapers and PMAndersons subsequent edits did not do this.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 21:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thus, my suggestion for improving the editing process is for editors accusing POV to come up with alternate wording that is in agreement with the sources. PMAderson and Haldraper keep saying my text is POV and their solution is to delete it . That action does not make it NPOV, it just makes the article incomplete and POV in the opposite direction because it omits major good things done by the Church -which are scholarly consensus - as evidenced by their inclusion in a vast array of tertiary and scholarly sources used as university textbooks.   Nancy Heise   ''' talk 21:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well...I was hoping that we could avoid harsh attacks on other users in this thread, but I think that's hoping for too much. Ok then this proposal is dead, although it doesn't seem like it would mean much for us anyway, given that this article will remain protected until at least the 21st and, I suspect, much longer after that. I was worried about newcomers mainly, and I personally have a strong aversion for page protection if something concrete can be done to prevent it (and that's what I wanted to do here). But nevermind, I guess, go on with your merry ways. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 21:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Nancy, please don't misrepresent other people's motives. No one is trying to delete text just because it says something good about the Church.  We're trying to make the text accurate to the sources and NPOV.  There is a big difference there, and it would be best if you stop equating changes with a hatred of the Church.
 * You obviously see a difference between bringing up a change and having consensus for that change to be made in the article - as it relates to other people. Please note that this also applies to you - just because you bring up something on the talk page and it's discussed for a few days without an agreement on wording doesn't mean that there is consensus for making a change in the article.  When you go ahead and make those changes anyway, it should not be a surprise that they are reverted - this is exactly what you have done to PMA and Haldraper's changes.
 * I also request that you stop the tired meme that we can't remove sourced text from an article. Articles on WP are expected to be summaries, thus we cannot include every single item that was ever mentioned in a source - and to meet other policies we can't always include information just because it was in a source.  There must be some form of editorial judgement, and while it is fairly obvious that opinions differ on this talk page as to where the line should be drawn, it is inappropriate to insist that no information can be removed. Karanacs (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's PMAnderson accusing me of POV pushing after I proposed some ideas about how to improve the Present section  including links to sources
 * My latest edits to the article were implementing the agreement by most editors discussed here . Haldraper's edits were to tag some of what I added (no problem with that) and to delete others without discussion (problem). PMAnderson's edit was to delete solidly referenced text with no consensus .(problem) He cites this section of the talk page as evidence of consensus supporting his deletions but the only problem is that there are 5 editors out of 9 in this thread who do not support its deletion. That's not a consensus.   Nancy Heise   ''' talk 22:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that WP:V clearly states that The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. According to your analysis of the discussion, 5 editors out of 9 want the text to remain and 4 editors out of 9 wish it to be removed.  This is, at best, no consensus, which, in my interpretation, means the text does not meet the bar for inclusion in the article (remember, WP:V says the burden lies with whoever wants the text in there, and there is severe disagreement that the sources state what is in that sentence).  There was also no agreement for the changes that you added. Although a few editors agreed that some of the points might be worth including, others said no, others gave only partial endorsement, and there was no specific wording proposed on the talk page.  While there was - and is - discussion, consensus wasn't gained for that addition, and, by your own request, more than a few days should have been allotted for discussion before consensus could be determined anyway. Karanacs (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have provided evidence including multiple sources and quotes. No one is suggesting that the Church did nothing to help end slavery, they do not like the wording and should propose new wording instead of complete deletion if a majority of editors want to keep mention of it.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 22:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, I think you're referring to the sentence you added to the end of the World War II section about the "special significance" of John Paul II's apology to the Jewish people which was cited with a ref to CARA which is clearly a non-third party source. I deleted it because: a) it struck me as POV b) the lack of an independent source. On reflection, I thought it might be better to just add a citation tag, however the page protection then cut off that option. Haldraper (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Haldraper, it is cited to Bokenkotter, not CARA. It is a significant event in the history of Jewish/Catholic relations. How is this POV? Its just a fact.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 15:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Counter-proposal
If the page is locked for two weeks, that will give us time to agree some section wording changes without extraneous issues arising. '''So can we not simply agree that the presently protected version, as it stands, is the BASE version. And that no substantive changes are to be made to this without talk-page consensus?''' That consensus to be judged over a fair amount of time - say 4 days to a week. That would stop a lot of the troublesome edit-wars that threaten to raise their heads. I have to say I disagree with Karanacs interpretation that consensus is needed to KEEP referenced text. Consensus is required to change text, but if disagreement exists over existing referenced text, we work together to achieve agreement. That is the essence of Bold, Revert, Discuss.  Xan  dar  22:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Base it is indeed: unsourced, biased, and misrepresenting even its sources; it should be done away with as soon as possible. The burden still rests on those who would add or restore text; that's policy, and always has been. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Your proposal sucks' isn't really productive dialogue. Tom Harrison Talk 23:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's "This version sucks; I cannot agree to privileging it." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Xandar, I'm afraid I cannot agree to your proposal. I don't see any point in the article's history as the "base version," now or two years ago. Wikipedia articles have no "base versions." They are required to be stable and to change through consensus, when possible, but no version is prized over another unless there is specific consensus involved. In this case, we lack that consensus&mdash;meaning that around half of the editors involved have major gripes and complaints about the current version. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 23:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoever has "major gripes or complaints", it is their duty to summarise them, to present proposed alternative wording and to agree a consensus based on the sources. What we have seen is people who make vague generalist complaints of POV, often based on their own personal POV, and then fail to present referenced and balanced alternative wordings. Often we see attempts to rearrange the article without consensus, eliminate referenced material they don't happen to like or make other vague complaints, all the while expressing annoyance and impatience that other editors dont at once agree or comply with their views. That is not the way forward. The current article is the result of five years work by many editors, involving a consensus forged through FACs Godd article reviews and Peer reviews. It is thus the standing version, and is to be amended PATIENTLY, and through consensus discussion. Go to any other article and attempt widespread disruption tot he long-term form and see what response you get.  Xan  dar   02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I* is not consensus; if it were consensus, it would not be disputed by numerous editors, and have been disputed for months. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As previously pointed out, FAC only gave consensus that the article didn't meet the FA criteria. It indicated no consensus for anything else. Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Xandar:"What we have seen is people who make vague generalist complaints of POV, often based on their own personal POV, and then fail to present referenced and balanced alternative wordings."


 * Er, no, what we have seen is editors including myself, Richard, Karanacs and more recently UberCryxic who make very specific "complaints of POV" and "present referenced and balanced alternative wordings". That you don't like them because they don't conform to your "personal POV" is another thing entirely.


 * "Often we see attempts to rearrange the article without consensus, eliminate referenced material they don't happen to like or make other vague complaints, all the while expressing annoyance and impatience that other editors dont at once agree or comply with their views."

Note on protection
The protection is to prevent disruption, slow things down a bit, and maybe encourage people to use the talk page to agree on some text. Protection will last no longer than it has to - hopefully I can unlock it shortly. We need to get past simply undoing each other's work. It's better to make small changes, discuss, and rewrite to address concerns. Take it slowly. There's no point in immediately reverting and condemning the other party for not having consensus, when hardly anyone has had a chance to see and consider the change. Similarly, don't rewrite big chunks or make wholesale changes or removals - it's disruptive. Make incremental changes to what's there, or work out something on talk. Tom Harrison Talk 00:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's finally time...
For WP:IAR, our encyclopedia's most controversial rule: Ignore all rules. A lot of people here are talking about the desirability of consensus and that's the last thing they're getting. Let's face it: when even the most minor issues spark explosive arguments on this talk page, consensus doesn't mean much, and the last few days bear this point out. I had hoped that Arbcom would have provided some remedies, but unfortunately they failed to take up the case. The following is a list of things that have gone wrong with this article and that need to be changed. Let me state unequivocally that I do not care if there is no consensus to implement these changes. If consensus is going to get in the way of improving the article, then consensus can be ignored per IAR.


 * Point I: The article is psychotically long. It stands at 188 kb and contains about 25,000 words, around 20,000 of which I'd say are readable prose. As as I've mentioned on numerous occasions, it's a hassle to load for slow connections or old browsers. Now you all say you love Wikipedia policies, so here's a recommendation from WP:SIZE: > 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided. If you do not wish to overhaul the categorization, then I recommend rewriting the current sections in summary style and making them significantly shorter. Now, again, I don't care about blah blah blah. I know the wretched status quo always has a "reason" for justifying its pointless existence, but this article is overwhelmingly long and it needs to be shortened. There's nothing to debate here, except how to shorten it. The best strategy is to either cut out major parts from current sections or to rewrite them entirely. Another strategy is to just slash off some of those sections as irrelevant or ancillary material. I plan to follow the first strategy when the article comes back online. I'm not seeking consensus from anyone. I'm telling you what I'm going to do when the article comes back up, and I leave it up to you to determine how you're going to respond.
 * Point II: History section needs to come first. Again, I'm not going to spend time explaining the idea to people who should already know why it needs to come first. If you've spent five minutes on Wikipedia and read an article on a concept or organization, you know history comes first, or very nearly first (as in, second or third). Never should it go last. I plan to place it first when the article comes back online, and I also plan to rewrite it with summary style since it currently suffers from the same problems as Point I.

That should be enough to keep me busy for a while. After that, I'll see where the article stands and carry out further changes as necessary. UberCryxic ( talk ) 00:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll unprotect so we can see how that's received. If there's disruption or edit-warring - maybe others will also decide to IAR - I'll issue blocks or protect the page if necessary. Tom Harrison Talk 02:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious! Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's given you some joy it's already done some good. Tom Harrison Talk 03:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think there is at least a weak consensus - call it a plurality - supporting trimming the article's length as well as placing the history section in front. I think a poll would have done the job better than invoking IAR. It's a blunt instrument which can spawn unexpected consequences.
 * That said, I support constructive edits which recast lengthy sections into summary style and cast History as the initial section. Majoreditor (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as the article's basic categorization goes, I'm done. Regardless of what you think about actual content, which so far has remained intact as it was during the protection, this categorization is easy on the eyes (unlike the previously obese TOC) and fairly rational. The next stage is the (vastly) harder one: rewriting these sections into summary style and cutting out extraneous material. I'm aiming to make this article roughly 100 kb. Even that's very large, but for an organization of such fame and prestige, it's easy to justify a very large article. UberCryxic ( talk ) 04:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok I'm now going to start the second part of the process: cutting down the size. I plan to follow a basic strategy: synthesize and summarize. I will try to do as little rewriting as possible in order to avoid content disputes. My main task will center on excising extraneous material that achieves nothing but the presentation of one more meaningless fact. I'll focus on what's important instead. The rest belongs in daughter articles. I plan to explain all of my changes with detailed edit summaries, and I will also remove a few irrelevant images. That should help in making the article smaller.

Major, I've been a Wikipedia editor for over four years and I've made nearly 14,000 edits. To my recollection, I've never invoked IAR before this moment, but I'm more than justified in doing so now. We're dealing with an article that's had the same problems for years, and those problems have not been resolved despite countless attempts at dispute resolution (Arbcom was the latest incident) and scores of failed FAC nominations. The intrinsic mechanisms of Wikipedia have failed the article on the Catholic Church. This is exactly why IAR was instituted: Wikipedia's policies and guidelines work superbly 99.9% of the time (and should be followed 99.9999999% of the time), but there are moments when Wikipedia's internal structure reveals its defects. This article &mdash;along with Race and intelligence (among very few others)&mdash;is almost a perfect example. Here we have a gigantic, 190 kb article and we're told above that the current mess should be the "base version." When you're faced with obtuse, uninformed, and entrenched opposition like that, IAR is all you have left, and it's a credit to this community that it even imagined such a wonderful precept.

Obviously, however, I am not invoking IAR indefinitely. I am only operating under IAR&mdash;ie. totally ignoring the misinformed opinions of editors like Xandar&mdash;until I can crunch down this article to about 100 kb. After that, I will behave through Wikipedia's rules on consensus again. I have made clear my intentions to Tom and have also informed him that he can ban me at any moment he feels I'm being disruptive. But whatever happens, my conscience is clear because I am staying true to the fundamental intentions of Wikipedia. UberCryxic ( talk ) 07:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * UberCryxic, I think I support the end result that you are trying to achieve although how you are doing it is not necessarily the best approach. First of all, your IAR approach comes on the heels of an as yet incomplete request for a one month moratorium.  This abrupt change of approach calls into question your motives in calling for the one month moratorium but, assuming good faith, let's leave that go for now.  Secondly, making massive, unilateral changes to an article with as many active editors as this is disrespectful as it requires all the editors to stand by while you edit away for a while.  A better approach would have been for you to copy the article source into your userspace and have at it with wild abandon.  Then, once you were happy with your revised version of the article, you could have presented the final product to the rest of us for our agreement or disagreement.  There is nothing preventing you from doing that now so I suggest that you do that and furthermore I suggest that anybody who feels that Uber's edits have not improved the article, revert it back to the point before he started.  I will not do this revert because I agree with the result of his edits even though I don't agree with the arbitrary and unilateral way in which he did it.


 * Finally, I will comment that this is not, IMHO, the kind of situation that calls for invocation of WP:IAR


 * --Richard S (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am done with major changes for now. The article has contracted from 190 kb when I started to 179 kb currently. We still have about 80 kb more to go, but that's fine because I just worked on the first two sections of History. I removed sizable amounts of extraneous content and a few images that I thought did not aid our understanding of the subject. Richard, I declared my sixth suggestion dead because Nancy and Xandar refused to comply with that request, and I specifically mentioned that it would never work unless everyone agreed to it. I do not expect anyone to stand by while I edit: I wholeheartedly encourage everyone to improve the article by removing extraneous content. If I had done as you suggest with my sandbox, I am sure the final version (whatever it ended up being) would have been soundly rejected for making the exact kind of drastic cuts that the article needs. The whole point behind these changes is that I can carry them out live and step by step. You are all encouraged to do the same. It would mean less work for me. UberCryxic ( talk ) 08:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * BRAVO !! Keep going!  I have been watching this article and the endless discussions here for months now, and I do agree that it was high time for someone to fix it.-- Bonifacius  09:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with Uber's good faith efforts to help us although I agree with Richard's reservations and have often considered doing the same thing with my own suggestions but did not know about IAR. I think if we all jumped in and submitted to IAR we would just have to protect the page permanently : ) . I want to point out some things here that are wrong with the complete reorganization:
 * All of the encyclopedia's I have examined have the Cultural Impact information at the beginning of their articles, usually in the opening paragraphs so I dont think our article is following scholarly consensus by placing it last.
 * I like Uber's condensation of the topic headings. I think this is a better structure and would like to keep it.
 * Worldbook and the other encyclopedias give Reader context when telling them how big and important the Church is - Worldbook says in the opening sentences that it comprises "nearly a fifth" of the world's population (2008 Worldbook Encyclopedia). I think our article needs to put that information in the opening sentences as well.
 * The other encyclopedias all devote at least as much space as the history section to discussing the issues and importance of Catholic education, Catholic missions, Catholic hospitals, etc. Our Cultural influences section, which should be at the top of the article, not last, should be expanded to include two or three more paragraphs to discuss these -right now we have nothing about them. The Church is credited with developing the legal system that exists in our modern world today but our article says nothing. FAC criteria requires us to make note of significant accomplishments as well as criticisms. People here seem to be uneasy with saying something good about the Church and when I submit sources and text, I get called a POV pusher. Good facts are facts, just as bad facts are too. The other encyclopedia's do not seem to have a problem with including them so I don't understand why we have this problem. I've compiled some more sources here User:NancyHeise/cultural influence sandbox
 * I'm fine with putting history before beliefs but I don't remember any consensus agreement on this talk page to support the change. If I remember, it was a stalemate.
 * The agreement on this talk page above was to provide additional text to allow Reader to know what the Church did to prevent future sex abuse cases. Haldraper eliminated that text without a new consensus.
 * I am going to make some minor changes to Uber's efforts and let's see if we can all give and take a little and come to agreement OK?  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 14:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now done. This is Uber's version with Haldraper's edits and mine added as well   Nancy Heise   ''' talk 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your constructive response to the recent changes. Let's hope we can keep that going. Tom Harrison Talk 15:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Only with your help. Thank you very much for being here and helping us.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 15:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with Karanacs changes - she has eliminated Cultural Influence and Impact section as well as Origin and Mission. There is no discussion much less agreement for doing this and ZERO scholarly consensus as all books on Roman Catholic Church as well as all encyclopedia articles provide separate discussion on these issues - usually at the beginning. Karanacs edits are entirely in violation of WP:OR and WP:Consensus and WP:RS.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 16:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the changes in detail, but they seem very poorly done to me. You won't I think be able to reference the new jump between the sentences at "From the 8th century, Iconoclasm, the destruction of religious images, became a major source of conflict in the eastern church.[90][91] The resulting disagreements between the western and eastern sides ultimately prompted the Pope and the Patriarch to excommunicate each other in 1054, commonly considered the date of the East–West Schism.[92]" The old text covered the 220-odd years betweeen the ending of Iconoclasm & the final break. Having the history first looks as bad as I feared. It appeals to people who think the history is the most, or only, important thing about the church, but not to those who are actually interested in the church as such. The establishment of the Holy Roman Empire seems to have disappeared! The last 2 paras of the Middle Ages are just bizarre - stuff that should go, like "according to historian Thomas Noble" is left, but important stuff goes. I hope it is not all like that. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's 'Bold, Revert, Discuss.' Boldness has worked well, and the changes have been substantial; now there's been some progress, let's pause for some discussion. Tom Harrison Talk 16:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * By your token, it's now time for revert. I won't do it myself, but I see little progress here. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It'd be good if an objection on the talk page and the suggestion to discuss led people to stop editing and discuss. Tom Harrison Talk 16:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if my actions led to the reprotection - that was certainly not my intent. I didn't check my watchlist while I was doing those changes and did not see Nancy's post. Overall, I think Uber's reorganization was a very good thing. I agree with Johnbod that the text is now choppy and needs work, but that is something that we can fix. I made two bold changes which I'll break into other sections for discussion. Karanacs (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I can see how that would happen. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 17:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok the day-time editing for this article is furious and intense, so I plan to hold off until later at night with my continuing changes. Will start cleaning the kitchen at 1 am. Edit Wikipedia at 3 am. That, my friends, is a dedicated editor. You all just don't know how lucky you really are to have me. UberCryxic ( talk ) 17:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Origins and Missions changes
I merged Origin and Missions with the rest of the article. Origin and history are the same thing, they are just two different perspectives of it. The two paragraphs that begin the Origin/Mission section now begin the History section (with no wording changes), so that the article still begins by presenting this information that I've been told is critical to understand the Church. This is a net neutral change. I placed the Mission piece in the Beliefs section, as that paragraph flowed very well from the text that already introduced the beliefs section. (Note that the mission sentences are already in the lead, meaning readers will get to see that right away.) Karanacs (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this decision. UberCryxic ( talk ) 17:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree You have eliminated the "mission" part of Origin and mission which was much better together. Logical flow told Reader where the Church came from and what it is supposed to do. Now we don't know anything about Jesus' purpose in creating the Church which gives Reader a murky view of the situtation.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 18:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't eliminate it - I moved it. It's still in the article, both in the lead (so it's front and center for newcomers) and in the Beliefs section. So first we get the history (where the Church came from and what it did), then we get the why. Karanacs (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not in the lead and its nowhere near the origin information. These two pieces of informatin go together and a long standing consensus has affirmed this.   Nancy Heise   ''' talk 19:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The previous "consensus" has been routinely questioned for two years. As for the lead, I may be confused.  The current article lead states (and has stated for some time) The Church defines its mission as spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, administering the sacraments and exercising charity.  Isn't that the mission?  If this isn't good enough, what should the sentence say? Karanacs (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the lead telling Reader WHY. The Origin and Mission section did that. Please point me to where the Origins and Mission section has been questioned successfully in the past two years.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 19:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And that is the problem. Numerous editors have come here protesting the structure.  Every time, certain editors on this page drag their feet or engage in circular arguments or revert.  There is no consensus for most of what has been in the article, but constant revert-warring has ensured that most changes do not stick.  The method we've been using to work on the article has not gotten it anywhere nearer FA quality.  If you're serious about achieving that milestone, maybe it's time to try something different. Karanacs (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And numerous editors have defended the old structure as well; it's just you don't happen to be one of them. I disagree there has been no progress - looking at the passages objected to in FAC/Roman Catholic Church/summary5, compared to yesterday's version, shows that while many remain the same, many have changed. I don't see Uber's attack of Napoleon complex helping.  Like many recent changes, it changes the text but leaves the references largely intact, undermining the integrity of the article.  That's not to say I approve of all the old text - a lot needs changing.  Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then throw out the references. Many of them don't support the text; many of them misrepresent the work cited. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, can we resolve your objection by rewording the lead? Do you have any suggestions for how that should look? Karanacs (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cultural influences changes
I removed the Cultural Influences section and got most of the way through integrating it into the history section (I cancelled my last edit when I saw that protection had been reapplied). Much of the information in this section was already listed in the history section. As discussed in one of the sections above, I moved the information from the slavery note to be spread across the history section. I moved other information from the cultural influence section into its appropriate place in history as well. I believe that part of the text that was in the cultural influences section could also be placed in the lead, as in some cases it is a good summary of what is later discussed. Karanacs (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this one too. UberCryxic ( talk ) 17:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree with this one. The informatin in this section covers the whole span of Catholic Church history. You can not tell Reader in Medieval times section about schools and think that you have covered it all because it is a continuing issue - same for legal system, hospital system, and the changes wrought in various human societies throughout history. Are we going to tell Reader at each point how the Church eliminated the practice of infanticide or human sacrifice or divorce, etc throughout the article? No, there's no way to do it that way which is why the scholarly example shows us that most reliable sources and all tertiary source create a separate section for this impact. In addition, not mentioning the Church's cultural impact creates an anti-Catholic slanted POV to the article and violates FAC criteria that ask us to mention notable accomplishments.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 18:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The cultural influences section as it previously existed was primarily a summary of information already in the article. That is the job of the lead (which needs work); we should not have sections summarizing other sections like that. There was disagreement in the talk sections above (and in talk page archives) over the accuracy or appropriateness of including infanticide, human sacrifice, and divorce. Until that is resolved, I didn't think it appropriate to include the information (again, WP:V requires that the inclusion should be justified, and the verification of this is disputed above). I would not object, however, to including a sentence or two on the Church's contribution to the definition of marriage in the Middle Ages section (the sources for this should be somewhere in talk archives), because that is where the Church made its biggest impact on the issue. The current education and hospital systems are already discussed in other aspects of the article - for example, in the part on Africa in the 19th century, and in the institutions sections. The information is not (for the most part) gone, just restructured.  How does that give an anti-Catholic slant?  Karanacs (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:lead length guidelines do not allow us to provide the information necessary for a Cultural influences section in the lead. FAC criteria require us to provide information on the Church's accomplishments which span centuries and can not reasonably be highlighted or discussed in their entirety by putting snippets of information throughout the history section. Telling reader about medieval schools in Medieval section does not tell Reader that these were the precursors to the modern Western educational system. Karanacs, go read Encyclopedia Brittanica's opening page, Worldbook Encyclopedia's opening page and Encyclopedia Americanna's opening page as well as the introductions to most scholarly works on the Church and you will find the "Cultural Influences" section - mentioned first. They do this because it is good form to tell your reader why your subject is important before you get into the details. Your rearrangement is WP:OR because it has no scholarly precedent.   Nancy Heise   ''' talk 18:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Two problems with your argument:
 * One, and least important, you wrote "Telling reader about medieval schools in Medieval section does not tell Reader that these were the precursors to the modern Western educational system". Actually, in this case, we do.  Lifted directly from Middle Ages section -> These orders also played a large role in the development of cathedral schools into universities, the direct ancestors of the modern Western institutions.  This sentence was in this exact place in the article before I made any changes, it was just also duplicated in the Cultural Influences section.
 * Second, and most importantly, it is not original research to take a well-cited and policy-compliant piece of information from one section and put the exact same sentence in another section. However, if the particular wording that was moved or added is OR, then we do have a problem. Can you please list specific examples of phrasing that goes beyond the references so that we can address them?
 * Karanacs (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My problem is with your organization that obliterated the Cultural Influences section - a section that was created and added with consensus and agreed by long standing consensus - because it is replicated in every tertiary source and scholarly source on the subject of the Church. Your reorganization also has resulted in ridiculous article text that looks like this "Early Christianity accepted many common Roman practices, such as slavery, campaigning primarily for humane treatment of slaves but also admonishing slaves to behave appropriately towards their masters.[60] In the second century, writings by teachers such as Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus defined Catholic teaching in stark opposition to Gnosticism." Where is the mention of how the Church, by spreading Christianity helped to eliminate slavery? This is a key accomplishment of the Church that I think FAC criteria requires us to make note of - along with all the other pieces of information that used to be in that section. Where's the information about how women's lives were affected? This is in the most mainstream university textbooks on Western Civilization and is a major accomplishment (impact) of the Church. Our lead says that the Church has had a major impact on Western civilization but now our article has deleted the section explaining why that is so. Without discussion and/or consensus from interested editors who worked long and hard to make the article reflect modern scholarship.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 19:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problems you've brought up in this post have nothing to do with OR, let's make that very clear.
 * Yes, I agree that the prose is going to need serious work, but I don't think the cuting is finished yet.
 * as I've mentioned before, the majority of the text that was in cultural influences is still in the article, just in different places in the article. That means that the existing lead is still accurate, because it is summarizing info from various pieces of the article.
 * Slavery is mentioned again in several other sections - if you read through the history you should have a good picture of what the Church did to combat that, when they did it, and what the historical context was.
 * Information on the Church's influence on women needs to be discussed in detail before being added to the article. There is - and has been for a long time - dispute on the talk page over the wording in the article. We need to hash out what, if any, of that should be included in the article, and then place that information in the appropriate chronological section.  Again, per WP:V, let's justify the inclusion of any particular piece of information.
 * I reread your previous comment and noticed that you referenced "the introductions to most scholarly works on the Church". That is what the lead is on wikipedia - the introduction to the article/topic. I think what you really want is a better lead, and your are right, the existing lead needs some work.
 * Finally, please stop quoting FAC criteria at me. I think that as an FAC delegate (although recused from actions on this article) and someone who's shepherded 18 articles to FA status, I should have a pretty decent idea of what the criteria are and how they apply.  Many of the others who are or have been active on this page are also very active at FAC.  If there is truly an issue that will impact FAC, I guarantee one of us would bring it up, meaning you don't have to keep using it as an excuse for not making changes. Karanacs (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Readers should not have to read the entire history section to discover that the Church has had an enormous impact on Western civilization and why. FAC criteria are not a mystery to people who have been through FAC several times before but your edits to this page are - especially since they are so gravely against modern scholarly consensus for treating the subject of the Church's cultural impact.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 19:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead is the appropriate place for a summary. Why don't we work on finding a better way to structure the lead to make sure that this information can be there? Karanacs (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This change makes a lot of sense to me. The Cultural Influences section looks at the history of the Church thematically and the History section looks at it chronologically. That introduces scope for contradiction and duplication. Merging the two sections would simplify the structure of the article, making leaner and tighter, and making it more difficult to reintroduce duplication in the future. Themes which don't fit neatly into one of the single time-periods covered in the history section should be covered on a case-by-case basis, either introducing the theme in its initial section and following it right through to the conclusion regardless of when than is, or introducing it in one section and then picking it up again in later sections.


 * In an ideal world the article would have both sections, but the CI section as it stands is not good, and, with space constraints pressing, merging the two sections seems to me like the best way forward. MoreThings (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for uncontroversial edits
Given that the protection was readded soon after a lot of work, there are some glaring typos/small issues that we didn't have a chance to fix. I request that we make the following small edits: Thanks. Karanacs (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the first sentence of the lead, "one-sixth of the world's population" appears twice in a row. Can the second instance please be removed?
 * In the section on Benedict, second paragraph has "ans" instead of "and"
 * In Catholic Church, the info on Gregory and the 1839 bull is listed twice (my mistake, which I was about to fix when protection was reinstated). Can one of these be removed - I don't care which one?
 * Unprotected so you or whoever can deal with those. Tom Harrison Talk 17:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maurauder40 has fixed these (and I cleaned up a ref that was removed there). Karanacs (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the reference, since I don't have the actual reference I assumed the reference at the end of the sentence went with the sentence that was removed, not the entire paragraph. Marauder40 (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, wonder which editor that reminds us all of! Haldraper (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversial edits

 * Without consensus, and against consensus created in many past discussions and most recently here Haldraper once again has edit warred with me by removing referenced text that tells Reader what the Church did to prevent future sex abuse.
 * Without consensus, and against long time page consensus in many past discussions, Uber and Haldraper and Karanacs have completely rearranged and eliminated referenced article text that was the work of many editors who are not here today to agree with those changes. I propose contacting all those other editors and asking them to come have a look at the proposed changes which should be reverted until a new consensus is formed. We can have these changes placed on a user sub page and have a vote to see where consensus lies. These changes are very drastic and undiscussed and should not just be shoved down everyone's throat.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 18:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with canvassing other users. Many of the editors you have previously contacted in that manner are ones who only appear if they are contacted.  That does not imply that they are very invested in the article.  I would not object to a neutrally worded note placed on the talk page of WP Catholicism and/or WP Christianity to inform others that work is being done on this article and other opinions are welcome, but I see no need to go into details on the individual disputes there, and I see no need to contact individual editors. Alternatively, if there is a particular change that is highly disputed, we can host a neutral RfC on this page to discuss that particular change. Karanacs (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I propose contacting those who have participated in the last FAC. That's not canvassing.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 18:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will observe with fascination whether those who opposed its promotion are contacted. There appears to be a great deal of merely partisan support at that FAC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs already spoke here and Haldraper can speak for herself or himself. I am not going to prejudge anyone's comments. As for me....what part of "I am operating under IAR" do you not understand? I will be officially in IAR mode until the article comes down to around 100 kb, according to the guidelines I established before. Your comments above&mdash;steeped, as they are, in endless minutiae and foot-dragging&mdash;perfectly highlight why I chose to invoke IAR. I don't know what other editors are doing, but I'm in IAR, so leave me out of your misguided attempts to form consensus. Any administrator who thinks he or she has a good case to ban me for being in IAR can go ahead and do so, as I told Tom repeatedly. But right now, for this article, the rules of Wikipedia have become a useless albatross. UberCryxic ( talk ) 19:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Controversial edits that have no consensus and toss long standing consensus are really unproductive. Richard suggested that you make your changes on a user/sub page and after seeing Karanacs edits, I agree that should be done. IF there is sufficient agreement among editors to incorporate your changes after a reasonable RFC has been pursued, then put the changes into the article because otherwise you are inviting edit warring and the creation of a "battleground mentality". All of the changes and improvements to this article have respected Wikipedia's rules. I do not see how this instance is any different that requires you to unilaterally toss them.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 19:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not wish to engage in what I consider to be a pointless talk page argument with you. You have everything you need to know from me. When I bring down the size of the article (I notice it's gone back up, by the way, to 183 kb now...further solidifying my case), we'll talk in greater detail. Until then, I will just carry out the aforementioned changes and keep posting updates on the talk page about what I've done. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 19:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "I do not wish to engage in what I consider to be a pointless talk page argument with you." I was under the impression that Wikipedia worked on something called "collaboration". Did someone change the rules?   Nancy Heise   ''' talk 19:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Controversial edits that have no consensus and toss long standing consensus are really unproductive" is a good summary of what Nancy is about. After a long discussion, we reached consensus on a single NPOV sentence on this issue and it is that that Nancy is attempting to overturn: iirc it was Xandar who in agreeing to it said we would need to defend it against editors trying to expand it in their preferred direction, that is what I am doing.


 * Note also that Nancy doesn't answer the point raised by my edit summary: the Vatican document banning the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" used as a ref makes no mention of this being about protecting children yet the text claims this and is therefore WP:OR/WP:SYN. Haldraper (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed action
Proposed action I will wait until Uber is done with his edits and then revert to the previous consensus form, move his changes to a user/subpage as Richard has suggested, open a content RFC, as Karanacs suggested, and post a note on everyone's page who has worked on this article since the last two FACs. We can have each person look at the page with Uber's undiscussed edits and compare it with the previous consensus version. I'm sure that can't be called canvassing because it includes everyone. If needed, maybe we can open a mediation on the Cultural Influences and Origin and Mission section eliminations if it doesnt get resolved at the RFC.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 19:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you consider to be the previous consensus form? The page has been disputed for two years. All of the previous FACs have identified serious shortcomings with the article. Should we revert to January 2008? That seems to be the last time the article was stable.Karanacs (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Nancy's idiosyncratic use of "consensus" is documented here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the January 2008 version is a bit clunky but refreshingly free of POV. If were going to RV to an earlier version as Nancy proposes then I support Karanacs' and PMAnderson's suggestion that this is the one we go back to. Haldraper (talk)
 * (ce) You think? "The crusades ultimately failed to stifle Islamic aggression and even contributed to Christian enmity with the sacking and occupation of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade.[66]" I hope this suggestion is merely mischievous. Karanacs, you are usually complaining the article is, thanks to Nancy's reverts, far too stable. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the problem? Please find a reliable source which disagrees with either half of that sentence; I will agree that the first half is incomplete, but that's a different question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally that sort of "incompleteness" has you frothing at the mouth, but as always, your reaction to any particlular point depends largely on who is making it. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just reviewed the Jan. 2008 version and I would also support reverting to that version, although obviously we all realize that it too has major problems (with length, categorization, prose, and I could go on and on). If you can hammer out a deal here to go back to January 2008, I'd support it. Until then, however, I will continue to make my planned revisions. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 22:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The article may be "stable" but that does not mean there is consensus for any particular piece of it. "Stability" brought about by constant reversions to a particular someone's preferred version doesn't mean that there is consensus, just that one side is more willing to edit war.  Rather than revert to any particular version, it would be more productive to take a good look at the new structure and compare actual effect.  I think if we could better identify the objections to this structure we could probably address them pretty easily and come closer to satisfying everyone than if we use the previous structure. Karanacs (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the massive edits. If people want to keep versions on their user pages and discuss these, that is their right, but they cannot come onto the page and disrupt a major article of Good Article rating in the way attempted. The stability of the article over the past few years has been attained through peer reviews, GA nominations and FAC nominations. The fact that individuals don't like certaim parts does not mean that the current wordings were not achieved through consensus and agreement. There is no agreement to change structure - and certainly not one that buries the most important parts of the article.  Xan  dar   02:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is it written? What is written, below the edit screen Xandar used, is: If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. The old wording that submissions might be mercilessly edited may have been scarier to newbies, but was yet more accurate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Let us review the bidding: Uber wrote a new and shorter version, to considerable applause; Haldraper and Yorkshirian both edited it, without restoring the longer version (Yorkshirian disputes one word, below; but that's a different question); Karanacs and myself have expressed support for it; Mike reverted to it. On the other hand, Xandar reverted to the old version twice, by himself. I know which sounds more like consensus to me - but I await Xandar's definition, which should make all clear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record then, I see some improvements, ie dispensible stuff cut, but rather more problems, ie indispensible stuff cut but dispensible stuff left, and meaning & references now out of sync. Plus I object more strongly to the rearrangements between sections.  This is essentially re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic though, plus throwing a few of them, and also some lifeboats, overboard.  We won't get anywhere here until suitably qualified people appear who are capable of producing authoritative and shorter NPOV drafts of passages.  As it is I am happy to see the whole recent lot reverted, though some of the trimming could be revived.  Sorting out the Uber version would be a huge amount of work, although I'm willing to try looking at it a section at a time. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorting out this reverted version would be a lot of work, too; we've been at it for months, and it's still an atrocity. It would be easier to decide what, if anything, needed to be added to a barebones version.


 * Suitably qualified people have appeared, such as Wikipedia generally provides. (If authoritative is a wish for Benedict or Jaroslav Pelikan to join the discussion, that will require a change in the whole culture of academia, to make editing Wikipedia a respectable thing for the professoriate to invest their time in - it would now be postponement to the Greek calends.) But all effort at removing even obvious bias and error has been stymied. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is a lot easier to subtract text than add it. The stuff that nobody actually objects to, but is too long, gets in fact hardly any sustained attention here, as we are always dealing with the controversies of the week. Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No way
I'm sorry, just because certain editors (some of whom have just come to the page) are impatient that they don't get their way when thewy want it, doesn't give them the right to disrupt and overturn five years of article building and make a mess of the whole article without consensus. This whole process seems to be an attempt to hijack and disrupt the article and make it impossible to make ordered changes or deal with arguments in a patient or proper manner. If Ubercryxix and Karanacs want to propose alternative wordings, they are free to do so. and discuss them on the talk page. They have failed to do this, and are attempting to make radical changes to the page without consensus. This is a breach of Wikipedia rules, and is not on. If people want to do things properly I have already suggested formal mediation. I know that takes patience and negotiation - skills that some have little practice in. But that, not disruption, is the way forward.  Xan  dar  01:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is NO consensus to place the history section first, and good reason not to, following the lines of other religion articles.
 * There is no consensus to remove the cultural influences section, or to implement other major changes.


 * Agree with the above. Well put. The history section is important, but not THE most central point of the Church. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article structure now matches those of other organization articles on WP, as well as that of most other religion articles (see the long list I put together above that shows 2/3 - 3/4 of all religion articles appear to put history first). The new structure also eliminates some repetition (the cultural influences section, for the most part, was duplicated in other pieces of the article), which will help us reach our goal of cutting the article size.  The previous structure was inherently POV - it stressed the Catholic viewpoint of its origins, it stressed the "good" that that Church had done.  Those pieces needed to be put into the appropriate context, and now they are. Karanacs (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may pose the same question I did to Nancy above - has the new organization itself (not the process by which it got there) introduced any particular issues that you can enumerate? Then we can look at those issues point by point and see if they can be resolved. Karanacs (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out above, most religion articles, Islam, Buddhism, Orthodoxy, Hinduism, Taoism etc do NOT put history first. The most important sections are structure and beliefs, which need to be first. Similarly there is no consensus to remove the Cultural influence section, or any of the other changes that have been disruptively made today. If you want to propose alternative wordings or layouts, do so on sandbox pages. Do not disrupt a longstanding Good Article.  Xan  dar   02:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not Christianity, it is a denomination. The (vast) majority of the denominations put history first.  Even if we lump religion articles with denominations, the (vast) majority still put history first.  Do you have specific problems with the changes beyond the process?  I have yet to hear any. Karanacs (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if that is true actually. In very many cases, like United Methodist Church, the two are effectively run together, as the history largely consists of doctrinal differences. Also Methodist Episcopal Church. Actually in the "vast majority" of denomination articles, like United Evangelical Church, there is nothing but history, but then the vast majority of denomination articles are stubs. I made some initial points about the changes above. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the major Christian denominations place History as the first section. It's probably best to do so here. Majoreditor (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) May I point out that there was already a loose consensus on this page today for the history section to be first? The following editors have posted today in support of that change: UberCryxic, Majoreditor, Richardshusr, Nancy!, Karanacs. I can't tell whether Bonifacious likes the changes or the fact that IAR was invoked. Three editors disagree with putting the history first: Johnbod, Xandar, Yorkshirian. Xandar and Yorkshirian's objections came after a lot of the discussion and the reverts were made without any discussion and no specific complaints have been raised (by Xandar) other than the process used. There isn't enough discussion here yet to determine whether there is consensus to keep or remove the changes I made (moving the origins/mission information and moving Cultural Influence text to other sections). I would like to know what, exactly, would satisfy you, Xandar, before the history section can go first? Karanacs (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did Nancy post in favour today? She was against it on March 2 at "Suggestion III" above. I can't see it, but this page is nearly impossiblke to follow as usual. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for not finding the diff, but it was above in a bulleted list. She wrote I'm fine with putting history before beliefs but I don't remember any consensus agreement on this talk page to support the change. If I remember, it was a stalemate.  I was a bit surprised to see that too. Karanacs (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nancy tried to see positives in the early attempt, but after additional hatcheting and disruption of the article, she became clearly opposed to this botched and hamfisted attempt to massacre the article without agreement. As far as consensus is concerned there was NO consensus to move the history section or eliminate origin and Mission, or eliminate Culktural influence.  Xan  dar   03:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks (ec x 2). That seems more neutral to me. There are really only 2 1/2 people on each side who feel strongly about it. I skimmed the last FAC today (gasp) & it didn't come up much that I could see - perhaps 3-4 people out of about 30. At the end of the day if a clear decision is made to change it is (is it?) a quick change to make - did anyone look over the refs section when it was done, to see if they get thrown out by it? Something tells me Uber will not have done. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the sheer number of issues that were brought up at the various FACs, the fact that 3 or 4 reviewers in the last one complained about the organization is pretty significant. A lot of the reviewers were focusing on different sections of the article, and the comments didn't overlap as much. Karanacs (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What would you like to see to convince you that consensus has changed? A specific number - or specific percentage - of editors supporting? Fewer than a specific number of editors objecting?  A certain type of argument? Does it require unanimous consent?  Does it require certain people to consent? I would like to understand how you would measure a new consensus. Karanacs (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm in favor of supporting today's changes.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a point of note, in response to some messages earlier up the page. The Catholic Church is not, nor has it ever been a "denomination". In some cultures, for instance in China, Catholicism and Protestantism are regarded as entirely separate religions. The Protestant concept of an invisible super "Christian Church", removed from the actual Catholic Church itself, it not held in Catholic dogma. Catholicism is a whole, not a "slice", not a "sect", not a "bit part", not a "denomination". It should have the same MOS as other complete religion articles, like Islam. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. The Catholic Church is a denomination within Christianity, much like Shi'ism is a denomination within Islam. The Catholic Church seems to acknowledge this and recognizes the Orthodox Church as a legit Christian church, with valid orders and sacraments. Majoreditor (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yorkshirian appears to be confounding denomination and denominator. A denomination is A collection of individuals classed together under the same name; now almost always spec. a religious sect or body having a common faith and organization, and designated by a distinctive name. Does Yorkshirian mean to deny that this Church is a religious body (thus falling under one of the alternatives there), or that it has a distinctive name - indeed several - by which it is denominated? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Denomination is an ecumenical way of saying "sect". The entity commonly called the Eastern Othodox Church broke off in schism from the Catholic Church, but their orders are canonically valid. The numerous Protestant sects, broke away after embracing views deemed heretical to the dogma of the Catholic Church. The Church deems itself to be, in an unbroken line the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ (the only Church founded by Him). The word Catholic itself means "universal", not "part". There from the start, still here now. This is why it should have the same MOS as any other religion article, not be constrained in presentation as that "corner of the invisible, equal, Christian Church with nice smells and vestments".


 * Take for instance the Catholic Encyclopedia, if you type in the term "Christianity" it simply gives as a result, a presentation of the religion of the Catholic Church. "Moreover, the Christianity of which we speak is that which we find realized in the Catholic Church alone; hence, we are not concerned here with those forms which are embodied in the various non-Catholic Christian sects, whether schismatical or heretical. " - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph here is not English; a denomination is something denominated, something with a name of its own; no more.


 * The second paragraph is the expression of a point of view. We at Wikipedia should avoid affirming or denying that Catholicism and Christianity are coterminous; but if we must choose between Scylla and Charybdis, we must risk using the language in the manner which most Christians (or those who consider themselves so) and all non-Christians will understand it: that those who call themselves Christian and are not members of the Roman Catholic Church are Christians; something which even the most doctrinaire of Catholics will say at moments of relaxation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yorkshirian, the news articles you cite say: "The [Catholic Church] document said Orthodox churches were indeed "churches" because they have apostolic succession and that they enjoyed 'many elements of sanctification and of truth.' " Additional searching can produce numerous Catholic documents refering to the Orthodox Church as a Christian Church. And plenty of Catholic schiolars state that the Orthodox Church shares, with the Catholic Church, a claim of being founded by Jesus. If you believe otherwise, please produce a citation from a reliable source stating that the Catholic Church does not accept that the Orthodox Church is a Christian church. CCC 838 speaks of Christians who are not part of the Catholic church, and specifically refers to the "profound", though incomplete, communion between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Thus, to argue that Catholicism is not related to other Christian communities is incompatible with the language of the official 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church. Ergo, Catholicism considers itself to be one of several Christian churches, ie, a denomination within Christianity. Majoreditor (talk) 06:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My plans
Now that the article has been protected again, I have been instructed by Tom to carry out my proposed changes in userspace. I'll be working on that over the next few days and we'll see how to move on from there. In the meantime, I want you all to relax, even though I know you won't. Look at it this way: it could be a lot worse. You could have been debating Haldraper on whether the Liberal Democrats are centrist or center-left. Be glad for what you have, and see you in a few days. You can track my changes at my sandbox, where I've now placed the entire article. Obviously you are not allowed to edit that, but I wanted to give you all a link because what I do there will probably reflect the shape that this article takes in a few weeks. Love you all (you too Haldraper), hugs and kisses, etc. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 04:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, while the new text is not perfect, it is a clear improvement on the present text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

On consensus and reorganizations
We have three editors who are very vocal against the restructuring that UberCryxic and I attempted (Johnbod, NancyHeise, and Xandar, although Nancy seems to give tepid support to the history section move). Yorkshirian has expressed disapproval with the history section being first but did not comment on the other changes. Several other editors have expressed support for the full restructured version (Uber, me, PMAnderson, Mike Searson, Haldraper, MoreThings). Majoreditor and Richard appears to support the history section being first but have not commented on the changes to Origin/Mission and Cultural Influence.

By the numbers, this is an obvious consensus to have the history come first (3 opposed, 7 in favor, Nancy neutral, Richard neutral to weak oppose). As to the changes I made, by the numbers we have a smaller consensus for the change (3 opposed, 6 in favor, 3 who did not express a particular opinion). (I obviously can't judge strength of argument here because I'm too involved in the discussion.)

My question to the group is, at what point do we consider that there is consensus for - or against - the structure change? (At this time, let's ignore any question on trimming - we can always change the structure without trimming the history section for now.) What parameters are we using to determine when consensus is reached? A certain percentage of editors in favor? A certain percentage (or raw number) of editors opposed? Specific editors have to approve? I am being very sincere in posing the question, and I'd appreciate to-the-point answers to this question. Karanacs (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC) amended per Richard's clarifications below Karanacs (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the largest problem with the changes you and UberCryxic attempted was the IAR approach and just going through and making huge changes. The suggestion Richard made of attempting it in a sandbox first was just ignored before the large changes.  In reality the scale of the changes and the type of changes made it almost impossible to determine what was being added, what was being changed, why, etc.  I think it is a little strange to call 11 editors and proposals that were only up for a couple days on an article this large, and contraversial, consensus.  I think the IAR approach instead of helping things is creating more hate and discontent. Marauder40 (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand that and would like to avoid that discussion here (there are several sections above addressing that). The article is currently back to its other version. What I would like to know is what we would consider consensus to implement the structural changes?  We can discuss content changes (trimming/etc), later - right now I'm concerned simply with how we determine whether there is - or is not - consensus for structural changes. Karanacs (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take this opportunity to pontificate on consensus in general and then address Karanacs' question at the end.


 * First of all, I would just like to comment that I am neutral although somewhat opposed wrt to putting the History section first. I said I generally supported UberCryxic's changes (though not the way they were done) and that was interpreted to mean that I liked moving the History section when what I really meant was that I liked the cutting of excessive detail.  Sorry if my lack of clarity caused confusion.  To be clear now, I would be OK with a short History section coming first or a longer History section coming last but not a long History section coming first.  At the end of the day, I think History should come last as I don't think we can get it to be short enough to come first.


 * Secondly, I would like to remind everyone that the definition of consensus is unanimity. The objective is to get everyone to agree or at least to "not object".  A long-term collaboration requires "give and take".  We should respect each other's core sensitivities and be willing to work with those while, at the same time, we should be willing to give in on those issues which are not really that critical.  Above all, we should be willing to discuss and negotiate in good faith without intransigency or incivility.


 * That said, consensus is often difficult to achieve so a supermajority is often used in lieu of a true consensus. Keep in mind, that any time you invoke a supermajority, you are stuffing something down somebody's throat and remember that you might not be too happy if it were your throat that was getting stuffed.  In my view, a "supermajority in lieu of consensus" is 75-80%.  I also have a concept of a "thin consensus".  A "thin consensus" is one that could change if one or two additional votes were cast.  Thus, a 2-1 or 3-2 "consensus" is extremely thin.  Heck, even a 7-3 consensus is kind of thin because two additional votes would change the vote to 7-5.  Anybody trying to invoke "consensus" in such situations should consider the hubris of seven people deciding what the "consensus" of Wikipedia editors is on an issue.  Better to ask the minority how much they really care about the issue and, more importantly, what their objection is and then seek a compromise that they can support.


 * As frustrating as Nancy and Xandar can be, they will sometimes accept a compromise if it is carefully worded and well-sourced. Where possible, let us seek those compromises.


 * Getting back to Karanacs' original question, since the structure is more of a binary "yes/no" decision and less amenable to compromise, I would look for a supermajority of a substantial number of editors (on the order of 7-3, 8-2).


 * --Richard S (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As frustrating as Nancy and Xandar can be, they will sometimes accept a compromise if it is carefully worded and well-sourced. Not in my time; but I've only been here a few months. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't care deeply about the history section being first, although it did produce a much simpler TOC; since this makes it easier to find things and removes duplication, it would seem to fulfill all that can be expected of restructuring - and therefore I support it, as useful to the encyclopedia. Those who believe, however, that the Church has organically developed through time should naturally want the history first; that is the development, or at least its matrix. I do very strongly support simplification.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Bon editage UberCryxic - and remember, it's centre-left :-) Seriously though, debating the political position of the Lib Dems and getting this page to a NPOV standard is like comparing a stroll in the park and scaling the North Face of Everest without oxygen. Haldraper (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So what is Labour ;-> -Eris 18:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Cryxic is done
I am finished with my changes to the article. You can review what happened in my sandbox. The following description of my changes is based on a similar comment I left on Tom's talk page.

The first thing to remember is that even my version has huge problems that will need to be fixed later on. At this first and early stage of the process, however, I was trying to resolve two fundamental issues that I consider to be beyond discussion (hence my invocation of IAR): length and categorization. To that end, the version I present to you all is down from 190 kb two days ago to 115 kb now (and only 5,700 words in readable prose, so pretty good). That's actually still long, but at least we're down from insanely long. I achieved such a reduction in length through the removal of extraneous content that belongs in daughter articles and the consolidation of related paragraphs. The second fundamental problem was categorization, and here I wanted to lighten the TOC by presenting a more rational layout for the article. The TOC you see there now is due half to me, half to Karanacs, who had removed some unnecessary sections and summarized the content in other locations when the article was unprotected.

I want to assure everyone, in particular, that I made my changes with a veil of ignorance. I was not trying to answer the question "Here I have the Catholic Church article: what can I do to change it how I want?" Instead I thought of it as "Here I have a Wikipedia article: what can I do to make it better?" My personal feelings aside, I removed content that could both inspire sympathy with the Church or condemnation against it. On the latter front, I removed various internal and external controversies in the early history of the Church that I thought were too extraneous to its development. I also completely removed the very controversial paragraph on the sexual abuse scandals in the Modern times section because I thought it gave undue weight to a relatively minor event in the history of a very old institution. On the former front, I removed content on the persecution of Catholic priests in Mexico and the Soviet Union because that information, while historically notable, is also relatively unimportant to the overall history of the Church. I even left in the controversial opening sentence that prior consensus had agreed to modify significantly. I don't know who reinstated it, but I did not touch the lead at all. In other words, although I do have my own biases about what this article should say, these changes were not about content or POV disputes, and I left intact all tags. My thought process was very simple: "Set categorization. Crunch down the article." That's all there was to it. I just wanted to get the basics down, and I think I did.

Now I am here to request your support for the new version. But what exactly does supporting the new version mean? First, it emphatically does not mean that we cannot change it in the future. Banish that thought from your head. Here's what supporting it means. Earlier, Xandar was talking about the current version becoming the "base version" on which future redactions will be based. I rejected that proposal because the current version is hopelessly flawed and needs to be destroyed. There's no other way to it. Instead, this new version should become the standard around which to edit in the future. The new model is not great either&mdash;it's got numerous prose, content, and POV issues inherited from the earlier version&mdash;but at least it's not irreparably hopeless like what our readers are currently facing. To that end, I would like to speed things up, and I have another proposal for you.

A straw poll. If you support making the new version the standard model, say Support. If you want to keep the current version as the base version, say Oppose. Lacking any other authority willing to step in and resolve this issue, the straw poll should have firm executive power. Whoever gets a simple majority wins the prize, and the article must change to reflect the winner of this vote. Bear in mind, however, that whoever wins the straw poll will not necessarily win indefinitely&mdash;just until the issue is brought up again for some other kind of review. I still consider myself in IAR and will remain in IAR until, somehow, the size of this article comes down and its categorization becomes simpler. However, I am willing to participate in this consensus-building process because I have been asked to do so and, who knows, we might actually get somewhere this time. There is no magic number for how long the straw poll should last. I prefer to leave that decision for Tom, but I would personally say five or six days is fine.

Finally: Only registered users with accounts that have had at least 500 mainspace edits and have been active for longer than six months can vote. I've been through enough straw polls to know the kinds of shenanigans that people play with anons and new accounts. UberCryxic ( talk ) 17:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC) See just below, Tom Harrison Talk 21:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not legitimate to exclude ip accounts or newish accounts, so I'm striking that. It's not a simple vote. The reasoning is important, and the user's experience and editing history can be weighed. If there's puppetry, that has to be recognized and dealt with. The poll needs to be up over the weekend, and needs to involve enough people to be meaningful. Absent clear consensus, a super-majority may work, but it needs to be 70 or 80 percent - the fewer who take part, the higher it needs to be. I can't see closing it before next Wednesday. It's likely that some people follow the page but have given up trying to contribute. They should be heard if they want to comment. Tom Harrison Talk 21:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to mention this straw poll to relevant projects. I'll leave that to people who are active in the area. Tom Harrison Talk 21:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left neutral notes at the three Wikiprojects listed above. . I would not object if someone wanted to leave a similar note at the FAC talk page if they wish to attract the attention of FAC reviewers, but I oppose contacting individual editors.
 * Note that Xandar had left a non-neutrally-worded comment at WP Catholicism before his block; the phrasing of his comment may impact the results of this. Is there anything we can/should do about that? Karanacs (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Karanacs, your last diff is bad, but I went to the page, saw Xandar's canvassing (I do wish the non-neutral canvassing and calls for "votes" would stop), and removed it. At any rate, Tom should be aware that certain editors pop in here only to prop up the advocacy with a "vote", and I'm confident he will weigh the strength of the arguments. Canvassing and "voting" have been long-time problems here, with the lack of understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the correct diff. As Karanacs often points out, an unusually large number of editors have edited or followed this article at points in the past, but have given up through exhaustion, having a life, or disgust, often leaving a note on the kitchen table to say so (see Karanacs' very incomplete, and one-sided, list at the last RFC for a start).  Over 30 commented at the last FAC, often at length. To characterize all these people, who let's face it include you, as ones who "pop in here only to prop up the advocacy with a "vote"" is extremely unfair.  Why should only those with stamina, or who have just arrived, have a say?  Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:CCC; this article has been mired for years because canvassing brings back certain editors to "vote". Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Nancy has also jumped in the canvassing game, even though Karanacs just left a note there! I think we should probably stop this canvassing business entirely. Look, if there are people who really care about this article, hopefully they care enough to come in here at least once a week. If they don't, their commitment to the article is questionable, and they shouldn't be participating in this poll anyway. UberCryxic ( talk ) 01:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed those as well; I'm wondering if this article is going to need a corp of admins to police the disruptive behaviors? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good decision. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 01:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeez!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll (Now Dead: See below)

 * Support It's finally time to change this article. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 17:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, with the note that this should not be a frozen text either. This is not perfect; it is an improvement; it can be improved further. If there is consensus to bring back some older text, that should be done; if there is a genuine argument of benefit to the encyclopedia, we should look for compromise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, excellent job, while it stil has issues, it is a definite improvement and a good version to baseline the article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose This, chosen at random, is the first diff I look at in the Sandbox history. Spot the obvious mistake? Yes the previous version is too long, especially the notes, but he has only cut bits off, not done any editing to maximize the retention of information. Here changing the piped link that he retains from "Books of the Bible|Sacred Scripture" to "Bible#Christian Bible|", a link he removes, would remove the need for all or most of the stuff following, since that more precise link gives you all that and more. The entire article is like this, and in many areas the linking was already weak. To get the article back to the standard it was before will take an enormous amount of effort, which I suspect will never happen.  Any fool can go through cutting without thinking, and I have mentioned other sillinesses above - every time I compare new & old in detail more turn up.  Where content is not very controversial, we have actually been able in recent months to agree cuts relatively quickly, but keep getting sidetracked by controversial questions, and new single-issue people turning-up.  These cuts are not well done, and set the article back a long way. I am amazed by the comments of some above, and really wonder how closely they have looked at this version. Yes it's shorter, which we all want, but a more careful approach is needed.  This removes much of the quality of the earlier versions, but keeps many of its defects.  Johnbod (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is a mistake, it is in the version Uber started with, for this has simply joined two paragraphs and removed a third. Why is this a reason to prefer one erroneous version over another? Or has Johnbod gotten the wrong diff?  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose I had not looked in here for a while, but just dropped in to to see who was getting flogged..... (to many dots? you know....) But I see everyone is at it again. As usual, Johnbod shows exceptional sanity in the midst of all this. But this suggested revision is just hopeless and that is being kind to it. It can be called "murder on the Wiki-express" with sections all torn up and upside down etc. Now I will leave for better pastures for a while. History2007 (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral but support shorter article, I can neither support nor oppose, because I'm unaware of the sources used, but I strongly support any move to keep this article under 6,000 words and move controversial content to daughter articles, using summary style. That should help lessen edit warring, lessen the efforts of others to cram in every negative and positive thing about the church, which then has to be balanced, and increase readability.  Wiki is an encyclopedia, and the efforts to use this article as an advocacy piece for or against the church should stop.  Please reference old comments from Marskell that I posted once here on talk, and that should be in talk archives.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "The editors at that article did two things right. First, they avoided extraneous detail. The two sentences above could easily be turned into two paragraphs. Deliberately, the editors avoided such expansion. This is the biggest difference with RCC; you have POV concerns in part because your article is so long. Second, they avoided apologetics and value judgements. Go to the family life section (also added for FAC): it doesn't imply that you should like or dislike polygamy. It states that a man may take four wives and moves along. Marskell (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC) (See User:Marskell/RCC)"
 * Comment Sandy nailed it like Pontius Pilate. With all due respect to the 2 folks who disagree, the point is not that this is "the best version since they invented ice cream", but a short version to baseline it rather than go through the next round with including a section on "every wikipedian who ever served as an altar boy", all the extraneous detail should go into shorter articles.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I have issues with the proposed version - many issues - and I suspect that everyone else will too. However, I think that the current version of the article is hopelessly flawed and has been propped up by filibustering and edit-warring with unsubstantiated claims of consensus. I strongly endorse the new structure, which brings this article into alignment with the majority of other WP articles on organizations and religions, which shortens the article by removing a section which summarizes other sections, and which removes the inherent Catholic POV that beginning with "Origins and Mission" caused. I do not doubt that we will need to restore some of the text which was removed, and possibly remove some of what was retained. However, I think that the onus needs to be on those who wish the text to be in the article to justify its inclusion (per WP:V), especially since a large part of it has been challenged as violating core policies such as WP:OR (including undue weight) and WP:NPOV. Karanacs (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. This article must be written in WP:SS and the specifics must be left to separate articles. ( A minor point, User:UberCryxic/Sandbox should mention the Holy See and avoid the confusing it with the Vatican City.) -- Bonifacius 22:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support shorter article as new starting point. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the shorter article is ridiculously incomplete. The former article followed the scholarly format used by other encyclopedias like Brittanica, World Book and Encyclopedia Americana. There is no scholarly precedent for what Uber is proposing.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 01:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Like History2007, i dropped in after seeing some chatter on talk pages that i watch. I have briefly read the proposed version and think it is a better structure, more concise and more likely to allow progress to be made. I generally endorse the observations of Karanacs and Sandy above, and would add that the revised version obviously does not yet address RS issues that will need to be tackled at some stage. I understand Johnbod's concerns, but disagree that the work is unlikely to be done, at least based on the efforts i saw editors making in the few weeks i was active in the article and talkspace. I think the proposed version is indeed rough, but it is only intended to set a starting point, and would i expect get quickly tweaked for the sorts of issues Johnbod identified, as soon as it was decided to use the new version as the template. It seems to me a good starting point, and I think it is particularly good to try and bring the thing closer to the format of organisational articles generally. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There are many issues in the proposed version, including not only content, but MOS reordering which has no consensus (for instance the history section). While assuming good faith is important, the fact that the author of this huge update blustered into the talk with a caricature, anti-Catholic and naive liberal polemic (hardly seems familiar with a non-Dawkensian/Voltaire parody of the Church), probably means we should go slowly and do it a bit at a time (I realise the user has done much good work else where and I can sympathise with the WikiDragon tendancy, however keeping in mind the conflict of interest, everything needs to be checked under the microscope). The new version is trimmed down to what I would call, idelogically, a Freemasonic presentation of the Catholic Church, thus not a neutral one. But one point that I agree on is that I do think the article needs to be shorter in the more recent history section. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support for reasons given under the section "No scholarly precedent?" below.  Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 03:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose per Jonbod's concerns. The edit removes information essential to the understanding of the Catholic church. Zero information on Catholic teachings wrt to abortion and homosexuality.Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Karanacs' comments. Still some issues to fix but a big improvement by UberCryxic. I feel we often lose sight of the fact that this page is about the Catholic Church and let our focus be diverted by editors onto side issues - the Spanish Civil War, the Nazis, child abuse in US schools - that are nothing to do with it. I also think more trimming is necessary to reduce the length further, particularly in the history and institutions/demographics sections. Haldraper (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think this all-or-nothing approach is the best way to go, but everyone seems happy to vote in this poll and that implies acceptance of the process, so I ought to make a choice. I feel that it would be easier to improve UberCryxic's version than the current version, and so I support UberCryxic's version.MoreThings (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per items already brought up by Yorkshirian. I also would like to mention that the ordering of this page should be similar to the Islam article, which is a FA and a recent FA.  Islam has the teachings first then History.  As Nancy has mentioned the current ordering is also similar to other Encyclopedias I have seen.  I belive the other article is to many cuts done way to quickly.  Marauder40 (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity, Islam is not a recent FA. It was promoted in May 2007 and went through featured article review in Jan 2008.  That's over two years ago; FAC criteria have been tightened extensively since then, and I don't know if the article would meet them now (I haven't read it with my FAC-reviewer hat on). I'll also note that this argument (that the Catholic Church article should be structured like the Islam one) was brought up in at least one of the FACs, and reviewers rejected the argument. Karanacs (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Though I appreciate the effort made, I think it is best to start with the original article and begin to trim through group editing. I don't think it need be a slow process, but one where more than one mind chooses what goes and stays. The proposed article just missed out on too many important items to accept it. -- Storm  Rider  23:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

'''The straw poll is now dead. See below for more details.'''

Comments
I would like to remind everyone to include detailed comments about the straw poll or my changes here, not in the straw poll itself. The straw poll is a poll (a vote), not a forum for discussion. UberCryxic ( talk ) 21:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If Tom cares to carve off Johnbod's comments, including any eventual answer to my question, that would be fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't think you're helping matters with all this IAR stuff. I commend you for announcing your intention to invoke IAR before actually invoking it--personally I'd like that to be mandatory whenever it's used--but I was surprised to see your announcement followed by Tom's unprotection. I'm not surprised Xandar reverted everything, and I don't blame him. Similarly here you've announced that you consider yourself "in IAR", whatever that means, and you casually reject Xandar's "hopelessly flawed" proposal while arguing that your own alternative proposal be allowed to carry on 51%. Surely that approach is simply laying out the battlefield. I also happen to think you'll lose the vote. It's a fairly simple matter to bus in editors to sign a straw poll.


 * For myself, I don't feel I yet have sufficient grasp of the swinging changes to support or oppose them in their entirety, but Johnbod is persuasive above. I'm in a minority in that my primary concern is not the length of the article. That's not to say that length is not a concern, but I find the content much more problematic than the length. Chopping out content without regard to the merit of that content--with a "veil of ignorance"-- doesn't sound like the way forward to me.


 * There are signs that editors from all sides might be amenable to reducing the article to a bare bones or basic version and building it back up. It might be that your version is acceptable as that version, but it needs consensus, and that doesn't mean 51%. Your version shouldn't be inviolate. Editors should be encouraged to suggest changes with a view to achieving consensus around a simplified version, and I'd suggest that everyone agree to allow Tom to adjudicate consensus. MoreThings (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur; the last thing that should now happen is that Uber's version be inviolate - and I support it now because I think it the easiest course to further improvement, which may include consensus to restore some things he omitted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree. I strongly dislike my version and can't wait to change it, but I really hate the current version. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 21:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No scholarly precedent?
Nancy has objected to the proposed reorganization of the article on the grounds that "the former article followed the scholarly format used by other encyclopedias like Brittanica, World Book and Encyclopedia Americana. There is no scholarly precedent for what Uber is proposing."

Here is the top-level organization of the article on "Roman Catholicism" in Britannica Online:


 * Introduction
 * History of Roman Catholicism
 * The Age of Reformation and Counter-Reformation
 * Structure of the Church
 * Beliefs and Practices
 * The Church Since Vatican II
 * Additional Reading

I'd say that's plenty of "scholarly precedent". It's certainly a much closer match to the proposed new structure than it is to the former one. (And note that it also entitles the article "Roman Catholicism", not "Catholic Church"--another issue that probably ought to be revisited at some point.)   Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 03:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool. Thank you for that! UberCryxic  ( talk ) 03:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "No scholarly precedent": that's a new argument! Apparently an incorrect one as well :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters anyway, since I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that says "Our encyclopedia needs to read like Britannica." We're the largest repository of human knowledge in history by far. We should make the rules. I don't care what Britannica does. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 04:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we don't need to ape EB, but it's great to learn more about how other guys handle this subject. Thanks for posting this, Harmakheru. I'm still inclined to start the article with the History section. Majoreditor (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy's response to above

 * Encyclopedia Brittanica, like Worldbook Encyclopedia begin their aritcles with what would amout to us combining our lead with the Cultural Influences section.
 * Please, everyone here, go read the introductions of the both of these Encyclopedias' Catholic Church articles and you will see that they begin by telling you how big, how important and how "wonderful" are the accomplishments of the Catholic Church.
 * Encyclopedia Americana has whole sections that are as large as the History section telling Reader how massive and important are the Catholic education system and missions. *Richard has asked me below what I don't like about Uber's version and it is this. His version does not tell Reader any of these things. In order to find out that the Church is something very important and massive and influential upon the whole developement of Western Civilization - a person has to read the entire history section and then would still not know this very notable fact - so notable that tertiarty sources like Encyclopedia Brittanica and others place this information first and do so in a manner that people on this page might consider Catholic apologetics.
 * Wikipedia allows us to use tertiary sources (which encyclopedia's are) to discover scholarly consensus. It is scholarly consensus that the Church's cultural influence is very notable and a core piece of any article on this subject.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 04:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not matter, for the umpteenth time, what other encyclopedias do. Our policies, guidelines, and traditions are clear enough on their own.  UberCryxic  ( talk ) 04:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nancy has been told that a thousand times. She Does Not Know How Wiki Works (but she does know how to selectively read policy and apply it when it's in her favor :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandy, that is another personal attack by you. Please do not presume to know what I know. You are the only person that tells me things "a thousand times", in a very harrasing and bullying way. Please stop.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 04:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My examples of other encyclopedias is proof that what Uber has done to this article is not an improvement but a type of WP:OR that does not follow scholarly consensus but rather subverts it.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 04:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, you should be able to recognize much of my version instantly. Know why? Because you wrote it! I just condensed your words. Really Nancy I'm flattered, but you're giving me too much credit. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 04:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Britannica Online's introduction is 673 words (some of which is meta-discussion about the article itself); in Nancy's preferred text, the lead plus "Cultural Influences" is almost 1000, which makes it significantly bloated by comparison. Further, Britannica's intro does not, as Nancy claims, tell us "how big, how important and how "wonderful" are the accomplishments of the Catholic Church".  What it says is this:


 * [S]ome understanding of Roman Catholicism--its history, its institutional structure, its beliefs and practices, and its place in the world--is an indispensable component of cultural literacy, regardless of how one may individually answer the ultimate questions of life and death and faith. Without a grasp of what Roman Catholicism is, it is difficult to make historical sense of the Middle Ages, intellectual sense of the works of Thomas Aquinas, literary sense of The Divine Comedy of Dante, artistic sense of the Gothic cathedrals, or musical sense of many of the compositions of Haydn and Mozart.


 * It then goes on to add that "a historical approach is especially appropriate to this task"--which is precisely why they put the historical section first. And so should we.   Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 04:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, consider this a warning to focus your comments on the content of this article and not other editors. You seem fixated on Nancy and you have crossed the line. Should you continue, I will be more than happy to report your sick edits, which will result in you being blocked.-- Storm  Rider  22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

UberCryxic's version - how bad is it?
I just did a quick scan of the "History" section in UberCryxic's version and I have to say that it is a short and breezy read. It's much less dense and ponderous than the previous version which really did fatigue me when I read it. And I'm actually quite interested in the subject!

I am inclined to support using UberCryxic's version as a baseline. After all, even if his 115kb version grew by 20%, we would still be at "only" 138kb which is a huge improvement over 190kb.

Before I cast my vote, however, I'd like to hear more from those who oppose going to Uber's version as a baseline. Specifically, NancyHeise characterized that version as "ridiculously incomplete". I would like to know what topics Nancy feels are absolutely critical and undeleteable. My interest is in the History section but others might be interested in developing a similar list for the other parts of the article.

--Richard S (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Besides deleting the work of many editors to this page over the past two years, painstakingly researchd and referenced, and besides removing half of the basic information about the Church itself, see above.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 04:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Logic, please: engage brain. We're mostly adults here, and "voting" and "canvassing" as a means of avoiding fixing this article isn't going to work anymore.  You don't lose painstaking work; you move it to daughter articles where it should have been to begin with, so this article can become an encyclopedic entry instead of an edit warred, POV-mired, advocacy piece.  Please, rational argument will help speed things up.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I know you're looking to hear from people who are opposing, but I made clear above and I want to reiterate once more that my version also has big problems and needs major revisions. One part of those revisions can be adding critical subjects that my version leaves out. I'm not opposed to that at all; it's just that we'll have to summarize everything we want to add to prevent the explosion in size this article suffered over the last two years. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 04:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the comments from the last FAC, not one of them asks for less information in the article. All of the comments either support it or ask for more information. What basis then do you have for offering a chopped version of this article that eliminates what the 25 supporters supported at the last FAC and was on its way to incorporating the comments of the 9 opposers?  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 04:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nancy, will you please STOP REFERRING TO THE FACS? They failed. The article needs fixing.  That's all the FACs mean or say. They are IRRELEVANT.  PLEASE read WP:CCC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's true, and I haven't gone through that FAC in that much detail so I wouldn't know, then every single one of those editors made a mistake regarding that point. You can't prop up a horrible argument by appealing to a majority: the argument is still horrible. This article is way too long per WP:SIZE, which I've mentioned ad infinitum now. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 04:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia, FACs, especially ones like our last one that had all of Wikipedia's best writers commenting - tell us what we can do to improve the article. There are FACs that are longer than this article and WP:Size says to toss its instructions out if common sense says the article should be longer. Looking at the Catholic Church article in all other encyclopedia's, its one of the longest articles in each instance. Why are you trying to make this article into something it should not be - something that has no scholarly precedent.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 04:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you not find it a bit myopic that you pretend to tell both Karanacs and me what a FAC means? I have to commend Karanacs for being able to put up with this for so long without popping a cork.  I'm fairly convinced now that you don't read a thing anyone types.  I am not an admin, Karanacs is not here as FAC delegate, the article failed FAC because it is and has always been riddled with problems.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Common sense is telling me this article should be shorter. It's telling you it should be longer. So much for common sense. No one disputes that this article should be long, given its importance. It should never be that long. What is this all this talk about "scholarly precedent"?!?!? First off, you were just contradicted on that front. Secondly, we use scholars to cite our claims, not to determine the structure of our articles. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 04:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The original question is a good one, but I'm certainly not going to start even an incomplete list - it would be quicker to do a different shortened version. The gaping gaps in the history are pretty obvious, but some stuff that should be shortened is left - still too much on the English Reformation, and far too much, given the shortened state, on Liberation theology (the JBmurray memorial passage), WW2 and other stuff. There were always far too many "main articles" and "see also"s above sections, and these have all been kept.  The new distinction between sections on "Founational beliefs" and "common beliefs" is entirely made up by Uber, and would be highly POV if there were anyone who actually held that view.  He does not pretend that he has consulted any of the references, so the relationship between them & the new text is highly uncertain - the 'iconoclasm leading to the Great Schism' jump I have mentioned above is an example.  It will be far more difficult to build on this text to achieve one that actually covers the right things in a shorter way than to trim and re-edit in condensed and NPOV style the previous one.  Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversial and undiscussed cuts, example
In the sandbox version, UberCryxic makes various cuts which either, do not give a full informative presentation or are inherently bias against the Church IMO. Here is one example, there are many others. Specifically in regards perecutions of the Church, UberCryxic claims to be cutting down what he deems as largely incosequential information, "not important to the Church". But in actuality the following happens;

Plutarco Elías Calles, an anti-clerical, Grand Orient Freemason, persecuted the Church and many of its followers during his time in control of Mexico, including during the Cristero War. This is directly relevent to the Church and Mexico is an important Catholic nation, but is cut. Also removed was the persecution of Catholics by Communist regimes. Some of the most brutal persecutions of the Church, directly inspired by Marxist-Leninist ideology, were carried out under the watch of the Soviet Union and its satellites. Before we even get into the anti-clericalism, there is the Katyn massacre in Catholic Poland, inumerable slaughters of the Catholics in Hungary and of course, Holodomor, in which 11 million Ukrainians were intentionally starved to death by Marxists, many of the victims were Catholic. Obviously important to the Church.

At the same time, when it comes to the off-topic and irrelevent ethnic conflict between Jews and Germans, even the supposedly "cut down" article rattles on for an entire paragraph. This conflict is largely insignificant to the history of the Church, not involving it and doesn't need to be in the article at all. Yet fringe and non-scholary, secularist polemic about Pius XII predominates, the authors of which were simply motivated by a crude, fast cash making sensationalist grab (like the author of "Hitler's Pope") or ideological/politically motivated by hatred of the traditional Catholic religion of which Saint Pius XII is a prominent figurehead. Communism and the Catholic conflict with it is relevent to this article, the Third German Reich and its conflict with the Jews is not. All that needs to be mentioned about the Third Reich, is a very brief mention explaining the ideologically different nature of it to authoritarian governments which the Church had a far more healthy and open relationship with; ie - Franco, Salazar, Dollfuss type Christian corporatist conservatives.

Obviously, such changes are why this needs to be put under the microscope and any change done a bit at a time, rather than a rash wholesale, controversial and undiscussed cut. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * These issues belong in smaller sub articles that can go into greater detail and give them the proper treatment, they don't belong here. When it comes up at FAC (What about my sacred cow?) you direct them to the appropriate sub-article, easy day!  I have never understood why some editors go on and on about the Masons, Luther, Hitler, etc and not even mention St Francis of Assissi or Gregory the Great in this article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And I acknowledged all those cuts Yorkshirian. On the other hand, what you did not acknowledge was the fact that I removed the early controversies in the history of the Church, and I also removed any mention of the sex abuse scandals in more recent times. Being selective much? I made sure that my cuts went both ways. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 08:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing on St. Leo, Pope Damasus, nothing on the Vulgate, nothing on St. Gregory. Nothing on St. Francis of Assisi. Nothing on Aquinas. Nothing on St. Augustine. Nothing on Pope Innocent. For an informative article, you've excised some of the most influential Catholics, and some of the most influential people in world history. Yet, we have a picture of the priest who dissents with Catholic teachings wrt liberation theology. I'm sorry, I cannot vote in favour of your edit. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Contrasted with no fewer than 3 mentions of Napoleon, Uber's special subject! Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BenKenobi18 proposals
"Although in the past some Biblical scholars thought the word 'rock' referred to Jesus or to Peter’s faith, the majority now understand it as referring to the person of Peter.[43] Some historians of Christianity assert that the Catholic Church can be traced to Jesus's consecration of Peter,[41][44] some that Jesus did not found a church in his lifetime but provided a framework of beliefs,[45] while others do not make a judgement about whether or not the Church was founded by Jesus but disagree with the traditional view that the papacy originated with Peter. These assert that Rome may not have had a bishop until after the apostolic age and suggest the papal office may have been superimposed by the traditional narrative upon the primitive church[46][47] although some of these assert that the papal office had indeed emerged by the mid 150s.[48][49]"

This section is plagued with issues. There are zero direct quotes here. Who said what and when. I cannot favour that this section be left as is because it places disproportionate weight on criticisms of the Catholic church. I come to this page to read what the Catholic church believes, not the 1000 and 1 old grudges.Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"The Nicene Creed also forms the central statement of belief of other Christian denominations.[58] Chief among these are Eastern Orthodox Christians, whose beliefs are similar to those of Catholics, differing mainly with regard to papal infallibility, the filioque clause and the Immaculate Conception of Mary.[59][60] The various Protestant denominations vary in their beliefs, but generally differ from Catholics regarding the Pope, Church tradition, the Eucharist, veneration of saints, and issues pertaining to grace, good works and salvation.[61]"

This is no different then discussing why Rafa Nadal is a good claycourter on Roger Federer's page. Again, this does not need to be here on the Catholic church page. We don't care what the Orthodox church believes, or what the Protestant churches believe. We care about the question, what is it that the Catholic church believes. Again, I cannot support this new edit which removes pertinent information while retaining information irrelevant to the topic at hand. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"There is evidence from the UK[102] and USA[103] that at least three-quarters of professed Catholics do not adhere to this requirement of canon law."

Why is this trivia here? Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"While some consider this to be evidence of a discriminatory attitude toward women,[156] the Church believes that Jesus called women to different yet equally important vocations in Church ministry.[157]"

This needs to be substantially reworked. "Some people" is a key weasel word. This omits entirely the Catholic doctrine that the priest acts in Personae Christae, and as Christ was a man, therefore the priest must also be a man. This, again is nowhere in the article and must be there. Anything that says, "some people", etc ought to be immediately removed. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Adults who have never been baptized may be admitted to Baptism by participating in a formation program such as the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults"

True, but misleading. RCIA is for all adults who wish to enter the Church, irrespective of their previous baptism. This must be reworked.Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"although the number of practicing Catholics worldwide is not reliably known.[191]"

If it's not reliably known, why are we wasting precious space discussing it? Strike this out. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

When this turned into an "appalling massacre",[270] he instituted the first papal inquisition to prevent further massacres and to root out the remaining Cathars.[270][271][272] Formalized under Gregory IX, this Medieval inquisition put to death an average of three people per year for heresy.[265][272]"

If it killed three people a year, why is it significant? This doesn't sound like an 'appalling massacre' to me.

"Over time, other inquisitions were launched by secular rulers to prosecute heretics, often with the approval of Church hierarchy, to respond to the threat of Muslim invasion or for political purposes.[273] King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain formed an inquisition in 1480, originally to deal with distrusted converts from Judaism and Islam to Catholicism.[274] Over a 350-year period, this Spanish Inquisition executed between 3,000 and 4,000 people,[275] representing around two percent of those accused.[276] In 1482 Pope Sixtus IV condemned the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition, but Ferdinand ignored his protests.[277] Some historians argue that for centuries Protestant propaganda and popular literature exaggerated the horrors of the inquisitions in an effort to associate the Catholic Church with acts committed by secular rulers.[278][279][280] Over all, one percent of those tried by the inquisitions received death penalties, leading some scholars to consider them rather lenient when compared to the secular courts of the period.[275][281] The inquisition played a major role in the final expulsion of Islam from Sicily and Spain.[241]

This whole section is schizophrenic. I'm not quite sure what bearing this has on Catholic church. As we see here, that Pope Sixtus condemned the inquistion, the inquistion was founded by a King, not the Church. Couple things here, the Albigenisian crusade is only one among many. There were Crusades against the Prussians (as seen in the Teutonic Knights), and Crusades against the moors. I would strike both these sections out. We need to be very careful to attribute to the Catholic church only those actions sanctioned by the Church and not the individual states of the time. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"John Wycliffe and Jan Hus crafted the first of a new series of disruptive religious perspectives that challenged the Church. The Council of Constance (1414–1417), condemned Hus and ordered his execution, but could not prevent the Hussite Wars in Bohemia. In 1509, the scholar Erasmus wrote In Praise of Folly, a work which captured the widely held unease about corruption in the Church.[286] The Council of Constance, the Council of Basel and the Fifth Lateran Council had all attempted to reform internal Church abuses but had failed.[287] As a result, rich, powerful and worldly men like Roderigo Borgia (Pope Alexander VI) were able to win election to the papacy.[287][288] Personal corruption and abuses of power by these men and other members of the hierarchy preceded the Protestant Reformation - which began as an attempt to reform the Catholic Church from within. Catholic reformers opposed the ecclesiastic malpractice - especially the sale of indulgences, and simony, the selling of clerical offices — which they saw as evidence of systemic corruption of the Church’s hierarchy. Subsequently, reformers began to assault many of the historic doctrinal teachings of the Church.

In 1517, Martin Luther included his Ninety-Five Theses in a letter to several bishops.[289][290] His theses protested key points of Catholic doctrine as well as the sale of indulgences.[289][290] Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, and others further criticized Catholic teachings. These challenges developed into a large and all encompassing European movement called the Protestant Reformation.[232][291]

In Germany, the reformation led to a nine-year war between the Protestant Schmalkaldic League and the Catholic Emperor Charles V. In 1618 a far graver conflict, the Thirty Years' War, followed.[292] In France, a series of conflicts termed the French Wars of Religion were fought from 1562 to 1598 between the Huguenots and the forces of the French Catholic League. The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre marked the turning point in this war.[293] Survivors regrouped under Henry of Navarre who became Catholic and began the first experiment in religious toleration with his 1598 Edict of Nantes.[293] This Edict, which granted civil and religious toleration to Protestants, was hesitantly accepted by Pope Clement VIII.[292][294]"

This reads like a history of the Reformation. This is not the point of the article. The article must discuss first and foremost, the history of the Catholic church in the time of the Reformation. This is a distinct difference, and why I don't think this meets the standard we are looking for here in an article about the Catholic church.

For one, there is zero mention of Avignon, and we jump straight into Hus and Wycliffe. Zero mention is made of Gutenberg. Zero mention is made of the issue of the Vernacular. This is not good enough if we want this into the article. Important details essential for understanding the period are omitted, while others are inflated out of proportion. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"From the seventeenth century onward, a philosophical and cultural movement known as "the Enlightenment" attacked the power and influence of the Church over Western society.[331] Eighteenth century writers such as Voltaire and the Encyclopedists wrote biting critiques of both religion and the Church. One target of their criticism was the 1685 revocation of the Edict of Nantes by King Louis XIV which ended a century-long policy of religious toleration of Protestant Huguenots."

What does this have to do with the Catholic church? This is an argument between Louis XIV, and Voltaire et al. If you are doing commentary here, much needs to be said about the Catholics who were executed during the reign of terror, and the consequences for the Catholic church in this period, more then just two sentences. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The entire industrial period is a mess. Zero mention of the Kulturkampf? Look, I think if you want to do this right, you need to go through each of the papal histories (the recent ones are quite good), and then go through all the issues listed there. There are so many omissions here, Soviet opposition to the Church, the issues with Marx and communism dominated the era. Marx saw the Catholic church as a threat to their control of the working class. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Changes to old rites and ceremonies following Vatican II produced a variety of responses. Although most Catholics "accepted the changes more or less gracefully", some stopped going to church and others tried to preserve what they perceived to be the "true precepts of the Church".[388] The latter form the basis of today's Traditionalist Catholic groups, which believe that the reforms of Vatican II have gone too far. Liberal Catholics form another dissenting group, and feel that the Vatican II reforms did not go far enough."

This can go. Again, we aren't really interested in the response to Vatican II, which ironically takes up more space then describing the actual document. This falls under the same heading of 'criticism'. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"In the 1960s, growing social awareness and politicization in the Church in Latin America gave birth to liberation theology, a movement often identified with Gustavo Gutiérrez who was pivotal in expounding the melding of Marxism and Catholic social teaching. A cornerstone of the Liberation Theology were ecclesial base communities, groups uniting clergy and laity in social and political action. Although the movement garnered some support among Latin American bishops, it was never officially endorsed by any of the Latin American Bishops’ Conferences. At the 1979 Conference of Latin American Bishops in Puebla, Mexico, Pope John Paul II and conservative bishops attending the conference attempted to rein in the more radical elements of liberation theology; however, the conference did make a formal commitment to a "preferential option for the poor".[390] Archbishop Óscar Romero, a supporter of the movement, became the region's most famous contemporary martyr in 1980, when he was murdered by forces allied with the government of El Salvador while saying Mass.[391] In Managua, Nicaragua, Pope John Paul II criticized elements of Liberation Theology and the Nicaraguan Catholic clergy's involvement in the Sandinista National Liberation Front.[392] Pope John Paul II maintained that the Church, in its efforts to champion the poor, should not do so by advocating violence or engaging in partisan politics.[393] Liberation Theology is still alive in Latin America today, although the Church now faces the challenge of Pentecostal revival in much of the region.[392]"

This is too much on liberation theology, and it reads like an advertisement. I don't think it even belongs here as there are plenty of dissident groups, and if we are giving these folks a place here, then we are leaving out others. Remember, this is one priest. Why don't we have anything on Opus Dei? This is about the only pastoral movement of which we hear anything about, which places again, undue weight. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"It is known for its ability to use its transnational ties and organizational strength to bring significant resources to needy situations[citation needed] and operates the world's largest non-governmental school system.[412] Although the number of practicing Catholics worldwide is not reliably known,[191] membership is growing particularly in Africa and Asia.[vague][188]"

Not a particularly well-worded section. Could be excised without losing anything. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * BenKenobi, you seem to be under the misapprehension that this page is run by rather than about the Catholic Church ("I come to this page to read what the Catholic church believes"), you may find the Catholic Encyclopedia more helpful for that.


 * This page reads "Catholic church". I come here to read what does the Catholic church believe. I don't come here to read about what the Eastern Orthodox church believes or what Protestant churches believe. It is sufficient for the page to say, "The Catholic church believes X". We don't need to discuss all the criticisms. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're also a bit mixed up when you write:


 * "When this turned into an "appalling massacre",[270] he instituted the first papal inquisition to prevent further massacres and to root out the remaining Cathars.[270][271][272] Formalized under Gregory IX, this Medieval inquisition put to death an average of three people per year for heresy.[265][272]"


 * If it killed three people a year, why is it significant? This doesn't sound like an 'appalling massacre' to me."


 * The 'appalling massacre' refers to the suppression of the Cathars in the Albigensian Crusade, not those subsequently put to death for heresy by the inquisitions.


 * Then the article needs to be written to reflect this. The article also needs to be written to tell us more about the Crusade, not that it was simply an 'appalling massacre'. Who, what, where, when, why and how? None of this is present in the article. The article needs to talk about the rest of it rather then just plopping the Albigensian crusade down in the middle of things. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "It is known for its ability to use its transnational ties and organizational strength to bring significant resources to needy situations[citation needed] and operates the world's largest non-governmental school system.[412] Although the number of practicing Catholics worldwide is not reliably known,[191] membership is growing particularly in Africa and Asia.[vague][188]"


 * "Not a particularly well-worded section. Could be excised without losing anything." Agreed. Haldraper (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Since the end of the twentieth century, sex abuse by Catholic clergy has been the subject of media coverage, legal action, and public debate in Australia, Ireland, the United States, Canada and other countries.[406]"

Amazing, how this comes up every single time. You can excise things like the occupation of Rome, but leave this in. Breathtaking bias. Nothing about Pope Leo talking to Attila, and this is here. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, there are also several breathtaking omissions. Nothing is mentioned in the article that the Catholic church opposes sodomy, and that the Catholic church opposes abortion. I cannot vote in favour of any edit which somehow omits the two most important topics of Catholic social teaching today. Absolutely unacceptable edit. I vote for [b]REVERT[/b] to the previous version. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the proposal gives far too much coverage to the fringe liberation theology heretics who have been condemed by the Church. Reading the recent history section, you'd think a bunch of neo-Jesuit Marxists were in a prominent position within the Church, rather than the reality of Opus Dei being in a prominent position today. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Yorkshirian, by all means get Opus Dei in there; people need to know about that. And while you're at it, don't forget about the Legion of Christ/Regnum Christi, which is of approximately the same size and importance.  Especially don't forget to mention the Legion's founder, "Father" Maciel--a drug-addled sociopath, sexual predator, and pathological liar who lived a double life with at least two women, spawned several illegitimate children, amassed a huge personal fortune, molested his own seminarians, raped his own children, and (the Legion is now hinting in self-defense) may have been demon-possessed as well, but was nevertheless lauded by Pope John Paul II as "an efficacious guide to youth".  And since, as you say, "Mexico is an important Catholic nation", don't forget to include the estimate of informed commentators that the continuing scandal surrounding Maciel and the Legion is having a "devastating impact" on the Catholic Church in Mexico.    Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 17:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Opus Dei are far more widespread and powerful than Legion of Christ (I don't get the relevence of all the polemic about their leader though? pretty off topic). I'm not suggesting Opus Dei be mentioned more than "liberation theology" out of some personal preferance (in my opinion OD are far too liberal and relativist when it comes to non-Catholic religions) but the fact of the matter is that they are a more notable force in recent times, they have more pull in Rome. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Fundamental Problem
The fundamental problem with this article - and all the disputes associated with it - is that it tries to include far too much information on far too many issues. The only solution, it seems to me, is to make this article considerably shorter and only include the most essential historial and theological issues information. Information on more complex issues should be moved to other - or new - articles that are focused on those particular issues and internal links and directions added for these articles. The best approach is often to say more by saying less - the more you say the more there is to argue about. Afterwriting (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that this sounds like a sensible approach. An article of this kind should clearly be written in summary style. - sections that are contentious do probably not need to do more than describe the nature of the debate. The details can be given in spinout articles.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the approach all recent versions of the article in fact adopt, in fact very often not even doing as much as 'describing the nature of the debate'. But issues of what "the most essential historial and theological issues" that need even a mention bring out a lot of disagreement, which the latest version will only intensify.  The whole point of Summary style is to use links to other articles, and huge numbers of these have been cut.  In the past most critics of the article have felt the "fundamental problem with this article" is POV, closely followed by length.  Everybody agrees on the latter, but as soon as you start leaving stuff out, consensus breaks down.  Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It becomes a POV problem when editors get mired down in the details. With the content in question sidelined to the "sub-articles", this should cease to be a problem.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Johnbod says "consensus breaks down" as if there has ever been consensus on this article (except that it fails FAC). There have been committed owners, and others who recycle through here until they give up.  Any fresh start is better than the current quagmire.  I think the Poll was formulated incorrectly.  Rather than focusing on Uber's version as a starting point, it should have been phrased simply as, "Should this article be less than 6,000 words, using summary style".  Instead, people are focusing on the proposed version, as if it's any worse than what's here now.  At least it's a starting point.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact everyone accepts that the article has been too long, and has long done so, though some feel more strongly about it than others. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be a very unappealing choice to me and while I might agree that the article needs to be shorter I don't think I'd be able to agree to set an arbitrary limit on length. Imo length should be determined by the topic not by an apriori decision.·Maunus· ƛ · 14:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You need a starting place, and 6,000 is more than adequate. That doesn't make it set in stone forever: it just gives a starting place for discarding the POV advocacy piece, restructuring the article, and starting over (hopefully with some notion this time of how articles are built on Wiki and what consensus means).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how setting a limit guarantees against POV advocacy or too high a degree of detail in the controversial sections - it would still be necessary to discuss and establish consensus when determining what stays and what goes. I would suggest simply agreeing on summary style and then proceed to trim down the controversial areas to conform to that. But thats just my suggestion of course and I am not actually going to meddle in the editing of the article.·Maunus· ƛ · 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect that Nancy and Xander only respond to black-and-white thinking, so setting an initial limit will get the article out of the quagmire. I've looked at Uber's structure now, and it is far superior to the advocacy piece this article has become, and surely provides a better starting place (albeit with some issues to be resolved still).  The POV is a direct consequence of the length, and the length is a direct consequence of partisans who want to write an advocacy piece instead of an encyclopedic entry.  Forcing them to consider due weight, and the importance and relevance of every word, may curb that.  On structure alone, just the fact that Nancy and Xander want an enormous beliefs section on top tells us that the aim is not an encyclopedic entry, rather an advocacy piece for the church.  There are clear arguments and precedents for putting History first (and both History and Beliefs should be severely trimmed to daughter articles ... contrary to stated positions, not everyone wants to come to this article to read the catechism ... that is published elsewhere ... Wiki pretends to be an encyclopedia.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Much of the length is in fact the result of responses to complaints of it being POV, from various different POVs, to leave issues out. This can very easily seen at the last FACs & here "what, no mention of...". User:Sayersville's appearance in the last two weeks is a classic example of this. He has spent thousands of words complaining that not mentioning the church's support of the Nationalist in the Spanish Civil War is wildly POV. We get that the whole time here. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Circles. Reference the response by Marskell, given many times and noted above.  The article is a competing POV quagmire.  Move it all out.  Everyone wants their pet advocacy piece in, and that's why the article is POV.  Cut it all to elsewhere, and write an encyclopedic article.  The FACs all presented POV advocacy pieces, so reviewers asked for balance.  Rather than balance pro-Catholic advocacy, just get it all out of there, to daughter articles, and write an encyclopedic entry.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think singling out editors and commenting on their way of thinking is the best way out of a consensus dead lock. Anyway I simply disagree with your reasoning: You write that "The POV is a direct consequence of the length, and the length is a direct consequence of partisans who want to write an advocacy piece instead of an encyclopedic entry." This is a circular statement since you say that the POV is a consequence of the length which is in turn a consequence of POV editors. It seems more straight forward to say that the the article's while the article currently is too long because it contains too much POV and removing that POV would make the article better. The problem is not the length (since the current length might be reasonable if it was balanced and stayed in summary style), but the POV. Remove the POV and the length adjusts itself. Setting a limit for length in order to get rid of the POV is working backwards.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes the correct fundamental problem has been identified here. The question is what do you do about it, and whenever a specific proposal is put forth, wars erupt in this talk page, preventing any actual change. This has been the basic filibustering strategy of some users for the past two years, and this article will never change if this kind of obstructionism cannot be softened a little bit. UberCryxic ( talk ) 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion
I realize that this is the least preferred solution to a POV imbalance - but looking on the article's history of problems I can't help thinking that a lot of the partisanship could be avoided by having a short summary of the article on Criticism of the Catholic Church. That would move the pro/con pileup out of the other sections and into that one. Then the trick would just be to limit the section to being a summary of the criticism article. Just a suggestion feel free to disagree vehemently.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Criticism articles are almost always deleted as POV forks (see WP:NPOV). That's why moving content to relevant daughter articles is a better suggestion.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Maunus' suggestion of summarizing the Criticism of the Catholic Church article can work in some situations but experience has shown that a Criticism section in this article would tend to become bloated and unreadable as a random laundry list of criticisms and attacks on the Church. We have taken the approach of mentioning notable criticisms in line with the article text which is the preferred approach.  I think WP:MOS says something about this.  Criticism of the Catholic Church has withstood a number of AFD's despite a general bias against the existence of such articles.  The major argument for keeping it is that there is no way that we could give each criticism adequate treatment without a separate article.  There are certainly daughter articles on the more notable criticisms. ---Richard S (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We have a criticism article and it is rather large and has not been deleted. And I agree that the preferable situation would have discussions of controversial topics in the respective spinnout articles - but that would mean that each subsection should give an adequate summary of the controversies - that seems to be the point where the process breaks down. The solution could be to take the next best solution. ·Maunus· ƛ · 16:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)


 * I've been involved in one of these POV forks, at Hugo Chavez, when I was a novice editor. The article was gynormous and POV (same problem as here), so criticism was forked to help with length.  The criticism article survived several AFDs, but was eventually successfully AFD'd.  End result, the main article is still POV, and all criticism ... ummmmm ... disappeared :)  I do not endorse going this route.  Instead, move content to balanced daughter articles.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, SandyGeorgia, I agree that this is always a potential problem and, unfortunately, Criticism articles are usually poorly written and magnets for POV-pushers. That said, the issue here is not always about having too much detail about controversies although that is a constant battle. The question is how to adequately summarize criticisms since it would be POV to remove them altogether and it is difficult to figure out how to say just enough without getting into a long discussion of the controversy. My general approach is to mention the controversy in the article text and provide a hopefully short Note outlining the controversy. All significant controversies should have their own article which explains the creation of articles such as Catholic Church and slavery, Catholic Church and science and Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust. I started work on an article about Catholic Church and women but no one else seemed interested in helping so that effort went way back on the backburner. --Richard S (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with that approach! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

115kb vs 190kb - a possible way to reconcile the two
It seems to me that there is no consensus for either version at this time. If anything, the tide of opinion seems to be running towards UberCryxic's shortened version but this does not seem likely to get support of an overwhelming supermajority in the 75-80% range (although it may be more of the 60-70% range).

I would like to suggest that a model for moving forward that might help us reach consensus. UberCryxic asserts that his shortened version has 5700 words of readable prose. Some editors have proposed setting an upper limit of 6000 words of readable prose. I suspect that this limit is too stringent and will never get the agreement of editors such as Xandar, Nancy, Johnbod and Yorkshirian. I myself might find that a little too stringent for my taste.

What I propose is that we not think of this as a binary decision of choosing between the "version prior to UberCryxic" (190kb) and "Ubercryxic's version" (115kb). Even UberCryxic has not framed the process in this way although his straw poll does tend to frame the decision in such a way as to lead editors to conclude that there is a binary decision to be made.

Instead of this binary decision, I would suggest that we imagine that our goal is a 150kb article (which is about halfway between 115kb and 195kb). Instead of deciding between 115kb and 195kb, we can view what we're doing as one of two approaches. Either we are deciding what to put back into UberCryxic's 115kb version to bring it back up to 150kb OR we are deciding what to take out of the 190kb version to bring it down to 150kb.

I view UberCryxic's pared-down 115kb version as a kind of "zero-based budgeting". That represents the absolute bare-bones minimum (from his perspective) of the article. Any additions to that baseline must be justified by discussion on this Talk Page and should be done with the limit of 150kb in mind. This does not mean that everything in UberCryxic's version is sacrosanct. Some of that text might be deleted or summarized. The point is that we accept 150kb as the goal and discuss all text changes in the view of priorities inside that limit.

As a first step, it would be useful to go through the sections of UberCryxic's proposed version and identify exactly what has been taken down and ask ourselves... "Is that OK? Can we leave it out?" If we find stuff that was removed but should not be left out, then we put the "should not have been deleted" items on a list for consideration to be put back in. Perhaps that list can be prioritized into "absolutely must be put back in" and "should be put back in if space allows". Then, we put stuff back in until we reach the budget of 150kb. I would suggest that the History section be carved out and give its own space budget (say 50 or 60kb).

If we follow my approach, we can move to constructive discussion of what text is important to put back in rather than vague generalizations like "UberCryxic's version takes too much important stuff out". My response to such comments is: "Well, OK, what exactly is that stuff? Let's discuss it."

In response to comments like "Too much weight is given to x, y or z", my response is "OK, so do you want x, y and z deleted or can we summarize it with a link to a fuller discussion in a subsidiary article?"

Let's try to stop talking past each other and work together to improve the article.

--Richard S (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We Do Not Measure articles in terms of KB; we measure them in words-- KB is only a rough approximation. Please see User:Dr pda and download his prose size script.  I can't even comment on a proposal involving KB, because it's an irrelevant and often misleading measure of article size.  It's reader attention span, measured in words, that we're concerned about.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Richard, you've very eloquently managed to write exactly what I've been thinking about the two versions. Following this process (or at least a version that uses words instead of Kb), however, is making the assumption that we will be going with Uber's version instead of the current version. There isn't a lot of point otherwise. Although the current trend is leaning toward the pared-down version as a baseline, the poll hasn't closed yet... Karanacs (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But this poll is an example of why voting is evil. No matter how many people show up to vote for one side or the other, something is going to get stuffed down somebody's throat.  Even if "my" side wins, I have enough respect for Xandar, Nancy and Johnbod that I don't want to stuff this down their throats.  I want them to understand that we are not trying to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  We just want to know what the bathtub looks like and what the baby looks like so that we can get rid of the bathwater. --Richard S (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Further, I would add (because neither Xander or Nancy understand consensus or consensus can change), I suggest setting an initial target of 6,000 words, knowing that it may grow to 7,000 by the time adjustments are made. It's not only reader span: you should have seen the nightmare during the FACs when I was trying to keep up with the most combative FACs ever seen at FAC, long off-topic diatribes, incorrectly threaded entries, and trying to do MOS cleanup on an article at FAC.  This article is not accessible when I travel and am forced to dialup, and barely accessible on my cable modem ... it takes too long to load even a simple section for MOS cleanup.  This means that most of the world-- which is on dialup-- can't read the blooming thing anyway.  Also, I endorse the structure change: Wiki is not for advocacy-- it's an encyclopedia.  History goes first, summarized from a daughter article, and Beliefs need a strong cut to a daughter article, also summarized.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just re-reading some of the previous discussions and noticed that SandyGeorgia wrote:
 * I think the Poll was formulated incorrectly. Rather than focusing on Uber's version as a starting point, it should have been phrased simply as, "Should this article be less than 6,000 words, using summary style".  Instead, people are focusing on the proposed version, as if it's any worse than what's here now.  At least it's a starting point.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That is what I was trying to say when I started this section. I understand that counting words is preferable to counting bytes. I only used byte counts because they were readily available and counting words of readable prose is a more involved process. I don't care ultimately about counting bytes vs. counting words. The point is that we get away from discussing the flaws in UberCryxic's version (which he readily concedes are there) and focus on the goal which is shortening and improving the article.

As for 6000 words vs. 7000 words, I think we should take a first step by just splitting the difference between the two article versions. It may be that we can pare down the article even more after we've done the detailed analysis. My concern is that we spend all this time talking in broad generalities and not getting down to brass tacks. UberCryxic's version is a "line in the sand" or "throwing down the gauntlet". You don't like his version? Fine, tell us what you don't like and why it MUST be put back in. Then let's discuss it. That's how we'll make progress. --Richard S (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to prejudge exact totals Richard, but I would consider anything between 60 and 70 percent as a notable consensus to change the article. Not strong, but notable. Xandar agrees (see userpage) that only a majority should be needed to change the article, and I happen to agree with that as well (one of our rare points of agreement, now that's consensus!). These are Xandar's own words in a request to be unblocked:

My main concern is that we build an article by negotiation that the majority of editors are happy to sign off on. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 17:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with voting is that it is about "Winning". Consensus is about compromise and agreeing so that everybody wins.  I know that sounds like a platitude but that rally is a the Wikipedia way. --Richard S (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Analyze the consensus-building efforts over the last two years. Who has won? No one. Look I'm a liberal and consensus is one of the most prized principles in the "liberal canon" (if I can say that), but consensus does not mean anything when there are two sides with fundamentally irreconcilable views. Nancy and Xandar just do not understand, after scores of attempts at explanations, simple concepts like why this article should be a lot shorter or why History needs to come first. And as long as we're on history, it suggests that any attempt at consensus to fundamentally change this article will completely fail. That's why we're doing a poll: to see where people stand. I guarantee you if we start a process to reconcile these two versions, we will never finish it, and eventually we'll just give up on it. This is our best chance to change this article for the better Richard, and I really do hope you join us. You're one of the few editors I really trust here and you'd be an important contributor going forward. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 17:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Look I'm a liberal" says UberCryxic, well you're in the wrong place here my friend :-) As Terry Eagleton put it in his book 'The Gatekeeper': "Catholics also tend to the left because of their instinctive aversion to liberalism..." Haldraper (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is relevant here. Let's not rehash old fights on the wrong talk page, although you're more than welcome to write about this on my talk page. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 18:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The straw poll is essentially posing the exact same question that you are, Richard - do we try to improve Uber's version or do we try to improve the current version. No one has suggested that we have to keep Uber's version sacrosant, and if they do I'll loudly protest that too. We need to have some sort of definitive answer on which version we are going to start with before we can work on how to fix that version - or we end up just continuing the arguments that version X is too flawed to work with. Perhaps I'm missing something... Karanacs (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Richard, it is indeed nice when negotiation and compromise lead to consensus and a "win" for everybody. I also think it would be nice if there were real unicorns, flying horses, and pots of gold at the end of every rainbow--but that's not the world we live in.  Some people's idea of "negotiation" is negotiating the terms of your surrender.  Some people's idea of "compromise" is that they get everything they want and you get whatever they're willing to let you have.  Some people's idea of "consensus" is that you both agree that they get to do whatever they want and you agree to take it.  Such situations constitute a "win" for everybody only if one side of the dispute is incurably masochistic.  One of the strongest lessons of history is that some people simply aren't interested in anything but winning, and winning big, and they will never let up until they get what they want--unless somebody with enough clout to stop them finally takes a stand.  It is all well and good to assume that everyone is acting in good faith, but that is only an initial default, not an analytic truth.  At some point that good faith must be demonstrated instead of just assumed; and when enough evidence accrues that certain parties are not acting in good faith, then those who genuinely are acting in good faith must either take appropriate steps to remove the others from the process, or else accept the fact that the entire process is doomed to failure and walk away from it.  In the present case many, many editors have reluctantly concluded that the process is indeed doomed to fail for precisely these reasons, and have walked away from it rather than continue to beat their heads against the true believers' brick wall.  Unless some way is found to get around that wall, the process will continue to fail year after year--and insisting that a failed process continue indefinitely with "business as usual" will be the primary reason for that failure.    Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 18:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

People, let's get a few things straight about Wikipedia
I predicted shenanigans with the Straw poll and it turns out I was right. I have just removed this edit from an anonymous user who had never edited Wikipedia before. The anon is located in Florida, which is also where Nancy lives (public information on her userpage; I'm not disclosing anything confidential). I left notes to both Tom and Nancy about this. It's impossible for me or anyone else to be absolutely sure if someone is meat puppeting, and that needs to be emphasized quite clearly. The circumstantial evidence here, however, is very strong&mdash;strong enough for a ban if Nancy weren't already banned. Let this be a lesson to everyone: Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's not a place to bring in your mom and dad for an opinion. Do not pull tricks like this in the future because they will not end well. Please see Nancy's talk page. UberCryxic ( talk ) 19:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is a coincidence, but you could always request checkuser. I believe circumventing a block can lead to a longer ban.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I could request CU, but she's already blocked. Plus I'm not alleging that it's her; I'm indicating it could be one of her friends or relatives (meat puppetry, not sock puppetry). I mentioned repeatedly to both Tom and Nancy that one can never be sure about these things. There's always a degree of uncertainty. But this does not look like a coincidence: we have a first time anon editor, from Florida, saying "Oppose" on the straw poll. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 20:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think she'd go that route, she never has in the past. In the 2 years or so I've worked with her, she's never resorted to that behavior; I don't see why she would now.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. You know her better than I do. At the very least, we should all agree that it was a mistake for the anon to participate, regardless of the circumstances. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 20:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Done
With Nancy and Xandar blocked there's no need for the straw poll (and little legitimacy in it at this point anyway), and no need for me to continue. I've unprotected the page, and the page can develop however the remaining participants want it to. I can already imagine someone preparing to cite this diff as evidence that Evil Nancy has driven the admin mediator from the page. That's not the case. It's disappointing, and at least partly my fault for not managing it better, that this has devolved into a (successful) campaign to get Nancy and Xandar. Tom Harrison Talk 22:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Disappointing, but not surprising. They were blocked for their usual behavior; if I recall correctly, Xandar was part of the edit warring each time you protected the page.


 * Nancy and Xandar may be presumed to be opposed to the change; Xandar did after all say so, repeatedly. Even with that, there would be a majority in favor, no matter how one counts the disputes; I would ask you as a parting shot to comment on this.


 * Would you be willing to ask at AN for another goat admin? Language did noticeably improve with a monitor on the playground. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What needs to be added?
I see, and support, that Uber has installed the shorter version. As he said, it is a work in progress; he did not pretend to fix any errors of substance. I encourage everybody to comment here on what needs to be added; I expect to support most proposals on substance, even if I disagree on phrasing.

I will oppose any efforts to restore the older version because it was the older version, or "consensus". Where it was better, let's have the merits.

Please list proposals below (level 2 sections for the archiving software please). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For the convenience of fulminators, I include a diff betweeen the long version and Uber's unrefined edit. I hope this will change shortly. Many apparent omissions and additions are the result of the software not recognizing the same text in a new location. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD?
I thought Uber's move to change the base version in the mainspace was the right one. Yorkshirian reverted, saying "WP:BRD. You made a bold innovation. Numerous users have active sections which you have not discussed proper. Thus it is reverted, solve open issues on the talk before more bold POV innovations" This appears to me an abuse of WP:BRD. I am not sure what Yorkshirian means by "active sections", but part of the point of being bold in the way that Uber has been, is to break the logjam and get people working again on construction of a better article. Yorkshirian made another point in a previous edit summary that was also not accurate, referring to the old version as "Last stable version by Tom Harrison". Tom locked the thing while issues got discussed, and the last version wasn't stable, it was bogged down in edit wars, which is hardly the same thing. I do not understand why editors including Yorkshirian and Johnbod and others can't work to improve Uber's version, rather than wholesale reversion of something that has widespread (not consensus - hence i didn't use the word) support. Also, Yorkshirian might like to read the whole of BRD, including: "There is no such thing as a consensus version: Your own major edit, by definition, differs significantly from the existing version, meaning the existing version is no longer a consensus version." and "Do not accept "Policy", "consensus", or "procedure" as valid reasons for a revert..." We need a new version of some sort, and Uber's looks better than the current one, for all the flaws in both. Why don't we focus on editing the alternate version rather than preventing it from being considered? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have created a section below specifying the details. But most significant are the POV undiscussed content innovations and cuts in the history section, as noted explicitly and best by Benkenobi18 above. Uber's cuts suggest a general unfamiliarity with what is significant or important in Church history or a bias against the subject to the extent that a cut down of the history section needs to be done through dicussion, presenting rationale and gaining consensus on specific issues raised, with several users working collaborating in the sand together, rather than unilateral, self-appointed deal. If you read the sections above by myself and Benkenobi18, core information is being cut and distored and largely irrelevent innovation left in (Uber has not been addressed properly). - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yorkshirian has absolutely no right to revert and I advise any user who wants to scrap his illegitimate changes. Personally, I don't want to get into a fight with this user. I reverted once and am uncomfortable doing so again, although if worst comes to worst I will revert a second time. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 00:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yorkshirian, no version is final. We can make the changes you want to the article even with my version, which addresses problems of length and categorization, not content. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 00:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

BRD, many contentious content issues still untackled
I support trimming the article down and having a more compact presentation. However, there are many specific content issues which have been raised by users, including myself and Benkenobi18, yet UberCryxic has not addressed these at all (in case of the latter) or satisfactorally/directly (myself).

Unfortunetly, UberCryxic, while wanting to shake the article up to cut it down (a positive thing), doesn't actually seem to know or have read much about the church outside of liberal polemic and thus is making unilateral cuts as self-apointed "glorious chairman" of what is relevent to the Catholic Church, omitting some important info in the process, inserting erronous and undiscussed innovations, as well as leaving in not so relevent parts.

What I would like to suggest is, that Tom Harrison re-protects the article in its original stable form and then other users actually discuss the content and work together in the sandpit to create the new smaller, cut down version. Dicussing the content specifics first, rather than UberCryxic's contentious innovations. UberCryxic was bold, he was reverted, now lets dicuss rationale on specific points and create a consensus version in the sandpit before any innovation is made - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The old version of the article is illegitimate and has no consensus. Please stop edit warring and let's try and improve the article here in the talk page. I hope that you yourself can go back and bring up my version again. I do not want to engage in this silly fight with you. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 00:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I do suggest you stop edit warring on the article, like over the past week and gain consensus on the specific content problems first (Wikipedia isn't a war, we're not here to "win"). Your innovation is illegitimate due to the specific content points raised above by myself and Benkenobi18, that are yet to be addressed or dicussed by you (followed WP:BRD). You decided to be bold, but were reverted due to outstanding issues raised, now attempt to gain consensus on the specific content issues raised above and work with other users in creating a new version in the sandbox. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not revert to the version from 11/2008(?) that was deemed a "Good article" and start from there? It looks better than thee one in place right now and at least an independednt source verified that one as "Good".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to that in the very near future, but right now the baseline version that gained consensus was just removed, so let's start on fixing that. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 00:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus? Where? - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Above, and please stop pretending like there is any consensus for your version, which has been criticized eternally and infinitely. Your version is absolutely illegitimate and needs to be removed. I still hope you can do this on your own. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 00:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)I don't have a view either way on Mike's suggestion. Yorkshirian, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT: the old version was not stable and not subject to a consensus. As an uninvolved editor (which i was at that time), that much was obvious when i came here late last year. The new version does not have a consensus, Uber, so please don't use that word. It has widespread support; it perhaps has majority support; it does not have consensus. I too however appear to be guilty of repeating myself, and here i will say it again: why not work on sections in the sandpit, or in the mainspace, instead of reverting the entire attempt to break the logjam? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a democracy and polling is not a substitute for discussion. A consensus has not been achieved on the specific content issues yet, sorry. I do not have a "version" (personally I am for a cut, just not in the proposed form), I am at present opposed to your personal innovation until the specific problems with content are dealt with first, as detailed in the open sections above. Most specifically the transformation of the history section into a far-left liberal polemic against the Church, ommiting swathes of the most important parts of the Church's history in the process. This obviously needs discussion. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There have been discussions for two years. Arbcom failed to take up the case. Plenty of experienced editors agree that the current version is hopelessly flawed, so why do you continue to defend such a horrible version? Please revert your changes. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 01:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll agree to partially self-reverting, with the exception of the long-standing history section, which needs specific collaboration and dicussion of content issues, working with other users in the sandbox on it to gain a consensus, before such vast cut downs are made. Agreed? - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I understand your proposal. You will leave everything from my version intact except History, for which you want the old version? I would agree to this under the condition that History should still come first. If you agree to that, we have a deal. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 01:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree (though I don't actually think the history section should be first, but will put it first as this is something which can be discussed later, content issues are far more singificant). - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We are in accord then. Go ahead and make the changes yourself. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 01:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I can support the compromise, to change the structure and restore the previous history section. However, this had the effect of removing the changes I had made to consolidate the Origins/Mission section and Cultural Influences section, meaning that information is effectively gone right now. I'm going to make a few edits to reinsert this information into the history section, because the intent was not to lose that information. Karanacs (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church
The introduction should note that the church organization refers to itself formally in English as the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. Acsenray (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There are certainly historical examples of this kind of formal name but I doubt that there has been any significant official use of this name in more recent decades. Therefore it can now probably be considered redundant. Afterwriting (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)