Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 46

Jesuit reductions
The lead to the article on Jesuit reductions says "The Jesuit reductions present a controversial chapter of the evangelisational history of the Americas, and are variously described as jungle utopias or as theocratic regimes of terror." Unfortunately, the body of the article does not expand on this assertion. Pmanderson makes a similar assertion in the section immediately prior to this one. The current text of this article says: "In South America, Jesuit missionaries sought to protect native peoples from enslavement by establishing semi-independent settlements called reductions." Of course, it's not surprising that this text puts the reductions in the best light possible. However, if the assertion in the lead of Jesuit reductions is accurate, then the sentence in this article is misleading and fails WP:NPOV. How should we fix this? --Richard S (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't see a discrepancy. The first statement is a summary of how posteriority has described the reductions, the second is a description of the jesuit's motivations. It is not really disputed that the Jesuits did what they did with what they saw as the indians' best interest in mind - the debate is whether what they did was actually beneficial to the indians or if it amounted to theocratic oppression, thats a bout the effects not the motivation.·Maunus· ƛ · 06:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that since the statement is not justified in the article text, that this view has been wrongly added to the Jesuit Reductions lead by an editor. Leads should summarise the relevant article. As far as I can see the view expressed is from a fringe viewpoint. To include it in this article, we would need reliable sources of weight that support it.  Xan  dar   00:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you checked the source, which is also the source for much of the article? Or is this pure - imagination? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To quote PMA below (on a different topic): "What's the problem? Please find a reliable source which disagrees with ...  that sentence; I will agree that .. [it] is incomplete, but that's a different question." The reductions became a political football, fiercely opposed by Portuguese slave-hunting interests, and to some extent remain a nationalist/ethnic one, & the article combines different versions, some more NPOV than others. I will probably be doing some work on it. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the part to the lead because the article was much too biased towards the jesuit-favourable viewpoint. the "jungle utopia or theocratic regimes of terror" is a quote from Stafford Poole (a respected catholic priest-historian) who has written a very good and neutral introduction to the christianisation of Latin America. ·Maunus· ƛ · 05:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans Kung, an Apostate, a reliable source?
I think this has been raised before (in fact I am sure it has), but its cringeworthy even seeing that man's name feature in the article as a reference. I just noticed it while reviewing the early history section, where the apostate stance has reels of coverage (ie - that Christ didn't found the Catholic Church, giving the keys of heaven to Saint Peter). In that section, far too much space is given to non-Catholic concepts, when essential and relevent information for that section, pertaining to core teachings about the nature of the Church, such as the New Covenant is not mentioned at all (those two words are absent).

Back to Hans Kung; he is a running joke in the Catholic world and may even be satire. Kung stands as the High Priest of the "old trendy", acoustic guitars at mass, aging hippie squad, not a serious, respected theologian or historian of the Church with any integrity. I don't think any real scholar, whether Catholic or godless but fairly empirical, would consider Kung a legitimate and serious source. If we're going to use Hans Kung as a source, why not Jack Chick or Ian Paisley? - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked up Peter Kreeft, just out of curiosity, and it says he is a writer of Roman Catholic apologetics. Is that POV? Sayerslle (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Would using an expert brain surgeon as a reference on the article brain surgery be "POV"? No, I don't think so. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A Google scholar search shows that Kung's works are well-cited - much more so than Vidmar. I know very little about him other than he's been in trouble with the Church hierarchy for his beliefs. This most likely means that other Catholics may not take him seriously, but do we know what non-Catholic scholars think? Are there reviews of his works that would help us determine how reliable and respected they are? Karanacs (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I only saw a single reference to Kung - note #45 (pp. 4–5). That lone citation is probably OK; it refers to a common non-canonical view on Christianity's origins. Yorkshirian, are there other Kung citations I missed? Majoreditor (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again Yorkshirian chirps into the discussion with irrelevant ultraconservative and ultrareactionary polemic that contributes absolutely zero to the development of this article and is a complete waste of time and space. Please give us a break from such drivel!  Afterwriting (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we please be civil, Afterwriting? Yorkshirian, you are welcome to ask any question any time and please ignore the incivility of others who may need to go back to charm school for a refresher course. The citation to Hans Kung is included because we were telling Reader all of the various points of view held by scholars concerning the Church's origins. Kung was the most notable scholar who held the view that Jesus did not found a church. We are being NPOV by telling Reader about all these different points of view. Peter Kreeft is used in the aritcle as an expert source for the Beliefs section. He is a professor of philosphy at Boston College and his book has the Nihil obstat Imprimatur designations that we wanted from sources used for that section.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 01:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Golly gosh, Nancy, are you now giving other editors lessons in civility? Ever heard of the pot calling the kettle black?  Why don't you try treating other editors the way you want them to treat you?  If you did then there might actually be some sensible progress with this article. Afterwriting (talk) 07:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Good Article?
By the way, as long as we're all going at it in the talk page like it's the hunting season, someone remind me why this article is still listed as GA. The GA criteria can be found here. The article fails 1, 4, and 5 (present version and my version as well) without a doubt. Should someone look into this article's GA status? UberCryxic ( talk ) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How did it make it through the GA sweeps? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Check the version that was promoted, it was much shorter than the monstrosity it is now, of course it was not listed a bunch of times before that, too.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, ha ... 6700 words, so this is not close to the same article. GA used to have a speedy delist; I never understood why they did away with that, as this article would qualify.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandy, this article came up for community GAR about two years ago if I remember correctly; the community decision was Keep. Malleus and G-guy participated and would remember the details better than I. Majoreditor (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I found that one (Elcobbola was also involved) and that answers my question, in fact. Because it passed that time, they probably decided not to revisit it later in the sweeps ... makes sense.  I think ... I don't really understand GA processes :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Standard Model: A New Journey Begins
First of all, let me thank Tom again for his tireless dedication to what has been a very wild adventure. I think he did a great job during the entire process in being extremely impartial. Second, to borrow a certain lingo from physics, the standard model of the article is now up and live. It got about 65% support in the straw poll, but even if you think that's illegitimate, this is the right thing to do per numerous Wikipedia policies.

Like the actual Standard Model, however, it's very incomplete and shoddy at best, meaning we have to make significant changes to it as well. And that's where the hard work begins. What just happened was not the most difficult part. Now begins the most difficult part, and I hope all sincere and interested parties join me in further improving this article. Here are my broad suggestions:


 * The article needs a thorough copyedit by an experienced FA writer to make the prose flow better. I am willing to do this if there is consensus for it. I don't want to do it unilaterally, however, now that there's no reason for IAR.
 * The article currently has two neutrality tags. The parties fighting over the content in those sections need to sit down and hammer out their differences. Pronto.
 * The lead sentence should be changed to drop information about Catholics as a proportion of world population, per earlier consensus, which was absolutely ignored.
 * Foundational beliefs and Age of Enlightenment are two subsections that could use a little bit more material.
 * We need a thorough image check to verify all sources and external links.
 * We need to remove redundant references that are still making the article big in terms of kilobytes.
 * I'll have more coming in the next few days. I look forward to hearing from you all.

I know the last few days have been painful and somewhat traumatic, but change is sometimes exactly what everyone needs. I hope we can move forward together in a spirit of friendship and cooperation. Thank you and I look forward to working with everyone to further improve this article. UberCryxic ( talk ) 22:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to check the citations to see that they are what the source actually says. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed you do! Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now started making small corrections to the article (mostly grammar), but I am not doing a full copyedit yet until asked to do so. UberCryxic ( talk ) 23:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I for one will be unwatching this page. This ridiculous coup d'etat will just lead to further endless arguments; I won't miss it. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * C'mon! Be serious. You write the new version; you initiate the poll; you delete a vote you don't like; and you make the call on consensus. You've made a good start but you're going to spoil it all if you carry on like this. I suggest you revert your changes, step back, and let the discussion run its course. MoreThings (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, see Tom's comments above on the straw poll. This is not me deleting a vote (which went 11-7 anyway). Right now, Yorkshirian is the one doing the reverting! UberCryxic  ( talk ) 00:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not about counting votes, as I'm sure you'll agree, but if it were the only figure with anything like credibility is Tom's 70-80% by next Wednesday. I support Yorkshirian's reversion, and I really think it would be a good idea to just slow down and let people talk this through. --MoreThings (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Uber, if the page remains stable and without talk page strife, you may be able to entice over some of Wiki's most experienced FA writers, who offered to help before. Those include at least (can't remember all of them off the top of my head), User:Awadewit, User:Ealdgyth, User:Geometry guy, User:RelHistBuff, User:Ling.Nut ... and many others.  User:Mike Searson is also an experienced FA writer, and still involved here.  Of course, Karanacs knows FA territory as well as anyone.  I'll add others as I remember them ... but Ealdgyth and Awadewit are key on sourcing and Awadewit on prose and flow. When you get to that point, either Awadewit or User:Elcobbola can check images.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Eucharist section
This is what I propose for the Eucharist section, a factually accurate sourced summary, neutral in its POV; greater detail can be delved into the three daughter articles.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We are having a problem with Yorkshirian now, who is edit warring. I have instructed Yorkshirian to cool down. I have no intention of going down his path, and I wish the user would work through consensus in the future. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 00:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Eucharist


The Eucharist is celebrated at each Mass and is the center of Catholic worship. The Words of Institution for this sacrament are drawn from the Gospels and a Pauline letter. Catholics believe that at each Mass, the bread and wine become supernaturally transubstantiated into the true Body and Blood of Christ.

The Church teaches that Christ established a New Covenant with humanity through the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Because the Church teaches that Christ is present in the Eucharist, there are strict rules about its celebration and reception. Catholics must abstain from eating for one hour before receiving Communion. Those who are conscious of being in a state of mortal sin are forbidden from this sacrament unless they have received absolution through the sacrament of Reconciliation (Penance). Catholics are not permitted to receive communion in Protestant churches because of their different beliefs and practices regarding Holy Orders and the Eucharist.

Revised Model
Ok I realize everything has been somewhat hectic and confusing lately. The new working compromise is to leave everything intact from my version except History, which has been restored to the old version but still remains in first place. The article is currently 155 kb (in readable prose a bit above 10,000 words I'd say, but at least down from its earlier gigantic size of 20,000 or so), down from 190&mdash;exactly halfway between 115 (my version) and 190 (where it was). Let that symbolism guide us forward. Let's try to keep the discussion about newer changes after this section from now on. For now, I propose and will go ahead and remove the Pope Benedict image in History which has no verifiable source. Its external link is broken and its copyright is therefore suspect. UberCryxic ( talk ) 01:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then the entire history section is subject to dispute; I propose to tag it, since the special pleading and erroneous claims remain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Pma, would you mind not doing that? There seems to have been some progress and some compromise. It would be great if that spirit could continue, and tags don't really advance anything. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 02:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

We are going to shorten History too in the next few days. It can't remain like it is now. In the meantime, per WP:IMAGE, especially regarding encyclopedic relevance, I plan to remove the images on the abbey in England, the Jesuit reduction, and the Dachau concentration camp&mdash;none of which do anything to explain the subject of the article. But they are very pretty pictures of old buildings, in their defense. UberCryxic ( talk ) 02:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am now going to give History a copyedit to improve the prose. I will not cut out cited material because I don't want any controversy, but I will try to significantly reduce the grandiloquent tendencies the section currently displays. Wherever we can say the same thing with fewer words, we should! UberCryxic ( talk ) 02:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see what happens.


 * But, SV, tags do have a purpose; they give article owners reason to change. It is this section of the article which was universally agreed to be too long, and it is this section which contains most of the unsupported statements, the quotations out of context, the abused references, and the special pleading. This section was just reverted to its original and abominable state; those who chose to do so are choosing to be controversial. The way to get rid of tags is to fix the article so that it is genuinely consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we're all aware of that, PMA, but there is actually some positive cooperation going on, which will not be furthered by tagging the section right now. If the section had problems, and no-one was working on them, only then would tagging seem to be productive. Please don't do it. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, now that Uber has announced a program of revision, I will wait and see what comes of it. Perhaps with the grandiloquence removed this will look less atrocious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I promise it will. I'll make the section shorter, at first, without cutting out cited material (I know that raises a lot of hairs here). After that, we're still going to need more cuts, but we'll have to make them by consensus in the talk page. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 03:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck. You will need it; you have already rewarded a revert warrior with falsehoods unsupported even by these hand-picked sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This article has already come very far. We should be glad that cooler heads prevailed and that these changes are now the new standard. History will be made smaller, and I've already made the TOC a little bit lighter by merging related sections. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 03:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving it a bit more time, PMA. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 05:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've decreased the size a little bit, but there's a lot more to do. I'll be back at it later today. UBER ( talk ) 07:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Presentation of naming of Catholic Church
I DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE NAMING OF THE ARTICLE OR ORGANIZATION. Sorry for shouting, but wanted to get that point across. There is a very long note in the lead that mediation agreed was necessary to explain the naming of the organization. I'd like to move this note - verbatim - into a new section that would be first (right above the history section). We can call it Etymology or Nomenclature or Name or something along that lines. The reasons for this are twofold: This section appeared in the article pre-January 2008, and I'd like to recreate it using the mediation wording. Thoughts? Karanacs (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * the lead is really hard to edit right now because that note is so huge
 * The naming of this article/organization is repeatedly raised on the talk page, in part because the justifications for the usage are basically hidden in the note; a lot of editors don't appear to see this. Etymology is a standard section for many articles where the name needs explanation, and in this case we all appear to agree that the name needs an explanation (hence the note).
 * I'm ok with an etymology section.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks reasonable, and may get a citation or removal for the usually with a {[tl|cn}}; my understanding is that that is Nancy's original research on searches of the Vatican web site. (Our Orthodox fellow editors may also wish to tweak the sentence on Orthodoxy, since the Eastern Churches also assert themselves to be Catholic and Apostolic.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable making changes to the wording of that right now after the mediation disaster (although I agree that much of it is based on original research, although I think it was Xandar's). Karanacs (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also fine with an etymology section. Let's just please keep it brief. We still have problems with length. UBER  ( talk ) 19:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No rush; a citation for usually would be fine - and if there is none, the absence can be dealt with eventually. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm okay with this in principle - but due to the past fanatical POV-pushing of the small number of self-appointed defenders of the faith and the exasperating behaviour they are prone to, I am wary of attempting this at present. Afterwriting (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

archiving?
Any objections to me manually archiving some of the sections above that are a bit heated? I'd like to create a new archive for the events that led up to the straw poll (and maybe even the poll itself?). Karanacs (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The page is around 500KB; archiving is needed. As work progresses, y'all might think about something else.  Whenever one sees such extensive notes and quotes in citations, it's usually an indication that 1) better sources are needed, or 2) the POV battles have moved from the text to the footnotes, increasing the article size again, albeit via footnotes.  Such extensive footnotes and quotes in citations are often an indication of POV or poor sourcing.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite often both, here; the extensive quotes have usually been added when they say something similar to, but not the same as, the article text. This is in part a manifestation of Proof by Google, and in part a lack of feeling for distinctions: if a text is on "the Catholic side", it has been presumed to say everything a partisan would want. (If we had genuinely anti-Catholic editors, they probably would be just as bad.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been working on some of these. I'm thinking anything more than 2-3 lines of quoted text is excessive.  Stop me if I'm wrong.  The page actually loads at a decent rate now.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Several editors have been working on the article and didn't object here, so I've started moving some of the sections to Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 45. Please revert me if you disagree with this. Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 1: Inquisition text cited to Black
Article says 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., cited to Black, pp. 200-202. This is not really what the book says, although the sentence seems mostly accurate. I suspect it may need different sourcing and perhaps modification. My notes from Black (see article for full cite) follow. Karanacs (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * p 199 -
 * Holy Office of the Inquisition established 1542; This and the creation of local tribunals "was a turning point for the control of society, but this needs cautious treatment."
 * Spanish Inquisition created in 1478 and under secular control
 * p 200
 * Venice Inquisition joint operation between church and state
 * some executed at insistance of Rome even when locals wanted leniency
 * "The inquisitors were mainly intent on re-educating the ignorant and misguided, and emphasising the importance of Church authority in teaching"
 * "From the 1540s to 1570s or so the inquisitors (along with active bishops) were primarily intent on curbing the more serious errors of faith" like Protestantism
 * p 202
 * laity could use inquisition for own purposes - revenge, punishment
 * p 203 "The Inquisition was potentially the most powerful and efficient institution to control beliefs and behaviour. ... In practice it was less intrusive and feared than usually imagined, and its judicial procedures were probably fairer than those of most secular and other ecclesiastical courts. ... It was a control mechanism, but in its own terms it offered amelioration through re-education and the chance of salvation."


 * It definitely needs modification. It has an apologetic ring to it.  Granted the Inquisitions weren't as bad as they are often made out to be; they weren't exactly a walk through Disneyland, either.  This is one of those issues that needs balance.  Maybe start with the given source and draw upon others if needed?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have as easy access to the other sources used for that paragraph. I'm hoping someone else active on the talk page does. Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mike, I don't think it has a particularly "apologetic" ring to it. That is largely, in its most simplified and reducable form, what the Inquistion (particularly in Spain) was for. I suppose it does have a lingering sense that the Inquisition was a "bad thing", it doesn't fully embrace it. Towards the end of the sentence, you sort of see a well intentioned, but perhaps reactive to the Protestant Black Legend mythology, distancing from the fact that it was used to uphold religious orthodoxy (the Spanish monarchy after all was a Catholic one). Personally, the Inquisition sounds a lot more enjoyable than Disneyland (Pope Adrian VI beats Mickey Mouse). - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a variety of points of view here. As usual, my counsel would be that we confine ourselves here to what they agree on; i.e. that we cut whatever a significant humber of reliable sources dispute. Such disputes may or may not be suitable to Wikipedia, but they will not do here - we don't have room.

One POV that should be - in this sense - respected, is B. Netanyahu's lengthy arguments that the Spanish Inquisition was set up and run to control and secure state profit from the New Christians. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 2: Conversion
I don't doubt the factual accuracy of this sentence, but it is not stated in the source to which it is cited. Christians baptized outside of the Catholic Church are admitted through other formation programs but are not re-baptized. I've added the failedverification template here; can someone find a source for this please? Karanacs (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is an accurate statement, Christian converts to the Catholic Church do not need to be rebaptized, except for JW's and Mormons, I will find a credible source.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 3: Excommunication
The source used for the sentence Members of the Church can incur excommunication for serious violations of ecclesiastical law is not a reliable source. It is mistakenly written as pointing to Catholic World News, but it is instead a link to an online Catholic advocacy organization (http://www.catholicculture.org). This is the type of information that should be readily available in reliable sources. Karanacs (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm not hip enough to provide the proper Wiki-type reference, but a good source is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1463.--Dcheney (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 4: Papal election
The sentence in the article is The Pope is elected for life by the College of Cardinals and must be elevated to the position of bishop before taking office. The source does not mention "elected for live" and says that the voters are a subsert of the College of Cardinals (those under 80). I'm not sure whether we need a source for "elected for life" or if this is sufficiently common knowledge that we don't care. Source Thoughts? Karanacs (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * From a non-Catholic perspective it seems important information and encyclocpedic. I've never been clear about who votes and whether the Pope is elected for life or can step down. Also interesting in the source you've linked is that all popes since the 15th century have been cardinals. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In a very early draft of this article, I used a source called Selecting the Pope or Electing the Pope, written by a priest about papal elections, etc. The book went into great detail about these topics(although maybe not so much about the "elected for life" business).  Obviously, it was tossed out in favor of an interweb link, I can reintroduce this source if necesarry after I hunt down the book, here.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The second part of this is obscure and misleading. A man becomes Pope by being consecrated Bishop of Rome; there is no before. This is serious because some will read this as implying that the Pope must first be bishop of some other see, which is not historically necessary - although many Popes have been cardinal-bishops. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See my source here: "After his acceptance, the person elected, if he has already received episcopal ordination, is immediately Bishop of the Church of Rome, true Pope and Head of the College of Bishops."

"If the person elected is not already a Bishop, he shall immediately be ordained Bishop."--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote this sentence, using Duffy as a source. It now reads ''When a pope dies or resigns,[note 6] members of the College of Cardinals who are under age 80 meet to elect a new pope. Although the papal conclave can theoretically elect any male Catholic as pope, since 1389 only cardinals have been elevated to that position. The note specifies that The last resignation occurred in 1415, as part of the Council of Constance's resolution of the Avignon Papacy''. Karanacs (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 5: Papal primacy
This information the Pope holds primacy of jurisdiction in matters of faith, morals, discipline and Church governance is not mentioned in the cited source (the source covers the second half of the sentence). Should be easy to resource; I added a fact tag. Karanacs (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can provide 4 sources for this statement:

Which would be the best to use?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)
 * 2) Encyclopedia Britannica (1911)
 * 3) Papal Primacy: from its origins to the present by Klaus Schatz (1996)
 * 4) Catholicism Richard McBrien
 * I'd say avoid the older sources if at all possible. Either of the last two should be fine.  Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I went with McBrien, the thing about the older sources is that this was spelled out at Vatican I; don't know if that makes a difference or not.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mike! Karanacs (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 7: UN status
This statement  and as the representative of the Holy See has permanent observer status at the United Nations is not in the source. Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be vigilant, I checked the longer version which takes forever to load which uses the same source, so it was unverified then as well. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a news source from 2004 when the Vatican spoke at the UN and the article gives a background of the observer status at the bottom. A possiblity? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How about:--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Much better! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Added new reference.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 9: Vatican II priorities
The article says that after Vatican II Promoting Christian unity became a greater priority,[231] particularly dialogue with Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox—it has led to the creation of an ordinate for Anglicans to enter communion with the Church.[232][233]. We have an issue here; cite 233 says that there is dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox, but does not say anything about priorities or a connection to Vatican II. Cite 232 dscribes the orginate for Anglicans, but does not provide any link to promoting Christian unity or Vatican II. I checked Duffy's Saints and Sinners (cite 231), and it doesn't say anything about promoting Christian unity becoming a greater priority. This is a mass of OR. Karanacs (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 11: Apology at Western Wall
The sentence in the article is In 2000 Pope John Paul II on behalf of all people, apologized to Jews by inserting a prayer at the Western Wall. The source does not characterize this as an apology. The source actually says But he did not say what many had hoped he might or anticipated he might, that some kind of an apology for church silence, or at least address that problem Would welcome other eyes to make sure I'm interpreting this correctly. Karanacs (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The correspondents seem extraordinarily taken with John Paul II; that might be worth saying in his article. Here, however, I agree that our claim is not supported even by a favorable source, and that a diplomatic triumph of ten years ago does not warrant its space. More research by Google, I suspect: "John Paul, Vashem, apology". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem removing this - there had previously been consensus not to have it in, and it was reinserted in February. Karanacs (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 13: Pontifical Academy of Sciences
I've brought this up before. The article states  In part because of lessons learned from the Galileo affair, the Church created the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1603; this is cited to. The source supports the fact that the academy was created in 1603. It does not and cannot support the fact that this was created in response to the Galileo affair, because the Galileo affair occurred in 1610. Karanacs (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And the Pontifical Academy, as such, appears to have not been created until after the Risorgimento, if I'm reading the source correctly. Delete this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleted it myself, actually, since it was contradicted not only by the reference but by our article on the Academy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 14: Membership
The article states that Membership is growing particularly in Africa and Asia. This is cited to. This could be misleading. The source states that "showed an increase of 1.5% of Catholics compared with the 1.098 billion listed the previous year. A Vatican communiqué summarizing some of the data revealed that "since this relative growth is quite close to that of the general population -- 1.2% -- the presence of Catholics in the world has remained substantially unchanged -- 17.20%.""  What do you think? Karanacs (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we can leave it for now -- it _is_ over the general population growth, and the Asian growth is significantly over the population growth.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 15: Inquisition exaggeration
The sentence in the article is 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. This is cited to three different authors. Luckily, although I don't have the books, the page numbers in question are available on Google books. But the Catholic institution that above all others appeared to embody the reality of Catholic authoritarianism ... was the Inquisition ... To this day, liberal opinion imagines the Inquisition as conclusive proof of the unenlightened and cruel nature of Catholicism at the time of the Reformation. " I don't think this entirely supports what is in the text but welcome other opinions. Karanacs (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Vidmar, p. 146 says "The extent of the Inquisition trials for heresy has been highly exaggerated." doesn't say by whom or for what purpose
 * Norman, p. 92 says "Protestantism in England developed an interpretation of Spanish Catholicism that over time became the customary way in which the English-speaking world evaluated the Catholic Church. It was a tradition of thinking which not surprisingly chose to ignore the existence within Spanish Catholicism of an influential reformist movement. ... english opinion about Spanish practice in the Counter Reformation, however, was fashioned in ignorance of its reform tradition.  English popular anti-papl sentiment, which endured to the end of the nineteenth century, and beyond, was dependent on what it represented as the horrible crimes of the priests.  There evolved a 'No Popery' litany, with references supplied by the publication of John Foxe's Book of Martyrs in 1563, the excommunication of queen Elizabeth I by St Pius V in the bull Regnans in Excelsis of 1570, and the Armada sent by Spain to recover England for Catholicism in 1588.
 * Morris, p. 215 says "The inquisition has come to occupy such a role in European demonology that we must be careful to keep it in proportion."
 * Apologetic. The distinction between acts done by the Inquisition, acts recommended by the Inquisition, and acts later sanctioned by the Inquisition is an intricate one. Some evangelizing Protestants have used the problems  to exaggerate the flaws of the Church; some Catholics have used the problems to deny them. Beither should be given house-room. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole paragraph is:
 * ''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. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain formed an inquisition in 1480, originally to deal with distrusted converts from Judaism and Islam to Catholicism. Over a 350-year period, this Spanish Inquisition executed between 3,000 and 4,000 people, representing around two percent of those accused. In 1482 Pope Sixtus IV condemned the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition, but Ferdinand ignored his protests. 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.  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.  Some scientists were questioned by the inquisitions. According to historian Thomas Noble, the effect of the Galileo affair was to restrict scientific development in some European countries. The inquisition played a major role in the final expulsion of Islam from Sicily and Spain. On other social fronts, Catholic teaching turned towards the abolition of slavery in the 15th and 16th centuries, although the papacy continued to endorse Portuguese and Spanish taking of Muslim slaves.

I do not expand the footnotes; all but one are simple p[age references; the quote from Morris on "careful to keep it in proportion" is given in full above.

This is special pleading. It is true that the Inquisition did not itself execute many; that was left to the secular arm. The same reasoning would attribute the death of Joan of Arc solely to the executioner who burnt her, not to the ecclestiastical court which found her to be a relapsed heretic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
All between 02:50 and 03:13 March 16, 2010
 * 1) Pmanderson removed it to talk for discussion;
 * 2) Yorkshirian readded it;
 * 3) UberCryxic removed it;
 * 4) Yorkshirian re-added it again;
 * 5) Pmanderson removed it again;
 * 6) Yorkshirian added it again; and
 * 7) UberCryxic removed it again.

Looks like edit warring from here, with no subsequent discussion of what should be said about inquisition, just removal and reinsertion of text with no subsequent discussion to Pma's first post. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have two reverts to my name today and that's already a stain enough. I won't revert this article again for the next 24 hours, you have my solemn promise. I think I was right to revert, but obviously that's no excuse for what I did. UBER  ( talk ) 03:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is, except for Pma's first post, not one of you have discussed it subsequently. I rather imagine you can't just completely delete all mention of inquisitions, and just removing and readding text, with no discussion, isn't the way to go.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yorkshirian reverted a great deal more than one paragraph; I think all of the changes in the last 24 hours. His edit summary and Uber's specifically discuss his reverting Haldraper's edits, which came later in the article than this paragraph.


 * I would have restored Yorkshirian's footnotes, which were added in his small edits, even the one which cites Vincente Fox's campaign biography, but the relevant text is no longer in the article. Yorkshirian also readded a passage about the hierarchy of the Church imitating the angelic orders, claiming that it was supported on talk; I don't see any such discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You all know better: discuss the text, instead of edit warring it in and out with various excuses. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I re-added the Inquisition section accidentally. Sorry about that, I agree with the trim above. I was attempting to undo Haldraper's medling of my trim in the industrial age section from yesterday (detailed in a section below) and it got caught up by accident when I was retriving it. As well as the papal titles, based on Majoreditor's support in the above section. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you; discussion here might have avoided confusion. I would also recommend rewriting rather than reversion; that would have meant editing one section instead of the whole article, and might have led to compromise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification issue 16:Archaeological evidence

 * ''Elements of this traditional narrative agree with surviving historical evidence that includes the writings of Saint Paul, several early Church Fathers (among them Clement I) and some archaeological evidence.

This is weasel-wording throughout. The words I would concentrate on are some archaeological evidence, which is severely misleading. On reading Snyder further, I have removed the sentence. The 2003 view of the archaeological evidence is (methodological qualms aside) much weaker than it once was. In a room full of grafitti (almost all of them showing no sign of Christianity) two may mention the name Petros. Neither is intelligible without drastic emendation; their date and meaning are disputed. The room was once the crypt of a noble Roman family; it may have been reused for Christian burial. The initial investigators identified two of these tombs as possibly Saint Peter's; one contains a woman's body, the other that of a child. And so on...
 * There is one non-scriptural claim in the tradition which is nevertheless consensus among the authorities: that Peter died on Rome, probably as a martyr.
 * The archaeological evidence addresses only that point: there is an ancient cenotaph of Peter in Rome. Thus our wording fraudulently suggests non-existent support for the rest of the tradition, which the Catholic Encyclopedia, even, cannot affirm as history.
 * I find, in looking at J.E.Taylor's Christians and the Holy Places (1993, p.3) and G.F.Snyder's Ante Pacem (2003, pp 10-20), that the entire methodology involved here fails to be consensus in the discipline, and has been disputed for years. It does not read archaeological evidence in context, it reads the primary sources as though it were never tendentious, and it fatally tends to circular reasoning: this artifact must be early because the tradition says so; the tradition is confirmed because the artifact is so ear;y. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Insofar as this discusses the primary written sources, which are older than the "tradition" can be traced, it asserts that the traditional reading of them is possible. This is a very weak claim for so many words; worse, the claim is (especially for Clement) controversial, not consensus of the secondary sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

My two cents
First of all, let me just say that I'm very happy Xandar is no longer blocked and I look forward to working together on improving the article in the next few days. This place just isn't the same without Xandar. On the substance of the criticism, I agree on some points, but disagree on the fundamentals. In particular, I'm rather shocked that Xandar suggests we should remove History, which is the most important section of the article. It's almost impossible to rationally justify such a reckless suggestion. The proposal to restore the old version is also very puzzling in light of the fact that it was a hopeless quagmire, as people repeatedly documented. I categorically reject these proposals by Xandar, but I'm willing to work on including some more material through summary style, which would mean greater coverage of topics that Xandar wants mentioned in the article while also keeping down the length. UBER ( talk ) 17:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Xandar looks pretty blocked to me...  Wknight94  talk  17:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, he's back now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Now I'm back...
 * The suggestion that we remove the history is really not mine, but has been put forward several times by critics of the current article. (I'm too lazy to look this up now in the archives) Since we now have a comprehensive and well-ordered History of the Catholic Church article, and other CC articles on foreign language Wikis adopt this approach to solve the same problem, I thought this would be the ideal solution to the much-stated problems of article legnth. I am not against a History section, but when balanced against removing other, irreplaceable material from the article, losing the History section is the better option. I am not sure whether nancy, even agrees with me. I am equally happy with keeping a history section with the excised material restored. The offer of removal was merely to help cut through some of the arguments and sort things out. The important thing is that we don't have vital material whipped out of the article pointlessly or to meet an arbitrary article legnth. There are options here. The crucial matter is restoring the disputed material.   Xan  dar   20:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * At the risk of becoming redundant, let me explain the following point quite explicitly: History is, bar none, the most important section of the article. That's true for this article and for most similar articles on Wikipedia. We're already starting off on the wrong foot if you're sincerely suggesting we should remove it at the expense of other, less important sections. I'd be happy to trim History or to summarize it even further, but I hesitate to even contemplate eliminating the entire section. As for other CC articles: please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because other articles have made a mistake does not mean we have to follow them. Stick to the merit of the arguments and to Wikipedia policies. As for the old version: it's best if it never sees the light of day again. We've already done much to improve this article and we should continue in the context of the new version going forward. UBER  ( talk ) 20:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This, UBER, is your OPINION. The other articles haven't "made a mistake", they have all separately, come to similar conclusions - which are not yours. Most of the other WP articles I quoted agree with our longstanding text in the weight given to Beliefs, Practices and Structure. WP:Otherstuff is invoked when someone is bringing up an exceptional rogue article to justify a rogue decision. What I am raising is the view most WP articles take on weighting. You are the one claiming that our article was out of line. It isn't. The Dutch article does have a long prominent History section. But it also gives a huge amount of space to Belief and Structure, throwing aside concerns as to article size. Islam has a balanced coverage, with History below beliefs etc. Orthodox Church is similar. What none of them do is throw out the baby with the bathwater by making the article a clone of the History article, and removing everything else to this effect. You may not want the old version to see the light of day, but that is NOT your decision. The "new" version is, as I described above, a wreck. It does not do the job it is meant to. It is not even fringing on comprehensive. We have a History article. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so it is easy to link to it from the appropriate point. I'm not insisting on the removal of History - I just think it would be an elegant solution. What we must do however is restore the comprehensiveness of the article. A proposal for the article without the History section is available here on my userspace.   Xan  dar   22:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if we're ignoring WP:OTHERSTUFF, why do you bring up articles that directly contradict what you're saying? Islam is 100 kb long. Orthodox Church is 144. Neither seemed particularly difficult to load when I saw them. The version of this article that you support was over 190 kb and was a nightmare to load for many users, who've made their frustration about length very clear. So again, I ask you: why do you bring up articles that directly violate your own standards?


 * As for your proposal: please refer to WP:SS. You can't just drop sections like that on an article and not summarize the content of their daughter articles. It's an ultimate faux pas in terms of encyclopedic writing. The best thing to do for History, as has been explained below, is to shorten it by writing in summary style, not to get rid of it entirely like you're suggesting. UBER  ( talk ) 22:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back Xander and I agree that it is very short sighted for Uber to claim history is the most important aspect (obviously the Catholic Church, since the Fall of Rome is the sole entity responsible for the continuation of Western Civilisation, so history is important but not #1). The fact that this is a religion, holding itself to be the Living Body of Christ and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is the central aspect of the subject. Some of the cuts while you have been gone are positive, especially reducing size, but some of the contributors have a distinctly secular view, which minimalises the religious aspect. Since we are here to write an article on the subject of a religion, then this tenant needs to be the central focus of presentation. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like tenant. But I also like tenet. But which is better, tenant, or tenet? ..There's only one way to find out..FIGHT!....Come on, tenet...92.19.131.41 (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Yorkshirian. (And Harry Hill directly above! I wonder if there's a YouTube clip?) I agree that the majority of the people who supported the slashing of the article have completely the wrong idea of what it is about - hence the decimation of the sections on belief, worship, social action and Organisation. On the issues of size, nobody wants a 190k article. But I believe a reasonable target is the 130k to 150k suggested by Richard, and which is probably the norm for important articles on large complex subjects. Getting there, however, needs to be by real consensus, not by people making random slashes of parts they're not interested in.  Xan  dar   11:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Xandar/CatholicChurchExmple
Thank you for putting up a sample proposal, Xandar.


 * Readable prose size (7,233 words) and ref size (29KB) look within reason.
 * The WP:LEAD seems long, and it's certainly overcited (the lead should be a summary of the entire article, which typically means minimal citation, since most items will be cited in the article, and only surprising items need be cited in the lead).
 * MoS would need attention (I see WP:LAYOUT portals are not external links, WP:ITALICS, References section twice, significant WP:OVERLINKing (love, genocide, other common words known to most English speakers, country names, etc.).
 * I haven't looked at content, but I see a lot of primary and websources, where the current version up here has higher quality sources (you may still be working on sourcing there?).
 * There is still a lot of text in the Notes, meaning the article size is actually larger.
 * Significantly, that article is still highly overcited, indicating possibly the use of low-quality sources, synth, OR, or POV.
 * I don't understand why the chart of institutions is needed in an overview article, and can't be given in the daughter article, summarized here to a few sentences.

I suppose most of that is minor and could be addressed if you convinced others this was a superior version: in terms of article structure, can you summarize the main differences? It appears to me that your version still contains many of the issues that have already been corrected here, but since it is an adequate size, perhaps you could convince others if you explain the differences in structure, and then some of that could be worked into this cleaner version. UBER has raised the question above of whether you used summary style for content. In both versions, it remains unclear to me why decisions about what to include are being made based on personal preferences and beliefs, when a comprehensive literature survey has still not been done, from which due weight should be assigned to sections, content, size, and issues to be included. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Xandar alerted me to the alternative proposal at his talk page, thanks. Three comments. I support the use of literature review - of secondary sources - to form a basis for all material, but particularly those sections on beliefs and the church community's practices. Second, the history section is vital, being of equal importance to beliefs etc, and its status in the article should reflect that. Third, i'm less concerned about length than others, so if the solution is a slightly longer article, so be it. The solution will never be to expunge history text from the top level article. I am generally happy with the observations and actions of Karanacs and SG on this article, which is why i am generally staying out as things are progressing. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:SIZE update
As of this version of 21:26 March 17, compared to 13:10 March 4: and the page is loadable from dialup for the first time in years.
 * 1) Overall File size has been reduced from 716KB to 459KB
 * 2) Readable prose has been reduced from 12,062 words to 6,993 words
 * 3) References have been reduced from 55KB to 18KB

I continue to believe the History section should be shortened and summarized, while other areas may need to be beefed up to use summary style adequately. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed on History. UBER  ( talk ) 21:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The old History section was restored in response to a request by Yorkshirian. I would have preferred to use a zero-based budget to require justification of each bit of text that was to be restored.  I think we need to go section-by-section to compare UberCryxic's trimmed History section vs. the old History section to understand what Yorkie's concerns were and whether those concerns have the support of consensus or are simply his concerns.  Past experience has shown that many of his concerns tend to be more on the fringe than the mainstream of the editor community. --Richard S (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Church vs. Empire
The question has been asked as to why there was such intense conflict between the Church and the Roman Empire. The cutting-edge authority on this is Allen Brent, who has written extensively on the subject:


 * Brent, Allen. A Political History of Early Christianity (T & T Clark, 2009).


 * Brent, Allen. Ignatius of Antioch:  A Martyr Bishop and the Origin of Episcopacy (T & T Clark, 2007).


 * Brent, Allen. The Imperial Cult and the Development of Church Order: Concepts and Images of Authority in Paganism and Early Christianity Before the Age of Cyprian (Brill, 1999).


 * Brent, Allen. Ignatius of Antioch & The Second Sophistic: A Study of the Early Christian Transformation of Pagan Culture (Mohr, 2006).


 * Brent, Allen. Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century: Communities in Tension Before the Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop (Brill, 1995).

The first book listed above is his latest and most comprehensive, and the first two are the most accessible to the general reader (and also the cheapest and easiest to get). Parts of them can be read online at Amazon:

The others are more convoluted scholarly works (and hideously expensive) but provide the detailed evidence and arguments to support the positions he is articulating in the other two.

Also of interest:


 * Richey, Lance Byron. Roman Imperial Ideology and the Gospel of John (Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2007).


 * Friesen, Steven J. Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins (Oxford, 2006).


 * McBrien, Richard. "Pope Clement I, Model of Imperial Rome" (National Catholic Reporter, 2008).

All of this has important implications not only for the conflict between Church and Empire but also for giving an account of how the primitive "Jesus movement" turned into the hierarchically organized Catholic Church. In particular it explains why that Church so closely resembles in structure and ideology the Empire with which it was locked in conflict for three centuries (an issue which I believe was raised earlier by Haldraper).  Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 19:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing the list of sources! Just for clarification, when you say "cutting-edge authority" do you mean that he's the voice of mainstream opinion, or that he's the newest and most interesting voice with new theories? I read what you wrote as the former, but I want to make sure it isn't the latter.  Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The cutting edge by definition is not the mainstream, but he is building on the work of a long list of other experts in the field, and his own work has generally been well received. His books are published by the most prestigious publishers, his articles are published in top-flight peer-reviewed journals, and most of the reviews range from cautiously positive to wildly enthusiastic.  If nothing else, the bibliographies provide a useful resource for digging into the issue further.   Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 20:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fergus Millar should be useful also, as an established authority on the governance of the Empire. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I unfortunately don't have easy access to any of those works short of ILL. I can easily get Ramsay MacMullen's Christianizing the Roman Empire : (A.D. 100-400) (published 1984) and the followup Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries (pub 1997). I've also read Warwick Ball's Rome in the East : The Transformation of an Empire, which summarize a bit how Christianity was perceived as a political threat.  He's an archealogist rather than a historian, however, so not sure whether we should use that one.  Thoughts on McMullen before I go read those? Karanacs (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * MacMullen's dense reading, but very informative. Whether he reflects the mainstream or the fringe of scholarly opinion in the area, I don't know, as it's not my area of specialty. (I do own both works, as I "dabble" in the area). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My university library has all of Brent's books in the list except for the first one. As the subject is of interest to me, I might make the journey into town. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be excellent, RelHistBuff - this isn't a timeframe I'm particularly interested in. If you could get a few of those, I'll work my way through MacMullen. Karanacs (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Early Christianity
In the early Xty section of the history it says " Early Christians refused to offer sacrifice to the Roman gods or to worship Roman rulers as gods and were thus subject to persecution". This is supported by a ref from Wilken.But I can't work out which book it is.. when the first big persecution came it was because Nero said they set Rome on fire, for terrorism. Which Wilken book is it? And a minor point could it be spelt out when Constantine is mentioned what this meant.." With the conversion of Constantine Xty turned the corner - from heresy to orthodoxy.". With all that implies. Sayerslle (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The terms "heresy" and "orthodoxy" can be be loaded. The current text describes the situation with neutral terms:
 * Christianity was legalized in 313 under Constantine's Edict of Milan,[36] and declared the state religion of the Empire in 380.[37] 
 * I think that the current text works well. Is there a need to say more? Majoreditor (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To not underline that this conversion is a big deal is loaded too..etc etc..Sayerslle (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Some would maintain that the corner wasn't completely turned until the death of Julian. The article on History of late ancient Christianity says that "Christianity came to dominance during the reign of Julian's successors, Jovian, Valentinian I, and Valens (the last Eastern Arian Christian Emperor)." Constantine's conversion, Julian's premature death and the subsequent declaration of Christianity as the Empires official religion all appear to be important events. But perhaps the exact details should remain in the daughter articles. Majoreditor (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the desire to keep the History section short, I would leave the details of Julian and his successors to subsidiary articles. --Richard S (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Any full explanation would also include the edicts of Theodosius I against public pagan worship; the final text should certainly include the word gradual, and link to a subarticle. This is not on topic here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

On a separate note, I have to confess to some confusion about the persecution of the Christians bit. Our text provides the standard party line ... "Early Christians refused to offer sacrifice to the Roman gods or to worship Roman rulers as gods". So what gives here? The Jews refused to do this also and they weren't persecuted for it. AFACICT, they actually had a fairly cozy relationship with the Romans in which the Sanhedrin had a fairly autonomous authority over the practice of their religion and the Jews only got stepped upon as a people for repeated rebellion (ROMANUS EUNT DOMUS!). The picture I have of the Roman empire is that it was generally tolerant of the religions of the various cultures that made up the Empire. The idea of a monolithic worship of "Roman gods and divine rulers" seems to contradict that picture. Perhaps the rule was "OK, you can worship all the gods you want but you also have to sacrifice to our gods and worship our rulers as divine". Wouldn't it be better to clarify this issue? And, why did the Jews get an exception and the Christians didn't? --Richard S (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "People called Romani, they go the house?" :). I think it had more to do with the Christians rejecting the pluralism of the Romans.  The Jews didn't try to win converts, but the Christians did, and would do so by telling people they were wrong.  When you tell that to the "Cult of the Emporer" you're going to get crushed.  Plus to the Romans, the Christian religion was founded by a condemned criminal and in the 1st-3rd centuries what cultural contributions were they making toward the Empire?  Bear in mind to that point in history that religions for the most part were associated with a particular tribe or country, Christianity, once it spread past the Jews was not.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mike, your Latin translation of what I wrote is correct. "ROMANES EUNT DOMUS!" (oops, sorry for the typo in the original comment) is a reference to a Monty Python sketch in "Life of Brian".  Go find it on YouTube.  It's hilarious. --Richard S (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Very familiar with it. Centurion reminds me of my Latin teacher from the seminary.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Jews weren't persecuted since they were a "nation", with its own national God. Christians on the other hand were Romans and subverting other Romans to join them and abandon their old gods.  Xan  dar   10:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But some Romans followed Mithras,the Persian God,  soldiers and that, and they followed mystery cults, and Sol, the Sun God?  Even in Pompeii there were Christians and that was detstroyed in 79AD, they seemed quite open to religions of the Empire. Anyway, the Wilken is Robert Louis Wilken, but it still isn't clear to me which book is being referenced. Sayerslle (talk) 11:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. Yes, I knew most of that but I didn't want to go too far out on a limb without sources for fear of being accused of Original Research. Collectively, you have exactly hit the point I am raising. Our text doesn't mention the points that you have made in response to my query. Our text suggests that the Christians were poor, noble innocents who were persecuted because they refused to worship false gods. This is the Christian POV which is a legacy from the Jewish meme (think of Daniel in the lion's den as perhaps the most widely known example from the Old Testament). However, the Roman POV would view the Christians as a subversive religion which was corrosive to the tolerant pluralism of the Roman Empire. This Roman POV and is not presented at all in this article. This is an example of the pro-Catholic (pro-Christian) POV that permeates the article. An NPOV treatment would present both POVs. It seems to me that a neutral, secular historian would be more likely to credit the Roman POV over the Christian POV. But, you know,... the victor writes the history and so we have been fed the Christian POV for centuries.... Are there any reliable sources that support a more neutral view of why the Romans persecuted the Christians? Do we want to get into a detailed discussion of that question here or should we simply state that Christians were persecuted by the Romans without mentioning a reason why? --Richard S (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Romnan point of view is clear, and documentable from the correspondence between Trajan and Pliny the Younger - and the life of Decius. The Romans regarded the oath to the Emperor, which was an act of worship, as one of the major ties binding the Empire together; refusal to take it was contumacy. The Jews had special license, since the Empire also approved of everybody keeping to their ancestral traditions; but even this was not always enough; Bar-Cochba's rebellion of about 116 AD was sparked in part by tensions over Emperor-worship.


 * The Christians, however, were most of them converts, leaving their various ancestral traditions; they were then gathering together to foment resistance to the fundamental structures of the Empire. (And the Emperors hated spontaneous gatherings; Trajan refused to permit Nicomedia to run a fire company lest it become a focus for civil disorder.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it worthwhile using a lot of space presenting a now non-existent POV. This could go to excesses... "The babylonians slaughtered the jews because they thought they were a pestilential nuisance who might ally with the Egyptians." The question deserves half a sentence at most.  Xan  dar   20:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is; to do otherwise is recentism. To present the Hollywood version of the Roman Rmpire is to misstate the history of the Church Whether it is useful in this article to explain the Roman point of view is a matter of convenience; but the editors should know what they are summarizing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this a Joke?
I have just noticed the Constantine picture that has recently replaced the picture of martyrs in the Colliseum. It has a ridiculous caption quoting a throwaway line from an atheist TV presenter. The picture itself is inappropriate and POV, subtly reinforcing popular conspiracy theories that Constantine "founded" the Church. The caption with its stupid unhistoric "now it was dangerous not to believe" line, is a joke.  Xan  dar  20:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support ditching both pictures in favor of one that we can all agree is neutral (I don't see the Constantine one as being POV, but I'm sure there are plenty of other images we could choose from to avoid this controversy). I consider the "martyr" picture to be POV.  If the Constantine picture stays, it needs a better caption, perhaps just that he legalized Christianity. Karanacs (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * popular conspiracy theories that Constantine founded the Church ? What are you on about? I think the point Gascoigne was making was that once Catholicism became the official religion of the state it was a step down a particular road - with Charlemagne, if you refused baptism, it carried the death penalty, once something becomes the orthodoxy , it becomes more dangerous to support the heterodox , - but whatever the deficiencies of the caption, the 'picture itself is POV'  is really strange thing to say. Waht is overwhelmingly apparent is your POV, relentless..like the painting of a big Caucasian man (God) handing a ginormous key to a kneeling caucasian in some quattrocento piazza ? is not POV.Sayerslle (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you're turning a content issue to one of personal attacks. Sayerslle. Stop it. Dan Brown and dozens of others have pushed the ahistorical idea that somehow Constantine corrupted or massively altered the Church and its teachings. So to select a slightly menacing carving of Constantine as the image to represent the early Church is not neutral IMO. In any event Constantine did not force anyone to become Christian - he legalised Christianity, and gave it its properties back.  Xan  dar   00:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to think this thread shifted from content to ad hominem attacks at "Is this a joke?" Hesperian 01:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Xandar, Constantine did not just legalize Christianity and give its properties back. He also made Catholicism the only legal form of Christianity, forbade non-Catholic Christians to meet for religious purposes even in private homes, confiscated and destroyed their books, and signed over all their buildings to the Catholic Church.  So while he did not "force anyone to become Christian", he forced all Christians to either become Catholics or cease being Christians at all.  All this is documented (and celebrated with great glee) by Eusebius Pamphilius in his life of Constantine.      Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 02:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, what these snippets are referring to is not persecution of pagans or unbelievers, but actions taken AFTER the Council of Nicea against those Christians who refused to accept it. Something quite different to what is being implied in the caption. As most sources agree, Constantine called the Council to get rid of dissension among Christians and so help unite his empire. This was an aim of the State. No brand of Christian had "houses" before Constantine's legalisation, since Diocletian and Galerian had systematically destroyed them all. So the caption is indeed very misleading, and in such a way, as (Yes, Hesperian) it seemed that somebody had installed it as a joke.  Xan  dar   11:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Dicletian and Galerius did not destroy them all, even in the regions of the Empire they controlled; and did Constantinus Chlorus destroy any?


 * It is largely true that the persecution of Jews, pagans, and unbelievers was not systematic before Theodosius I, half a century later; but Constantine did close pagan temples, confiscated their treasuries, and gave the buildings to Christian bishops (again, not all); all this is Eusebius.


 * Constantine was also able to stabilize the Roman coinage, and put it on a gold standard for the first time in history. Conincidence? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

How long should this article be?
Can we come to an agreement on some kind of target size please? Many of the disputes here boil down to differences over how long the article ought to be.

For those who are unfamiliar with the issues, please familiarise yourself with the "readability issues" and "technical issues" sections of Article size.

Sandy, can you provide rough statistics on FA length please?

Hesperian 05:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For my part, I feel that 50kB is appropriate for this article, which is, after all, merely a summary article that serves as a gateway to many more detailed articles. Should others want a larger article, I would consider anything less than 100kB an acceptable compromise, and anything larger than 100kB not so. Hesperian 05:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In terms of bytes, roughly 100 kb is fine by me, give or take a few thousand bytes. In terms of readable prose, I'd be ok with around 7,000 words for an article of such importance, although I'd max it out at 8,000 if people had some really good reasons for including additional content. UBER  ( talk ) 05:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to Hesperian
 * Here's a graph of FA and GA size: File:FA and GA prose size.svg
 * Here are Dr pda's latest FA stats: User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics. Some of that data is old, and it must be noted that many of the Dynasty articles on that list did not pass FAC at that size (they were expanded post-FAC, to my dismay).  Average FA size is about 25KB prose.
 * For this article (unlike other FAs on that list), this is the broad overview that covers the Catholic Church. I continue to believe that it can only be done with appropriate use of summary style, with content developed in daughter articles.  I believe that can only be done adequately and neutrally in the 6,000 to 7,000 word range.  Less than that won't cover it, and more than that gets into accessibility and readability issues, undue weight, synthesis, or conflicting POV issues about what to include here.  In terms of the current version, I still believe History is too long, and other areas are underdeveloped, but that to resolve those issues, attention must be shifted to a literature survey to determine what is included here, and development of sub-topics in the daughter articles, summarized back to here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The raw byte counts for the top three longest articles on Dr. Pda's list are 138kb, 136kb and 138kb long respectively for an article length not to exceed 130-140kb (of course, we need to look at readable prose and word count but total article length in raw bytes is a reasonable first approximation for lazy people like me). The article could be shorter than that but it should not be appreciably longer. --Richard S (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia provided this information earlier, but here's the current prose size report:
 * File size: 456 kB
 * Prose size (including all HTML code): 90 kB
 * References (including all HTML code): 104 kB
 * Wiki text: 99 kB
 * Prose size (text only): 44 kB (7113 words) "readable prose size"
 * References (text only): 18 kB
 * Note, the reference templates exceed prose. If the templates were removed the space could be used for content. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia allows us to use tertiary sources (like other encyclopedias) to determine what to include in our articles. Accordingly, if you look at other encyclopedias articles on the Catholic Church, you will see huge articles some with very lengthy lead sections that might be called "apologetics" to some of the editors on this page but are really just simply factual statements about the Church. (I recently noted this in Worldbook Encyclopedia) What Sandy is trying to do to this article is akin to trying to fit a size nine foot into a size five shoe. I disagree that this will improve the article or make it more attractive to Wikipedia's paying and nonpaying readers.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 16:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it "what Sandy is trying to do"? I started this section. I directly asked Sandy for data on FA size. Sandy responded with that data, and shared her opinion. This demonisation of Sandy is unacceptable. Hesperian 01:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Richard suggested that the target size for the article should be somewhere in the 130k to 150k range. I agree with that. This is the size range of many, perhaps most, comparable articles covering a broad and complex subject like this. Just a quick look-round produces: England at 172k, USA at 163k, Orthodox Church at 145k and Evolution at 153k. The article must also be balanced and properly weighted between sections. The article cannot go for extreme summary style, since that format would end up as little more than a list of links. It needs to be a readable clear article that is informative and useful in its own right. This is particularly so, since the article appears in many versions which do not have the extensive subsidiary-article linking as main Wikipedia. In any event, content comprehensiveness must not play second fiddle to arbitrary size quotas. Size reductions should be achieved by consensus trimming, not randomly hacking away important elements of the article.  Xan  dar   20:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The length guidelines aren't arbitrary. This article is too long to load in a reasonable time (as is remarked a few sections up); too long to edit without edit-conflicting with oneself; too long to read at a sitting.


 * Xandar's parallels are all notoriously bad troubled articles; England and the United States driven by patriotism, Evolution by the creationist controversy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the most relevant policy to bring up would be WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it's been mentioned enough times already. Incidentally, I love the article on Evolution; I think it's one of our best in its level of detail and professionalism (it's also featured by the way). It is, however, very long, and I think unjustifiably so. Someone should really trim that down. UBER  ( talk ) 23:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Emendavi. I was concentrating on the one aspect; length produced by POV-pushing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet another breach of WP:AssumeGood Faith, PMA. And people wonder why there is a toxic atmosphere - and who is to blame for it. The length of an article is primarily driven by the need to cover the content properly and in balance. Hacking out important elements of an article to achieve an arbitrary number is ridiculous. Start from the article, then trim to reach a decent size while retainong optimum coverage.  Xan  dar   20:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How odd; I was talking about the POV-pushing on Evolution; does Xandar mean to deny that it exists? (Which side does more is off topic for this page.) But if Xandar wishes to embrace the accusation, he is welcome to do so; I have already expressed my judgment of the long asides quoting sources which do not support the text, the tedious and inaccurate political polemics, and the tendentious claims that the Church did everything good and didn't really do anything bad. I'm waiting for the Catholic discovery of fire, logarithms, and sliced bread. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Product - Process - People
There is a model of teamwork which suggests that people have three different ways of viewing how work should get done. (I forget who came up with the model but that's not important here.)

According to this model, one view is primarily interested in the final Product, the result of the effort. If standard Processes and procedures have to be circumvented to get a good final Product out on time and under budget, then so be it. If interpersonal relationships with other People on the team have to be sacrificed in the interest of achieving the end result, then so be it.

Another view is primarily interested in making sure that the standard Processes and procedures are followed. If the product quality, schedule or budget suffer, then so be it. At least the SOP was followed. If interpersonal relationships suffer, so be it.

The last view is primarily interested in fostering good relationships among People; (i.e. among team members and with clients and suppliers) even if Product and Processes suffer in the process.

UberCryxic's IAR mode focused on Product at the expense of Process and People.

Xandar and NancyHeise are not impressed with the Product and moreover feel that Process has been flouted.

And, there has been darn little concern about the People aspect of a collaborative and collegial team working together to write an article.

I raise this perspective because it occurs to me that there are several levels of discussion. There are two levels of Product-relevant queries. There are macro questions such as "how long should this article be?", "how heavily should the assertions be cited?", "should we have a long History section or a short one?". To me, these high-level macro questions are candidates for an RFC although I think we could resolve them amongst ourselves if we could work collegially and collaboratively.

Micro-questions such as "How should we present the Church's influence on slavery over 2000 years?" could be subjects of RFCs except that there are so many such issues that we would be in RFC-land forever. Here, I think we are far better off trying to resolve the issues amongst ourselves and only resorting to an RFC if we hit a true impasse.

Now, Xandar raises a different point. He thinks UberCryxic's flouting of Process and Policy should get a smackdown and that a Wiki-wide RFC should be issued to put the question before the wider Wiki community. I'm none too happy about the way we got where we are but, being more interested in Product than Process, I haven't been as "up in arms" about it as Xandar is. (i.e. I like the Product of what UberCryxic did even though I don't like the Process that she used)

My point here is that we should be very clear on what we are asking people to comment on in any RFC that may be issued. If we ask the commenter to decide between the short version with flaws and the long version with different flaws, we get a tactical answer and it will be hard to get a clear answer to the strategic questions of "long vs. short", "heavy citation vs. lighter citation", etc.

More importantly, we will not get an answer about the Process. People might prefer the shorter version but hate the Process which brought it about.

So, if you want an answer about the IAR process that UberCryxic used, please don't ask "Version A or Version B?". Just talk about the process and don't ask for any opinion on the version of the article that ensued.

Similarly, if you really want an answer about how the article should be written, please don't just say "Version A or Version B?". Ask the specific question you want answered (e.g. "as long as Version A or as short as Version B?", "heavily cited like Version A or lightly cited like Version B").

We should not be looking to bless any specific version, we should be looking for comments on what criteria to use in improving the article.

--Richard S (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what you said, although I am a he. But since I have a higher opinion of women than of men, I'll take that as a compliment of sorts. UBER  ( talk ) 21:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The RFC is needed to determine whether or not the long form or short form of the article is to be used as a base to proceed with improvements. The long form as I have submitted it to user:Sunray represents the form of the article as it was after the last FAC plus the results of consensus agreements reached after the last FAC.([]) That article's cited sources accurately reflect the sentences to which they are referenced. The short article that Uber and others on this page replaced it with does not. In fact, the short article contains a variety of factual inaccuracies and serious omissions and because of this I think it was created by people who are not very knowledgable about the article's subject. I have asked for an RFC because the present, more erroneous article was inserted by a disputed process that is described here . Because of this violation of due process that produced the current, erroneous form of the article, we need to hold an RFC to either legitimize the present form or return the article to its previous form. I have offered to leave the project willingly if the RFC produces a result in favor of the current article. An attempt at RFC is a necessary step before going to Arbcom.   Nancy Heise   ''' talk 00:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You already said that, Nancy. Have we reached the point where you are simply copy-pasting your point of view over and over again? Generally, the way mature discourse works is: you say what you think, others listen, consider, agree with the points they find convincing, point out difficulties with the points they find unconvincing, and express their own point of view. It is then your turn to listen, consider, concede, defend, refine your views. And so it goes, around and around, until we find common ground. It is simply infuriating to try to engage in mature discourse with someone who follows the alternative process of: say what you think, say it again, say it again, say it again, say it again, say it again, ad infinitum, without ever taking the time to read, consider and refine. When somebody simply copy-pastes a comment they made the day before into a new section, it rather looks like this latter process is being followed. Hesperian 01:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nancy, if you think there are "factual inaccuracies and serious omissions" in the current article, the most helpful thing you could do would be to tell us what they are so they can be discussed and fixed, rather than insisting on a showdown between your preferred article and the present one. The former course would be genuinely collegial; the latter is a continuation of the "battleground mentality" which you yourself have been complaining about.  As for your claim that the current article was "created by people who are not very knowledgable" about the Catholic Church, past experience has shown that you are a very poor judge of the state of other people's knowledge, so I'm afraid that's not going to carry much weight with anyone who isn't already in your camp.   Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 01:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nancy, have you forgotten that we've been to ArbCom, and they declined to hear any of this? It's not a credible threat, especially with the recent wave of cooperative editing and discussion.


 * If you want to add back even more of the long version than Yorkshirian already has (we haven't heard from him, btw, because he's been banned for falsifying sources - on a completely different set of articles), then you might consider listing the points with which you disagree, much as Karanacs did at above. She was answered on some, gor revisions on others, and fot still others deleted; that's a better average than the .000 this discussion has gathered. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I calls dibs on phrasing the RFC: "Hey people, instead of making the article not crap, we've been arguing over which crap version of the article we should work from. Come join us!" Hesperian 00:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear why Uber's version is consistently referred to as IAR, when in fact, he instated a version that respects Wiki guidelines and policy, and removed a long-standing version which didn't. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted my comment in response to Richard's post. The present article's inaccuracies are numerous. I will certainly participate in correcting them if this version is decided upon after we hold our RFC to discover which version of the article is preferred by the Wider Wikipedia Community. The WWC should have been alerted to the discussion before but were not due to the one day straw poll that was declared a failure  by the adminstrating admin, Tom Harrison. That straw poll which produced the new version is invalid, the new version has no legitimacy until we hold a valid, properly advertised and conducted RFC. I am unwilling to spend time on the new version until it has been properly installed following Wikipedia rules that incorporates the views of the many editors who worked on the previous version and have not been given a chance to cast an opinion about these abrupt and comprehensive (and really lousy) changes.   Nancy Heise   ''' talk 03:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Can I get a reconciliation of
 * "I have offered to leave the project willingly if the RFC produces a result in favor of the current article."
 * with
 * "I will certainly participate in correcting them if this version is decided upon after we hold our RFC"
 * please? Hesperian 03:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is also Nancy's comment... "An attempt at RFC is a necessary step before going to Arbcom." Why would we need to go to Arbcom if Nancy would participate in correcting the current version if the shorter version is decided upon?  Alternatively, who would take it to Arbcom if Nancy leaves the project as she has offered?  Presumably that would be Xandar.


 * Look, ARBCOM has a general policy of not getting involved in content disputes. Even if you issue an RFC on which version to fix, that RFC will not constitute grounds for an RFARB unless some editors refuse to abide by an overwhelming consensus expressed by responders to the RFC.  That would be grounds for an RFARB on conduct.  If you want ARBCOM to comment on conduct such as UberCryxic's IAR mode, then issue a User RFC specifically focusing on the Process, not on the Product.


 * Please, Nancy and Xandar, for your own sanity and ours, try to separate your issues with the Product (i.e. the article content) from the Process (i.e. UberCryxic's IAR mode). If you wish to issue an RFC on content, then phrase it as such and abide by the results.  If you wish to issue an RFC on the conduct of a specific user, then phrase it as such.  Please don't mix the two and also don't mix multiple content questions into a single RFC or the results will be extremely difficult if not impossible to interpret.


 * --Richard S (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Further comments on Nancy's post...


 * First of all, the phrase "the project" is often construed to mean "Wikipedia". I don't think people want you to leave Wikipedia or even leave this article permanently.  SlimVirgin has suggested on your Talk Page that you step back from the article for a while (her suggestion was 3 months).  I would not have thought such a long time was necessary although the attitudes you have expressed do seem to confirm the idea that some time off would do you good.  Offering (or threatening) to leave the project is often perceived as drama.  There's already been a lot of unnecessary drama, let's not add to it.


 * Secondly, why is it so important to decide which version to correct? If we had simply worked on improving the current version instead of debating which version to fix, wouldn't we have been well on our way to fixing the issues by now?  Why isn't it just as possible to expand the current version as to trim the previous one?


 * Or, is there a hidden agenda that assumes that it is easier to defend against taking something out than it is to get it put in? That somehow the current shorter version risks being "blessed by consensus" while you wish the longer version to be blessed by the consensus of a new RFC?  If this last is what you're looking for, please consult what I said above about the difficulty of drawing conclusions from an RFC that simply asks "Version A" or "Version B"?  Would a !vote for Version A mean "I think the article should be about as long as Version A" or "I think the article should be as heavily cited as Version A" or "I think Version A is pretty much NPOV"?  Or would you want to conclude all of the above from a !vote for Version A?


 * --Richard S (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly the huge cuts of material from the longstanding version are both misguided and illegitimate, since they never achieved consensus, and have eviscerated the article. Like it or not, the Longstanding version remains in place until there is CONSENSUS to change it. You all know that, or should know that. An RFC may be made necessary by continued intransigence of editors in keeping damaging non-consensus changes on the page. The RFc would test whether the cut-down version has consensus. ARBCOM is a last resort measure - and would not be asked to consider content issues.
 * As far as which version is "blessed by consensus", that is quite clear. Substantive CHANGES must be made by consensus. This is a foundation principle of Wikipedia - and is not to be flouted by anyone - even groups who consider themselves right and everyone else wrong. The longstanding version needs no new blessing. It is the working version until changed by consensus. Any allegation that sections are POV, or too long, need to go through proper processes in which substantive issues are agreed on. However certain editors decided that they were too impatient or ill-willed to discuss substantive matters and go through WP procedures, and instead decided to edit-war "their" hastily cobbled-together and sub-standard version onto main-space. This is illegitimate and there is no justification for it. The longstanding version has Good Article status, whether some people like it or not. There was no reason for this attack on it but POV and hubris. A settlement and size-reduction can be achieved but only with good will and acknowledging that collegiality, Assuming Good faith and working together are the key to getting a better article.  Xan  dar   20:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Old version vs. new version

 * Richard, I just looked at the page again and I can not believe the errors abounding. Do you honestly support this new version?
 * There are whole paragraphs in Beliefs that have no citations or that are only cited to the Catechism and some of the random ones of these I checked do not even match the citation.
 * WP:OR is when you create something yourself and that is what the Beliefs section is approaching now. We used to have citations to Kreeft to match the citations to the Catechism so it would show we were using secondary sources not primary ones. The secondary sources have now been eliminated and the primary ones do not match the sentences.
 * I offered to help improve the new version if the Wider Wikipedia Community prefers this one to the previous one but am clearly being reminded of my offer to leave the project if that decision was made. Can a person leave and still help improve the new version before going? Yes, they can by providing a breakdown of problems they see with the new article. That is what I had in mind when I offered to help but the incivility and wrath of these editors here is really out of line.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 18:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nancy, is there anything in the shortened version which you believe to be flat wrong or inaccurate to the point that it requires complete rewriting to be accurate? Is there anything that you believe cannot be supported by citations with some effort?  After all, we have a rich source of citations, the previous version of the article.  I have been led to believe that most of the current article text is either taken from the previous version of the article or a condensed summary of it.  Therefore, the citations should still apply.  I have taken this assertion on good faith as I have not myself inspected the article outside the History section.  I did find one horrible mistake regarding Plutarco/Calles and the Terrible Triangle which I fixed.  At the end of the day, I support a "new day" in which we discuss what to put back into the shortened article instead of the tooth-and-nail knockdown dragout fights it took to remove even a single sentence from the previous version.  If the goal is loadability-via-dialup and readability by the average reader, I see no prospect of achieving this goal starting from the previous version as finely written and cited as it was.  I'm sorry but you seem to have written for the wrong audience.  I'm not convinced that a 150kb article will meet our goals but I suspect that is really pushing the outer limits of loadability and readability and that 120kb is probably more suitable to our needs. --Richard S (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not Nancy, but my comments on this are as follows: Firstly, the changes made to the History section up till now are the least damaging of the changes illicitly made to the article since 9th March. The evisceration of the Beliefs, practices, Organisation and Demographics section reach 75% removal in many cases! And all without any discussion or justification! This removal is beyond words, destroying sections it has taken many editors years to assemble and put together. Add to this the complete removal of Mission and Church activity sections - as well as the Cutural influence section. This is not acceptable practice. It means that these the most important sections of the article, have been reduced to an incoherent stub. That is why that version is no basis for editing. If there were tooth and nail kinockdown fights on removing material. What sort of fights would there be for putting this vital information back, piece by piece? Why should we waste time arguing and re-inventing the wheel when we already have these sections in place? There is ZERO justification for removing this material without discussion. It is vandalism, pure and simple. There have never been serious objections to 95% of this material, and to hack out this core material to meet some arbitrary article size limit of your own devising is not on.
 * That is not to say that the material does not need to be reduced. However, as Johnbod says, it is easier to trim than to recreate these sections. If size really is the main factor here, then there are many better ways to get a quick cut. 1) As I suggested, splitting the article by removing History entirely. 2) Cutting down History significantly by using summary style. 3) Working through all sections by consensus with the aim of achieving a 30% reduction. Any of these would be acceptable, but not arbitrary evisceration.  Xan  dar   20:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Richard, much of the current text is taken from the previous article. However, there is also a lot of rewriting both uncited and cited to the old refs - that does not support the rewritten version. As I said before, secondary sources have been completely eliminated and primary sources kept to sentences that are not even supported by the citations. The beliefs section alone is really unacceptable. Our previous version followed the outline of the Catechism as presented by Kreeft. Uber, in his zeal to shorten the article has eliminated whole sections of beliefs like prayer and others and added information about Mary that makes it sound like she is someone on an equal footing with God. I could not believe what has been done here and supported by you and others on this page. None of you are educated in Catholic beliefs it seems and you can not just put stuff like this on the page and say it is a solid representation of Church beliefs. The information previously contained in the Cultural Influence section was supposed to be incorporated into the history section but in large part, that has not been done. The influence of the Church upon the status of women is a subject that is greatly expounded upon at length in university textbooks as well as secondary sources on the history of the Church. The influence of the Church in science, architecture, legal system and cultural practices such as polygamy, divorce, human sacrifice, infanticide (especially female infanticide), abortion, are not small matters - they are part of the core of this article's topic. Neither are these POV matters as you will find them discussed in all scholarly works that include a discussion about the Church's influence upon Western Civilization. People should not have to read the entire history section to understand how the Church influenced Western Civilization but the new approach makes them do that and then does not even tell them. I consider this a huge omission, a violation of FAC criteria and the other problems listed above make the new version quite a headache which is why I would like to leave the project if people want to keep Uber's version. Its just too much stuff to try to correct. Why not use the correct older version and trim/reword problem areas, not hack. Hacking was not proposed in the last FAC, neither was it ever proposed before we did the invalid single day straw poll.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 19:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the things you mention are issues that have been hotly debated on this page and there was no consensus for their inclusion in their previous form (the effect on women, for example, was contested for POV reasons, and there was opposition to attributing soem of the cultural practices to the Church as these were, for the most part, already common in the Roman Empire). I don't see that whether or not "hacking" was proposed in the last FAC is the least bit relevant.  The last FAC was 15 months ago - FA standards have risen, and the only consensus that can be drawn from that FAC now is that at the time, the article did not meet WP:WIAFA. There ought to be serious reworking of the beliefs section, but that needs to be done with multiple sources at hand to see what they focus on - the previous version was too heavy on Kreeft (although I don't understand why those citations were removed, and I think they need to be reinstated). Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There was never a consensus to remove the Cultural Influence section. There was only an invalid one day straw poll that produced almost a 50/50 stalemate. If we followed Wikipedia policy, which we didn't, that would not have replaced the old consensus. Karanacs, the old beliefs section had many sources besides Kreeft but I liked Kreeft because he was the easiest to understand and most concise. I would like to know if there is anyone on this page besides myself, Xandar and Johnbod who has any sources or personal training needed to improve the Beliefs section?  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 20:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page Archiving
This page is about 250kB, and it's starting to load slow and generally frustrate me, and I am sure everyone else. Does anyone object to archiving some older discussions? Vercingetorix08 (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll archive some of the resolved verification issues. Karanacs (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Substantive changes must be made by consensus
Xandar, can you support the assertion that "Substantive changes must be made by consensus"? You assert that this is a "fundamental principle of Wikipedia". Consensus is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. I can't find support for your assertion at WP:CONSENSUS. Can you? What I do find is the assertion that consensus can change. Now, I agree with you that it would be nice if editors respected long-standing versions but, given the number of policies and guidelines at Wikipedia, it speaks volumes that this principle is not stated in the policy documents. If I am wrong and you can find your assertion explicitly stated in a policy or guideline, please enlighten me and correct me of my error. --Richard S (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Richard states that he cannot find support for my assertions on consensus in policy. let me help him:
 * From Editing policy:
 *  Talking and editing 
 * Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes: nobody owns articles. If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Discussion is, however, called for if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page). A BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is used on many pages where changes might often be contentious. Boldness should not mean trying to impose edits against existing consensus or in violation of core policies, such as Neutral point of view and Verifiability.
 * Be cautious with major changes: discuss
 * Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice. If you choose to be very bold, take extra care to justify your changes in detail on the article talk page. This will make it less likely that editors will end up reverting the article back and forth between their preferred versions. 


 * The linked section of Wikipedia Consensus is also instructive. A brief extract from the section illustrating due process:
 * Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on.


 * Several processes can attract editors to resolve differences:... Mediation involves a neutral third party in a dispute among multiple editors ... Requests for Comment invites greater participation ... Village pump invites greater participation ... Resolving disputes offers other options
 * There is quite a bit more, none of which endorses trying to impose drastic wholesale changes without discussion or agreeement.  Xan  dar   19:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, this is a difficult position for me to argue because I tend to agree with you i.e. I think UberCryxic and gang were overbold with their IAR mode and blocks of you and NancyHeise (I suspect histrionics on WP:ANI were part of the motivation for the blocks; I haven't read the full ANI discourse so I reserve judgment). I also agree that we should use BRD which suggests that we should have moved from your reverts to discussion instead of to blocks. Consensus formation through discussion seems to have broken down but part of it is an unwillingness of you and NancyHeise to consider that we could get to where we all want to be (a good quality, NPOV article with citations with a length of about 130-150kb) from the current position. Editors have repeatedly indicated a willingness to fix the flaws in the current version if you and Nancy would point them out so we can discuss and fix them.

That said, the policy text you quote is not as strongly worded as your interpretation suggests. The opposing camp might focus on these parts of the quoted policy: --Richard S (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * nobody owns articles
 * 'Nuff said --Richard S (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Boldness should not mean trying to impose edits against existing consensus
 * Be careful here. The text says "existing consensus", NOT "existing text".  It's an important distinction to draw.  There is no "existing consensus".  You and NancyHeise are arguing that the silence of most editors who have ever worked on the article constitutes a "silent consensus" for the existing article.  The recent discussion regarding "Silence can be construed as assent" has shown that several editors reject the notion that "silence equals consent".  Therefore, you cannot assert that lack of an overwhelming consensus to overturn the article means that there is an overwhelming consensus to keep it.  Only an RFC can indicate the existence or absence of such a consensus.  That seems to be where we're headed. The objections of two or three editors to edits implies lack of consensus (as in lack of unanimity)  but that does not mean consensus endorses the existing version.  The comments of editors such as Johnbod shows that.  (That is, Johnbod seems to dislike the current version but does not want to lend support to casting the previous version in stone.)  There is no "existing consensus" for the current version.  The straw poll showed that.  However, it also showed that there is no "existing consensus" for the previous version.  There is nothing in the policy that says that existing text must stand over proposed text when there is a lack of consensus for either version.  Read the above bolded text carefully.  One or two editors should not try to impose bold edits against existing consensus.  That is, they should not try to impose an article against a consensus (i.e. near unanimity of editors who express an opinion).  On what basis do you assert that there is an "existing consensus" in favor of the previous version?  Only an RFC could indicate such an overwhelming consensus.  And, given that there seem to be about eight editors in favor of the current version, I would suggest that you need at least 24 editors to !vote in favor of the previous version to establish that consensus supports the previous version.  I don't think that's going to happen.  I think it's going to be a mixed result (e.g. something like 12-10 but I can't tell you which side will be 12 and which will be 10). --Richard S (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner.
 * The argument which, of course, you would disagree with, is that you and NancyHeise have been unreasonable and have not made a good faith effort to work together with other editors. I would say that such an argument would be a mixed bag.  The two of you have made efforts to compromise but those have come across as grudging and obstructionist.  NancyHeise, in particular, is prone to wild chains of reasoning and interpretation of sources which are so appalling that they tend to overshadow the solid work that she does.  It's kind of like being with someone who is bipolar and whose flareups are so outsized that one forgets what a great person they are when they're not going off the deep end. --Richard S (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on.
 * Once again, a huge problem has been the pro-Church POV of the History section. I'm no great attacker of the Church.  On a number of occasions, I have striven for what I call the "NPOV sweet spot".  There shouldn't have to be a pitched battle over each of these issues.  It just takes too damn long to resolve the issues and many of them are still open after months of discussion.  To use one of your favorite locutions, this is NOT ON.  We need to break the logjam.  I'm sorry that some eggs have had to be broken to make the omelette but I'm looking forward to the omelette.
 * The point is that change takes place when a new consensus is formed. That consensus is not formed by edit-warring changes onto the page - no matter how strongly the individuals believe that they are "in the right." That is why it is BOLD,REVERT,DISCUSS. People may complain about me or Nancy. Those complaints have been taken to RFC and ARBCOM - and not been upheld. The fact is that a lot of people have come onto the page in a non-coperative or collegial manner, assuming (or having been told) that editors on the page are POV pushers etc., and not to be worked with collegially. This is going to provoke problems. The simple fact is that Wikipedia has adequate provision of procedures for breaking deadlocks on POV or other issues - which those hacking the page to pieces have decided not to use. These have included discussion on the issues, RFCs and mediation. Therefore there is no excuse for their actions on the page.
 * On "pro-Church POV", this is almost never nailed-down by the accusers. And there have never been serious accusations of POV in the main core areas of the article that have been hacked to shreds.  Xan  dar   21:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Silence can be construed as assent
The CONSENSUS to change the article has been shown by the fact that the long version hasn't been restored, so STOP SAYING THERE'S NO CONSEnsuS foR thIS VeRsIoN, MmmMMMMmMKay? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sarek and Richard. If there has to be an RFC, then please narrow it to a particular content issue. A RFC to decide on a wholesale reversion serves no useful purpose other than to cause the current editing activity to fall. Contributors would be reluctant to put much effort on the current version if there is a "threat" that all their work is for nought. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sarek. There has not been an uproar of people clamoring for a reversion to the previous text. A review of the original straw poll reveals the following to have opposed UberCryxic's new text: Johnbod, History2007,NancyHeise,Yorkshirian,Benkenobi18 and StormRider. Although Xandar did not express an opinion in the straw poll, it's clear that he opposes the current version. Since silence can be construed to be assent (yes, yes, I know it's just an essay), we might, at a first approximation, assume that Xandar and NancyHeise are the only ones to strenuously oppose the current version (i.e. UberCryxic's version with the subsequent edits to fix the flaws) as the basis for ongoing work. If it would be inappropriate to construe your silence as assent to the current version, please speak up now. This is, in effect, an informal straw poll. If there turns out to be a substantial undercurrent of sentiment for ditching the current version for either Xandar's version or Nancy's version. This straw poll is informal in the sense that we are not really deciding anything except gauging the level of opposition to the current version as the basis for moving forward. If there is a strong expression of opposition to working with the current version, that would suggest that a formal straw poll to determine an alternate approach would be in order. If there is no such expression of opposition, that would suggest that there is, in fact, a consensus for moving forward as we have been. I would suggest that it is perfectly appropriate to contact the editors who expressed opinions on the original straw poll for their opinions on this question. --Richard S (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have left notices on the Talk Pages of the editors who opposed UberCryxic's version during the straw poll except for Yorkshirian (banned) and NancyHeise (seems unnecessary).


 * It seems obvious from his Talk Page that Storm Rider objects although I hope he might reconsider after we have worked on the article for a while.


 * --Richard S (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked by Richard to comment. I certainly opposed Uber's changes, both in substance and the ridiculous way they were done, and on a quickish look its defects seem to have been only slightly reduced by the intervening changes. On the other hand if "Nancy's version" is reverted to, which seems very unlikely at this point, she will thereafter claim the whole text is established "by consensus" and resist the changes which it certainly needed. Of the two, on balance the old one was less bad, and I think it is easier to change things by subtraction than by addition, although the history of this page over the last year or so tends to cast doubt on that theory. Personally I'd rather have an article that is too long than too short. We can surely forget about FA staus for a long long time, whichever version is proceeded with. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Richard, Regarding your question to me that:


 * "Sarek and I have asserted that silence can be construed as assent"


 * I totally disagree. I have not consented at all. I view the changes made inappropriate, the quality of the new set of words (I can not really call it an article) "a total shame on Wikipedia" and the behavior of the parties involved beyond belief. And I can not really figure out Sarek since I have seen his handwork only briefly. Is he an uninvolved administrator? If so why is he advocating one version over another so aggressively, and go around slapping Xander with blocks etc. at the same time? I have not watched this page not because I consent to the changes, but because logic seems to have no place here. How can I talk logic in an atmosphere where, as I said on Xandar's talk page, the basic viewpoint is that the article on a 2,000 year old institution should be shorter than an encyclopedic gem like the article on Britney Spears? It seems that if the current group of "powers that be" has their way, this article will even be shorter than Britney Spears products. But in fairness, the page on Britney Spears is much better written than the set of words that appear on the Catholic Church page now. The page shows a lack of knowledge of the topic, lack of organization and in my view should be carefully shipped to the closest toxic dump. It has no hope. That "snap election" was surprising in fact, given that people here talk for ever, then suddenly declare victory and change a whole page (constructed with much effort) when the time is right for them. And again, in my view the fact that Xandar was quickly told to "admit the errors of his ways" when he objected too hard to the changes was just beyond words. I also noticed that StormRider was given notice to "behave or else" when in my view he had done nothing inappropriate. I do not know who manages Wikipedia policies - I guess no one. And it shows. In fact, I advised Xandar to walk away from this talk page, as I have. The reason I did not comment was not that I consented, but that talking and talking and talking and talking and talking on this page seems to be a waste of life, because the policies of Wikipedia are inadequate to manage this type of chaos. Winning here is not a question of logic or knowledge but persistence, persistence, persistence, until the opposition gets tired and the result is achieved through their attrition from this page altogether, for they will begin to view Wikipedia policies as a sad comedy, as I have started to view them. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the 'lack of knowledge' most damaging to the article - why not point these areas out and help. What about the NPOV policy, don't you care about that?. As for persistence, check the revision history statistics. I'd like to think you really cared about the article, but I just think, here's someone who shares X POV, and will deprecate all other efforts, 'ship to closest toxic dump, there is no hope,.. blimeySayerslle (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with History2007's assesement of this article and disagree with Sarek and Richard's implication that silence equals consent. Anyone following this page knows that if they reverted the edits to the earlier version the would get into an edit war. Since the "owners" of this page have a tendancy to throw stones, ban and/or slap them down in some other way people are just avoiding things.  As as I said before most editors that I have dealt with are just taking a sink or swim approach to this article.  In no way does silence equal consent. Marauder40 (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of bad faith in starting this dialogue, I have to say that you guys can't have it both ways. I wasn't trying to be sneaky. I didn't set this up as a "gotcha" but what follows is an insight that just came to me.

First of all, I think we really have to concede that silence does generally signal consent. That is, consensus is generally assumed until someone indicates that they do not consent. (NB: Silence isn't equivalent to assent. It just implies or signals it.)  That's the purpose of straw polls and RFCs. It is to figure out who agrees and who does not. If someone does not care enough to express an opinion on a straw poll or an RFC, one can assume that they don't care enough to have their opinion considered and that they therefore assent to whatever transpires from that point forward.

Xandar and NancyHeise have repeatedly invoked "longstanding consensus" as being evidenced by all sorts of silence e.g. a particular piece of text has been in the article for a long time or that text was not criticized during multiple FAC reviews. They have also argued that the entire previous version of the article (the long version prior to UberCryxic's IAR mode edits) was blessed by this "longstanding consensus".

If you truly believe that "silence does not imply assent" then those arguments by Xandar and NancyHeise hold no water (which is what a bunch of editors have been saying).

If you agree with Xandar and NancyHeise's theories about "longstanding consensus", I think it would be better for you to say "Silence does imply assent" BUT "I am no longer silent. I oppose what's been going on since UberCryxic's IAR edits".

That was what I thought you guys would say and why I pinged you on your Talk Pages. We hadn't heard from you since the last straw poll and I honestly wasn't sure whether you were being silent out of disgust (as Xandar and NancyHeise asserted) or if you endorsed or at least did not object to the recent proceedings. Now we know and I thank you for responding.

My personal position is closest to the one expressed by Johnbod. I'm not too happy about the way things were done but I would hate to see the previous version "blessed by consensus" and thereby become impervious to correction of the many issues which have been identified and some of which have been fixed.

--Richard S (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't agree with this - there are a large number of "departed souls" on this page who had given up in disgust & some of whose whose names were regularly invoked like a litany by Karanacs, SG etc to support their position - but there are plenty of others of widely varying views. A couple have recently returned but most have not. Presumably they still hold pretty much the views they expressed at the time they were commenting here.  If experience has taught us anything here it is that there is no wide consensus on the contents of the article & never has been.  The very few people who have expressed some degree of approval of the current version mean little or nothing in the long term. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Richard what you are stating here makes it sound like those of us that are staying away or are silent agree with EVERYTHING that Nancy and/or Xandar do or say. I can only speak for myself but I for one do not.  I hold Nancy in great respect,her knowledge and access to the resources is incredible.  I personally have access to tons of resources since I have access to an entire Franciscan library, but other then a simple out of date card catalog have no easy way to search and find the resources that are needed.  But I do disagree with what I believe to be a little to much pro-church POV. Notice I say a little. I believe that both the good stuff the church does and its warts need to be shown. As for Xandar I agree with a lot of what he says but disagree with how he says it. Drawing the parallel doesn't work. IMHO, saying silence equals consent in this particular case equals silence equals consent in other cases is not necessarily true.  An example is if a RFC/straw poll/FAC is up for a month and a known contributor doesn't cast a vote in it, then silence can imply consent.  If a thing is brought up on a talk page and someone doesn't comment on it within a day or two that doesn't imply anything. It all depends on the conditions. Marauder40 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Johnbod, History2007, Maurauder40, Tom Harrison, Xandar, More Things and Storm Rider that the article was not legitimately replaced and is not an improvement over the previous version. Since there are so many of us who keep saying this I propose we open an RFC to put the question to the wider Wikipedia community.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 18:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, can you please answer Richard's question above about what, exactly, you are proposing to ask, and what, exactly, you expect to have happen? Which versions do you intend to put forward as part of the RfC? Do you want to know whether people like the length or version A or B?  Whether they like the organization of version A or B (and which pieces of the organization they like or dislike - maybe they like History first but don't want an Etymology section)?  Whether they like the citation density of version A or B?  Whether they think A or B is easier to improve?  I'm struggling to understand how the RfC will be framed so that we can draw meaningful information from it. Karanacs (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The "Silence implies consent" argument is and was utterly fallacious. When I reverted the article after it was improperly changed and re-reverted, I got blocked for a week - a week in which a straw poll was held, and the hacked-to-shreds page improperly returned to Mainspace. Curiously the people who had improperly changed the article and re-reverted and insisted they were above all Wikipedia rules, did not get blocked - or even criticised by the same mods. Sarek of Vulcan took it upon himself to block another editor who reverted the page to its original form. And then he complains that not ebough people have reverted the page. It is very hard to see S of V as being a neutral mod on the page after these interventions.
 * To respond to karanacs, the simple and obvious question, is whether there is any consensus for the massive unagreed changes made to the article since 9th March? If Karanacs doesn't like the changes to be voted on eb-bloc, she shouldn't have supported the making of those changes en-bloc. This is one of the chief objections to what happened. Enormous changes were made to all sections of the article without ANY discussion or debate on ANY of them - let alone consensus. This is not the way to alter major Wikipedia articles, and particularly not those classed as Good Articles. It is quite simply counter to everything that Wikipedia process stands for. Tye changes were appalling, drastic and made seemingly without knowledge of or care for the topic.   Xan  dar   19:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that the current article is perfect (in fact, pretty much everyone has said it's not). What has been repeatedly requested on this page is help in fixing it, but you are so focused on the process that you are unwilling to even look at what might be good in this version vs what might be good in another version. The previous article was likely going to be stripped of its GA status due to POV and edit-warring issues.  An RfC on the process is very different from an RfC on the content, and should be framed as a user RfC against UberCryxic and/or me.  Editors can agree that the process was really wrong without agreeing that the product that resulted needs to be overturned.  You are trying to confuse the two issues.  If you dislike the process, file an RfC on me and/or Uber.  If you dislike the product, then we need to identify particular issues with that product that we can ask for comment on.  To reiterate yet again, if the issue is the content, then WHICH PART of the content do we want to ask about?  Size?  Citation density?  Structure (and which part)?  If you roll all those into one question, we will not get any usable information.  If you are truly concerned about the product, then stop arguing about the process and let's get moving on fixing the content. Karanacs (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Xandar, many others have also expressed the same things, many of them very uninvolved admins who saw what happened and have expressed it on various user's talk pages, here and at the ANI. This event is viewed as an illegitimate replacement of a good article without due process.
 * To answer Karanacs question, I am proposing wording to Sunray for a content RFC and have asked More Things and Xandar to help. Sunray has agreed to oversee the discussion of the RFC.
 * I agree that we could also open a user RFC against you and Uber but I do not think that will be productive. I think that will just result in hard feelings and will exacerbate rather than remove any remaining incivility on this talk page. Everything that can be said about your and Uber's actions has already been said and it is up to you to learn from it or toss it if you prefer.
 * More Things previously has had nothing to do with this article, he voted to support the change and expressed that he would have voted to oppose it after he saw how it was handled and what resulted. Please understand that this change was a great violation of Wikipedia rules and there will be no legitimacy of this article until rules are followed. A content RFC is agreed by many to be the way to restore legitimacy to the article by allowing the community to see each version of the article and comment on which one is preferred.
 * I do not dispute that the previous version can be trimmed (I do not endorse hacking). But trimming that version is going to be far easier and more accurate than trying to correct the errors that exist in the current version created by Uber. There are so many problems with it Karanacs that if the current version by Uber is preferred, I have offered to leave the page and provide a review of the problems with Uber's version before I leave so that editors will know of the serious errors and deficiencies that his article currently incorporates. There are so many citation errors alone that the entire page would have to be recited. There are huge omissions of the most basic facts a person would expect to see in an article on the Church. There are violations of citation policy, violations of WP:OR, there are so many erroneous statements in beliefs and organization that it is too much to ask us to just go and fix them for you. We do not agree to what has been done to the article and many others disagree with it as well. Let's find out which version is preferred before we waste our time correcting a version that may not be what most Wikipedia editors want from the Catholic Church article.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 19:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, you have not answered the question of what you want people to comment on. Which part of the articles are they supposed to compare?  If you ask them to compare version A vs version B in its entirety, what conclusions can we draw from that?  Does that mean that if they only say "I like version A" with no details about specific details, then we assume that the person is speaking about length, citation density, structure, and particular content wording?  Do we assume that the person simply means "let's start with Version A but I don't really agree with any piece of it, I'm just mad about the process?"  You have to know exactly what you want to find out before you can craft a useful RfC, and I'm at least very unclear on what you are wanting to know. Karanacs (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A content RFC is not a straw poll. People can look at each version and comment on what they like or dislike about each version. Ultimately, we want to put in place an article structure that is either Uber's version or my version and then incorporate the comments that the RFC produces with regard to how that preferred version could be improved. So far, there are quite a lot of editors saying that Uber's version was installed "illegally". I am not sure if I am going to discuss how it was installed because really, I just want to know which format, content and length is most preferred by the wider community.   Nancy Heise   ''' talk 20:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is a little more specific. Again, though, how are you planning to interpret the comments.  If an editor does not specifically mention the length, for example, while otherwise discussing version A, do we assume that they approve of the length of version A, assume they have no opinion of version A, or assume that they disapprove of it? Karanacs (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the length issue should be specifically addressed by asking them to approve of Uber's version or my version. We should allow discussion on the fact that there are some very long articles that have passed FAC and that some subject matters may allow for longer articles. We should discuss this as well as arguments to the contrary and come to an agreed conclusion at the RFC. I did not see anyone at the last FAC comment on the length did you? All I could see was reviewer after reviewer from all of the FACs asking for more, not less information in the article.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 20:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Last FAC not relevant - 15 months ago, standards have changed, only consensus to be drawn was that it didn't meet the criteria at the time. I do not agree that the length issue should be specifically addressed by asking them to approve of Uber's version or [Nancy's] version unless that is specifically what you are asking people to comment on.  Editors could instead be looking at structure, looking at a particular section (maybe they like the current History section but the previous Beliefs section), looking at citation density, etc. Maybe editor J comments "I like version A."; in their mind, the editor could mean that A's structure is great, but that they really wouldn't mind if it were shorter.  Or they could mean that they really like the length of A, but the structure isn't that great and they wouldn't mind if that got changed.  Or they could mean they love version A and never want to change a single word of it.  Unless editor J's comments are very specific (meaning that we need to ask them specific questions, in most cases), then we don't know what J actually meant, and we can't reliably draw any conclusions from the comment.  Karanacs (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We will all be free to ask participants to clarify what they want. I believe the last FAC is very relevant, there were 34 reviewers, 25 of whom supported. The opposer's comments are still relevant if we keep that version of the article and I would like to incorporate their comments unless we hold a discussion on this talk page to ignore them. Such discussion has never taken place here and your responsibilities do not include being the sole judge of what happens to those comments with regard to this article. WP:consensus is the policy we have to follow. We can address that after the RFC is that version is preferred.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 20:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be the sole judge of how to interpet comments. I'm trying to figure out how you think the results ought to be interpreted, while at the same time echoing Richard's concerns about what can reasonably be interpreted from this. We need to figure out beforehand a consensus method of interpreting the results or we'll spend the next 2 years arguing about them.  I'm unclear on what you meant in the previous post.  Are you trying to say that if someone doesn't specifically comment on, say, the length, we need to ask them to clarify their comments, and if there is no clarification we draw no conclusions about their opinion on (in this example) the length? Karanacs (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone says they prefer version A to version B and does not specify anything else, we can invite them to clarify whether or not they like aspect a, b, c, etc and draw out their responses. In this manner, we let people offer an opinion first, then engage them afterward.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 21:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea to figure out ahead of time what questions we actually want answered so we can be sure that respondants provide that information. Can you clarify which particular pieces of the articles you want judged?  Karanacs (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to let the participants tell us what they like or dislike about each version without dictating to them what they need to focus on. If their straight up answers are not enough, we are all free to ask them to expand upon them. I propose a simple wording to open the RFC as that seems to be the most non-invasive and neutral approach that allows them greater freedom to express themselves.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 01:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

← Richard, to respond to your point that silence can be construed as assent: I have some concerns with the current version. The History section is still too long and certain other sections are underdeveloped. I'm not suggesting a wholesale restoration of a pervious version; rather, I'd like to fill in obvious holes. For example, last I looked the article no longer discusses Catholic educational institutions, which are by themselves quite significant and obviously noteworthy. This is a gaping GA deficiency, and I suspect that it will be an FA problem as well. We don't need to gorge the article with excess information as details can reside in daughter articles. However, some sections are incomplete even by summary standards. On a positive note, the current article's length is about right; we should make sure it doesn't creep up to its previous levels. Majoreditor (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC/New Straw poll
Hesperian brings up a very important point here. In an effort to make the article fit a preconceived notion of size, a lot of important stuff has been cut out  completely. Several editors have made this same comment since the cut went into effect. Because of this lack of a clear consensus regarding article size and comprehenisveness, I have proposed a new straw poll  and/or an RFC to be advertised to the wider Wikipedia community and  administered by an admin with mediation experience. I placed a note on user:Sunray's talk page since he is an uninvolved admin who successfully administered our mediation on the name  issue. Per user:SlimVirgin's request, I created a user sub page with the longer version (here User:NancyHeise/Catholic  Church) to be  compared with the shorter article in place on the page Catholic Church  right now. Maybe this will bring new and interesting editors to the  page and ultimately help us discover what kind of article the wider  Wikipedia community would like to see here. More eyes are better.  Nancy Heise    ''' talk  04:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, a lot of useless, point-scoring, apologetic cruft has been removed to make this article load in  reasonable time on most computers.


 * Sunray's "mediation" was a disaster; Nancy may regard successfully stacking a  mediation to be a success, but I know - having been brought into this mess at  that point -  that it resolved nothing. Several editors complained immediately that  there was no consensus, and that they were being quoted as approving  what they bitterly opposed.   Septentrionalis PMAnderson  04:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Funny I don't remember any of the actual participants in the mediation saying "it was a disaster."  I don't even  remember any of the participants on either "side" saying it was  stacked.  I remember some people complaining they didn't get their way  (which happens when you are dealing with consensus), but no complaints  about it being stacked. Marauder40 (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Consulr Gimmetrow's comments, then and since; I believe they were others. What is true is that Nancy's tactics drove them away from the article, so they haven't been heard from lately; but this is a bug, not a feature. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

FFS, why do you always have to jump straight to a vote? There are plenty of fair-minded,  even-handed  people here, who are perfectly capable of reading what I have written  and saying "Yes, there is something very wrong with a Catholic Church  article that doesn't mention that they are heavily involved in  education. Let's fix it." Hesperian 04:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hesperian that it is not productive to jump to vote everytime there is a  disagreement.  Similarly, Nancy's attempt to "re-do" the  poll/vote by issuing an RFC is not likely to be productive.  This  highlights one weakness of the idea of consensus.  If there was no  consensus to shorten the article dramatically, there is equally likely  to be no consensus to bring it back to its old length.  Nancy's comments  on her Talk Page during her block seem to indicate that she is hanging  her hopes on hordes of "silent majority" editors descending on the RFC  to vindicate her and Xandar's position.  In fact, the failure to  publicize the previous poll on the Main Page is probably the reason that  the first poll was even close.  Nancy proposes to rectify this omission  when publicizing the RFC. Even if this sudden horde of editors does  materialize to support Nancy and Xandar, there are enough editors on the  "shorter version" side to make consensus by polling impossible.  After  all, what is she expecting?  A 30-11 vote for the previous version?  Come  on now, let's be realistic.  At best, she might wind up with 20-15 in her  favor.  What would that prove?  And, if the !vote on the RFC turned out  to be 20-15  against her, would she then concede or would she argue that 4/7 is not a  consensus?  (Which it isn't)


 * Besides, this desire to "re-do the vote" is just trying to get revenge for hurt feelings and a desire to win rather  than to be unceremoniously and rudely trampled on.


 * The truth is... the right article length is probably somewhere between 130kb and  160kb (please, I understand that words of readable prose is a better  measure but kb is the easy count to get from Wikimedia software so  that's what I use).  What the 130-160kb target means is that we can either  add to the shorter version or trim from the longer version.  If we work  together collegially and collaboratively, either approach should arrive  at more or less the same result.  (If you don't believe this, then  please explain to me why they wouldn't.)


 * The key phrase here is collegially  and collaboratively.  One of  the main problems has been an absolute intransigence on the part of some  editors towards trimming the article (based on claims regarding  consensus and NPOV) and towards fixing some of the perceived issues with  NPOV.  If we can talk to each other and hash out the issues, we should  be able to arrive at an article of the appropriate length that is also  NPOV.  But, we have to get past the yuckiness caused by the IAR approach  which, while effective, trampled over a lot of Wikipedia policies  (that's what IAR does, you know) and bruised some egos.


 * --Richard S (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On consensus issues. No consensus has been gained for the drastic changes of March  9th to 11th. So an RfC would be to see if there was real consensus for  that change. I know some people are going to swing in here and say the  inconclusive one-day  straw poll provided consensus. They need to thoroughly read Polling  is not a substitute for discussion.  There are substantive issues here of swathes of important material  removed overnight without any discussion. I agree with Richard on  article length. To be comprehensive (including the History section) the  article needs to be no less than 130k. And if we are to trim it is best  to start from the full version and cut, rather than the mish-mash of the  Beliefs and Organisation sections currently on the page, and try to  reorder and reconstruct something clear and logical. I've tried to put  down alternative suggestions (such as removing the History section)  which would solve most of the perceived problems of length and POV at a  stroke. But I'm happy to keep a History section. I just don't want a  long History Section at the top of the article making it look a clone of  "History of the Catholic Church". And it musn't be at the expense of  coverage of the Church TODAY. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. To be taken  seriously it needs good and comprehensive articles.   Xan  dar    10:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My point is that a new straw poll or RFC that revisits and attempts to undo the results the first straw poll  would seem revanchist to many editors.  I would much prefer that we try  to move forward from where we are than to engage in an effort to undo  past history.  Attempting to do that is more likely to inflame emotions  than to attain collegiality and collaboration.  If the goal is a  shortened article which is both readable and NPOV, I would much prefer  discussing how to get there from where we are than to spend more energy  fighting about where we should go back to in order to go forward from  there.


 * That doesn't mean that we can't undo some of what has been done since the straw poll.  For example, I think  individual decisions are subject to review including the one to put the  History section first.  One of the problems with the original straw poll  was that it also asked for a !vote on a whole mess of issues including  putting History first.  I supported radical triimming but I was lukewarm  at best wrt putting History first.  Similarly, I didn't review each and  every one of UberCryxic's edits and he pulled some stuff out that  should have been left in while leaving in some stuff that should have  been taken out.  Some of these issues have since been resolved and  others have not.  I would prefer that we start discussing the issues  individually rather than starting another omnibus straw poll/RFC that  requires an up-or-down !vote on  two versions of the article.  Such an effort would tend to be divisive  rather than collegial.  Yes, "winning" such an RFC would be a lot  simpler than working out each issue one-by-one but it's a bit unrealistic to expect  that there will be a clear-cut result to any RFC of this nature.  I expect that  any such RFC would have a mixed result with a slight majority in favor  of one option but no clear-cut victory resembling a consensus.  And, given the  opinions already expressed on the Talk Page, even a hefty majority would  not be indicative of consensus since it's clear that several  significant contributors would object no matter which way the RFC went.   This is why voting is evil.  Better to discuss the issues  and compromise than to try to resolve them by a vote. --Richard S (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Richard, one thing you might want to do to help things out is referring to the  original straw poll as if it actually meant anything.  You, me, and most  of the parties involved know that "poll" didn't mean a thing.  Any poll  that is only up for a couple days with some of the important players  not even allowed to vote does not even make a poll valid.  Saying things  like "undo the results the first straw poll" just inflames the other  side. The real "result of straw poll" was a couple editors making a IAR  decision and unilaterally changing the page. It might be better to come  up with some better way of referring to the massive change in the  article. Marauder40 (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, yeh, I agree with you.  But, what term do you suggest?  "the IAR Insurgency",  "the coup d'etat" or "the Glorious Revolution"?  I agree that the straw  poll didn't follow the rules and the assertion of simple majority as  decisive was certainly ignoring the goal of consensus decision-making.  My  point is that I would prefer to say, "OK, what's past is past.  Let's  try to figure out how to salvage a good article from the wreckage of the  past."  That is constructive discussion.  Trying to turn back the clock  is not.  And I say this even though I would have preferred to discuss  the concerns in the original, long article one-by-one the way we  had been doing before UberCryxic's IAR revolution. --Richard S (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know, maybe referring the article as it is now as the "current state of  the article".  And when referring to the base version just saying  "UberCryxic's version".  Or if we don't want to give "ownership" to a  version just refer to it by the date it happened or something like  that.  Maybe "original" vs. "current" but that could cause some ruffles  to.  Probably the best would be the date of the version and refer to the  old one as pre-x/x  date version and the new version as the x/x date version. (x/x since I  haven't looked up the date the version happened while writing this.) Marauder40 (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me just clarify one point that's been nagging me for some time: Nancy participated in the straw poll, so Xandar was the  only "important player" who wasn't there. I've heard lots of people saying things like Nancy and Xandar were left out of the poll when  that's just not true. Please, we're already having problems with the History section of this article; let's try to avoid rewriting history on  the talk page as well. UBER ( talk ) 15:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Partipation means more then being able to vote.  To be fair it means everyone has  equal chances to comment, change their vote, etc. I will let you guys go  back to patting yourself on your back and thinking everything is great  in here. Marauder40 (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Participation means entering into real dialogue on the substantive issues. My concern is getting a comprehensive, balanced article, which doesn't just try to chuck everybody's contributions of the last few years on the tip for no good reason.  Xan  dar   20:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A straw poll will help us know what kind of page length and content are most desired by the most Wikipedia editors. The last straw poll, open for a single day, produced a deadlock and we want to move forward with the version of the article that most people would want. Simple and easy - just ask people to come have a look.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "we want to move forward with the version of the article that most people would want." Rubbish. If you and Xandar were the only two neutral editors in a sea of anti-Catholic editors seeking to turn the article into an anti-Catholic rant (which seems to have been your view in the past), would be appropriate to turn this article into the ant-Catholic rant "version of the article that most people would want"? Hesperian 02:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you all please stop this? An RFC is going to generate another big fat nothing, while work on both versions of the article goes lacking. Everyone who cares about this article has already either been chased off or is still here. There are still problems with both versions, and focus is being put on a silly RFC rather than where it belongs-- on getting either version of the article even up to GA status. Focus was on the article until today: refocus!! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's just make something very clear, for anyone who may be confused on this point: Wikipedia is not a democracy. We do not have to move forward with the version of the article that "most people would want." If it doesn't comply with Wikipedia policies, I don't care what most people want. The straw poll happened to have more votes supporting the revised version than the old version, but I would have implemented those necessary changes regardless of the result. Even if the poll had gone 100 to 1 against the revised version, I would have implemented those changes and risked a ban, which is something I made very clear to Tom: I am not afraid of doing the right thing. Those editors who think that getting a majority on a straw poll is somehow a license to return to the previous monstrosity that we just demolished are operating under seriously flawed assumptions. I urge us all to move forward in the context of what we have now, not to rehash old fights that will only contribute to more anguish and conflict. UBER  ( talk ) 02:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree; get focus back on improving the article, which has never been even at GA status, no matter which version one examines, rather than on wikilawyering. It is exactly such tactics that have resulted in a battleground here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can not imagine why anyone would not want to know what the wider Wikipedia community would want for the article. MoreThings, Xandar and myself want an RFC/straw poll, we do not need a consensus to conduct one. Please consider that a poll is most necessary because during the past four FAC's we trimmed the article up nice and neat before bringing it to FAC only to discover that every single FAC reviewer asked us to include more information into the article - never was there a request for less information. Once again, the same scenario is playing out here. Before we potentially waste any more time improving the short version, let's find out if that version is preferred by the wider community. I am unwilling to work on it until we know the results of a simple straw poll asking this easy question. It will take zero effort to set up and a week of waiting to see the results. I have asked a neutral admin to conduct the poll. I would appreciate your cooperation instead of the attacks that seem to be continuing to characterized your conversations with me. I am not attacking you, please do the same. Thanks.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that it wasn't clear the first time, so let's try it again: we don't care what the "wider Wikipedia community" (whatever that means, speaking of WP:PEACOCK on the talk page) thinks about this article. I have no problem with another straw poll or RFC, as long as we limit the scope of these adventures to addressing the problems with the current version, not to reinstating the behemoth. UBER  ( talk ) 03:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"MoreThings, Xandar and myself want an RFC/straw poll, we do not need a consensus to conduct one." I beg to differ. Since there is disagreement on whether or not we should call a straw poll, I think you ought to call a straw poll on whether or not a straw poll ought to be called. Hesperian 03:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Uber and Hesperian. The point of asking the wider community is so we can begin to work on the article that most of them prefer. If they choose the shorter version or the longer version I will be glad to help improve whichever one they choose. I just don't want to waste my time improving something that I believe is too short unless the wider community can convince me that it is preferred. If they prefer the longer version, then maybe it is you who needs convincing - let's hear from the wider community and find out the answer to that interesting and important question.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 03:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or we could just agree to follow Article size. Hesperian 03:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I still think the loading issues are paramount—it's simply impossible to ignore the necessity for the reader that the article must load, and load within a reasonable time. Has anyone considered giving some effort toward troubleshooting the loading issues? For example, I've found citation templates embedded in the article for some of the books also listed in citation templates in the "Sources" section. Haven't had the time to check to see whether that's true of all the sources, but why are citation templates in the article duplicated? To maximize loading time, delete the templates from the article and keep them in the sources section. Clean-up tasks such as these will be necessary regardless of the version and free up space to re-add content. In my view good writing is often achieved by cutting to the bone and then rebuilding. That effort had started here but seems to have stalled. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone who thinks an RFC will bring wider input to this article just doesn't have much experience with RFC: it doesn't, and it rarely brings in more than a few new voices. For some reason Nancy thinks it's a panacea that it's not: I suggest, Nancy, you might not have much experience with RFCs?  All Wiki processes are backlogged, and most editors who care about this article have already weighed in at one time or another, and either given up or stayed.  They have already spoken in large numbers, across multiple processes, and rejected the previous version. Nancy, do you see any new voices at Requests for comment/NancyHeise?  That's a typical RFC: same issues from same players get rehashed, which is why this article will end up back at ArbCom if collaborative work is disrupted.  In the meantime, it is clear that any version of this article needs work, the current version has received some of the necessary work, and you have put up a version that is overcited and poorly cited, the consensus at FAC was that it is POV, synthesis is likely present, MOS issues are present, overlinking, too long, doesn't use summary style correctly, a literature survey still hasn't been done in spite of Awadewit's offer days ago, and on and on.  I also wonder how you plan to resolve the fact that you put up one version, while Xandar put up another: which one do y'all intend to RFC btw?  By all means, go conduct an RFC-- that takes 30 days-- in the meantime, the work on this page needs to stay focused on fixing the article, and there is much work to be done.  The current article is being fixed: you're putting up a version that was already rejected at FAC as having issues unprecedented in scope.  So please let the focus on this page stay on identifying and fixing issues (such as those that Truthkeeper88 just mentioned). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nancy has run RFCs before; the last one was severely flawed. A new effort with the same flaws, which included canvassing, would not be helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, my. "Please do not clutter up voting area, discussion takes place below, just give us your vote here:" is a rather remarkable statement !!!!  Consensus is based on a read of the strength of each editors' argument, and whether it is grounded in policy, guideline, and best practice.  Is there any chance we can banish the word "vote" from the Catholic Church vocabulary?  Wiki_Is_Not_A_Vote; no amount of voting can overturn policy like NPOV.  This mistaken "voting" notion is what has turned this article into a battleground. Anyway, I see no new voices there, and the split along the usual lines; I also see that multiple experienced editors explained the flaws and faulty logic in the framing of that RFC in the discussion section, but this message HasNotBeenHeard.  The page continues to be mired in the notion that Wiki Is A Vote. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The saddest thing about that poll was that it was designed to overcome objections that certain sources do not say what they were claimed to say, and therefore a certain sentence had failed verification. Apparently the question of whether a source really supports an assertion attributed to it can be solved by recourse to a poll. :-( Hesperian 04:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

UBER's apparent position - that he's the dictator of the article and that it goes the way HE wants, no matter what anybody else thinks, or however unfit that makes the article for purpose, is unacceptable on Wikipedia. There is no agreement on his swingeing cuts, and the argument that we proceed on the basis of a fatally flawed and highly contentious version of the article just doesn't stand up. There is no good reason to start re-inventing the wheel and junk all the editors contributions of the past few years, especially when it produces a Class C article. Sandy's acknowledgement of what consensus is, is nice, but should have been boldly stated when the article was slashed by over half following a one day poll with no discussion on the substantive issues. And if people are falling back on NPOV, they have to prove their case of NPOV in specific instances with specific sourced information. You don't just WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and trash the lot. I have already offerred one compromise on page length that would sort out all the problems in that area without cutting the meat of the article. Not much interest was shown in it. The version I put up was offerred as a COMPROMISE to solve the alleged problems of length. It was not "my" version. The issue of article length is NOT more important than content, and can in any event be solved, and the article reduced to the 130k - 150k level suggested by Richard in more reasonable and consensus ways. So if there is intransigence from editors in producing a real article using consensus, then the possibility of RFC as the only way forward becomes more likely.  Xan  dar  11:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Xandar, it is not true to say of Uber's rewrite that there "is no agreement on his swingeing cuts, and the argument that we proceed on the basis of a fatally flawed and highly contentious version of the article just doesn't stand up". Most editors, apart from you, Nancy and Yorkshirian, support it as both NPOV and the basis for an article that could achieve FA status, something the old version you're so attached could never have done. Far from being "dictator of the article", Uber doesn't even come close to the WP:OWN attitudes displayed by some Catholic editors here over the last few years. Haldraper (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Xandar, you mention that the argument that we proceed on the basis of a fatally flawed and highly contentious version of the article just doesn't stand up. A great many editors belive the previous version was fatally flawed, and it was obviously a highly contentious version (think of all the tagging wars!).  Beyond the cuts, a lot of cleanup has been done on this version of the article in terms of sorting out and formatting references and checking to see if content is actually represented in the sources it cites.  I think it's time for all of us to stop worrying about the process that occurred over the last few weeks, as well as the process that occurred over the last few years, and move on to developing this version into an excellent article. Can we please focus on fixing specific issues in this article? Karanacs (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. Xandar, one constructive way to move forward would be for you to answer the query I made here, regarding the differences between the versions and how to go about considering merging them. Issues are not helped by Nancy and you having put up two different versions, while work subjected to broad and long-standing agreement has proceeded on the current version. Could you please answer my query above as to exactly what changes you would like to see in this version as compared to your version? I won't ask same for Nancy's version, because it is simply not workable-- she has put up a version that suffers from too many issues to work with, and has long been rejected (poor sourcing, oversourcing, POV, too long, etc.) On a separate matter, since it has now come to light that Yorkshirian frequently misrepresents sources on other articles, I'm afraid much more in-depth source checking will be needed here, and if this article is to retain GA status, that work needs to get underway. Re-hashing the idea that Wiki articles are built by vote is only stalling progress here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Xandar and Nancy have every right to call for a new RFC/straw poll. This is part of the dispute resolution procedure. If you don't like creating an RFC, the only alternative is mediation.

That said, I think Xandar and Nancy would do well to consider that issuing an RFC is contentious and disruptive. Heck, we're wasting time talking about whether or not to waste time on a new RFC.

Whether it's consensus or not, there is a very significant body of editors that doesn't want to go back there. There are very few people who are actively involved in this article that do seem to want to go back there. Off the cuff, I would guess that the number is approximately 5 including Nancy and Xandar. Consider that there seem to be about 10 editors here that have been working off of UberCryxic's trimmed down version. How many editors do you need to !outvote those 10 editors? 15? 20? 30?  Are you so sure of your position that you think you can get that many editors to support you? I think the best you could hope for would be a "no consensus" majority.

I would ask, however, than Xandar and Nancy consider that a more collegial and collaborative approach would be to try to improve the  article from where it stands than to try to roll back the clock and trim  from where we were.

Would I have gone down the UberCryxic road myself? No. I went through the entire History section and only found about 10kb to trim so it's clear what my style is. I like verbosity. However, I was very frustrated at not finding more to cut so I'm glad that someone was able to be more aggressive than me in cutting. Since nothing in Wikipedia is ever final, we can restore anything that was cut inappropriately.

Good arguments have been made for the fact that the previous article was too long to read (dense, heavy prose full of jargon and other coded phrases hinting but not explaining deeper meanings) and too long to load for dialup modems.

Look, at the end of the day, we could write a good article of 50k in length if we had to. Or 100k or 150k. It's only the seemingly infinite length of Wikipedia articles that encourages us to be self-indulgent  and write gobs and gobs of prose and have hundreds of citations. 130-150k is already plenty long over the limits suggested by WP:SIZE. Instead of issuing an RFC over the overly long 195kb article, why not trim that version down to 130-150kb and then ask us how we like that? If we can agree that your trimmed down version has merit, all we have to do is reconcile it with UberCryxic's drastically reduced 115kb version. And, we'll all like you a lot better. And, if that's not one of your goals, well, it should be.

--Richard S (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alternately, starting from the current, trimmer version, make policy-based arguments after a literature survey and considering due weight of text that should be re-added from older versions. Arguing over versions isn't progress: basing decisions on what to re-add on due weight according to a survey of literature will be more helpful.  It would also be helpful if Nancy and Xandar agreed on a version, because three different versions are now under discussion, and the current version is still the cleanest starting place.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, no straw polls! The article is progressing so an RFC right now serves no useful purpose. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There's lots of talk about polls and votes. I'm not sure that everyone is talking about the same thing. I'm not in favour "should we go with version a or b". The kind of thing I was thinking of is something that simply invites people to come in and have their say. E.g.


 * The CC article has recently undergone significant change. This RfC is an invitation to interested editors to discuss the changes and help determine the best way forward. Is the changed version an improvement? Should the pre-change version be restored? Do you have any other suggestions?


 * And if we end up with extra versions kicking around: Editors Eeny, Meeny, Miny, and Moe have suggested alternative versions here, here, here and here. --MoreThings (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Many longstanding editors have been driven away from the page in disgust at the way this travesty was edit-warred onto the page. The simple fact is that there are two excellent reasons for opposing this hatchet job. 1) The manic hacking without any consensus or even thought has reduced an excellent article into a risible Stub in most of the important areas. The article now on the page does not meet basic Wikipedia standards of comprehensiveness, content and balance. 2) the present article was placed on the page in a direct flouting of proper Wikipedia process and consensus. This sort of thing must not be rewarded. The article is not "progressing" - since it has regressed with the removal of material on beliefs, Organisation, Structure and Catholic practice, that many editors have worked on over a period of years. This has been ripped out without discussion, or even consideration of the substantive issues, by people with no knowledge and seemingly no interest in the subject matter! I don't know why ANYONE could imagine for one minute that this was acceptable. If the consensus article was too long, then there were ways of solving it that do not involve ripping its heart out without discussion. Sorry. that is not on. The article on the page is not close to satisfactory, and fiddling with it is like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Unless these matters are addressed to consensus standards there is no alternative but dispute resolution.   Xan  dar   01:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Xandar, you and Nancy have no one to blame but yourselves for the way this thing has gone. You two can bleat all you want about "civility" and "collegiality" and "consensus", but in practice this is empty rhetoric which serves mainly to mask your own incivility, lack of collegiality, and disinterest in building consensus.  You talk about your commitment to scholarly sources, but then attempt to write confessional positions into the article and prop them up with citations to coffee-table books and ecclesiastical propaganda.  When people with some actual knowledge of the field point this out, you start yelling about how you aren't going to tolerate any more nitpicking and pettifogging about sources.  When better sources are brought to the table--including recognized leaders in the scholarly mainstream who have dominated the field for decades--you either try to turn them into apologists for positions they clearly do not hold, or else rudely dismiss them as "fringe historians" and "liberal revisionists", while traducing their proponents as ignoramuses and anti-Catholic bigots.  When all else fails you firmly tell everyone else that this or that is "not on", as if you are the ultimate arbiter of what is or is not going to happen.  And now you're angry because, for once, those tactics aren't working and a critical mass of editors has decided to simply ignore you and all your bluster, and get the job done without you.  To draw a parallel from American politics, if you misuse the filibuster to frustrate the will of the majority long enough, you run the risk that someone will eventually "go nuclear" to get things moving again.  That is what has happened here.  It may not be pretty, and it may take a long time for the dust to settle, but it had to be done.  The only alternatives were either to allow the article to remain in gridlock forever, or else to allow you and Nancy and a handful of similarly minded ideologues to turn it into an apologetics puff piece.  My hat is off to those who found both those alternatives unacceptable, and decided to do something about it.   Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 04:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Harmakheru. You are totally misrepresenting my position and my actions. You also seem to be once again following the pattern of many of the people supporting the improper process on this page by trying to divert attention from their own actions and content issues by launching a series of Personal Attacks. This is against central Wikipedia Policy, and is NOT the way to discuss such issues - but unfortunately represents the attitude of some people here. Your breaches of Wikipedia policy are symptomatic. Time and time again we have tried to pin down vague allegations about POV, and get people to back them up with sources. Time and again this has not happened. Instead we have had people with one POV insisting that their POV dominate - and that the other side not be put. Most recently this has occurred in the attempt to hide the killing of 7,000 priest, monks, nuns and bishops by Spanish Republicans, and the attempt to oppose evidence supporting the Catholic Church's position on AIDS appearing on the page. As far as rubbishing the other side's sources is concerned, and saying yours are "better", that too is nonsense. One of the reasons for over-citation of this page is that editors have bent over backwards to include extra sources. I have challenged people time and again to come forward and point out instances where the cited sources are untrue. Again no response. We have offered mediation on all extant POV issues. Again spurned. There is a pattern of just wanting your own way at any cost - even the destruction of the article, and sections that have never been in dispute. It is also quite proper - as with claims that the Church did not exist till the time of Constantine - to point out that such views are NOT consensus or the majority, but represent ONE viewpoint. Time and again we have made attempts to go logically through POV allegations and sort them out, time and again this has been thwarted by personal attacks and an attitude that only your preconceptions and positions are valid, and that anyone supporting anything else must be a liar or apologist. This total failure to WP:Assume Good Faith is what has led to the toxic atmosphere here - and to the assumption that you can break any rule and get away with it. Civility, collegiality and consensus are not things to "bleat" about, they are core principles of Wikipedia. You however think you are above them. There was no consensus - or even majority of editors for the improper massacre of the article. Due process is available for content dispute resolution. You have decided not to use it, bit instead to breach the core rules of Wikipedia. However much bluster you use, that is unacceptable.   Xan  dar   11:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what happened, Harmakheru. Someone went nuclear. An editor found it impossible to install his preferred content through consensus and in accordance with policy, so policy and consensus were ignored. Now that's done, a concerted effort to prevent discussion of what happened is under way.


 * "I see that it wasn't clear the first time, so let's try it again: we don't care what the "wider Wikipedia community" (whatever that means, speaking of WP:PEACOCK on the talk page) thinks about this article."


 * Can anyone other than Uber honestly stand behind a statement like that? SlimVirgin has expressed concern. Unfortunately the object of her concern is Nancy. Sandy is working hard to prevent an RfC. Does no one else see this as a travesty of the spirit of WP? Who is the we in Uber's statement? Is it the royal we? Or is he speaking on behalf of all those opposing an RfC? --MoreThings (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandy is working hard to prevent an RfC. Excuse me? Got a diff for that statement?  I have 1) asked that Nancy and Xandar get in agreement on their version, 2) asked them for how the three versions can be merged, 3) asked that the bickering stop on this talk page and that article work progresses, 4) asked for a literature search and due weight on sources which will be needed for any version, and 5) pointed out that an RFC is unlikely to resolve issues, not a panacea, and will never be run on the main page.  So, um, where am I "working hard to prevent an RFC" ... Nancy and Xandar should go RFC all they want, if that's how they want to spend their time, but an RFC will not solve this article's problems (because they are behavioral), nor will it get the work done that needs to be done on any version.  Please stop this bickering: work was progressing while blocks were in place, and now this talk is returning to the same bickering toxicity that caused scores of editors to leave in the past.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well it's there in that very reply, Sandy. "...an RFC will not solve this article's problems (because they are behavioral), nor will it get the work done that needs to be done on any version." Further up this page you tell us that a "silly RfC" is going to "generate another big fat Nothing.". Nancy approached SunRay to set up the RfC and you've made several posts there which seemed to me to be putting the case that he should decline the request. I can't see any other way to construe those posts. If you tell me that that was not your intention, then I'm happy to accept that. I'm not trying to misrepresent your position, Sandy. My understanding from your posts is that you are strongly opposed to an RfC, and are arguing that we shouldn't hold one. Is that not the case? Do you think we should hold an RfC? Do you think SunRay should agree to Nancy's request?


 * I don't see this as bickering. I agree with H that someone went nuclear, and you're acting as though that didn't happen. How come Uber isn't in your lists on AN/I? (Thanks for labelling me POV, btw). There have been huge changes to this article and I can't understand why anyone would be against seeking broader input. I'd be interested to know whether or not you support Uber's statement quoted above.--MoreThings (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have misunderstood; my posts to Sunray's page do not say an RFC should not be launched: they say Nancy should not admin shop for a friendly admin when others are already on board and know the issues. For example, did Sunray know that Xandar and Nancy are each proposing two different versions?  So, how will Sunray help with an RFC?  Did Sunray know the issues with canvassing, battleground, ownership, etc. that led to the issues?  If no, how will Sunray help compose an RFC.  And it is simply wrong for others to day that what UBER did here was any violation of anything or that he "went nuclear": with a good deal of community support, including an ANI, Uber instated a workable version of text.  On the other hand, what has gone on here for two years did violate multiple policies and behavioral guidelines.  Any time y'all want to stop bickering and start editing, answering the queries above, resolving issues in all three versions, I think that would be a more productive use of this talk page than using it to further the battleground that has long existed here. It is silly because it's unlikely to yield any productive results, but Nancy is certainly entitled to spend her time that way.  But talk page disruption here should stop, and the focus here should be on working on the article, not an RFC about an RFC.  When Nancy and Xandar get on the same page, and put up a version in which all of the issues raised here are addressed, then their RFC will be ready.  And that is just what Slim suggested they do: it hasn't been done.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "And it is simply wrong for others to day that what UBER did here was any violation of anything...". I'm glad you posted that. It saves me wasting any more time on this daft conversation. --MoreThings (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * On the Spanish 7,000 - 'hide the killing..' I asked for context, had the Church been a-political perchance until this out of the blue assault?, and the 'when' these killings occured..on the 'when' you never answered, perhaps you don't know, I asked for months, how many before, how many after the rebellion , ..silence. How is ..'this has been done by people with no knowledge and seemingly  no interest in the subject matter', how is that WP:Assume Good Faith..how can editors be ' driven away in disgust'?? I can understand 'driven away by soldiers', or 'driven away by force'..but 'driven away in disgust'..it's strange..The article for Hogwarts School has a warning at the top that it is written too much in the thought world of the subject and it seems to me you want that for this article - not the warning , but the thing itself, you want an article that because it is about the Catholic Church, has to be written by those who want to explain it, from the inside,  to people in their own words, in their own time, with their own spin..but is that Wikipedia. and Oscar Wilde said we kill the thing we love so maybe it's not even wise.Sayerslle (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly certain but it appeared to me that the Catholic Church Wikipedia page was being watched by certain universities as part of an experiment. What seems to be happening here is perfectly illustrated by MoreThings and Xandar's comments above. Wikipedia's reputation as a fair place with fair minded rules may be damaged if we do not hold a widely advertised RFC in this matter. Sandy, Uber, - a lot of people have voiced their disapproval of the way you have handled things regarding this article lately by flagrant violation of core Wikipedia rules. My request for an RFC is nothing more than a peaceful and easy way to put this ongoing conflict to rest and allow the page to move forward in accordance with Wikipedia rules. That said, I am perplexed, flabbergasted, amazed, etc wondering why people on this page would not want to know which version is more preferred by the Wider Wikipedia Community. This page is an important page, the previous version can be found on many other websites. Apparently Wikipedia makes money on some of their articles and I believe it may have made money on our well sourced, and thoroughly vetted previous version of the article. Even though it did not pass FA, it passed something better than FA. Do we now want to install something that has had virtually no input from the Wider Wikipedia Community, something that has been installed via violation of core Wikipedia policies and risk the reputation of Wikipedia itself?  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 14:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Xandar, once again you misrepresent the history of the conflict. "Time and time again we have tried to pin down vague allegations about POV, and get people to back them up with sources. Time and again this has not happened."  Hogwash.  You gave the game away when you and Nancy spent weeks holding out for your claim that "many historians" support the traditional narrative of the Church's origins.  This was clearly POV, not least because you did not have a single source which properly backed it up.  When this was repeatedly pointed out to you, you refused to acknowledge what was obvious to everyone else; instead you began blustering (as you just did again) about people "rubbishing" your sources, and both you and Nancy accused the other side of pushing an anti-Catholic POV simply because they refused to allow you to push a pro-Catholic POV.  But it is not "rubbishing sources" to insist that the sources actually support the statement they are being cited in support of; that is more properly called vetting or verifying sources, and it is what real scholars (as opposed to apologists) routinely do.  "I have challenged people time and again to come forward and point out instances where the cited sources are untrue. Again no response."  More hogwash.  This has been done again, and again, and again, to no effect; the problem is simply that you and Nancy refuse to hear it.  "One of the reasons for over-citation of this page is that editors have bent over backwards to include extra sources."  But the solution to bad sources is not to pile up more bad sources; it is to replace the bad sources with good ones.  That is what you have been repeatedly asked to do, and in many cases you have been unwilling or unable to do it.  That is, in fact, one of the core issues here, and one of the major sources of contention.  "Civility, collegiality and consensus are not things to "bleat" about, they are core principles of Wikipedia."  Indeed.  But part of the complaint against you and Nancy is that while you demand civility from others, you can't manage to be civil yourselves.  While you demand that others behave collegially, you do not consistently behave collegially yourselves.  While you (and especially Nancy) talk endlessly about "consensus", in practice it is a sword that only cuts one way.  Ditto for "good faith" and all the rest.  You are in no position to impose these standards on others when you repeatedly violate them yourselves.   Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 15:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly worded but also - sadly - very true. The article will never improve until Xandar and Nancy take a long and hard look in the mirror and recognise that their behaviour is one of the principal problems holding it back.  I would like to be more involved with the article but from experience I can only expect to be frustrated at every turn by their obstinance.  Life is too short ( but the article is too long ).  Afterwriting (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I find it unbelievable that people can see what has occurred on this page in the past few days, including eye-watering breaches of Wikipedia policy and the edit-warring of a travesty onto the page against consensus - and suggest the problem is me and Nancy! As for harmakheru, I'm afraid that many neutral editors have supported our contention that the incivility and personal attacks have come largely from the party that he supports. I will not go deeply into the discussion of the origins of the Church on this thread - but it illustrates my point about the attitude some editors have adopted in coming to the page. Harmakheru continues to claim, and presumably continues to wish to place in the article, wording to the effect that all historians dismiss the traditional narrative of the Church's origins. Quite an important supposition. In fact many historians were put forward who say the contrary. Most of these, however, were then dismissed as either "catholic" or for other reasons, even notable non-Catholic academic historians such as Chadwick. People didn't just want the viewpoint of academics who support his viewpoint in the article (acceptable). But wanted to exclude academics who disagreed with his viewpoint. (Not acceptable or proper.)  Xan  dar   21:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Xandar, this is a perfect example of the endemic dishonesty with which both you and Nancy have approached the conflicts on this page. I have never claimed that "all historians" dismiss the traditional narrative, and several times when you and Nancy have accused me of this I have specifically disclaimed that position, only to have the accusation repeated yet again the next time around.  (The technical term for this sort of behavior is "lying".)  Nor have I ever wished or attempted to put wording to that effect into the article.  What I suggested, asked for, almost pleaded for, was that the "historians agree" part should simply be removed from the article entirely, because it was both unnecessary and very nearly impossible to quantify without violating Wikipedia standards on synthesis and original research.  But that quite reasonable approach, which would have spared all of us weeks of bitter and pointless conflict, was repeatedly rejected by both you and Nancy on the grounds that to remove your unsourced and unverifiable assertion would be "suppressing facts" and depriving dear Reader of "the right to know the truth" that "many historians" support the Church's traditional narrative, blah, blah, blah.  This is not "collegiality" or "building consensus"; it is shameless filibustering in an attempt to hijack the article for apologetic purposes.  It is also not at all a "fact" that "many historians were put forward" in support of your position.  What you offered were POV statements from coffee-table books, snippets of prooftexting harvested from Google Books, quotations (e.g., from Chadwick) taken out context or tendentiously misinterpreted, and similar detritus which would not pass muster for thirty seconds in a freshman composition class.  For most of the discussion you didn't have a single proper scholarly source which actually said what you and Nancy were claiming--while those who were opposing your position did bring forward source after source after source from mainstream scholars debunking your position, only to have those sources "rubbished" by you and Nancy because you simply didn't like what they said.  If you genuinely want the civility, collegiality, and consensus you and Nancy claim to be so much in favor of, then stop lying about other people's behavior, stop misrepresenting their positions, and stop trying to use the article as a vehicle for Catholic apologetics.  Otherwise, this war is never going to end.   Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 22:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Harmakheru seems incapable of arguing without breaching WP:Civil. This I think reflects more upon the value of his arguments than his words do. The point is that he resisted reporting historical and archaeological backing for the Church's origin. That would seriously mislead the reader into assuming there was no such backing.  Xan  dar   20:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Xandar, I am civil to those who respond to civility, but liars and bullies sometimes need a two-by-four between the eyes to get their attention. Here you write only four sentences, and still you manage to combine blatant falsehood with an implicit misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy and an attempt to redirect attention away from your own bad behavior.  (1) I never resisted reporting historical and archaeological backing for the Church's origin; I simply pointed out--correctly--that at the time you did not have any such backing, because none of your alleged sources actually supported the position you were trying to stake out.  (2) Per core Wikipedia policy (as well as basic logic) the burden of proof rests on the party making the assertion, not on those disputing it.  It was therefore not my job, or anyone else's, to prove that your assertions were false; it was your job (and Nancy's) to prove that your assertions were correct.  Until you could do that, there was no historical or archaeological backing to be "resisted", by myself or anyone else, because you had not yet shown that any such backing actually existed.  (3) Also in that particular dispute, you and Nancy are the ones who began the incivility by name-calling your opponents, "rubbishing" perfectly respectable mainstream sources as "fringe historians" and "liberal revisionists", and performing some of the most amazing feats of wikilawyering and fallacious argument that I have ever encountered.  I think the evidence shows that I remained patient and civil with both of you above and beyond the call of duty (hence the "Socratic Barnstar" that Karanacs awarded me, much to Nancy's annoyance), until it finally became clear that neither you nor Nancy was going to respond to the substance of my arguments unless you got the above-mentioned two-by-four.  That's not my preferred mode of discussion, but sometimes it's the only thing that works ... and that's not my fault.   Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 23:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Uber's version has two advantages: it is shorter and it avoids the POV issues that plagued the old page. Of course it can be be improved: I agree that the Beliefs section was underdeveloped which is why I have been working on expanding it, as well as assisting Karanacs in cutting back the overciting that had spread across all the sections. Instead of squabbling over past debates - and text on the origins of the Church that no-one now objects to afaik - would it not be better to address yourself to such work as well? Haldraper (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just made two small edits: a MoS fix and a disambiguation fix. For each edit I had to wait more than 30 seconds for the saved page to load. I don't understand why that isn't perceived as a problem. The article can be fixed and fixed and fixed until everyone has their way, but if nobody can open the page, all the fixing in the world will be for naught. I believe it's time for me to unwatch and let you all work this out... Oh, according to the toolbox diagnostics this page seems to go to a redirect that points back here. Might be worth investigation. I don't know whether that impedes loading but it can't help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The redirect should not be a loading problem; they are advised against as wasting the reader's time.


 * But, yes, loading time is generally seen as a problem (with the usual pair of exceptions); it's one reason we have length guidelines in the first place. The other is to encourage one article to one subject, so that they can be conveniently read; if the reader wants more on a subsubject, that's what links exist to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Enough... time to close this discussion
I think it is time to close the discussion as I really think everybody who has something to say about the proposed RFC/straw poll has already said it at least once and, in some cases, more than once. In case anyone cares who hasn't already noticed, this discussion has also been held at User talk:Xandar and User talk:NancyHeise. Quite a few innocent bytes have been massacred in the furtherance of the cause and it's time to shift the battlefield and find a different altar at which to sacrifice more innocent bytes.

If Xandar and NancyHeise have not been convinced of the futility of an RFC/straw poll by now, they probably never will be. So, the only way I can see to go forward is to let them issue the RFC, get an uninvolved admin to publicize it (really any editor with a remote acquaintance with the concept of neutrality could do that) and then see how things develop.

Xandar proposed the format used in Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title and I agree that it's pretty good. I suggest that we have only three "Statements", one for each major version of the article. The "statement" should be made by the author/proponent of that version.

As a closure guideline, I would suggest that "plurality wins". That means that UberCryxic's version could win if it gathers more !votes than either Xandar or NancyHeise's version does alone. If this is not acceptable to Xandar and NancyHeise, then I suggest that they combine their versions into a single version so that a clearer decision can be posed to those responding to the RFC. An alternative would be to hold a run-off between the top two !vote-getters but I gotta say that, in my book, only a masochist would want to prolong the agony in that manner.

Finally, there have been suggestions that this RFC/straw poll should poll the Wiki-wide community. Forgive my bluntness but gimme a break already. It's just a hubristic sense of self-importance that would make one think that this issue is one which should be advertised to every last reader of Wikipedia. What could be the reasoning here? Well, there's 1 billion some odd Catholics and if 1% of those read Wikipedia, then we're talking about 10 million people, right? And if 1% of those respond to the RFC, we're talking about 100,000 people responding to the RFC, right? Nah, not on your life. If you get over 50 people responding to the RFC, that's a lot and we shouldn't go combing through all the nooks and crannies of Wikipedia on the off-chance that we might find one more person who has a remote interest in our dispute. I've been involved in disputes on a number of articles and nobody has ever had the temerity to suggest that their dispute required the attention of the entire Wikipedia community.

Do we even think the editors of the articles related to the Orthodox Church or the Protestant denominations are really going to care about our RFC? I doubt many of those editors will care about our little "tempest in a teapot". I suggest that this new RFC should be advertised on Talk:Catholic Church, the Catholic portal, relevant Wikiprojects and a few articles related to the Catholic Church such as Talk:History of the Catholic Church, etc.

--Richard S (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We do need to close this silly discussion, but holding the proposed RFC now won't solve anything. Second, and this has been mentioned enough times to make a sane human being want to shoot herself, Wikipedia is not a democracy and there are no "votes" to speak of, in RFCs or other processes. If other editors keep insisting on a return to the old version of nearly 200 kb, it doesn't matter how many "votes" they get or how many RFCs they "win": it will never happen. Banish that thought from your head. The ideal way forward for Nancy and Xandar is to help the rest of us improve the current version, not to bicker about what happened in the past. UBER  ( talk ) 02:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * UberCryxic, IAR mode cannot last forever. At some point, we have to go back to standard established processes and procedures or else you are asserting that some combination of anarchy and dictatorship holds over this corner of Wikipedia.


 * You cannot stop an RFC from being issued. Xandar or Nancy could issue one right now and you would be ill-advised to delete it from this page.  However, you can try to dissuade people from issuing an RFC.  You can also make suggestions on how the RFC is to be phrased and structured.  That is what my intent was in starting this subsection.


 * You are right, an RFC is not a vote and Wikipedia is not a democracy. What an RFC does is provide input from a wider group of editors with the hopes that this input will convince one or more sides to be more willing to compromise.


 * If insufficient compromise occurs after an RFC, then the next step in Dispute Resolution is mediation which consumes even more time and energy. You can refuse to enter into mediation but the next stop is ARBCOM and refusal to enter into mediation could be considered as obstructionist and disruptive.


 * Xandar and NancyHeise seem willing to enter into mediation. I would prefer that we find a solution that avoids both RFC and mediation as the last mediation cost me an arm and a leg and I only got one each of those left.  However, at the moment, I don't see the flexibility and willingness to compromise that would allow such a solution.


 * What I see is a lot of jawboning about whether or not to have an RFC. At some point, we should give up the jawboning and just have the stupid RFC already. It might tell us something or it might not.  But chasing our tails in a circle arguing about whether it will or not is truly pointless.


 * --Richard S (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me make clear that I have no problem if they hold the proposed RFC. I just think it's premature and unnecessary. My real concern is determining what executive authority, if any, the RFC assumes. If it's a general RFC about making improvements to the current version, I'll gladly participate. If it devolves into a vengeful attempt to restore the old version, it's completely illegitimate and will be dutifully ignored. UBER  ( talk ) 04:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * An RfC at this time is most likely going to be counterproductive. We're better off working through issues on this talk page. Majoreditor (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Which would be fine, if there was any willingness to discuss rationally, or make meaningful compromise on the part of the backers of the disembowelled version. The hacking to shreds of the beliefs and organisation sections has no rationale whatsoever, had no discussion whatsoever, and the only reason given was that certain persons considered the article too long! Yet the hacking has been defended fanatically, and other less damaging proposals to shorten the article - such as the Main Article-History split have been rejected. This ain't on, folks.
 * As far as Richard's comments: The hacking to pieces of the article and the way it has ocurred DO have implications that spread across Wikipedia, and especially to the other religious projects. If this is to be the new way to amend articles, perhaps we need to see if it has community consensus? if the format this article has had for the past few years is so wrong - what does it mean for other articles such as Orthodoxy and Islam which adopt the same format? In particular, UBER's promises to ignore RFCs and other Wikipedia procedures don't bode well for the project if left unchecked. UBER's "current version" is a mess, which doesn't do the job of a CC article. And again, I don't have a version. The cut-down version I highlighted was an attempt at compromise to deal with the problems of article length alleged to be behind the massive cuts of referenced material.  Xan  dar   19:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is opportunity to selectively add material to the current article. For example, the section on Catholic organizations has been pruned too far. Xandar, it may be more constructive to focus on incremental changes. A first step could be that the current version doesn't (as far as I can tell) summarize the role of Catholic educational institutions. That is an obvious gap. Perhaps someone can propose or insert a summarized, neutral sentence or two on Catholic educational institutions? Majoreditor (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is standing the world on its head. It was the responsibility of those who wantonly hacked the complete article to pieces to discuss the various issues and propose "Incremental changes". There was noc consensus or even discussion of a vast tranche of massive and substantive changes to the article. That's not on. We start from the full, consensus version. I have proposed ways to make cuts - if these are considered urgent, that do not damage core sections. 1)Removing History. 2) Cutting History radically. 3) A general consensus cut of the entire article by 25% - 30%, with the trimmed proposals agreed before being implemented. That is the way forward.  Xan  dar   21:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

A model for progress
I think everyone will agree that an RfC as currently scoped cannot produce an outcome that leaves most people happy. I propose the Source verification section above as a model for how progress can be made here. Instead of trying to decide between two monolithic versions, both of which have their faults, it would be better to identify small, specific, actionable issues and deal with them individually. They don't have to be done one-by-one. You could dump a hundred of them here if you wanted. You could capture every single objection that you have with either version of the article. Discussion of each individual point can then proceed, hopefully without the incessant ad hominem remarks and process wonkery. Some will be resolved immediately and amicably. Some will be resolved over time. Some may need to proceed, eventually, to RfC. Hesperian 05:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (P.S. The first person to hijack this section and turn it into a discussion of how badly behaved their enemies are, is officially a complete and utter dickhead. Hesperian 05:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC))
 * I agree with this approach. UBER  ( talk ) 05:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The RFC is needed to determine whether or not the long form or short form of the article is to be used as a base to proceed with improvements. The long form as I have submitted it to user:Sunray represents the form of the article as it was after the last FAC plus the results of consensus agreements reached after the last FAC.([]) That article's cited sources accurately reflect the sentences to which they are referenced. The article that Uber and others on this page replaced it with does not. In fact, the new article contains a variety of factual inaccuracies and serious omissions and because of this I think it was created by people who are not very knowledgable about the article's subject. I have asked for an RFC because the present, more erroneous article was inserted by a disputed process that is described here . Because of this violation of due process that produced the current, erroneous form of the article, we need to hold an RFC to either legitimize the present form or return the article to its previous form. I have offered to leave the project willingly if the RFC produces a result in favor of the current article. An attempt at RFC is a necessary step before going to Arbcom. If we do not proceed with the RFC, I will go to Arbcom and point to this section as my effort to resolve the dispute without going to Arbcom.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 16:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nancy, I have looked at the version you are proposing. Its total size is 183 kb: it's an absolute non-starter. If that's your "consensus" version, then you really should go to Arbcom immediately because RFC will do nothing and we're just wasting time. I'm not going to prejudge their response, but it's your prerogative as a Wikipedia editor to look for a solution to this problem. UBER  ( talk ) 16:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have asked a neutral admin to determine that decision. Thanks for your opinion anyways. Also, Wikipedia allows us to seek guidance from tertiary sources (like other encyclopedias) to determine things like article size, what to include and due weight as well as discovering scholarly consensus on certain issues. Per other encyclopeidas' guidance, the article I have submitted is more reflective of the subject than what you are submitting. The subject matter warrants a longer article. Like I said below, your and SandyGeorgia's approach to this subject is akin to a person trying to fit a size nine foot into a size five shoe and I dont thinks its an improvement. Numerous factual inaccuracies exist in the article as a result of doing this.   Nancy Heise   ''' talk 16:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia allows us to cite content from reputable secondary sources (like established encyclopedias), but it has separate policies and guidelines for fundamental features like length (ie. this article should never be 183 kb), structure (it shouldn't have a stuffed and confusing TOC), and neutrality (it shouldn't credit the Catholic Church for helping to end slavery). Your version violates all of these standards, and the last one is particularly infuriating as it repeats the same old lie with the word "eventually," even though what ended slavery eventually were secular governments often led by radical liberal and leftist coalitions (in France, in Britain) or through outright war (in the US). The Catholic Church had absolutely nothing to do with ending slavery in modern times. Abolitionism was an ideological offshoot of the French Revolution, as was most of the modern world in general. UBER  ( talk ) 16:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Thank you for that, UBER. That really needed saying although we've been around that block many times before.  Some editors just seem to have a hearing problem.  I don't care if History comes first or last but pro-Church apologetics like that have got to go. --Richard S (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would just like to point out that I started the source verification section above, and in every case, the issue I found also existed in the previous version of the article that Nancy is holding up as properly representing the sources. And the issues I found are just a subset - I haven't managed to get most of the books yet and have been working off sources to which I have (full) online access.  In the longer version of the article, some sources were being used inappropriately in previously uncontroversial sections, including beliefs.  While the text they cite might be "TRUE", the sources did not verify them. Karanacs (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, in almost every case, Karanacs is dealing with the same text as the "previous version"; the History sections were, aside from a short linking passage, identical. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

digression into discussing slavery and other POV

 * Errh - not exactly, Uber. The Catholic Church had some involvement in ending modern slavery, as well as some involvement in promoting modern slavery. I think the key question is whether this article should credit the Church with substantial efforts toward ending slavery. Majoreditor (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Slavery was not ended by issuing papal statements. It ended after hard legislative votes and brutal wars, none of which occurred at the behest of the Catholic Church. UBER  ( talk ) 18:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * [multiple edit conflicts]
 * Majoreditor, could you elaborate on your assertion at Talk:Catholic Church and slavery? I'd like to understand the assertion better and make sure that it is accurately captured in that article.  However, I fear a discussion of the details is off-topic for this article so let's move the discussion to that article's Talk Page.


 * In the meantime, the problem that faces us is coming up with an NPOV way of capturing the complexity of the Church's 2000 year experience with slavery without the oversimplification of Nancy's proposed text.


 * Here is one rendition (I'm not sure whose it is)
 * On other social fronts, Catholic teaching turned towards the abolition of slavery in the 15th and 16th centuries, although the papacy continued to endorse Portuguese and Spanish taking of Muslim slaves.[12]


 * There is a very good discussion which has now been archived here. How do we summarize that discussion into one or two concise and pithy sentences?


 * This is a sentence I proposed during that discussion...


 * 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.


 * I'm more than open to suggestions for improving this text.


 * --Richard S (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I should say "ended" since I've made clear before that slavery technically has not ended. It's much less of a problem than it was in the past, but it hasn't ended. UBER  ( talk ) 18:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To be precise, slavery has been made illegal in most countries of the world (at least, I don't know of any where it is legal as such). So perhaps we should not so much say "eliminated slavery" as "participated in the global recognition of slavery as evil and impermissible in a civilized society". --Richard S (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

←Richard, I like the sentence you've proposed. It's a good, balanced overview. I've not tended to comment on the topic of slavery and the Catholic church, but I found Uber's statements to be so off-base that I felt the need to say something. (Uber's assertion that "Abolitionism was an ideological offshoot of the French Revolution" doesn't square with the reality of abolitionism in countries such as the United States, which had an active abolitionist movement prior to the French Revolution - see the U.S. section of the Abolitionism article, for example.) Majoreditor (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Insofar as that movement had a religious linkage, however, it was to the Quakers; as a non-denominational movement (which most of it was) it was a product of the Enlightenment (as was the French Revolution). What has either of these to do with this article?


 * The Church did not, in general, oppose the slavery of Christians - until the rest of the world did; it opposed non-Christians making free Christians into slaves, a much more limited stance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) I agree, PMA. The abolitionist movement was primarily inspired by the Enlightenment, not the French Revolution nor the Catholic Church. Accordingly, not much needs to be said about slavery in this article. Richard's minimalist approach looks good. Majoreditor (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) I think Richard's sentence was pretty close to acceptance before all this started. The fact is that PMAnderson is wrong. the ending of slavery had huge Christian input, both in the medieval period the 1th-19th century.
 * How we got on to this, however, was UBER defefending his massive slashing of the Beliefs, Practices, Mission, Organisation, Demographics and Cultural Influencess sections on the basis of raising an old and virtually settled argument relevant to the History section. The point is that the majority of the decimated sections were non-controversial and in any event, wrongly removed. The current article on the page is not Wikipedia-worthy, and does not do its job. To do that we would have to re-write virtually all the missing material-which is a ridiculous waste of time and effort, since there is nothing wrong with the removed material, rpoduced over several years by good and knowledgeable editors. I think some people here need to face the fact that the swingeing cuts made by UBER and Karanacs were a mistake.  Xan  dar   20:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Major, abolitionism as an ideology was a product of the French Revolution, although yes there were plenty of people before the French Revolution who rejected slavery. Alcidamas in Ancient Greece is one of the best examples, preceding everyone who we're talking about here. But abolitionism only became both a powerful movement and ideology starting in the 1790s, and eventually crescendoed in the 19th century. The reason why this last fact is important is because only once abolitionism became ideological (ie. was unwilling to accept anything but total victory) was slavery finally removed from human history (mostly anyway). Before then, you might have had silly pronouncements and statements of opinion by various people throughout history (popes, writers, etc), but none really led to the kinds of fundamental changes produced in the modern world...and in just two centuries too. UBER  ( talk ) 20:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Massachusetts and Pennsylvania abolished slavery, New York abolished the slave trade, before the (French) Revolution. Massachusetts, at least, did so on straight ideological grounds, as an interpretation of the clause of the state Constitution, that all men have a right to liberty. That all of these, including the Society of Friends of the Blacks, were products of the Enlightement is a defensible position. (The extent of Catholic influence on MA in  1780 is left as an exercise for the reader; it was scarcely larger in New York or Pennsylvania.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, certainly there was Christian input to the Abolitionist movement - both for and against. That's why I disagree with Uber's blanket comment that The Catholic Church had absolutely nothing to do with ending slavery in modern times. However, to imply that the Catholic Church per se was a prime factor in abolishing slavery is reaching a bit too far. Some of the statements which have been removed implied that the Church was central to the movement, and removing them was appropriate. Majoreditor (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the Christians were Catholics; to say that the Church had something to do with it, however, implies, at a minimum, that the hierarchy supported them; I cannot think of an example - it certainly opposed O'Connell, who may be the most prominent of Catholic abolitionists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And in reply to Xandar: the text that has been removed had a few minor problems: The "good and knowledgeable" editors that produced this mess have yet to produce any sources for their more sweeping and less accurate claims; but then this is the editor who asserted in public, that there's no such thing as "Christian" anti-Semitism. Let us see a source for that, or his claim that the American abolitionists (Woolman? Franklin? Jay? Garrison? Brown?) were Catholics, before we have to deal with any more of this self-praise. There is a German proverb on the subject... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It was drawn, largely, from tendentious sources, and all of those on one side.
 * 2) It made claims unsupported even by those sources (or by any others); the list of verification issues above should be instructive, and it is far from complete.
 * 3) It was phrased as a dishonest and polemical series of half-truths and untruths.
 * As an aside, since I know a little German, I'd like to hear what the German proverb is. If it would be uncivil, then just leave it on my Talk Page. --Richard S (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm reading a book called Aftermath at the moment, about the work of UNRRA after the war and it says here " Hardly any Germans felt guilty for the bringing in of the millions of slaves - and yet almost every family had profited from them." And this mass slavery in the mdddle of the last century was prepared for by the defeat of anti-fascists in the lead up to the war, in Spain, in France, where the Church because of its hatred for the left , facilitated the rise of right wing totalitarianism. The trouble with Richards sentence too is that it complaisantly wants to imply ' The moral progress we made, you know, the Church certainly played its part" But the proposition that any moral progress has been made since Christianity arrived on the scene is dubious at best. In St Pauls teaching, 'all one in Christ etc', its definitely, equality after death, and as an ideology points to social quietism . I don't think there should be any sentence, just keep looking at what the Church did, and what it supported, tolerated through history - reality is the master - the rest is propaganda. Sayerslle (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know... it seems a stretch to connect the Church's support for right-wing regimes with German slave labor. Certainly some German bishops supported the Nazi regime but I think the German hierarchy split on this question and so it's not reasonable in my book to charge the Church with supporting Nazi policies in this regard.  --Richard S (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy's proposed long version is so riddled with POV on almost every conceivable point - slavery, the Albigensian crusade, colonialism, 'Mit brennender Sorge', WWII, organisation/demographics, sex abuse to name a few - it'd definitely need a POV tag on the page if it was ever accepted. Haldraper (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The POV is fixable. It's the length that is of concern.  The question is whether it makes more sense to mention fewer issues and go into detail on those or just mention the issues with a very brief summary and direct the reader to subsidiary articles for further details. --Richard S (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have refrained from placing a POV tag on the present article although I feel it is blatantly pov by omitting any mention of anything good the Catholic Church has done. We are not even told anything about what the Church does - someone removed the table that showed - in a neutral way- all of the hospitals, universities, schools, parishes, orphanages etc that are run by the Church. The Church is an organization that does something and this is what it does -yet Reader would never know that by coming to this article. They will know all about priests but nothing about nuns or lay people - how NPOV is that? The Church considers all of these equal, priests perform one of the three vocations that exist in the Church yet this article emphasizes only the priest and not the others.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 15:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * More evidence of this article's lack of POV is in the categories section. Please compare the present categories in the article to those listed in the correct version. How NPOV is it to eliminate the categories from which this article was eliminated?  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 16:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The categorization has nothing to do with POV. If you check the categories themselves, you'll see that the category for Roman Catholic Church is already listed under Christian orgnizations established in the 1st century.  Since that category is there, it is overcategorization to place the article there too.  I did add Category:Roman Catholic Church to Category:Christian denominations, so that the article is also thus categorized as part of that hierarcy.   (Also, Nancy, please put a : in front of the category names in your sandboxes - user pages should never appear in the categories, and yours currently are.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanacs (talk • contribs)

The correct version

 * I have made several references in my comments above to the "correct version" of the article. I just want to clarify for those just coming to the page that I am referring to the version of the article that exists here.
 * This is the version of the article as it existed after the last FAC plus several consensus agreed changes to the article since then including the results of a successful mediation. Because I own or have access to almost all of the sources used in the article, I know that this version is the most accurate one in its reflection of the cited sources hence the name "correct version". We could make that page shorter by eliminating all of the quotes I have used in the references but I have kept them to show new Readers what the sources actually said. There is some room for trimming information out or creating more concise paragraphs. It is not set in stone, its just a beginning point for future changes.
 * The version of the article that presently exists on the article page is one that was installed a couple weeks ago  after a disputed one day straw poll that produced a near 50/50 split vote if we include the votes of two others (Xandar and the long established editor who forgot to sign) who were incorrectly eliminated.
 * Even though that straw poll was declared invalid by the overseeing admin Tom Harrison we allowed those who wanted the new version to continue to work on their version so we can present both articles to the wider community for evaluation.
 * I, and several other editors, feel that the changes incorporated in the new version are so severe, are not properly cited or change the cited sentences to say something that is not in the cited sources and improperly cut important and properly sourced information on the Church.
 * However, since Wikipedia works on WP:consensus we want to know which version of the article is more preferred by the Wider Wikipedia Community and so we will be holding an RFC to discover where consensus really lies.
 * The RFC will be initiated in the next day or two after we agree on a neutral opening wording. User:Sunray has agreed to oversee the RFC discussion after I initiate it.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 01:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to say the following: your propaganda aside, I will boycott the RFC if its scope includes restoring the old version in any way. I am happy to talk about changes and improvements to the current version, which desperately needs change, but to talk about reviving that old calamity during the RFC is absolutely unacceptable. UBER  ( talk ) 01:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Uber, Wikipedia has rules like WP:consensus and we have followed those rules always until you came along. You are free to do what you like but you will not be allowed to overrule an RFC consensus by yourself, neither will I. We just want to find out which version of the article is most preferred and why so we can move forward with changes from there. I think it is a serious matter that your version has so many citation errors, glaring omissions and inaccurate statements of the most basic elements of the Church like what is being discussed in the previous section and others just above.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 01:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you interpret the result of any RFC you launch as giving you permission to restore the old version, I will fully ignore the RFC. You have my solemn promise on that. UBER  ( talk ) 01:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is why I have asked user:Sunray to oversee the RFC. He is a neutral admin with much experience at mediations. Will you respect his interpretation of the RFC results even if they restore the correct version?  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 01:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nancy, here's the problem I have. When I tried to link to the former (pre IAR edits) of this article from a large article (such as Ernest Hemingway) the results were disastrous. I've just now tried again: added the link where it belongs and clicked from Hemingway to here (the much shorter current version). I had to wait 30 seconds to load the page—not great but at least not disastrous. Do you have any idea how many articles in Wikipedia link to Catholic Church, and the sizes of those articles? I would imagine if a seemingly unrelated topic such as a 20th century writer brings the reader here (btw I removed the link) that many many articles link here. If the long version is reinstated, which you propose, then the solution would have to be to remove links to Catholicism or the Catholic Church which doesn't make sense. Anyway, in case you were wondering, I stumbled over here from another article. I wanted to !vote in the poll but it seemed unnecessary once the changes were instituted. In my view it's easier to cut down to the bone, do the analytics that are required and then build back up. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you should participate in the RFC and give us your concerns so we can address them on whichever page we use as a basis. What good is a quick link to the Catholic Church page if you get something grossly inaccurate and improperly sourced? The correct version can be trimmed easier than you can correct the incorrect version. Pictures create a huge amount of load time, cutting them to a bare minimum may be our answer.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 01:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm giving the concerns here. There can't be, as you call them quick links, to an article that doesn't load. If the correct version can be trimmed easily why wasn't that done earlier? During the time I had this page watched it grew and grew and grew and no trimming took place. The article in place is loadable from other large pages and as Hesperian comments below finding a middle ground is the right thing to do in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I too solemnly promise to ignore the result of the RfC, because it is a false dilemma. There is no need to choose between two not-particularly-good versions, as though these are the only two versions that ever have and ever will exist. To buy into this false dilemma is to choose a polarised debate in which two opposing camps wage war against each other without ever seeking a middle ground. The RfC is a call to arms, and thus profoundly harmful. We could be getting on to writing a really great version, a version worth choosing, if only every single attempt to do so wasn't stymied by garbage like this RfC. Hesperian 02:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hesperian, a long list of editors have expressed their concerns with the present article and the way in which it was installed in violation of Wikipedia policies. It is because of this long list of concerned editors and the violation of rules that we are holding an RFC administered by a neutral admin, user:Sunray. The version you prefer may be the one chosen by the wider Wikipedia community. If that happens, everyone will shut up and help. Until then, we need to respect all the editors who have voiced concern and are asking for an RFC, it is the Wikipedia way.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell me, can you read? Hesperian 02:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nancy, these will be my last words on your proposed RFC. I would be very happy to participate in any RFC concerned with improving the current version. On the other hand, I will be completely dismissive of any partisan attempt to bring back that atrocious version you support. I don't think I can be more crisp or cogent, so I'll leave it at that for now. UBER  ( talk ) 03:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur. The version Nancy supports is incorrect, badly sourced, and tendentious. "Many" editors have indeed said so, repeatedly and with evidence.


 * On the other hand, Nancy has not read the version she opposes enough to notice that much of it was identical with the text she supports. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the problem I have with the approach to the RfC: from what I can understand of your posts, you want to ask an open-ended question and then ask editors for clarification. You don't want to define which issues you want clarification on. You cannot, or won't, say what types of conclusions you think can be drawn from such an open-ended question. Open-ended RfCs like this work great for fairly narrow questions (what do you think of this paragraph), but will fail miserably for something with such a huge scope as this. If you cannot (or will not) define what it is specifically that you want to know, then you cannot design an appropriate format to measure the data to find an answer. While you may mean well, this approach is highly flawed and unlikely to do anything beyond cause months of argument over the results. I'm not willing to sit around and argue while a page that we all agree needs work just sits here. My library finally has Bokenkotter, so I hope to pick that up tomorrow and start verifying history stuff and - hopefully - work towards a rewrite of the history section (I will propose major changes here). Does anyone have access to any of the works that were used to create the Beliefs section? Nancy is right - that section needs a great deal of help, starting with a survey of literature to see what should be covered in depth and what should not, and we should not be citing to the Catechism (at all). Leave the interpretations to scholars. Karanacs (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But if she gets a random and meaningless result, it may still be favorable enough to "her" "correct" version that she can argue about it, with the same degree of rigor that she uses about the FACs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As I recall, the recentish mediation process was only really concerned with the wording of the opening sentence and its related note. To imply - as some editors seem to be - that the mediation process concerned the whole article and that the article was therefore then a consensus version is both false and disingenuous. Anglicanus (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No mediation can claim, in any case, to be a wider consensus than one comprising the participants in the mediation (this is why MedCom insists that all the major disputants agree to participate before the mediation starts); this one didn't do that well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the so-called 'correct version', Nancy and Xandar have only themselves to blame for its demise at the hands of Uber's IAR cull and the undoubted, though more easily fixable, faults in the current page. Their constant POV-pushing which reached ridiculously one-sided levels in the History and Demographics sections and stubborn refusal to listen to anyone who pointed this out, particularly someone with academic knowledge of the subject like Harmakheru, was bound to spark a backlash eventually with some messy consequences that could have been avoided by them acknowledging the POV issues with the page and their sources. Despite its faults, I challenge anyone to cite a single anti-Catholic POV sentence on the current page; Nancy's 'correct version' is littered with pro-Catholic POV, unsurprisingly since most of it is sourced to a Catholic priest, two Dominicans (Thomas McGonigle and John Vidmar), a member of the Pontifical Historical Committee and CARA.

I agree with two of Nancy's points: the Beliefs section needed expanding and clarifying. I attempted to do that by cutting and pasting material from other wikipages such as Roman Catholic Mariology but I accept that is not ideal and that the section on Mary as reproduced above at Incarnation and the Virgin Mary is clearer. I also cleared out some citations to deal with the overcitation problem identified by Karanacs (overcitation is closely linked to POV-pushing on this page) but if some it is inappropriate again we can fix it. (In the Beliefs section I deliberately favoured direct links to primary sources such as the Catechism which I thought would be more useful to the reader than page numbers for books they may not have access to).

I also second Uber's point about ignoring any attempt to claim the outcome of a RFC as grounds for reverting to Nancy's version of the page. Haldraper (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Two points:

1) I object to the use of the phrase "the correct version" as being meaningless and irretrievably POV.

2) While I understand the stances of UberCryxic and Haldraper regarding reversion to a previous version of the page, I think it is inappropriate to prejudge the issue. I would prefer that we not poison the RFC by declaring intransigence in advance.  Intransigence is a bad enough thing but making up your mind up to be intransigent in advance is really bad.  Let's just see what happens and then react to that. --Richard S (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Euthanasia is the best thing that can happen to the RfC. It is clear that there is no consensus to go back to the corrupt "correct" version; those of us who object to it here and now would be a significant objection at any likely RfC, even if no-one else does (which is entirely possible if it attracts only those of us now discusing plus the usual meat-puppets).


 * But if, instead of this project, Nancy would propose changes, including reversions, from the present text, basing her arguments on the good of the encyclopedia, she would get somewhere; where she has, Haldraper has agreed to look at the issues. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What I see here is a lot of bluster from people who want to prsereve their, improperly made, and completely unsuitable version of the page at all costs, against consensus and against the views of the Wikipedia community. If UBER and others want to ignore the result of an RFC that shows their botched version does not have consensus, then dispute resolution procedures will have to be inveighed. There is no dictatorship here - however much a certain group may have convinced themselves that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
 * Karanacs arguments that we must consider each issue individually are fine - and should have been adopted before a huge section of random 75% cuts were made across key sections of the article entirely without discussion and debate of the issues involved. We have to return from that disastrous piece of arrogant editing. The version currently on the page has no validity, and there is no reason why editors should work on trying to repair an irremediable non-consensus version imposed on the page by edit-warring. Especially when the issues concerned were covered in the Wikipedia Good Article that was hacked to pieces out of impatience and hubris. There is no reason why editors should "propose amendments" to an illegitimate and botched version of the page. There was no consideration of the good of the encyclopedia when this Good Article was wantonly destroyed and ripped apart without consensus in defiance of Wikipedia policy. I have suggested three compromise positions that would take us forward on the basis of cutting length without unbalancing and destroying core sections of the article. Yet all I see in response is intransigence and the continued desire to impose a non-consensus versionh.  Xan  dar   20:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Xandar, forgive me but I only remember seeing one proposal from you (the one which drops the History section). Could you provide links to the other two proposals?  It would save me from having to wade through the archives of the Talk Page looking for them.  Thanx. --Richard S (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * These people you say "want to preserve their improperly made and completely unsuitable version" are unanimous in not wanting to preserve it. On the contrary, every one of them wants to move the article forward to something much better. The problem is that you guys want to move it backwards to something much worse. Hesperian 23:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just saw an interesting programme with Bettany Hughes tonight about the murder of Hypatia by a christian mob in Alexandria - and how Cyril of Alexandria wanted political power as well as spiritual power. I know how mob murders bother you so I'll try and add Hypatia's fate to the history bit of Early Xty. Sayerslle (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Xandar. Because many editors have expressed their disapproval of the current page including the vast amount of reference material that was cut without discussion, citation and content errors and omissions, we must have an RFC to either legitimize the current page or restore the previous one. That is the only question we need to ask. Any repondents who want to elaborate are welcome to do so. Any respondents who choose not to participate are also welcome. However, Wikipedia rules allow us to follow appropriate dispute resolution procedures and that includes RFC. If the results are unsatisfactory to a subset of editors here, we can put it up to Arbcom. This is the way Wikipedia works. These are the rules Almighty Jimbo has laid out for us. I think those rules actually work but I'm not sure. This will be a neat experiment to find out if they do or not.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 23:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nancy, since you are repeatedly asserting, ad nauseam, that "many editors" are "asking for an RFC", here are two more questions for you to ignore. Who are these "many editors"? Where are the diffs that show them asking for an RFC? Hesperian 02:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that Nancy insists on also calling the so-called "consensus version" the "correct version" would appear to speak volumes about her attitude to any process to actually improve the article. No article should ever be referred to the "correct" one.  This indicates that there's a fundamental problem with Nancy's understanding of Wikipedia and her involvement on this article. Afterwriting (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind, I've demoted this a touch, in the probably vain hope that Nancy will see that there is an unanswered question there for her to ignore. Hesperian 06:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, History2007, Maurauder40, Tom Harrison, Xandar, More Things and Storm Rider are the editors I have counted so far as expressing their dismay with the current article. Majoreditor has also expressed his concerns for cuts that eliminate basic information like Catholic institutions and other areas. Because the current article has so many citation errors it will be very time consuming and difficult to "correct" this version. None of the editors on this page has any of the sources for the Beliefs section except for me and I am unwilling to go through and do these corrections. That section in the current article also contains grave omissions and factual errors as well. It will be much easier and more accurate to begin with the "correct" version and trim it via consensus discussion on this page than to make corrections to the current version. All our RFC is going to do is decide whether or not we begin with that version or keep the current version. I don't understand the heated rhetoric directed at me for trying to make the article more accurate and reflect the sources.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 07:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what I asked, Nancy. I've supplied a diff in which you said that many people are "asking for an RFC". Who are these "many people" who are asking for an RFC? Hesperian 09:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No one has said that there are not problems with the current version. Tom Harrison did not say there were problems with the article - he was upset about the blocks and the straw poll.  Johnbod and History2007 have both stated that they don't think the RfC will change anything.  MoreThings did actually ask for one. I don't think Marauder or StormRider asked for one (although I could be mistaken).  So that leaves three - Nancy, Xandar, and MoreThings.  That could be "many", I guess. Karanacs (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, the 'correct version' you want to restore - and which I assume you think conforms to WP:NPOV - contains these sentences:

''Secularism has seen a steady rise in Europe, yet the Catholic presence there remains strong.

''the Church faces challenges in reaching indigenous populations where over 715 different languages are spoken.

''By spreading Christianity it battled, and in certain cases eventually ended, practices like human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide and polygamy of evangelized cultures beginning with the Roman Empire.

''After a papal legate was put to death by the Cathars in 1208, Pope Innocent III declared the Albigensian Crusade. Abuses committed during the crusade prompted Innocent III to informally institute the first papal inquisition to prevent future abuses''

''Mit brennender Sorge, Pope Pius XI "condemned the neopaganism of the Nazi ideology-especially its theory of racial superiority...". Drafted by the future Pope Pius XII and read from the pulpits of all German Catholic churches, it described Hitler as an insane and arrogant prophet and was the first official denunciation of Nazism made by any major organization

Each one has major POV problems that have been pointed out to you by many editors time and again (and I've not even included the awful, apologetic section on child sex abuse). And yet you say "I don't understand the heated rhetoric directed at me for trying to make the article more accurate and reflect the sources." The phrase "invincible ignorance" springs to mind (and yes I know I'm misusing it in its Catholic sense). Haldraper (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And too often the sources that are being reflected are ones that have a blatant POV bias. It greatly embarrases me that such an unscholarly and error-riddled piece of polemic such as Whitehead's has been included in the article's notes and also defended as scholarly due to its use by an ultra-conservative ( arguably even extremist ) organisation such as EWTN. Afterwriting (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Haldraper. The quotes you've posted have been gone through and discussed. Most are backed by sound references and represent legitimate viewpoints. While you are entitled to disagree with them and propose alternate referenced wordings, you are NOT entitled to slash huge and generally uinreleated areas of the article to pieces in defiance of Consensus and WP policy. End of story.  Xan  dar   11:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is characteristic of one of the endemic problems of this article. All of the sentences above have been lengthily discussed; all of them do indeed represent a point of view. All of them are tendentious; at least one of them is flat wrong.  They do not any of them represent consensus of the sources; if they did, it would be as difficult to disagree with them as with The last resignation of a Pope took place in 1415, which is consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then admit which 'legitimate viewpoint' it represents, tag it as a right-wing POV viewpoint, and stop ignoring, censoring, and lying about other viewpoints. If a 'mirror' terrible triangle is described, say the Church backed Franco, the fascist Roman Catholic Ante Pavelic, - hidden by Roman Catholics after the war before he escaped to South America - the Pius XII praise for Vichy - can that lay alongside your terrible triangle, or is that NOT ON. End Of. Full Stop. Sayerslle (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Afterwriting, I am trying to understand you position above. Are you proposing that Whitehead is not a scholarly source? Also, are you proposing that EWTN does not represent the position of the Catholic Church and that is is extremist (which in my mind equates to fringe)? I would think that Whitehead is not an "ultra-conservative", but rather he accurately reflects the Catholic Church's position. Is Whitehead not a scholar but rather an apologist and therefore falls outside of the policy on reliable sources? -- Storm  Rider  18:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nancy's citation is "Whitehead, Kenneth (1996). ""How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?" Eternal Word Television Network" with a convenience link that does not work. Why should we believe that this is a scholarly source, any more than any other TV reporter? (I refrain from asking why we should believe this to be a neutral source; there is unlikely to be a useful answer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I googled his name and found the following statement, "esteemed academic, Fellowship of Catholic Scholars board member and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education Kenneth Whitehead". Unfortunately, I cannot vouch for this description, but this individual would seem to qualify as a reliable source. Where the line begins as scholar and ends as an apologist is beyond me, but it would seem to be a good source for the Catholic position. If the source was a book with a different publisher would it make a difference to editors? I am having a difficult time discounting him entirely because he printed material with EWTN. Thoughts? - Storm  Rider  02:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care if it was Jaroslav Pelikan; a TV interview is not likely to be accurate, scholarly, or measured; and a website which is unreachable is not a verifiable source. Your talent for making the worse appear the better cause is misapplied, as usual. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It isn't an interview, it's an actual article. But whatever Witehead's scholarly credentials may be, this particular article has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. Like all people with fanatical viewpoints he presents simplistic arguments and just ignores all the verifiable evidence that actually contradicts his claims.  As we all know, this is also a problem with many Wikipedia editors - myself excluded of course! Afterwriting (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Who put Whitehead back in? I agree with StormRider that he is a legitimate and respected scholar but I replaced him with Richard McBrien's book The Church for the cite which basically said the same thing, the same thing that is repeated in a vast array of tertiary sources that the Catholic Church "claimed as its title" the name Catholic Church after the East West Schism. Why are you guys arguing about Whitehead? That was settled at mediation already. The reason why I started this section was to alert you all to what I consider to be the "correct version" that includes the consensus agreed text that incorporates the comments of the last FAC as well as the mediation and subsequent consensus agreements from this talk page. It does not include Uber's WP:IAR version that is on the page right now via the illegal one day straw poll. We are holding an RFC that will be addressing that issue soon.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 15:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Illegal"?! Please explain on what basis Wikipedia edits or processes are either legal or illegal.  This is a very odd claim, Nancy.  As for Whitehead, if his unscholarly article has been removed then I am very pleased - but since it was part of the so-called "consensus version" by what process of consensus did you decide to remove him after so persistently inisting on his inclusion despite many other editors' objections?  Afterwriting (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Whitehead is not used as the sole claim for the sentence it cites in the "correct version". That sentence has three citations, two are to the original documents of the Vatican Council that are signed by the pope "Catholic Church". Whitehead's ref just says what the original documents also say, that the Vatican II documents are signed "Catholic Church". The citation that Whitehead originaly ref'd was removed and replaced by McBrien. This is McBrien's quote for that sentence " McBrien, Richard (2008). The Church. Harper Collins. p. xvii. Online version available here. Quote: The use of the adjective "Catholic" as a modifier of "Church" became divisive only after the East-West Schism ... and the Protestant Reformation ... In the former case, the West claimed for itself the title Catholic Church, while the East appropriated the name Holy Orthodox Church. In the latter case, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome retained the adjective "Catholic", while the churches that broke with the Papacy were called Protestant."
 * Illegal is the term I use to describe a process that violates Wikipedia policies. WP:Consensus was violated when the old consensus version of the article was eliminated after a one day straw poll that did not produce a clear consensus and was declared invalid by the overseeing admin, Tom Harrison. Although it violated policy, we allowed the new version to be processed by those who wanted it to allow them to produce a version to put forth in our upcoming RFC that will ask editors in the Wikipedia community which version they prefer. The version of the article on the page right now, is there in violation of Wikipedia policy. If the RFC produces a result in favor of the new version, it will stay, if not, it won't. Any version that gets voted on the page will still be subject to future trimming/adding via consensus discussion on this talk page in accordance with Wikipedia policies of WP:Consensus, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc. See WP:five pillars.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 15:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, I'm glad you've raised WP:NPOV. Perhaps you could answer the question I put to you above: which of the following sentences from your 'correct version' do you consider conform to it?

Secularism has seen a steady rise in Europe, yet the Catholic presence there remains strong.

the Church faces challenges in reaching indigenous populations where over 715 different languages are spoken.

By spreading Christianity it battled, and in certain cases eventually ended, practices like human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide and polygamy of evangelized cultures beginning with the Roman Empire.

''After a papal legate was put to death by the Cathars in 1208, Pope Innocent III declared the Albigensian Crusade. Abuses committed during the crusade prompted Innocent III to informally institute the first papal inquisition to prevent future abuses''

''Mit brennender Sorge, Pope Pius XI "condemned the neopaganism of the Nazi ideology-especially its theory of racial superiority...". Drafted by the future Pope Pius XII and read from the pulpits of all German Catholic churches, it described Hitler as an insane and arrogant prophet and was the first official denunciation of Nazism made by any major organization''

Are you going to say none are slanted to a pro-Catholic POV? If not, what do you propose: we cut them as the current version of the page has or balance them with the counter-POV producing the old problem of see-sawy text? Haldraper (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Haldraper, these are all red herrings that do not advance us at all at this point. Some of your sentences I don't see any problem with at all. Most of this is well referenced. Your definition of POV seems sometimes to coincide with "any point that might show the Catholic Church in a positive light." That is not POV, it is reporting the sources. You need to bring other sources that support your interpretation, not just say " don't like it." In any event these are issues that have to be dealt with on their individual merits, and there is no room to discuss them here. The curious thing about raising these in defense of the eviscerated version, is that the main sections destroyed in that version are not the ones that contain the points you raise.  Xan  dar   19:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No offence Xandar but I think I'll wait until the organ grinder has replied rather than converse with the monkey. Haldraper (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Haldraper, you are really venturing down the NPA road. But since no one checks your incivility, I suppose we can just expect more of this from you instead of true comraderie in article improvement efforts. I think it is this kind of situation that Tom Harrison described to me in his explanation of why he has permanently left Wikipedia.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 13:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nancy:


 * 1. it's not a 'personal attack' on Xandar, just a well-known, humourous English saying. Maybe it didn't travel well across the Atlantic, in which case I apologise.


 * 2. any chance of you actually replying to the points I put to you about WP:NPOV? Haldraper (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Haldraper, please do not be disingenuous. The saying is well known; it is used to belittle the speaker i.e. the calling him a monkey and looking to converse with the organ grinder, the real brains of the team. More importantly, it has nothing to do with the article. If statements are supported by reliable sources they stay. If there is nothing to support them, they should go. -- Storm  Rider  14:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * More importantly, perhaps, it has provided Nancy with an excuse to not answer the question at hand: does she seriously contend that none of these extracts betray a pro-Catholic point of view? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No see also section?
It seemed strange to me that this article, while it does have several "main article" links under each major section, it doesn't have a dedicated "see also" section with a list of wikilinks to related articles. Is there a reason for that? ...comments? ~B F izz 05:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See also sections are not needed as long as the desired topics are already linked inline. In fact, this is preferred to see also sections.  If there is a topic that you want covered in the article, then add it to a see also section with a note. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * B Fizz, it seems the point of this article's creators is to make it as uninformative and as incorrect as possible which is part of the reason why we are having an RFC.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 13:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's at all true. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please compare the current article to any encyclopedia article. You will see that it is full of pov statements and fails to tell Reader or even link to pages that might tell Reader about all the different aspects of the Church. The current article emphasizes one issue, ignores other equally important issues and the Beliefs section was created by people who not only do not know much about Catholic beliefs, they dont have the sources either and the citations violate WP:OR and WP:RS. How is that an improvement over the "correct version" .  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 14:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is certainly the case that a large number of links in text passages were recently cut, and at least some of these should have been moved to a "See also" section. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nancy, if it's true as you say the current page "is full of pov statements" (I won't dwell on the irony) then you won't have any trouble pointing out one to us (more if you like). Haldraper (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've listed some of them in this section here and factual accuracy problems in this section here    Nancy Heise   ''' talk 16:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Citation hint...
The refs section is huge with many repeated sources. Template:Rp allows for the repeated use of a single source tag with a page number listed. Try it out and reduce the page size some. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that adding templates will help with the load time on this article. I personally don't like the Rp template much, as I believe it makes the page difficult to read. Karanacs (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Organization and demographics
There's a table in the organization and demographics section that is not particularly helpful to the average reader and can easily be reproduced in the Catholic Church hierarchy article. As a reader, I would prefer not to see this table. I also found the listing of "leprosaries" somewhat strange, considering that medical science has offered effective treatment for leprosy since 1982, but for political and economic reasons, it is apparently not getting to the victims of the disease. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the sort of fix Summary Style encourages. It might be a good idea to check the sources first; this article does not have a good record on representing them.
 * Agreed. Is there any objection to moving it out of the article? Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * None by me. Go right ahead if you want. UBER  ( talk ) 16:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The only problem is that if the table is unsourced as it appears, it would be foolish of me to add it to another article. Would it be acceptable for me to remove it from this one, and place it on the talk page of the subarticle with a note? Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfectly acceptable. The only policy against putting things on Talk pages is BLP, and if that applied, we should remove the table altogether. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The table was referenced. I created the table using Froehles Global Catholicism, the same source used by all major newspapers for statistics on the church. Someone removed the reference and added a citation needed tag. Now this table is removed from the article and it fails to tell Readers anything at all about Catholic institutions/personnel around the world. I think this is a grave omission especially since this is really the heart of the work of the Church. This is what the Church actually Does. The other Catholic Church article includes this information and it is properly sourced. We will be having an RFC to determine which form of the article is most preferred by editors, the new one that was installed on March 9th via a disputed one day straw poll that produced a nearly 50/50 result or the former article (linked above) that had been vetted by a large segment of the Wikipedia community (for at least two years), none of whom asked for less information and many of whom asked for more information.   Nancy Heise   ''' talk 00:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Waiting for Nancy to remove her duplicate reply on this subject in a different thread, and merge it back into this discussion so that I can formulate one reply in one thread. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Viriditas, not every editor to the page reads posts way at the top. I was not sure you would see this so I posted it below as well. I am removing that post per your request in my next post so you can answer here. Thanks.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 23:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nancy do you know of any other religion articles, GA class and above, that use a similar table? Not a big deal if you don't, I'm just curious.  As for statistics, I don't know how common this is, but sometimes an editor will split statistics off into its own article and link to it using a hatnote.  This has an added advantage of allowing you to add more information.  So, instead of a small table, you could expand it into a full list article.  Does this sound like something that might interest you?  I think we really need to use our space wisely here.  For the reader's sake, it might also help if you could describe the categories in prose. Tell me what benefits the table offers readers in this article. Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The table offers Reader, in the most concise way possible, to see what the Church does. Do you know of any other religion that operates the world's largest non-governmental school system or hospital system or any of the other systems this organization operates? No. They do not operate any of these things on the scale of this worldwide organization. Do you know of any article about any organization that does not tell Reader what that organization does on a daily basis? Only this article does that. This article attempts to tell Reader only history and beliefs. It says nothing about what the Church does. In a very lopsided way it tells Reader all about priests but says nothing about Roman Curia, Religious organizations or lay people. The Church does not place the Pope, bishops and priests above religious orders and lay people. All are on equal footing and considered to be equally important, complimentarily beneficial elements of the Church's organziation. This whole article is so unbelievably incorrect I am so amazed at people's defense of it. It reveals a basic misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of the Catholic Church organization. I would like to help correct these oversights by reinstalling the old version and coming to agreement on trims from there. The present article was installed via a one day straw poll with no clear consensus for tossing the old version which is why we are having an RFC in a day or two.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 15:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)