Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/NancyHeise

Statistics
[Per Johnbod's suggestion below, statistics regarding edits to Talk:Catholic Church and Catholic Church:]

Talk:Catholic Church (above 100 edits plus selected others) Note:Soidi=Lima NancyHeise	2075		7.29 hours Xandar	       912		34.49 h Richardshusr	566		2.2 days TSP	       339		4.5 d Soidi	        310		28.12 h (=Lima alt a/c)Note Gimmetrow	301		4.0 d Lima	       263		5.6 d   (=Soidi alt a/c)Note Karanacs	227		2.7 d Johnbod	       206		2.6 d Haldraper	182		19.13 h Taam	        178		2.1 d Fishhead64	161		5.3 d (not active since mid-2008) Pmanderson	154		7.8 d Storm Rider	147		6.7 d Vaquero100	143		35.3 h (not active since 2006) Lostcaesar	128		40.35 h (not active since 2007) Andrew c	125		9.5 d	Wassupwestcoast	121		3.6 d (not active since early 2008) Harmakheru	133		3.07 h Hyphen5	       113		36.32 Mike Searson	107		5.5 d Defteri	       105		2.1 d

Peter jackson	92		4.2 d Jbmurray	60		8.6 d Ottava Rima	21		35 h (not active since Oct 2008) SarekOfVulcan	14		98.7 d Geometry guy	3		314.5 d

Catholic Church (above 100 edits plus selected others). 2nd column = minor edits, which are included in the first figure. 3rd column = average time between edits. NancyHeise	 4274	 735	3.38 hours Lima	        621	   98	3.0 days Xandar	        574	   77	3.5 d Richardshusr	 190	   31 	6.8 d Gimmetrow	 183	   82	6.9 d Vaquero100	 173	    0	29.19 h (last ed 2006) TSP	        167	    8	8.37 d Haldraper	 164	   57	32.58 h Mike Searson	 145	   10 	4.3 d Irishguy	 133	   74	4.3 d   (last ed 2007) SandyGeorgia	 131	   3	2.5 d Karanacs	 124	   29	5.1 d Malleus Fatuorum 117	    0	2.1 d Eagle4000	 111	   18 	32.26 h Lostcaesar	 102	   45	2.6 d

Anietor		 97	  10	10.2 d	Soidi		 77	    5	10.7 d Yorkshirian	 75	    1	8.7 d Johnbod	         51         6 	7.7 d Pmanderson	 42         1	27.9 d Jbmurray	 29	    0	18.0 d Taam		 28	    0	13.8 d SarekOfVulcan	 23	    5	63.9 d Harmakheru	 9		32.39 minutes (all edits on one day) Geometry guy	 2	   2	43.26 minutes (all edits on one day) I got the above from this link. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though it might have been better to add the figures net of reverts; I have added a few reversion numbers above. (oops - see below)Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To try to be fair and balanced here, do these statistics also include minor edits? And couldn't the argument be put forth that large amounts of edits shows dedication to a subject of interest? --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 00:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't know the answer, so added a minor edit to another article. In fact they are the 2nd figure in the breakdown, it seems, which I had always assumed from "en.wikipedia.org, by Edits (reverse), with Page.." was "reverts" (for "reverse"). I've amended the heading I added to figures above, now perhaps less useful, but "large amounts of edits" certainly does show dedication and interest. Johnbod (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting statistics. I noticed that the ratio of minor edits to total edits is fairly consistant. THese stats are very useful, but in this case, an line-by-line look at objectionable edits is the way to go. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 00:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a few more users for the article who have been active in disputes recent, and added a new column (from the same tool) for average time between edits. Except for a few users who made all of their edits on a single day (and thus had average times in minutes), all users on this list except Nancy can measure their average time between edits in days.  Nancy's average time is just over 3 hours.  This number is likely skewed a little; I've noticed that Nancy often makes several edits to finish one thought (fixing typos, etc).  Karanacs (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nb the times are on the article figures, not the talk page ones, where Nancy is less predominant, though still much the largest poster. I think one thing we all agree on is that Nancy has added, polished or re-edited most of the content throughout the article as a whole, and taken it through 2 FACs, & watched for vandalism etc.  The disputes tend to focus on single sentences. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There have actually been 4 FACs; I believe Nancy was the nominator on all 4. Two of these were restarted, so it probably seemed more like 6 FAC nominations.  Karanacs (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * gulp! Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten about the talk page figures and have added the timings there as well. Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to say, as the person who first posted these figures, that we should be careful not to read too much into them. I only checked on them first as I was surprised to see Johnbod describe his as an "outside" view, and wanted to verify my sense that in fact he'd contributed a fair amount to the page. Then Johnbod himself suggested putting the figures up here. I'd only say that there are various things that surprised me (which perhaps show that I don't follow things all that closely). One, for instance, is that Harmakheru has contributed much more to the talk page than to the page itself. I was also surprised to see so much Malleus there (and you'll see he doesn't feature on the talk page; perhaps his contributions are indeed all reverts?). Personally, I don't take too much from the fact that Nancy so outnumbers everyone else: or rather, it hardly surprises me. No doubt there are other aspects of these statistics that could be read in various ways. To figure out what they actually mean would require more work than I, at least, have time for; and I doubt it would be all that illuminating, at least in these circumstances. Again, the only thing that can be said for sure is that, of those contributing so far to this RfC, only Delta1989 is truly uninvolved, while everyone else has been sucked in to the CC vortex somehow at some point or another even if (as in Gguy's case) rather minimally. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Malleus copy-edited during one of the FAC noms; there are several editors on the list who likely made almost all of their edits during an FAC push (SandyGeorgia, for example, helped with MOS issues).  My numbers on the article itself are inflated because I also did a lot of copyedit work with the history section before the 2nd or 3rd FAC (without changing much content). I suspect that's true of others as well. Karanacs (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Malleus's edits are nearly all style copy-editing with little or no content alteration. Many of mine are on images and captions. Nancy in particular must have done hundreds of reversions, most uncontroversial, some falling under the scope here. I agree with Jbm that everyone except Delta (who was watching Nancy's talk page for other reasons), and Unionhawk(?), has contributed to the article or talk pages to some degree, or at least been watching it to some degree (Ottava Rima, Peter Jackson), but for whatever reason we have not yet heard from a number of the heaviest contributors after Nancy, & can't be sure they are even aware of this page absent a talk page notice.  We seem to be falling between two stools, so far achieving neither a reasonable series of comments or endorsements from those new to the issues nor a very balanced discussion among the page watchers & contributors.   Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed with all of this, both with the probable description of edits, and with the likelihood that this RfC is "falling between two stools." I'd have thought a note on the CC talk page was a no brainer.  But I've never been involved in an RfC before, so don't really know how they go or are supposed to go.  Are there not RfC regulars who pipe up?  I dunno.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this doesn't seem to have a representative group participating. Nancy has raised the same point .  Given the feedback below and the fact that the discussion is going better at Talk:Catholic Church, I'm unwilling to further publicize this without Nancy's express permission.  Johnbod, would you be willing to approach Nancy to make sure she understands the pros and cons of making further notifications?  She is quite understandably upset with me. Karanacs (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll give it a go, which will have to be later today. Of course she & some others have already said on her talk page etc that they don't intend to add anything here. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Things have now improved with more comments from both groups described above, and this Rfc has been mentioned passim on the talk page by Nancy, so this is less of an issue. Johnbod (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out the above statistical analysis is incomplete, there are many more editors to both the talk page of Catholic Church as well as the article itself. Many of them, perhaps, my supporters who agreed with me on article text and sources. These can be found by going through the archives of the past two years. The article text has been wrought by consensus in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Each one of the people arguing against me in this Rfc, including Karanacs, is someone who has put forth some point of view that was ultimately rejected by consensus of editors - for example the recent successful mediation on the name issue mediated by Sunray that over 19 editors participated in and resulted in the unanimous decision to change the name of the page to Catholic Church with a note supported by sources put forth almost entirely by me.I opened that mediation after all of the editors argued with two others, Gimmetrow and Soidi. The mediation lasted several months and the position originally brought forth and defended by Lima a/k/a Soidi was ultimately overruled. I see Soidi's comments on supporting this Rfc but where are the other 18 editors who participated in that mediation?  Nancy Heise    talk  06:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Karanacs's endorsement of "Outside view by Johnbod"
''[moved from main page --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)]: I agree with just about all of this. It is interesting that you point out that the cast of characters, for the most part, is often different from dispute to dispute. Although in some cases this may be due to editor specialization (I am much more familiar with history than theology, and my interest lies mainly before the 19th century), I suspect in some cases editors leave because the atmosphere on the talk page can become quite difficult; few people wish to spend weeks debating a few words. Karanacs (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)''
 * No doubt; many have said so - I think I did myself during the naming dispute, when I removed the article from my watchlist. But I should have made the point more strongly above that I don't believe Nancy creates the battleground atmosphere, which is also found intermittently on the talk pages of other Catholic-related articles that Nancy, or the other editors above,   never go near.  I don't at all agree with Jbmurray that if Nancy was not there peace and harmony would reign, and the article glide gracefully into FA status! Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "I don't at all agree with Jbmurray that if Nancy was not there peace and harmony would reign, and the article glide gracefully into FA status!" Not at all what I said, Johnbod.  Not at all what I said.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * People can judge for themselves how accurate my summary is from your statement just above, and here. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, they can. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Nancy is solely responsible for the battleground atmosphere, but I do feel that she is a major contributor to it, hence the RfC. I would also like to point out that saying the article will not reach FA with NancyHeise's current attitude by no means implies that removal of the attitude will result in FA status; there are a lot of other factors too. Karanacs (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree on the last point, but Richard & Jbm say otherwise on your talkpage, as linked above:
 * "And if she weren't so darned obstinate and contentious, Catholic Church would FA by now and the lion's share of the credit would belong to her. .... --Richard (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Catholic Church would FA by now and the lion's share of the credit would belong to her." Absolutely true.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)".
 * Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Johnbod, this is not "say[ing] otherwise." Your strange caricature of what I have said hardly helps. FWIW, I do (if for some reason it's unclear to you) completely endorse what Karanacs has just said. Meanwhile, I'm curious as to why you've presented yours as an outside view, as I note that in fact you've contributed almost four times as much to Talk:Catholic_Church as I have, for instance, including intervening directly in this dispute. Per your own analysis, presumably you are as much part of the problem as anyone? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Oh dear! Karanacs says "saying the article will not reach FA with NancyHeise's current attitude by no means implies that removal of the attitude will result in FA status"; you endorse as "Absolutely true" Richard's (grammatically mangled) opinion that "And if she weren't so darned obstinate and contentious, Catholic Church would [would have reached?] FA by now". I don't see how those can be regarded as other than opposite views, but no doubt you will shortly be explaining it. I don't regard myself as "involved" here, and was not notified that I would be so regarded, or of this Rfc at all, which I think is the correct procedure for the "involved". My very few short comments on the current dispute, emphasising the almost total lack of historical information on the subject, have been resolutely ignored by all sides, and I don't believe I have done other than revert vandalism on the article itself for the last year or so. Perhaps a table of edit counts on the article and talk page, for all edits by those commenting above, would be helpful on the talk page here? The figures are easy to find anyway. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It may seem like a small thing to you, but again you have mangled what I actually said. (I'm not sure why you do this.)  I did not endorse Richard's statement "And if she weren't so darned obstinate and contentious, Catholic Church would [would have reached?] FA by now."  What I said was "absolutely true" was "Catholic Church would FA by now and the lion's share of the credit would belong to her."  (There's an overlap between the two statements, but they are quite different.)  My main point concerned the credit that she deserved.  And in fact I didn't particularly want to endorse Richard's characterization of Nancy as "so darned obstinate and contentious."  Hence I cut it from my reply.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh double dear! You really can't expect people to follow you if you endorse the second part of a conditional statement, and then turn round and say you don't agree with the initial conditional premise! In fact the first part echoes closely the language of your own statement later, and in any case it was the second part, that you actually quote, that I was referring to in particular. How confused your poor students must get!  What were you trying to say then? Under what conditions would it be "Absolutely true" that "Catholic Church would FA by now"? Oh never mind - since you have the last word below, with luck this tirade will cease. Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This dispute is getting out of hand, in the wrong place, and at the wrong time. Can't this be settled somewhere else instead of here? I'm feeling a battleground atmosphere right now. Can't we move this to the talk page? --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 20:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It does demonstrate my contention that Nancy's involvement is by no means necessary for things to get heated! Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent, and this will be my final comment here:) Well, it does show that Nancy has no monopoly on obstinacy... but then nobody ever said otherwise. For what it's worth, given that my view has been repeatedly traduced by Johnbod (for no obvious reason), here it is again: It is clear that it is Nancy, with her dedication and hard work, who is the major reason why Catholic Church has got anywhere near FA status. This is not incompatible with the notion that her failure to work well with other editors, particularly those who can provide a scholarly perspective, is currently the major obstacle to the article passing that hurdle. What's happened with Hamarkheru is merely the latest instance of this behavior. (I'd point to the way in which Nancy treated Awadewit's contributions at FAC a few months ago as an earlier instance.) This in no way means that if Nancy were not around all would be "sweetness and light" or that "the article [would] glide gracefully into FA status." That's a ridiculous view that I would never endorse. Problems and obstacles would undoubtedly remain: the issues about which there is dispute are complex, difficult to render in a short space, and many editors are passionate about them. However, my belief is that such difficulties could be--and by now would have been--more easily overcome if Nancy did not take the tack that she does. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know I'm very late to this discussion but I was mostly watching the main RFC page and not this talk page. FWIW, what I meant to say is close to what Jbmurray said.  I didn't mean to imply by my statement that Nancy's absence would cause this article to instantly become FA.  In truth, what I believe is that Nancy's hard work is needed to shepherd this article through the FAC process.  However, this article cannot get to the FAC process because her obstinacy and contentiousness have helped create the battleground atmosphere which has kept the article from becoming stable.  If she could work more collaboratively with editors who raise various issues, we could hopefully put these to rest and move to the FAC process.  Sorry if my brevity gave the wrong impression as to what I meant. --Richard S (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Question: notifications
In creating this, I notified RichardSHusr, Harmekheru, PMAnderson, and Peter Jackson, as I thought they might be willing to certify the dispute. I also, of course, notified NancyHeise. Would it be appropriate to place a link to this at Talk:Catholic Church, or to notify other editors with whom Nancy has worked? If the latter, I could notify only those who Nancy notified of the poll, as they would be tangentially involved in this particular dispute. I did not find good guidance at the RfC instructions or WP:CANVASS and hesitate to take any action that could be perceived as either a) vote-stacking or b) poisoning the well against NancyHeise. I would appreciate any advice from others who are watching this page. Karanacs (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a notice at the CC talk page would be appropriate; that seems to be quite usual, & I'm sure could not be complained of. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way I am perfectly happy to move my statement from "Outside view" to "semi-involved", "involved", or anywhere else people may suggest. There doesn't seem to be anything defining "involved", "outside" etc at WP:RFC. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've requested clarification here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sandy, I should have thought to post there. Karanacs (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was unsure where to post this request, since the RFC process seems a bit free-wheeling and unmonitored. If that query gets no response, I'm not sure where to go next, perhaps AN/I?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Assistance now (as of yesterday) exists for any queries regarding the RfC/U process, rules, guidelines, etc. - see also the updated version of Requests for comment/User conduct. Generally, certain things are not made clearer so that the process can cater for very different types of cases that pop up at RfC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Karanacs, there is a bit of an allowance when looking to certify a RfC/U (in good faith) due to the narrow "minimum requirements". Generally though, it is better to only notify certain users - those you have know have tried to, but failed to resolve similar issues. The users you chose to notify in this case seems OK on that level.
 * The nature of some disputes is such that there is a variety of misconduct that are in a variety of articles, topics, Wikipedia spaces, etc. There would be many objections to issuing a notification in even a selection of these, because the "intention" referred to in WP:CANVASS is determined objectively rather than through the subjective assertions made by the user - some users may legitimately consider it a smaller form of campaigning, or another form of canvassing. On the flipside, issuing a notification to all areas would fall under excessive cross posting. So based on this principle, I'm inclined to suggest it is not appropriate to leave a notification at the article talk page.
 * All that said, what I said in my second bullet point, as well as the answer to your query on whether you could notify certain individual editors, depends upon your answer to this questions - why notify beyond whom you already have notified (seeing that the dispute is certified)? That is, particularly in the case of an RfC/U, is there a real need to notify further? On a separate note, you could ask similar questions of Nancy so outsiders can ascertain whether canvassing occurred in that very poll to begin with. Without answers to those questions, there is no way of knowing - and that is perhaps why there is limited guidance on that point too. But I do hope I've helped clarify at least a little bit for you (or anyone else who was unsure).
 * Of course, I say all of the above with the assumption that the notification itself is worded appropriately. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * When the RFC refers to only one article, and one which has an unusually large number of editors (see above) it seems strangely prejudicial to discourage a notice on the talk page of that article! "Why notify beyond whom you already have notified" is very obvious, I would say. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding, Ncmvocalist. My worry is that by only notifying those who qualified to certify the RfC, people who may be otherwise involved may not know about it; this could have the effect of tilting the feedback towards people who agree with my interpretation of events and limit the participation of those who may have a differing viewpoint. I'd like this to remain as fair as possible, I'm just not sure how to do that. Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. The general consensus on the article talk page was that Nancy's notifications of the poll were not canvassing, as editors with a variety of viewpoints were contacted. Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying, Karanacs. If you were to find a spot on the article talk page where attempts to resolve the issues failed, you could mention in a reply that you are attempting to address these issues at a request for comment on user conduct. That much is acceptable in these circumstances, as it suggests you are attempting to sort out the differences in approach elsewhere - users who want to go further can find the link to the actual RfC/U themselves. Beyond that, a formal notification with link to these pages in a separate section would probably not be appropriate on an article talk page, given that others have been expected to avoid doing so in the past. I am guessing there are a number of reasons for that, but the on-wiki rationale given is that nothing prevents an editor who is encountering issues to pursue conduct dispute resolution themselves, and in doing so, find that attempts are already being made by someone else, and then jointly attempt to address their issues. In this sense, conduct dispute resolution (user conduct RfC) is a bit more privatised, while content dispute resolution (article RfC) is somewhat the opposite, as the names suggest. There is certainly nothing prejudicial about it; that's just the way all conduct disputes are handled around the block, and I think it's obvious that you are attempting to be fair in the circumstances. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I really appreciate your counsel and will continue to ponder whether to take any further action. Karanacs (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.
I appreciate jbmurray's decision to move comments to this talk page. That clears up a lot of clutter on the main page. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 21:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Errors and fairness

 * I would like to just state, as a complete outsider, that after seeing the article, the discussion pages and this RFC, I have lost faith that the wikipedia processes leads to nonPOV treatment of topics dealing with religious minorities that are unpopular in the majority culture of the given language. This is simply because the is then no shortage of editors with unconscious anti-minority biases to challenge, track down every misstep of, and eventually exhaust, nonPOV editors without those biases.  (In this case, treatment of topics dealing with Catholicism or the Catholic Church in English.  I would expect the same occurs in other languages with other groups, but this is the particular case in point here.) Perhaps wikipedia should designate some kind of special handling for articles dealing with historically repressed minorities in the culture of the given language to prevent this kind of thing, but that's above my pay grade.   Gmuchomas (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out some discussion related to this Rfc that alleges and documents bias on the part of Karanacs in creating this Rfc and failing to correct inaccuracies that were pointed out to her. See the posts below the smiley face in this section of my talk page. Thanks,  Nancy Heise    talk  14:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that the response section is an appropriate venue to dispute interpretations of the statement that was presented. I have also asked for clarification on one point on your talk page; feel free to respond here instead. Karanacs (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

yet, even then, I was still denigrated by an editor that supports Karanacs Rfc. and another who has yet to be checked for his persistent hostility on the page. Some of these editors as you can see are upset with me for providing sources from historians that are Catholic. Yet the whole point of the discussion is to come up with an article text that shows Reader what the Church thinks of its own origins as well as what historians think. Some historians agree and some disagree with the Church's POV. We are just trying to show Reader this reality, yet my work is being hindered by having to come defend myself at this Rfc. I don't see the benefit to Wikipedia of having this Rfc. I have already acknowledged my failings, apologized for them and then after I did all that, after I was the only one on the page to apologize, Karanacs opens this Rfc because I criticized her for encouraging an abusive editor  that another editor posted a note on his talk page asking him to stop  after Karanacs awarded him a barnstar but said nothing to him about civility - which would have helped the rest of us on the page. . Because the editor is new and we desire his input, I never said anything to him about his behavior, neither did I respond to him in any unkind way on the talk page of Catholic Church. I dispute points with him that I disagree with but he responds in a denigrating way, even still. This diff represents the first time I have ever made attempt to help him be civil. It was posted today a few moments ago.  Nancy Heise    talk  15:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point people to this editors comments on the Catholic Church talk page which are very much at odds with Karanacs assertions.   Nancy Heise    talk  14:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's another diff to another editor's comments that prove Karanacs opening of this Rfc ignores the fact that there is a problem with civility on the CC talk page, something that she does not acknowlege in opening this Rfc against only me.   Nancy Heise    talk  14:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I conducted a vote on the CC talk page after it became clear that there was some disagreement about whether or not sources supported article text. See . We have used votes in the past on the CC talk page to find out where everyone stands of certain issues. In the recent, successful, mediation over the Church's name, the independent mediator, User:Sunray used a vote several times to find out the same thing. Yet, my use of the vote is seen as something sinister when you can plainly see that many editors agreed while just as many disagreed. Since that vote, I have added more sources to the page to help all of us come to agreement on both sources and article text., , , ,

Note, I am copying the post from NancyHeise just above to the Response section. If this is inappropriate, please revert. Karanacs (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * problem there, I think, is that the endorsements come last, lest other editors want to endorse, and the new comments were placed below the endorsement. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not notice that. It looks like Nancy doesn't want the text there anyway. Karanacs (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer to keep my response the way it was so I reverted. Sorry if this offends anyone but Karanacs version would have omitted some links in the first part of this section which are relevent to the discussion.  Nancy Heise    talk  16:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could include the links I missed in the response section as well? It is customary in RfCs to include the response on the actual RfC page; otherwise users may miss it, or they will have to wade through other commentary to find it. Karanacs (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly Karanacs, I am appalled at you. The only person I care to see my response is you since you are the one bringing the accusations. Did you see my apology on the talk page before you posted this Rfc? If so, why did you go forward with it? Also, if I am so obstinate about not listening to people about using good sources, then please point me to the sources in the Catholic Church article that you think are not good.  Nancy Heise    talk  18:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nancy, the comments you just posted here are extremely good examples of some of the behavior that is discussed in the evidence section. I point you to these sections Requests_for_comment/NancyHeise and Requests_for_comment/NancyHeise. The apology you reference would also have been much more relevant if it had not been followed by a complaint about the user to whom you were apologizing.  I had actually considered using that for another example of incivility.  Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I complained to you after you asked me "Why?" on my talk page . My complaint was directed at you.  Nancy Heise    talk  17:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Nancy. Before you read my response to some of your queries/concerns, please read this and Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance2 which may be of help. That may help explain why it is unlikely that an editor will endorse your currently response. I'd strongly recommend you rewrite your response on the actual RfC/U using what you typed in this section of the talk page between 14:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC) until 15:01 30 October 2009 (UTC), and perhaps provide what you originally wrote at the end of your response. After this, it is important you leave a section for other editors to endorse your summary. In fact, if you'd like some time to work some more on your response, I'm sure Karanacs will not mind pointing out that you are working on your response, so that outsiders will wait for it prior to making any (further) views on what's happened, and the alternative ways in which you and Karanacs (and others involved) can move forward. Of course, I'll help out with any formatting queries/concerns/issues that arise. The reason I make this strong recommendation is because it be helpful to the smooth functioning of this RfC/U, but much more importantly, it would be help move this dispute towards resolution sooner, which is what parties to a dispute usually prefer as an outcome. Would you be willing to reconsider? Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi thank you. My initial response is my response. I have already apologized to people who were owed. I have pointed out inaccuracies in Karanacs accusations. I provided a link in my response to those who are interested in reading those. I am not sure what else there is to do that would be productive. I would prefer not to spend any more of my time on this Rfc. I wish you all the best, please let me know when this is over and I'll come read any new criticisms of my work so I can consider their arguments. Thanks,   Nancy Heise    talk  21:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You know exactly "what else to do that would be productive".  Ncmvocalist was very specific in instructing you towards those ends.  I think this is a clear case of refusing to get the point.--Adam in MO Talk 11:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering why all of those listed as outside views have more hours on the article in question than those who are listed as (inside) views? None of the endorsers of this Rfc have spent any time on the article other than maybe Soidi (a/k/a Lima a/k/a Platia) and Karanacs. Karanacs has been an involved editor ever since I came to the page. She has participated in all of the peer reviews, all of the FAC's and is not a neutral person with regard to page content. Johnbod and Xandar have consistently edited the article the entire time I have been on the page as well and their reviews of my work are not in agreement with Karanacs or JB Murray's. JB Murray was involved in one dispute with me regarding a source that he wanted us to use but that I did not because it had been condemned by the US bishops as inaccurate, the book, Richard McBrien's Catholicism has poor reviews from other scholars as well. Yet JB Murray wrote a quite extensive piece on this Rfc attesting to my non-ability to choose sources. I think that if what he says were true, then it would be very easy for a person to go to the Catholic Church page and find several ridiculous sources being used as references. If this is the case, I would like for someone endorsing this Rfc to please point these out to me, as far as I can see they all meet the requirements of WP:reliable source examples. I think the problem, from my point of view is the fact that whenever I put forth a source that does not meet another editor's expectations, I am accused of POV for simply wanting the article to reflect the views held by different scholars. If I were not editing the page, it would be very one-sided.  Nancy Heise    talk  19:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, Nancy... I'm not entirely sure of the point of your comment here, but let me mention one thing.  You bring up our disagreement about the McBrien book.  I still disagree with you, very much so.  However, I have moved on.  You have not, and continually fail to see that such inability to move on is part of the problem.  Again, as I've said many times: the point here is not a content dispute; the point is how you react to a content dispute. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You attest at length in this Rfc to my inability to choose sources, providing zero diffs to prove your point. I have provided an example of your insistence on a bad source - even after I provided you with diffs to prove it. I think that I need to at least reveal to Reader the other side of the story.  Nancy Heise    talk  04:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nancy, how many times do I have to repeat? The issue is not a content dispute.  Again, to quote myself: "What's at issue is the way in which Nancy responds to content disputes: she makes them a question of "us" and "them" (turning the article into a battleground) and takes the position of the one who is persecuted either doctrinally (by those whom she calls "viciously anti-catholic") or personally (people are being mean or "nasty" to her, she'll say, as in this edit summary).  Hence she escalates content disputes into a battle in which she is endlessly presenting herself as the victim."  You are once again misreading, when you refuse to see this.  The fact that you also consistently misread sources and reviews is simply incidental.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * JB, if you are going to accuse me of something, repeatedly, and suggest that this is how I always act, can you at least provide some diff's to back up what you are accusing me of? "Hence she escalates content disputes into a battle in which she is endlessly presenting herself as the victim". Where have I done this? By answering one of Karanac's questions directed at me on my talk page? By presenting sources that are valid but disliked by others (like yourself) who want us to use references that are condemned by the Church and other scholars as inaccurate? By arguing with new editors who proclaim themselves to be experts but then try to tell us that the Catholic point of view of its own origins is completely unsupported by modern scholars? I think I have put that argument to rest now by providing evidence of the existence of such scholars and no one is arguing about that anymore - they accept it as a fact because it is a fact. It is a fact that the Catholic Church page would not have presented if I were not doing exactly what Wikipedia allows - participation on the talk page. Can you go to the talk page and find a diff anywhere on that page to where I was unkind or abrasive to any of the editors there? There aren't any listed in Karanac's summary of the reasons for bringing this Rfc. The only comment that might pass for such is my response to her question - my honest response directed at her on my talk page - the very comment that sent her off to open an Rfc against me - for telling her she was in error. Are we not allowed to correct an admin now?  Nancy Heise    talk  06:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nancy, I provide diffs in my original statement. I am, for your benefit, now adding them back in to what I quoted above.  Meanwhile, here is another.  Why call some editors your "supporters" and so (by implication) the others your opponents.  This is, once again, you treating Wikipedia as a battleground, and presenting yourself as victim. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Supporters of the article text and sources I put forth, perhaps I should have been more clear.  Nancy Heise    talk  07:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should have been. In fact, however, you said "my supporters."  But even if you hadn't said that...  Do you really think that collaborative editing involves showing "support" for one person's text and sources, and so opposing another's?  Might you think of other models for how collaboration is supposed to work?  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No I think that collaborative editing, whenever it comes down to an impasse, results in either a consensus of editors affirming one form and rejecting another if that other form is unsupported by sources. Also, you are giving me grief over my use of the term "nasty" in a diff where I stated I was not going to ask Harmakheru to participate in a discussion because he left a nasty note for me on the CC talk page. Here's the diff to that "nasty" note - an unpleasantry to which I did not respond unpleasantly. If someone leaves a nasty note for me, I can certainly call such a note "nasty". Would you have preferred a different descriptive, I can use "unkind" next time if you like.   Nancy Heise    talk  07:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent:) Nancy, we may slowly be getting somewhere. I will pass over for the moment, however, the second half of your comment except to note that you frequently change the direction of a discussion in midstream. I am happy to return to my observation of your characterization of Hamarkheru's comment elsewhere or at a later date.
 * Let us continue our focus on what "collaborative editing" is all about. Because at the end of the day, this is how I at least understand this RfC: it is an attempt to encourage you to become a better collaborative editor.  And if I understand your own response, you are also unaware of the ways in which you are (in your words) a "problem editor," and would appreciate help in thinking through these issues.
 * OK, so we have progressed from the notion that editing here is about one person's supporters facing off against another; and even from the notion that it is about supporting one person's sources or text against another's.
 * Still, I find it striking that in your own description of collaborative editing, you immediately refer to impasses. Again, it seems to me that your understanding of Wikipedia is fundamental agonistic.
 * I think it may be helpful to ask you to reflect further on what collaborative editing is all about, in your view. Let me refer you to Wikipedia's own article on collaboration, which states that "Collaboration is a recursive process where two or more people or organizations work together in an intersection of common goals—for example, an intellectual endeavor that is creative in nature—by sharing knowledge, learning and building consensus."  This seems to be a fair description to me.
 * Perhaps you might begin by acknowledging that you and the other editors of the Catholic Church article (Hamarkheru and Karanacs included) do indeed share a common goal. This would be a first, very basic, step away from treating the article as a battleground.  It would be a recognition that you are all on the same side here.
 * We could thereafter move on as we try to work out what collaborative editing on this article would entail. (There is plenty more to be said, and not merely about impasses.)  Now, however, I should take a rest as I have a plane to catch in three hours.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * JB, you were not part of the discussions on the Catholic Church talk page that ultimately led to the opening of this Rfc. Sometimes, we get an editor who is so certain of their position that they want only that position to be included in the article. This is what Harmakheru was attempting when he first came along. We already had his POV included in the article and he was arguing against all others. We can't do that without violating a very core Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV. I argued with him, so did others on the page. No where was I unpleasant to him in my conversations yet he was clearly quite uncivil. No problem, I'm a big girl who lives with a bunch of New Yorkers in South Florida (I love New Yorkers b/t/w). I did not complain until Karanacs encouraged his behavior when admins are supposed to be helpful, not obstructive. I believe I was right to complain. I agree that I should have been more willing to replace references at first but before too long, I did replace them with better ones. However, what Harmakheru, Septentrionalis and Leadwind were demanding was for us to eliminate an important point of view all together. That is not acceptable because it violates Wikipedia policy and I believe I am correct in insisting on its inclusion. Please see this analysis I have put together here   Nancy Heise    talk  09:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nancy, first of all here's another diff in which you demonstrate you have a battleground mentality as a "big girl" prepared for some kind of fight.
 * As per my view on this page, I was around early enough that "I tried to point out the problem fairly early on here."
 * You should note that as far as I'm concerned whether you are "unpleasant" or not is utterly beside the point, as is your analysis of sources. Please review once again what I've been saying, and please stop trying to change the direction of this discussion.
 * And once again, all I'm asking is that you "begin by acknowledging that you and the other editors of the Catholic Church article (Hamarkheru and Karanacs included) do indeed share a common goal." Without that acknowledgement, there is no possibility of collaborative editing here: there are only supporters and opponents, friends and enemies, winners and losers.
 * Now to the airport... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Soidi's comment on jbmurray's view

 * Pmanderson's summary is accurate. On the other hand I disagree with the summary that follows here, suggesting that Nancy be banned. In her Response, she has expressed regret for what she has done wrong. Is it too much to believe she is incapable of improving? Soidi (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC) 


 * If I may respond here: I did not comment for a good while because I thought those words showed a prospect of improvement; but there has been none. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 09:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The more I see of a certain attitude here, the more inclined I feel to adopt the opinion of Septentrionalis. Soidi (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to "View of Xandar"
I just want to put it into the record that I reject virtually every claim Xandar has made in these paragraphs, at least as they apply to me. I did not enter the discussion with any interest in imposing a particular point of view; in fact I didn't even have a thoroughly worked out POV on these issues when I began, and for the most part I still don't. I have not denied that the Catholic Church was founded by (or on) Simon Peter; I have simply pointed out that mainstream scholarship tends not to support such a claim, regardless of what I may personally believe on the subject. I have not said that the Catholic Church is "largely an oppressive and negative religion", nor do I have any interest in imposing that slant on the article; I have simply asked that the facts, as established by mainstream scholarship, be followed wherever they lead. I have not taken the position that only "my" sources are valid; in fact, I have explicitly endorsed some of the sources for the "other" side, asking only that they be fairly represented and not used tendentiously. I have not said that Catholic scholars, or scholars who support a "positive and traditional" position, should be automatically rejected; in fact I have brought several Catholic scholars into the discussion that were previously unknown or ignored. If I have "targetted" Nancy it is not because she "stands up for the facts" or because she "insists on a fair balance of coverage and very sound research", but because in my experience her behavior has too often been exactly the opposite. Nor is it because she "does not allow herself to be steamrollered", but rather because she frequently attempts to steamroller others. And if I have on occasion been lacking in civility or collegiality, I would argue that it was not done gratuitously or without provocation, but rather in response to a lack of civility and collegiality on the part of others.

As for the claim that I only "parachuted in" to impose a point of view and offered no "constructive contributions" to the article, I would point out that I am the one who wrote the text for the third paragraph of the lead (absent the "historians" part that Nancy grafted back in)--a paragraph which is thoroughly orthodox from a Catholic perspective, and thoroughly sourced directly out of the Catechism. If that is not a "constructive contribution", then why has it miraculously remained entirely intact through all the subsequent fussing and fuming, and why have Xandar and Nancy allowed it to remain so?

In short, Xandar's screed is a perfect example of the double standard by which he and Nancy operate. Others must be civil and collegial toward them, but they are not obliged to be civil and collegial in return. Others must assume good faith on their part, but they are permitted to trash the motives of others with impunity. This is, in large part, why I have (like so many others before me) withdrawn from further participation in the development of this article. Life is too short for this sort of nonsense.  Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 06:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Harmakheru wrote "I have withdrawn from further participation in the development of this article". Lacking a better place to say this, I wish to comment that I very much regret Harmakheru's decision and hope that he will return soon as his involvement has been very useful even if it was deficient in civility at times. --Richard S (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hermakheru is indeed a big loss to that article but it comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with the tactics of Nancy Heisse who not only continuously misrepresents sources but with the support of Xandar continuously misrepresents editors like Hermakheru who is clearly in a different league to them in breadth of knowledge and scholarly approach. Has anyone compiled a list of competent editors they have driven away during the period they have controlled this article? If Hermakheru is considered to have been "deficient in civility at times" what words are left in the English language to describe the antics of these two? In my opinion Hermakheru speaks truthfully and plainly in a dialogue that would test the proverbial patience of Job and its a sad day when an editor of his quality gives up this article as a lost cause. Taam (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My goal is also to present a balanced viewpoint in this article rather than a whitewashed version of history. I have in the past argued to include other evidence of "good works" done by the Church (notably its immense contribution to art and its political power during the Middle Ages).  At the same time, I have often argued to include "negative" coverage (for example, the viewpoint that the Church policies have in the past and continue today to be perceived as harming women), because a balanced article requires both.  There is a large double standard on this article - sources that discuss "positive" aspects of the church are often held up as unimpeachable, while those that discuss "negative" aspects are continually dismissed, and editors who choose to present the "negative" argument are harangued until they end up leaving the article in disgust.  That is not the way to get a balanced article. Karanacs (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Although the article already does mention the arguments put forth by feminists and some US nuns in the third paragraph of the "Second Vatican Council and beyond" section, and "Holy orders" information that I researched and added - Karanacs put forth the assertion that the Catholic Church is perceived as harming women. I wanted to put this point of view into the article, not having heard of it before but certain it must be a prominent point of view if Karanacs was insisting that it was. When I went looking for sources, I ended up finding just the opposite scenario and significantly added the information I found to this page Role of the Catholic Church in civilization and created another page on the issue Sex, gender and the Roman Catholic Church. If Karanacs still feels that we have omitted something in the CC article, I am all for including it but we have to have a reliable source that says it. She provided none. I found none when I searched.   Nancy Heise    talk  04:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm an outsider to this dispute, having not worked on the article under discussion (at least, not so far as I can recall). Looking in at the discussion, it's striking to me how well it illustrates a phenomenon that's common in a variety of disputes - two sides look at the same situation and perceive it in diametrically opposite ways.


 * I can't see that Nancy has been dramatically less civil than the other editors working on the Catholic Church article, nor that she's been dramatically less willing than the other editors to seek balance and consensus. I know you don't perceive the situation that way, but I ask you to at least consider that an uninvolved editor could come in, look at the situation, and not see the same clear example of bad faith that you're describing.


 * Let's assume that Xander is mistaken - but let's also assume good faith on his part. What would make him say what he has said?  The simplest explanation would be that, after all of the discussion, he simply disagrees with you about the quality of the various sources and where the correct balance lies.  Assuming that were true, it would genuinely appear to him that you are trying to unbalance the article by pushing a particular point of view - just as it appears to you that he's trying to unbalance the article by pushing his point of view.


 * I don't have a dog in this fight, because I haven't been working on or even seriously following the article. But it seems clear that focusing on motives and personalities rather than the content is not helpful.  The fundamental issue does not appear to be one of bad faith or nefarious intentions, but rather a disagreement about where the neutral balance falls.  That isn't going to be easy to resolve - but personalizing it may very well make it impossible to resolve. EastTN (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again
As with Xandar, so with Nancy ; she has seriously misrepresented the grounds of our disagreement and totally misrepresented my position. I never attempted to impose a single point of view, nor did I attempt to exclude other POVs. I simply insisted that Nancy's alleged "facts" be properly sourced (which in many cases they were not), and our disagreement was over her persistent attempts to use sources which she had misinterpreted or which do not meet Wikipedia standards for scholarship. As for her claim that "PMAnderson and Leadwind, like Harmakheru, want us to exclude the scholars who agree with the Catholic Church's point of view and they want us to eliminate the Church's point of view as well - suggesting as their premier source a link to an online encyclopedia", that statement--at least as it applies to me--is not only false in every particular, but so egregiously false that I can find no vocabulary to characterize it that would not lead to further accusations of "incivility". This is yet another example of why I consider this whole situation to be hopeless. The governing structure of Wikipedia seems helpless to deal with this sort of behavior, leaving those who would like to see genuine collegiality and genuine scholarship with no alternative but to leave the field to those who practice neither.  Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 04:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Harmakheru, I have been called a liar enough by you that I feel it is necessary to provide you with some links to your own comments that will show you I am not lying.
 * Your statement above "I never attempted to impose a single point of view, nor did I attempt to exclude other POVs." can be proven wrong by these diff's to your own words
 * Here you are asking us to completely eliminate all mention of historians' points of view.
 * Here you declare that the Church itself does not hold Peter as the first Bishop of Rome and cite a Lutheran/Catholic ecumenical document to support the claim. You accuse us of not knowing what we are doing because you have rejected the sources we provided, sources that we subsequently replaced with better ones per your disgust. However, as you can see from Chapter 3 of the Church's own official constitution, Lumen Gentium, which cites Chapter 2 of Pastor aeternus, the Church states Peter is "prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives" and presides and "exercises judgment in his successors" the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].. "
 * Because we can't just cite original documents, here's several other sources that meet WP:reliable source examples supporting the Church's position regarding its origins including Peter as the first pope and bishop of Rome.
 * John Vidmar
 * August Franzen, John Dolan, Newman Eberhardt, G Maxwell-Stuart
 * But we did not stop with those, because we are sincerely trying to be WP:NPOV, we looked at many sources written by scholars including univeristy textbooks on Western Civilization (the first one listed here) and other various sources such as:
 * Thomas Noble and 7 other history professors who call the tradition that Peter was the first bishop of Rome a "reliable tradition".
 * Henry Chadwick
 * Roland Bainton
 * Oxford History of Christianity
 * Jaroslav Pelikan
 * These are the one's you supplied us, and that we considered as well even though we already had a good source for the opposing point of view, Eamon Duffy's Saints and Sinners. Your efforts simply supplied us with more of those we (the accused POV pushers), already had presented in the article.
 * As you can see, we have many scholars voicing varying points of view regarding Church origins. These viewpoints fall into one of three categories
 * 1)They agree with the Church's point of view regarding its own origins
 * 2)They disagree (cited to Hans Kung)
 * 3)They disagree with part of the Church's point of view. We have covered all three of these categories in the article in accordance with WP:NPOV.
 * In this diff, you proclaim that the view held by supposedly "most historians" is one that emerged in the last 50 years or so. The view held by most historians up until that point never mentions the relatively recent claim by historians of retrojection of the traditional narrative upon the primitive church. Thus, it is true, "many" historians (for the past two thousand years) agree with the traditional narrative - the point made by Wilken - the source and article text you wanted us to toss and we did, even though it is true.
 * In this diff you speak to Xandar in such an unpleasant and disrespectful way and then make claims of certainty that Clement was never Bishop of Rome - promoting only one point of view - and asserting that this is held by "virtually all modern historians". Yet, Franzen, Eberhardt,  and Vidmar  are "modern historians" who do not hold this point of view. What the other modern historians seem to be saying to me is that they don't know - yet you are such an expert on the subject that you are telling us otherwise. If I am skeptical of your emminence as an expert on this subject is is because your assertions have not been held up by the sources. You go overboard in your claims, something most of the scholars seem to have the good sense to avoid.
 * Even though I find you quite rude, abrasive and pretentious in your communications with me and others on the page, I appreciate your input as the article has been improved from these lively discussions - that's how Wikipedia works although it doesn't always get so ugly. We now have improved our references to the Catholic agreeing historian POV as a result of your efforts.
 * Because I found your mannerism to be very degrading and unpleasant. I got upset with Karanacs for awarding you with a barnstar even while you were exhibiting this unhelpful behaviour that violated WP:civil. I felt that Karanac's action encouraged you to continue in your unhelpful mannerism and that this was unhelpful to the advancement of the discussion on the page. As a friend who wished to see her friend improve her skills - I told her so. Her response was to open this Rfc against me. While I am not a perfect person and do have my faults, neither do I proclaim to be a perfect person either. I welcome the criticism directed at my editing ability here but some of it is certainly misplaced, such as the assertion that I was proposing using 1840's books and other issues I pointed out in the "Errors and fairness" section on this discussion page.  Nancy Heise    talk  06:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nancy, I don't recall that I have ever called you a "liar". What I have said is that you do not know what you are doing when it comes to genuine scholarship.  You do not know how to interpret documents according to the intent of the author; you do not know how to understand statements according to their context; you do not know the difference between objective history and confessional advocacy.  This is demonstrated by what you have just written above.  Your "proof" that I was attempting to impose a particular point of view and to suppress others hinges on my suggestion that it would be best to leave the historians out of it entirely, which is not the same thing at all.  And the sources you mention above are almost all misrepresented by you in one way or another.  For example, Noble's "reliable tradition" does not say that Peter was bishop of Rome as you allege, and the "seven other history professors" have nothing whatever to say on the subject since they are not specialists in that area.  Similarly, neither Chadwick, Bainton, the Oxford history, nor Pelikan provide the support for your position that you claim they do.  What you are doing is not scholarship but "prooftexting", in which statements are yanked out of their context and interpreted contrary to their authors' intent in order to make it appear they support your position when in fact they do not.  The fact that you are incapable of recognizing this even when it has been repeatedly pointed out to you suggests that you are completely out of your depth in what you are trying to do.  Given that, you would be much better off accepting the guidance of those who do know how to do such things, but this you have consistently refused to do.  If I have been "rude" and "abrasive" it has been because I can see no other way to get your attention in such matters; being pleasant and civil when pointing out your sins against scholarship only elicits a curt "I disagree", and you're done.  My rudeness and abrasiveness have at least to some extent forced you to actually engage the arguments of others, and that I consider an improvement.


 * This whole business has ultimately derived from your insistence that there be some statement in the article that "historians agree" with the Church's traditional view of its own history. Every attempt to scrub that statement from the article has led to howls from you and Xandar that someone is trying to "censor facts" and deprive the reader of a "truth" they need to know.  Never mind that the article works perfectly well (in fact better) without any of that.  Never mind that it has caused endless acrimony on the talk page and required endless qualifications to bring it into even partial alignment with reality.  Never mind that many of your supposed sources do not actually support the position to which you want to commit them.  You and Xandar are determined to drag in some historians somewhere to give the reader the impression that the Church's traditional narrative is "the truth", even if only a partial and arguable one.  That you are now reduced to defending this claim by interpreting "many historians agree" to mean "historians (for the past two thousand years)" is itself evidence of the bankruptcy of your position.  On those grounds you could just as well insist in an article on the causes of disease that "many doctors agree that illness is caused by demons", since indeed many medical professionals over the course of the past 2000 years have believed that.  But medicine has progressed a great deal in the last several centuries, and so has our understanding of ecclesiastical history.  In either case, we neglect that progress at our peril.    Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 15:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your answer sums up perfectly why it is so difficult to work with you. I provided actual diffs to the actual quotes of the scholars we used to support article text and you responded by insulting my intelligence as a person who does not know anything at all about history or how to understand what scholars are saying.
 * Looking again at your assertion above: "And the sources you mention above are almost all misrepresented by you in one way or another. For example, Noble's "reliable tradition" does not say that Peter was bishop of Rome as you allege," Well, Thomas Noble's university textbook is used a required course text for all of these universities  in teaching their courses on Western Civilization and its origins. Cornell university is among these. There are more, I just got tired of listing them. This university textbook is well received in the academic community as you can see and can give us a view, perhaps, of what "mainstream" academics think of Church origins. I have not proposed using this as a source in the article, I have proposed it to support the argument that there is a prominent scholarly view supportive of the Catholic POV. Coauthored by 7 other professors of history including one expert on the papacy, this university textbook specifically states:
 * on page 196 "According to a reliable tradition, he (Peter) went to Rome, whose church he headed and where he died as a martyr in AD 64."
 * page 212 "The earliest Christian communities were urban and had three kinds of officials, whose customary titles in English are bishop, priest, and deacon."
 * page 213 "From its earliest days, the Christian community had espoused the doctrine of apostolic succession. In other words, just as Jesus had charged his apostles with continuing his earthly ministry, that ministry was passed on to succeeding generations of Christian bishops and priests through the ceremony of ordination. When one or more bishops laid their hands on the head of a new priest or bishop, they were continuing an unbroken line of clerics that reached back through the apostles to Jesus himself. ... The theory of "Petrine Primacy" was based on Matthew's Gospel (16:16-18), where Jesus founded his church on Peter, "the Rock," and conferred upon him the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
 * So I am now wondering, what would you say Noble is trying to tell us? Please tell me how I have misrepresented this source.  Nancy Heise    talk  04:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nancy, I was not insulting your intelligence; I was making an observation about your lack of specific skills that are required in order to do proper scholarship. These are not skills that one would normally pick up as an undergraduate, or as a CPA, or while running your own business; they are skills that are usually acquired through graduate study at a good research university over the course of years of arduous labor devoted specifically to learning how to do these things.  And to anyone who has actually done this kind of work, your own failings in these areas are glaringly obvious.  That doesn't make you stupid, nor does it make you a bad person; but it does mean that you all too frequently misunderstand the materials you are trying to work with, and don't recognize your errors even when people who do have these skills try to correct you.  That is what leads some people to lose patience with you and become "rude" and "abrasive", and other people to give up entirely and leave in disgust.  From what I gather in this discussion, there have apparently been quite a long string of such people, and all the evidence seems to point decisively to you as one of the primary causes of the acrimony and one of the primary motivations for their leaving.


 * The business about Noble is a good example of this. You claimed Noble as support for the proposition that Peter was bishop of Rome.  I brought it to your attention that Noble does not say this.  In response you once again quote Noble as saying that Peter went to Rome, headed the church there, and died as a martyr there--as if this proves your point.  But it does not prove your point, because Noble does not say (at least in the passage you quote) that Peter was bishop of Rome.  Going to Rome does not mean he was bishop there.  Dying as a martyr does not mean he was bishop there.  Even "heading the church" (where neither "heading" nor "church" is given any further description or explanation) does not mean he was bishop there.  You assume that this is what Noble means, and you may well be right.  But it is not what he says--and since he is not here to clarify his meaning, your assumption goes beyond what can be proven.  And in fact your error is even worse than this, because what you actually attributed to Noble was the claim that Peter was not only bishop of Rome, but the first bishop there--and Noble does not say anything at all in the passage you quote about a "first bishop", or a first anything.  In addition, you once again imply that Noble's position (or rather your misinterpretation of it) is backed up by "seven other professors of history", which anyone who knows anything about scholarly specialization and the writing of textbooks would realize is baseless.  Of course this point has already been explained to you in some detail, but to no effect; like so many such explanations, you simply ignored it and went right back to your previous position as if nothing had been said on the subject.  And again, it is precisely this sort of incorrigibility on your part that tempts people like me to become "rude" with you as the only way of getting your attention, and ultimately to give up entirely on working with you because there seems to be no hope that things will ever get any better.   Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 06:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Noble's other quotes following "headed the church" discuss the positions of bishop as going back to the earliest days of the Church. I think the fact that you are splitting hairs over the term "bishop" shows your unreasonableness. The Catholic Church's point of view is that Peter headed the Church of Rome. The term bishop did not come into use until the second century. However, the office of "bishop" whatever it is called "head of church" existed according to a "reliable tradition". We have actually referenced the article's sentence to two other sources that agree with Noble that Peter "headed the Church" at Rome but they use the term "bishop" explaining what I just told you (see the Eberhardt's quote in ref number 46 ). You are being unreasonable as well as quite snobbish - a very unpleasant manner to work with. I would prefer that you stick to the evidence instead of making personal attacks on me. I consider your argument that I am not capable of understanding what scholars are saying to be a personal attack especially when I clearly do understand and have provided sources to supplement the point of view you kept telling us was non-existent - a point of view that is clearly well accepted in the academic community if it exists in one of the most oft used university textbooks on the subject of Western Civilization that discusses at length, the origin of the Catholic Church.  Nancy Heise    talk  06:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I couldn't have asked for better proof of my point. I rest my case.   Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 06:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See below.  Nancy Heise    talk  09:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Assertions made by Harmakheru about Church's position of its origins subsequently proven false
Harmakheru has accused me of not being able to understand the sources in the section above. While I provided evidence of his unreasonableness in that section, I feel that we need to analyze his arguments even more to show how far he has gone overboard in his claims.
 * Here is his analysis of the Catholic Church's official position on their own origins.
 * In it he states "Mike, one cannot casually equate the traditional narrative with "the Church's position"." and then goes on to argue, citing the Canon Law Society of America, that the Church itself does not "embrace the traditional narrative".
 * This is why I argued with him because of such astonishingly unsupported claims. The official Church constitution is Lumen Gentium which gives us the official church position on its own origins in Chapter III (see chapter III plus notes 1 and 2 for that chapter ). This chapter specifically states its support for the first Church consitution's statements on church origins in the Vatican I document Pastor aeternus (see the traditional narrative pontificated in chapters 1,2 and 3 ).
 * Both August Franzen and Newman Eberhardt put forth this same traditional narrative in their books on the history of the Church (quotes here ).
 * Yet he accuses me of misrepresenting sources. Should we toss Lumen Gentium as a reference and use the Canon Law Society as a reference? Eberhardt and Franzen both have Nihil obstat and Imprimatur declarations from the Church.
 * Harmakheru is assuming, because Canon Law Society gives Reader the fact that some scholars argue a particular point, that this is the official Church position in the matter - when that is not what Canon Law Society is saying at all. They are not making a statement for or against but giving us what we already have presented in the article.
 * He uses this to insist that there is no offical Church position on its own origins by stating "We have the fact that neither Vatican II nor the current Catechism, as far as I can find, embrace the traditional narrative; instead they fall back on the "less specific claims" about Petrine primacy and Roman succession mentioned above, and allow the rest to lapse into a discreet silence" when I have clearly provided more reliable sources that show just the opposite to be the case, these are the Church constitution, Lumen Gentium ) which cites Pastor aeternus), and these are supported by two Nihil obstat, imprimatur sources, Franzen and Eberhardt.
 * I do not understand how I can have an Rfc opened against me for arguing with Harmakheru whose arguments are so unsupported, even false - and I have proven it with sources already to the point where no one is arguing about the traditional narrative espoused by the Catholic Church anymore.  Nancy Heise    talk  07:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Claims by Harmakheru that the Church position on its own origins has changed, also proven false

 * In this diff Harmakheru claims that the traditional narrative "For a century or more historians and theologians have been hammering away at it, insisting that it was insupportable and needed to be modified or abandoned; now it appears that the highest authorities of the Magisterium have decided that they were right, and they are allowing the traditional narrative to die a quiet death."
 * Where have the "highest authorities of the Magisterium made this decision? They have not changed the Church constitution, its still there in Lumen Gentium. It is still in our most recent catechetical books, approved by the USCCB we are using to teach the faith the books that have a higher approval than those with just a Nihil obstat, Imprimatur. Here's one, One Faith, One Lord by Msgr John F. Barry that states "...the Church was founded by Christ with Peter and the apostles as its first leaders and teachers. The apostles' authority and call to service have been handed down to their successors, the pope and the bishops of the Catholic Church. This is what we call apostolic succession. The pope, the bishop of Rome, is the successor to Saint Peter." Here's one called Our Catholic Faith by the same author that states "As time passed, the leaders who succeeded, or took the place of, the Apostles were called bishops. Bishops are the successors of the Apostles and continue to lead the Church. Each local area is called a diocese led by a bishop. The pope is the bishop of the diocese of Rome, Italy. He continues the leadership of the Apostle Peter, having a God-given responsibility to care for the souls of all members of the Church."
 * It is difficult to work with Harmakheru when he makes such unsuppored, even outlandish claims and then expects us to put this into the article - unsupported and directly opposing not just original documents like the Church constitutions but even catechetical books and modern scholarship such as Eberhardt and Franzen who books both have Nihil obstat, Imprimatur and are used as seminary references.  Nancy Heise    talk  08:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

More Harmakheru assertions pushing one particular point of view

 * Here Harmakheru claims that the there is no historical proof linking the Catholic Church to the original Chrisitan community in Rome because of a 30 year gap between Peter's death and Clement's letter.
 * He states "We do not know that Peter even had "successors" at Rome, or how such a succession might have been implemented, or whether it was interrupted for any significant period of time. The actual historical record (as opposed to sectarian apologetic arguments made generations after the fact) simply offers no evidence whatever for any of this. One may as a matter of "faith" bridge that gap with assumptions and traditions and legends, but one may not then turn around and call what one is doing "history". It isn't." *Yet we have provided three modern scholars  who hold a point of view that differs from this, and they cite several historical documents as well as "negative" evidence. These are historians claiming historicity, not faith. It appears that some historians that hold Harmakheru's position will deny the historicity of several original documents while other historians accept them.
 * Even Thomas Noble, whose book is an oft used university textbook on Western Civilization explains the origin of the Catholic Church as beginning with Peter and his "headed the church" at Rome. There is no mention of Harmakheru's position in this source - a source which appears to be very well received in the academic community.

Conclusion

 * Harmakheru's preferred point of view is and always has been part of the Origins section, it was and still is cited to Eamon Duffy. His other assertions dismissing the opposing point of view are impossible to incorporate into the article without violating WP:NPOV. I do not feel that Karanac's opening of an Rfc against me is justified in light of this evidence. In fact, I feel that her actions encouraged more disruption on the article talk page and harmed the progress of the article until she ultimately came around and offered her support for the article text that included all three points of view, and for that I am grateful.  Nancy Heise    talk  09:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nancy, given all this, perhaps you might think about changing your initial "response" to this RfC, which was as follows:
 * "I would like to thank Karanacs for her time and attention in compiling this Rfc. I pray to God every day asking Him to please make me know my sins so I can stop sinning and be a better person. (I'm not joking) I did not know I was such a problem editor."
 * It seems a little disingenuous to keep that statement up on the RfC, no? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nancy, with every posting you provide further evidence in support of my evaluation, and dig yourself deeper into the hole.


 * First, you misrepresent both my position and the nature of the controversy. Contrary to your claims, I never sought to impose a single point of view on the article or to suppress the point of view you prefer.  The issue was not whether particular views should be represented, but (1) whether there should be any statement at all about historians' alleged "agreement" with the traditional narrative, (2) how historians' support for the traditional position should be characterized ("many", "some", etc.), and (3) whether the Church itself still officially stands by the traditional narrative in all its glory.  The first point is a matter of opinion, and while I have my own opinion and have expressed it clearly, I have not insisted on it precisely because it is a matter of opinion, and others' tastes may legitimately differ.  On the second point, when we began this discussion you did not have a single legitimate scholarly source to support your position, and I pointed this out to you repeatedly, to no effect.  Eventually you did come up with Vidmar, and on that basis I agreed that one could properly say that "some" historians support your position, but certainly not "many"--and in fact the balance of genuinely scholarly sources on the subject (as opposed to apologetic, catechetical, or confessional ones) would put "many" and probably "most" historians in opposition to your position, as I demonstrated with a rather large number of quotes and citations.


 * As for the third point, you once again prove my contention that you do not understand how to handle even your own sources, much less others'. You make much of the USCCB's approval of some catechetical materials, without realizing that the USCCB has no doctrinal authority and in fact has a long history of approving all sorts of strange and unreliable stuff.  (And the fact that you would try to use a middle-school catechetical text as a source for anything at all tells a lot all by itself.)  You make much of the fact that some of your sources have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, and you try to use this to bash the reliability of the sources I have used--ignoring the fact (which I repeatedly pointed out in our earlier discussion) that several of my preferred sources also have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, including the Canon Law commentary and the book by Brown and Meier.  What you do not seem to understand (although it is explained in both the articles you link to on the subject) is that the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur do not constitute an approval of the opinions of the author, but only a declaration that those opinions are not harmful to the faith and do not contain doctrinal or moral error.  In other words, the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are purely negative.  They only certify that the contents of the book do not directly contradict the Church's core teachings; they do not constitute any kind of endorsement.


 * So we have some approved books which continue to support the traditional narrative, and other approved books which flatly dismiss almost all of it--and the Church is fine with both. What that ought to tell you is precisely what I have insisted all along:  that it is not contrary to Catholic faith to deny virtually the entirety of the traditional narrative, which could only be the case if the highest authorities of the Church had decided to abandon their insistence on that narrative.  And this is precisely what we see in the Catechism, which carefully ignores all such issues entirely.  Yes, it tells us, there is a petrine primacy, and the Pope is the successor of Peter in that primacy.  Exactly how and why is left unspecified--and for good reason.


 * You also make much of various statements in Lumen Gentium and Pastor Aeternus, but these don't help your case at all. As far as I can find, Lumen Gentium nowhere endorses the traditional narrative; like the Catechism, it embraces a petrine primacy (how could it not?) but nowhere is that primacy grounded in Peter's alleged tenure as bishop of Rome, or in his appointment of Linus and/or Clement as his successors in Rome, or even in his martyrdom at Rome.  None of these things is so much as mentioned.  Even Pastor Aeternus, which is where one would expect to find an endorsement of the traditional narrative if there is any to be had, does you little good, since it only affirms that the Roman Church was "founded" by Peter and "consecrated by his blood", but without any details as to the length of his tenure there, his assumption of episcopal authority there, or who he appointed as his successors there.  In fact, it carefully avoids the issue of whether he appointed any successors at all; it only says that "whoever succeeds Peter in this See ... obtains the primacy of Peter over the whole Church", which is not a historical claim but a theological one.  Nor does it anywhere cite Clement or Ignatius in support of even these minimal claims, and Irenaeus is cited only in support of the existence of the primacy, not the details of its founding.  This very reserve of Vatican I with respect to the details of the traditional narrative is itself instructive; already by 1870 the highest authorities of the Church seem to have realized that it would be foolhardy to ground the primacy in a narrative which had so little historical credibility, so they chose not to do so.  That was wise of them--one might almost say it was inspired.  And the fact that they chose the course they did not only fails to support your position, but undermines it considerably.   Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 16:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing?
The RfC has been up for more than the recommended 30 days (my apologies for not noticing this sooner; I didn't have internet access last week). Does anyone know how to properly close this? It would likely be improper for me, the filing party, to do so. I'm also unsure whether a closing statement/summary is necessary. I'd appreciate any guidance. Karanacs (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See instructions for closing certified disputes due to inactivity. I believe you can close it yourself. On another Rfc/U that I participated in, no statement was necessary. I think a Rfc/U is just kept as a record in case one has to go further in the dispute resolution process. --RelHistBuff (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably better for someone uninvolved to close this - so I'll do it when it's ready to close. The activity in this RfC has been a little unusual in that every few days or so (relatively consistently), there have been views and/or endorsements. In this sense, the RfC/U hasn't been quite inactive, nor does it fit typical circumstances. That said, the last new "outside view" was made on Nov. 20. There have been mixed views, so a summary is not really needed. However, it would be ideal if more participants could express their view on whether they agree to the RfC/U closing within the next...say...48 hours. If there is broad agreement, I'll close this accordingly within that time frame. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your guidance. I have no problem with this being closed within the next 48 hours. Karanacs (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't believe that the RfC will yield any further results or commentary, so it's best to have it clossed. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 21:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see that it's going anywhere productive. I support closing it. EastTN (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Continued misbehavior
Nancy's conduct continues unabated:
 * This edit is another example of "Ealdgyth didn't object to this at FA so it must be consensus". She has learned nothing from from this RfC at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly what Nancy said. The argument was:
 * The text was peer reviewed by Ealdgyth as part of the last peer review, and was also reviewed as part of the last FAC;
 * Neither of those reviews concluded that the text misrepresented the sources; so
 * If we think that it does misrepresent the sources, we should explain exactly how we think it misrepresents them.
 * I haven't reviewed the sources, so I have no opinion about whether the text accurately reflects them or not. But the specific edit you flagged is more nuanced than "Ealdgyth didn't object to this at FA so it must be consensus". EastTN (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If the dispute was not resolved via an RfC/U, or it continued past that point, then regrettably, it would need to be escalated to the next relevant steps in dispute resolution, or to an admin noticeboard as appropriate. Note: this is a general comment - it should not be construed as a comment on the dispute or the conduct referred to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope that this list will not be used for that purpose; but it will be available if it is, and I encourage others to add it as needed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. But when it begins looking like a laundry list of grievances, that would be a very clear sign that it needs to be escalated to the next step. Good luck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)