![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
It's quite strange this section which covers art, literature, music, science, economic development, and which quotes non-Catholic scholars was removed peremptorily without much discussion. This part is important for Wikipedia as it is important for the treatment of the Catholic church in other encyclopedic works. It might read as apologetics to some, but that is not enough basis to remove an articulation of significant knowledge, which quotes experts on the subject matter. I removed though the extensive quotes on hospitals in accordance with Wikipedia's summary style, and Benedict XVI' s comment on the Church's charitable works. I know what he is saying is important, but it is better in this context that a historian says it rather than the Pope. Lafem ( talk) 12:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bring this up again. I read through a discussion on "Church" v. "church" in an archive, and I'm still confused as to what consensus was. I think I read that consensus was to leave instances as "church" unless specifically referring to a shortened version of "Roman Catholic Church". Was anyone else around for that discussion months ago? I ask because I was about to go change a few instances before realizing it was probably an issue. Thanks! Stanselmdoc ( talk) 18:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
After addressing all of the last GA reviewers comments (jackturner) both here and on my talk page and addressing all of the peer reveiw comments, I have renominated this article for GA. Thanks, NancyHeise ( talk) 15:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I reworked the references for catechism and gospel so they are consistent and go to online sources. This article meets FA criteria and I have nominated it. NancyHeise ( talk) 20:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the phrase "Aside from administrative and liturgical differences, Catholic belief mainly differs from Protestant Christians in that they do not believe the five solas", as I think this is misleading. I don't think that most modern Protestants would immediately identify the five solas as a core part of their beliefs, if they had heard of them at all; and the source given only identifies them as one of the differences between the beliefs of Catholics and some conservative protestants.
It is going to be very hard to single out the differences between Catholic and Protestant belief, as Protestantism is not a body with homogenous beliefs. The 'five solas' were one 16th century attempt to encapsulate the reformation's major objections to Catholic beliefs, but if we reference them we need to make sure that they're not presented as some Protestant creed. I'm not sure what the best thing is to write here. TSP ( talk) 12:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Surely someone is going over the top on placing "citation-needed" tags on every statement in parts of the article. Surely such tags are only needed for information that is likely to be challenged, controversial or unusual. In this article people are tagging stuff like "Catholics are encouraged to honour Mary"! or direct quotations from Canon Law. This is surely common knowledge, and to provide a reference for every factual statement in article would make the whole thing unworkable. People will be asking for citations for "it gets dark at night," next! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandar ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
NOTE:ALL OF THESE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AND ARE ANSWERED ON THE FAC LEAVE COMMENTS PAGE ON THE TAG AT THE TOP OF THE ARTICLE ON THIS PAGE NancyHeise ( talk) 11:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC) This is cross-posted on the FAC nomination.
Karanacs ( talk) 16:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I did a quick search through Amazon, and these are just a few of the 42000+ books available about the Roman Catholic Church that would make great sources for this article:
Karanacs ( talk) 16:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Since Karanacs tagged most of the sentences in this article with citation needed tags, I took the time to go through and put citations on all of those areas. Please note the use of a very reliable non self published third party source used in the belief section to supplement the Catechism references and Canon Law references. It is a textbook published by Sadlier called One Faith One Lord with ISBN number and other book info provided as appropriate. I have also incorporated a school textbook on church history and I also went to the library and checked out another book called Saints and Sinners which is a history of the popes and events surrounding them. I am adding content to address the Avignon papacy per Karanacs comments. I will not incorporate Karanacs specific comments that conflict with the GA reviewer Jackturner whose comments are on this talk page and on my talk page. He gave his advice throughout the rewriting of the history section and the finished product was peer reviewed. I will not eliminate bible references that are appropriately used in compiling the belief section using FA Islam as an example. I feel that Karanacs is inventing some of these issues not to achieve FA but to be unreasonable. Hard not to think that when other FA's have standards that Karanacs seems to think that I am not allowed to follow here. NancyHeise ( talk) 02:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Since the appropriate place to address FA comments is on the FA leave comments page, I have answered all of Karanacs and other reviewers comments there. The citation tag needs to be removed from the article. Thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 10:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
"Catholics have endowed Mary with many adoring titles such as…"
The term here is venerating, not adoring. Adoration or worship is an activity reserved solely for God. The idea that Mary is worshipped by Catholics is a misconception outside the church. -- 78.16.150.23 ( talk) 14:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The following links need a disambig:
arian
calvin
charles V
constantine
dioscorus
frederick II
john carroll
origin
romanesque
saint francis
saint irenaeus
saint paul
schism
seven sacraments
vatican
Randomblue (
talk)
18:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC).
Thanks for checking these, I would have missed them completely. I corrected all pages that went to a disambiguaiton page so now they go directly to the correct wikipage. Thanks again. NancyHeise ( talk) 00:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The editor who placed the Original Research tag, Karanacs, provided a list of reasons why the tag was placed on the page. Those concerns have all been addressed in detail in the leave comments page of the FA nomination tag at the top of this discussion page. The tag needs to be removed. NancyHeise ( talk) 13:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This sentence was not cited at all. It preceeds a sentence that provides further explanation and is cited to the Sadlier textbook. I did not think I had to have a citation at the end of every single sentence but I added the Sadlier citation just to make this clear. NancyHeise ( talk) 18:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The Gospel of John refers to Jesus as "The Word" who is God and who was with God from the beginning and through whom all things were made.."
I added a third party reference to the end of this sentence to compliment the bibleref. NancyHeise ( talk) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the sentence that follows those two: "Participation in the sacraments, offered to them through the church, is how Catholics obtain forgiveness of sins and formally "ask" for the "good thing", the Holy Spirit.[6] These sacraments are:" I think it is clear how those two sentences fit into the article, they are providing the biblical source for the action of asking for the holy spirit in the church sacraments. If you have said yourself they are not original research then these sentences should not prevent you from removing the tag. NancyHeise ( talk) 19:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have added a third party reference to this sentence to address your concern. This is a subject well covered by many historians. Throughout history as you can see even in this article, it the leaders of the church who eventually decide true doctrine based on these Bible references. NancyHeise ( talk) 19:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There is another instance that I am concerned about:
As Nancy warned the Church history section is getting too long and turgid. If negatives have to be put in and balanced with positives in proportion to history, the size and impenetrability of the section starts getting out of control. I had to change some very POV (and misleading) wording on the Crusades and inquisitions. Misleading popular legend rather than fact is creeping back into the article.(eg. Crusades=Christian-only massacres; Inquisitions arrested all non-Christians) Xandar ( talk) 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I finished my first pass at a copyedit of the history section. Please read through it to make sure that it is still accurate. If you feel that any of it is POV let's discuss here. I still think it needs information about the church's impact on art (although I did expand the architecture section a bit). There are a few places that confused me, and there are some facts which I feel could be eliminated from this article (but should be retained in the History of the Church article). As I am not an expert on Church history, I didn't want to do that without consensus. What do you guys think?
France was a catholic nation; why did the pope trying to unite Catholic nations further alienate the two?
Karanacs ( talk) 20:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Nancy, you removed the text I had changed about the Inquisition on the grounds that your version is shorter. Your version is actually longer (mine only appears longer because it has more citation information). Taking out the citation info on both sides, my version is 102 words (715 chars), while yours is 138 words (878 chars).
Here is the text I propose: The Inquisitions were intended to identify and prosecute heretics. The accused were encouraged to recant their heresy and those who did not could be punished by fine, imprisonment, or execution by burning. In 1252, the Church authorized torture as a method of questioning. Some of the Inquisitions also prosecuted bigamy, usury, witchcraft, apostasy, and blasphemy, and some accusations were made for political rather than religious purposes. Scientists, including Galileo Galilei, were also subject to the Inquisition. Although Pope Sixtus IV originally gave Spain permission to carry out their Inquisition under state control, the Church regained control after hearing reports of its ruthlessness.
All of this is cited to 2 books on the Inquisition. I believe the version that is currently on the page is factually incorrect. That version says that "Anyone suspected of following a faith other than Christianity was arrested." which is an exaggeration. It also states that "Although the pope issued strict guidelines about how to conduct these trials, abuses occurred including torture and execution", which is not true either; execution was an expected outcome, and torture was explicitly allowed. The version I propose also contains the information that people accused were not necessarily executed, as well as the fact that the Church took over the Spanish Inquisition because the Spanish were being too ruthless (which is a point in favor of the Church). Is there anything specific in my version that you dislike? Karanacs ( talk) 03:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
New proposal to address Xandar's concerns: Karanacs ( talk) 16:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC) The Inquisitions were intended to identify and prosecute heretics. The accused were encouraged to recant their heresy and those who did not could be punished by fine, imprisonment, or execution by burning. In 1252, the Church authorized torture as a method of questioning. Some of the Inquisitions also prosecuted bigamy, usury, apostasy, and blasphemy, and some accusations were made for political rather than religious purposes. Although Pope Sixtus IV originally gave Spain permission to carry out their Inquisition under state control, its ruthlessnes led the Church to bring the Spanish Inquisition back under Church control.
James Casey, Early Modern Spain: A Social History, published by Routledge, 2002 this is relevant to the Spanish Inquisition only p 229 "Overall, cases of heresy—Jews, Moriscos, Protestants (almost all foreigners) — accounted for only about 40 per cent of Inquisition business between 1540 and 1700, as the tribunal became more concerned instead with policing the faith and morals of the majority Old Christian population" p 230 The severity of these punishments seems to have depended on family background, with more indulgence shown towards the nobility and those of Old Christian ancestry. Formal heretics were ‘reconciled’ to the church, losing their property and being gaoled for a period, Only 3 or 4 per cent of trials ended with a death sentence, and about half of these were against those who had escaped abroad anyway
Christopher F. Black, Early Modern Italy: A Social History", published by Routledge, 2001
p 200
about the Inquisition in Venice:
Once under way the inquisition tribunals operated very legalistically, under rule books and guidelines in the hands of well-trained lawyers, with theological advisers. Prior investigations and subsequent trial proceedings were more thorough than in other ecclesiastical or secular courts. Physical torture was used sparingly, and under fairly strict regulation – though there could be significantly effective psychological torture through the lengthy investigations carried on while many accused remained in prison, and the nature of the accusation and the accusers often remained unrevealed. Death sentences were rare and usually reserved for heretics deemed to have lapsed, and to be a threat to others
p 202
The laity could readily use the inquisition for their own advantage, to seek revenge on enemies or punish a practitioner of magic who failed to deliver what was required by denouncing her as whore and witch
p 203
The Italian inquisitions and other ecclesiastical courts, backed by episcopal decrees and legislation, campaigned against many superstitious practices, and ‘witchcraft’, which were seriously attempted by men and women
S.E. Filner, The History of Government from the Earliest Times Volume III: Empires, Monarchies and the Modern State, published by Oxford University Press in 1999 p 1295 Their task as inquisitors was to search out heresy, try the accused, give him the opportunity to recant, and if not hand him over to the secular power for punishment—which, at its most extreme, was to be burned alive. Their procedure was inquisitorial. The accused was interrogated with the testimony of witnessess, and in 1252 Paul IV authorized the use of torture to extract confessions. (This use of torture was in no way confined to the Inquisition. It was widespread in such secular tribunals as used inquisitorial procedures and for an identical reason: that they could only find an accused guilty on the strength of a confession.) p 1296, referring to the Inquisition after the Church took over from the Spanish authorities This 'New Inquisition' was a duly constituted court, with a supreme Consejo presided over by the Grand Inquisitor, and inferior tribunals in the larger towns. Its procedure encouraged delation and torture and was used for political as well as religious purposes, for it could and did strike at any person or class of persons in the country, and it could intimidate even by mere threat. Furthermore, its remit ran further than heresy, for it encompassed cases involving apostasy, witchcraft, bigamy, usury, and blasphemy
The sources for this are above.
In an effort to be more POV, this version puts in a percentage of people who were executed and mentions that torture was used by secular courts as well, and that there were guidelines for its use. I added witchcraft back in because it appeared in several of the sources I found. Is this version acceptable now? Karanacs ( talk) 19:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Nancy, is this text not able to be cited to the Church history ref? This is just a paraphrase of what it in the existing paragraph, and if it is not cited to that source then it needs to be cited to something. Respect for the Church and papal authority declined in the late Middle Ages due to these internal disagreements, clerical corruption and abuses of power, and perceived misuse of finances. Some ordained men were considered hypocrites, as they live luxurious lifestyles or maintained mistresses and fathered illegitimate children. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanacs ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This is able to be ref'd to several of my sources because they all say those same things right before they talk about the Reformation. NancyHeise ( talk) 18:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
DEBATING MERITS OF PROPOSED PARAGRAPH BY KARANACS: "Catharism arose in the 12th century, with Cathars advocating extreme asceticism and denying the value of the Church sacraments. Pope Innocent III encouraged secular rulers to stamp out this heresy. To secure religious and doctrinal unity within Christianity, several popes conducted Inquisitions. Historians distinguish between the Medieval Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition, the Roman Inquisition, and the Portuguese Inquisition, some under state and others under church control." I AM FINE WITH THE ABOVE SECTION
"The Inquisitions were intended to identify and prosecute heretics."
THE ABOVE SENTENCE DOES NOT LET THE READER KNOW THE LINK BETWEEN INQUISITIONS AND THE EFFORT TO DRIVE OUT THE MOORS IN SPAIN, AN IMPORTANT FACT OF THE TIMES
"The accused were encouraged to recant their heresy and those who did not could be punished by fine, imprisonment, or execution by burning"
THE ABOVE SENTENCE INCORRECTLY MAKES IT APPEAR AS IF ALL INQUISITIONS EXECUTED PEOPLE BY BURNING WHEN THAT IS NOT THE FACT
(fewer than 4% of the accused were sentenced to death during the Spanish Inquisiton). THE ABOVE SENTENCE IS OK IF IT HAS A REFERENCE, MY REFERENCES SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE EXECUTED
In 1252, the Church, following the model of some secular tribunals, authorized torture as a method of questioning and issued guidelines on when it was allowed to be applied.
THE ABOVE SENTENCE, WHILE FACTUAL, IS NOT HELPED LATER IN THE ARTICLE TO SHOW THAT TORTURE WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE CHURCH FOR LATER INQUISITIONS, ONLY THE ONE IN 1252
Some of the Inquisitions also prosecuted bigamy, usury, apostasy, witchcraft, and blasphemy, and some accusations were made for political rather than religious purposes.
THE ABOVE SENTENCE LUMPS ALL THE INQUISITIONS TOGETHER WHEN THE OTHER VERSION GIVES THE READER MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION AND IS NOT LONGER THAN KARANACS VERSION.
NancyHeise ( talk) 21:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This comment was on my talk page after an admin asked me to consult with this person he considered an expert. This is what that person said:
I am sorry that I have not been able to intervene as requested. Perhaps I am not the best person to ask to polish an article, rather than merely to search out factual information. Besides, I fear that an editor who has taken a dislike to me and my editing might be drawn to intervene in what you and I would consider to be a negative way. Perhaps, too, people with prejudices against what the article is about will in any case make it impossible for you to achieve your aim, no matter how perfect you make the form of the article. Lima (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is clear that people like me who are trying to build a non POV article get harrassed by people who are somehow anti-Catholic and wish to turn these Wikipedia pages into propaganda against the Catholic church. I am very discouraged working with Karanacs after seeing her edits to the sensitive issues of Crusades and Inquisitions. I think her edits are very POV, mine were neutral - they told the plain facts. She has spun those facts into something that makes it POV. Other editors have said the same thing, she is the one owning the page and not listening to others. I am trying to bring an important article to FA - this editor is doing her best to block that effort.
NancyHeise (
talk)
01:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I've found a solid Catholic source about infallibility. I am typing up some quotations to share here for discussion. Vassyana ( talk) 13:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Book quotes and title information: /infallibility. Any suggestions for how it might be put to use most effectively and appropriately in the article? Vassyana ( talk) 15:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The new Eastern Orthodox material seems unnecessary to me - it doesn't seem to have much relevance to this article, and, as I've marked, I'm not sure about one of the statistics. If people want to know more about the Orthodox churches per se (as distinct from their relationship with the Roman Catholic Church), they can go to that article. Which comment on the FA was it intended to address? TSP ( talk) 14:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
TSP, I put this information in the article to give the reader a perspective on what the majority of Christians beleive. If you look back on these talkpages, you will see people who have suggested the Catholics are not Christians at all, that we are some sort of cult. I think this is a necessary point to make in the beleifs section primarily for this reason. NancyHeise ( talk) 21:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
We really need fresh eyes on the text for the Inquisition paragraph, so I'm taking the liberty of posting again. Here is my proposed paragraph:
Sources are listed verbatim here. Nancy commented here that she wants the paragraph to mention that the Inquisitions were also prompted by fear of a Moorish invasion. I agreed but ONLY if the information on English persecution of Catholics was altered to mention fear of Spanish invasion. (no response on that suggestion). There are more comments above which I felt were factually inaccurate based on the sources, and Nancy also thought that this paragraph was too vague. I'd like more viewpoints, please. Karanacs ( talk) 15:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like these to be factual. Facts help the reader see that people were living in a war zone most of the time and the inquisitions and persecutions were not simply some pope or English monarch deciding to slaughter people, they were a response to the threat of war. Much like the communist inquisition that took place here in our own US under MaCarthyism or something of that nature. I think that is a fact that will help the paragraph, not hurt it. I have the citation to support the driving out the Moors sentence. I have no information in my sources that suggest the English feared Spanish invasion and thus resorted to Catholic persecution. You will have to supply that ref,sorry. Also, I am fine with your new changes to the Middle Ages, putting the information about what clerical abuses there were in the Counterreformation paragraph. I think that is a reasonable compromise. Thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 17:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, I changed the section on Elizabeth I per our conversation above. If you don't like this, please discuss here what should be changed. At the beginning of Elizabeth I's reign Catholic practices were outlawed, but the laws, were often loosely enforced.[5] Following her excommunication by Pius V, England successfully put down several rebellions and faced threats invasion by Catholic countries such as France and Spain.[6] With this atmosphere, Elizabeth I issued the Acts of Persuasion, which made conversion to Catholicism treason punishable by death. Karanacs ( talk) 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that a source had been added to the membership numbers and wanted to reiterate WP policies on reliable sources, verifiability (especially the sources section). Concerns about the sources on this article have been brought up by numerous people (including me) at the FA nomination. Although Nancy did a good job of removing many of the initial problematic citations, the currently used citations are still not at the caliber that the article should use. I thought that a brief overview for clarity might help. Basically, the WP guidelines and policies say that if at all possible, academic sources should be used.
Karanacs ( talk) 17:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
National Geographic is a mainstream publication that is fact checked and peer reviewed. Karanacs can not arbitrarily decides without evidence that National Geographic is somehow not a reliable source. NancyHeise ( talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, after looking at the guidelines, it appears to me that a lot of what you made me delete was actually fine to keep. Maybe I should not have relyied on your advice on what is a reliable source. NancyHeise ( talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
A National Geographic book written by numerous top historical scholars is not the same as a book written by a single scholar and then published by National Geographic. A collaboration of scholars on a subject is by definition, Peer Reviewed and Fact Checked. NancyHeise ( talk) 20:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs, I apologized to you on my talk page. I will try to be more reasonable. I appreciate your new edits to the history section as it seems that they are not POV. I made changes to the section that you found confusing on laity. I just reworded it, I did not provide new refs as the ones there are OK. Let me know if you think it still needs improvement. NancyHeise ( talk) 21:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
These have been addressed. let me know if they still need clarification. Thanks for pointing that out, what may be obvious for Catholics may not be obvious for others and I am glad you mentioned these. NancyHeise ( talk) 01:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
At a quick glance - "Beginning in the 11th century some older cathedral schools developed into universities." which is sourced to a web site and greatly simplifies the whole question. The cathedral schools did not directly become universities, but rather the cathedral schools attracted peripheral scholars who set up their own guilds, or universities, to teach in addition to the cathedral schools. Besides, the web site for that cite doesn't say anything close to what it being cited to. I'm sure the book the web site is about does, but you need to cite the book itself, not the website review of the book.
You've muddled time frames with discussing the Cistercians along with the friars. Cistercians were founded a 100 years before the friars, and avoided towns. By placing them together you imply that the Cistercians were involved in the towns, which they empatically were not.
In fact, Innocent III preached a crusade, the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars.There were a number of other heresies that caused the foundation of the inqusitions.
Who is this English pope? You're talking about the 14th century, and then link to Nicholas Breakspear, who is from the 12th??? And Adrian IV didn't reside in Rome because of he faced a revolt lead by Arnold of Brescia, which I suppose had something to do with his health, but France wasn't a powerful country at the time of Adrian's election, it was still under Louis VII. And Adrian did NOT reside in Avignon. I believe you mean Pope Clement V here, not Adrian. Clement was a Gascon, not an Englishman, and while he was a subject of the King of England, it was only because the King of England was also Duke of Aquitaine (or Gascony).
Technically, the French did not "control" Avignon, and current historical scholarship leans towards the belief that while the first couple of Avignonese popes were intimidated by the French monarchy, the later ones were not so much under the control of the French, and that other reasons kept them away from Rome.
The way the Great Schism is described, it leads one to believe that only two men claimed to be pope during this time. There were actually several different men on each side, not just two.
Luther actually owed very little of his thought to the Renaissance, and saying that the Reformation repudiated the seven sacraments and the Eucharist isn't exactly correct. Various reformers rejected various parts of the sacraments, and rejected parts of the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. I think the Lutherans would object to being told they reject the Eucharist and the sacraments, as well as all other denominations listed in the Eucharist article.
The heading 'Renaissance" is misleading, since most of what is being discussed is from the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.
If you want to mention things from the Renaissance, mention Lorenzo Valla.
The statement that Henry IV of France hoped to avoid the religious wars of his neighbors as the cause of the Edict of Nantes is just... wrong. There were already a series of religious wars in France, fought because Henry was originally a Protestant who converted to Catholicism to become king, and he issued the Edict to STOP the religious wars in his kingdom.
The sudden introduction of the Japanese revolt when there has been nothing on the Japanese being converted is rather jarring, and who is Ieyasu? No context is given for that.
The whole section of the Age of Reason is disjointed and lacking context on statements. We aren't told what Louis XIV did (hint, he revoked the Edict of Nantes) No mention of Gallicism, or the settlement between the pope and the French kings over the papal revenues from France and the appointment of bishops in France. Also there is no good indication of time scale in this section, it's just a series of data without much connection to the other data. Historians are divided on the issue of the Council of Jerusalem in about 50, many are not sure it took place, others don't believe it dealt with the things that it is often claimed to have dealt with. The Christians were probably subject to persecutions not just because they refused to worship the gods or the emperors, but because they were different and secretive. Also, many historians believe that systemic persecution led by the emperors didn't happen until the middle of the 3rd century. Previous episodes of persecution were largely localized and not led by authorities. Whether Constantine was a convert, and WHEN he converted is a subject under intense debate among historians. You mention the Oriental Orthodox Church, but not the Monophysites or any of the other branches of Christianity The Catholic Church launched missionary activity only later than 476, much closer to 700 or so. The efforts in the Balkans were done by missionaries from Constantinople. The Finss weren't missonized until after 910, as were the Scandinavians. The section on the Early Middle Ages is a muddle of chronology and topics. You mix up the Benedictines with the missionary efforts, and imply that many of the peoples listed were missionized and converted by 910. Needs a thorough rewrite to not mislead readers.
I did NOT look at any sections other than the historical with any sort of depth, but the prose could use a good copyedit, I think.
Several contentious statements are not cited:
Galileo Galilei was among those tried as heretics under this inquisition.
French King Henry IV, hoping to avoid the religious wars of his neighbors, ..."
Dioscorus, the patriarch of Alexandria, disagreed wtih this dogma..."and the rest of that paragraph.
For now, I must oppose, as the historical sections have some wrong information, and use sourcing that is not of the quality demanded by FA status. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
this was the list that ended up failing the FA status of this article for good. If anyone wants to help address it, please do, Thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 00:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The books National Geographic's History of Religion (a collaboration of the world's top historians, fact checked and peer reviewed) and Eamon Duffy's Saints and Sinners (Yale University Press) are the best sources that anyone has found to support the claims made in this article. They conform to Wikipedia's highest standards and both books make the same claims regarding the origins of the Church and the primacy of Peter. If anyone has a problem with these sources, they must provide a better source since these actually reflect the best historians and research in the world today. Vassayana has accused me of cherrypicking out of Saints and Sinners so I ask anyone who suspects any cherry picking ot please go get this book out of the library (Library of Congress Catalog Card number 97-60897) and read pages 1-13 which discuss the origins of the papacy. These pages talk about the actual historical evidence and also give some negative comments and speculation by the author. The author gives provides no acutual historical evidence to refute the claims of the Catholic Church's claims of papal succesion beginning with Saint Peter. Thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 21:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Since the Catholic Church is sometimes criticized by Protestants of being somehow not Christian, they think we are some kind of obscure cult, it is important to include these comments in the Belief opening paragraph. The book Saints and Sinners acknowledge the immense size of the Catholic Church stating that in 1997 church population was 900 million, that was 10 years ago so it is hard to argue the current figures of 1.1 billion that are referenced both the church statistics (baptized and confirmed members) and the World Christian Trends and a German database. Wikipedia reliable sources policy states that you can use self published sources if the information can not be found elsewhere and these sources are supplemented with three outside sources and further enhanced by the Saints and Sinners book. NancyHeise ( talk) 21:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Not being a person who speaks German, I would not have known the source came from Adherents.com. I also had to look up the word Pedant. As far as giving the reader some perspective on how many of the total number of Christians in the world believe what, I think the sentences in the Belief section opening paragraph actually do something to inform others on that important issue. It is a fact that should not be neglected to mention in this article. It is not a negative comment, it is not POV, it simply states the fact that the majority of the world's Christians hold the beleifs which are going to be explained in the following section. TSP, do you have a problem with that information being here? What is your feeling about this information. Did you know these facts before reading this article? Was it something that gave you some perspective on the Roman Catholic Church and its place in the world? If so, then the factual informaiton should stay - just my opinion. NancyHeise ( talk) 02:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding using the stats to form the conclusion that the majority of worlds Christians beleive - here is a sentence from the Original Research policy on syntheses "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing." I have not changed the meaning of the stats, I have summarized them. I combined the numbers of Roman Catholics and EAstern Orthodox and compared them to total Christians to draw a conclusion that is communicated by the stats. That is not changing the meaning, that is using stats for the purpose for which they are intended. NancyHeise ( talk) 02:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, how's this source: the United States Central Intelligence Agency says this: "Religions: Christians 33.32% (of which Roman Catholics 16.99%, Protestants 5.78%, Orthodox 3.53%, Anglicans 1.25%), Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.)" This comes directly from the new reference I just put next to the two thirds statement in the disputed sentence in Beliefs opening paragraph. YOu may take a look at it here: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html#Issues NancyHeise ( talk) 03:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It is notable that the Eastern Orthodox beliefs are so similar that the two churches have engaged in discussions to reunite. This is one of the main goals not only of Pope John Paul II but also of Pope Benedict. They are going to persist in this effort because they think it is God's will. Also, here is what Wikipedia says about using Primary sources which include Census : "Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. ... To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. The US government CIA World FactBook is not a census, it is a reliable source that used a primary source (census). Maybe I will change the wording in the article to avoid this discussion lets see what I can do NancyHeise ( talk) 03:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the CIA does not have the resources to go out collecting info on the number of Catholics and Hindus in the world -- they probably rely on others to collect and report the information. That make it at least secondary.
The paragraph that now opens the Belief section is really about ecumenism, and should probably go under History:Modernity:after the vatican 2 paragraph. I re-wrote it a bit for that purpose: "The Second Vatican Council provided an impetus toward the reunification of all Christians, a movement called ecumenism. Eastern Orthodox Christian belief is quite similar to Roman Catholic belief, differing mainly on matters such as papal infallibility, the filioque clause and the immaculate conception of Mary. Together, these two churches represent a decisive majority of all Christian believers. The Catholic and Orthodox churches have discussed the possibility of unification in recent times but this goal has not yet been achieved. Protestant Christians, the third largest group of Christians, vary in their beliefs but differ from Catholics especially regarding the authority of the Pope and of church tradition, the role of Mary and the saints, the role of the priesthood, and issues pertaining to grace, good works and salvation. The five solas were one attempt to express these differences. The Catholic Church maintains official ecumenical dialog with the larger Protestant denominations toward reunification."
The paragraph that should open the Belief section probably ends with "The Catholic belief on all subjects is summarized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a book published by the Vatican." Waddayathink? The.helping.people.tick ( talk) 14:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about keeping the part that lists what the different branches of Christianity believe in the Beliefs section and eliminating the part about RCC trying to reconcile with EO? That way the Beleifs paragraph is only about beliefs. The reconciliation part can go into history under Vatican II paragraph or we can create a separate section called Relationships with other churches and religions and then discuss the dialogue with Jews, Muslims, EO, and Protestant churches. Let me know your thoughts before I waste time doing this. NancyHeise ( talk) 19:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not at all certain as to why I should accept this TSP person's definition of who is/is not a Catholic in place of Holy Maother Church's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catholic monarchist ( talk • contribs) 08:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The councils are addressed in detail in the history section. I am not sure that it is necessary to discuss them again in this opening paragraph. What does anyone else think? NancyHeise ( talk) 21:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear The helping people tick, (long name but nice message) I like your idea, can you write this and add refs? Can you somehow include the comparison with what other denominatins believe to give the reader perspective (or not if you think it isnt necessary )? NancyHeise ( talk) 20:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Changes were made to Beliefs based on these comments. NancyHeise ( talk) 11:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Did some changes to the History section, adding new refs and attempting to rectify some of the issues raised by Ealdgyth. As far as the sub-heading "Rennaisance" goes, I cannot think of anything better to cover the era. "Reformation and Counter-reformation" is a possibility, but a bit long, and the section is not just about this. 16th century is too narrow, as events continued into the 17th. terms like "Early-Modern Era" are confusing. In English history the Tudor period covers most of this, but it doesn't work globally. Xandar ( talk) 15:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd really like to know how the RCC came to be established three years before Christianity itself. Also, dating the Catholic church with the same date as Christianity displays an obvious Catholic bias. The earliest date should be 313 AD. I changed this once before, but I see that someone has re-inserted the mistake.
User:Emperor Azure ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
And this is the most significant statement that sums up the author of Saints and Sinners musings on all of this evidence on page 9 :"There is no sure way to settle on a date by which the office of ruling bishop had emerged in Rome, and so to name the first Pope, but the process was certainly complete by the time of Anicetus in the mid 150's, when Polycarp, the aged Bishop of Smyrna, visted Rome, and he and Anicetus debated amicably the question of the date of Easter." NancyHeise ( talk) 18:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
So my question is this: If the National Geographic puts the founding of the Church at the consecration of Peter as first bishop of Rome "their words" and this author of Saints and Sinners says "There is no sure way to settle on a date... but it was certainly complete by the mid 150's" then no person in the world is going to come up with a deliberate date without some sort of POV introduced here. The only non-POV way to address the foundation and date of Roman Catholic Church is to do exactly what we have done "Traditionally Jesus" and "Traditionally the year 30". May we please move on to addressing the history section? NancyHeise ( talk) 18:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Where do you suggest putting such a sentence? Also, please be clear, the sentence from Saints and Sinners says this: ""There is no sure way to settle on a date... but it was certainly complete by the mid 150's". It does not say that the church was not founded until such and such a date as the other people in FAC and on this page are suggesting. Also, my suggestion for placing the comment by Saints and Sinners author would be in the history section. What do you think? NancyHeise ( talk) 19:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know how many sources you suggest having? I had several before GA but they were eliminated by AndrewC who said I only needed two. NancyHeise ( talk) 19:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I have made the suggested changes to the Origins and Beleifs section that were discussed above. What does anyone think? NancyHeise ( talk) 21:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
From looking at this article, it's as if the history of the Roman Catholic Church in Latin America doesn't exist, which is quite surprising. I'm also curious, per WP:NPOV, specifically POV Forks and Wikipedia:Content forking, why the only mention of criticism is buried in a See also link. How does that conform with WP:NPOV? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Dear SandyGeorgia, this is copied from WP:Criticism
" Criticism in a 'Criticism' section - In general, making separate sections with the title 'Criticism' is discouraged. The main argument for this is that they are often a troll magnet:" - - One of the acceptable ways to deal with criticism per Wikipedia is to put it in the history section or throughout the article. The history section of this main RCC article does address all criticism that is lodged against it in the separate page Criticisms of the Catholic Church. Since I was not here when either of these pages were started, I can't answer the question about forking but I do know that was not my intention. Whether or not it was someone else's is anyone's guess. The Origins section contains the opposing view of the church's origins and the Beliefs opening paragraph states the difference with other Christian denominaitons. The Priest section addresses no women priests and why with reference that has a quote from the pope. Homosexual priests, sexual abuse, birth control, abortion are all in modernity history section. The crusades, inquisitions are also there. I am wondering what you have in mind for addressing Criticisms that is not already there and addressed exactly the way Wikipedia policy suggests. - - Regaring Latin America, would you like more expansion on that in history? I have a very good source that goes into detail about all the good that the Chruch has done in the Latin America and there is a sentence that says "The Church fights injustice in Latin America". There is also a source that discusses the abuses of the Conquistadores and how the Spanish Catholics were the first people to develope international law when they became outraged over the abuses. I would be happy to put this information into the article if you would like. Please be specific as to what you think we should do to improve. I would like to know your thoughts in more detail so I can address them properly. Thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 01:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, the refs used are 91-93(in Renaissance) and 101-105 (in Modernity) and 10(at the end of Age of Reason), these are the areas where Latin America info has been added. Let me know what you think of these refs, they are the best ones I can find at our public library. Some of my references I bought on Amazon also. Thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 09:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus here yet? I think everyone's comments have been addressed satisfactorily. If not, please list concerns or let me know if you think we are ready to nominate this for FA. Thanks! NancyHeise ( talk) 16:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. I think factually we're virtually there. though I'd like a mention of the Baroque art style. My worry is that the article could use a thorough top-to-bottom copy edit to make it easier to read and more consistent in style. Also the sub-heading MODERNITY might be better changed to the MODERN ERA - as it is in the Christianity article. Xandar ( talk) 13:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This article may be considered on the long end of appropriate size per Wikipedia guidelines which discourage articles longer than 100Kb in size. We are right now at 115Kb. After going through and making a couple of adjustments I was able to knock off some bytes but not enough to bring it down to 100Kb. I took a look at the FA Islam and it is just under 100Kb. However, considering that Roman Catholic Church has several centuries more of history to record, maybe it will be considered OK to leave it this long. Honestly, I can't think of any part of this article that could be spun off into a sub article without eliminating core material. NancyHeise ( talk) 20:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Question for TSP - What are your thoughts on the size of this article? Does its size being over 100Kb mean that it will automatically fail FA? I can't think of ways to eliminate the excess which seems to have been created out of the effort to answer the last FA reviewers comments and incorporate them into the page. Thoughts? NancyHeise ( talk) 00:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The Mass isn't just "one of many" similar events but a specific type of prayer or ceremony, like the Liturgy of the Hours. The upper-case form is also used in the article on the Mass. One can speak of a "Christmas Mass" or "Easter Mass", but one can also speak of just a "Mass" because it involves a specific format of worship. So, I would say that we should keep the caps. Nautical Mongoose ( talk) 01:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we just leave the Mass as it is in the article already and then change it if it becomes an issue at FA? I am OK either way caps or not is anyone offended by not capitalizing? I am not offended with it being lower case and I don't think its that much of a style faux pas if its upper case. NancyHeise ( talk) 02:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Nancy left me a note on my talk page asking for feedback on whether the article is ready to be renominated for FA. I think that it is still not quite ready. One of the major objections to the previous FA nom (brought up by several people), was the quality of the sources. There are still quite a few references to primary sources (those published by the Vatican), to websites (should not be used at all), and not nearly enough references to scholarly works. This will be brought up again as it is one of the more obvious things that people can check. There are some WP:MOS violations, including quotations without a source immediately following them (even if the source is at the next sentence, it must be after the quotation too for clarity). I haven't read the article closely in over a week, so I can't address any potential POV concerns. I would, however, recommend that you remove the direct quotation of the Nicene Creed and instead provide an analysis of what it means. I think Sandy also has a point about the article on the Criticisms of the Catholic Church being a POV fork. That article probably shouldn't exist, but it's content should be here. Don't be too impatient - an article this important will get a lot of reviewers, and it is better to be extra prepared (Sandy also usually advocates waiting at least a month). Karanacs ( talk) 04:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Criticisms of the Catholic Church has been incorporated into this article. I did an extensive addition to this article in response to Sandy's comments and I think that if someone were to go see the page Criticism of the Catholic Church page you will find all criticisms addressed in this article exactly as Jimbo Wales suggests - to put in the body of the article, not in a separate Criticisms paragraph which he says becomes an attraction for trolls. Also, some criticisms, if they are not easily found in reliable sources should not be included or mentioned at all, this is per the guidelines. Suggestions like the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon are not found in this article for that reason.
Sources: This article cites 31 different books to top authors and publishers not including the googlebooks which are also considered OK. Regarding the use of Catechism and Code of Canon Law, it was my experience on Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami FA that per Wikipedia policies, you are allowed to use self published sources in some instances - creating a beliefs section is one of those instances so I disagree that the citations to code of canon law and catechism have to be eliminated to meet FA criteria. Some websites are OK to use also. Not every citation has to be to a book. This article has numerous top newspaper web citations and these are considered very reliable third parties. I think removal of the Nicene Creed would eliminate the most important part of the Belief section and should not be done either. The article would be less informative to someone wanting to know what the Catholic Church is.
While I think that Karanacs efforts have resulted in significant improvement of this article and I am very grateful for her time and efforts, I would like to finish the copyedit and submit for FA and see what other comments are generated. The FA reviewer does not have to take the advice of the people who comment, he can make it an FA even if everyone votes to oppose. I intend to address FA reviewers comments but some comments are not always in the best interest of the article and that is why I disagree with Karanacs suggestions here - no offense intended please. Thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 13:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I do think that the section on the Nicene Creed would be much more understandable to people if the quote was replaced with an explanation of what it means, but you are welcome to wait for more feedback before making that change. I also think that this article will be held to a high standard for reliability of sourcing, as it is a very important and sometimes controversial topic, and I don't think that all of the existing sources meet that standard. The websites should definitely be replaced with books, and the information from the primary sources could also be cited to books analyzing Church beliefs. It is definitely your call on whether you go to FA again now or wait. I would advise waiting a little longer, but that's up to you. Karanacs ( talk) 15:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The editing looks great, Thanks Xandar! NancyHeise ( talk) 20:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This sentence comes just before the Nicene Creed in Beliefs "This creed is recited at Catholic Masses on Sunday as well as in the majority of all Christian churches regardless of denomination.[23] It states:" One of the previous FA reviewers had a problem with the reference I used for this sentence.. He said it is 100 years old and he is not sure if the Creed is still used by the majority of all Christian churches and suggested I get a more recent source. If anyone can provide a more recent source let me know or else we can eliminate this sentence. I think the sentence is a significant statment of Christian unity and I would like to keep it if we can. Thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 20:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This FA, like the FA on Islam has an extensive See Also list - 29! This FA also is over 100KB - its 165KB. Also, this FA uses both books and websites. I think that the admins on this page, while being mostly very helpful, have given some incorrect advice on this page on some issues. It appears to me that the original See Also list on this page that was eliminated by the admins here should be reconsidered for replacement in order to make the article more informative, not less. Also, I would like our admins to please consider the use of websites on other FA's before voting to oppose this article based on that issue. I would appreciate fair treatment especially after all the work and time we have spent here trying to contribute an important FA to Wikipedia. NancyHeise ( talk) 14:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The big advantage of Wikipedia is the instant links to other articles, so best not to lose too many. Hopefully any objections to FA status will be on very specific points now. Xandar ( talk) 14:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
It's quite strange this section which covers art, literature, music, science, economic development, and which quotes non-Catholic scholars was removed peremptorily without much discussion. This part is important for Wikipedia as it is important for the treatment of the Catholic church in other encyclopedic works. It might read as apologetics to some, but that is not enough basis to remove an articulation of significant knowledge, which quotes experts on the subject matter. I removed though the extensive quotes on hospitals in accordance with Wikipedia's summary style, and Benedict XVI' s comment on the Church's charitable works. I know what he is saying is important, but it is better in this context that a historian says it rather than the Pope. Lafem ( talk) 12:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bring this up again. I read through a discussion on "Church" v. "church" in an archive, and I'm still confused as to what consensus was. I think I read that consensus was to leave instances as "church" unless specifically referring to a shortened version of "Roman Catholic Church". Was anyone else around for that discussion months ago? I ask because I was about to go change a few instances before realizing it was probably an issue. Thanks! Stanselmdoc ( talk) 18:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
After addressing all of the last GA reviewers comments (jackturner) both here and on my talk page and addressing all of the peer reveiw comments, I have renominated this article for GA. Thanks, NancyHeise ( talk) 15:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I reworked the references for catechism and gospel so they are consistent and go to online sources. This article meets FA criteria and I have nominated it. NancyHeise ( talk) 20:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the phrase "Aside from administrative and liturgical differences, Catholic belief mainly differs from Protestant Christians in that they do not believe the five solas", as I think this is misleading. I don't think that most modern Protestants would immediately identify the five solas as a core part of their beliefs, if they had heard of them at all; and the source given only identifies them as one of the differences between the beliefs of Catholics and some conservative protestants.
It is going to be very hard to single out the differences between Catholic and Protestant belief, as Protestantism is not a body with homogenous beliefs. The 'five solas' were one 16th century attempt to encapsulate the reformation's major objections to Catholic beliefs, but if we reference them we need to make sure that they're not presented as some Protestant creed. I'm not sure what the best thing is to write here. TSP ( talk) 12:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Surely someone is going over the top on placing "citation-needed" tags on every statement in parts of the article. Surely such tags are only needed for information that is likely to be challenged, controversial or unusual. In this article people are tagging stuff like "Catholics are encouraged to honour Mary"! or direct quotations from Canon Law. This is surely common knowledge, and to provide a reference for every factual statement in article would make the whole thing unworkable. People will be asking for citations for "it gets dark at night," next! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandar ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
NOTE:ALL OF THESE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AND ARE ANSWERED ON THE FAC LEAVE COMMENTS PAGE ON THE TAG AT THE TOP OF THE ARTICLE ON THIS PAGE NancyHeise ( talk) 11:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC) This is cross-posted on the FAC nomination.
Karanacs ( talk) 16:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I did a quick search through Amazon, and these are just a few of the 42000+ books available about the Roman Catholic Church that would make great sources for this article:
Karanacs ( talk) 16:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Since Karanacs tagged most of the sentences in this article with citation needed tags, I took the time to go through and put citations on all of those areas. Please note the use of a very reliable non self published third party source used in the belief section to supplement the Catechism references and Canon Law references. It is a textbook published by Sadlier called One Faith One Lord with ISBN number and other book info provided as appropriate. I have also incorporated a school textbook on church history and I also went to the library and checked out another book called Saints and Sinners which is a history of the popes and events surrounding them. I am adding content to address the Avignon papacy per Karanacs comments. I will not incorporate Karanacs specific comments that conflict with the GA reviewer Jackturner whose comments are on this talk page and on my talk page. He gave his advice throughout the rewriting of the history section and the finished product was peer reviewed. I will not eliminate bible references that are appropriately used in compiling the belief section using FA Islam as an example. I feel that Karanacs is inventing some of these issues not to achieve FA but to be unreasonable. Hard not to think that when other FA's have standards that Karanacs seems to think that I am not allowed to follow here. NancyHeise ( talk) 02:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Since the appropriate place to address FA comments is on the FA leave comments page, I have answered all of Karanacs and other reviewers comments there. The citation tag needs to be removed from the article. Thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 10:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
"Catholics have endowed Mary with many adoring titles such as…"
The term here is venerating, not adoring. Adoration or worship is an activity reserved solely for God. The idea that Mary is worshipped by Catholics is a misconception outside the church. -- 78.16.150.23 ( talk) 14:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The following links need a disambig:
arian
calvin
charles V
constantine
dioscorus
frederick II
john carroll
origin
romanesque
saint francis
saint irenaeus
saint paul
schism
seven sacraments
vatican
Randomblue (
talk)
18:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC).
Thanks for checking these, I would have missed them completely. I corrected all pages that went to a disambiguaiton page so now they go directly to the correct wikipage. Thanks again. NancyHeise ( talk) 00:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The editor who placed the Original Research tag, Karanacs, provided a list of reasons why the tag was placed on the page. Those concerns have all been addressed in detail in the leave comments page of the FA nomination tag at the top of this discussion page. The tag needs to be removed. NancyHeise ( talk) 13:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This sentence was not cited at all. It preceeds a sentence that provides further explanation and is cited to the Sadlier textbook. I did not think I had to have a citation at the end of every single sentence but I added the Sadlier citation just to make this clear. NancyHeise ( talk) 18:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The Gospel of John refers to Jesus as "The Word" who is God and who was with God from the beginning and through whom all things were made.."
I added a third party reference to the end of this sentence to compliment the bibleref. NancyHeise ( talk) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the sentence that follows those two: "Participation in the sacraments, offered to them through the church, is how Catholics obtain forgiveness of sins and formally "ask" for the "good thing", the Holy Spirit.[6] These sacraments are:" I think it is clear how those two sentences fit into the article, they are providing the biblical source for the action of asking for the holy spirit in the church sacraments. If you have said yourself they are not original research then these sentences should not prevent you from removing the tag. NancyHeise ( talk) 19:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have added a third party reference to this sentence to address your concern. This is a subject well covered by many historians. Throughout history as you can see even in this article, it the leaders of the church who eventually decide true doctrine based on these Bible references. NancyHeise ( talk) 19:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There is another instance that I am concerned about:
As Nancy warned the Church history section is getting too long and turgid. If negatives have to be put in and balanced with positives in proportion to history, the size and impenetrability of the section starts getting out of control. I had to change some very POV (and misleading) wording on the Crusades and inquisitions. Misleading popular legend rather than fact is creeping back into the article.(eg. Crusades=Christian-only massacres; Inquisitions arrested all non-Christians) Xandar ( talk) 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I finished my first pass at a copyedit of the history section. Please read through it to make sure that it is still accurate. If you feel that any of it is POV let's discuss here. I still think it needs information about the church's impact on art (although I did expand the architecture section a bit). There are a few places that confused me, and there are some facts which I feel could be eliminated from this article (but should be retained in the History of the Church article). As I am not an expert on Church history, I didn't want to do that without consensus. What do you guys think?
France was a catholic nation; why did the pope trying to unite Catholic nations further alienate the two?
Karanacs ( talk) 20:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Nancy, you removed the text I had changed about the Inquisition on the grounds that your version is shorter. Your version is actually longer (mine only appears longer because it has more citation information). Taking out the citation info on both sides, my version is 102 words (715 chars), while yours is 138 words (878 chars).
Here is the text I propose: The Inquisitions were intended to identify and prosecute heretics. The accused were encouraged to recant their heresy and those who did not could be punished by fine, imprisonment, or execution by burning. In 1252, the Church authorized torture as a method of questioning. Some of the Inquisitions also prosecuted bigamy, usury, witchcraft, apostasy, and blasphemy, and some accusations were made for political rather than religious purposes. Scientists, including Galileo Galilei, were also subject to the Inquisition. Although Pope Sixtus IV originally gave Spain permission to carry out their Inquisition under state control, the Church regained control after hearing reports of its ruthlessness.
All of this is cited to 2 books on the Inquisition. I believe the version that is currently on the page is factually incorrect. That version says that "Anyone suspected of following a faith other than Christianity was arrested." which is an exaggeration. It also states that "Although the pope issued strict guidelines about how to conduct these trials, abuses occurred including torture and execution", which is not true either; execution was an expected outcome, and torture was explicitly allowed. The version I propose also contains the information that people accused were not necessarily executed, as well as the fact that the Church took over the Spanish Inquisition because the Spanish were being too ruthless (which is a point in favor of the Church). Is there anything specific in my version that you dislike? Karanacs ( talk) 03:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
New proposal to address Xandar's concerns: Karanacs ( talk) 16:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC) The Inquisitions were intended to identify and prosecute heretics. The accused were encouraged to recant their heresy and those who did not could be punished by fine, imprisonment, or execution by burning. In 1252, the Church authorized torture as a method of questioning. Some of the Inquisitions also prosecuted bigamy, usury, apostasy, and blasphemy, and some accusations were made for political rather than religious purposes. Although Pope Sixtus IV originally gave Spain permission to carry out their Inquisition under state control, its ruthlessnes led the Church to bring the Spanish Inquisition back under Church control.
James Casey, Early Modern Spain: A Social History, published by Routledge, 2002 this is relevant to the Spanish Inquisition only p 229 "Overall, cases of heresy—Jews, Moriscos, Protestants (almost all foreigners) — accounted for only about 40 per cent of Inquisition business between 1540 and 1700, as the tribunal became more concerned instead with policing the faith and morals of the majority Old Christian population" p 230 The severity of these punishments seems to have depended on family background, with more indulgence shown towards the nobility and those of Old Christian ancestry. Formal heretics were ‘reconciled’ to the church, losing their property and being gaoled for a period, Only 3 or 4 per cent of trials ended with a death sentence, and about half of these were against those who had escaped abroad anyway
Christopher F. Black, Early Modern Italy: A Social History", published by Routledge, 2001
p 200
about the Inquisition in Venice:
Once under way the inquisition tribunals operated very legalistically, under rule books and guidelines in the hands of well-trained lawyers, with theological advisers. Prior investigations and subsequent trial proceedings were more thorough than in other ecclesiastical or secular courts. Physical torture was used sparingly, and under fairly strict regulation – though there could be significantly effective psychological torture through the lengthy investigations carried on while many accused remained in prison, and the nature of the accusation and the accusers often remained unrevealed. Death sentences were rare and usually reserved for heretics deemed to have lapsed, and to be a threat to others
p 202
The laity could readily use the inquisition for their own advantage, to seek revenge on enemies or punish a practitioner of magic who failed to deliver what was required by denouncing her as whore and witch
p 203
The Italian inquisitions and other ecclesiastical courts, backed by episcopal decrees and legislation, campaigned against many superstitious practices, and ‘witchcraft’, which were seriously attempted by men and women
S.E. Filner, The History of Government from the Earliest Times Volume III: Empires, Monarchies and the Modern State, published by Oxford University Press in 1999 p 1295 Their task as inquisitors was to search out heresy, try the accused, give him the opportunity to recant, and if not hand him over to the secular power for punishment—which, at its most extreme, was to be burned alive. Their procedure was inquisitorial. The accused was interrogated with the testimony of witnessess, and in 1252 Paul IV authorized the use of torture to extract confessions. (This use of torture was in no way confined to the Inquisition. It was widespread in such secular tribunals as used inquisitorial procedures and for an identical reason: that they could only find an accused guilty on the strength of a confession.) p 1296, referring to the Inquisition after the Church took over from the Spanish authorities This 'New Inquisition' was a duly constituted court, with a supreme Consejo presided over by the Grand Inquisitor, and inferior tribunals in the larger towns. Its procedure encouraged delation and torture and was used for political as well as religious purposes, for it could and did strike at any person or class of persons in the country, and it could intimidate even by mere threat. Furthermore, its remit ran further than heresy, for it encompassed cases involving apostasy, witchcraft, bigamy, usury, and blasphemy
The sources for this are above.
In an effort to be more POV, this version puts in a percentage of people who were executed and mentions that torture was used by secular courts as well, and that there were guidelines for its use. I added witchcraft back in because it appeared in several of the sources I found. Is this version acceptable now? Karanacs ( talk) 19:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Nancy, is this text not able to be cited to the Church history ref? This is just a paraphrase of what it in the existing paragraph, and if it is not cited to that source then it needs to be cited to something. Respect for the Church and papal authority declined in the late Middle Ages due to these internal disagreements, clerical corruption and abuses of power, and perceived misuse of finances. Some ordained men were considered hypocrites, as they live luxurious lifestyles or maintained mistresses and fathered illegitimate children. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanacs ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This is able to be ref'd to several of my sources because they all say those same things right before they talk about the Reformation. NancyHeise ( talk) 18:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
DEBATING MERITS OF PROPOSED PARAGRAPH BY KARANACS: "Catharism arose in the 12th century, with Cathars advocating extreme asceticism and denying the value of the Church sacraments. Pope Innocent III encouraged secular rulers to stamp out this heresy. To secure religious and doctrinal unity within Christianity, several popes conducted Inquisitions. Historians distinguish between the Medieval Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition, the Roman Inquisition, and the Portuguese Inquisition, some under state and others under church control." I AM FINE WITH THE ABOVE SECTION
"The Inquisitions were intended to identify and prosecute heretics."
THE ABOVE SENTENCE DOES NOT LET THE READER KNOW THE LINK BETWEEN INQUISITIONS AND THE EFFORT TO DRIVE OUT THE MOORS IN SPAIN, AN IMPORTANT FACT OF THE TIMES
"The accused were encouraged to recant their heresy and those who did not could be punished by fine, imprisonment, or execution by burning"
THE ABOVE SENTENCE INCORRECTLY MAKES IT APPEAR AS IF ALL INQUISITIONS EXECUTED PEOPLE BY BURNING WHEN THAT IS NOT THE FACT
(fewer than 4% of the accused were sentenced to death during the Spanish Inquisiton). THE ABOVE SENTENCE IS OK IF IT HAS A REFERENCE, MY REFERENCES SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE EXECUTED
In 1252, the Church, following the model of some secular tribunals, authorized torture as a method of questioning and issued guidelines on when it was allowed to be applied.
THE ABOVE SENTENCE, WHILE FACTUAL, IS NOT HELPED LATER IN THE ARTICLE TO SHOW THAT TORTURE WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE CHURCH FOR LATER INQUISITIONS, ONLY THE ONE IN 1252
Some of the Inquisitions also prosecuted bigamy, usury, apostasy, witchcraft, and blasphemy, and some accusations were made for political rather than religious purposes.
THE ABOVE SENTENCE LUMPS ALL THE INQUISITIONS TOGETHER WHEN THE OTHER VERSION GIVES THE READER MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION AND IS NOT LONGER THAN KARANACS VERSION.
NancyHeise ( talk) 21:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This comment was on my talk page after an admin asked me to consult with this person he considered an expert. This is what that person said:
I am sorry that I have not been able to intervene as requested. Perhaps I am not the best person to ask to polish an article, rather than merely to search out factual information. Besides, I fear that an editor who has taken a dislike to me and my editing might be drawn to intervene in what you and I would consider to be a negative way. Perhaps, too, people with prejudices against what the article is about will in any case make it impossible for you to achieve your aim, no matter how perfect you make the form of the article. Lima (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is clear that people like me who are trying to build a non POV article get harrassed by people who are somehow anti-Catholic and wish to turn these Wikipedia pages into propaganda against the Catholic church. I am very discouraged working with Karanacs after seeing her edits to the sensitive issues of Crusades and Inquisitions. I think her edits are very POV, mine were neutral - they told the plain facts. She has spun those facts into something that makes it POV. Other editors have said the same thing, she is the one owning the page and not listening to others. I am trying to bring an important article to FA - this editor is doing her best to block that effort.
NancyHeise (
talk)
01:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I've found a solid Catholic source about infallibility. I am typing up some quotations to share here for discussion. Vassyana ( talk) 13:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Book quotes and title information: /infallibility. Any suggestions for how it might be put to use most effectively and appropriately in the article? Vassyana ( talk) 15:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The new Eastern Orthodox material seems unnecessary to me - it doesn't seem to have much relevance to this article, and, as I've marked, I'm not sure about one of the statistics. If people want to know more about the Orthodox churches per se (as distinct from their relationship with the Roman Catholic Church), they can go to that article. Which comment on the FA was it intended to address? TSP ( talk) 14:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
TSP, I put this information in the article to give the reader a perspective on what the majority of Christians beleive. If you look back on these talkpages, you will see people who have suggested the Catholics are not Christians at all, that we are some sort of cult. I think this is a necessary point to make in the beleifs section primarily for this reason. NancyHeise ( talk) 21:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
We really need fresh eyes on the text for the Inquisition paragraph, so I'm taking the liberty of posting again. Here is my proposed paragraph:
Sources are listed verbatim here. Nancy commented here that she wants the paragraph to mention that the Inquisitions were also prompted by fear of a Moorish invasion. I agreed but ONLY if the information on English persecution of Catholics was altered to mention fear of Spanish invasion. (no response on that suggestion). There are more comments above which I felt were factually inaccurate based on the sources, and Nancy also thought that this paragraph was too vague. I'd like more viewpoints, please. Karanacs ( talk) 15:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like these to be factual. Facts help the reader see that people were living in a war zone most of the time and the inquisitions and persecutions were not simply some pope or English monarch deciding to slaughter people, they were a response to the threat of war. Much like the communist inquisition that took place here in our own US under MaCarthyism or something of that nature. I think that is a fact that will help the paragraph, not hurt it. I have the citation to support the driving out the Moors sentence. I have no information in my sources that suggest the English feared Spanish invasion and thus resorted to Catholic persecution. You will have to supply that ref,sorry. Also, I am fine with your new changes to the Middle Ages, putting the information about what clerical abuses there were in the Counterreformation paragraph. I think that is a reasonable compromise. Thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 17:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, I changed the section on Elizabeth I per our conversation above. If you don't like this, please discuss here what should be changed. At the beginning of Elizabeth I's reign Catholic practices were outlawed, but the laws, were often loosely enforced.[5] Following her excommunication by Pius V, England successfully put down several rebellions and faced threats invasion by Catholic countries such as France and Spain.[6] With this atmosphere, Elizabeth I issued the Acts of Persuasion, which made conversion to Catholicism treason punishable by death. Karanacs ( talk) 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that a source had been added to the membership numbers and wanted to reiterate WP policies on reliable sources, verifiability (especially the sources section). Concerns about the sources on this article have been brought up by numerous people (including me) at the FA nomination. Although Nancy did a good job of removing many of the initial problematic citations, the currently used citations are still not at the caliber that the article should use. I thought that a brief overview for clarity might help. Basically, the WP guidelines and policies say that if at all possible, academic sources should be used.
Karanacs ( talk) 17:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
National Geographic is a mainstream publication that is fact checked and peer reviewed. Karanacs can not arbitrarily decides without evidence that National Geographic is somehow not a reliable source. NancyHeise ( talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, after looking at the guidelines, it appears to me that a lot of what you made me delete was actually fine to keep. Maybe I should not have relyied on your advice on what is a reliable source. NancyHeise ( talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
A National Geographic book written by numerous top historical scholars is not the same as a book written by a single scholar and then published by National Geographic. A collaboration of scholars on a subject is by definition, Peer Reviewed and Fact Checked. NancyHeise ( talk) 20:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs, I apologized to you on my talk page. I will try to be more reasonable. I appreciate your new edits to the history section as it seems that they are not POV. I made changes to the section that you found confusing on laity. I just reworded it, I did not provide new refs as the ones there are OK. Let me know if you think it still needs improvement. NancyHeise ( talk) 21:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
These have been addressed. let me know if they still need clarification. Thanks for pointing that out, what may be obvious for Catholics may not be obvious for others and I am glad you mentioned these. NancyHeise ( talk) 01:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
At a quick glance - "Beginning in the 11th century some older cathedral schools developed into universities." which is sourced to a web site and greatly simplifies the whole question. The cathedral schools did not directly become universities, but rather the cathedral schools attracted peripheral scholars who set up their own guilds, or universities, to teach in addition to the cathedral schools. Besides, the web site for that cite doesn't say anything close to what it being cited to. I'm sure the book the web site is about does, but you need to cite the book itself, not the website review of the book.
You've muddled time frames with discussing the Cistercians along with the friars. Cistercians were founded a 100 years before the friars, and avoided towns. By placing them together you imply that the Cistercians were involved in the towns, which they empatically were not.
In fact, Innocent III preached a crusade, the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars.There were a number of other heresies that caused the foundation of the inqusitions.
Who is this English pope? You're talking about the 14th century, and then link to Nicholas Breakspear, who is from the 12th??? And Adrian IV didn't reside in Rome because of he faced a revolt lead by Arnold of Brescia, which I suppose had something to do with his health, but France wasn't a powerful country at the time of Adrian's election, it was still under Louis VII. And Adrian did NOT reside in Avignon. I believe you mean Pope Clement V here, not Adrian. Clement was a Gascon, not an Englishman, and while he was a subject of the King of England, it was only because the King of England was also Duke of Aquitaine (or Gascony).
Technically, the French did not "control" Avignon, and current historical scholarship leans towards the belief that while the first couple of Avignonese popes were intimidated by the French monarchy, the later ones were not so much under the control of the French, and that other reasons kept them away from Rome.
The way the Great Schism is described, it leads one to believe that only two men claimed to be pope during this time. There were actually several different men on each side, not just two.
Luther actually owed very little of his thought to the Renaissance, and saying that the Reformation repudiated the seven sacraments and the Eucharist isn't exactly correct. Various reformers rejected various parts of the sacraments, and rejected parts of the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. I think the Lutherans would object to being told they reject the Eucharist and the sacraments, as well as all other denominations listed in the Eucharist article.
The heading 'Renaissance" is misleading, since most of what is being discussed is from the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.
If you want to mention things from the Renaissance, mention Lorenzo Valla.
The statement that Henry IV of France hoped to avoid the religious wars of his neighbors as the cause of the Edict of Nantes is just... wrong. There were already a series of religious wars in France, fought because Henry was originally a Protestant who converted to Catholicism to become king, and he issued the Edict to STOP the religious wars in his kingdom.
The sudden introduction of the Japanese revolt when there has been nothing on the Japanese being converted is rather jarring, and who is Ieyasu? No context is given for that.
The whole section of the Age of Reason is disjointed and lacking context on statements. We aren't told what Louis XIV did (hint, he revoked the Edict of Nantes) No mention of Gallicism, or the settlement between the pope and the French kings over the papal revenues from France and the appointment of bishops in France. Also there is no good indication of time scale in this section, it's just a series of data without much connection to the other data. Historians are divided on the issue of the Council of Jerusalem in about 50, many are not sure it took place, others don't believe it dealt with the things that it is often claimed to have dealt with. The Christians were probably subject to persecutions not just because they refused to worship the gods or the emperors, but because they were different and secretive. Also, many historians believe that systemic persecution led by the emperors didn't happen until the middle of the 3rd century. Previous episodes of persecution were largely localized and not led by authorities. Whether Constantine was a convert, and WHEN he converted is a subject under intense debate among historians. You mention the Oriental Orthodox Church, but not the Monophysites or any of the other branches of Christianity The Catholic Church launched missionary activity only later than 476, much closer to 700 or so. The efforts in the Balkans were done by missionaries from Constantinople. The Finss weren't missonized until after 910, as were the Scandinavians. The section on the Early Middle Ages is a muddle of chronology and topics. You mix up the Benedictines with the missionary efforts, and imply that many of the peoples listed were missionized and converted by 910. Needs a thorough rewrite to not mislead readers.
I did NOT look at any sections other than the historical with any sort of depth, but the prose could use a good copyedit, I think.
Several contentious statements are not cited:
Galileo Galilei was among those tried as heretics under this inquisition.
French King Henry IV, hoping to avoid the religious wars of his neighbors, ..."
Dioscorus, the patriarch of Alexandria, disagreed wtih this dogma..."and the rest of that paragraph.
For now, I must oppose, as the historical sections have some wrong information, and use sourcing that is not of the quality demanded by FA status. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
this was the list that ended up failing the FA status of this article for good. If anyone wants to help address it, please do, Thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 00:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The books National Geographic's History of Religion (a collaboration of the world's top historians, fact checked and peer reviewed) and Eamon Duffy's Saints and Sinners (Yale University Press) are the best sources that anyone has found to support the claims made in this article. They conform to Wikipedia's highest standards and both books make the same claims regarding the origins of the Church and the primacy of Peter. If anyone has a problem with these sources, they must provide a better source since these actually reflect the best historians and research in the world today. Vassayana has accused me of cherrypicking out of Saints and Sinners so I ask anyone who suspects any cherry picking ot please go get this book out of the library (Library of Congress Catalog Card number 97-60897) and read pages 1-13 which discuss the origins of the papacy. These pages talk about the actual historical evidence and also give some negative comments and speculation by the author. The author gives provides no acutual historical evidence to refute the claims of the Catholic Church's claims of papal succesion beginning with Saint Peter. Thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 21:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Since the Catholic Church is sometimes criticized by Protestants of being somehow not Christian, they think we are some kind of obscure cult, it is important to include these comments in the Belief opening paragraph. The book Saints and Sinners acknowledge the immense size of the Catholic Church stating that in 1997 church population was 900 million, that was 10 years ago so it is hard to argue the current figures of 1.1 billion that are referenced both the church statistics (baptized and confirmed members) and the World Christian Trends and a German database. Wikipedia reliable sources policy states that you can use self published sources if the information can not be found elsewhere and these sources are supplemented with three outside sources and further enhanced by the Saints and Sinners book. NancyHeise ( talk) 21:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Not being a person who speaks German, I would not have known the source came from Adherents.com. I also had to look up the word Pedant. As far as giving the reader some perspective on how many of the total number of Christians in the world believe what, I think the sentences in the Belief section opening paragraph actually do something to inform others on that important issue. It is a fact that should not be neglected to mention in this article. It is not a negative comment, it is not POV, it simply states the fact that the majority of the world's Christians hold the beleifs which are going to be explained in the following section. TSP, do you have a problem with that information being here? What is your feeling about this information. Did you know these facts before reading this article? Was it something that gave you some perspective on the Roman Catholic Church and its place in the world? If so, then the factual informaiton should stay - just my opinion. NancyHeise ( talk) 02:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding using the stats to form the conclusion that the majority of worlds Christians beleive - here is a sentence from the Original Research policy on syntheses "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing." I have not changed the meaning of the stats, I have summarized them. I combined the numbers of Roman Catholics and EAstern Orthodox and compared them to total Christians to draw a conclusion that is communicated by the stats. That is not changing the meaning, that is using stats for the purpose for which they are intended. NancyHeise ( talk) 02:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, how's this source: the United States Central Intelligence Agency says this: "Religions: Christians 33.32% (of which Roman Catholics 16.99%, Protestants 5.78%, Orthodox 3.53%, Anglicans 1.25%), Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.)" This comes directly from the new reference I just put next to the two thirds statement in the disputed sentence in Beliefs opening paragraph. YOu may take a look at it here: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html#Issues NancyHeise ( talk) 03:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It is notable that the Eastern Orthodox beliefs are so similar that the two churches have engaged in discussions to reunite. This is one of the main goals not only of Pope John Paul II but also of Pope Benedict. They are going to persist in this effort because they think it is God's will. Also, here is what Wikipedia says about using Primary sources which include Census : "Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. ... To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. The US government CIA World FactBook is not a census, it is a reliable source that used a primary source (census). Maybe I will change the wording in the article to avoid this discussion lets see what I can do NancyHeise ( talk) 03:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the CIA does not have the resources to go out collecting info on the number of Catholics and Hindus in the world -- they probably rely on others to collect and report the information. That make it at least secondary.
The paragraph that now opens the Belief section is really about ecumenism, and should probably go under History:Modernity:after the vatican 2 paragraph. I re-wrote it a bit for that purpose: "The Second Vatican Council provided an impetus toward the reunification of all Christians, a movement called ecumenism. Eastern Orthodox Christian belief is quite similar to Roman Catholic belief, differing mainly on matters such as papal infallibility, the filioque clause and the immaculate conception of Mary. Together, these two churches represent a decisive majority of all Christian believers. The Catholic and Orthodox churches have discussed the possibility of unification in recent times but this goal has not yet been achieved. Protestant Christians, the third largest group of Christians, vary in their beliefs but differ from Catholics especially regarding the authority of the Pope and of church tradition, the role of Mary and the saints, the role of the priesthood, and issues pertaining to grace, good works and salvation. The five solas were one attempt to express these differences. The Catholic Church maintains official ecumenical dialog with the larger Protestant denominations toward reunification."
The paragraph that should open the Belief section probably ends with "The Catholic belief on all subjects is summarized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a book published by the Vatican." Waddayathink? The.helping.people.tick ( talk) 14:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about keeping the part that lists what the different branches of Christianity believe in the Beliefs section and eliminating the part about RCC trying to reconcile with EO? That way the Beleifs paragraph is only about beliefs. The reconciliation part can go into history under Vatican II paragraph or we can create a separate section called Relationships with other churches and religions and then discuss the dialogue with Jews, Muslims, EO, and Protestant churches. Let me know your thoughts before I waste time doing this. NancyHeise ( talk) 19:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not at all certain as to why I should accept this TSP person's definition of who is/is not a Catholic in place of Holy Maother Church's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catholic monarchist ( talk • contribs) 08:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The councils are addressed in detail in the history section. I am not sure that it is necessary to discuss them again in this opening paragraph. What does anyone else think? NancyHeise ( talk) 21:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear The helping people tick, (long name but nice message) I like your idea, can you write this and add refs? Can you somehow include the comparison with what other denominatins believe to give the reader perspective (or not if you think it isnt necessary )? NancyHeise ( talk) 20:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Changes were made to Beliefs based on these comments. NancyHeise ( talk) 11:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Did some changes to the History section, adding new refs and attempting to rectify some of the issues raised by Ealdgyth. As far as the sub-heading "Rennaisance" goes, I cannot think of anything better to cover the era. "Reformation and Counter-reformation" is a possibility, but a bit long, and the section is not just about this. 16th century is too narrow, as events continued into the 17th. terms like "Early-Modern Era" are confusing. In English history the Tudor period covers most of this, but it doesn't work globally. Xandar ( talk) 15:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd really like to know how the RCC came to be established three years before Christianity itself. Also, dating the Catholic church with the same date as Christianity displays an obvious Catholic bias. The earliest date should be 313 AD. I changed this once before, but I see that someone has re-inserted the mistake.
User:Emperor Azure ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
And this is the most significant statement that sums up the author of Saints and Sinners musings on all of this evidence on page 9 :"There is no sure way to settle on a date by which the office of ruling bishop had emerged in Rome, and so to name the first Pope, but the process was certainly complete by the time of Anicetus in the mid 150's, when Polycarp, the aged Bishop of Smyrna, visted Rome, and he and Anicetus debated amicably the question of the date of Easter." NancyHeise ( talk) 18:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
So my question is this: If the National Geographic puts the founding of the Church at the consecration of Peter as first bishop of Rome "their words" and this author of Saints and Sinners says "There is no sure way to settle on a date... but it was certainly complete by the mid 150's" then no person in the world is going to come up with a deliberate date without some sort of POV introduced here. The only non-POV way to address the foundation and date of Roman Catholic Church is to do exactly what we have done "Traditionally Jesus" and "Traditionally the year 30". May we please move on to addressing the history section? NancyHeise ( talk) 18:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Where do you suggest putting such a sentence? Also, please be clear, the sentence from Saints and Sinners says this: ""There is no sure way to settle on a date... but it was certainly complete by the mid 150's". It does not say that the church was not founded until such and such a date as the other people in FAC and on this page are suggesting. Also, my suggestion for placing the comment by Saints and Sinners author would be in the history section. What do you think? NancyHeise ( talk) 19:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know how many sources you suggest having? I had several before GA but they were eliminated by AndrewC who said I only needed two. NancyHeise ( talk) 19:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I have made the suggested changes to the Origins and Beleifs section that were discussed above. What does anyone think? NancyHeise ( talk) 21:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
From looking at this article, it's as if the history of the Roman Catholic Church in Latin America doesn't exist, which is quite surprising. I'm also curious, per WP:NPOV, specifically POV Forks and Wikipedia:Content forking, why the only mention of criticism is buried in a See also link. How does that conform with WP:NPOV? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Dear SandyGeorgia, this is copied from WP:Criticism
" Criticism in a 'Criticism' section - In general, making separate sections with the title 'Criticism' is discouraged. The main argument for this is that they are often a troll magnet:" - - One of the acceptable ways to deal with criticism per Wikipedia is to put it in the history section or throughout the article. The history section of this main RCC article does address all criticism that is lodged against it in the separate page Criticisms of the Catholic Church. Since I was not here when either of these pages were started, I can't answer the question about forking but I do know that was not my intention. Whether or not it was someone else's is anyone's guess. The Origins section contains the opposing view of the church's origins and the Beliefs opening paragraph states the difference with other Christian denominaitons. The Priest section addresses no women priests and why with reference that has a quote from the pope. Homosexual priests, sexual abuse, birth control, abortion are all in modernity history section. The crusades, inquisitions are also there. I am wondering what you have in mind for addressing Criticisms that is not already there and addressed exactly the way Wikipedia policy suggests. - - Regaring Latin America, would you like more expansion on that in history? I have a very good source that goes into detail about all the good that the Chruch has done in the Latin America and there is a sentence that says "The Church fights injustice in Latin America". There is also a source that discusses the abuses of the Conquistadores and how the Spanish Catholics were the first people to develope international law when they became outraged over the abuses. I would be happy to put this information into the article if you would like. Please be specific as to what you think we should do to improve. I would like to know your thoughts in more detail so I can address them properly. Thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 01:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, the refs used are 91-93(in Renaissance) and 101-105 (in Modernity) and 10(at the end of Age of Reason), these are the areas where Latin America info has been added. Let me know what you think of these refs, they are the best ones I can find at our public library. Some of my references I bought on Amazon also. Thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 09:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus here yet? I think everyone's comments have been addressed satisfactorily. If not, please list concerns or let me know if you think we are ready to nominate this for FA. Thanks! NancyHeise ( talk) 16:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. I think factually we're virtually there. though I'd like a mention of the Baroque art style. My worry is that the article could use a thorough top-to-bottom copy edit to make it easier to read and more consistent in style. Also the sub-heading MODERNITY might be better changed to the MODERN ERA - as it is in the Christianity article. Xandar ( talk) 13:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This article may be considered on the long end of appropriate size per Wikipedia guidelines which discourage articles longer than 100Kb in size. We are right now at 115Kb. After going through and making a couple of adjustments I was able to knock off some bytes but not enough to bring it down to 100Kb. I took a look at the FA Islam and it is just under 100Kb. However, considering that Roman Catholic Church has several centuries more of history to record, maybe it will be considered OK to leave it this long. Honestly, I can't think of any part of this article that could be spun off into a sub article without eliminating core material. NancyHeise ( talk) 20:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Question for TSP - What are your thoughts on the size of this article? Does its size being over 100Kb mean that it will automatically fail FA? I can't think of ways to eliminate the excess which seems to have been created out of the effort to answer the last FA reviewers comments and incorporate them into the page. Thoughts? NancyHeise ( talk) 00:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The Mass isn't just "one of many" similar events but a specific type of prayer or ceremony, like the Liturgy of the Hours. The upper-case form is also used in the article on the Mass. One can speak of a "Christmas Mass" or "Easter Mass", but one can also speak of just a "Mass" because it involves a specific format of worship. So, I would say that we should keep the caps. Nautical Mongoose ( talk) 01:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we just leave the Mass as it is in the article already and then change it if it becomes an issue at FA? I am OK either way caps or not is anyone offended by not capitalizing? I am not offended with it being lower case and I don't think its that much of a style faux pas if its upper case. NancyHeise ( talk) 02:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Nancy left me a note on my talk page asking for feedback on whether the article is ready to be renominated for FA. I think that it is still not quite ready. One of the major objections to the previous FA nom (brought up by several people), was the quality of the sources. There are still quite a few references to primary sources (those published by the Vatican), to websites (should not be used at all), and not nearly enough references to scholarly works. This will be brought up again as it is one of the more obvious things that people can check. There are some WP:MOS violations, including quotations without a source immediately following them (even if the source is at the next sentence, it must be after the quotation too for clarity). I haven't read the article closely in over a week, so I can't address any potential POV concerns. I would, however, recommend that you remove the direct quotation of the Nicene Creed and instead provide an analysis of what it means. I think Sandy also has a point about the article on the Criticisms of the Catholic Church being a POV fork. That article probably shouldn't exist, but it's content should be here. Don't be too impatient - an article this important will get a lot of reviewers, and it is better to be extra prepared (Sandy also usually advocates waiting at least a month). Karanacs ( talk) 04:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Criticisms of the Catholic Church has been incorporated into this article. I did an extensive addition to this article in response to Sandy's comments and I think that if someone were to go see the page Criticism of the Catholic Church page you will find all criticisms addressed in this article exactly as Jimbo Wales suggests - to put in the body of the article, not in a separate Criticisms paragraph which he says becomes an attraction for trolls. Also, some criticisms, if they are not easily found in reliable sources should not be included or mentioned at all, this is per the guidelines. Suggestions like the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon are not found in this article for that reason.
Sources: This article cites 31 different books to top authors and publishers not including the googlebooks which are also considered OK. Regarding the use of Catechism and Code of Canon Law, it was my experience on Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami FA that per Wikipedia policies, you are allowed to use self published sources in some instances - creating a beliefs section is one of those instances so I disagree that the citations to code of canon law and catechism have to be eliminated to meet FA criteria. Some websites are OK to use also. Not every citation has to be to a book. This article has numerous top newspaper web citations and these are considered very reliable third parties. I think removal of the Nicene Creed would eliminate the most important part of the Belief section and should not be done either. The article would be less informative to someone wanting to know what the Catholic Church is.
While I think that Karanacs efforts have resulted in significant improvement of this article and I am very grateful for her time and efforts, I would like to finish the copyedit and submit for FA and see what other comments are generated. The FA reviewer does not have to take the advice of the people who comment, he can make it an FA even if everyone votes to oppose. I intend to address FA reviewers comments but some comments are not always in the best interest of the article and that is why I disagree with Karanacs suggestions here - no offense intended please. Thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 13:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I do think that the section on the Nicene Creed would be much more understandable to people if the quote was replaced with an explanation of what it means, but you are welcome to wait for more feedback before making that change. I also think that this article will be held to a high standard for reliability of sourcing, as it is a very important and sometimes controversial topic, and I don't think that all of the existing sources meet that standard. The websites should definitely be replaced with books, and the information from the primary sources could also be cited to books analyzing Church beliefs. It is definitely your call on whether you go to FA again now or wait. I would advise waiting a little longer, but that's up to you. Karanacs ( talk) 15:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The editing looks great, Thanks Xandar! NancyHeise ( talk) 20:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This sentence comes just before the Nicene Creed in Beliefs "This creed is recited at Catholic Masses on Sunday as well as in the majority of all Christian churches regardless of denomination.[23] It states:" One of the previous FA reviewers had a problem with the reference I used for this sentence.. He said it is 100 years old and he is not sure if the Creed is still used by the majority of all Christian churches and suggested I get a more recent source. If anyone can provide a more recent source let me know or else we can eliminate this sentence. I think the sentence is a significant statment of Christian unity and I would like to keep it if we can. Thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 20:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This FA, like the FA on Islam has an extensive See Also list - 29! This FA also is over 100KB - its 165KB. Also, this FA uses both books and websites. I think that the admins on this page, while being mostly very helpful, have given some incorrect advice on this page on some issues. It appears to me that the original See Also list on this page that was eliminated by the admins here should be reconsidered for replacement in order to make the article more informative, not less. Also, I would like our admins to please consider the use of websites on other FA's before voting to oppose this article based on that issue. I would appreciate fair treatment especially after all the work and time we have spent here trying to contribute an important FA to Wikipedia. NancyHeise ( talk) 14:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The big advantage of Wikipedia is the instant links to other articles, so best not to lose too many. Hopefully any objections to FA status will be on very specific points now. Xandar ( talk) 14:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)