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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
I see the article's FAc nomination has been restarted as of 1st June. Well, after about 80 screens of material built up over the article's 3rd nomination, I suppose we needed a clear-out. The benefit is, that hopefully some of the more intractible arguments will be resolved into simpler and more resolvable issues. The key thing is to keep any continued issues precisely defined, so that particular wording and facts are always kept in focus. That way, we can cut short vague and unresolvable claims that the article is "too POV", "badly written" etc. etc. Xandar ( talk) 11:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I am posting the criteria that an article must meet in order to pass Featured Article. If a person supports the page or opposes it, it must be because the page does not meet one or more of these criteria - not some unwritten rule.
Any viewers of this page who would like to vote on whether you think this page meets this criteria, please go to the Featured article tag at the top of the page and click on the blue "Leave Comments" link. Thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 13:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.
For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:
- actionable objections have not been resolved; or
- consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
- insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a couple of details about the conference of Latin American bishops in 1968: I think it's important to note that the meeting was to adopt the principles of Vatican II; this links this paragraph into the section as a whole. Also, this wasn't the birth of Liberation Theology, but the point at which it began to spread significantly. (The reasons are complex, but inter alia the fact that the mass was now in the vernacular was important.) I've been trying to include this in the article, but Xandar consistently reverts. I do, however, appreciate his or her other copy-editing suggestions. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
In reading through the article again I saw Pope Benedict XVI subsequently denounced the movement as "dangerous" and the Church considers it "a return to the pre-modern notion of establishing a Christian society through the coercive machinery of political management". Is the quotation from an official Church publication that Norman is quoting, or is it a quote of Norman's opinion? I think this might need to be clarified in the text of the article. Karanacs ( talk) 17:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent:) Here, for what it's worth, is rather a different take, which still points out the divisions within the Church over the issue of liberation theology. Unfortunately, there's still no direct quotation, but nonetheless...
Note, incidentally, that's what at issue is precisely the definition and structure of the Church, and who gets to speak or act in its name. To suggest that Norman's is the voice of the Church is then, quite obviously, immediately POV. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, now I think I see. NB, that edit summary is misleading: the NYT reference had never been deleted. Also putting the citation where you've put it is misleading, but it appears to go with the Norman quotation. But I think we've found the source being used for the first half of the sentence, which I hadn't realized initially, because it's being used badly. This is the source that uses the term "dangerous," but this is not a quotation (as the RCC article text currently suggests). Moreover, this is the source that seems to suggest that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI "denounced the movement as 'dangerous'", but in fact Benedict XVI was Ratzinger at the time, as the NYT explains. This, incidentally, is why I removed the Benedict XVI mention the first time. To my knowledge, Benedict (as Benedict) has made no such pronouncement about liberation theology. (I could be wrong; but you'd have to find a source, of course.) Anyhow, so the current use of the source is triply misleading. That sentence needs a fix rather urgently. One way of doing that would be to revert to the last version that I edited. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Update. Now it's even worse, because you're confusing the two sources further. You're illegitimately mixing the NYT source and the Norman quotation, and using both of them in misleading ways. (Is this a pattern throughout the article, I wonder?) --
jbmurray (
talk •
contribs)
18:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
My POV-detector has rung a couple of times:
Nautical Mongoose ( talk) 19:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I was just about to walk away from the computer, but saw this couple of sentences...
"In Latin America, this era saw anti-clerical regimes come to power from 1860 onward. The confiscation of Church properties and restrictions on people's religious freedoms generally accompanied secularist or Marxist-leaning governmental reforms.[290] One such regime was that of Mexico in 1860."
This is really wrong, and I sadly note that our friend Norman is the source. There were no Marxist-leaning governments anywhere in the world in 1860, let alone in Latin America. The Mexican date has to be wrong... surely (given the following sentence, about the Cristero rebellion) what's meant is the revolutionary government from 1910 onwards. NB that even that cannot really be called Marxist in any serious sense, though it was certainly secularist and (to varying degrees) often anti-Catholic, especially at the outset.
Even outside of Mexico, I can't think of any anti-clerical regimes in the nineteenth century, though there were some that were technocratic and secularist to one extent or another. These two sentences are simply wrong. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"The laws enacted at this stage, known as the Reform Laws (Leyes de Reforma) established at last the separation of Church and State.
From Reform War, our triumphalist liberal account of the civil war fought over this & similar issues. Johnbod ( talk) 21:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
In France, a series of conflicts termed the French Wars of Religion were fought from 1562 to 1598 between the Huguenots and the forces of the French Catholic League.
I don't think this is true. This Catholic League (earlier groups had been local) was assembled in the 1580s by the Guise faction, in alliance with Spain and the pope: in forming it, they in effect rebelled against the monarchy and so ended up fighting not only the Huguenots but the Catholic forces of Henry III (as at the siege of Paris in 1589). In the earlier Wars of Religion, the Guises sided with the monarchy and the pope against the Huguenots but not under the banner of the Catholic League.
The split between Henry III and the pope was mirrored by problems between Rome and the Gallican church. The latter had independent tendencies and would not implement the decisions of the Council of Trent: for a while there was a danger of a Roman Catholic Church/Gallican Catholic Church schism, as the papacy feared. This was one reason the pope was willing to paper over the cracks with Henry IV in 1595. qp10qp ( talk) 13:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The main problem is the backdating of the Catholic League by twenty years. But I think the whole of the following passage could be improved, so lets workshop it here:
In France, a series of conflicts termed the French Wars of Religion were fought from 1562 to 1598 between the Huguenots and the forces of the French Catholic League. A series of popes sided with and became financial supporters of the Catholic League.<|ref name="Duffy177">Duffy, Saints and Sinners (1997), pp. 177–8</ref|> This ended under Pope Clement VIII, who supported King Henry IV's 1598 Edict of Nantes, which granted civil and religious toleration to Protestants.<|ref name="Vidmar233"|>Vidmar, The Catholic Church Through the Ages (2005), p. 233<|/ref|><|ref name="Duffy177"/|>
This version is intended to give clear dates, indicate the makeup and motivation of the Catholic League, and to hint that the Edict of Nantes neither gave unlimited freedoms to Protestants nor won approval from Rome (this was by no means the end of religious conflict in France, only of major religious wars). I'd expect the existing refs to cover this, but I have plenty, if required. qp10qp ( talk) 23:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I posted a note on Qp10qp's talk page asking this person to go ahead and insert the text above with refs. I want to add that we can't really say "to the dismay" because I have this quote from Duffy's Saints and Sinners "Under the saintly but realist Pope Clement VIII (1592-1605) better counsels prevailed, and the papacy came to terms with Henri IV, accepted (though after long hesitation) the toleration granted to Protestants by the Edict of Nantes, and thereby freed itself, for the time being at least, from its unhealthy dependence on Spain." I still think that the text is fine the way it is but if it will make you all happy, go ahead. NancyHeise ( talk) 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I read through again to look at the quotations to make sure they were properly attributed and I only found a few that were a bit confusing:
Karanacs ( talk) 14:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw on the FAC page that this was added Because the simony and nepotism practiced in the Church of the 15th and early 16th centuries prevented any kind of papal reform, rich and powerful families like the Borgia's were able to control the papal office and seated their own worldly candidates like Alexander VI in (1492).. Does "papal reform" mean reform by the popes or reform of the papacy? Does the source actually state that simony and nepotism directly prevented papal reform? That implies that papal reform was actively underway during this entire period and the families deliberately squashed it. I also am unsure of whether "worldly" would be a POV-word here. There are also punctuation errors. Karanacs ( talk) 21:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The official name really is "Catholic Church" and not "Roman Catholic Church"? One would think the latter, though correct me if I'm wrong. Mazeau ( talk) 03:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Apart from anything else, there are many official documents where the Roman Church does use the term Roman Catholic Church of itself, eg ARCIC, several dioceses in England and Wales use the term on their websites and so on. (Quote of David Underdown) -- Carlaude ( talk) 14:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Together this indicates that the RCC is apt to use the the "Catholic" name in documents to it those within and the "Roman Catholic" to those outside-- such as on ARCIC and websites. Which form do you think Wikipedia should take?-- Carlaude ( talk) 14:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Good for you that "Catholic Church" was not used in all contexts, but Wikipedia has no prize for being NPOV in some contexts. That "Roman Catholic" is an English language usage could be useful-- unless this is an English-language-only Wikipedia-- which this is!-- Carlaude ( talk) 19:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I made this comment at the FAC before the last reset: I would propose adding ( Latin: Ecclesia Catholica) to the first sentence after "officially known as the Catholic Church". Latin is the official language of the church. In addition to the FA Islam and Sikhism having translation info in the first sentence, the Catholic related FA of Knights Templar, Maximus the Confessor, Cardinal-nephew, and Henry, Bishop of Uppsala do as well. Since the official language of the church is Latin, adding my proposed text in a parentheses somewhere in the first sentence seems appropriate. I don't think we need to dumb this down to the reader, and I don't believe it complicates matters. It seems in line with wikipedia styling, and is more accurate than excluding it.- Andrew c [talk] 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
"Catholics believe that God is creator of nature and all that exists." From this sentence I deduce that Catholics believe that God created himself, since Catholics also believe that God exists. Randomblue ( talk) 13:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The child sex abuse paragraph should tabulate the estimated number of millions of dollars that the Church has been ordered to pay or has paid out to settle these lawsuits. It's an important point - I am not a valid statistical sample of anything but myself, but probably 75% of my Catholic friends have stopped giving any money to the Church because they think it's going to be paid out in settlements. It would also be a good place to discuss (in the briefest possible way) the way that the Church is legally organized in the US; the Catholic sex abuse cases article mentions several separate diocese and archdiocese bankruptcies. I think this would be a good place to mention it to answer immediately the question of why a single archdiocese can be bankrupt and why the lawsuits aren't directed at the Vatican itself, for example. Tempshill ( talk) 20:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
After reading the justification for them over at the FAC page, I just removed this from the sex abuse paragraph:
The claim over at the FAC page was that they were "required" by WP:NPOV. This is untrue. There is no point of view being pushed by the surrounding sentences. These defensive statements are, as I stated on the FAC page, crazy. A Wikipedia article about an accused murderer is not required by the NPOV rules to also mention that several hundred thousand other people have also been accused of murder (thus implying that murder isn't very far out of the ordinary). Anyway, I also troubled to look up that first statement because I found it implausible, and indeed the cited PDF file doesn't state that "this percentage was far surpassed". The only possibly-close-to-this data I saw in the report was a percentage of students who said they had been abused, not a percentage of teachers who had been accused of abuse. Tempshill ( talk) 20:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This is indeed original research... or at the very least, gives that strong impression, by the way that it is written. The article should document the scandal, and the church's reaction. It should not attempt to argue either for or against the church here. I would say that these two sentences could and should be omitted; if they are not, I suggest the paragraph should be rewritten as follows:
NB I've made numerous changes (also to grammar and readability, which were a problem in various places), and reduced the space alloted to it, to prevent undue weight being given to the issue in the article as a whole. The paragraph is probably over-referenced, too, but I've only ditched one reference, as I don't have time to go through them all. I do have a question as to whether the reforms indicated are US-specific or (as is currently suggested) worldwide. I somehow doubt that the church in (say) Nigeria or Honduras has instituted fingerprinting and background checks; I could of course be wrong. If there were space, it might be worth adding something about the response of the church in Ireland, to offset the current US-centrism. FWIW. More could be done on this paragraph, but I do think the above is a fairly significant improvement. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I've just edited a little further (and changed the page itself) as I checked out some sources, neither of which mentioned fingerprinting or the requirement for background checks for prospective priests. Indeed, it's probably a little too strong even to state (as after my change) that the church encourages background checks, as the source merely reports that seminaries have increasingly been carrying out such checks. But I took it that this report was given in a vaguely encouraging spirit.
Meanwhile, I also just realized that this is the very last paragraph of the article. For NPOV concerns, it does seem a bit harsh to conclude this long, long article with the sexual abuse scandal, as though this were the culmination of the entire history of Roman Catholicism. It would be nice to close a little more upbeat, eh? Not that I have any immediate suggestions of how to do that. And I recognize that WP articles don't have conclusions per se. But again, this is a lame ending: the sexual abuse scandal has been a significant blow to the church, but let's finish off somewhere else. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Carlaude, you might want to review this user's comments to gain some of the background for this long-standing debate about how to apply WP:NPOV and WP:NCON to the Catholic Church. The.helping.people.tick ( talk) 22:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It does not really matter how "official" it considers the name now. I am not claiming that "RCC" is more official, but that RCC is NPOV. It does matter that:
As a catholic-in-communion-with-the-bishop-who-is-in-de-facto-possession-of-the-basilica-in-the-city-of-Rome-in-Italy-named-after-the-apostle-Peter (is this NPOV?), I should point out that I don't think catholics are offended by the name 'Roman Catholic'. No, what we are offended by is the refusal to call the Church simply 'Catholic', as tribute to some ethereal 'neutrality' which nobody out there on the street, where relationships between churches do matter, cares about, AFTER centuries of being persecuted under that name in varied parts of the World. And we are offended by being singled out for harassment: the catholics don't question the names of other denominations. There is nothing in 'catholic' that makes it different from orthodox: for one, the naming of an entity with a single adjective may always be said to imply it is the only one endowed with that quality (otherwise, why not call others by the exact same name? why pick that particular adjective? names are intented to be distinctive); and then again, of course there can be more than one 'universal' church, as far as semantics is concerned (as far as the Church is concerned, it's the idea that there can/should be more than one Church that is anathema, one which is shared in principle by all the historically important denominations). Should someone ask for 'the Catholic Church' outside a discussion of the meaning of 'the Catholic Church' or a relevant Orthodox ecclesiological context, no one would direct that person to anywhere else than the church-in-communion-with-the-bishop-who-is-in-de-facto-possession-of-the-basilica-in-the-city-of-Rome-in-Italy-named-after-the-apostle-Peter - it's the name most likely to be used. Ipso facto, to consider it POV is POV - POV isn't dictated by personal beliefs, but by pragmatics. 85.241.127.168 ( talk) 03:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The weight here seems unbalanced and the statement "Although the historical record reveals his words and efforts were clearly against the Nazis, his actions continue to be a source of debate" seems to gloss over the issue. Can we add the names of the historians critising Pius XI and give some of their reasonings. Ceoil ( talk) 00:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll fix that, thanks. Also, I added more on Nazi section let me know if it suffices, it kills two birds with one stone I think, provides a notable event and acknowledges past Church sins. NancyHeise ( talk) 02:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The use of the serial comma is, yet again, hightly inconsistent in this article. This ought to be fixed. Randomblue ( talk) 16:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
it looks like the current FAc nomination has suddenly been archived. The FA nomination system is clearly very sick if articles on controversial topics cannot get through if blocked by a few POV warriors. Especially when illiterate, ungrammatical rubbish like Crackdown flies through the system to be made a feature article. Of course the POV warriors (You know who you are,) were too busy rubbishing this article to check that one. The current system needs fixing urgently or editors will stop preparing articles on complex or difficult subjects for FA atatus. Xandar ( talk) 22:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The {{ main}} template is used incorrectly in the History section, since this article isn't a summary of History of the Roman Catholic Church (unclear why the History article is so bad, while the History is in this article, but at any rate, the template is incorrect.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This page 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. |
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
I see the article's FAc nomination has been restarted as of 1st June. Well, after about 80 screens of material built up over the article's 3rd nomination, I suppose we needed a clear-out. The benefit is, that hopefully some of the more intractible arguments will be resolved into simpler and more resolvable issues. The key thing is to keep any continued issues precisely defined, so that particular wording and facts are always kept in focus. That way, we can cut short vague and unresolvable claims that the article is "too POV", "badly written" etc. etc. Xandar ( talk) 11:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I am posting the criteria that an article must meet in order to pass Featured Article. If a person supports the page or opposes it, it must be because the page does not meet one or more of these criteria - not some unwritten rule.
Any viewers of this page who would like to vote on whether you think this page meets this criteria, please go to the Featured article tag at the top of the page and click on the blue "Leave Comments" link. Thanks. NancyHeise ( talk) 13:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.
For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:
- actionable objections have not been resolved; or
- consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
- insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a couple of details about the conference of Latin American bishops in 1968: I think it's important to note that the meeting was to adopt the principles of Vatican II; this links this paragraph into the section as a whole. Also, this wasn't the birth of Liberation Theology, but the point at which it began to spread significantly. (The reasons are complex, but inter alia the fact that the mass was now in the vernacular was important.) I've been trying to include this in the article, but Xandar consistently reverts. I do, however, appreciate his or her other copy-editing suggestions. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
In reading through the article again I saw Pope Benedict XVI subsequently denounced the movement as "dangerous" and the Church considers it "a return to the pre-modern notion of establishing a Christian society through the coercive machinery of political management". Is the quotation from an official Church publication that Norman is quoting, or is it a quote of Norman's opinion? I think this might need to be clarified in the text of the article. Karanacs ( talk) 17:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent:) Here, for what it's worth, is rather a different take, which still points out the divisions within the Church over the issue of liberation theology. Unfortunately, there's still no direct quotation, but nonetheless...
Note, incidentally, that's what at issue is precisely the definition and structure of the Church, and who gets to speak or act in its name. To suggest that Norman's is the voice of the Church is then, quite obviously, immediately POV. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, now I think I see. NB, that edit summary is misleading: the NYT reference had never been deleted. Also putting the citation where you've put it is misleading, but it appears to go with the Norman quotation. But I think we've found the source being used for the first half of the sentence, which I hadn't realized initially, because it's being used badly. This is the source that uses the term "dangerous," but this is not a quotation (as the RCC article text currently suggests). Moreover, this is the source that seems to suggest that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI "denounced the movement as 'dangerous'", but in fact Benedict XVI was Ratzinger at the time, as the NYT explains. This, incidentally, is why I removed the Benedict XVI mention the first time. To my knowledge, Benedict (as Benedict) has made no such pronouncement about liberation theology. (I could be wrong; but you'd have to find a source, of course.) Anyhow, so the current use of the source is triply misleading. That sentence needs a fix rather urgently. One way of doing that would be to revert to the last version that I edited. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Update. Now it's even worse, because you're confusing the two sources further. You're illegitimately mixing the NYT source and the Norman quotation, and using both of them in misleading ways. (Is this a pattern throughout the article, I wonder?) --
jbmurray (
talk •
contribs)
18:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
My POV-detector has rung a couple of times:
Nautical Mongoose ( talk) 19:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I was just about to walk away from the computer, but saw this couple of sentences...
"In Latin America, this era saw anti-clerical regimes come to power from 1860 onward. The confiscation of Church properties and restrictions on people's religious freedoms generally accompanied secularist or Marxist-leaning governmental reforms.[290] One such regime was that of Mexico in 1860."
This is really wrong, and I sadly note that our friend Norman is the source. There were no Marxist-leaning governments anywhere in the world in 1860, let alone in Latin America. The Mexican date has to be wrong... surely (given the following sentence, about the Cristero rebellion) what's meant is the revolutionary government from 1910 onwards. NB that even that cannot really be called Marxist in any serious sense, though it was certainly secularist and (to varying degrees) often anti-Catholic, especially at the outset.
Even outside of Mexico, I can't think of any anti-clerical regimes in the nineteenth century, though there were some that were technocratic and secularist to one extent or another. These two sentences are simply wrong. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"The laws enacted at this stage, known as the Reform Laws (Leyes de Reforma) established at last the separation of Church and State.
From Reform War, our triumphalist liberal account of the civil war fought over this & similar issues. Johnbod ( talk) 21:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
In France, a series of conflicts termed the French Wars of Religion were fought from 1562 to 1598 between the Huguenots and the forces of the French Catholic League.
I don't think this is true. This Catholic League (earlier groups had been local) was assembled in the 1580s by the Guise faction, in alliance with Spain and the pope: in forming it, they in effect rebelled against the monarchy and so ended up fighting not only the Huguenots but the Catholic forces of Henry III (as at the siege of Paris in 1589). In the earlier Wars of Religion, the Guises sided with the monarchy and the pope against the Huguenots but not under the banner of the Catholic League.
The split between Henry III and the pope was mirrored by problems between Rome and the Gallican church. The latter had independent tendencies and would not implement the decisions of the Council of Trent: for a while there was a danger of a Roman Catholic Church/Gallican Catholic Church schism, as the papacy feared. This was one reason the pope was willing to paper over the cracks with Henry IV in 1595. qp10qp ( talk) 13:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The main problem is the backdating of the Catholic League by twenty years. But I think the whole of the following passage could be improved, so lets workshop it here:
In France, a series of conflicts termed the French Wars of Religion were fought from 1562 to 1598 between the Huguenots and the forces of the French Catholic League. A series of popes sided with and became financial supporters of the Catholic League.<|ref name="Duffy177">Duffy, Saints and Sinners (1997), pp. 177–8</ref|> This ended under Pope Clement VIII, who supported King Henry IV's 1598 Edict of Nantes, which granted civil and religious toleration to Protestants.<|ref name="Vidmar233"|>Vidmar, The Catholic Church Through the Ages (2005), p. 233<|/ref|><|ref name="Duffy177"/|>
This version is intended to give clear dates, indicate the makeup and motivation of the Catholic League, and to hint that the Edict of Nantes neither gave unlimited freedoms to Protestants nor won approval from Rome (this was by no means the end of religious conflict in France, only of major religious wars). I'd expect the existing refs to cover this, but I have plenty, if required. qp10qp ( talk) 23:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I posted a note on Qp10qp's talk page asking this person to go ahead and insert the text above with refs. I want to add that we can't really say "to the dismay" because I have this quote from Duffy's Saints and Sinners "Under the saintly but realist Pope Clement VIII (1592-1605) better counsels prevailed, and the papacy came to terms with Henri IV, accepted (though after long hesitation) the toleration granted to Protestants by the Edict of Nantes, and thereby freed itself, for the time being at least, from its unhealthy dependence on Spain." I still think that the text is fine the way it is but if it will make you all happy, go ahead. NancyHeise ( talk) 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I read through again to look at the quotations to make sure they were properly attributed and I only found a few that were a bit confusing:
Karanacs ( talk) 14:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw on the FAC page that this was added Because the simony and nepotism practiced in the Church of the 15th and early 16th centuries prevented any kind of papal reform, rich and powerful families like the Borgia's were able to control the papal office and seated their own worldly candidates like Alexander VI in (1492).. Does "papal reform" mean reform by the popes or reform of the papacy? Does the source actually state that simony and nepotism directly prevented papal reform? That implies that papal reform was actively underway during this entire period and the families deliberately squashed it. I also am unsure of whether "worldly" would be a POV-word here. There are also punctuation errors. Karanacs ( talk) 21:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The official name really is "Catholic Church" and not "Roman Catholic Church"? One would think the latter, though correct me if I'm wrong. Mazeau ( talk) 03:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Apart from anything else, there are many official documents where the Roman Church does use the term Roman Catholic Church of itself, eg ARCIC, several dioceses in England and Wales use the term on their websites and so on. (Quote of David Underdown) -- Carlaude ( talk) 14:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Together this indicates that the RCC is apt to use the the "Catholic" name in documents to it those within and the "Roman Catholic" to those outside-- such as on ARCIC and websites. Which form do you think Wikipedia should take?-- Carlaude ( talk) 14:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Good for you that "Catholic Church" was not used in all contexts, but Wikipedia has no prize for being NPOV in some contexts. That "Roman Catholic" is an English language usage could be useful-- unless this is an English-language-only Wikipedia-- which this is!-- Carlaude ( talk) 19:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I made this comment at the FAC before the last reset: I would propose adding ( Latin: Ecclesia Catholica) to the first sentence after "officially known as the Catholic Church". Latin is the official language of the church. In addition to the FA Islam and Sikhism having translation info in the first sentence, the Catholic related FA of Knights Templar, Maximus the Confessor, Cardinal-nephew, and Henry, Bishop of Uppsala do as well. Since the official language of the church is Latin, adding my proposed text in a parentheses somewhere in the first sentence seems appropriate. I don't think we need to dumb this down to the reader, and I don't believe it complicates matters. It seems in line with wikipedia styling, and is more accurate than excluding it.- Andrew c [talk] 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
"Catholics believe that God is creator of nature and all that exists." From this sentence I deduce that Catholics believe that God created himself, since Catholics also believe that God exists. Randomblue ( talk) 13:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The child sex abuse paragraph should tabulate the estimated number of millions of dollars that the Church has been ordered to pay or has paid out to settle these lawsuits. It's an important point - I am not a valid statistical sample of anything but myself, but probably 75% of my Catholic friends have stopped giving any money to the Church because they think it's going to be paid out in settlements. It would also be a good place to discuss (in the briefest possible way) the way that the Church is legally organized in the US; the Catholic sex abuse cases article mentions several separate diocese and archdiocese bankruptcies. I think this would be a good place to mention it to answer immediately the question of why a single archdiocese can be bankrupt and why the lawsuits aren't directed at the Vatican itself, for example. Tempshill ( talk) 20:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
After reading the justification for them over at the FAC page, I just removed this from the sex abuse paragraph:
The claim over at the FAC page was that they were "required" by WP:NPOV. This is untrue. There is no point of view being pushed by the surrounding sentences. These defensive statements are, as I stated on the FAC page, crazy. A Wikipedia article about an accused murderer is not required by the NPOV rules to also mention that several hundred thousand other people have also been accused of murder (thus implying that murder isn't very far out of the ordinary). Anyway, I also troubled to look up that first statement because I found it implausible, and indeed the cited PDF file doesn't state that "this percentage was far surpassed". The only possibly-close-to-this data I saw in the report was a percentage of students who said they had been abused, not a percentage of teachers who had been accused of abuse. Tempshill ( talk) 20:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This is indeed original research... or at the very least, gives that strong impression, by the way that it is written. The article should document the scandal, and the church's reaction. It should not attempt to argue either for or against the church here. I would say that these two sentences could and should be omitted; if they are not, I suggest the paragraph should be rewritten as follows:
NB I've made numerous changes (also to grammar and readability, which were a problem in various places), and reduced the space alloted to it, to prevent undue weight being given to the issue in the article as a whole. The paragraph is probably over-referenced, too, but I've only ditched one reference, as I don't have time to go through them all. I do have a question as to whether the reforms indicated are US-specific or (as is currently suggested) worldwide. I somehow doubt that the church in (say) Nigeria or Honduras has instituted fingerprinting and background checks; I could of course be wrong. If there were space, it might be worth adding something about the response of the church in Ireland, to offset the current US-centrism. FWIW. More could be done on this paragraph, but I do think the above is a fairly significant improvement. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I've just edited a little further (and changed the page itself) as I checked out some sources, neither of which mentioned fingerprinting or the requirement for background checks for prospective priests. Indeed, it's probably a little too strong even to state (as after my change) that the church encourages background checks, as the source merely reports that seminaries have increasingly been carrying out such checks. But I took it that this report was given in a vaguely encouraging spirit.
Meanwhile, I also just realized that this is the very last paragraph of the article. For NPOV concerns, it does seem a bit harsh to conclude this long, long article with the sexual abuse scandal, as though this were the culmination of the entire history of Roman Catholicism. It would be nice to close a little more upbeat, eh? Not that I have any immediate suggestions of how to do that. And I recognize that WP articles don't have conclusions per se. But again, this is a lame ending: the sexual abuse scandal has been a significant blow to the church, but let's finish off somewhere else. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Carlaude, you might want to review this user's comments to gain some of the background for this long-standing debate about how to apply WP:NPOV and WP:NCON to the Catholic Church. The.helping.people.tick ( talk) 22:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It does not really matter how "official" it considers the name now. I am not claiming that "RCC" is more official, but that RCC is NPOV. It does matter that:
As a catholic-in-communion-with-the-bishop-who-is-in-de-facto-possession-of-the-basilica-in-the-city-of-Rome-in-Italy-named-after-the-apostle-Peter (is this NPOV?), I should point out that I don't think catholics are offended by the name 'Roman Catholic'. No, what we are offended by is the refusal to call the Church simply 'Catholic', as tribute to some ethereal 'neutrality' which nobody out there on the street, where relationships between churches do matter, cares about, AFTER centuries of being persecuted under that name in varied parts of the World. And we are offended by being singled out for harassment: the catholics don't question the names of other denominations. There is nothing in 'catholic' that makes it different from orthodox: for one, the naming of an entity with a single adjective may always be said to imply it is the only one endowed with that quality (otherwise, why not call others by the exact same name? why pick that particular adjective? names are intented to be distinctive); and then again, of course there can be more than one 'universal' church, as far as semantics is concerned (as far as the Church is concerned, it's the idea that there can/should be more than one Church that is anathema, one which is shared in principle by all the historically important denominations). Should someone ask for 'the Catholic Church' outside a discussion of the meaning of 'the Catholic Church' or a relevant Orthodox ecclesiological context, no one would direct that person to anywhere else than the church-in-communion-with-the-bishop-who-is-in-de-facto-possession-of-the-basilica-in-the-city-of-Rome-in-Italy-named-after-the-apostle-Peter - it's the name most likely to be used. Ipso facto, to consider it POV is POV - POV isn't dictated by personal beliefs, but by pragmatics. 85.241.127.168 ( talk) 03:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The weight here seems unbalanced and the statement "Although the historical record reveals his words and efforts were clearly against the Nazis, his actions continue to be a source of debate" seems to gloss over the issue. Can we add the names of the historians critising Pius XI and give some of their reasonings. Ceoil ( talk) 00:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll fix that, thanks. Also, I added more on Nazi section let me know if it suffices, it kills two birds with one stone I think, provides a notable event and acknowledges past Church sins. NancyHeise ( talk) 02:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The use of the serial comma is, yet again, hightly inconsistent in this article. This ought to be fixed. Randomblue ( talk) 16:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
it looks like the current FAc nomination has suddenly been archived. The FA nomination system is clearly very sick if articles on controversial topics cannot get through if blocked by a few POV warriors. Especially when illiterate, ungrammatical rubbish like Crackdown flies through the system to be made a feature article. Of course the POV warriors (You know who you are,) were too busy rubbishing this article to check that one. The current system needs fixing urgently or editors will stop preparing articles on complex or difficult subjects for FA atatus. Xandar ( talk) 22:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The {{ main}} template is used incorrectly in the History section, since this article isn't a summary of History of the Roman Catholic Church (unclear why the History article is so bad, while the History is in this article, but at any rate, the template is incorrect.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This page 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. |
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)