Talk:Catholic Church

Jesuit reductions

The lead to the article on Jesuit reductions says "The Jesuit reductions present a controversial chapter of the evangelisational history of the Americas, and are variously described as jungle utopias or as theocratic regimes of terror." Unfortunately, the body of the article does not expand on this assertion. Pmanderson makes a similar assertion in the section immediately prior to this one. The current text of this article says: "In South America, Jesuit missionaries sought to protect native peoples from enslavement by establishing semi-independent settlements called reductions." Of course, it's not surprising that this text puts the reductions in the best light possible. However, if the assertion in the lead of Jesuit reductions is accurate, then the sentence in this article is misleading and fails WP:NPOV. How should we fix this? --Richard S (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see a discrepancy. The first statement is a summary of how posteriority has described the reductions, the second is a description of the jesuit's motivations. It is not really disputed that the Jesuits did what they did with what they saw as the indians' best interest in mind - the debate is whether what they did was actually beneficial to the indians or if it amounted to theocratic oppression, thats a bout the effects not the motivation.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine that since the statement is not justified in the article text, that this view has been wrongly added to the Jesuit Reductions lead by an editor. Leads should summarise the relevant article. As far as I can see the view expressed is from a fringe viewpoint. To include it in this article, we would need reliable sources of weight that support it. Xandar 00:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you checked the source, which is also the source for much of the article? Or is this pure - imagination? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To quote PMA below (on a different topic): "What's the problem? Please find a reliable source which disagrees with ... that sentence; I will agree that .. [it] is incomplete, but that's a different question." The reductions became a political football, fiercely opposed by Portuguese slave-hunting interests, and to some extent remain a nationalist/ethnic one, & the article combines different versions, some more NPOV than others. I will probably be doing some work on it. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I added the part to the lead because the article was much too biased towards the jesuit-favourable viewpoint. the "jungle utopia or theocratic regimes of terror" is a quote from Stafford Poole (a respected catholic priest-historian) who has written a very good and neutral introduction to the christianisation of Latin America. ·Maunus·ƛ· 05:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Antony Beevor not a neutral source, proposed removal of captioned Guernica image

Antony Beevor is not a neutral source with regard to Catholics and the Spanish Civil War. He shows a marked anti-Catholic bias and it has been noted that he will gloss over or rationalize the murderous anti-Catholic rampages of that time. Mamalujo (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Beevor is slanted in his view towards the Republican side, and this needs to be taken into consideration when balancing sources. Xandar 01:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the image of Guernica and the comment sourced to Beevor that the Church had backed the Franquist propoganda that it had been done by Republicans, I think it gives undue weight to a perhaps unwitting support of propoganda in the heat of war, and for the same reason it is POV. Moreover, it is especially noxious when it is sourced to an author who has been noted in the press to have an anti-Catholic bias. I'd propose it be removed for those reasons. Mamalujo (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Juana Sangroniz then, a Carlist . " Our consciences were uneasy about it. After living through the raid, we knew only too well that the destruction had come from the air. The reds had hardly any planes, we knew that too. Amongst our own we'd admit the truth: our side had bombed the town and it was a bad thing. "But what can we do about it now?" we,d say ; it was better simply to keep quiet. The propaganda was so patently untrue." see H.Southworth La Destruction de Guernica Paris , 1975, or the Blood of Spain by Ronald Fraser. Still if you and Xandar reckon you know different, , well, what you reckon, perhaps it was unwitting, I think if you reckon that Mamalujo that settles it. Sayerslle (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if it wasn't unwitting, which it may or may not have been, you haven't addressed the question of weight. It seems to be undue weight and POV regardless, but if the Church had been unaware that the claim was false it would seem even more so. You list a quote above that someone says " we knew only too well that the destruction had come from the air" - who is we - does the source attribute that knowledge to the Church? La Destruction de Guernica, isn't that in French? It's a little difficult for those of us who aren't Francophones to discuss that source. Even if the Church had knowledge of the falsity of a piece of propaganda and supported it, which I don't think has been demonstrated, it seems this is a rather peripheral fact, particularly to include an image of Guernica, as if the Church were somehow complicit in that, rather than having made some knowing or unknowing misstatement after the fact. It's highly charged POV on a peripheral issue. Definitely not NPOV. Mamalujo (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I recommend removing the image and would prefer that we retool the "Industrial age" history section. It focuses far too much on persecution of the Church and persecution by the Church. Other Industrial-era events are lost in the persecution text. Majoreditor (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the paragraph to the state it was in when the page was frozen on the 1st of March. Can we have all sugguestions for alterations discussed here to gain a consensus on any change of wording. Xandar 02:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I love what you decided to do here with the Spanish Civil War sentences! Please feel free to spread your genious around the entire history section. Though, just wondering if Beevor can't be used as a left-liberal, are Chadwick, a 'clergyman-scholar' and Butler, not likely to skew in favour out of romanticised sympsthy for the Church's suffering and exaggerated the number of martyrs. Really great job though.Sayerslle (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In short, Orlandis, Vidmar and Bodenkotter (sp?) must be used and followed, although they are avowedly Catholic authors, arguing for the Church; Beevor can't be used, because he supports the Republican cause and opposes the Church's (undisputed) support for a right dictatorship. This is a recipe for a biased article.

What we should do is include those statements about the Spanish Civil War agreed on by both sides; for which we must cite both sides. If there is someone who denies Beevor's claims, we should consider silence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We should go back to the even shorter version, which I think contained no controversial facts, though it was objected to as a summary, despite containing links. At the moment there is just too much. Guernica is still in copyright, & a fair-use rationale could not be constructed for this article. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea; if you can supply a version link, that might be helpful. This article should be a summary - the only conceivable exceptions would be where we have no main article on a subject, which is not the case here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The photo was from Wikimedia Commons, ..if it goes back to the original I think there should at least be some mention of the political alignment of the Church. If the church were a victim that had held itself aloof from worldly politics and addressed itself to the kingdom that is 'not of this world', fine, but it didn't, it never has, and its political alignment should at least be alluded to. The burning of convents etc , earlier in the 30s was widely condemned, by Republicans as well as the Church itself, and it is simply not true to say the Church had no option but to throw its rhetoric behind Franco. ( Like in Witness - 'someones going to tell you there's no other way - but, son , there's always another way')I am not, Johnbod, excusing the violence against clergy by the way. As for Mamalujos assertion that Stanley G Payne is neutral and Beevor a propagandist , I don't see how Payne , who the wikipedia article says is a follower of Pio Moa, is any more 'neutral' than Beevor. Pio Moa, having been a mamber of GRAPO and then moved from one extreme tot he other, may have interesting views but is no less ideological a commentator on the period than Beevor. Sayerslle (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

History of the Catholic Church should have a longer mention (at the moment it just has a "persecution-only" sentence - one the longer but balanced drafts above could be used), giving both Church support for Franco as well, but for here, in a section detailing persecuting of the church, I think just mention the very large Spanish death-toll and a link is enough, with a short section somewhere earlier of the general alignment of the church with conservative forces, which I think belongs at the 1815 bit, though referring forwards. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No on both counts; I am disappointed in you. This is POV; to claim that it is a consensus point of view is to answer yes to both questions that follow, with a straight face: Is it consensus, among all points of view,

• that the Church's role in the Spanish Civil War was solely that of victim?
• that Franco was a "conservative force" in exactly the same sense as the Holy Alliance?

I invite citations affirming either from a non-clerical source. Silence would be better - as often. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say any of that. I said the old short mention "I think contained no controversial facts, though it was objected to as a summary, despite containing links." In an article on the CC, and a passage on its persecution, I think the death-toll of non-combatant clergy is the single most important fact, "with a short section somewhere earlier of the general alignment of the church with conservative forces". Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We started with a half sentence saying that over 6,000 priests and religious were killed, then added a sentence saying that the Spanish Church then supported the Nationalists. Anything else is too much detail. As far as irrelevant pictures of Guernica with implausible attempts to try to link this German bombing with the Catholic Church. There's no justification for such an insert at all. Beevor's statement that the Spanish Church supported Francoist denials is unreferenced in his book, and contains no details of the alleged support or its context. I have found no other reference to this so far, which again seems to shed doubt on what was said, by whom and in what context. Even if the claim were 100% true, however, it would still be too particular and minute to include in this article. PS I never said we couldn't use Beevor, I said Beevor was pro-republican and should be considered as such when balancing sources. Xandar 21:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest we remove the POV portion about overthrowing the "elected and established" government. It is false and misleading - the elected and established govt had already been subverted from the left. Payne and other noted scholars recognize that before the rebellion the Popular Front had abandoned the constitution and the Republican form of government for leftist revolution. He even explicitly says that had the Republicans remained loyal to the constitution there would have been no civil war (specifically because the conservatives would have still had an influence in the government and would have moderated the anticlerical portions of the constitution which beginning in 1936 could have been done by majority vote). Also the term estimate regarding clergy and religious killed should be removed. It wasn't an estimate but a meticulous calculation. Mamalujo (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

These are fringe views. The Spanish cabinet continued in office throughout the war; the Communist influence on it began in 1937 - after the war had begun - and became predominant only in 1938, because of the necessities of war, and because their major foreign support (Stalin, the only willing counterbalance to Hitler and Mussolini) insisted. This article is not the place to push dubious Falangist propaganda - and if Payne says this, his writing does not represent the consensus of scholarship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm getting interested in the subject , Mamlujo, could you give me a few leads, I've got Payne on the list, then 'other noted scholars', can I have a list, 4 or 5, a mini-bibliography. I'm still confused why people like Orwell, and Picasso , and Weil didn't rally to Franco's side against monsters..The Church by getting behind Franco, backed Hitler and the Condor Legion, and they carpet bombed Guernica , practising for The Blitz etc..Mussolini sent soldiers from Catholic Italy, so the Catholic Church is there with Hitler and Mussolini and Franco. I read that there has been a spate of Francoist books that resuscitate the basic theses of Francoist propaganda, like Tomas Borras, or the secret policeman Eduardo Comin Colomer and Mauricio Karl, so preferably scholarly works not the stars of the best sellers lists and of tertulias, ( which means radio debates, apparently). Thinking about it, you're right that the clergy and religious total dead is likely to be accurate - the reason being of course killings by reds and anarchists , formed an essential part of the Franco regimes internal propaganda and meticulous account kept. "Hundreds of the priests and nuns they killed have gone down the beatification conveyor belt at the Vatican in recent years" (Giles Tremlet - Ghosts of Spain), - thousands of the victims of Francos repression were left in roadside graves or even stuffed down wells. One well in Caude, is said to be the last resting place of up to a 1000 people. George Orwell said of Barcelona " I recognised it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for." Paul Preston has written that the torrent of books recently published, " has produced a generally critical vision of the insurrectionary officers of 1936." The Church supported Franco and his Nazi and Italian Fascist allies. And the Nationalists killed Basque priests, and the Church said nothing, but they don't seem to count in this narrative. Sayerslle (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, my friend you are on a tangent, but as long as you're going there, I'll join you. Orwell, and Picasso , and Weil were what Stalin called useful idiots. Picasso was a communist, Orwell joined the Marxist POUM while in Spain and Weil was an anarchist. The Church by "getting behind Franco" did not back Hitler. Franco didn't even back Hitler during the war. If you read Payne's work on Hitler on Franco you'll see that the Catholics were left with little alternative (p. 13). Catholics, despite an anticlerical constitution that deprived them of rights, were working within the system to moderate those extremes until the left subverted the constitution. You'll also read that Hitler approved of the persecution of the Church in Spain (p. 170) and would gladly have let them be exterminated but for the communist presence. Franco was a lothesome character, but he was the lesser of two evils, Catholics at the outset of the war had seen a fifth of their clergy murdered and hundreds of churches destroyed. Mamalujo (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Never heard Simone Weil called an idiot before. Still, my friend, the other scholars? Sayerslle (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be meandering quite far off topic here, Sayerslle. Franco's purported "victims" were for the large part Marxist-Leninists, anarchists and Grand Orient members. This article isn't about any of those topics at all, so Franco's policy in regards to them is quite irrelevent here (though perhaps we can include how the national forces regarded their struggle as a Holy War against Bolshevism). All the reader needs to know is the relevent outline, in regards to the subject of this article, pertaining specifically to the Catholic Church. The important summary being, that the republican forces commited a systematic program of mass murder against the Church int he form of its priests, nuns and laity. Marxist-Leninism is a more suitable article to write reels about the "victims of Francoism". - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither systematic nor done by the Republic. Nor was the Spanish peasantry, which did do it, largely Leninist nor even Marxist - not that our fellow editors seem particularly in tune with the divisions of the left. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Orwell fought and wrote for POUM, against which one of the first Stalinist purges -in Spain- was directed; see his Homage to Catalonia, which includes a (generally negative) assessment of the Republican government. Calling the author of Animal Farm a useful idiot casts doubt on whether the opinionator has read the first or understands the second. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

How long did the Spanish Civil War last? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wait. We have an article on the Spanish Civil War, 17 July 1936 to 1 April 1939. So three years, I guess. I'd like to get an idea because, "In Germany, the reformation led to a nine-year war between the Protestant Schmalkaldic League and the Catholic Emperor Charles V. In 1618 a far graver conflict, the Thirty Years' War, followed. In France, a series of conflicts termed the French Wars of Religion were fought from 1562 to 1598 between the Huguenots and the forces of the French Catholic League. The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre marked the turning point in this war." See, wow, a nine-year-long war, and then the Thirty Years War, that's going to take some talk page discussion and, what 13 paragraphs in the article if it's to be given proportional coverage. Better get Jimbo to allocate some space on the hard drive for the talk page archives. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes well how long was Jesus talking. 3 years. But look what a fuss has been made about it. The mid 20th century was quite packed, and to see the Church in the lead-up is interesting. Sayerslle (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod and PMA have suggested that a shorter summary is preferable. I agree. There's no good reason to go into too much detail about the Spanish Civil War in this article. Majoreditor (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. NancyHeise ^talk 03:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Check out the 423 references and 98 books linked to this article. What percentage of them are "neutral"? Almost none. What percentage are even remotely critical or skeptical? Almost none. We don't have "neutrality" in this article - we have almost complete censorship. To be fair, the same is true with any article on any religious or political group that has an assertive and coordinated group of supporters. It's just a systemic flaw with how Wikipedia is edited. --Tediouspedant (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds just about right. Probably wikipedia is stronger on uncontentious subjects and adoxography. Sayerslle (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This argument is getting unproductive. We are here to concentrate on producing a concise factual text. I propose the following short wording to cover the Spanish Civil War issues as they affect the Church.

• During the 1936–39 Spanish Civil War, the Church was targeted by Republicans and anarchists who destroyed its property and killed an estimated 6,800[361] priests and members of religious orders. Subsequently the hierarchy of the Church in Spain supported the rebel Nationalist forces led by Francisco Franco.[362][363]

I think that, with links, says all that is needed to be said. Xandar 00:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your version says it all. As Johnbod says, its all written on water anyway. Ozymandius, Xandar, look on your mighty edits, and despair. Sayerslle (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Where are we on this - is this proposed wording okay with most people, or is there another no-less succinct version that has more support? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

10:59, 7 March 2010:

During the 1936–39 Spanish Civil War, in which the Church was targeted by Republicans and anarchists who destroyed its property and killed an estimated 6,800 priests and members of religious orders,[357][358] the hierarchy of the Church supported the rebel Nationalist forces and Francisco Franco's rebellion against the established and elected government, [359] and explained this position in a common letter that cited the violence and persecution directed against the Church by the Republicans.[360]

Proposed above:

During the 1936–39 Spanish Civil War, the Church was targeted by Republicans and anarchists who destroyed its property and killed an estimated 6,800[361] priests and members of religious orders. Subsequently the hierarchy of the Church in Spain supported the rebel Nationalist forces led by Francisco Franco.[362][363]

Shorter yet (just for comparison):

In the Spanish Civil War the Church, targeted by Republicans, supported Franco's Nationalists.

That's still longer than "In 1618 a far graver conflict, the Thirty Years' War, followed." Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It says, -persecuted so therefore, politicised. Whereas , maybe, politicised , therefore sometimes persecuted. ..Why did some identify the Church, the monarchy and right wing politics..Who is Angel Herrera Oria who controlled El Debate , who is Gil Robles, - what is Accion Popular, that made 'massive and extraordinarily skilful efforts of propaganda' to convince the farmers that the agrarian reforms of the Republic damaged their interests..the Republic was presentred as a godless, rabble -rousing instrument of Soviet communism poised to steal their lands ..who were integristas...what role did the Catholic party CEDA play under the Republic, .."The Catholic press applauded the Nazi destruction of the German Socialist and Communist movements..El Debate frequently commented on Spains need for an organisation similar to the Nazi party.. and hinted that Accion Popular/CEDA could fulfil that role.. "(Paul Preston - Spains Civil War)..CEDA presented the Republic as a regime of chaos, wanted to smash the organisations of the working class and dismantle the institutions of democracy..And in the early months of the war, In the Nationalist zone members of Popular Front parties and trade unions were 'shot in their thousands'..'In their religious fervor, the Carlist requetés were also often guilty of barbaric excesses,' according to Paul Preston( fellow of the British Academy, decorated by King Juan Carlos, LSE professor) "What made the horrors committed seem worse was that they were carried out under the benign gaze of the Church and perpetrated by the forces of Law and Order".. Archbishop of Zaragoza , 11 August 1936, " this violence is carried out not in the service of anarchy but legitimately for the benefit of order, the Fatherland and Religion... etc, etc.. Even a couple of sentences, could convey at least something of complex historical realities, no?Sayerslle (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Preston is generally regarded as leftist, as is his wife. He claims in his book that Franco was "even worse" than fascism. His personal opinion on whether the Carlists were right or not to use the amount of force that they did is entirely irrelevent to the article. "Barbaric" is in the same category as "extremist, terrorist" and so on, obviously not neutral. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

But the article is not seeking an imprimatur - presumably scholarly work from across the range can/should be used. Like mamlujo who said beevor had been called 'left-liberal' by some Christian book reviewer, as though obviously that disqualified it - its like the article can only use books approved by a clique of Catholic censors. Sayerslle (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the short version Tom mentions above: In the Spanish Civil War the Church, targeted by Republicans, supported Franco's Nationalists. It's neutral and brief. Majoreditor (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Shorter yet: Say nothing at all and link Spanish Civil War in the See also section. Or maybe most people are content with the status quo? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Silence would be best; but the short version In the Spanish Civil War the Church, targeted by some Republicans, supported Franco's Nationalists. may do for now. The question of who targetted the Church is much more complex than this (many of those who struck at the Church and other major land-holders had no particular fondness for the Republic either), but it may do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

PMA's short version looks good. I like the qualifier "some Republicans". Majoreditor (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No. I do not think we can pass over and conceal what has been described in the historical sources as "..the greatest anticlerical bloodletting Europe has ever seen." The phrase "targeted by Republicans" does not even hint at the killing of nearly 7,000 religious and 13 bishops. Xandar 02:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Shorter Xandar: This is the most extreme expression I've found, so the article must quote that as though it were consensus; but we can't cite anybody who disagrees, because they're left wing - by hypothesis. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not my business, I guess, whether it's long or short, if it has consensus. It seems like it might me easier to keep it as short as possible and push all the detail onto the linked page, but whatever works. Agree on something here, long or short. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for brevity, but there must be enough factual basis to give people some idea what happened - and to explore matters further if they wish. The following is quite short enough, I think: In the Spanish Civil War, after over 6,500 priests and members of religious orders were executed by Republicans, the Spanish church hierarchy supported Franco's Nationalists. This tells us what happened, without weasel-wording, and specifies that the Spanish heirarchy, not the Church as a whole, supported Franco. Xandar 20:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think to say nothing would be a mistake. Payne calls the Spanish Red Terror the most violent and extensive percecution of Catholics in Western History. I think he overstates it somewhat, but considering that I believe about 20% of the clergy of the nation were killed, it would seem to deserve a mention. Xandar's proposal above seems brief accurate and neutral. With regard to "some republicans", I don't know that it's necessary. Sources say that in the leftist zones the only segment that eschewed the terror against the church were the Basques. Mamalujo (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Since meticulous care was taken to record every death of a priest, could you give the totals, and the months they were killed. How many were killed before the rebellion, how many in July , August , September 1936 etc. Did clergy ever use anti semitic 'Jewish-Bolshevik' rhetoric, did any priest encourage the murder of anarchists and reds, did priests give lists of those who were not 'devout' etc.to Falangists.. The portrait of a poor , persecuted Church , in the context of what was happening to many , many people, its 'anti-foreign' rhetoric and embrace of Fascist-Nazi aid to 'purify' Spain, your obsession with the language of terror against the Church, when the Holocaust was looming, prepared for by a major defeat for anti-fascists, - is nauseating. Payne is a revisionist, fringe historian, , its mixed up with his views about the Cold War, he sees it all through some anti - Communist lens - but if democracies had not been so anti-interventionist, had aided democratic impulses and forces, if those forces that vaunt their 'moral' role had played one, then Stalin wouldn't have been the only game in town..it's complex,.do you know when the religious were killed Xandar?, otherwise 'in the SCW, after.6500.were executed..the church etc' remains a problem for me. Do you deny, in any case, that the Church through CEDAetc, and the Carlists, etc were overwhelmingly anti-left and , by seeking worldly influence were putting themselves ito the firing line, same as, anarchists, and all shades of other political s did Context. Balance. NPOV.CEDA El Debate Condor Legion. In the end maybe there should be a Catholic Church (orthodox) version, adnd then a couple of others a 'heterodox' version, and an outright 'heretics' version . All could be entertaining. I read your version with the Laughing Policeman in the background in my head, you know the chorus . Sayerslle (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"Payne is a revisionist, fringe historian..." Yeah, he's a real nutcase. This from the NY Times, that bastion of right wing apologies, "With the publication of Stanley G. Payne's massive and eminently judicious study we at last have the means of understanding the man and his regime. America's most prolific historian of Spain has produced what must surely become the standard work on this subject." From Yale's Juan Linz : "Stanley Payne is recognized as the most serious and informed foreign historian of modern Spain in a whole range of areas." The reason I have been refering to Payne is because he is considered the preeminent english speaking scolar in this area and is recognized as neutral. That's why I refrain from citing Beevor, obviously anti-Catholic, or Warren H. Carroll obviously pro-Catholic. Mamalujo (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus on this: "In the Spanish Civil War, after over 6,500 priests and members of religious orders were executed by Republicans, the Spanish church hierarchy supported Franco's Nationalists."? Mamalujo (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia article says this Mamlujo ; " In Payne's view what he calls political correctness i.e a general pro-leftist bias in academia has led to an underestimation of the guilt of the Republican side" .."Payne has defended the work of Pio Moa ( there is an article but I don't know how to make the diacritical mark over the i).., a revisionist writer who has argued that the SCW was caused by radical Left factions.." In any case what I keep asking is the break down of when the deaths occurred, just to check the after the 6500 were killed the Church embraced Franco..etc.. Were the Church unaligned before the mass killings of priests? Should not the Church have been martyred before embracing Franco/Mussolini/Condor Legion in any case, following Jesus, ..I wish Blaise Pascal could re-materialise to deal with the jesuits..you can't get a straight answer..when were they killed? It must also contextualise the violence to be NPOV, point out, concisely the Church's politics before as well as after the rebellion. Some of the speeches of the clergy are really vile..you don't want a whited sepulchre do you?Sayerslle (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just read this, for the pre-history of the violence " Anarchism , (not authoritarian Communism) became the the largest force within the Spanish working class..It offered a strong moral alternative to a corrupt political system and hypocritical church...and a specific 'miniature' .Tragic Week, 1909, The government called up reserves to fight Moroccan tribesmen who had wiped out some soldiers sent to secure mining concessions..the poor could not afford to buy themselves out of military servvice and an anti-militarist mood led supporters of the Radical Party to burn churches..symbolic violence of a people traumatised..much of the teaching of the Spanish Catholic Church sounded appropriate to the Dark Ages and mental repression, together with the political role by ecclesiastical authorities made the Church rank with the Civil Guard as the first target of an uprising. Some half dozen people were killed - when the army arrived to restore order there was a massacre. Francesc Ferrer i Guàrdia, who had evidently nothing to do with the rioting, was sentenced to death at the urging of the Catholic hierarchy and on the basis of onviously false testimony..I'll look more into the pre-history of the Terror against the Church and keep you posted Mamlujo. Strong authoritarian/hypocrisy/intolerance - this is many years ago, a lot of blood has flowed under the lamppost since then..Sayerslle (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, we do not have a consensus for Mamalujo's text. It is the "ahistorical discourse of 'martyrdom'", which Xandar's source wrote against, and it distorts the order of time. The Spanish hierarchy supported the coup of July 1936 when it happened; the killings took place after and because of the coup; and they were not all done - or even mostly done - by the officials of the Republic, as the proposal would suggest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans Kung, an Apostate, a reliable source?

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

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

I looked up Peter Kreeft, just out of curiosity , and it says he is a writer of Roman Catholic apologetics. Is that POV? Sayerslle (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Once again Yorkshirian chirps into the discussion with irrelevant ultraconservative and ultrareactionary polemic that contributes absolutely zero to the development of this article and is a complete waste of time and space. Please give us a break from such drivel! Afterwriting (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we please be civil, Afterwriting? Yorkshirian, you are welcome to ask any question any time and please ignore the incivility of others who may need to go back to charm school for a refresher course. The citation to Hans Kung is included because we were telling Reader all of the various points of view held by scholars concerning the Church's origins. Kung was the most notable scholar who held the view that Jesus did not found a church. We are being NPOV by telling Reader about all these different points of view. Peter Kreeft is used in the aritcle as an expert source for the Beliefs section. He is a professor of philosphy at Boston College and his book has the Nihil obstat Imprimatur designations that we wanted from sources used for that section. NancyHeise ^talk 01:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church

The introduction should note that the church organization refers to itself formally in English as the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. Acsenray (talk)

Good Article?

By the way, as long as we're all going at it in the talk page like it's the hunting season, someone remind me why this article is still listed as GA. The GA criteria can be found here. The article fails 1, 4, and 5 (present version and my version as well) without a doubt. Should someone look into this article's GA status?UberCryxic ^(talk) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How did it make it through the GA sweeps? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Check the version that was promoted, it was much shorter than the monstrosity it is now, of course it was not listed a bunch of times before that, too.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ha ... 6700 words, so this is not close to the same article. GA used to have a speedy delist; I never understood why they did away with that, as this article would qualify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, this article came up for community GAR about two years ago if I remember correctly; the community decision was Keep. Malleus and G-guy participated and would remember the details better than I. Majoreditor (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I found that one (Elcobbola was also involved) and that answers my question, in fact. Because it passed that time, they probably decided not to revisit it later in the sweeps ... makes sense. I think ... I don't really understand GA processes :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Catholic Church/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

closed section

Per the GA criteria, this article currently fails 1, 4, and 5. It fails 1 because it's anything but well-written: it's filled with choppy prose and it fails WP:MOS on many levels, including an ugly and bloated TOC. It fails 4 because several editors have raised important and valid objections about its neutrality (see the article's talk page). Finally, it absolutely fails 5 because it's been the subject of massive revisions and edit wars in the last few weeks. To call this article "stable" would be a joke. I recommend that it be removed from the GA list.UberCryxic (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC) GA Reassessment review and comments This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Catholic Church/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment. This article no longer meets the Good Article Criteria on several grounds. The article is not well-written. It fails to inform the reader and is little more than a hodgepodge of lists or an apologetic tract. The article is not factually accurate. There are misleading sentences and numerous instances of sketchy sourcing. While the coverage is exceedingly broad it goes too much into unnecesarry detail. There are subarticles on every topic in every section, yet these subarticles do not go into the level of detail that the parent article goes into. Simply put, this piece is not written in Summary-style The article is plagued with POV issues, which would be unneccesary if it were not written down to the level of detail that it finds itself, in. The article is plagued by edit-warring and ownership. There are image copyright issues as well The only criteria which it does not fail is on the use of images.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Well hang on there Mike. It might actually fail images too because I couldn't verify the source for one of them during my revisions, raising copyright issues.UberCryxic (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Yes take a look at the photograph of Pope Benedict. The external link is broken; source can't be verified. My oh my it fails them all. It's a home run!UberCryxic (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Comment. Hmm. When i first came to the article late last year, i could understand why someone might query its GA status, as I had thought it did not meet at least a couple of the criteria. At the same time, i thought the intensive level of work on the article, and the careful (if not always reliable) footnoting, suggested that a GAR would not be productive. While I am inclined to agree with Uber on this, I think UberMike may wish to make some comments here on how s/he intends to handle the GAR process in light of the temporary stop on editing in the article space, and on how the GAR would proceed if the alternative framework for the article becomes the base for editing, instead of the present one. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Question. UberCryxic, are you sure that you followed the correct instructions to initiate this as a community GAR rather than as an individual GAR? So far this sub-page hasn't shown up over at GAR. Please check to see that you've followed the correct instructions; if this isn't cross-posting to WP:GAR it needs to be fixed. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I did not start this GAR. Mike did. I only suggested we needed one. I think the method is appropriate, but I'm not fully sure. Since he started the process, it's up to Mike to determine whether this article stays as GA anyway.UberCryxic (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, it looked like you had because your posting is at the top. In any case, this is best handled as a proper community GAR. Mike, can you switch this over to community so it cross-posts at WP:GAR? Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Comment. This article does not presently meet GA criterion 5 (Stability). It is proper to delist it for now; once edit warring and the like have settled down it can be re-nominated at WP:GAN. However - and this is important - involved editors should not move to delist this article. Let this go to community GAR for an uninvolved party to close. Majoreditor (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Mike can speak for himself too, but I'm actually going to preempt him because I'm on solid turf when I say he has not been that involved with editing the actual article recently. I think it's more than appropriate that he started the GAR.UberCryxic (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Majoreditor, I have no idea what you're saying: I don't speak GA, and every time I look, it's changed. This article is not GA; how can it be delisted? I had to do MOS cleanup at five different FACs, so I show as a contributor even though Nancy & Co had me doing secretarial cleanup every time it came to FAC. I have never entered any discussion here other than to advocate that the article is too long, nor have I edited any content. Am I considered "involved" for GA purposes? Should I delist? What happened to speedy delist? This article is not GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC) (ec) Sandy, this article appears to be currently listted as a Good Article; see the top of this talk page. It will be best for this GAR to run its course as a community GAR. Please let Geometry guy ensure that it's properly posted at WP:GAR. I will contact him. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Ok. I'm just not exactly sure what should happen. Mike, since you started it, do whatever needs to be done so that this article gets proper attention from GA reviewers. Or Major can handle it too if that would be faster.UberCryxic (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Uber. I've contacted Geomentry guy for his guidance, given his experience with the GAR process. I think that you, Mike and Sandy are rightfully concerned that this article no longer meets GA criteria, but let's ensure that the GAR process is open to the greater community and that it's closed by an uninvolved party. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, just got in from training. I have been a major contributor to this article, mostly reverting vandalism, I have not been that active recently on it, but I think my name still shows in the "Top 10 list"; so I want to make sure there is no COI. I thought I clicked Community, but Uber may have hit enter a few seconds before me, so I just followed what he did on GA1. What do i need to do, this is new territory for me, I'm usually trying to get articles promoted?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Well I don't think it has to be a community reassessment. They give you the option for an individual reassessment and leave the ultimate decision up to the person who initiated the process. That's my understanding of it.UberCryxic (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC) (ec) Majoreditor has asked User:Geometry guy, one of the most experienced editors with the GA process, for advice. It's probably good to wait what he has to say. Ucucha 04:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Sounds good to me. I can wait.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC) (undent) Comment Revert to stable version. Protect. KEEP GA. Are there admins watching for trolls and POV warriors here? • Ling.Nut 02:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC) It is a very bad article; it makes assertions unsupported even by the sources it quotes; it is (and has been for months, if not years), the product of revert-warring, chiefly for the (often avowed) purpose of speaking "positively" about its subject (three of the faction involved dared say so to ArbCom). It is unstable because the present text is long, bloated, inaccurate, and partisan - and some people want it that way; there is no stable version, unless revert-warring can constitute one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC) In short, it is a huge freaking poster boy for flagged revisions. Or flagged revisions and then some. Meanwhile, however: I'm not saying it is the Correct Version; I'm saying pick the best recent version (immediately after its most recent FAC, perhaps), revert, and protect. • Ling.Nut 07:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC) It failed FAC; the dubious claims and POV defensiveness were already included before ever it came there. In order to get rid of them, we would have to go back to the last period of stability, two years and more ago, and even then edit extensively; otherwise FR or protection would freeze in the propaganda. The propagandists want it frozen - but without a tag to suggest to the reader that their version may lack something of consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Joint GAR

There are concerns that the article does not meet GA criteria for stability and other issues. User:EyeSerene and I will conduct a joint GAR, and any decision regarding delisting or keeping will be a joint decision. Due to stability concerns this GAR will run until at least 13 April 2010; if there are disruptive edits between now and the end of this GAR the article will be delisted as unstable. As there are significant positive edits and changes being made to the article at the moment, this GAR is put onhold until 20 March to allow editors to proceed unhindered. EyeSerene and I will start to look closely at the article after that date, and make observations as to how we feel the article meets GA criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 18:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• As editing is still in progress, and a RfC is in place, the outcome of which will impact upon the article, we are extending the hold period for another 7 days. This is in line with Wikipedia:Good article criteria, in particular the footnote to criteria 5, the relevant part of which reads: " Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold."
• Our view is that while there is a dispute in place, so far this dispute is being carried on appropriately on the talkpage or in other locations, and has not seriously impacted the article itself recently. Edits to the article appear to us to be constructive and in good faith; though we haven't closely examined the article, so we are not making a comment on the current contents in relation to meeting GA criteria, particularly NPOV, and our inaction should not be taken as an endorsement of the current version of the article.
• We are aware that there is some concern that an article over which there is a dispute regarding NPOV, should be listed as a Good Article, and that putting an article on hold indefinitely would not be acceptable, so when we look at the situation again in seven days we will be looking for significant progress on resolving this issue. SilkTork *^YES! 08:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Extend hold to April 13

The hold has been extended to April 13. This will be after the planned closure of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church, and after the return of EyeSerene who is currently on a break. SilkTork *^YES! 14:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment

I note that the RfC has now closed with a consensus to build on the existing "short" version. The article appears to be stable, though I note that there are several citation needed tags. After having this GAR on hold for over a month I feel that it is time for EyeSerene and myself to look at the article, give some comments and make a decision. SilkTork *^YES! 16:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place for comments, but I don't believe the article as it currently stands achieves Good Article status. 1) It is not yet stable, with many areas under construction. 2) Numerous elements of the text are disputed, as can be seen from talk page posts. 3) The article is not fully comprehensive, omitting large elements on Catholic beliefs and structures that were formerly detailed. In addition sections on important elements such as pilgrimage are absent, as well as material on the long-term cultural influence of the Church and its modern work including schools, charities, hospitals and missions. 4) The article is poorly illustrated. Xandar 19:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Review by EyeSerene

Per WP:WIAGA:

1. Prose and MoS compliance
   • Overall this looks pretty good to me and is almost at what I'd term GA standard. There are a few sentences that read as though detached from their surroundings but it's not a significant issue; probably the result of multiple writers and the need to summarise vast swathes of information for what is an overview article.
   • The lead section adequately does its job, although the presence of citation needed tags raises a small red flag (not so much regarding the text itself, but whether that text is in fact a summary of sourced information in the article body and, if so, why cites would then be needed in the lead too).
   • Nitpick re the last sentence of the lead, "...and that it is called to work for unity among Christians." Presumably 'it' refers to the Catholic Church, although I didn't parse it this way until the third reading. Can the sentence be made less ambiguous?
   • The Doctrine section came over to me as the weakest prose-wise mainly due to the amount of repetition of certain phrases (see Neutrality below). A light copyedit would, I think solve this.
2. Accuracy and verifiability
   • I think this falls within GA tolerances. There are a few {{fact}} tags, but not many (and I question the need for those in the lead - see above).
   • All external links seem good
   • My limited sample of those sources I can access seemed fine, though I did notice cite 173 (at time of writing, "Paragraph number 1233 (1994). "Catechism of the Catholic Church". Libreria Editrice Vaticana. http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm. Retrieved 12 May 2008.") appears to be sourced to a sourced footnote ("37 Cf. AG 14; CIC, cann. 851; 865; 866." here). Might sourcing the article sentence to the original source be better?
3. Coverage
   • Bearing in mind that the GA requirement for broadness is considerably weaker than the FA requirement for comprehensiveness, on reading the article I felt I came away with a decent grasp of the subject. The article seemed slightly uneven in places (the amount of detail in, for example, the Middle Ages section as opposed to the Contemporary section), but not enough to fail this criterion.
4. Neutrality
   • This is, I think, one of the two contentious issues as far as GA is concerned (the other being the criterion below). Thanks to the sterling efforts of the many editors involved, the article seems to me to be sufficiently neutral - in fact, I'd say in places there is perhaps too much qualification (for example, I lost count of how many times I read "The Church teaches..."!).
5. Stability
   • There have been over 500 edits to the article since this GAR was initiated and these have involved significant changes. This process still seems to be underway, so I'd like the advice of the article writers as to how close they are to settling on a 'finished' version before making a final decision here. However, on present form I'd say the article fails this criterion.
6. Images
   • Although not required at GA, for a subject like this images are very desirable and probably expected. If present images should be suitably licensed, captioned, and relevant to the topic. I have no issues here other than to say that a wider selection of illustrations throughout would be nice :) This is not a GA blocker.

Conclusion: I believe the major issue for this GA assessment is the article stability; I think at some point we must close this GAR, so my inclination is to delist the article for now with the recommendation that it be submitted for a new GA review once major work has finished. Please note, however, that this conclusion is tentative and subject to modification in the light of SilkTork's comments. I also sincerely wish the article writers well with its development and congratulate them for making such fine progress with this difficult subject. EyeSerene^talk 14:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Review by SilkTork

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• I am doing this review independent of EyeSerene, and have not at this point read his comments.
• Prose is mostly clear and readable, conveying complex information in an understandable manner. There are places where it is abrupt and choppy - the Name section is particularly poor, as it a series of very short sentences that could be run together to make that section flow more elegantly. There are little mistakes which show a need for some copyediting, such as this misplaced comma - "The first known, state sponsored case of Christian persecution". There are some very short paragraphs in the Late Antiquity section, and why does Antiguity have a capital letter? The prose needs tidying up to gain an unambiguous Pass.
• MoS guidelines that apply to GA are not completely satisfied. There is an excessive use of unexplained WP:Jargon, such as "the Apostles" in the first sentence of the History section. There is a feeling that there is so much information that the editors are trying to cram in as much as possible in as short a space as possible and this is leading to such a tight compression that it is leading to a form of ellipsis for the less informed. I find the WP:Lead to be inadequate to the needs of the article as it stands, and certainly to the article as it should be when properly developed. The Traditions of worship, particularly the Mass, are not mentioned in the lead, nor is the Schism, and I feel the history of the church could be better presented than the throwaway sentence: "With a history spanning almost two thousand years, the Church is the western world's oldest and largest institution, having played a prominent role in the politics and history of Western civilization since the 4th century." The lead should be able to stand on its own, and that sentence is more of a tease than encyclopedic information. What prominent role? A few significant facts should be given here in summary form, such as the Reformation and Counter-Reformation which were the cause of various wars. Much work needs to be done in this area, and my experience is that this is unlikely to be done in a short period, though I would be willing to hold on evidence of solid work in the right direction.
• Referencing appears solid. The tags in the lead appear to be inappropriate and could be removed. The information in the "programs and institutions" sentence is scattered throughout the article, and each piece of that information I examined had an appropriate cite. In this modern age where many of the texts used as references are available on Googlebooks it is helpful to the general reader to have a direct link to that book. While it is possible to click on the cite number, be bought down to the References section where one can then make a note of the author and page number, then scroll down to look in the Sources section to find the book, note the name and then go to Googlebooks and do a search, it would be easier to include a direct link to the relevant page where possible. This is not, however, a GA requirement, just a personal comment. Ah! I see it has been done in places. I assume it has been done where it was possible to provide a direct link, and the other books have not yet been scanned. Anyway, I feel that
• Broad coverage is going to be a problematic criteria to meet and some common sense has to prevail. I found that I would have appreciated more information in the Early Christianity section, and I found it exceedingly odd that Jesus is barely mentioned. There is more mention of Jesus and his creation of the church in the Doctrine section. Indeed, that section seems disproportionally long, and on examination some of the material (such as "Jesus designated Simon Peter as the leader of the apostles by proclaiming 'upon this rock I will build my church'") can be transferred to the Early Christianity section. I haven't made a final decision on if the article is broad enough for the general reader as my feeling at this stage is that overall the article is not going to meet the GA criteria as there is work to be done, and I think I would rather examine the article more critically and thoroughly when it is in a more developed state.
• I feel that the article is worded and presented in an appropriately neutral manner. The tone is encyclopedic and reassuring. Admirably factual.
• The article has been stable during the period of the GAR even though a dispute was waging on the talkpage. The article has developed positively. The GAR criteria does not give a fail for productive changes. What should be bourne in mind however, is that this is an article which still needs a bit of work, however the work that needs doing is covered by other GA criteria - it currently meets the GA stability citeria.
• The images pass, though the WP:Captions are rather long and could be trimmed as per the caption guideline.
• I admire the development of this article, and the commitment of all those involved. Looking back at the earlier version there is much to admire, though some good stuff has been lost - I found the March 13 version of Early Christianity to be more informative. This article reads like a work in progress, and I feel there is too much work to be done within a short time to bring it to GA standard. Initially my thought was that it might be possible to get the work done while this GA was put on hold again, but given how development has slowed down during April I feel that it would be an unreasonable expectation for the amount of work needed to be completed within even a month. This is a big topic, and shouldn't be hastened. Working toward a GA status is more positively motivating than working to save a GA status. I will read EyeSerene's comments then consult with him on what to do. SilkTork *^YES! 11:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

I have read through EyeSerene's review. Interesting to note the areas where we have different views and the areas where we concur. Our conclusions, though arrived at via different routes, are the same, that the article should be delisted at this stage as it is still being developed. As such I will delist. SilkTork *^YES! 11:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

GAR Advice

(Note that this thread is on the article talk page, not the review page.)

Majoreditor asked me to comment. For the readers' digest version, skip to point 4. To see where my conclusion comes from, see points 2-3.

1. My understanding of events is as follows (UTC): 02:00, Mike Searson creates the talk page template to start a community or individual GAR; 02:06 UberCryxic creates an individual GA reassessment page; 02:12 Mike Searson begins his review, adding to the individual GA reassessment page.
2. Guidelines for community and individual GARs have been stable since July 2008: see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/guidelines. The purpose of individual GARs is to allow easy changes of GA status by uninvolved reviewers, so that the more resource intensive and time-consuming community GARs are only used when necessary.
   • Individual GARs can range from a form of "speedy delisting" when an article manifestly fails to meet one or more GA criteria, to a thorough re-review, with a hold period aimed at improving the article to GA standard. The editor initiating the review is the one who makes the final decision. Individual GAR pages were introduced in 2008 not to make delisting articles more difficult, but to make the process accountable: a permanently linkable page for the article history, with the reviewer and reasons for the decision clearly identified.
   • Community GAR is now intended for cases where the GAN and individual GAR processes fail to generate a consensus. This provides a useful litmus test: if an individual GAR is highly likely to be disputed, and hence lead to a community GAR, then it is probably better to head for a community GAR from the beginning. This is one way to determine what "uninvolved reviewer" might mean in a given situation.
3. In this case either article editing stats (see e.g., [1]) or review and talk page comments suggest to me that an individual review by Mike Searson, Ubercryxic, or several other editors contributing here, would likely be disputed as either involved or partisan, and hence lead to a community GAR anyway.
4. I see two ways to proceed.
   • We open a community GAR on the article. This is likely to be contentious, as editors will be addressing controversial issues of broadness, focus and neutrality. To mitigate this, community GARs, like FACs and FARs, have associated talk pages, where off-topic discussions can take place or be refactored.
   • An uninvolved editor delists the article purely on grounds of instability, and without prejudice concerning other issues. No point is made, no new confrontation is created. I would be willing to do that, but if editors would prefer someone else, there are several people I could ask, who would only delist if, in their objective opinion, the stability criterion has not been met in the recent edit history. Geometry guy 21:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that if we had a consensus of several neutral parties (I'd be happy with you and one other of your choice) that the stability criteria has not been met, then the article should be summarily delisted. The talk page has been contentious enough lately, and I fear that a full GAR will just be more of the same. This would also alleviate the issue that both NancyHeise and Xandar are blocked and could not participate in a full GAR. Karanacs (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Geometry guy, I would be fine with you delisting the article on your own, but do as you see fit. I'm not sure on the exact policies here as you can tell.UberCryxic ^(talk) 21:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur that G guy should speedy delist, minimize drama. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Geometry Guy has been heavily involved in previous FACs here, so cannot really be regarded as "uninvolved". The question of stability obviously depends on what version we end up working with. If it is the old one, the issue is more one of "over-stability" compared to the last GAR version. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That is partially correct. I commented critically on (only) one previous FAC in 2008 and have commented barely at all since then. This is one reason why I asked if another editor would be preferred. Geometry guy 21:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked NancyHeise for her input on this question. She responded with the following. Karanacs (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I read the thread and I agree with Johnbod. Because of Geometry Guy's involvement in the FAC process, particularly his non-neutrally worded and lengthy oppose vote, I think that he would not be viewed as a neutral candidate. NancyHeise talk 21:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[2]

That's fine as far as I am concerned. If there is to be an individual reassessment for stability, then it can be done by another reviewer. Similarly for community reassessment, I close many of these, but if community reassessment ends up being preferred, I would be happy to recuse in this case, even though I have moved on since 2008. Geometry guy 22:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

When there is doubt it is best to recuse yourself. This is a very interesting topic when it is the discussion page that is full of edits and the article itself has been rather stable. Given the behavior and edits of a few of the people that have commented here, it is clear that they are not even close to being neutral or objective. I am curious who you might propose as a "neutral" party? Religious topics tend to be contentious by their very nature. Please let me know exactly who you find that is neutral or at least capable of being neutral on this topic. --^StormRider 22:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Neutral" is the wrong word, in my view. What is needed is an uninvolved and experienced reviewer who is able to focus on the GA criteria and be impartial and objective. There are plenty of these. Geometry guy 22:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Geometry guy. I am fine with either a community GAR or with an uninvolved editor conducting an individual GAR. Majoreditor (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now contacted two editors I greatly respect for their judgment, SilkTork and EyeSerene. I did so entirely onwiki for maximum transparency; their comments can thus be found in a discussion on my talk page. They both concur with the stability concerns, and I think at least one of them would be willing to conduct an individual GAR to delist on that basis. Alternatively, I think at least one of them would be willing to close a community GAR should one take place. Geometry guy 11:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. However, I wonder if this is the best time to do a review. The article is hardly stable and so many changes are made daily that it would be almost impossible to review. If you think it is important to delist, move ahead. It may be better to just delist because of all the editing. On the other hand, it may be wiser to wait until things settle down and review the new product being produced. At the current speed we are only talking a week or two at most before this group achieves their desired end. I can't believe maintaining a GA designation for two additional weeks will create any harm to Wikipedia. If you move forward immediately, a community GAR would be better. This has been a rather contentious process and no need to fan the flames. The more people involved in the process the easier it is for all to swallow the resulting medicine. --^StormRider 20:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

New GAR

The article is unstable, and has other GA criteria issues which means that it is not currently a good article so could reasonably be delisted. My initial view was to delist and recommend a period of one month of stable and productive editing to allow for issues to be addressed before renomination. However I have noticed that there is positive editing taking place. As the aim of GA is both to improve articles, and to motivate editors to improve articles, then it doesn't really matter which way round the process goes (delist and renominate in one month, or allow one month of editing under a GAR), as long as progress is being made. I would be hesitant to impede the progress being made on the article by delisting now and potentially demotivating a bunch of willing editors. So I recommend allowing a period of editing to improve the article, trusting the editors to do the right thing and move the article in the right direction through co-operation and negotiation, and then a close review to look at any unresolved issues. This should be done under a new GAR as the existing GAR has been set up by editors who are involved in the article. I would be hesitant about setting up a community GAR as I feel those responsible for making decisions as to the article's NPOV should be independent and uninvolved - a community GAR might invite heated debate from involved editors. Picking up a suggestion that EyeSerene has made - [3] - I feel a joint GAR between EyeSerene and myself might work. I will get in touch with UberCryxic and Mike Searson to close the current GAR. Then open a new GAR to be conducted by EyeSerene and myself, which would be run under the condition that it would run for at least a month, and if there is any disruptive editing in that time the article would be delisted. The first action of the new GAR would be to put the GAR on hold for seven days to allow productive editing to continue without interference, and then EyeSerene and myself will look at the article in seven days to see how close the article is to GA criteria, and to make our observations. A decision to close the GAR as either keep or delist would be a joint decision between EyeSerene and myself. SilkTork *^YES! 16:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with the above EyeSerene^talk 09:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Standard Model: A New Journey Begins

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

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

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

I know the last few days have been painful and somewhat traumatic, but change is sometimes exactly what everyone needs. I hope we can move forward together in a spirit of friendship and cooperation. Thank you and I look forward to working with everyone to further improve this article.UberCryxic ^(talk) 22:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• We need to check the citations to see that they are what the source actually says. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed you do! Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now started making small corrections to the article (mostly grammar), but I am not doing a full copyedit yet until asked to do so.UberCryxic ^(talk) 23:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I for one will be unwatching this page. This ridiculous coup d'etat will just lead to further endless arguments; I won't miss it. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• C'mon! Be serious. You write the new version; you initiate the poll; you delete a vote you don't like; and you make the call on consensus. You've made a good start but you're going to spoil it all if you carry on like this. I suggest you revert your changes, step back, and let the discussion run its course. MoreThings (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, see Tom's comments above on the straw poll. This is not me deleting a vote (which went 11-7 anyway). Right now, Yorkshirian is the one doing the reverting!UberCryxic ^(talk) 00:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not about counting votes, as I'm sure you'll agree, but if it were the only figure with anything like credibility is Tom's 70-80% by next Wednesday[4]. I support Yorkshirian's reversion, and I really think it would be a good idea to just slow down and let people talk this through. --MoreThings (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Uber, if the page remains stable and without talk page strife, you may be able to entice over some of Wiki's most experienced FA writers, who offered to help before. Those include at least (can't remember all of them off the top of my head), User:Awadewit, User:Ealdgyth, User:Geometry guy, User:RelHistBuff, User:Ling.Nut ... and many others. User:Mike Searson is also an experienced FA writer, and still involved here. Of course, Karanacs knows FA territory as well as anyone. I'll add others as I remember them ... but Ealdgyth and Awadewit are key on sourcing and Awadewit on prose and flow. When you get to that point, either Awadewit or User:Elcobbola can check images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Eucharist section

This is what I propose for the Eucharist section, a factually accurate sourced summary, neutral in its POV; greater detail can be delved into the three daughter articles.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We are having a problem with Yorkshirian now, who is edit warring. I have instructed Yorkshirian to cool down. I have no intention of going down his path, and I wish the user would work through consensus in the future.UberCryxic ^(talk) 00:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Eucharist

The Church holds that Jesus Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper

See also: Eucharist (Catholic Church), Catholic liturgy, and Sacraments of the Catholic Church

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

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

Augustine, Justin, and Clement

One of the comments of the straw poll was that the shorter version omitted Saint Augustine; this is not true - both versions have the same text.

Other writers such as Pope Clement I, Justin Martyr, Augustine of Hippo influenced the development of Church teachings and traditions. These writers and others are collectively known as Church Fathers.

This is, however, terminally vague; and although all three authors are mentioned in the source quoted, they are an indiscriminate selection among the Church Fathers. What three or four authors should we use, and what should we say about Augustine? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly advise editors to follow 1RR

I have been following this discussion on and off for some time. While no official Arbitration remedies, such as probation or discretionary sanctions, have been authorized in this topic area, something definitely needs to be done to stop the edit warring on this page. Therefore, I highly encourage editors of this page to try to follow WP:1RR while editing the page. Failure to do so may not necessarily result in a block, but certainly would make such a thing far more likely. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. NW (Talk) 00:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Could they also explain what they are doing in the edit summary? (-77,947) unexplained tends to stick out like a sore thumb... I reverted that then noticed the edit war; I assumed good faith as the cut left much and removed much and there seemed to be a pattern but I couldn't for the life of me figure out what was happening, there being no summary. Perhaps cutting the dross out little by little would be better. FWIW, I feel that there do need to be sections on the history and beliefs: if there is a problem with sourcing, find better sources (which shouldn't be hard for the particular disputed information. IMO). I'll leave you all to it now, anyway --Jubilee♫clipman 01:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jubileeclipman! "Find better sources"? Why didn't I suggest that! :)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

See above section. Current disputes are resolved. Now we have to work on improving the current version.UberCryxic ^(talk) 01:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not. I strongly object to the long version of the history section, as below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Revised Model

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

Then the entire history section is subject to dispute; I propose to tag it, since the special pleading and erroneous claims remain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Let's see what happens.

But, SV, tags do have a purpose; they give article owners reason to change. It is this section of the article which was universally agreed to be too long, and it is this section which contains most of the unsupported statements, the quotations out of context, the abused references, and the special pleading. This section was just reverted to its original and abominable state; those who chose to do so are choosing to be controversial. The way to get rid of tags is to fix the article so that it is genuinely consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we're all aware of that, PMA, but there is actually some positive cooperation going on, which will not be furthered by tagging the section right now. If the section had problems, and no-one was working on them, only then would tagging seem to be productive. Please don't do it. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, now that Uber has announced a program of revision, I will wait and see what comes of it. Perhaps with the grandiloquence removed this will look less atrocious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I promise it will. I'll make the section shorter, at first, without cutting out cited material (I know that raises a lot of hairs here). After that, we're still going to need more cuts, but we'll have to make them by consensus in the talk page.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. You will need it; you have already rewarded a revert warrior with falsehoods unsupported even by these hand-picked sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This article has already come very far. We should be glad that cooler heads prevailed and that these changes are now the new standard. History will be made smaller, and I've already made the TOC a little bit lighter by merging related sections.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

NPOV

I've cut what I thought were the most obvious examples of POV and for the first time in a long while the page has no POV tags on it. Before people RV, can you ask yourself if what's there is NPOV and if you think it's not come and discuss it here first? I don't really want to stick all the tags back on. Haldraper (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I endorse these changes. I'm glad changes to the article are happening more freely and organically now, with no interferences. The size from the compromise version yesterday has come down significantly. We still have more to do, but let's keep this up.UBER ^(talk) 17:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As of this version, the article is at 7,600 words. But, as I mentioned below, content is creeping into excessive footnotes and quotes in citations; the citations are the same size as the article prose (46 KB each). The article is gradually becoming more readable, but there are still load time issues, likely caused by the images and excessive content in notes and citations (which aren't counted in prose size). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As of this version, prose is at 7,350 words, and references are down from 47KB to 38KB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sentences as overcited as this example are screaming either poor sourcing, synthesis or POV-pushing:

• After violations of the Reichskonkordat signed in July 1933 between the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany which had guaranteed the Church some protections and rights,[209][210] Pope Pius XI issued the 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge[209][211][212][213] which publicly condemned the Nazis' persecution of the Church and their ideology of neopaganism and racial superiority.[213][214][215][216]

We see overciting throughout, indicative of same:

• Catholics believe that Jesus designated Simon Peter as the leader of the apostles by proclaiming "upon this rock I will build my church ... I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven ... ".[29][39][41][42][43]

If Catholics believe something, stated as fact, it shouldn't need five sources. This problem is part of the bulk and unreadability of the article, and gives the impression that high quality sources haven't been consulted and used.

It's also indicative that more aggressive summary style could be applied in the main article; all of these statements that have dozens of citations are not likely to be summaries of key concepts, worthy of inclusion in a broad overview article, and may also indicate WP:UNDUE. Anything that is due weight will likely be mentioned in broad, high-quality sources, and not need a dozen statements to back it. This article had massive structural issues, and was just built all wrong; glad to see it is being fixed bit by bit and such collaboration!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one:

• Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical Mit brennender Sorge[209][211][212][213] criticising curtailment of the Church, as well as the paganism and scientific racialism in the political program.[213][214][215][216]

Was this article written from high quality sources and broad overviews, or just a patch job of whatever text someone thought should be added, based on whatever sources could be found? Why does one sentence need eight citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

archiving?

Any objections to me manually archiving some of the sections above that are a bit heated? I'd like to create a new archive for the events that led up to the straw poll (and maybe even the poll itself?). Karanacs (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The page is around 500KB; archiving is needed. As work progresses, y'all might think about something else. Whenever one sees such extensive notes and quotes in citations, it's usually an indication that 1) better sources are needed, or 2) the POV battles have moved from the text to the footnotes, increasing the article size again, albeit via footnotes. Such extensive footnotes and quotes in citations are often an indication of POV or poor sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite often both, here; the extensive quotes have usually been added when they say something similar to, but not the same as, the article text. This is in part a manifestation of Proof by Google, and in part a lack of feeling for distinctions: if a text is on "the Catholic side", it has been presumed to say everything a partisan would want. (If we had genuinely anti-Catholic editors, they probably would be just as bad.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been working on some of these. I'm thinking anything more than 2-3 lines of quoted text is excessive. Stop me if I'm wrong. The page actually loads at a decent rate now.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Presentation of naming of Catholic Church

I DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE NAMING OF THE ARTICLE OR ORGANIZATION. Sorry for shouting, but wanted to get that point across. There is a very long note in the lead that mediation agreed was necessary to explain the naming of the organization. I'd like to move this note - verbatim - into a new section that would be first (right above the history section). We can call it Etymology or Nomenclature or Name or something along that lines. The reasons for this are twofold:

• the lead is really hard to edit right now because that note is so huge
• The naming of this article/organization is repeatedly raised on the talk page, in part because the justifications for the usage are basically hidden in the note; a lot of editors don't appear to see this. Etymology is a standard section for many articles where the name needs explanation, and in this case we all appear to agree that the name needs an explanation (hence the note).

This section appeared in the article pre-January 2008, and I'd like to recreate it using the mediation wording. Thoughts? Karanacs (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with an etymology section.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks reasonable, and may get a citation or removal for the usually with a {[tl|cn}}; my understanding is that that is Nancy's original research on searches of the Vatican web site. (Our Orthodox fellow editors may also wish to tweak the sentence on Orthodoxy, since the Eastern Churches also assert themselves to be Catholic and Apostolic.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable making changes to the wording of that right now after the mediation disaster (although I agree that much of it is based on original research, although I think it was Xandar's). Karanacs (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm also fine with an etymology section. Let's just please keep it brief. We still have problems with length.UBER ^(talk) 19:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No rush; a citation for usually would be fine - and if there is none, the absence can be dealt with eventually. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Source verification

Does anyone have easy access to the sources used in the article? Nancy has expressed on her talk page a fear that after the changes the article won't match the sources. Others have expressed concern on this page that the article didn't match the sources before. The easiest way to figure this out is to get the sources. I've copied the list of sources to User:Karanacs/Catholic Sources. Please strike through any books on this list that you've used to verify and sign that line. I ask that if you find a discrepancy, tag that sentence in the article and create a section on the talk page to discuss rather than just remove. Ideally, we should have several editors agree that the interpretation in the article doesn't match the text before we take further action. Karanacs (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like quite a few of those were not used. I have Madrid's book and he is also a personal friend, I can look and see on the others.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 1: Inquisition text cited to Black

Article says Over time, other inquisitions were launched by secular rulers to prosecute heretics, often with the approval of Church hierarchy, to respond to the threat of Muslim invasion or for political purposes., cited to Black, pp. 200-202. This is not really what the book says, although the sentence seems mostly accurate. I suspect it may need different sourcing and perhaps modification. My notes from Black (see article for full cite) follow. Karanacs (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• p 199 -
  • Holy Office of the Inquisition established 1542; This and the creation of local tribunals "was a turning point for the control of society, but this needs cautious treatment."
  • Spanish Inquisition created in 1478 and under secular control
• p 200
  • Venice Inquisition joint operation between church and state
  • some executed at insistance of Rome even when locals wanted leniency
  • "The inquisitors were mainly intent on re-educating the ignorant and misguided, and emphasising the importance of Church authority in teaching"
  • "From the 1540s to 1570s or so the inquisitors (along with active bishops) were primarily intent on curbing the more serious errors of faith" like Protestantism
• p 202
  • laity could use inquisition for own purposes - revenge, punishment
• p 203 "The Inquisition was potentially the most powerful and efficient institution to control beliefs and behaviour. ... In practice it was less intrusive and feared than usually imagined, and its judicial procedures were probably fairer than those of most secular and other ecclesiastical courts. ... It was a control mechanism, but in its own terms it offered amelioration through re-education and the chance of salvation."

It definitely needs modification. It has an apologetic ring to it. Granted the Inquisitions weren't as bad as they are often made out to be; they weren't exactly a walk through Disneyland, either. This is one of those issues that needs balance. Maybe start with the given source and draw upon others if needed?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have as easy access to the other sources used for that paragraph. I'm hoping someone else active on the talk page does. Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Verification Issue 2: Conversion

I don't doubt the factual accuracy of this sentence, but it is not stated in the source to which it is cited. Christians baptized outside of the Catholic Church are admitted through other formation programs but are not re-baptized. I've added the failedverification template here; can someone find a source for this please? Karanacs (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It is an accurate statement, Christian converts to the Catholic Church do not need to be rebaptized, except for JW's and Mormons, I will find a credible source.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 3: Excommunication

The source used for the sentence Members of the Church can incur excommunication for serious violations of ecclesiastical law is not a reliable source. It is mistakenly written as pointing to Catholic World News, but it is instead a link to an online Catholic advocacy organization (http://www.catholicculture.org). This is the type of information that should be readily available in reliable sources. Karanacs (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 4: Papal election

The sentence in the article is The Pope is elected for life by the College of Cardinals and must be elevated to the position of bishop before taking office. The source does not mention "elected for live" and says that the voters are a subsert of the College of Cardinals (those under 80). I'm not sure whether we need a source for "elected for life" or if this is sufficiently common knowledge that we don't care. Source[5] Thoughts? Karanacs (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

From a non-Catholic perspective it seems important information and encyclocpedic. I've never been clear about who votes and whether the Pope is elected for life or can step down. Also interesting in the source you've linked is that all popes since the 15th century have been cardinals. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In a very early draft of this article, I used a source called Selecting the Pope or Electing the Pope, written by a priest about papal elections, etc. The book went into great detail about these topics(although maybe not so much about the "elected for life" business). Obviously, it was tossed out in favor of an interweb link, I can reintroduce this source if necesarry after I hunt down the book, here.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The second part of this is obscure and misleading. A man becomes Pope by being consecrated Bishop of Rome; there is no before. This is serious because some will read this as implying that the Pope must first be bishop of some other see, which is not historically necessary - although many Popes have been cardinal-bishops. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 5: Papal primacy

Resolved

 – Karanacs (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This information the Pope holds primacy of jurisdiction in matters of faith, morals, discipline and Church governance is not mentioned in the cited source [6] (the source covers the second half of the sentence). Should be easy to resource; I added a fact tag. Karanacs (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I can provide 4 sources for this statement:

1. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)
2. Encyclopedia Britannica (1911)
3. Papal Primacy: from its origins to the present by Klaus Schatz (1996)
4. Catholicism Richard McBrien

Which would be the best to use?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say avoid the older sources if at all possible. Either of the last two should be fine. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I went with McBrien, the thing about the older sources is that this was spelled out at Vatican I; don't know if that makes a difference or not.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike! Karanacs (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 6: Sacred Scripture

This sentence The Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit reveals God's truth through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. cannot be verified in the cited source. Karanacs (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 7: UN status

This statement and as the representative of the Holy See has permanent observer status at the United Nations is not in the source [7]. Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to be vigilant, I checked the longer version which takes forever to load which uses the same source, so it was unverified then as well. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a news source from 2004 when the Vatican spoke at the UN and the article gives a background of the observer status at the bottom. A possiblity? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

How about:[8]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Much better! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Added new reference.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 8: Liberation theology

The sentence on Liberation theology (Pope John Paul II criticised the emergence of liberation theology among some clergy in South America, asserting that the Church should champion the poor unconnected to radicalism and violence.) is cited to a BBC religion overview [9]. Do we consider this an appropriate source for the statement, or should we look for a higher-quality source? Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Or should we delete? It is indeed a news item that John Paul II said this; it is indicative of church policy under the last pontiff, but that statement does not constitute policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 9: Vatican II priorities

The article says that after Vatican II Promoting Christian unity became a greater priority,[231] particularly dialogue with Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox—it has led to the creation of an ordinate for Anglicans to enter communion with the Church.[232][233]. We have an issue here; cite 233[10] says that there is dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox, but does not say anything about priorities or a connection to Vatican II. Cite 232 [11] dscribes the orginate for Anglicans, but does not provide any link to promoting Christian unity or Vatican II. I checked Duffy's Saints and Sinners (cite 231), and it doesn't say anything about promoting Christian unity becoming a greater priority. This is a mass of OR. Karanacs (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 10: Bauckham?

There is a citation called "Bauckham, p. 373. ", but no corresponding book by that author listed. It's the sole source for Reception of the council has formed the basis of multifaceted internal positions within the Catholic Church since then. A so-called spirit of the times followed the council, influenced by exponents of Nouvelle Théologie such as Karl Rahner. Some dissident liberals such as Hans Küng even claimed Vatican II had not gone far enough. I searched for author=Bauckham in Google Books, and he's written a lot of books; I'm not sure which one this is referring to. Karanacs (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 11: Apology at Western Wall

The sentence in the article is In 2000 Pope John Paul II on behalf of all people, apologized to Jews by inserting a prayer at the Western Wall. The source [12] does not characterize this as an apology. The source actually says But he did not say what many had hoped he might or anticipated he might, that some kind of an apology for church silence, or at least address that problem Would welcome other eyes to make sure I'm interpreting this correctly. Karanacs (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 12: U of M website

This U of M description of a historical document collection[13] is really not an appropriate source for The Curia functioned as the civil government of the Papal States until 1870.. Surely we can find a better source for this? Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 13: Pontifical Academy of Sciences

Resolved

 – Karanacs (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've brought this up before. The article states In part because of lessons learned from the Galileo affair, the Church created the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1603; this is cited to [14]. The source supports the fact that the academy was created in 1603. It does not and cannot support the fact that this was created in response to the Galileo affair, because the Galileo affair occurred in 1610. Karanacs (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And the Pontifical Academy, as such, appears to have not been created until after the Risorgimento, if I'm reading the source correctly. Delete this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted it myself, actually, since it was contradicted not only by the reference but by our article on the Academy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 14: Membership

The article states that Membership is growing particularly in Africa and Asia. This is cited to [15]. This could be misleading. The source states that "showed an increase of 1.5% of Catholics compared with the 1.098 billion listed the previous year. A Vatican communiqué summarizing some of the data revealed that "since this relative growth is quite close to that of the general population -- 1.2% -- the presence of Catholics in the world has remained substantially unchanged -- 17.20%."" What do you think? Karanacs (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we can leave it for now -- it _is_ over the general population growth, and the Asian growth is significantly over the population growth.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 15: Inquisition exaggeration

The sentence in the article is Some historians argue that for centuries Protestant propaganda and popular literature exaggerated the horrors of the inquisitions in an effort to associate the Catholic Church with acts committed by secular rulers. This is cited to three different authors. Luckily, although I don't have the books, the page numbers in question are available on Google books.

• Vidmar, p. 146 says "The extent of the Inquisition trials for heresy has been highly exaggerated." doesn't say by whom or for what purpose [16]
• Norman, p. 92 says "Protestantism in England developed an interpretation of Spanish Catholicism that over time became the customary way in which the English-speaking world evaluated the Catholic Church. It was a tradition of thinking which not surprisingly chose to ignore the existence within Spanish Catholicism of an influential reformist movement. ... english opinion about Spanish practice in the Counter Reformation, however, was fashioned in ignorance of its reform tradition. English popular anti-papl sentiment, which endured to the end of the nineteenth century, and beyond, was dependent on what it represented as the horrible crimes of the priests. There evolved a 'No Popery' litany, with references supplied by the publication of John Foxe's Book of Martyrs in 1563, the excommunication of queen Elizabeth I by St Pius V in the bull Regnans in Excelsis of 1570, and the Armada sent by Spain to recover England for Catholicism in 1588.

But the Catholic institution that above all others appeared to embody the reality of Catholic authoritarianism ... was the Inquisition ... To this day, liberal opinion imagines the Inquisition as conclusive proof of the unenlightened and cruel nature of Catholicism at the time of the Reformation. "

• Morris, p. 215 says "The inquisition has come to occupy such a role in European demonology that we must be careful to keep it in proportion."

I don't think this entirely supports what is in the text but welcome other opinions. Karanacs (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologetic. The distinction between acts done by the Inquisition, acts recommended by the Inquisition, and acts later sanctioned by the Inquisition is an intricate one. Some evangelizing Protestants have used the problems to exaggerate the flaws of the Church; some Catholics have used the problems to deny them. Beither should be given house-room. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole paragraph is:

Over time, other inquisitions were launched by secular rulers to prosecute heretics, often with the approval of Church hierarchy, to respond to the threat of Muslim invasion or for political purposes. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain formed an inquisition in 1480, originally to deal with distrusted converts from Judaism and Islam to Catholicism. Over a 350-year period, this Spanish Inquisition executed between 3,000 and 4,000 people, representing around two percent of those accused. In 1482 Pope Sixtus IV condemned the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition, but Ferdinand ignored his protests. Some historians argue that for centuries Protestant propaganda and popular literature exaggerated the horrors of the inquisitions in an effort to associate the Catholic Church with acts committed by secular rulers. Over all, one percent of those tried by the inquisitions received death penalties, leading some scholars to consider them rather lenient when compared to the secular courts of the period. Some scientists were questioned by the inquisitions. According to historian Thomas Noble, the effect of the Galileo affair was to restrict scientific development in some European countries. The inquisition played a major role in the final expulsion of Islam from Sicily and Spain. On other social fronts, Catholic teaching turned towards the abolition of slavery in the 15th and 16th centuries, although the papacy continued to endorse Portuguese and Spanish taking of Muslim slaves.

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

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

Edit warring

All between 02:50 and 03:13 March 16, 2010

1. Pmanderson removed it to talk for discussion;[17]
2. Yorkshirian readded it;[18]
3. UberCryxic removed it;[19]
4. Yorkshirian re-added it again;[20]
5. Pmanderson removed it again;[21]
6. Yorkshirian added it again;[22] and
7. UberCryxic removed it again.[23]

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

I have two reverts to my name today and that's already a stain enough. I won't revert this article again for the next 24 hours, you have my solemn promise. I think I was right to revert, but obviously that's no excuse for what I did.UBER ^(talk) 03:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is, except for Pma's first post, not one of you have discussed it subsequently. I rather imagine you can't just completely delete all mention of inquisitions, and just removing and readding text, with no discussion, isn't the way to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

I re-added the Inquisition section accidentally. Sorry about that, I agree with the trim above. I was attempting to undo Haldraper's medling of my trim in the industrial age section from yesterday (detailed in a section below) and it got caught up by accident when I was retriving it. As well as the papal titles, based on Majoreditor's support in the above section. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Place article?

The article starts off with history. If this were a place article, that would be great! Followed by geography, climate, etc. Kind of funny for a church, though, IMO. Isn't what the church says it does or says it believes in, more important? Usually the subject of an article is permitted to place it's best foot forward, followed by criticism, which is, I'm sure, profound, in this case.

Saying "the church is the sum total of its history" is not quite adequate IMO. Adolf Hitler has a rather positive article, by comparison. You'd think that history/Wikipedia would take a more dim view (by comparison). Student7 (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't what the church says it does or says it believes in, more important?

Absolutely not, to answer your question. From an encyclopedic perspective, what people actually do is always the most important factor, and that's the quick and easy rationalization for history sections usually coming first. Also, Wikipedia specifically advises us to use secondary sources in large numbers precisely to avoid problems with what people claim they believe, so what the Catholic Church says it believes is generally irrelevant to what reputable scholars say it believes. The latter get more preference. Why? Because you'll find writings from Stalin saying he supported free speech. People could have ulterior motives for making certain statements, and that's why we stick with reputable sources.UBER ^(talk) 23:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in the content here, but just a general point. We do allow people and organizations who have articles about themselves to make clear what their positions are fairly early on, though this version was too top-heavy in that regard. Maybe once you have a good working draft completed, consideration could be given to having a brief section at the start, maybe two paragraphs on core positions, then moving on to history. I make this suggestion only in case the issue of "history first" becomes a major sticking point; if most people are fine with history first, that's okay too.

One thing I'd suggest is removing some of the references. Something is causing a slow load time, and that's probably at least in part to do with the large number of citation templates (they're maybe not the only things doing this, but they can't be helping), and quite a few of the sentences have multiple refs after them, which surely can't always be needed e.g. "According to its doctrine, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.[38][39][40]" The load time has been causing me problems as an admin trying to follow what's going on, so it can't be making things pleasant for editors and readers. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I said same at Talk:Catholic_Church#NPOV; just loading diffs here is a pain! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

For topics that are as heavily disputed as this one, secondary sources should be used overwhelmingly. The more controversial the subject, the more likelihood of deception or manipulation, hence why primary sources are a bad idea for these kinds of topics. And when we do include material from the Church, there should always be a secondary source corroborating it, unless it's something as obvious as "The Church said this". But with statements like the Church believes, the Church thinks, etc...it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a reputable source or two attached as well.UBER ^(talk) 00:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right, but with something sensitive like this you have to be careful not to drown out the voice of the subject. You also need to be careful not to define primary source so widely that anyone associated with the church becomes a primary source. I'm not saying you've done this, by the way, because I haven't looked; just making a general point. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I'll agree with that. And no I have never added a single source to this subject. Right now, the daunting profusion of sources is the problem, which seems quite strange to say on Wikipedia.UBER ^(talk) 01:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

One caveat to your position Uber is that churches teach, they do not believe. If one is attempting to illustrate the doctrines of a church we necessarily would cite their doctrines as they state them. Secondary sources may be ideal, but the quality of the source becomes paramount. For example, going to a Southern Baptist scholar for a review of Catholicism might introduce a skewed view of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Alternatively, a reputable Catholic scholar should provide a reliable summary of the Church's doctines. I suspect we are saying the same thing, but I think clarity is vital at this point in the process.

The reason so many reference are used in religious topics is because they are so contentious. The Catholic Church (I am not Catholic) has garnered an enormous amount of critical information over its nearly 2,000 year history. Every point has been disputed in this article and the only way out of conflict is to reference everything. Most of the controversial religious articles incurs the same type of referencing. If you know an alternative way when so much controversy exists, please share it. --^StormRider 01:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

An answer to that is in my post on the straw poll; anything that is triple, cuadruple cited in a broad overview article probably doesn't belong here, and should go in daughter articles, with this being a summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

From an absolutely uninvolved editor: FWIW, this article came to my attention when a few months ago I tried to link from another article and crashed my browser. I had a look at the article and saw it was huge, had a look at the talk page, also huge, and have been lurking for a while. Today I can finally load the article. Before all other considerations comes the most important: readers must be able to access the page. I commend everyone who has been working hard to make that a reality. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just looking at some of the overlinking (it's everywhere, and the sea of blue makes the article as hard to read as the overcitation, but I know editors have more important things to focus on right now), but while I was in there, I saw an insane amount of detail on less than broad issues. I won't specify them, prefer to leave those to more involved editors, but the article could still use a much deeper cut on content to daughter articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The overlinking makes it very difficult to read. Also, though this would take time, the templates should be taken out of the text and maybe consider using a system such as short notes to minimize load time. I still have to wait for the diffs to load, but that's not as problematic as having the article itself be inaccessible to readers. I'd be happy to help if help is needed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2)

Re - overlinking. Hallelujah! Thank goodness someone else has noticed this and identified it as a problem. One of the reasons for the overlinking is the attitude that this article is intended to be an index to all the "important" articles related to the Catholic Church. Thus, various editors have argued along the lines of "we must keep the text about personage X or event Y in the article so that we can link to it". Thus, we wind up with single sentences about Teresa of Avila, Junipero Serra and Bartolomeo de las Casas just so we can link to their articles. This led to overly long text which was made up of short choppy sentences that didn't provide a flowing narrative but instead consisted of a bunch of non sequiturs. Long text is difficult enough to read but text that doesn't engage the reader and carry him along is just a chore to read. It would be great if we could chuck the "gotta link to every important article" mentality and just write good narrative prose. --Richard S (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That again leads back to a broader problem: poor sourcing, sticking sentences together according to individual ideas of what should be included, rather than reliance on broad overview high-quality sources, giving due weight to the most significant issues, and summarizing other issues from daughter articles. Lots to be done here, but many able hands are on the task. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I travel frequently to three different locations where I'm forced to a dialup, and can't access articles like this one was from those locations ... I've raised this many times here, trying to explain that an article that more than half the world can't see benefits no one, and I frequently raise WP:SIZE issues at FAC, but most Wiki editors have fast connections, and don't take the concern on board. I'm a strong advocate for appropriate use of summary style, because I see the problem every time I travel! Also, I can't recall ever seeing an FA with 37 citatons in the lead (10 is high), and that alone indicates the level of problems in the article. If you have to overcite the lead, it means there are likely POV UNDUE or synth issues, or overreliance on inferior sources in the text. The lead should be a summary of the article, with only surprising statement or quotes needing citation. The overciting is indicative of broader issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, thanks for sharing your story. It might sound maudlin and melodramatic, but you're exactly the kind of user I was trying to help in my efforts to change the article—you and many others across the world who do not have the benefit of DSL or FIOS and who often have to wait up to a minute to load ridiculously long articles (kb-wise) on Wikipedia. You're absolutely right: nothing matters more in Wikipedia than access. It doesn't matter that an article is splendidly or horribly written if people have difficulty getting to it. I only wish that more people had taken your sensible advice instead of making this one of the bitterest and most contested articles in the history of Wikipedia. Thank you again.UBER ^(talk) 05:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I do have a high speed connection, but for some reason, until the recent cuts, it took as long as a minute to load the page. It would have been an interesting test to see whether the long version would have loaded on a dial-up connection. Didn't mean to sound melodramatic—I was merely curious to see why the browser crashed but not surprised when I saw the article size. But this brings up another consideration: I purposely removed the link to here from the article I was working on. I'd imagine quite a few Wikipedia articles link to CC and any link that impedes a reader is a useless link which is counterproductive. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha no no...I meant my statement was melodramatic. You sounded fine.UBER ^(talk) 06:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been on this issue since I had to try to do MoS cleanup at four different FACs (and was unhappy that the article kept appearing at FAC with the same MOS issues-- I don't mind cleaning up MoS the first time), and just accessing the diffs was a hairpuller. The issue now is that this article needs so much work just to make it readable, that a prioritized ToDo list might help as far as a plan of attack. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

/* Industrial age */ Terrible Triangle

The current text reads "The La Reforma regime which came to power in Mexico in 1860 passed the anti-clerical Calles Law and in the 1926–29 Cristero War[202] over 3,000 priests were exiled or assassinated,[203][204] churches desecrated, services mocked, nuns raped and captured priests shot.[202] In the Soviet Union persecution of the Church and Catholics continued well into the 1930s.[205] In addition to the execution and exiling of clerics, monks and laymen, the confiscation of religious implements and closure of churches was common.[206] During the 1936–39 Spanish Civil War, the Catholic hierarchy supported Francisco Franco's rebel Nationalist forces against the Popular Front government,[207] citing Republican violence directed against the Church.[208]"

First of all, mentioning the La Reforma regime of 1860 and the 1926-29 Cristero War together in the same breath is probably conflating too much. Secondly, the text confuses the Calles Law of 1926 with the Lerdo Law of 1856. Finally, what ties persecution of Catholics in Mexico, the Soviet Union and Spain is that Pius XI called this the Terrible Triangle and expressed with bitterness his disappointment regarding the failure of Western democracies to publicly oppose and halt them. I know we're trying to keep the History section short but I think it's important to mention the phrase "Terrible Triangle".

Also, this is a bit of OR but I still think the anti-clericalism of the 19th century and the first part of the 20th century is part of what drove the Catholic Church to continue seeking accommodation with more conservative governments which could possibly protect it from attacks by Marxists and anarchists. (no POV attack or defense intended here, I'm just stating what I think was going on). Does anybody know of sources which make a similar assertion?

--Richard S (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I agree about the problems with the original para. I pulled together Mexico, the Soviet Union and Spain with Pius' 'Terrible Triangle' idea in mind but as you say it needed a sentence making that explicit. I've also made a couple of edits for NPOV and brevity. Haldraper (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

French Revolution and Napoleon

In the History section, I think it is important that we make sure to tell the reader not just "what happened" but also answer the question "so what?". Too many times, we throw out facts but don't explain why these facts are important.

For example, one could have read the section on the French Revolution and gotten the impression that a bunch of priests were killed and churches destroyed but the Church survived the Revolution and Napoleon and, in the end, won by being stronger for the experience.

Is this true? The Church may have had its prestige enhanced by the Pope's opposition to Napoleon but was the Church in France as strong in the 19th century as it was in the 18th century? I would think that it wasn't.

I think the suggestion that everything was hunky-dory and even better than before after the fall of Napoleon is the result of an excessive focus on positive pro-Church sources rather than an objective look at the Enlightenment-inspired transformation that started with the French Revolution and ends with the loss of the Papal States in 1870.

The 19th century brought waves of anti-clerical violence, harsh anti-clerical laws and milder legislation which ultimately effected a separation of church and state to various degrees in different countries. This theme of "separation of church and state" is not explicitly mentioned in the article and yet is important in any secular understanding of the history of the past 250-300 years (well, maybe even the last 1000 years). This is one of the big "so what?" points that I think the History section of this article should make.

This is not to say that the Church did not play a strong role in the politics and culture of countries after the 19th century. However, the role it played was markedly changed by the loss of temporal power (through loss of land and wealth).

Anti-clericalism probably also affected the Church's politics by pushing it towards the right (specifically affecting Pius XI's opposition of Communism).

--Richard S (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Church became, in fact, much weaker in France (but also in general) after the Revolution, although the explicit cause for that weakness is not found in the 19th century, but the early 20th. It was the famous 1905 law that permanently broke Catholicism in France, although it just formalized the prevailing attitude of the French government, which had already shut down thousands of religious schools and deported thousands of priests and nuns as part of its effort to establish secular, state-run education. I would think this law definitely deserves some contextual appearance in the article as part of the broader theme of the declining influence of the Catholic Church.UBER ^(talk) 18:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What the encyclopedia needs is a good, neutral, sourced history of the Church of France, beginning well before the Revolution. It would be clearer, and more in accord with what real histories I have seen - including the reliable Papalist ones - to present the French Government and the Papacy as the major players, going back at least to the Gallicans, if not the kidnapping of the Pope in 1308; despite the many arguments for bad text for the sake of links, Gallican is not linked to from here. The Enlightenment and the Protestants are minor figures, although each important in their century. (Whether this will fit here is again another question.)

Presenting this, as we have done up to now, as the martyrdom of the Church at the hands of the EEEE-vil Revolutionaries, is not only partisan ignorance, but flat wrong. The Civil Constitution of the Clergy was the work of the King's ministers, not the Jacobins, who were not to come to power for three years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I would actually say the relationship of Napoleon III with the Church (he protected the Church, then later betrayed it out of cowardice) is more relevent than Napoleon I. Though I think its fair comment, that the Satanic inspired vanities of Philosophism would have pushed the Church closer towards the various masculine monarchies and even, paradoxically Britain (Congress of Vienna). - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.

Is Satanic inspiration a consensus explanation in the sources for anything since the Gadarene swine? ;-> (Although I am indeed reminded of Kipling's use of Gadarene.) Is this view, quite seriously, commonly enough held to warrant space on this talk page?

Is cowardice a claim that Napoleon the Less had no better uses for his troops in 1870 than defending Rome, even at the cost of war with Italy in that summer? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Are we being discouraged from adding to the text? Continuing the French scene I think there should be a sentence something like "The French Catholic Church was almost wholly supportive of the Vichy regime and was, for the most part, silent about the enactment of anti-Semitic legislation". Both the Church and Vichy were equally happy about the end of the Third Republic. For Petain it was responsible for the defeat of France, for the Church it had created a laic society. The Catholic Church blamed the republican educational system for leading to the military defeat of France (!) The Vatican gave its blessing Vichy - Jan 18 1943 Pius XII warmly praised the work of Marshal Petain, and the renewal of religious life in France. (Verdict on Vichy Michael Curtis.) This is a few months before 16 October 1943 ( a date still miissing in the article) when SS police and Waffen SS rounded up over 1250 Jews in Rome, a few yards from the Vatican, 1060 of them went to Aushwitz, 15 survived. Sayerslle (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Amerindian populations decimated by disease

The article text has this sentence "Nevertheless, Amerindian populations suffered serious decline due to new diseases, inadvertently introduced through contact with Europeans, which created a labor vacuum in the New World."

This sentence is factually true but there are a couple of problems with it. First, as I've indicated before, there is the general tendency towards this section being exculpatory... "bad conquistadors/secular colonizers" vs. "good, noble missionaries" but alas! best efforts of missionaries to "save" the Amerindians fails due to the onslaught of European diseases. I remain unconvinced that the role of missionaries in the Americas was primarily salutary. Of course, they did bring many benefits to the natives but I think it is more accurate to see the effect of Christian missions as a "mixed bag". Certainly, there are strong POVs in the "real world" who highlight the negative effects of Christian missionary work. It is arguable whether such POVs represent the mainstream but they are, at least, a strong and salient POV that needs to be presented here to provide a "full picture" of the real world perspective on this topic.

Also, the ending of the sentence "which created a labor vacuum in the New World" begs the question "and so....? what's your point?". It's like we raise the issue of a labor vacuum and then drop the topic, moving on without explaining what the relevance and significance of that labor vacuum is.

Of course, the answer is ... "the inability to enslave and exploit Native Americans as cheap labor led to the importation of African slaves". Until we fix the "big problem" of how to present the role and effect of Catholic missions in the post-Columbian Americas, the least we can do is fix this awkwardness. I propose just deleting the words " which created a labor vacuum in the New World" on the grounds that entering into an explanation of African slaves is a bit of a digression for an article of this scope. If we were talking about History of the Catholic Church in the Americas or Catholic Church and slavery, there is a natural segue into a discussion of the legitimacy of slavery in Catholic teaching and the conflict that African slavery in the New World poses for the anti-slavery stance taken by the Catholic Church. However, I don't think we want to get into this level of detail in this article.

--Richard S (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree, also inadvertently should go; it is somebody struggling with the smallpox-laden blankets story; since this (in my experience, your mileage may vary) has usually been blamed on the eighteenth century British or the US Cavalry, it is doubly inappropriate here.

This involves several off-topic controversies. (What was the population of North America in 1450? Is the answer knowable?). Dump the topic, the exculpation, and the praise of missions all in one lump - or that is my advice. 22:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs for sections

One of my pet peeves about the History section has been the lack of broad overviews. The sense that I got from the previous looong version was a rattling narrative of facts with all sorts of hidden agendas but very few overt themes. My mind kept screaming "and so what? Why should I care about that?".

One thing that would help to address this issue is the use of lead paragraphs for every subsection. This lead paragraph should follow many of the same guidelines as lead paragraphs for articles. That is, it should summarize the whole section into a single paragraph. It might only consist of two or three sentences but those few sentences give the reader an overview of what will follow and even allow him to skip the rest of the section if he so chooses. In theory, we should be able to construct a very terse summary of the History section by just combining the lead paragraphs of each section.

I have made a preliminary attempt at implementing this approach with the "Reformation and Counter-Reformation" and "Age of Discovery" sections. I also broke out the treatment of the "Enlightenment" as a separate section again. Doing this makes it easier to write the lead paragraphs. (Or more specifically, merging these two topics makes it difficult to write a good lead paragraph.)

--Richard S (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I agree with your point. Concise "overview" paragraphs may be appropriate for certain sub-sections, provided that they comply with summary style guidence. Perhaps a brief overview pargraph would be useful at the beginning of the History section? Majoreditor (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I too agree, subject to referencing and NPOV of course. It may also be possible to thereby reduce some of the "rattling narrative of facts" that follows and thus the overall length of the page.Haldraper (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the introductions that you crafted for those two sections, Richard. I actually think those summaries would be a good basis for rewriting the sections...In the case of the Age of Discovery, we may not need to write much more than that. Karanacs (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I too also agree, but especially for the first two subsections of History, which need to be written in summary style. Right now, they're just a jumbled and incoherent collection of facts.UBER ^(talk) 18:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Excess detail

... is still everywhere, but one thing that jumps out is the chart in the "Hierarchy, personnel and institutions" section; that data could be summarized to one sentence, and the chart moved to the daughter article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not one sentence but certainly a lot less than is there now. Does anyone else get the feeling of "the mice will play while the cat's away" and that certain blocked editors will be returning with a vengeance to this page next week to add/reinsert a lot more "detail essential for the reader"? Haldraper (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No I do not get that feeling.UBER ^(talk) 19:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, a new mouse on the block :-) All I can say is: stick around and see! Haldraper (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's try not to raise the conversation level a bit, please! Karanacs (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, per Karanacs, the past is behind us. Nancy and Xandar have essentially agreed not to revert anything. It's not going to be a problem. Have some faith in people Hald.UBER ^(talk) 20:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a cycle of glorious song, a medley of extemporanea; consensus on neutrality can never go wrong - and I am Marie of Roumania. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. The titles of the Pope(such as successor of Saint Peter, Vicar of Christ, etc) and what the heirarchy is actually for is very relevent to a summary of the Church. This section actually needs more work, the mentioning of canon law, etc and I think we should mention religious orders in this section too—ie, Dominicans, Francisans, Jesuits, etc. The info about homosexuals been disuaded from being part of the clergy should probably be put into a note. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There must be a way to summarize this information without stuffing the section with useless titles though.UBER ^(talk) 22:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The titles are not "useless" at all (explain the claim?). They are the titles held by the Papacy. The fact that the Church holds the Pope to the Vicar of Christ and the successor of Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles is directly pertinent to why the Church claims to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is a central tenant of the religion itself. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That might be true, but the article should not adopt the perspective of the Catholic Church. To the world in general, the Pope is known as the Pope, not as the Vicar of Christ or whatever titles he possesses within the organization. It's not a big deal either way, but it just seems like the kind of ancillary details we're trying to trim.UBER ^(talk) 23:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Yorkshirian. These titles explain much about the structure and history of the church hierarchy, particularly regarding the papacy. It shows continuity with pagan traditions (pontiff), linkage to the apostles (St. Peter), primacy over other churches (prince of the apostles) and linkage to God (vicar of Christ). Whether one professes to believe the legitimacy of these titles is another story. But the sentence communicates important concepts which anchor key Catholic beliefs. Majoreditor (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added pontifex maximus, which may make the continuity clearer. I doubt many non-Catholics would call the Pope "Supreme Pontiff of the Church Universal" - except with bitter irony - but as a note on Catholic usage, this should be unobjectionable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of lead sentence problem per edit summary request

As a reply to the recent set of edit summary remarks and reverts concerning the placement of a comma in the lead sentence, and its replacement by the word "and", the reason editors had a comma in the sentence is because the comma is correct in the sentence context. Its removal and the change to "and" is incorrect.

The comma serves as a parenthetical offset between two related phrases. "approximately one-sixth of the world's population" is an expansion or exposition on the phrase "more than a billion members", and not an introduction of a new fact. The removal of the comma and the addition of "and" in the lead indicates that the world's population statistic is an added fact separate from "one billion members". Here that is not the case.

Consider the following example: "Joe is a typical human, possessing two feet, the standard number of pedal extremities." It would not be correct to write "Joe is a typical human, possessing two feet and the standard number of pedal extremities." because the addition of "and" makes the final phrase redundant. However, "Joe is a typical human, possessing two feet and two hands." would be correct given the introduction of a new fact.

I will not revert the edit, but it would be a minor improvement if a content-involved editor were to change or revert the "and" edit. If the original comma is too confusing as placed, perhaps the lead sentence should be reworded to avoid its use. This need not be a controversial change. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Does it look better now?UBER ^(talk) 20:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that fixes the problem. -- Michael Devore (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

opening sentence of lead

I know we've been over some of this ground before but I still think the opening sentence of the lead is very see-sawy and choppy:

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,[note 1] is the world's largest Christian church with more than a billion members,[note 2] approximately one-sixth of the world's population. The number of practicing Catholics worldwide, however, is not reliably known.[15]

Everything is qualified by the succeeding text or in the two notes. The membership figures are also well discussed in the relevant section. I therefore propose a new opening sentence that avoids these problems:

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,[note 1] is the world's largest Christian church.[note 2] Haldraper (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that shortened version. Karanacs (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed text is an improvement. Majoreditor (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I also endorse this proposal. Since you made it, go ahead and implement the changes yourself Hald.UBER ^(talk) 00:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose because it doesn't mention the number of world-wide members. It considers the Church only in relation to schismatic and theologically heretical Christian groups rather than the entire world itself. The CIA World Factbook reference used for it is a reliable source. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I can live with keeping the numbers on the end. Not sure what "It considers the Church only in relation to schismatic and theologically heretical Christian groups rather than the entire world itself" means. Will make change. Haldraper (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Industrial age trim and Haldraper

During the 20th century, the Church had to content with the rise of various authoritarian and politically radical governments. For instance in Mexico, following secularist laws enacted by a predominantly Grand Orient led government, the Cristero War took place which included anti-Catholic killings and religious desecration. Similarly in the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution, well into the 1930s, execution of clergy and laity, as well as closure and confiscation of church property was common. Along with republican Spain in which violence was also directed against the Church, these regimes were dubbed the Terrible Triangle by Pope Pius XI and the lack of intervention a Conspiracy of Silence. The hierarchy supported Franco and the national forces during the Spanish Civil War, which although authoritarian—like Salazar in Portugal and Dollfuss in Austria—were friendly to the Church and tried to imploment Catholic social teaching into their programs. Following violations of an accord signed between the two, relations with the German Third Reich were more strained. Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical Mit brennender Sorge criticising curtailment of the Church, as well as the paganism and scientific racialism in the political program. Following the start of the Second World War in 1939, the Church condemned the invasion of Catholic Poland and other acts of aggression.

I trimmed this section down to the above yesterday, only to have Haldraper flyby revert the trim with no proper explination. My rationale for the trim is simple; in the current article there is far too much weight to relations between Church and Third Reich (a whole paragraph is obviously undue weight), which in the larger picture are insignificant, it deviated from core facts, with pure opinion, polemic and so on. At the same time the article doesn't mention the Catholic authoritarian governments which were actually supported by the Church (Franco is, but we can also mention Salazar and Dollfuss) as well as explaining why the Church supported it (these governments tried to merge Catholic social teaching with their political program). Also I trimmed the gory details of Mexico down to just "anti-Catholic killings", since it gets the point across in a shorter form. Same with explinations of the term Conspiracy of Silence. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, you seem to think there is undue weight about relations between the Church and the Third Reich: in fact, there is half a sentence about the Reichskonkordat and it is only there as background for Pius issuing Mit brennender Sorge when it was violated. The sentence was not added by anti-Catholic editors trying to show up the Church for signing a concordat with the Nazis but by Nancy who wanted to highlight the fact that the Vatican had issued an anti-Nazi encyclical in 1937.

I'm not against adding info on the Chuch's support for right-wing regimes like Antonio Salazar's Portugal but we need to do in a NPOV manner and not, to quote you, "with pure opinion, polemic and so on" as you did with your previous attempt - "Grand Orient led government...anti-Catholic killings" (source=Blood Drenched Altars|publisher=EWTN Global Catholic Network: reliable?) - and which gave the section the feel of a far-right, 1950's Catholic tract rather than an encyclopaedia article. Haldraper (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My position is not that it is "pro" or "anti" Catholic specifically in relation to the Third Reich, but rather the fact that its undue weight, meanders on into too much detailed, pro-anti argument on a fringe aspect and it has a paragraph on something which for the most part is irrelevent to the Church. The ethnic conflict between the Jews and the Germans is not relevent to an article about the Catholic Church (it is not even the main part of WWII). What we're here to write about is the Catholic Church and far more relevent are the masculine Catholic governments which the papacy did support against Communism, that nobody disputes and which had a strong Catholic social focus like Salazar and Dollfuss.

As for the conflict in Mexico, well it mentioned rapes, killings and other attacks anyway. The purpose of these attacks were anti-Catholic and it simply gets it across in fewer words. Vicente Fox, President of Mexico from 2000 to 2006, explains "After 1917, Mexico was led by anti-Catholic Freemasons who tried to evoke the anticlerical spirit of popular indigenous President Benito Juárez of the 1880s. But the military dictators of the 1920s were a more savage lot than Juárez." Specifically it is the Grand Orient form of Masonry which is prominent in Mexico, rather than the British-American version. That the Grand Orient in particular has a history of anti-clericism is well documented.- Yorkshirian (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)