Talk:Catholic Church

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)

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)

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)

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

Resolved

 – Karanacs (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

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[4] Thoughts? Karanacs (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

See my source here:[5] "After his acceptance, the person elected, if he has already received episcopal ordination, is immediately Bishop of the Church of Rome, true Pope and Head of the College of Bishops."

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

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

Verification Issue 5: Papal primacy

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

Resolved

 – Karanacs (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

This is too recent for me - without reading more books on the Church in the 20th century I have no idea whether this is important or not. Karanacs (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd move to strike it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. To put the case in full: I do not know whether this is present policy or not - as opposed to one news conference. If it is, it needs a better, secondary, source; if it is not, it has no business here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:04, 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)

The correspondents seem extraordinarily taken with John Paul II; that might be worth saying in his article. Here, however, I agree that our claim is not supported even by a favorable source, and that a diplomatic triumph of ten years ago does not warrant its space. More research by Google, I suspect: "John Paul, Vashem, apology". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem removing this - there had previously been consensus not to have it in, and it was reinserted in February. Karanacs (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 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)

Thank you; discussion here might have avoided confusion. I would also recommend rewriting rather than reversion; that would have meant editing one section instead of the whole article, and might have led to compromise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

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 dreadful summer? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Holocaust

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)

Thank you for that. The full discussion belongs in Catholic Church and the Holocaust. However, we should probably allude to this kind of thing by saying something like "The position of the Catholic Church vis-a-vis the Nazi regime varied considerably. Some German Catholic bishops supported the regime while others opposed it and were persecuted for that opposition. The French Catholic Church was almost wholly supportive of the Vichy regime and its anti-Semitic policies while Dutch Catholic bishops were persecuted for publicly denouncing the deportation of Dutch Jews." We really need to be NPOV here. It's not as if there was (or is) a monolithic Catholic Church. As the text that I've written indicates, the position of the Catholic Church varied from country to country and even among bishops of the same country. Editors like Xandar like to divorce the actions of local hierarchies from the official pronouncements of the Vatican arguing that only the Pope speaks for the entire Catholic Church. I don't like this approach. The Catholic Church is perceived not only as what the Pope says and does but also what the local hierarchy says and does. We should not give undue weight to the speech and actions of wayward, fringe mavericks but it is also wrong to dismiss the actions of the local hierarchies (e.g. in Vichy France and Croatia) as totally irrelevant. --Richard S (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that the actions of local hierarchies are relevant to the Catholic Church history, but I am concerned whether this type of detail is too much for this particular article. Karanacs (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to discuss the Second World War and the Holocaust at all, Richard's four sentences seem about right. Anything shorter would be mushy and smack of OR: Catholics of different countries reacted differently is pointless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 17 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)

It is clear from historical accounts that within the Catholic church there were both supporters and opponents of the genocide of the Amerindians. One opponent of the genocide was a Catholic priest, Don Frey Bartolomé de las Casas, OP, who wrote numerous books documenting the events, including The Devastation of the Indies, (1552) [republished by Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore & London, 1992], as well as History of the Indies [translated by Andrée M. Collard, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, 1971] and In Defense of the Indians [translated by Stafford Poole, C.M., Northern Illinois University, 1974]. A few extracts from The Devastation of the Indies give a flavor of the events: With my own eyes I saw Spaniards cut off the nose, hands and ears of Indians, male and female, without provocation, merely because it pleased them to do it. ... Likewise, I saw how they summoned the caciques and the chief rulers to come, assuring them safety, and when they peacefully came, they were taken captive and burned. ... [The Spaniards] took babies from their mothers' breasts, grabbing them by the feet and smashing their heads against rocks. ... They built a long gibbet, low enough for the toes to touch the ground and prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Savior and the twelve Apostles. ...Then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive. ... As the Spaniards went with their war dogs hunting down Indian men and women, it happened that a sick Indian woman who could not escape from the dogs, sought to avoid being torn apart by them, in this fashion: she took a cord and tied her year-old child to her leg, and then she hanged herself from a beam. But the dogs came and tore the child apart; before the creature expired, however, a friar baptized it. Read also the essay Lights in the Darkness in Christian History magazine [Issue 35, 1992] by Dr. Justo L. González [adjunct professor of theology at Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur, Georgia]. On the Conquest of the Americas he says: It was one of the bleakest times in the history of Christianity. In the name of Christ, thousands were slaughtered, millions enslaved, entire civilizations wiped out. - In the name of Christ, natives were dispossessed of their lands by means of the Requerimiento. This document informed the native owners and rulers of these lands that Christ’s vicar on earth had granted these lands to the crown of Castile. They could accept and submit to this, or be declared rebel subjects and destroyed by force of arms. - In the name of Christ, the natives were dispossessed of their freedom by means of the encomiendas. The crown entrusted natives—sometimes hundreds of them—to a Spanish conquistador to be taught the rudiments of the Christian faith. In exchange, the natives were to work for the conquistador—the encomendero. The system soon became a veiled form of slavery. Even worse, some encomenderos left the natives underfed and overworked to the point of death. González however then proceeds to describe how these events were condemned by several leading priests including Don Frey Bartolomé de las Casas and the Dominican Antonio de Montesinos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.43.37 (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

82.71.43.37, I appreciate your perspective since it is very close to my own. However, the quotations you provide do not refute the thesis that there were "bad conquistadors and colonial settlers" who frustrated the "good intentions and directives" of the Spanish Crown and the Vatican. If we look at what the Spanish Crown said (especially Queen Isabella) about treatment of the Amerinidians and what the Popes said about the same topic, we are left with this thesis of evil being done in spite of the noble intents of the Spanish Crown and the Popes. In this thesis, all the bad things done "in the name of Christ" was done by the bad people "on the ground" but not "at the top, back home in Europe". This might be the "mainstream" opinion but I'm not convinced that it is. Me personally, I think the truth is closer to "plausible deniability" i.e. "Yes, we understand that these bad things need to be done but we ain't sanctioning it officially". But that's just my personal opinion. Does anyone know of reliable sources that address this question directly? --Richard S (talk) 15:58, 16 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)

I am not opposed to keeping the titles but I would like to offer my perspective. To me, the titles are basically trivial details. I don't disagree with Majoreditor that the titles could "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). " if the meanings of the titles are explained. However, I suspect that most Catholics would be unable to explain these meanings "off the cuff" and the meanings of these titles will be absolutely lost on the average reader, especially if that reader is not Catholic. Thus, I would say that we could lose the titles without really detracting from the article. If the titles are as important as Majoreditor asserts, then we should explain them briefly. I think they're not that important and are more important as catechesis for the faithful but not in an encyclopedic article. --Richard S (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Something to be said for this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The titles only deserve one sentence, and wikilinking should be sufficient if readers want more details. Majoreditor (talk) 23:28, 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)

I've trimmed this further following Karanacs' later edits: the RC/Catholic distinction only made sense together with a Note and is now covered in the etymology section. On the other hand, the Note on membership figures didn't add much to the text, it just added more refs. I've therefore converted it into a single ref. Haldraper (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I added back in the "also known as ..." for now. It's generally accepted practice to put alternative names in the lead, and this clause essentially serves as the summary of the new Etymoloy section. I'm also concerned that by removing this, we invite others to edit-war over the name that is shown. Karanacs (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fair enough, Karanacs. I think the your first point carries more weight than the second though: we shouldn't be deterred from making bold changes for fear of edit wars. Haldraper (talk) 19:38, 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)

For NPOV, it's best to relate facts rather than indulge in opinion as to motives: so "there was a law separating Church and State followed by a war in which x thousand priests were shot, churches demolished etc" rather than "so and so was an anti-Catholic Freemason who passed this law then set about killing lots of priests".

I disagree that a single sentence that covers both the Reichskonkordat and Mit brennender Sorge is undue weight given they each have their own pages, and also that "the ethnic conflict between the Jews and the Germans is not relevent to an article about the Catholic Church" or that "it is not even the main part of WWII": both seem fringe views for which we would struggle to find a reliable source. Haldraper (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Masonic nature of the government (as well as been referenced from a high profile figure) is directly relevent to the article. Callas and co, according to the Mexican government of the modern era, were anti-Catholic freemasons. Secularist legislative agitation in Catholic countries, directly derives from the goals of that organisation according to enylicals published by the Church (the Church consistently condems masonry and in fact, you are not allowed to join if you are a Catholic). Why should any of this be covered up? In fact it is POV and revisionist not to include it.

Focus on the ethnic conflict between Jews and Germans deviates from the topic of the article, namely the Catholic Church, to present fringe far-left/secularist polemic (off-topic and undue weight). The subject is notable on a history of the Jews, or one of the Third Reich, but not a summary of the Catholic Church. Since the Church was not a combatant in it, then it is unrelated to the article. It also evokes a partisan religiously bias, pro-Judaism/anti-Catholicism take on the complex Middle Ages dispute when such comment is entirely irrelevent to a section on the 20th century (particularly since German anti-Jewish sentiment of that period, derives from secular sources such as Richard Wagner, Wilhelm Marr, Bruno Bauer and other radical Hegelian and Kantian currents).

Far more relevent is that the German Third Reich broke the terms of the accord with the Church, which led to direct hostilities between the two (and even potential support of an assasination attempt on Hitler). The invasion of Catholic Poland and the Church opposition to it (hence against the aggression which incited WWII, that caused the deaths of 90 million) is directly relevent in a summary. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, as a Freemason and a Catholic, I'm not crazy about putting a lot of weight on this. I prefer Hal's wording here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The anti-clerical/freemasonry point seems pure WP:SYN: Calles was a freemason, his government was anti-clerical, therefore international freemasonry was directing anti-clericalism in Mexico. Unless we've got a reliable source to back that up - not a Vatican encyclical that allegedly makes the Mexico-freemasonry link - it would be WP:OR and WP:FRINGE to include this kind of conspiracy theory. We would also need a reliable sources for your again WP:FRINGE claim that Hitler attacked Poland because it was 'Catholic Poland' rather than part of an expansionist foreign policy that saw the invasion of and deaths of millions of citizens of countries with Catholic, Jewish, Protestant and Orthodox populuations.

I find it quite amusing that you characterise the current text on the Church and the Nazis/Holocaust as a "far-left/secularist polemic...[that] evokes a partisan religiously bias, pro-Judaism/anti-Catholicism..." given that it essentially a slightly trimmed version of the section as originally written by that well-known far-left, secularist polemicist and anti-Catholic partisan Nancy Heise. Haldraper (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you all please refocus this discussion on the content (which is clearly a mess with eight citations to support one sentence)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshirian opines in his usual fashion: "Calles was a freemason, his government was anti-clerical, therefore international freemasonry was directing anti-clericalism in Mexico." Gosh, its so difficult to argue against this sort of logic. Honestly, Yorkshirian, can't you do better than this? I'm starting to think you are just intentionally winding us up with all this conspiracy theory rhetoric you go on with. Afterwriting (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you all please keep this discussion focused on the content ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Back and forth

There's a lot of back and forth here about what to include, what not to include, how much weight to give certain issues: it's not clear to me if content is being decided based on due weight according to the highest quality sources, or just personal opinion. Long ago, User:Awadewit offered to help if things settled down here. Has anyone thought of asking her to do a literature search, to hone in on the most desirable sources? It seems to me that some of the content disputes could be resolved by identifying the highest quality sources, and working from them, rather than trying to retrofit patchwork text that was built based on a multitude of lesser quality sources and opinions about what to include. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the things I've noticed while doing source verifications is that there are a lot of sources that reference only one fact in the article. This implies to me that the paragraphs in question were likely constructed based on our own opinions of what's important rather than what the survey of sources thought was important. I'm going to continue the verification because that will at least help us identify errors in the current text, but I think the history section, at the very least, needs to be looked at completely differently - by reviewing the source materials again and perhaps finding new sources to read. I can't do this all on my own, as I have other projects I'm also trying to finish. Can anyone else help? Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made a (hopefully helpful!) start by cutting down the refs to one per point in the industrial age section. Haldraper (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia and Karanacs that we should consider what other sources consider important. Alas, I have neither the time nor the resources to help in that effort. Until then, I would prefer that we keep the current set of topics. I am all in favor of removing excessive detail but I oppose completely deleting any of the following topics: Terrible Triangle, Reichskonkordat/Mit Brennender Sorge, Liberation Theology, Sexual abuse cases. --Richard S (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard I'm not aware anyone wants to remove any of those, except Yorkshirian with Reichskonkordat/Mit Brennender Sorge, and possibly Liberation Theology. The emphasis is on cutting excessive detail/sourcing, not whole issues. Haldraper (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandy asked if I would help perform a literature search. As much as I would like to help this article move forward, I am in the end stages of trying to finish my dissertation, so I cannot do so at this time. What I can do is lay out the kind of plan I would use as a guideline for others to follow. Let me know if such a plan would be useful to others. Awadewit (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Beliefs section prose concerns

I hadn't read the Beliefs section in full in a while, and overall I'm impressed that the section seems much more accessible. There are still a few things that I think can be improved, but I am certainly not qualified to do so.

• Jargon problems - Some of the text is written in a very flowery language, which is inaccessible to many non-Catholics and, I suspect, most non-Christians. We need to strip out the religious jargon and give the information in as neutral a fashion as possible.
  • To Catholics, the term "Church" refers to the people of God, who abide in Christ and who, "... nourished with the Body of Christ, become the Body of Christ - this needs to be rewritten in plain English
  • The Church teaches that the fullness of the "means of salvation" exists only in the Catholic Church but acknowledges that the Holy Spirit can make use of Christian communities separated from itself to bring people to salvation - do we need to define salvation anywhere? We're assuming that readers understand this, and I'm not sure if that is true.
• "effective channels of God's grace to all those who receive them with the proper disposition (ex opere operato)."
  • the "four last things" being - I've never hear this phrase "the four last things"; it may need explanation
  • The basis upon which each person's soul will be judged is detailed in the Gospel of Matthew which lists works of mercy to be performed even to people considered "the least".
• Excess detail? - do we need to keep these pieces?
  • To be properly confirmed, Catholics must be in a state of grace, which means they cannot be conscious of having committed an unconfessed mortal sin.[243] They must also have prepared spiritually for the sacrament, chosen a sponsor for spiritual support, and selected a saint to be their special patron and intercessor.[242] In the Eastern Catholic Churches, baptism, including infant baptism, is immediately followed by Confirmation—referred to as Chrismation[244]—and the reception of the Eucharist.[243][245]
  • Emphasis is upon Christ's words that "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven".[247] According to the Catechism, "The Last Judgement will reveal even to its furthest consequences the good each person has done or failed to do during his earthly life."[247]

Karanacs (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The jargon definitely needs to be cleaned up. Salvation needs a definition. I've never heard of the "four last things" used in that reference and I've pretty much heard them all ("7 Sorrows and Joys of Mary", "7 Sorrows of Joseph", etc). I am inclined to agree about the excessive detail on both of those sections, I'd say remove the last one entirely. The Confirmation section needs to be trimmed, maybe even entirely. It is an important sacrament and rates a mention, though.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think all of that is saying that Catholics consider non-Catholic Christians as non-Christians, but I really have no idea what it's trying to say. I agree it needs de-jargonification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't get that from it, but if that is the message being conveyed it is totally wrong.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of these statements need to be re-written because they aren't clear to the average reader. Most of them use catechism-speak, which isn't an appropriate style. The part on Confirmation is much easier to understand, but may be too long. Perhaps it can be reduced to two sentences:

''To be properly confirmed, Catholics must be in a state of grace, have prepared spiritually for the sacrament, chosen a sponsor for spiritual support, and selected a saint to be their special patron and intercessor.[242] In the Eastern Catholic Churches, baptism, including infant baptism, is immediately followed by Confirmation—referred to as Chrismation[244]—and the reception of the Eucharist.[243][245]

Your thoughts? Majoreditor (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This is worded better than the above, but I suspect that this information may be too much detail for this article. Karanacs (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This is outrageous

How is there no mention WHATSOEVER in this article about the sexual abuse that has come along with the Catholic Church for decades?? Seriously. Everywhere in the world, in every newspaper, there are consistently new reports of children being the victims of sexual abuse, at the hands of a Catholic Priest/Bishop... Wikipedia has a duty to discuss this. (Even the Pope's brother is guilty of this. THE POPE'S BROTHER!) Get with it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.57.156 (talk • contribs)

Actually, Wikipedia doesn't have a "duty" to discuss anything. Besides, there are lengthy articles on the sexual abuse cases elsewhere on Wikipedia -- this page is summarizing a 2000-year-old organization.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a sentence in the history section on the sex abuse scandal -- the end of the 20th century, sex abuse by Catholic clergy has been the subject of media coverage, legal action, and public debate, with a link to the article that has in-depth coverage. Per the wikipedia policy on undue weight, the sex abuse scandals don't rate much coverage because they are, while a very tragic situation, ultimately, a very small portion of the Church's 2000-year history. Karanacs (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

However, if the emphasis on the present state of the Church urged by some, presently blocked, editors were to prevail, the sex abuse scandal would merit more room, as part of the present standing of the Church. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of that sort of thing was added in the attempt to balance what was a very POV article before. It's hard to see how such a broad article can be written without first developing the daughter articles, upon which it must depend. It's not possible to cover the topic without aggressive use of summary style, yet everyone remains focused on this article, while the daughter articles go wanting :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree: the need to develop and improve the spinout (aka daughter) articles is one of the most important issue facing this article, and addressing this in a few key cases would be a great way to encourage improvement and consensus in this article. Geometry guy 22:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Early Christianity

In the early Xty section of the history it says " Early Christians refused to offer sacrifice to the Roman gods or to worship Roman rulers as gods and were thus subject to persecution". This is supported by a ref from Wilken.But I can't work out which book it is.. when the first big persecution came it was because Nero said they set Rome on fire, for terrorism. Which Wilken book is it? And a minor point could it be spelt out when Constantine is mentioned what this meant.." With the conversion of Constantine Xty turned the corner - from heresy to orthodoxy.". With all that implies. Sayerslle (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The terms "heresy" and "orthodoxy" can be be loaded. The current text describes the situation with neutral terms:

Christianity was legalized in 313 under Constantine's Edict of Milan,[36] and declared the state religion of the Empire in 380.[37]

I think that the current text works well. Is there a need to say more? Majoreditor (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

To not underline that this conversion is a big deal is loaded too..etc etc..Sayerslle (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Some would maintain that the corner wasn't completely turned until the death of Julian. The article on History of late ancient Christianity says that "Christianity came to dominance during the reign of Julian's successors, Jovian, Valentinian I, and Valens (the last Eastern Arian Christian Emperor)." Constantine's conversion, Julian's premature death and the subsequent declaration of Christianity as the Empires official religion all appear to be important events. But perhaps the exact details should remain in the daughter articles. Majoreditor (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the desire to keep the History section short, I would leave the details of Julian and his successors to subsidiary articles. --Richard S (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Any full explanation would also include the edicts of Theodosius I against public pagan worship; the final text should certainly include the word gradual, and link to a subarticle. This is not on topic here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

On a separate note, I have to confess to some confusion about the persecution of the Christians bit. Our text provides the standard party line ... "Early Christians refused to offer sacrifice to the Roman gods or to worship Roman rulers as gods". So what gives here? The Jews refused to do this also and they weren't persecuted for it. AFACICT, they actually had a fairly cozy relationship with the Romans in which the Sanhedrin had a fairly autonomous authority over the practice of their religion and the Jews only got stepped upon as a people for repeated rebellion (ROMANUS EUNT DOMUS!). The picture I have of the Roman empire is that it was generally tolerant of the religions of the various cultures that made up the Empire. The idea of a monolithic worship of "Roman gods and divine rulers" seems to contradict that picture. Perhaps the rule was "OK, you can worship all the gods you want but you also have to sacrifice to our gods and worship our rulers as divine". Wouldn't it be better to clarify this issue? And, why did the Jews get an exception and the Christians didn't? --Richard S (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"People called Romani, they go the house?" :). I think it had more to do with the Christians rejecting the pluralism of the Romans. The Jews didn't try to win converts, but the Christians did, and would do so by telling people they were wrong. When you tell that to the "Cult of the Emporer" you're going to get crushed. Plus to the Romans, the Christian religion was founded by a condemned criminal and in the 1st-3rd centuries what cultural contributions were they making toward the Empire? Bear in mind to that point in history that religions for the most part were associated with a particular tribe or country, Christianity, once it spread past the Jews was not.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike, your Latin translation of what I wrote is correct. "ROMANES EUNT DOMUS!" (oops, sorry for the typo in the original comment) is a reference to a Monty Python sketch in "Life of Brian". Go find it on YouTube. It's hilarious. --Richard S (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Very familiar with it. Centurion reminds me of my Latin teacher from the seminary.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Jews weren't persecuted since they were a "nation", with its own national God. Christians on the other hand were Romans and subverting other Romans to join them and abandon their old gods. Xandar 10:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

But some Romans followed Mithras,the Persian God, soldiers and that, and they followed mystery cults, and Sol, the Sun God? Even in Pompeii there were Christians and that was detstroyed in 79AD, they seemed quite open to religions of the Empire. Anyway, the Wilken is Robert Louis Wilken , but it still isn't clear to me which book is being referenced. Sayerslle (talk) 11:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. Yes, I knew most of that but I didn't want to go too far out on a limb without sources for fear of being accused of Original Research. Collectively, you have exactly hit the point I am raising. Our text doesn't mention the points that you have made in response to my query. Our text suggests that the Christians were poor, noble innocents who were persecuted because they refused to worship false gods. This is the Christian POV which is a legacy from the Jewish meme (think of Daniel in the lion's den as perhaps the most widely known example from the Old Testament). However, the Roman POV would view the Christians as a subversive religion which was corrosive to the tolerant pluralism of the Roman Empire. This Roman POV and is not presented at all in this article. This is an example of the pro-Catholic (pro-Christian) POV that permeates the article. An NPOV treatment would present both POVs. It seems to me that a neutral, secular historian would be more likely to credit the Roman POV over the Christian POV. But, you know,... the victor writes the history and so we have been fed the Christian POV for centuries.... Are there any reliable sources that support a more neutral view of why the Romans persecuted the Christians? Do we want to get into a detailed discussion of that question here or should we simply state that Christians were persecuted by the Romans without mentioning a reason why? --Richard S (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Romnan point of view is clear, and documentable from the correspondence between Trajan and Pliny the Younger - and the life of Decius. The Romans regarded the oath to the Emperor, which was an act of worship, as one of the major ties binding the Empire together; refusal to take it was contumacy. The Jews had special license, since the Empire also approved of everybody keeping to their ancestral traditions; but even this was not always enough; Bar-Cochba's rebellion of about 116 AD was sparked in part by tensions over Emperor-worship.

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

Recent Major and Substantive Changes to this Article

Since 9th March, major, substantive, and largely undiscussed, changes have been made to this article that totally re-order it and reduce its size by more than half, removing key sections and decimating others. I am not at this point going to divert into the manner in which these changes have been introduced. I am, however, going to say why these hastily made changes are not only fundamentally ill-judged, but make the article completely unfit for purpose. I will make proposals for a better and consensus way forward for this article.

If we compare the Longstanding Text of this article with that newly introduced, the principal changes have been:

• Removal of the History section from the bottom of the article to the top.

• Completely removing entire referenced sections, including Origin and Mission and Cultural Influence.

• Massively cutting, merging and re-writing the Prayer and Worship, the Beliefs, and the Church organisation sections, along with their subsections.

• Many parts of the History section have also been substantially altered.

These changes amount to what one editor called a "Hiroshima" of the article. The rationale for these changes has been extremely vague. The main ostensible reason put forward has been that the article was too long. However this is not the way to make cuts. What has been cut is largely the unique core material of the article, and what has been left is mnaterial largely duplicated by other articles.

This has happened because enormous changes and cuts have not been properly discussed and agreed. They have been hastily and arbitrarily implemented, and therefore have caused the article to fail. If I was currently grading this article (which has been a Good Article for years), I would have to rate it at no more thanClass C ie. Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.

The changes seem to have been inspired by a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of this article. The principal purpose of this article is to inform the reader about the Structure, beliefs, practices and organisation of the Catholic Church TODAY. The current article fails to do this. The sections that should form the core of the article, and which contain most of the unique core material on the subject have been moved to the end of the article and decimated.

• The sections covering organisation, membership and structure have been cut from 2,650 words to (as of 17th March) 660 words. Less than a QUARTER of the previous total! This is not "editing" it is removal of 75% of content!
• The sections on Beliefs and Practices have been cut from 3,450 words to 1436 words - barely a THIRD of the total in the longstanding article.

In order to do this, the subsections have been removed and there is a mass of unreadable text. The content itself has had all its logic removed, leaping seemingly at random from subject to ill-explained subject. Coverage of important and vital issues such as Mary and the Saints, Pilgrimage, purgatory, social teaching, creation, angels, salvation and free will has vanished completely. Coverage of Monasticism has also gone, as well as coverage of the Church's educational and social work. Most of this material is not only necessary, but totally uncontroversial and there has never been a proposal to remove it! All such changes would need proper discussion on their substance and consensus on their substance before implementation. The tiny remnants of what should be the core sections of the article have been further downgraded by being tagged on as a sort of postscript to the article, behind a lengthy History section.

I'm afraid the people who have overhastily made these changes, have produced an article which may reflect THEIR personal interests, but it does not reflect the needs of readers or the requirement that this MAJOR Wikipedia article be full, balanced and comprehensive. At present it has become a cut-down duplication of the History of the Catholic Church article, with a little garbled information on the present day Church tagged on the end. This really is an embarrassment to its subject, and to Wikipedia.

Let us compare the Longstanding text and the current UBER/Karanacs text with the coverage on the major foreign language Wikipedias. Here are the Spanish Language, the Italian Language, the French Language, the German Language, the Portuguese Language and the Dutch Language articles. We can also look at the English Wikipedia articles on Anglicanism, the Orthodox Church, the Featured Article, Islam, and Buddhism. They are ALL immensely closer in format, content and weighting to the Longstanding Text of this page. So WHO is out of step? Is everybody wrong except the group of editors supporting this hacked to shreds version? Do their plans include parachuting into Islam or Orthodox Church and Anglicanism and perform the same level of cutting and reorganisation? If not, why not?

Since the version now on the page has lost its slowly built-up, logical and referenced core material, I propose that we restore the Longstanding article text, and work co-operatively on that. In the interests of providing an easy and substantial cut to the length of the article, I would simultaneously agree to the complete removal of the History section with the exception of a section each on Origin and Mission and the Contemporary Church. The "History of the Catholic Church" article, which is at last in a good state, would then be directly linked from the top of this article in the manner of the French and Portuguese Wikipedia articles. This would also have the benefit of removing many of the major POV bones of contention in the present article. (Example available here.) This would not be to set the reverted portions of text in stone, but to return to a better basis for further collegial and discussed improvement. Xandar 10:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again you only confirm that you just don't understand the substantial problems with this article and seem determined to prevent other editors from doing anything to significantly improve it. Have a look at the Orthodox Church and Anglicanism articles and you will see that there these are considerably shorter, much easier to read and attract considerably less conflict. Let's make this quite clear - the level of conflict regarding this article is largely if not mostly due to its ridiculous length. Afterwriting (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed a solution to deal with the length - which you will see if you read my whole comment above. Dealing with the length does not mean decimating and relegating the core content without discussion. All the articles I have linked to above give priority to the core content, and explain it comprehensively. That is what this article must go back to doing. On the other articles, look again. For your information, the Orthodox Church article has 10,800 words on beliefs and practices. The Longstanding version of this article had 3,450. (UBER's version has a third of that!). The Anglicanism article currently has 5,200 words on beliefs and practices. Again substantially more than our longstanding text. Xandar 11:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and note that the "long-standing" version has never enjoyed consensus. The article's Good Article status has not been reassessed since July 2008, the page changes have been highly discussed and very collaborative, and long-standing issues with length and POV have been noted, as far back as the first FAC, and throughout every FAC. I believe continued cuts should be made to the History section, work should continue on correcting the poor sourcing and linking that led to patchwork building of an article attempting to balance POV, and that summary style should be better employed by developing content in the daughter articles and summarizing that content back to this article. At any rate, the current version is the first time the article has been readable in over two years, and the poor sourcing that was in all previous versions is being addressed. In particular, because such collaborative work has been underway, I hope the post above is not a signal that the battleground will continue here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure others will have responses to your lengthy proposals - at present all I want to ask is what sort of timeline do you have in mind? Based on the article's editing history the parousia will have come and gone before we achieve any sort of "solution" based on these proposals. I am not wanting to be incivil, I just want some practical way forward - not endless so-called "discussion". Afterwriting (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed: articles are not built by pinging in sympathetic editors to "vote" on every proposed change. Also, the current article is not "UBER/Karanacs text" as Xandar's states: over two dozen editors have been involved in collaborative editing over the last five days, with no talk page acrimony. Xandar, please refrain from personalizing talk page discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You may not like it, Afterwriting, but discussion and consensus are the basis of Wikipedia changes, especially MAJOR alterations like this. The longstanding version has enjoyed consensus and stability through all its FACs - or it would not have qualified to begin the process. Sandy's contention that the enormous page changes have been "highly discussed and very collaborative" simply defies credible belief! Kindly point me to this long discussion. What happened was that UBER decided to "break all rules" and decided to slash up to three quarters of the core content - content which had never been challenged without discussion. A brief and inconclusive straw poll was held for just over one day - with no discussion, limited participation, and key points of view prevented from participating. The page moderator closed the poll and left in disgust. This is not how Wikipedia consensus on major changes is obtained. Let me remind you that Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. It is the start of the process for consensus-building. There has been no consensus for the massive changes made by UBER and Karanacs, and that is why they are such a disaster. The WP:BATTLEGROUND was introduced by people who decided to abandon discussion and consensus and try to impose unthought-out changes by other means. Now please, Sandy, you are the one personalising this. The "vote" was the idea of those wanting to bring in the changes without discussion, and was held in a manner that meant it was restricted to those who knew about it at the time. Stop diverting the discussion, and address the SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT ISSUES I have raised. Simply stating OtherStuffExists does not answer the point that the quoted articles are the NORM. It is the changes Sandy and others are defending that are out of line, and obliterate the quality of the article. Xandar 12:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The longstanding version has enjoyed consensus and stability through all its FACs - or it would not have qualified to begin the process. This is not an accurate statement. Any article can begin the FAC process, regardless of its state or stability. Unless the article meets FAC criteria, the nomination is archived. This article has yet to meet the FAC criteria, and, unanimous agreement of frequent FAC reviewers, a failed FAC nomination only provides consensus that the article did not meet the criteria, not that there is consensus for anything else. There are other factual inaccuracies in your initial statement (including that the cultural influence and origins/missions sections were removed - they were actually folded into the other sections) and that there was no discussion on the changes (there certainly was before the initial reversion and straw poll, with the majority clearly supporting the new structure). A great deal of work has been done on the article in the last few days, including uncontroversial ref cleanup and copyediting. A mass revert is not the way forward. Karanacs (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree, and find it troubling that misunderstandings about archived FAC still persist to this day. The only thing that can be said from four (five) archived FACs is that there has never been consensus for this article, it never met criteria, and the opposes were unprecedented, both in number and scope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Xandar has asked for my comments, although he must expect that they will be contrary to his argument; this should be noted.

• Xandar's "long-standing text" was never consensus. Consensus text does not provoke 46 long pages of talk, largely consisting of the objections of many different editors; nor does it provoke a widely supported appeal to ArbCom. Perhaps he has a private definition which he has not shared; mine is "approved by general, [almost] unanimous agreement."
• It was stable only because a half-dozen editors revert-warred for it. Xandar himself was the most frequent of these; the last three protections, at least, were provoked by Xandar revert-warring with different editors over different points. This is not the atability Wikipedia desires.
• Stability and consensus, even where they exist, are not our chief goals. No consensus can warrant violations of neutrality; no consensus can warrant citing sources for what they do not say or citing sources on one side of a question with undue weight; and all of that is clear policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this article?

Xandar is going about this the right way inasmuch as he starts by asserting the purpose of the article, and then proposes actions to move towards that purpose. Naturally if we accept Xandar's premise that the purpose of this article is

"to inform the reader about the Structure, beliefs, practices and organisation of the Catholic Church TODAY"

then of course it makes sense to cut the history section to make room for more discussion of structure and beliefs. But I for one do not accept that premise. I think it ought to go without saying that this is an overview article, and therefore its purpose is

to give a brief overview of the Catholic Church.

If that is our purpose, then cutting it down from 195kB to 100kB was a step in the right direction, reverting it would be a mistake, and cutting out the history section altogether would be just plain silly.

What do others think? What is the purpose of this article? Since there is dispute on this most fundamental point, there hardly seems any point in discussing anything else until we have settled it.

Hesperian 12:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of any Wiki article is laid out in Wiki pillars: WP:5P. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, not an advocacy piece for church positions or beliefs, where "Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner", understand consensus (for example, by not pinging in "votes" sympathetic to one's own POV or thinking Wiki is a "vote", terminology which has not been eradicated from this article's discussion in spite of more than two years of reminders of same), not edit war, and not create a battleground. I'm afraid there is no basis for Xandar's views about the purpose of this article, to advocate in favor of "inform[ing] the reader about the Structure, beliefs, practices and organisation of the Catholic Church TODAY", which has been to the exclusion of other Wiki policies and guidelines. It is that misunderstanding that has resulted in this article being mired for years: Wiki is an encyclopedia, not an advocacy website. Not all readers coming to this article are primarily concerned about "beliefs and practices"; for example, many will be looking for history. This should be a broad overview article, befitting of the size and duration of the organization, using summary style to lead readers who are seeking more detail to daughter aricles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Sandy keeps insisting on personalising the issues. I'm not sure how explaining the structure, function and beliefs of Catholic Church count as "advocacy"? I don't want to divert into her unfounded allegations about "piping in votes", however the less said about the running of the straw poll used as excuse for thiese changes, the better. The people holding a "Vote", and trying to enforce changes on their interpretation of it are NOT those who oppose the current disembowellment of the article.

In any event Hesperian does not actually capture my position. My position is that the description of the current day Catholic Church is the PRIMARY purpose of the article. I have long supported retaining a subsidiary history section as part of the article. In fact the suggestions to remove it have generally come from critics of the Longstanding Article. However, in view of the persistent and strident claims that the article is too long and that something must be cut, I think it is time to accept the views of those who have long suggested that removing the History section would remove 90% of the POV conflict and also shorten the article relatively painlessly. I opposed this in the past because we didn't have a well-ordered and comprehensive History Article. Now we do. So there is no point eradicating the core and unique material of the article in order to duplicate an article already in existence. Xandar 13:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I disagree with your premise here, Xandar. The primary purpose shouldn't be a description of the _current day_ Church, but of the Church in general.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Although I do not agree with the exact phrasing of Xandar's purpose of this article I agree with him that that history of the Catholic church is being given undue weight. The purpose is to give the reader an overview of the Catholic church. That includes its history, tenants, beliefs, structure, and everything about it. The history is one aspect and cannot be overlooked but the history is also covered in an entirely seperate article. I agree with Xandar that the format of this article should be closer to the format of the Islam article which is a FA and it hasn't been that long since it went through its last FAR. Marauder40 (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been no WP:FAR because the article has never been an WP:FA. I agree that History needs to be cut and better summarized, and that there are several issues that need to be better summarized from daughter articles so that this can be an overview of all of the aspects mentioned, but of a readable size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the Islam article when I mentioned the WP:FAR.

ah, ha, I see ... my apologies for misreading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ack. I just looked at Islam, which is in very bad shape, and needs a FAR. It has been a long time since it was reviewed (more than two years), and it has significantly deteriorated from the 6400-word version that passed FAR in January 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The size may have changed since the last FAR but the basic structure and format haven't. Marauder40 (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Independently of how the article is structured, the version of Islam that passed FAR is a good example of how to use Summary Style correctly, and provide a broad overview in under 7,000 words of a long-standing institution with an important place in world history. This article, at 12,000 words before the changes, didn't succeed in doing that, was mired in POV and combatting and poor citations, and was largely unreadable. I agree with Marskell's statments from 2008 that the Islam article provides a good example of how to more effectively use summary style here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, if I might offer a suggestion, please read all of the advice given on your talk page. Work on this article was proceeding collaboratively, and discussion has been sidetracked again by your posts, which stalls the work that was proceeding. Many suggestions for how you might proceed are on your talk page and Nancy's talk page: sidetracking progress here is not in yours or the article's best interest, considering the collaborative progress that has been made in the last few days, and the harmonious tone that existed on the talk page. It is your contention that a "description of the current day Catholic Church" is the primary purpose of the article: you are entitled to your opinion, but others believe this should be a broad overview article of a long-standing organization that has had a significant impact on the world. Current practices are covered in The Catechism; it is not up to Wiki to replicate that. Wiki is an encyclopedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec x2) I agree with Hesperian. The purpose of this article is to give a brief overview of the Church, including its history (although Marauder is right that the history section is currently still too long). It's WP:RECENTISM to focus primarily on what the Church is like today, and this fact is part of what made the previous article seem like an advocacy piece. Xandar, if you are interested in providing constructive feedback, there are several sections above under Verification Issues that could use your input. Karanacs (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "It's WP:RECENTISM to focus on what the church is like today" If you mean it is recentism to focus on events that are currently happening then yes it is recentism. But if you are talking about talking about what the beliefs are, structure is, etc. currently then it isn't recentism. Those types of things should have equal if not more weight then the history because history has its own article. Marauder40 (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In your mind the work may be going well, the problem is that me and many other editors (i.e. Tom) have been taking time off or quit the article specifically because we feel that the entire situtation as it has been going on stinks. IMHO the fact that Nancy and Xandar were banned but PMA (among others) have continued editing shows just how bad the WP systems can be subverted by a few. I know there are several other editors that feel the same way. I believe many of the routine contributors of this page are taking the sink or swim approach to the current situation of this page. Marauder40 (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy and Xandar were not banned. Tom who? If you're referring to Tom harrison, he was operating on this article as an admin, and should have been neutral. If others continue the same behaviors, they will likely be blocked as well. It has not been demonstrated to my knowledge that Pmanderson has engaged in the same behaviors that led to the blocks. More importantly, content work was happening here, and now we're back to discussing meta issues that turn the article into a battleground and belong elsewhere, like at dispute resolution. Let's please use this talk page for focusing on improving the article, not making allegations about what some believe were unjust blocks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I am sad to see editors leave the page due to the recent events. Quite frankly, though, the previous version of the article was nowhere close to gaining FA status, and the talk page environment was toxic (not just due to Xandar and Nancy). If there is any hope of making this a featured article that can appear on the Main Page, something needed to change. This is an attempt at steering the article closer to that stated goal, and other opinions are welcome and needed to get the article the rest of the way. Karanacs (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem was that it was a one-sided ban. Sandy can defend people that weren't banned all they want and say this is a side topic but several people are still bad-mouthing people on this page either directly or indirectly by saying things similar to "people that currently are banned would say x,y, and z." I am trying to bring up in a diplomatic way that the environment on this page is still toxic. It may feel that it isn't to the people currently commenting but that is because you are basically just talking among yourselves. Other people that could be contributing are still staying away. Until people can start addressing the topics without addressing personalities or the people then it will continue to be so.Marauder40 (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Second request: Could you please take those issues to dispute resolution, so this talk page can stay focused on article content? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Do I have to point to the numerous times on this page when you tell someone not to do something like this and then you or someone else do the same exact thing you are complaing about? Do you really want me to take the time to fill out dispute resolutions forms and go through the diffs. Typical example of people bringing up a complaint but not wanting to hear the other side of the situation. Typical example of why this page is still toxic. Marauder40 (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I don't disagree with you that the environment here is still not great (and Sandy and I have both noted that in sections above). If it doesn't get better here, then someone absolutely need to start dispute resolution procedures for user conduct. That's what it is there for, and that's what I tried to do and have been excoriated for. It's better to go through dispute resolution (even as simple as bringing up a potential issue at ANI) than to constantly complain here. I welcome an RfC on my own behavior and would participate as fairly as possible in one on any of the others who regularly post here. Karanacs (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that Sandy's claim that the article never achieved consensus is manifestly wrong. In order to START FAC, and to gain GA, an article has to be STABLE and consensus in form. These grounds were clearly met and not challenged at the time. It would not have lasted five minutes on the FAc list if it had been in the middle of edit-war or consensus wrangles. The article has been stable and in consensus for long periods in its present form. That is a fact. Simply because people have come to the article raising disagreements does not mean that the article wording was not and has not been clearly consensus. Xandar 14:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, you have misunderstood the FAC process. The article might have met the stability criterion (meaning no ongoing edit wars), but that does not mean that it enjoyed consensus. While stability is a criteria, that doesn't mean that all articles meet it to even begin the process, either. Karanacs (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Xandar is still incorrect about FAC, but that's history and we need to move on. It doesn't seem that he will understand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So we now have five people who think the purpose of this article is to provide a brief overview of the Catholic Church; no dissenters; and I no longer have any idea what Xandar thinks the purpose of this article is, as he has repudiated my understanding of his position without offering something else in its stead.

Is this consensus? If there is strong consensus that the purpose of this article is to provide a brief overview of the Catholic Church, do we have to right to ask that people buy in or bugger off? Disagreements on how to achieve our purpose can be worked through, but I don't see how collaboration is even possible without a shared purpose. It seems to me that knowingly editing to a purpose other than the consensus purpose is the very epitome of "editing against consensus".

What say you, Xandar? Are you prepared to work towards the consensus goal of making this article a brief overview of the Catholic Church?

Hesperian 14:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Depends what you mean. I want a properly balanced article in line with all the others on other Wikipedias and on this one. I think we could lose History by Wikilinking if this solves the alleged problem of length, since we have an article ready and waiting. Xandar 22:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As soon as he was unblocked, Xandar pinged in other editors who support his POV; he is now blocked again, having continued the same battleground behaviors that led to his first block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unlike Xandar, my opposition is centred on the way the changes were brought about, not on the changes themselves. All editors, with the exception of Xandar, who was blocked, agreed that the straw poll should decide whether or there was consensus for the new version. That poll didn't come close to establishing consensus yet the new version replaced the old.

Since then Sandy and SV have argued vehemently that the current version should remain in place. Their argument is simply that the end justifies the means. They argue that the article is better now that in was, so it doesn't matter that it was pushed through without consensus. That's not their decision to make. It's not a decision for any individual editor or group of editors to make. A change of this magnitude clearly deserves broader community input.

It does now look as though there will be an RfC at some point, and I think that should be the end of it. If that had happened before the change rather than after it much of the acrimony could have been avoided, and perhaps WP wouldn't have a lost a good admin. The whole thing has been handled very poorly, some experienced editors seem to have been acting completely out of character, and Nancy and Xandar have been given a very raw deal. But what's done is done; there's no point in raking over the coals. I say give Nancy, Xandar, et al, time to prepare their arguments and their alternative versions, have the RfC, and move on.--MoreThings (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Short story: Nancy and Xandar canvassed, effectively ending the poll. Why are we still revisiting this? I have argued vehemently one thing: this talk page was a battleground, the previous version was poorly cited and poorly written, and I'm in favor of a shorter version that uses summary style. Other than that, you are overextending with the statement that "Sandy and SV have argued vehemently ... "; I argue that the battleground stops, and participants understand Wiki policies, and summary style be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well perhaps the RfC will make quiet the battleground. [And perhaps someday world peace will break out :) ]--MoreThings (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It was proposed that the straw poll decide the question of which version was the basis of further work, and that it do so by majority vote since it was a yes/no question. The vote was 11-7 for the new version, Xandar and Nancy not voting, when it was abandoned due to canvassing. So some parts of the article were changed over to Uber's revised text, and invitations to discuss were broadcast. However, the History section was almost immediately restored to the old text, because Yorkshirian asked for that; it has been revised since, to some extent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It was abandoned due to key editors having been controversially blocked, and unable to argue their corner. My position was not counted, nor were others. A straw poll, being no substitute for discussion, cannot produce a "consensus" anyhow - even if it came up with a supermajority. The discussion on these massive removals has not taken place, and no consensus has formed to support them. Xandar 22:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Xandar's humility prevents him from clarifying that he and Nancy were the "key" editors blocked, and that they were blocked, among other things, for violating Wikipedia policies on canvassing. I have always counted Xandar's position (and Nancy's); they are still the minority - and nobody claims that poll was consensus. It is indeed one of the key pieces of evidence that the old text never was consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It was indeed proposed that it be a simple majority poll. Uber made that proposal and he attached various other conditions regarding suffrage. Tom disagreed with the proposal:

It's not legitimate to exclude ip accounts or newish accounts, so I'm striking that. It's not a simple vote. The reasoning is important, and the user's experience and editing history can be weighed. If there's puppetry, that has to be recognized and dealt with. The poll needs to be up over the weekend, and needs to involve enough people to be meaningful. Absent clear consensus, a super-majority may work, but it needs to be 70 or 80 percent - the fewer who take part, the higher it needs to be. I can't see closing it before next Wednesday. It's likely that some people follow the page but have given up trying to contribute. They should be heard if they want to comment.

The vote finished with 10 supports, 7 opposes, and 1 neutral, however Uber had removed one vote, disregarding Tom's guidelines. Including that would make it 10/8/1

10 is 52% of 19, and 55% of 18. I'm sure somebody suggested that Xandar's vote be counted as an oppose, which surely would have been fair and would have added another oppose. (And if I'd known how my vote was going to be used I certainly would have opposed). So however you slice it, I honestly don't see how it could be said that there was consensus for putting the new version live.

To accept that it was a majority vote is to accept Uber's guidelines in preference to Tom's. I felt that Tom had the support of all sides. Uber wrote the new version, initiated the poll, deleted a vote, totted up the totals and declared that he would be operating "in IAR" until the article was in a state he deemed satisfactory.--MoreThings (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify this rather one-sided account: the vote I removed was from an anonymous editor who had never edited Wikipedia before and who I suspected of being a meat puppet at the time (for good reasons, which I won't get into here). Tom did say puppetry had to be recognized and appropriately handled, and that's what I was doing given the information I possessed. Sorry, but when an anonymous editor with no single prior contribution magically comes into Wikipedia and votes at a straw poll for the first time, the alarm needs to go off. The editor that you're counting as neutral strongly supported a shorter version of the article and absolutely rejected the old version. Finally, you yourself supported my version, and I quote you: "I support UberCryxic's version."UBER ^(talk) 22:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that it was appropriate for you to remove votes we'll simply have to agree to disagree on that. Sandy's vote was neutral. You counted it as support. I did vote for your version. I thought a trimmed version was clearly the way forward, and I still do. If I'd known that my vote would be used to push though the change with no consensus, I'd have opposed.--MoreThings (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Beliefs partial restoration

Xandar mentioned above a concern that Coverage of important and vital issues such as Mary and the Saints, Pilgrimage, purgatory, social teaching, creation, angels, salvation and free will has vanished completely. Coverage of Monasticism has also gone, as well as coverage of the Church's educational and social work.. I agree with him that some of these topics are important to differentiate Catholicism from other Christian denominations (sorry, Yorkshirian, not sure what other word to use here), and thus need to be at least mentioned in this overview (although the details may well belong in other articles). I've restored some of the previous text dealing with monastacism, the afterlife, and free will. I think something ought to be restored about Mary, but I'm not sure what or where it should go (it was previously in traditions of worship, but should it go in beliefs instead?). The information on social teaching in the previous article is not very informative and seems more preachy than encyclopedic. I wouldn't object to a few good sentences that go into a little more detail than that uncited table in the Organization section, but I'm not sure where we need to get that type of info. I'm not attached to any particular wording (this needs a good copyedit anyway), and it may be that I've restored too much detail. It will likely take a few iterations for us to get the right balance. Thoughts? Karanacs (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Definitely need some material on Mary here -- there is not one reference to her in the whole article, except for the navbox. Catholic devotions to Mary should be treated separately from Christianity in general. Beliefs seems like a reasonable place to put it -- I'll go review the old version to see how she was treated before.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Two concerns. 1) When the article size was reduced, did Uber move the deleted content to daughter articles and relink back to here? Why should any content have gone missing? The objective is to use summary style, not remove content entirely from the Wiki. And I continue to say that can't be done effectively on an article of this magnitude unless people begin to focus on the daughter articles. The beliefs content should be in one of them. 2) Once again, why are decisions being made about what to include here without consulting (see Awadewit above) a broad literature search? If the article falls back into competing opinions about what should or should not be included, it will never advance beyond the same squabbles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Beliefs section is to a large extent cited to primary sources. Until we can get to the literature search, for now we need to make sure that the article at least covers what we think are the uncontroversial basics of the beliefs. Karanacs (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, everybody, for acknowledging that Xandar had a point about too much having been deleted. I was dreading having to go through and verify his assertions one-by-one so I'm glad someone else was willing to listen to him and act on his concerns. I disagree with his proposal to go back to the original long version but I do want to make sure that all important topics are covered if only in summary form. --Richard S (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs has been, actually, very conscientous throughout to check in at both User talk:NancyHeise and User talk:Xandar, to keep them informed and incorporate their feedback, so the notion being mentioned that editing has plowed forward here without their input isn't correct. No one has answered my question about whether content from the longer version was moved to daughter articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And The Wordsmith just commuted Nancy's block to time served, so she'll be able to participate directly, if she doesn't take SV's recommendation to back completely away from the article for a time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper has moved much of the history to History of the Catholic Church (there have been few cuts to history, however). The beliefs and hierarchy articles are more detailed than this one already. Karanacs (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The additions have been very small, and don't solve the problem of the conflation. We really need the whole of the beliefs and organisation sections back. There is no reason to remove them other than this concern about article length, and they contain a lot of unique and important information. Xandar 20:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Not all of the beliefs and organization sections are really relevant - some of the beliefs, especially, is written in a more proselytizing than encylopedic tone and contains details that we don't need in an overview. Can you suggest a compromise between the two versions? Karanacs (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's very hard to do off the back of my head. It would take time, and we'd have to know what was objected to. That's why hasty mass deletions aren't a good idea. Trimming these sections is a considered process. It's better to start with the full sections, and DISCUSS how they can be shortened without losing valuable information and understanding. I'm not sure what you mean by a proselytizing tone. We are just setting out the beliefs of the Church. Perhaps you can illustrate? Xandar 20:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it would be better to start with a literature search (see Awadewit post above), so that content can be built based on a preponderance of sources and giving them due weight, rather than debating individual opinion about what should or should not be included. Personally, I think the size and summary style of the version of Islam that passed FAR is about right, meaning some of the History needs to be cut here, and some other content needs to be better summarized from daughter aricles, but endless talk page haggling over what is important is not the way to go; basing due weight on a preponderance of high quality sources is the way to go, and no one yet has even done that search, two years later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this has an unreal tone, I don't know if its proselytising, its just got that unreal party-line feel..." Catholics believe that they receive the Holy Spirit through the sacrament of Confirmation and the grace received at baptism is strengthened.." Can't it be "The Church teaches that followers receive etc etc..Sayerslle (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My two cents

First of all, let me just say that I'm very happy Xandar is no longer blocked and I look forward to working together on improving the article in the next few days. This place just isn't the same without Xandar. On the substance of the criticism, I agree on some points, but disagree on the fundamentals. In particular, I'm rather shocked that Xandar suggests we should remove History, which is the most important section of the article. It's almost impossible to rationally justify such a reckless suggestion. The proposal to restore the old version is also very puzzling in light of the fact that it was a hopeless quagmire, as people repeatedly documented. I categorically reject these proposals by Xandar, but I'm willing to work on including some more material through summary style, which would mean greater coverage of topics that Xandar wants mentioned in the article while also keeping down the length.UBER ^(talk) 17:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Xandar looks pretty blocked to me... Wknight94 ^talk 17:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, he's back now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Now I'm back...

The suggestion that we remove the history is really not mine, but has been put forward several times by critics of the current article. (I'm too lazy to look this up now in the archives) Since we now have a comprehensive and well-ordered History of the Catholic Church article, and other CC articles on foreign language Wikis adopt this approach to solve the same problem, I thought this would be the ideal solution to the much-stated problems of article legnth. I am not against a History section, but when balanced against removing other, irreplaceable material from the article, losing the History section is the better option. I am not sure whether nancy, even agrees with me. I am equally happy with keeping a history section with the excised material restored. The offer of removal was merely to help cut through some of the arguments and sort things out. The important thing is that we don't have vital material whipped out of the article pointlessly or to meet an arbitrary article legnth. There are options here. The crucial matter is restoring the disputed material. Xandar 20:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of becoming redundant, let me explain the following point quite explicitly: History is, bar none, the most important section of the article. That's true for this article and for most similar articles on Wikipedia. We're already starting off on the wrong foot if you're sincerely suggesting we should remove it at the expense of other, less important sections. I'd be happy to trim History or to summarize it even further, but I hesitate to even contemplate eliminating the entire section. As for other CC articles: please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because other articles have made a mistake does not mean we have to follow them. Stick to the merit of the arguments and to Wikipedia policies. As for the old version: it's best if it never sees the light of day again. We've already done much to improve this article and we should continue in the context of the new version going forward.UBER ^(talk) 20:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This, UBER, is your OPINION. The other articles haven't "made a mistake", they have all separately, come to similar conclusions - which are not yours. Most of the other WP articles I quoted agree with our longstanding text in the weight given to Beliefs, Practices and Structure. WP:Otherstuff is invoked when someone is bringing up an exceptional rogue article to justify a rogue decision. What I am raising is the view most WP articles take on weighting. You are the one claiming that our article was out of line. It isn't. The Dutch article does have a long prominent History section. But it also gives a huge amount of space to Belief and Structure, throwing aside concerns as to article size. Islam has a balanced coverage, with History below beliefs etc. Orthodox Church is similar. What none of them do is throw out the baby with the bathwater by making the article a clone of the History article, and removing everything else to this effect. You may not want the old version to see the light of day, but that is NOT your decision. The "new" version is, as I described above, a wreck. It does not do the job it is meant to. It is not even fringing on comprehensive. We have a History article. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so it is easy to link to it from the appropriate point. I'm not insisting on the removal of History - I just think it would be an elegant solution. What we must do however is restore the comprehensiveness of the article. A proposal for the article without the History section is available here on my userspace. Xandar 22:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if we're ignoring WP:OTHERSTUFF, why do you bring up articles that directly contradict what you're saying? Islam is 100 kb long. Orthodox Church is 144. Neither seemed particularly difficult to load when I saw them. The version of this article that you support was over 190 kb and was a nightmare to load for many users, who've made their frustration about length very clear. So again, I ask you: why do you bring up articles that directly violate your own standards?

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

User:Xandar/CatholicChurchExmple

Thank you for putting up a sample proposal, Xandar.

Readable prose size (7,233 words) and ref size (29KB) look within reason.

The WP:LEAD seems long, and it's certainly overcited (the lead should be a summary of the entire article, which typically means minimal citation, since most items will be cited in the article, and only surprising items need be cited in the lead).

MoS would need attention (I see WP:LAYOUT portals are not external links, WP:ITALICS, References section twice, significant WP:OVERLINKing (love, genocide, other common words known to most English speakers, country names, etc.).

I haven't looked at content, but I see a lot of primary and websources, where the current version up here has higher quality sources (you may still be working on sourcing there?).

There is still a lot of text in the Notes, meaning the article size is actually larger.

Significantly, that article is still highly overcited, indicating possibly the use of low-quality sources, synth, OR, or POV.

I don't understand why the chart of institutions is needed in an overview article, and can't be given in the daughter article, summarized here to a few sentences.

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

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

Welcome back Xander and I agree that it is very short sighted for Uber to claim history is the most important aspect (obviously the Catholic Church, since the Fall of Rome is the sole entity responsible for the continuation of Western Civilisation, so history is important but not #1). The fact that this is a religion, holding itself to be the Living Body of Christ and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is the central aspect of the subject. Some of the cuts while you have been gone are positive, especially reducing size, but some of the contributors have a distinctly secular view, which minimalises the religious aspect. Since we are here to write an article on the subject of a religion, then this tenant needs to be the central focus of presentation. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:SIZE update

As of this version of 21:26 March 17, compared to 13:10 March 4:

1. Overall File size has been reduced from 716KB to 459KB
2. Readable prose has been reduced from 12,062 words to 6,993 words
3. References have been reduced from 55KB to 18KB

and the page is loadable from dialup for the first time in years.

I continue to believe the History section should be shortened and summarized, while other areas may need to be beefed up to use summary style adequately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on History.UBER ^(talk) 21:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What do they do?

It is ridiculous really. This article does not discuss the activities of the Catholic Church. Do they, perchance, make a major contribution to primary, secondary and tertiary education in most parts of the world? Yes? That's funny: the word "education" does not occur outside of the history section. Do they, perchance, send out missionaries? Yes? Run charities? Yes? Welfare agencies? Yes? Hospitals? Yes?

This should be 10% of the article. Instead it is one sentence in the lead: "It operates social programs and institutions throughout the world, including Catholic schools, universities, hospitals, missions and shelters, and the charity confederation Caritas Internationalis."

Hesperian 03:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, there's something else the Church has been doing rather a lot of and is receiving plenty of media coverage for at the moment. Funnily enough, that's only gets one sentence as well... Haldraper (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's what I think it is, we had more, but it was agreed to have one sentence and link to the main article. Nancy opposed that as I recall. On hesperians point on the missionaries Charities and agencies, that does require a separate section or mini-section, sinc e it is an important part of what the Church is. Xandar 09:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC/New Straw poll

Hesperian brings up a very important point here. In an effort to make the article fit a preconceived notion of size, a lot of important stuff has been cut out completely. Several editors have made this same comment since the cut went into effect. Because of this lack of a clear consensus regarding article size and comprehenisveness, I have proposed a new straw poll and/or an RFC to be advertised to the wider Wikipedia community and administered by an admin with mediation experience. I placed a note on user:Sunray's talk page since he is an uninvolved admin who successfully administered our mediation on the name issue. Per user:SlimVirgin's request, I created a user sub page with the longer version (here User:NancyHeise/Catholic Church) to be compared with the shorter article in place on the page Catholic Church right now. Maybe this will bring new and interesting editors to the page and ultimately help us discover what kind of article the wider Wikipedia community would like to see here. More eyes are better. NancyHeise ^talk 04:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, a lot of useless, point-scoring, apologetic cruft has been removed to make this article load in reasonable time on most computers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Richard S (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

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