Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:37, 19 May 2008

Roman Catholic Church

previous FAC (00:01, 18 March 2008)

Nominator NancyHeise (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Can you explain capitalization of "Pope"? It seems inconsistent to me. On a related note: capitalization of "he" with regards to God or Jesus. There are also inconsistencies in numbering centuries - I'm seeing "fifteenth century" and "14th century".-Wafulz (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good points. We should not capitalize Pope unless speaking of a specific pope whose name then follows and we lowercase "he" when referring to God or Jesus. I am going to go through and make those changes as well as correcting any inconsistencies with centuries. Thank you for identifying these issues. NancyHeise (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes have been made although I could not find any instances where we capitalized "he" when referring to God. If I have missed something please let me know. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. I don't think you actually used "He" anywhere. I just happened to have grown up Catholic and was indoctrinated into always writing "He". :-)-Wafulz (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, indeed - this is usual practice within Christianity, but Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style specifically says that we do not; as Misplaced Pages takes a neutral, not a respectful, position to religious figures and this would require making a judgement on which figures were worth of this sign of respect. (Similarly, mentions of Muhammad are not followed by 'peace be upon him' as is the preferred style in Islam.) TSP (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Catholic Church, in its writings and books - including the Catholic Bible - does not capitalize "he" when referring to God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit.NancyHeise (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I have mixed feelings about including the entire Nicene Creed in the article. Might there be a better way to express the creed of the Church? I'd consider summarizing the salient elements. Majoreditor (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That would take vastly longer. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We hashed this out in previous FACs. Non-Catholics want to eliminate the Creed and Catholics want to keep it stating that there is no better or more concise way to explain our core beliefs in a nutshell, the Creed already does it for us and it is so important to our faith and so small a paragraph that it is imperitive that we include it. NancyHeise (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe at least a few Catholics also suggested that the full text of the Creed be removed. We need to ask whether it actually provides value to the reader in this format, and if multiple people who are not familiar with the religion believe it doesn't, then the article has an accessibility problem. Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the objection to the Nicene Creed is exactly. The Creed IS a summary. I don't think it is possible to summarize a summary and do it any better. I feel an attempt would be unwieldy, inaccurate or both. Perhaps Karanacs could suggest wording that says things better. Xandar (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a Catholic (though I'd probably convert if I thought they'd let me in), and I really think the Creed doesn't belong in the article. Take the two sentences that introduce it (excluding "It states:") and incorporate them into the previous section. The creed itself should go to Nicene Creed which, remarkably, doesn't seem to have this version. —Angr 20:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is one of the reasons why I have not been in favor of doing what you propose. It is more helpful to the reader who wants to know what Catholics believe if we include this small paragraph on the page in its entirety. Going to the Nicene Creed page, you have to wonder what is what, it is confusing and does not enhance Misplaced Pages's goal of being a tool of information to eliminate this short, core statement of Roman Catholic belief. NancyHeise (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I will be OK with removing the creed and taking up Karanacs suggestion if the result of this FAC shows that a majority of editors want the creed removed. I dont think there was a majority in last FAC, there were an awful lot of support votes for the version containing the creed. I would like to do what the consensus of editors desires. NancyHeise (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Because a consensus of editors on the talk page agreed to remove the quote of the Creed, I have removed it and followed Karanacs suggestions. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The article says "Notably, Catholics may marry in the Church only once." That isn't true. Catholics can marry more than once provided their previous spouse has died. 62.145.19.66 (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent observation, thank you for pointing that out for us. I eliminated the sentence altogether since I think it is enough of an explanation in the following sentence that discusses divorce and annulments. Let me know if you find this less than satisfactory. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it was unnecessary and cutting it out completely was a good idea. 62.145.19.66 (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the article is not stable. The very first sentence has an unverifiable, POV claim, introduced since the last FAC. I have tried to change it twice, and I have been reverted twice. The cited source cannot be used to verify the claim that the "Catholic Church" is the "official" title of the church in question. On the other hand, the OED specifically says that "Roman Catholic" is the official title. On top of that, the article goes against the MoS and capitalizes the not-proper noun "Church" throughout the article, a topic that I thought was settled during the last FAC. Because of the resistance to these basic NPOV changes, I do not believe the article is stable, nor in a condition to be promoted yet. I'm sorry I cannot give a more thorough review, but if these very basic issues could not be quickly resolved, it speaks volumes about stability.-Andrew c  22:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm just asking because I'm curious - I haven't finished reading the article yet - but why can't that source be used? I read right past that part without thinking about the source. --Laser brain (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe I missed the part where the Catechism says anything about an official title. It's like citing the title of The Book of Mormon to say that "Mormon" is the official name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, especially when we can cite the scholars who wrote the Oxford Dictionary of Contemporary World History saying the "Mormon Church" is Officially known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,. I'd be happy if the word "official" is taken out.-Andrew c  23:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't remotely like that. Like any institution, the Catholic Church has the right to decide its own name, regardless of what the OED has to say on the matter. In fact it is pretty clear the OED (text unchanged since the first edition of 1914) is referring to the "legal and official name" as used by the British authorities. Johnbod (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The term "Roman Catholic Church" refers to the Western portion of the church. The Eastern Catholic Churches - which are part of the Catholic Church - don't refer to themselves Roman. Majoreditor (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

But the Eastern Churches are part of what is popularly known as the Roman Catholic Church.NancyHeise (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding stability - capitalization of Church is something that is minor and can be changed after seeing what FAC reviewers think about the matter. Last FAC wanted Church capitalized when referring to the Roman Catholic Church, not for POV reasons but because it was the topic of the article. There have been no major changes in content for a long time. The first line of the lead was never changed until after I promoted the article for FAC, all of a sudden there is some kind of problem with that issue. Because no one can find a church document that is generated by the Church that can show that it calls itself anything other than the Catholic Church and all major implications we have point to the Church calling itself the Catholic Church - like the Catechism we used as a reference, we have to go with Catholic Church as the official name of the church. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and any other national conference never calls itself "Roman Catholic" on official documents, it is Catholic. We are making a factual article that a reader will use and we want to help the reader, not misinform them of the facts.NancyHeise (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the more popular term for the entire church is "Catholic Church" rather than "Roman Catholic Church." Since the article is about the entire communion - both western and eastern particular churches - the term "Catholic Church" seems more accurate than "Roman Catholic Church". Nancy, I think that you and I agree on this point :) Majoreditor (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes but because we want to help all readers find what they are looking for, we have both names listed in the lead sentence with the term "officially known as " to help the reader understand that "Roman Catholic Church" is not what the Church calls itself. I think it is a good compromise to keep the article title as Roman Catholic Church and have the redirect for Catholic Church go to this page and then make the facts known that it is officially called Catholic Church. If you omit the "officially called" as Andrew c proposes (and there is a vast consensus against his proposal on the talk page) then you are going to misinform the reader who comes to the page and is led to believe that "Roman Catholic" is what the church calls itself. What we have on the page right now is more correct than what Andrew c singularly proposes with no consensus of editors to support him. I dont understand his oppose vote based on this issue. We would be going against Misplaced Pages policy and common sense by trying to win his support by changing the page to suit him. NancyHeise (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Majoreditor (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I notice many other WP articles from largely Catholic languages/countries also use "Roman" in the title. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't put anything we want in the article based on talk page consensus if it violates WP:V. Give me a verifiable source that says "official" and then we can proceed. We could say something like "frequently called" or something else to convey the significance of "Catholic Church", I'm open to any number of compromises, but without any citation to back up your desires, you are just pushing a POV. And you are saying you know more than the Oxford scholars. -Andrew c  03:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• See the article talk page. There is no shortage of official Catholic publications, including websites. They are the ones who "know more than the Oxford scholars", except you are misreading what the OED says. You need to produce a church source that uses "Roman Catholic Church" in this way. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod, there are no Catholic Church sources that call itself anything other than Catholic Church. We used the Catechism as a ref because that is the most important book published by the Catholic Church used by Catholic institutions and everyone who is Catholic around the world. All national bishops conferences around the world are called "Catholic" not "Roman Catholic" which is also a clear indication of official self designation. I think the burden of proof is on Andrew c to show how it is not the official name. NancyHeise (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To help with matters, I have added a reference published by Eternal Word Television Network. The author is Kenneth Whitehead, author of several books on Catholic Church subjects and it should resolve all issues relating to this matter. There should be no problem with using "officially known as Catholic Church", it is correct and is referenced. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If "Catholic Church" is the official (and commonly used) title of the Catholic Church, then it should be the name of the article. --WikiCats (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My main concern is that readers wanting to find info about the Catholic Church will find it and that the info will be correct. If the name of the article is a popular name for the church but then specifies within the article that the official name is "Catholic Church", then it is OK with me. I dont think we should hold up the FAC because of an issue that has already been hashed out before and consensus was reached to address it in the present manner. For that reason, I would like to leave the article as is and not change it because then we not only wont have an FA, we will have the same old argument over again that we already reached consensus on before. I would like to move forward, not back. NancyHeise (talk) 05:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• • This Mass is almost identical in form to that practiced by the earliest Christians. is incorrect, even when taking into account our source. St. Justin (who the source says "almost identical") is not the earliest Christian. The other cited works are said to bear a striking resemblance to the basic format of the Mass today. Not entirely the same thing as "almost identical". Also, it would be a lot better if we had a non-Catholic source making this claim. I won't go into the character assassination that RelHistBuff attempted below, but I will say that at best, this source can be used to explain Catholic belief, and shouldn't be used to make such a wild (likely disputed) claim.

I disagree that we need any non-Catholic sources when creating the Beliefs section. Our sources are approved by the Catholic Church as being free from doctrinal error meaning that we can rely on them to create a section like this. If our source says what it says, I don't understand why it cant be in this section. There is no controversy over this and I disagree that it is an opinion rather than a statement of fact.

How about we say something along the lines of either "The church believes this form of the mass is nearly unchanged from what the earliest Christians practiced" or "This basic form of this mass is quite similar to that of those found in some of the earliest, extra-biblical Christian written records of the late first to second centuries"?-Andrew c  01:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, you are the only one bringing this up and I disagree that there needs to be any change in wording, sorry on this one.65.2.33.179 (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I placed another reference to back this statement up, it is a fact not an opinion. NancyHeise (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your reference is equally problematic. It again mentions the 2nd century and Justin. Again I have to say that Justin is not the earliest Christian. I don't understand how it isn't clear the text in the article is going beyond the sources. What about "This Mass is almost identical in form to that practiced by some 2nd century Christians" or "The form of this Mass dates back to at least as early as the 2nd century." As it stands, I cannot verify that the earliest Christians practiced an almost identical form of Mass based on your provided sources. -Andrew c  13:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, this is the actual quote attached to the Shreck reference in the text: "Some of the earliest Christian writings, such as the Didache, or the 'Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,' chapters 9–10 (late first and early second century), and the First Apology of Justin Martyr, chapters 65–67 (about A.D. 155), describe the primitive form of the Mass and its prayers in a way that bears striking resemblance to the basic format of the Mass today. In fact, the main elements of St. Justin's description of the Mass are almost identical to the form Catholics now employ." The first part of the quote mentions the earliest Christian writings of the Didache (late first and early second century). Eamon Duffy mentions in his book "Saints and Sinners" that Polycarp had known the Apostle John in his old age. He then goes on to tell us that Polycarp had a meeting with Anicetus around the year 150 where they discussed the date of Easter. The Apostles are The Earliest Christians. People like Polycarp living in the 150's are documented by a University Press as having known a first apostle. If we have writings from this same time period, it is not a stretch or original research to mention that University professor of theology Dr. Alan Schreck of Franciscan University of Steubenville states these facts in his book on the Catechism. The quote from the text is as follows: "This Mass is almost identical in form to that practiced by the earliest Christians." This is not a point of controversy in the Catholic Church, I think it would be more incorrect to not mention this fact. It is referenced to the Catechism and to a third party scholarly work.NancyHeise (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I just do not agree with your assessment, and the way you turn 2nd century sources into "The Earliest Christians" is a bit of original research. I was thinking adding "Catholics believe" before the sentence would alleviate my concerns. But it is clear to me that Shreck and the Catechisms are not saying what you want them to say. I'm sorry you and I couldn't reach a compromise (I offered a number of suggestions, and you rejected wavering from your positions every time). It would be nice to have more opinions on this matter so it isn't a me vs. you thing.-Andrew c  20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

would it satisfy both of your concerns if it was changed to "early Christians" instead of "earliest"? Karanacs (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "earliest" is used by Schreck, it is in his quote. The Didache is one of the earliest Christian writings as well as the others he refers to. To change this text to "early" really is not more correct. I can not be accused of original research by repeating and rephrasing what my sources say. I have to go by my sources or else I really will be considered to be doing "original research". NancyHeise (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Schreck uses "earliest" in conjunction with "Some of the earliest Christian writings". There is a difference between "The earliest Christians" and the earliest writings. Saying the two are the same thing is ignoring about 50 years of history. I also feel "some" is important. I would be happy to substitute "earliest Christians" with "some of the earliest Christian writings" or something more precise. On top of that, you are mixing Schreck's clauses. He does not say that the early writings are "almost identical". He only uses that phrase in relation to the later writings of Justin.-Andrew c  23:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's compare the actual quote to the text in the article:

• quote from Schreck ""Some of the earliest Christian writings, such as the Didache, or the 'Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,' chapters 9–10 (late first and early second century), and the First Apology of Justin Martyr, chapters 65–67 (about A.D. 155), describe the primitive form of the Mass and its prayers in a way that bears striking resemblance to the basic format of the Mass today. In fact, the main elements of St. Justin's description of the Mass are almost identical to the form Catholics now employ."
• text from article "This Mass is almost identical in form to that practiced by the earliest Christians."

Clearly, Schreck is saying Didache and Justin Martyr describe the primitive form of the Mass.....

Clearly, the earliest Christian writings were written by the earliest Christians.

NancyHeise (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, that is a fallacy. Do not the Gospels and the writings of Paul predate AD 155? I feel like I am going in circles with you. It is obvious to me that the sentence in the article does not mean the same thing as what our sources are saying. I guess you disagree. Schreck says Justin's description is almost identical. Justin from AD 155. The Didache, which predates Justin by perhaps 50 years, is only said to "bear a striking resemblance". Schreck does not ever say that the Didache is almost identical. Furthermore, Schreck is only talking about "Some of the earliest Christian writings". All we can gather from this is that by the middle of the 2nd century, there is a source that describes elements of the mass that are almost identical to what Catholics still practice. We cannot say that the Earliest Christians (presumably Paul and the apostles and people that predate Justin and the Didache by a century or more) used a form of mass that is almost identical to what is still in use, which is clearly what you are implying in the way you phrase this sentence. You may even believe that this is true. But as it stands, our sources DO NOT SAY THIS. -Andrew c  17:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to something that seems to be better backed up by the sources - "The main elements of this mass are almost identical in form to those described in the earliest Christian writings". I think to go further than this would require additional sources. Even this is pushing it a little, as it is only one writing about which "almost identical" is said, and not the earliest, but it is at least a bit better backed-up by the sources. TSP (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks TSP, I am fine with your edit. Thank you for helping us. NancyHeise (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Note from Nominator regarding Andrew c oppose vote Andrew c says this in his oppose "On top of that, the article goes against the MoS and capitalizes the not-proper noun "Church" throughout the article, a topic that I thought was settled during the last FAC". This statement is incorrect. Please see Awadewit's comments (a top Misplaced Pages reviewer) regarding this issue in the last FAC. It was also Karanacs suggestion to capitalize Church and , according to my library research which is documented on the talk page, it is not against Mos to capitalize. Andrew c also claims in his oppose vote that the article is unstable. There have been no major changes in content in over a month. There is a lot of vandalism and experiements with wording, minor changes all. That does not constitute instability. In addition, we not only have two reliable references to support the lead sentence "officially known as the Catholic Church" but we have consensus of editors on the talk page to support this wording. There is nothing I can do to change the article to support Andrew c's view that would not violate either consensus or Misplaced Pages policy or top FAC reviewers from last FAC. NancyHeise (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've striked my first concern. I do not believe my concerns have been 100% met, and I clearly think that the manner and resistance my suggestion met were clearly inappropriate. I have a bad taste in my mouth from my talk page interactions leading from this. But I am not willing to argue any further with these people, and since at least we have a source (still mildly questionable in my mind), the article is at least better than when this started. If someone else is concerned about this, I may re-ignite interest, but if not, I'll leave it be and consider myself too harsh a stickler for basic policies like WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. -Andrew c  14:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The image captions should be a little more consistent. I like the ones that are works of art that mention the artist and title. There are 5 images that do not mention author and title (and 2 of them do not have that information on the image page, and one of those two seems a little problematic, Image:Saint Benedict.jpg. The image is sourced to a blog and the date is "way over 100 years old" and the artist is "antique artist".) I also don't like how "Albrecht Dürer." is it's own sentence in the "Mary, Joseph and the child Jesus image caption. We should also note if the image is a detail in instances where the image has been cropped (like the Perugino fresco).-Andrew c  14:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We dont know the artist for all of our images. Some are very old pictures whose artists are unknown and some works dont have a title. NancyHeise (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, ths is not really correct. The St Benedict is pretty clearly a C19th image which would be better replaced with another from the Commons cat here. The Council of Clermont image is not sourced properly (it gives itself as the source) and is a manuscript illumination rather than a painting in the normal sense. If one knew where it came from it may well have been ascribed to an artist. The Durer is a Flight into Egypt. Generally the paintings, as opposed to the photos which I think are ok, are not a strong point of the article - too many popular C19 images, not very good scans (St Michael, Durer) and so on. I will try to at least add key stuff to the captions. Most of this now addressed.Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in tag teaming this John. I felt Nancy's reply was a bit dismisive, and I'm glad that not only someone agreed with me, but that we could collaborative work together to improve the article! Thanks.-Andrew c  16:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for addressing the image issues for me, I appreciate it very much. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• • It appears there is some inconsistency on what bible translation is being quoted. It makes sense to just choose one and stick with it throughout. It is unprofessional to quote the exact same bible verse in different section, but cite different translations (as we do with Matthew 16:18). I think the NAB is the version that is cited the most, so I would recommend sticking to that one (and it seems appropriate for a Catholic topic, if international Catholics are not offended, and there isn't a more international option to cite). The specific verses that are not NAB are "... the gates of hell will not prevail against", ""Abide in me, and I in you ... ", and I thought I had come across another one, but now I can't seem to find it. Also, the quote from John 14:15 is incorrect (did you mean 14:26? Also the capitalization and punctuation is a little off in our reproduction of the quoted material).

I made corrections using the NAB - very good comments, thank you. NancyHeise (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The MoS says we should not italicize the titles of scripture, as we do in the "Beliefs" section (specifically the titles of the Gospels). There are places in the article where the titles of the gospels aren't italicized, so we are using two different styles in one article. Choose one (but I don't want to tell you which one to choose because people have claimed I don't know how to read the MoS, or that the MoS is something that should be ignored).

I un-italicized them. NancyHeise (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You missed one;)-Andrew c  01:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I personally am not fond of using a religious title "Christ" as a synonym for Jesus. It stinks of POV. I think it is fine in certain circumstances, but it is important to remember that the two terms are not interchangeable. From the way things have gone in the past, I have a feeling this suggestion may meet with some resistance (but I hope not). Anyway, for example, I feel the Church teaches that each soul will appear before the judgment seat of Christ immediately after death and Catholics believe that the bread and wine brought to the altar are changed through the power of the Holy Spirit into the true Body and the true Blood of Christ through transubstantiation. are perfectly fine, but a sentence like Ordinatio Sacerdotalis explained that the Church only extends ordination to men in order to follow the example of Christ or its mission is founded upon Christ's biblical command to his followers to spread the faith across the world would work better if we said "Jesus" instead of "Christ". All in all, I think there were 4 places where I felt Christ should be changed to Jesus, and 1 place where I felt Jesus should be changed to Christ.

Changed. NancyHeise (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The section on the Eucharist is problematic. We need to state what we are quoting when we are attributing words to Jesus (especially words not found in the bible). Something seems POV when reading through the first paragraph, but I think a proper attribution of the quoted material may help alleviate that.

Addressed by adding proper words and references. 65.2.33.179 (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Second paragraph of the Eucharist section introduces "is most often celebrated in the vernacular" but uninformed readers have no idea what "the vernacular" means. Please add an explanation, or revise the sentence to read better for lay audiences.

I disagree that vernacular need to be explained, I wikilinked it, there is a very nice, large wikipage on that definition. I think that is enough. NancyHeise (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The explanation of the two masses don't mention Roman rite anywhere, and we don't have any information on masses of the Eastern rite.
    • On broader examination, I think we have a bigger issue here. We don't really discuss the rites, nor particular churches anywhere. The ordination section is the only place that tries to discuss multiple views. There are places in the article that take for granted that Latin Rite is not synonymous with Catholic Church. -Andrew c  22:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point, I have to work tomorrow so I wont be able to get to this until maybe Wed but I will add this info. I think a paragraph could do it because this is English Misplaced Pages, these other rites are in other languages than English and there is a wikilink to the Eastern Catholic Churches that already explains those rites. The Mass section could use a bit of clarification and that is what I intend to add here. There are no differences in beliefs, community or history sections needed so I think its just Mass section that needs this info. Let me have a day to come up with a good source and paragraph. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. You don't have to do this alone. Maybe we should contact InfernoXV or anyone else? I mean I appreciate the legwork you've put into this article, but you don't always have to be The Hero when wikipedia is a community :) That said, I think this point is quite important. Some users have made arguments against the title "Roman Catholic Church" because the article is supposed to be about all 23 particular churches, where "Roman" sometimes refers to just the Western rite. However, if that were entirely the case, I feel we'd have more info on the Eastern rites in the article (and at the very least, not present the Latin rite masses as if they applied for all 23 particular churches). That said, I understand that there are articles covering that content, and that the Western Catholics make up the majority of the church, so I'm not asking to break undue weight. Also, since the different churches within the Church can get confusing, and probably not many westerners know the intricacies, I think it wouldn't hurt to have a small section or paragraph discussing the overall church structure. I mean the 22 particular Churches are only briefly mentioned in the lead. I think there used to be a larger section in the article discussing this topic which was removed for space issues a while ago. Perhaps we could revise some of that text if it is any good (I don't recall the quality of the text). But maybe this is something that should be discussed and proposed on the article page, because I may be the only one that thinks this. At least we can improve the mass section over the next few days.-Andrew c  02:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I found the information I need to address this and Im doing it now. What you are proposing is way too complicated than it needs to be. Give me a bit of time here and take a look. I should be done in the hour, and I'm not trying to be a hero, Thanks. 65.2.33.179 (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have finished the additions incorporating Eastern rites. Changes are in the opening paragraph to Beliefs in the paragraph discussing sacraments and referenced to the Catechism. Other additions include a sentence in Holy Spirit and Confirmation (last sentence ref'd to Catechism) and in the section discussing the Mass. Since there are many variations of the Mass in the Eastern churches, I stated this fact and wikilinked Eastern churches then mentioned that the Latin rite was the one described in the text. This is a proper useage because the Latin rite is by far the most common form practiced in the English speaking countries and it would be impossible to incorporate onto the page all the differences and intricacies of the various Eastern Churches. These various rites are already wikilinked in the new paragraph I added to the opening Beliefs section. NancyHeise (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'm always happy to answer questions on the Eastern Catholic Churches. I have only a limited amoung of reference material at my fingertips, but can help out as needed. Majoreditor (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Small point - Eastern Catholic Churches generally celebrate liturgies rather than masses. BTW, User:InfernoXV is an excellent resource for information on Eastern Catholic Churches. Majoreditor (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

New wording reflects this and wikilinks to Divine Liturgy. NancyHeise (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • We don't have a citation for the JtB quote "the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". We should also specify in the sentence that the quote comes from scripture. (John 1:29)

addressed. NancyHeise (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The first sentence of the "Liturgy of the Hours" section has a lot of jargon and could be re-worded to be more user friendly.

reworded, eliminated jargon. NancyHeise (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It still could be a little clearer, but I appreciate removing the jargon!-Andrew c  01:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • While there is a sentence about vocal prayer, the sentence doesn't exactly say what it is (like the following sentences do with the other types of prayer)

I dont agree that this needs to be explained, although it does have an explanation but I wikilinked vocal to help. NancyHeise (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The wikilink to vocal doesn't help because it redirects to human voice. Does vocal prayer mean sung, spoken, both, or something else?-Andrew c  01:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I eliminated the wikilink and wrote (sung or spoken) next to first mention of vocal prayer. 65.2.33.179 (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Seem we should link to Catholic devotions when we talk about devotions.

Linked. NancyHeise (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • There is no source for the list of 3 people and one organization who were excommunicated. This may not be problematic for Henry VIII and Elizabeth I because their articles have citations, but Frederick I and the Womenpriests do not have proper citations in their articles for the parts about excommunication. It also seems odd to list a Holy Roman Emperor, two English sovereigns, and then a contemporary activist group. I think it wouldn't hurt to expand the list a little, or split it up between historic figures and then maybe current events or people/groups from recent memory. Or, it could work with just removing Womenpriest. However, the juxtaposition of the 4 just struck me as odd, and I think we could improve on it.

I think we were trying to give a broad swath of examples from ancient times, to middle ages to present, thus the variety. I disagree that the list needs to be expanded or shortened. I have added citation for Womenpriests.NancyHeise (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well there isn't a broad swatch because no one is listed from the first 1000 years of church history :) It just seemed like an odd group, and I guess a broad sample can bring that about. Just out of curiosity, (and because I don't know), have there been any other notable excommunications in the last 50 or so years? And thanks for working to address a number of these issues!-Andrew c  01:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your comments here are very good and make the article better. I think the Womenpriests is the most notable of recent excommunications. Although there are others, I think that discussion of them is best left to the wikilinked page on excommunications.65.2.33.179 (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I eliminated Frederick I and replaced him with Arius - more notable and still from ancient times. NancyHeise (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The phrase "the source and summit of the Christian life" is a direct quote from Lumen gentium, no. 11; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1324. We need quoted around the text, or we need to paraphrase.

I changed wording to paraphrase a different part of the reference. NancyHeise (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • There is no mention that Latin is the official language of the church. I would also propose adding (Template:Lang-lat) to the first sentence after "officially known as the Catholic Church".

Added latin as official language, see last sentence in opening para on Church organization. I disagree with the use of Lang-lat|Ecclisia Catholica thing. Its just jargon that does not help reader but makes the page more complicated. I think its enough to have one mention in the Church organization section. NancyHeise (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the FA Islam and Sikhism having translation info in the first sentence, the Catholic related FA of Knights Templar, Maximus the Confessor, Cardinal-nephew, and Henry, Bishop of Uppsala do as well. Since the official language of the church is Latin, adding my proposed text in a parentheses somewhere in the first sentence seems appropriate. I don't think we need to dumb this down to the reader, and I don't believe it complicates matters (not any more than it did with those other FA I referenced above).-Andrew c  00:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• • TBC.-Andrew c  16:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I disagree with Andrew c above. After reading through the article, I think it's up to FA status.-Wafulz (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I noticed an error on some text on Henry VIII. The article says, "Although he tried to put the Reformation into reverse at the end of his life by passing the Six Articles, it was too late, all monasteries, friaries, convents of nuns and shrines were gone." Some points: 1) Henry tried to slow down the Reformation for his own political purposes by reversing certain reforms, but he never tried to permanently stop or put the Reformation in reverse; 2) The Six Articles did not occur at the end of his life. Henry was involved in some major reformatory work after the Six Articles including the publication of the second edition of the Great Bible (a vernacular Bible); 3) The two clauses put together in the sentence make the implication that he wanted to stop the dissolution of the monasteries, but that is not true. The problem might be with the source; it might be a bit weak and less-than-reliable. The source is a history book written by a Dominican friar, a professor of theology at Providence College, a Dominican institution. The book is published by Paulist Press, a publisher associated to a Catholic missionary organisation. I am not saying that the source is POV-oriented as I have not read it. But I would recommend for anything related to the Church’s history, a history book written by an academic historian and published by a major university publisher is used instead. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The source is written by a college professor, John Vidmar who teaches at the University of Steubenville Providence College and possibly other universities as well. The fact that the colleges are Catholic does not preclude us from respecting the institutions. Oxford and University of Paris as well as many of the oldest and most respected Universities are originally Catholic. The fact that he is a religious does not violate Misplaced Pages policy or negate that he is a scholar. He has another book published by Sussex Academic Press called "English Catholic Historians and the English Reformation, 1585–1954" that I have ordered to supplement the current text since you have expressed displeasure with Paulist Press. Paulist Press, while it is not an academic source, is a third party reliable source just as John Vidmar fits the scholarly definition. The only thing that would eliminate this book from being a solid source for Misplaced Pages is if it is a self published scholarly source and this is not. The sentences that you have identified as being incorrect are actually referenced to this scholarly source and the reference includes the quote from the scholar. I have inserted the language that is used in the book. Henry VIII died in 1547 nine years after he passed the Six Articles. If you object to the content I have referenced to this scholarly work, you need to supply another scholarly work that says something different. I have several sources that do not contradict John Vidmar, they just dont give us the detail that Vidmar provides. This does not preclude me from including Vidmars research which is respected in the academic community. NancyHeise (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: I have taken a look at the book through books.google.com and unfortunately, it is not a scholarly work. It is written for a particular audience in mind, it is not neutral, and it makes incorrect statements. He is a professor of theology, not a professor of history. For a history of the Church, I would recommend that another book be used. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The oppose is based on incorrect assumptions. John Vidmar taught Church History at the Dominican House of Studies for many years and is currently teaching at Providence College where he also serves as provincial archivist. An archivist is someone in charge of actual important historical documents. As both a history professor and archivist in one of the world's oldest religious orders, I would say that makes him an expert in Church history subjects - a scholar. He is a respected historian whose works are clearly appropriate for me to use in an article on Roman Catholic Church. I am supposed to use sources from all reliable points of view. He is not a disrespected scholar whose works are shunned by the academic community. I do not understand the basis of this "Oppose" vote based on these facts. Please see Fr. Vidmars profile at the Providence College website. http://www.providence.edu/About+PC/College+News/Press+Releases/Da+Vinci+Code.htm Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the book. It is not scholarly, it is not neutral. Of course, it also does not help that he is a professor of theology, not a professor of history. Nor the fact that it is published by a missionary organisation. For the history of the Church, I would recommend that another book be used. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The accusations of factual inaccuracy are concerning, but as Nancy has pointed out, it would be helpful if you had an alternative source you could cite. How do you know the current cited source is wrong? Your own personal knowledge (which is not a reliable source here on wikipedia, BTW). We cannot change the article and still have it verifiable if we don't have a new source to cite. -Andrew c  14:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

One example, see The King's Reformation: Henry VIII and the Remaking of the English Church by G. W. Bernard. On page 499 he says, "It is a mistake to see the Six Articles of 1539 as in any important sense a reversal of royal policy". But it isn't the issue about one statement being right or wrong. It is the issue of the quality of the source. That is why I opposed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That book is reviewed here: The review clearly says that Bernard's book challenges the mainstream view of Henry VIII and the Reformation. This is a book offering a minority view. Would you be OK to state in the article that "scholars such as G. W. Bernard challenge this view" ?NancyHeise (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, that is only one example. There are others. That still does not solve the problem that Vidmar's book is not scholarly, neutral, and is written by a professor of theology, not history. Another book should be used to cover the history of the Church. And not just for this one statement, but for all the other cites as well. --RelHistBuff (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from taking a look at the history section, it is referenced to history professors (including Vidmar who has been a history professor and is a respected scholar) that are mainly published by University Presses. Vidmar is not my main source. He supplements other sources who are top professors from top Universities. Vidmar gives me a Catholic perspective of Roman Catholic Church history, something I need to have so I am not accused of being anti-Catholic. I also have scholars from the other side of the fence. I have done this to be NPOV. If I eliminate Vidmar as a source, I would not have a thorough research of the subject matter. I changed the wording of the sentence you objected to. It still reflects the quoted source but I eliminated wording that touched on scholarly conflict and now just have the facts. Let me know what you think. Also, I dont think you have actually taken a look at my sources from your comments. No one can reasonably accuse me of using poor sources for this article. After two FACs and two peer reviews the sources are top notch. NancyHeise (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I just counted, and, out of 124 citations used for the history section, Vidmar is used for 13 of them. I dont think RelHistBuff can accuse me of overusing Vidmar. NancyHeise (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

John Vidmar was academic dean and a professor of church history at Dominican House of Studies in Washington DC - please see DHS website where this evidence is clear here . This is a Catholic graduate school of theology. The DHS website also states that Vidmar teaches both Theology and History at Providence College.NancyHeise (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dominican House of Studies consists of the Pontifical Faculty, the Priory, the Studentate, and the Dominican Theological Library per their website here: . In creating a history section about the Roman Catholic Church, Vidmar is the only history professor whose book is authored by a professor directly connected to the Roman Catholic Church (through the Pontifical Faculty). This gives the article the Catholic perspective it needs to be able to claim that it contains all points of view, both Catholic and otherwise. NancyHeise (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For more information about how important a Pontifical Faculty is in the Catholic Church, see Pontifical university. After reading all of this I am wondering if RelHistBuff still considers Vidmar and his book unworthy of being used as one of many top sources in a Featured Article on the Roman Catholic Church? NancyHeise (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Note from Nominator regarding RelHistBuff oppose vote RelHistBuff opposes this article for FA because he states that "The problem is the book. It is not scholarly, it is not neutral. Of course, it also does not help that he is a professor of theology, not a professor of history. Nor the fact that it is published by a missionary organisation. For the history of the Church, I would recommend that another book be used." These reasons are incorrect per books.google.com review here This is the same review that RelHistBuff uses to make his decision that the book is not a scholarly source yet as you can see, the review itself talks about his twenty years as a teacher dealing with undergraduates, graduates and lay people. As I have shown through the links in the arguments above, he is clearly a professor of both Theology and History both at Providence College and previously at the Dominican House of Studies , a Pontifical Graduate School of Theology. Vidmar's book provides balance to our list of references to the article by providing the Catholic point of view of Church History. His book is one of 27 used in the history section alone. If you check through the authors of this article, they are all university professors, even the ones used to create the beliefs section with few exceptions. All Beliefs section books have Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur designation - that means they are declared free of doctrinal error by the Catholic Church. We have used 17 web sites of newspaper stories in the history section and almost all of those supplement books for the most recent section of history. This article has obviously not been created by using only one POV source - it was created by using a plethora of scholarly works. Books used most often in the history section are published by University presses. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with this assessment of my vote. Vidmar is a professor of theology; I have not seen that he is a professor of history except for NancyHeise's own opinion of his rank. The link to books.google.com are short summaries given to all books. As expected it says, "Undergraduates, graduates, and interested lay people have given the author an idea of what topics should be emphasized." The reason is because the book is teaching material for lay Catholics for basic easy-to-read understanding of the history of the Church. The targetting of the book and the background of the author are indicators that the source is insufficient. However, even a simple perusal of the book will indicate that the material is not neutral and not scholarly. There are many history books on the church that are far better than this one. If only a small list of cites are used from this book, then why not use another book and confirm the cites? I stand by my vote. --RelHistBuff (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I will not have time to look at this article in depth until I return home on Wednesday, but I'll repeat the fact that WP:RS says that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Note the third party statement there, it means that great care should be taken with using sources that are tied to or directly immanate from the subjects of the article itself. Hopefully, I'll have time to look at the sources of this article in more detail when I get home, but I won't be able to give it the attention that in the past has been demanded until I return home, probably on Wednesday. Thus, I'm not commenting one way or the other on the reliability of the sources for this article until I do return home. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I support promotion of the article to FA. --WikiCats (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

RelHistBuff opposes use of the Vidmar book stating that it is published by a missionary organization. The organization is the well known and respected religious works publisher Paulist Press. Per their website, they are an ecumenical religious publisher of different religious subjects including church history. I would like to point out that the Zwingli article just made FA recently and they used a book by a religious publisher too, the Evangelica Lutheran Augsburg Fortress (which is wikilinked under the term Fortress Press on that page) whose website is here . This source was used in a huge number of citations on the Zwingli page (see all citations to the author Gäbler, Ulrich). I am not sure how Paulist Press is any different than Augsburg Fortress for purposes of creating this wikipage. But I would like to know why this would be allowed on Zwingli but not on Roman Catholic Church if Vidmars book is disallowed. Since RelHistBuff worked extensively on Zwingli's FA, I dont understand his opposition to the Paulist Press book.NancyHeise (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a red herring type of argument. 1) Gäbler is a historian, Vidmar is not. 2) The original publication of Gäbler was in German with a German publisher (not Fortress Press). Fortress only provided the translation. Yes it is a Lutheran publisher, but interestingly, Zwingli was certainly not supportive of Lutherans. I do not think the Lutherans would try to put Zwingli in a favourable light. In any case, my basic points stand. Just perusing the book, it is not neutral, it is not scholarly (lay teaching material), and there are better books that can be used to replace cites. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The big difference here is that the Zwingli article is a biography. We wouldn't use a book that Zwingli had published to write the article on him, which is why some reviewers have registered opposition to using a book essentially published by the RCC in an article about the RCC. I wouldn't see problems using a book by the Paulist Press for a biography of one of the popes as long as it was balanced by information from other sources. Karanacs (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, that explains a lot. I believe there is a fundamental misunderstanding that needs to be cleared up right now. Paulist Press is not an organization owned or under obedience to the Roman Catholic Church organization. According to their website, this Press is not a mouthpiece of Roman Catholic Theology. According to their website which you can view here "Today Paulist Press is a leading publisher of hardcover and paperback books, audio and video tapes, educational programs and materials for parish renewal. Its Classics of Western Spirituality , now in its twentieth year, provides over 90 volumes of the original writings of universally acknowledged teachers within the Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, Islamic, and American Indian traditions. Its Stimulus books explore issues in the contemporary dialogue between Christians and Jews. The "What Are They Saying About (WATSA)?" series provides concise overviews of contemporary religious, moral, theological, and scriptural questions. Through children's books, works on spirituality and prayer, and studies of the latest developments in theology and scripture, the Press continues its mission to bring the riches of the Catholic heritage to Catholics and persons of other religious traditions." If you will understand that there are many businesses in many fields, universities, hospitals, charities, etc which claim to be Catholic, they are not always part of the Roman Catholic Organization as a legal entity. This is the case with Paulist Press. If I were to use a book published by the Vatican, then you can say it is a self published source but you can not make the same statement for a business owned and operated by a religious order. The fact that Paulist Press publishes books with religious themes from all Christian denominations and authors I think is evidence enough that it is not in violation of the third party rule. NancyHeise (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the Paulist Press website states that the Paulist Press is directly connected to the mission of the Paulist Fathers. This mission statement can be viewed here . Please read the mission statement which clearly mentions that they build bridges of respect and collaboration with peoples of other world religions. For the full text of the mission statement of the Paulist order go here It is clear that the Paulist Press endeavors to fulfill the part of the Paulist order's mission statement that seeks to improve interreligious relations. Is there a Misplaced Pages policy that is violated by using a Press with these goals? If a Scientific Press owned by scientists had the goal of publishing science themed books would that preclude us from using it on a Science page? No. Then there is no third party rule violated in using a religious press, that is not owned by the Roman Catholic Church organization, that is operated by Catholics whose express intentions are to build bridges between religions and Christian denominations. (Especially when the book in question "The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages by John Vidmar is only used 13 times out of 276 citations and most of those 13 times it is a double to another reference. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If the book is going to be that big a problem, I am sure that something else can be found to back up the thirteen references. Oh Henry VIII, it is right to say that he backtracked a little on the Reformation policies, but he certainly didn't reverse the Reformation, or have any intention of doing so - as can be seen by the Regency Council he set up for his son, Edward VI, which was strongly Protestant. Bishop Gardiner, the main re-catholiciser was expressly excluded. It should not be any problem to tweak the article to better reflect this. Xandar (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked it to address RealHistBuff's concern. The aritcle now just states the facts, eliminating the mention that concerned him in the first place. Yet even after addressing his comment, he decided that the entire Vidmar book is not OK. I have ordered Vidmars other book on Church history that is published by Sussex Academic Press. If Ealdgyth thinks I should replace Vidmar's Paulist Press book, I can change it to the Sussex Academic Press one but that should not be necessary per my argument above. We should not be precluded from using a book published by the independent business of a religious order that specializes in religious subjects. That is not a violation of the third party rule. NancyHeise (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support now that the issue of the Creed has been cleared up. I see no reason not to consider Vidmar a usable, reliable source. —Angr 19:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Note from nominator re capitalization of church issue

Our talk page documents a long discussion regarding the issue of whether or not to capitalize the word "church" when it is used alone as a proper noun that specifically is talking about the Roman Catholic Church because it is the subject of the article, not for POV reasons. I think it is evident from the discussions on the talk page that Misplaced Pages policy is and has been vague on this subject, that it is a disputed subject, and that even scholars do not always follow the same style. The university professors we used to create the history section of this article, used the capital C when using the word church to specifically describe the Roman Catholic Church (only if the subject of their book was entirely about the history of the Roman Catholic Church). We conducted a straw poll on our talk page to find out which style most editors preferred so we could come to a consensus. The consensus was for capitalizing. If this page will fail FA because we have capitalized for these reasons, I would like to know so we have the opportunity to change it. None of us wants the page to fail FA for such a minor reason. We were just trying to make sense of a vague and disputed Misplaced Pages MoS policy. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And I'd like to say, as the person leading the charge to lowercase certain uses of "church" in this article, that I would also be unhappy to see it fail FAC for such a minor reason. Capitalization in these contexts was clearly accepted usage 20 years ago, and it is also clearly accepted among a variety of influential academics, and there is no hard rule that Misplaced Pages must follow either current usage or journalistic as opposed to academic usage. This is purely a judgment call, and one that we are just now in the process of calling. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Note from nominator regarding credentials of John Vidmar author of "The Catholic Church Throughout History" in response to RealHistBuff's opinion that Vidmar is not a scholar I wrote to Professor Vidmar at Providence College via email provided by his faculty page at Providence. His faculty page states that he is a professor of Theology there. He responded to my email today and gave me his assurance that he is an expert on Church History and a list of his credentials which I will duplicate for you here:

• Master of Philosophy degree from the University of Edinburgh (Scotland) in Ecclesiastical History
• Doctorate in Sacred Theology was really in Church History, which is considered a branch of theology.
• I wrote on English Catholic Historians and the English Reformation.
• The MPhil degree in Britain is a much higher degree than the MA in the States, but nobody here knows that. *He states that he was originally assigned to the history faculty at Providence in 1987, after his work in Edinburgh, but the provincial needed him to be in Washington DC instead.
• He also stated that one of the problems Church historians face is that no one seems to know where to place them, in history or in theology because the fact is, you need to know a lot of theology to write accurate Church history.
• He also stated that his colleagues would tell me that the reason he is in the Theology Department at Providence College is that they needed a Church Historian.
• He taught Church history for 15 years at Dominican House of Studies in Washington DC, which is a graduate school of theology.
• He lectured at the Smithsonian Institution (7 times, he believes) on the subjects of the Early Church, the Inquisition, the History of the Popes, a history of Religious Orders.
• He also confirmed for me that Paulist Press, like Ignatius Press and Liturgical Press, are "not overseen or controlled by the Vatican; they are run by independent religious orders."

If these answers have answered your concerns RealHistBuff, I would appreciate a change in your vote, I think that is only fair as your opinions have really been proven to be incorrect. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, "accusations"??? Well, I’ll simply ignore that and respond that what I said is publicly available. As I have stated previously, the problem is the book. I know I am repeating myself; it is not scholarly, it is not neutral. It has mistakes. You have changed the text about “reversing the Reformation”. But take at look at his quote in your footnote, "Henry, seeing how far Cranmer had tried to take him in making the land Lutheran or Calvinist,...". That is wrong. In 1538, Cranmer, although he disagreed with Gardiner on many issues, was nowhere near to being a Lutheran or Calvinist. Later it says, "He was burned by being dragged in and out of the fire for holding the very same beliefs about the Eucharist that Cranmer held." The latter clause is also wrong. At that time, Cranmer believed in the Real Presence as did Henry. Then it says, "Cranmer was made to watch the whole brutal event." Together the two sentences imply he was forced to watch the suffering of a reformer for something that he believed. But, in fact, Cranmer was involved in the decision! Cranmer was told by Henry to lead the questioning of Lambert. I have no idea why Vidmar made these errors, but it is clear, the book is not reliable and it cannot be trusted either for accuracy or neutrality. Please use another history book for the citations and statements. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help your case by providing scholarly sources that support your assertions. My text is supported by two scholarly sources. Also, it is Misplaced Pages NPOV policy that allows us to present all sides of the story. Vidmar provides a Catholic scholarly expert view. Although my sources include many scholars works, most of them brushed over this section focusing on areas that did not deal with doctrinal disputes - Vidmar's exclusive expertise. As for your statements defending your opinions of Vidmar as being publicly available, that does not make them valid. We have researched the information in this article, all of which is not publicly found easily on the internet. Vidmar's qualifications were easy enough for me to discover, you can email him too. His email address in on his publicly available faculty page at Providence College. NancyHeise (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, whatever the complexities of the doctrinal undercurrents, there seems to be no suggestion from any one that Henry was moving towards reunion with Rome, which is surely the main point for this article. Neither the previous formulation, nor the current one:" He later reversed most of the Reformation legislation by passing the Six Articles which tried to restore the ancient faith" really convey this. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I reworded to better reflect this - new text: "Then, beginning in 1536, some 825 monasteries throughout England, Wales, and Ireland were dissolved and Catholic churches were confiscated. Henry VIII executed those like Thomas More, who disagreed with his Act of Supremacy. Although he later reversed most of the Reformation legislation beginning with the Six Articles in 1539 which reaffirmed Catholic doctrine including transubstantiation and the practice of celibacy; when he died in 1547, all monasteries, friaries, convents of nuns and shrines were gone." To make matters even more clear for Henry VIII, I added to the Bokenkotter quote that serves as the double to Vidmar's so reader can see and understand more that Henry did not want reunification. I also eliminated the last sentence of Vidmar's quote that was misinterpreted to mean that Henry wanted reunification with Rome, rather than what Vidmar was referring to regarding doctrine. NancyHeise (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I also added two new scholarly sources to back up the wording in the text including quotes to back up Bokenkotter and Vidmar. The two sources are both University professors, one is published by Cambridge University Press and the other is HarperCollins. I would appreciate a change in vote, I really think it is unfair for RealHistBuff to oppose use of Vidmar when I have clearly demonstrated that he is a respected scholar and his book is backed up by other non-Catholic scholars as well. NancyHeise (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of what Vidmar says and RelHistBuff disputes doesn't seem to be backed up by the other sources. The wording now is, "Although he later reversed most of the Reformation legislation beginning with the Six Articles in 1539 which reaffirmed Catholic doctrine including transubstantiation and the practice of celibacy; when he died in 1547, all monasteries, friaries, convents of nuns and shrines were gone." I'm not sure that this perspective is really backed up by the sources. As far as I can tell, the Six Articles reaffirmed six doctrines, none of which I'm aware that Henry had ever made any legislation denying. There seems to have been no attempt to return to union with the Pope; nor to restore the monasteries or shrines (the suppression of the shrines in the Province of York was ordered by Henry in 1541, two years after the Six Articles). I find it hard to see how anything which attempted neither of these things could be considered to be "reversing most of the Reformation legislation" - were neither the dissolution of the monasteries nor the breaking of union with the Pope important parts of the English Reformation?

A more neutral wording might be something like, "Henry VIII did, however, reaffirm Catholic doctrines such as transubstantiation and the celibacy of the clergy in the Six Articles of 1539, in opposition to the Calvinist and Lutheran views that were dominant among the Protestants of continental Europe." TSP (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your rewording is a bit too light on what the Six Articles actually did. I reworded using the words of the Cambridge University Press book in addition to the others and I think it is very accurate representation of all the sources as well as neutral and factual. New wording: "Henry VIII executed those like Thomas More, who disagreed with his Act of Supremacy. Later he reversed most of the Reformation legislation dealing with religious policy beginning with the Six Articles in 1539 which reaffirmed Catholic doctrine including transubstantiation and the practice of celibacy. However this reversal did not extend to papal authority or the dissolution of monasteries and when he died in 1547, all monasteries, friaries, convents of nuns and shrines were gone."NancyHeise (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Only Vidmar seems to speak about reversing legislation. Can you point out which legislation was reversed? The Six Articles don't contradict the earlier Ten Articles (which, indeed, also advance Catholic ideas such as the invocation of the saints and the real presence), even if they are clear in areas where the Ten Articles were intentionally vague.

Haigh's book does talk (very much in passing) about reversing policy, which is rather different; but it attributes the reason for the change in religious policy in part to 'Henry's distaste for radical religion', which does not suggest that Henry's own views had changed.

One note to add: Haigh's said it was the conservatives that reversed the policy, not Henry himself. So the source does not support the sentence in the article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Haigh's book is a good source, and clearly more neutral than Vidmar's, which seems to be open in its biases; but it is still worth noting that it is entitled "The English Reformation Revised", and its back cover states that "it seeks to show how a new 'revisionist' interpretation of the English Reformation can be constructed" and "sets out the framework for a new understanding of the Reformation" ... "It is a deliberately controversial collection, to be used alongside existing textbooks to promote rethinking and debate." It's a useful source, but should be used with caution as it is explicit that it is at times presenting a controversial, not the mainstream, historical view. TSP (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Haigh's book and Vidmar's book are backed up by Gonzalez's book and Bokenkotter's book. I think I have enough sources to support the content. NancyHeise (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't read the entire article in a while, but this recent edit caught my eye: "Eastern rites allow infants to be Confirmed and receive the Eucharist immediately following Baptism." Eastern rites don't merely "allow" this, it's always part of baptism in most rites. The Eucharist is usually received once at baptism (under species of wine), but not again for a few years. The "liturgical year" section is also written entirely from a Western perspective; the "ordinary" form of many Eastern liturgies would be St. John Chrosostom. Eastern Catholics have a distinct preparation for Easter, and some different devotions. Granted the majority of Catholics are Western, but I don't think it would be undue weight to mention these. Gimmetrow 04:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I reworded the baptism part to reflect your comment. Good catch. However, there are many more forms of the Eastern Catholics divine liturgy than just St. John Chrysostrom. I think I'll mention this fact and then provide a few wikilinks with reference to the fact that there are others. NancyHeise (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • This edit goes a bit beyond the source. A degree of union in sacris is not the same as "united in sacris", and intercommunion is accepted and encouraged "given suitable circumstances". This edit implies liberty of intercommunion with the Orthodox, which isn't the case. Gimmetrow 04:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Before reading your comment here, I read this again and thought the same thing. I changed it to better reflect what the Catechism actually says, you can see the actual wording of the reference because it is linked to the online Catechism. Let me know if you think it needs any more changing. It think it makes the point without anymore misunderstanding. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The source that contradicts Vidmar's statement in the footnote concerning the Lambert affair is Thomas Cranmer: A Life by Diarmaid MacCulloch, pp. 232-234. Note that MacCulloch's qualifications is something where I do not have to send a personal email to verify. And in any case a personal email response is not good enough. Anyone can make his own claims. I also have a Ph.D, published papers, made presentations at major institutions, etc., but that does not make me a historian. Publicly Vidmar is a professor of theology at a small Catholic college that does not even grant Ph.Ds! In MacCulloch's case, he is recognised by his peers, his book is reviewed in many journals which one can find in JSTOR. Finally, note the contradiction is not with the text in the article, but with Vidmar's statements itself, i.e., the source! The point is the source is poor quality and unreliable. It has errors, it has to be replaced. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I add below the qualification of Vidmar's statements. I stated these above.

• Vidmar: "Henry, seeing how far Cranmer had tried to take him in making the land Lutheran or Calvinist,...". That is wrong. According to MacCulloch, in 1538 Cranmer, although he disagreed with Gardiner on many issues, was nowhere near to being a Lutheran or Calvinist.
• Vidmar: "He was burned by being dragged in and out of the fire for holding the very same beliefs about the Eucharist that Cranmer held." The latter clause is also wrong. According to MacCulloch, at that time Cranmer believed in the Real Presence as did Henry, i.e., he did not agree with Lambert.
• Vidmar: "Cranmer was made to watch the whole brutal event." Together the two sentences imply Cranmer was forced to watch the suffering of a reformer for something that Cranmer believed. But according to MacCulloch, Cranmer was involved in the decision process that lead to the execution. Cranmer was told by Henry to lead the questioning of Lambert.

--RelHistBuff (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you want me to eliminate a source that reflects the Catholic perspective of history for the Roman Catholic Church article entirely, leaving no reflection or point of view in the article to reflect this opinion. I think what you are asking is not what Misplaced Pages guidelines require of us and I will not eliminate Vidmar, who, contrary to your unsupported opinions of his qualifications, is in fact a respected Catholic historian with all the proper qualifications to make him not only a sufficient source but an expert in church ecclesial history. Also, Vidmar's statement is supported by Haigh's book with minor difference. I don't think the Six Articles could have been passed without Henry's support and all four of my sources suggest that Henry wanted a certain type of Roman Catholic Faith in the Church of England minus the pope and monasteries. This wording is correct. What you are asking me to do is not. I will go no further to win your support because I really think you are being unreasonable. NancyHeise (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Further note on Vidmar, the Dominican House of Studies website clearly states that he taught church history there "for many years". The Dominican House of Studies and the Catholic University are only a few universities allowed to grant the Doctor of Sacred Theology degree. The Doctor of Sacred Theology has different specialities one of which is Church History. NancyHeise (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is Misplaced Pages and we are all working to make it the best encyclopedia possible. You may have been able to find sources to synthesise what you believe to be the truth. But the fact of the matter is that the source has produced wrong statements. The other source, Haigh, is not even used properly to support the statement. So my comments were meant to address the situation. It is not just trying to get a bronze star on the article, but making a better article. So I do not believe I am the one that is being unreasonable. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

PS Vidmars book published by Sussex Academic Press states that he is a history professor at Dominican House of Studies - a graduate school of Theology. In the Smithsonian Associates Magazine, he is listed as a history professor. All of their courses offered by him begin with "A history of".NancyHeise (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, as a contributor to the article, that RelHisBuff has a point over the Henry statement. No Reformation legislation was altered or reversed. The Six articles were imposed by Henry in his position as Head of the church. Reformation legislation remained intact and in force. So I think that a change to the wording would be acceptable in this para. On Cranmer, WHEN he changed his view on the Eucharist is highly debatable among historians. He was a wily character, and many historians imply that he hid his true views on such subjects to keep in with Henry, (and his head from the block.) An implication that Cranmer was squeamish about executions might be wrong though, since he sent many people on their way in his time. Xandar (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am OK with Xandars changes to the disputed section that RelHistBuff did not like. I would also like to point out that Vidmar's quote on Cranmer is not part of the article text. It is part of a quote in the references to a section that has four different scholars talking about the same episode, I included all of their quotes on the matter. NancyHeise (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• • This sentence does not make it clear that the Gospel of Matthew was quoting Jesus: "Catholics cite the Gospel of Matthew to support this view: "... you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"

Someone else has corrected this already. NancyHeise (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Do you have sources that link the two Gospel verses with the statements "The Catholic Church believes that it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and that it is protected by divine revelation from falling into doctrinal error. It bases this belief on biblical promises that Jesus made to his apostles" the two verses are cited to the Bible, but, as the Bible is subject to interpretation, I'd like to see an independent source actually link these two verses with that statement.

I just added them, thanks and even though one of the sources is independent, the other is the church's constitution and I dont think it has to be an independent source if you are creating a beliefs section. NancyHeise (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I think this needs to be clarified a bit: "of the college of bishops in union with the pope when they condemn false interpretations of scripture or define truths."

I clarified this and trimmed it a lot, there were a lot of unnecessary words. NancyHeise (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Need a citation immediately after a quotation. Here's an example "particular expressions characterized by the culture". "

The citation was at the end of three sentences all coming from the same thing. I ref named it and put it at the end of that sentence too so this has been addressed. NancyHeise (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't really see the point of having a reference to the five solas in this article, at least not in the Beliefs section. There is no context to tell people what the 5 solas are or when they were written. Maybe this could go into the history section, or maybe it should just be removed.

The Five Solas is wikilinked to a nice Misplaced Pages page that explains them and I think they help provide context for Roman Catholic Beliefs differences from other faiths. We received compliments on our handling of this in previous FAC's - dont ask me to go find them please. NancyHeise (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Again, I don't think that intepretation of Biblical should be cited to the Bible. For example, this "He desires his creatures to love him and to love one another" is cited to a Bible verse. It should not be difficult to find this in a book.

I just added a citation to address this, sorry I did not see that I had omitted to answer this comment the other night. I think that I have gotten all of them now. NancyHeise (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The article explains Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium but not Sacred Scripture. It may be important to note that the Catholic Church's Sacred Scripture includes some books of the Bible that most Protestant churches don't recognize.

Sacred Scripture is wikilinked to a very nice Misplaced Pages page that makes this fact far more clear than we ever could. I think that is enough. NancyHeise (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the others are described here, though, for consistency Sacred Scripture should be very briefly described here also. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed this, please see additional text describing Sacred Scripture. NancyHeise (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• • In the references, all newspaper names should be italicized. I noticed, for example, that USA Today was not.

Thanks, I'll go through and check. NancyHeise (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Still not fixed. Karanacs (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Per WP:MOSDASH, need to use ndashes instead of a hyphen for page ranges in references. I fixed a few of these, but there are likely more

Thanks, I'm fixing any that I see too. NancyHeise (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I would first like to say that this article has improved dramatically since its last attempt at FAC. In reading through the article today, I found an instance of plaigairism (probably inadvertant), and my oppose will stand until someone has gone through the entire article and validated that there are no other instances of this. Other problems (and details on this one):
  • Plaigarism example: I happened to check the source on the line "exaggerated the horrors of the inquisitions and identified the entire Catholic Church with the occasional excesses wrought by secular rule". This had a quote listed with the source: ""...subsequent Protestant propaganda for centuries identified the entire Catholic Church in Spain, and elsewhere, with their occasional excesses" (bolding mine). To me, the line in the WP article is taken too much from the quoted source without attribution. I've fixed this instance by adding appropriate quotation marks, but I am quite concerned that this could be a problem in other pieces of the article.

Karanacs, this is a very serious accusation you are making here. Plagiarism is taking someone else's work and representing it as your own. I was looking at your plagiarism reversal edit here and I was just wondering if you could tell me what exactly was plagiarized. I wasn't sure since there were so many edits here and one is a trim. I would also like to know what other instances you found since you make it sound as if you found other instances when all I can see is this one, incomplete use of same words that lacked quotations and was clearly followed by a reference containing the complete quote. If someone had wanted to plagiarise that section, they (I) would not have included the entire quote from the books the sentence came from. What I am trying to say is that it is not plagiarism if the material is followed by the reference containing the quote. The error you found was one in punctuation, not plagiarism. NancyHeise (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I found the "source and summit..." which was quoted text not identified as such. Karanacs found another instance. Two instances makes me a little nervous. I don't agree that we don't have to use quotations if we quote the full text in a footnote. We should always make it clear to our reader that the text is not our own words if that is the case. It wouldn't hurt if a third party went through the article checking for other instances of plagiarism.-Andrew c  14:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Source and summit sentence is refed to the source immediately following the sentence. It is not plagiarism when the reference follows the sentence. I admit that proper punctuation rules require those same words to be in quotation marks but I think you and Karanacs are jumping the gun a lot in calling anything you have found plagiarism when the material is clearly referenced with name of book and page numbers provides immediately following the two sentences that use some same words. NancyHeise (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I bolded the text in the quotation that was lifted verbatim. Regardless of whether the citation uses a quotation or not, if an exact phrase is lifted from a book, that phrase needs to be in quotation marks. I don't believe this was purposeful plaigairism (this is a huge article with a huge number of sources), but the fact that Andrew and I found two instances of this scares me. The article needs to be checked for any other problems. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I believe the organization still needs work. The Origin and Mission section is an unnecssary duplication of information that is (or should be) found in the History section and the Beliefs section.
    • I suspect you could easily split the argument over the foundation of the RCC into a separate article, and just summarize here.

There is no consensus nor has there ever been consensus for this and I disagree that it will improve reader's understanding of the subject.NancyHeise (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I think the "origin" information should be the first subsection under history, not split out into it's own section.-Andrew c  14:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before on the article talk page; I am not the only one who has suggested this is an improper organization.karanacs 14:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus, there were two editors at most who wanted this, one of them was Karanacs. When I made changes to the article to try and address this issue in the manner she suggested, it was far worse and more rejected even by Karanacs. The present form is the form accepted by the majority of editors and it would be against Misplaced Pages policy for me to change it to reflect Karanacs view when this has already been discussed and consensus reached. NancyHeise (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The paragraph that covers Junipero Serra implies that nothing had been done mission-wise in the Americas since the last mention in the early 1500s. This is untrue; missions were established in Texas, NM, and Arizona in the 1600s/1700s. Yes, they expanded into California in the late 1700s under Junipero Serra, but I question whether that is really important enough to devote an entire paragraph to it.

This paragraph is the second one in the article dealing with missions in America. The first paragraph emerges in the upper portion of Late Medieval and early Renaissance section and specifically states; "Over the next 150 years, the missions expanded into southwestern North America" This covers the missions in NM and Arizona in the 1600's and 1700's. When Church authorities go on a new push with the missions under Junipero, we rightfully included this in the proper chronological order and mentioned their importance because it is so notable. I do not want to eliminate this for this reason. NancyHeise (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is giving a great deal of importance to Junipero that may not be justified in a summary of the church history in this article. I think this could be summarized a bit so we aren't going into more unnecessary detail. karanacs 17:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Note:I've capped most of my comments (Nancy has fixed a bunch already, and I and Epbr fixed some of the MOS stuff). I am still highly concerned about the two instances of probably inadvertant plaigarism that were found during this FAC, and my oppose will stand until I'm satisfied someone has gone through the article and verified that all quoted phrases use quotation marks. Karanacs (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a long list, Karanacs. You've been invoved with this article for several months now. It woul have been helpful if you'd come up with this list when we were seeking Peer-review (and got few responses) rather than now. Xandar (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of these are issues I have repeatedly brought up but have yet to be fixed. This is the shortest list I've had of problems, though; slowly, issues are being fixed and the article is morning in the right direction. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment That's one of the things that makes me nervous about FAC's. This is the third nomination for this article, but new stuff and supposedly glaring "mistakes" are still popping up, unnoticed in the last two FAC's and peer reviews. Benjamin 02:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This article looks almost nothing like the original FAC, and is quite different from the second FAC. That makes comparisons a litle unfair. Some of this was brought up in Peer Review and ignored, and, of course, there is always the problem of not enough peer reviewers. Karanacs (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Reviewers aren't omniscient. A third or fourth reread often reveals problems not seen in previous looks through the article. That said, there does appear to be a lot of work done in the right direction form the previous nominations. Sephiroth BCR 21:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I just checked and there were no items ignored in Peer Review. Karanacs was the only person to come give comments on the peer review and I answered all her comments. I did not ignore any comments. I do not think Karanacs list here is long and I have answered all her comments here too. I think that a lot of peer reviewers did not put their comments on the peer review leave comments list, they just put them on the talk page where we then discussed the issue and addressed it as we went along. I followed all protocol suggested by Karanacs before bringing this article up for FAC this third time. NancyHeise (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support per last time, although the article should continue to improve by addressing many of the points raised above. The is a long article on a contentious and complex subject, and will never be perfect. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 12 which is sourcing "To further its mission, the Church operates social programs and institutions throughout the world. These include schools, universities, hospitals, missions, and shelters, as well as Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Charities that help the poor, families, the elderly, and the sick. " includes a citation to a 1911 encyclopedia. Given that the information is sourced to two other more modern sources, I think it'd be best to drop the 1911 source?

I would like to keep the 1911 source. If I am going to fail FAC for keeping it I'll remove it but I dont see why we cant keep it. The Roman Catholic Church is a very old institution, The 1911 book has a very nice page all about the charities and works of the church that I think helps to round out reader's understanding of what these institutions do. NancyHeise (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My problem with this is that the statement it is being used for is in the present tense, and it is very odd to use an almost 100 year old source for something that strongly implies "this moment" through its tense. The other two sources for the statement are much more current. If you were saying "Throughout its history and through the current day, the Church opperates...." then the old source would fit much better. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont want to change any wording, I'll eliminate the source.NancyHeise (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Is Marty, Martin E.; Chadwick, Henry (2000). Encyclopædia Britannica Millennium Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. actually used in the articles footnotes? I didn't find it.

I eliminated it - I think it was originally used to cite the number of Catholics in the world but then we found a more recent source.NancyHeise (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I remain concerned about the scholarlyness of some of the sources. RelHistBuff has discussed the concerns over Vidmar. I still have deep concerns about using a National Geographic book about the Geography of Religion to source the history sections. Same sort of concerns over using Woods as a medieval source, he's writing popular history, not scholarly history. Goff, at least, is semi-current and a well known historian. I wouldn't call these sources unreliable, they are just not the best that could be found. For an article of this nature, that is bound to attract criticism, it would be best to have absolutely ironclad, third-party, scholarly sources. However, I've beat this drum a number of times before on this article, and frankly, I just don't have the energy to do more than point this out one more time for other reviewers to note.

Links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Ealdgyth, that some of the sources are not the best (although I commend Nancy for how much improved the sources are over the article's first appearance here), but, like you, it's just not worth it for me to fight anymore. Karanacs (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced most of the Nat Geographic refs with those from Collins and Price. The matters covered are pretty much consensus anyway. Xandar (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am OK with Xandar's replacements. His author is a professor of history at American University in Rome. As far as Ealdgyth's and Karanacs comments - please read Misplaced Pages:Reliable source examples under the subsection "history". All of my sources are scholarly works per these guidelines, even the National Geographic book, about which this guideline says "There are many other sources of historical information, but their authority varies. A recent trend is a proliferation of specialized encyclopedias on historical topics. These are edited by experts who commission scholars to write the articles, and then review each article for quality control. They can be considered authoritative for Misplaced Pages." The Nat Geo book is one of these books. Thomas Woods author of the other book Ealdgyth says he is concerned about is a highly respected scholar whose works like the book used for this article have been made into television productions and his work has been published in the American Historical Review, a scholarly publication specifically mentioned on the Misplaced Pages guidelines page. The book reviews of the book I used by John Vidmar can be found here ] and here ]. In addition, the Woods, Vidmar, and Nat Geo book comprise 28 out of 135 cites in the history section. None of these books represent a radical minority view of history, they are not outcasts in the scholarly world, their book reviews reveal this. Since my books meet Misplaced Pages top guidelines, I would like to not have to defend them anymore. If someone does not like a book I have used, especially if it is one that comprises a small part of the article, then I think they should be showing me what Misplaced Pages policy or guideline I have violated. All of my sources are written by university professors who are specialists in their fields. How am I supposed to do better than that? I have followed Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines, my sources meet the criteria.NancyHeise (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please reread what I said. I did not say they were unreliable, I said that they were not "the best that could be found." Woods, reading his Misplaced Pages article, seems to be an American history scholar. So why use a specialist in American history for a medieval European section? I trained as a historian, and one of the first things you learn is that the scholarly history field is divided into "camps". American historians are not specialists in medieval history who are not specialists in oriental history who are not specialists in ancient history who are not specialists in pre-Columbian history. It'd be like using a Shaker theologian as an expert for Catholic doctrine. It'll work, but it's not as good as it could be. But, whatever, I give in. Use whatever, I'm tired of explaining myself. And for the last time, I am a she. Ealdgyth Swan-neck. And is anyone going to address the OTHER issues I brought up? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I answered all your comments, sorry about calling you a he - its hard to know who is a he and who is a she. Woods Misplaced Pages page has him in Church history subjects as well as American history subjects. He has been published in the Catholic Historical Review, and the Catholic Social Science Review. I still do not see how you find him unacceptable, from the reception his works have received reading down his page a bit further, it appears that he is a very respected scholar in these fields. It is really unreasonable for FAC reviewers to require editors like me to ignore facts like this to please some particular personal opinion of the reviewer that is not backed up by Misplaced Pages policy. I am frustrated over this too. I hold to my sources because they clearly fit Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines and I disagree that I could do better. I honestly think these sources are the best and I have invested my time and money into them because I felt so. NancyHeise (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, I think some of your confusion is that the reliable sources guideline is not black-and-white. In many cases a source could be absolutely reliable for one article but not considered reliable for a different article; the difference is what the focus of the article is, how detailed are the facts you are taking from that article, etc. For example, I am reading a book, published by a university press and written by a professor of history, about the Battle of the Alamo. This is an excellent source to use in the article about the battle. It is not a good source to use in a biography article about William Barret Travis, the commander at the Alamo, because even though the book contains a brief bio of Travis, he isn't the book's (or the author's) main focus. You've done an excellent job of removing the sources that would never be considered reliable from this article. However, the sources the article currently uses may meet the basic RS guideline, but may not be focused properly to be the best sources to use for this article, or for the particular facts they are being used to source. The RCC article is a bit unique on WP because there are 50,000+ potential sources that you could use for it, so it would be better to use the absolute best sources and not just a so-so source. Karanacs (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

But don't let us forget that using unimpeachable sources by no means removes the risk of diagreement, especially on a subject like this. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not remove the risk, but it would reduce the risk. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• First, I'd like to say that I believe there has been an improvement since this article was last here. I believe it is now better-referenced than several other articles that have cleared a featured article review.
• However, that does not mean that I can support adding it to the list. This is because sources should match the subject. The sources that would be considered acceptable in a lower-level article would be considered unacceptable here. (I admit that WP:FA? does not require that we use the best available sources. That is a grievous error, and the source of much of the variable quality of FAs.)
• The extensive reliance on Vidmar is absolutely and utterly unacceptable, a deal-breaker. If, as the lead says in a bit of unnecessary peacocking, "The history of the Catholic Church is virtually inseparable from the history of Western civilization", we should be able to do better than Vidmar.
• The POV problems I discussed in the previous FAC on the Church's actions in Latin America continue to exist in the current version. I could cut-and-paste my objections if necessary.
• Woods' How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilisation has not been reviewed by any scholarly journal, and according to Google Scholar has been cited less than half-a-dozen times. The publisher's blurb is "Will strike an enormous chord with readers looking to defend Western Civilization and their faith." According to Google Books, the book has been cited solely by apologetic authors or by polemical authors writing against Islam.
• I also strongly disagree with any article in which the "beliefs" section is sourced entirely to sources certified as being free of doctrinal error. We are looking for a neutral discussion of the origin and structure of Catholic belief, and that is precisely the sort of one-sided sourcing we must avoid, not look for.
• Hence, once again, I must reluctantly oppose. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Note from Nominator regarding Relata Refero Oppose

Misplaced Pages Reliable Sources WP:RS and Misplaced Pages:Reliable source examples offer guidance to editors like me who want to make FA's. FA criteria also offers guidance. Peer Reviews and failed FACs offer guidance as well yet some reviewers disagree with others and sometimes we just have to go with the majority view - consensus. There has been no consensus here that Vidmar and Woods are not scholarly sources. That is because no one has provided any wikilink or internet link to any review of these books that states that they are some kind of unacceptable scholarship. In fact, the reviews give every indication that they are acceptable - I have been the only one here giving you the actual reviews online to read. Through two FACs and two peer reviews, no one has ever said that Vidmar and Woods were unacceptable sources - until now - and without any evidence to offer. Relata Refero opposes the article because I have relied "extensively" on Vidmar. Yet the facts reveal that he is used for 13 out of 276 cites in the article. I used Woods for a total of 7 cites. I disagree that the article would be improved by removing these two sources. They are not POV, they do provide balance in an article overwhelmingly filled with sources that do not consider the history of the Catholic Church from the Catholic perspective.

Further note. Beliefs section is a factual section that we have created using three third party sources and self published Catholic Church sources such as the Catechism. I have to use a source that is approved by the Catholic Church as being free of doctrinal error or I risk creating a Beliefs section that is incorrect. In creating a section like this, Misplaced Pages expressly allows self-published sources also.

I will not be eliminating Thomas Woods or John Vidmar or the Beliefs section sources for these reasons, they are what make the article particularly Featured Article quality. If Misplaced Pages feels otherwise, then I guess you will have a Good Article that I will no longer continue to pursue an FA over. I think it is very unfair to provide guidance and policy and then when we follow it, change the rules at the last minute (only for us and for no one else). NancyHeise (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your frustration that this article is being held to higher standards than the normal FA. This is because of the correspondingly better sources available.

I also agree that there are no reasons to suppose that these books are unreliable by the standards of WP:FA? as written. This reflects poorly on WP:FA?, but then many things do.

That being said, the 27 or so cites to Woods, Vidmar and the NatGeo book are primarily used to back up the history of the Church, which is precisely where the highest-quality sources should be used in an encyclopaedia. Focusing on the proportion of references rather than their weight will not help us here.

Misplaced Pages permits the use of self-published sources for beliefs, it most emphatically does not recommend it. If independent third-party sources are available, especially peer-reviewed, recent, academic sources - as are available for almost every aspect of Catholic theology - self-published sources, and the Catechism, which is practically a primary source, are deprecated. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Relata, you did not look at the sources used for the Beliefs section. They are sourced to three non-Catholic church sources, by university professors in addition to the Catechism (we were asked to show the relation by a previous FAC) and Canon Law. If my article meets the FA criteria, then it should be an FA, it should not be denied because you think FA criteria is inadequate. NancyHeise (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ms. Heise, the books in question are written by professors at Catholic universities, some of whom are ordained priests, are published by Catholic presses, and are certified as acceptable by the Church. They may yet be adequate, but it is my contention that any article which cites only such will not contain the required amount of neutral analysis. If the FA criteria as written result in the promotion of an article that does that, sure, they need to be rewritten; but I would hope whoever does the promoting is capable of reading this, and of some leeway in application of those criteria. Still, who knows. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support Nancy here with respect to relata refero's oppose. In previous FACs the article was criticized for using sources that were not specific to the Catholic Church. More books specific to the Catholic Church have been used as sources, and now that gets criticized. The simple fact is that if books specific to the Catholic Church are wanted as sources, a good number of such books are liable to be written by Catholics. This is the same with all religions. (And all areas of expertise.) Books about Islam or Buddhism are not only nore likely to get written by Muslims and Buddhists respectively, but most people would regard such books as more reliable authorities on the details of those faiths than books written by outsiders. Why is this suddenly different with Catholicism?

There has been a certain amount of nonsense in criticising sources, and that can go on endlessly. As far as I can see, the only valid criticism for FAC purposes is if someone alleges a specific FACTUAL INACCURACY or imbalance gleaned from a particular source. If such criticisms are made, they have to be immediately addressed. However saying the equivalent of "I don't like that book because a Catholic wrote it." is not valid criticism. The same principle applies with regard to the "Beliefs" section. The section is about what the Church actually believes and teaches. What then, can be the problem with a reference that categorically states these things from the most authoritative source possible? These are matters of FACT not opinion. Is anybody saying that the Church DOESN'T believe what is set out in the catechism? If not, the compaint is nonsense. What benefit is there in looking for a book by some possibly inaccurate third party saying, "the Church believes x"? That objection has been gone through before.

Relata Refero also alleges unnamed and unspecified "POV problems" - a criticism which is very easy to make, but completely invalid unless such alleged "problems" are precisely specified. The Latin America section in particular was reworked at previous FAC and agreement on sources reached. I remember people being asked at the time, what precisely did the church do in latin America that has not been covered? There was no response. Unless Relata refero can come up with better than this, his criticisms would seem to be without merit. Xandar (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I did say I'd specified in the last FA. Here, then, is a representative problem:

That does not give an FA the right to skip over the accepted view that there were many problems, particularly its justification of forced labour under its stewardship (see Bruce E. Johansen), its vast holdings, and the close alliance with the Crown under the patronado real. The mainstream view? The Catholic Church "....was a government agency like any other... in return for assistance in conerting indigenous peoples to Catholicism, state officials were given the rght to appoint Church officials and control its finances..." (Carlos Forment). For the final word, see the John Frederick Schwaller's introduction to The Church in Colonial Latin America which puts into perspective the thoeretical "wins" in Spain with the abject failure of adminstration of those principles on the ground. The way the section is written, it sounds the other way 'round.

All this still holds, and hardly counts as "no response":) The merit of my objections I leave for the Godlike personages that decide this trivial matter to to settle. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and in response to "the only valid criticism for FAC purposes is if someone alleges a specific FACTUAL INACCURACY or imbalance gleaned from a particular source" - again, given the way WP:FA? is written, you may possibly be right. That doesnt mean that reviewers should follow those deeply inadequate standards and treat as invalid or inappropriate to an FAC criticisms of sources of the sort that are habitually brought up in history-related article talkpages. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And finally, in response to "Books about Islam or Buddhism are not only nore likely to get written by Muslims and Buddhists respectively, but most people would regard such books as more reliable authorities on the details of those faiths than books written by outsiders." - Absolutely not. The level of peer-review and citation in the religious studies academic community is the only encyclopaedic judge of reliability. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the response I gave Relata from the last FAC regarding his books he uses to tell us what the "mainstream view" of history is: "In an effort to address your concerns about this issue, I looked up the book you have cited to support your viewpoint here: "The Church in Colonial Latin America" by Schwaller. Here is a direct quote of a review of the book by Brian Larkin of St. Johns University History Dept :"Readers interested in the history of the Church and religion in Brazil, the Caribbean, or the frontiers of Spanish America will be disappointed. Likewise, readers particularly concerned with the religious history of women will find little of immediate interest in this volume. Not even Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz or St. Rose of Lima, Latin America's two most famous religious women, receive mention. Because of its limited scope, instructors will need to supplement this text with other materials. Nonetheless, Schwaller has provided scholars with a useful selection of articles for the classroom." You can read the rest of the review here ] evidently, it is considered to be of such a limited scope that it is not useful in the classroom. How can you expect me to use this book on the brief summary in Misplaced Pages? NancyHeise (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)"

Errm, I talked about the introduction specifically, which is more than comprehensive enough by our standards. Your quote is irrelevant; its not as if we extensively discuss female Latin American divines or the Caribbean in the article. Relata refero (disp.) 06:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that Relata wants us to eliminate books with good reviews and replace them with a book that has a very bad review. I am not going to do that, please understand that I am following the guidelines and policies laid out for me by Misplaced Pages. To capitulate to your demands will require that I ignore these written and respected policies and I'm not going to do that. NancyHeise (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be a dramatic mis-statement, actually. I am suggesting that sources of dubious academic quality, not generally cited in the literature, and usually published by parochial publishers, be replaced by standard academic sources. This is not really a violation of WP guidelines, you know. On the contrary, the latter are written to encourage it. Relata refero (disp.) 06:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the Vidmar book citations are rarely alone at the end of a sentence because he supplements and confirms another source almost every cite. I provided several quotes from all of these sources in particularly sensitive areas like the Reformation and Inquisitions so the reader could see that I got opinions from several scholars to support the text in the article. I did this so no one could say I was being anti or pro Catholic in these sensitive areas of history.NancyHeise (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I also just added my scholarly work by "A History of Christianity in Asia, Africa and Latin America" to the Latin America sections that Relata says is not mainstream. The text represents mainstream history. The Koschorke book is a documentary sourcebook with commentary. NancyHeise (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero posted: That does not give an FA the right to skip over the accepted view that there were many problems, particularly its justification of forced labour under its stewardship (see Bruce E. Johansen), its vast holdings, and the close alliance with the Crown under the patronado real. The mainstream view? The Catholic Church "....was a government agency like any other... in return for assistance in conerting indigenous peoples to Catholicism, state officials were given the rght to appoint Church officials and control its finances..." (Carlos Forment). For the final word, see the John Frederick Schwaller's introduction to The Church in Colonial Latin America which puts into perspective the thoeretical "wins" in Spain with the abject failure of adminstration of those principles on the ground. The way the section is written, it sounds the other way 'round.

Misplaced Pages policy specifically does not allow us to use any material in an introduction because it is not fact checked but consists of the authors opinions. 65.2.242.111 (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

At least we have some meat here. I will have a look into these issues and get back later in the day on this. Although the fact that the Catholic Church lost control of virtually all its lands and the right to appoint Church Officials in the "Age of Enlightenment" is definitely mentioned in the article. It was not just a Latin American problem. It represented the weakness of the Church in the face of secular power worldwide. Xandar (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope we are not going to get too involved in detail that is not really appropriate is an article with such a wide scope (as we did with the Six Articles). State involvement in appointment of Church officials has been a huge topic for most of the Church's history, but is barely mentioned in the article - rightly I think as you can't begin to fit everything in. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Shouldn't there be an "Etymology and meaning" section at the top of the article (see Islam)? Also, the statement in lead that the Roman Catholic Church is officially known as the Catholic Church should be explained and sourced in the "Etymology and meaning" section.--Phenylalanine (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The phrase Roman Catholic Church is made up of three ordinary vocabulary words in English, and giving the individual etymologies of the words Roman, catholic, and church would hardly be relevant to the article. —Angr 19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written --Lãzîalë93 17:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I believe that any objective reading of the FA criteria would lead an objective reviewer to agree that the article does indeed meet those criteria. I do not agree that because its subject is – to some – controversial, that it has to be held to a higher standard than any other FA candidate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Not controversial, but covered in more depth and by generally higher-standard secondary sources than the average interstate highway. *shrug* Relata refero (disp.) 21:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you would be kind enough to point me towards the relevant FA criteria? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry, am unclear about what this question asks. Could you rephrase it? --Relata refero (disp.) 09:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Which of the FA criteria specifies different sourcing requirements for different types of articles? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, I thought I had been as clear as possible about that. As far as I can tell, not even one. Perhaps a suitable reading of "accurately represents the relevant body of published knowledge" in 1(c). As I say above "I also agree that there are no reasons to suppose that these books are unreliable by the standards of WP:FA? as written. This reflects poorly on WP:FA?, but then many things do." If this is promoted, it just means that the FA standards aren't keeping poorly-referenced articles out. But, again, I know that already. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy specifically does not allow us to use any material in a the introduction section of a book (where Relata got his quote from Schwaller) because it is not fact checked but consists of the authors opinions. NancyHeise (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That's, um, completely untrue. We prioritise treatment from scholarly presses, and introductions, provide bird's eye views of the sort we need. The Schwaller-edited book was published as part of the well-known Jaguar series on Latin America. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look at some of the material quoted by Relata, as far as I can. There is much about the tension between Church and Colonizers, and quite a lot that backs up what we already have in the article. I'll do a little sorting on the Americas paras with some new citations. Xandar (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

While I am not against more citations, please see that I have already added to this and another section with the Kosorcke and LeGoff books. What Relata is telling us is clearly not correct. All of my sources separate the forced labor of Colonizers with the action of the church which were to fight against slavery and the efforts of the crown to appoint bishops. These facts come from my University press sources by Duffy and Norman. Unless you can find a university press saying what Relata is saying, I would not put this in here because there are many history books that are not scholarly but popular history that we are advised by Misplaced Pages not to use per their guidelines. I have particularly avoided these for that reason. We don't want a history section that states what someone wants us to believe, we want the facts that have been peer reviewed and fact checked. NancyHeise (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, Xandar just added some cites to the Latin America section that should help sort this all out. I appreciate his efforts here, one source is a scholar named Enrique Dussel who you can view here and the other is to a Rutgers University press. I like the paragraph better now, thanks Xandar. NancyHeise (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Further to relato's point about the Church "justifying forced labour under its stewardship", my search of sources did not find a reference to this. What has been amply documented that leading figures in the Church actively opposed and campaigned against the economedia (sp?) plantation system set up by the Conquistadors, both within New Spain and in the courts of Europe. Undoubtedly those who lived on Franciscan missions and Jesuit reductions had to work to support their community. Was this forced labour? Peasants in many parts of Europe at the same time could also be said to be subject to "forced labour" under this definition. The Franciscan regime in Mexico was harsher than that of the Jesuits and Dominicans elsewhere, but that point has already been well-covered in the article. Discussion of an article such as this needs to distinguish between what the Church did and what "Catholic" individuals and states did. That often gets confused. Xandar (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good points. As to the sources, here are a few, though I can't find the notes I made last time:

• During the first half-century of Iberian rule, ecclesiastical officials forced the Indians to work on church-owned haciendas till the New Laws were passed in 1542. The abolition of Indian slavery, however, did not stop the church from exploting their labor on the missions of the hinterlands... while small sections of the church, led by the prophetic figure of de las Casas, had denounced the enslavement.... very few ecclesiastics raised their voices in protest at the exploitation of Africans in the Americas. In fact, when religious orders.. were not busy managing their own slaves, plantation priests gave benediction to slavocrats. from Chesnut, R. Andrew (2003). Competitive Spirits: Latin America's New Religious Economy. Oxford University Press. p. 189.
• The State and the Church were essentially inseparable from each other in establishing the institution of African slavery in Portugal and its overseas colonies.. and the subsequent passages from Nishida, Mieko (2003). Slavery and Identity: Ethnicity, Gender, and Race in Salvador, Brazil, 1808-1888. Indiana University Press. p. 255.
• Spanish colonialism rested on forced labor... perhaps the most brutal regimes of slavery the world had yet seen. In coastal regions, plantations imported African slaves... in less economically important zones, once the initial violence of subjugation abated, social relations were less violent, yet cruel and exploitative nonetheless. The Catholic Church was complicit in this system, either by justifying it in religious terms or through its own inquisitorial violence and extraction of revenues. Yet at the same time minority sectors of the clergy, particularly brotherhoods such as the Dominicans, carried on las Casas' advocacy work... providing in some areas the only protection available against the abuses of Spanish officials and private elites. - from Greg Grandin in Wasserstrom, Jeffrey N. (2007). Human Rights and Revolutions. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 225. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• For a later period, here's the classic study by Carl N. Degler, which is the currently accepted standard on the subject: he's responding to the old thesis that the differences in slavery between north and south america were a product of the Church's moderating influence: The church's interest in and power to protect the slave's humanity was limited...there is abundant evidence that officially the church showed little interest in interfering with the institution of slavery... religion was used by the church in Brazil as a way to support slavery not to weaken it. (The whole passage provides nuance, but I am excerpting the conclusions here.) This is from the Pulitzer-winning Degler, Carl N. (1986). Neither Black Nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United. Univ of Wisconsin Press. p. 302.

There are many others, unsurprisingly, as this is a major field of study, particularly in comparative history. I certainly don't want to put undue weight on the subject, but the section gives disproportionate influence to rhetoric that mainstream academic opinions appears to believe was not replicated in church policy on the ground. The canonical work in Spanish examining the theological rhetoric supporting forced labor is Luis N. Rivera Pagán, Evangelización y violencia: La conquista de América, written by a professor at PTS. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The text of the article says "This period also saw the Church struggling against the colonial abuses of the Portuguese and Spanish governments. In South America, the Jesuits protected native peoples from enslavement by establishing semi-independent settlements called reductions. Pope Gregory XVI, challenging Spanish and Portuguese sovereignty, appointed his own candidates as bishops in the colonies, condemned slavery and the slave trade in 1839, and approved the ordination of native clergy in the face of government racism." This is referenced to Duffy's "Saints and Sinners" Cambridge University Press. These are facts, not a writer's opinions.

Xandar also just added this sentence "Enforcement was lax, however, and while some blame the Church for not doing enough to liberate the Indians, others point to the Catholic Church as the only voice raised on behalf of indigenous peoples. " I really think that this new sentence makes clear to the reader that some people, like Relato's excerpts of writer opinion (not solid facts like what we have in the article) criticize the church over this issue. I did some research also to look into what Relato is asking of us. It appears to me that he wants us to include some language stating that the Church instituted slavery along with the Portugese government, exploited slaves regularly and everywhere and officially showed little interest in elimination of slavery. There is no documentary evidence to support these assertions. While there may have been bad priests or missionaries in certain places doing bad things to indians, there were no Church pronouncements advocating slavery but on the contrary we have ample documentary evidence supporting the text in the article. The Church in Brazil, for a time, operated almost completely independently from the rest of the Catholic Church. It was during this time when the Church in Brazil is accused of keeping slaves on some estates to generate income used in missions and schools. This was not church policy, this was some missionaries doing their own thing. The ecclesiastical oversight of the Brazilian Church did not begin to develope in Brazil until the late seventeenth and early eighteeth centuries. They were not even able to implement the directives of the Council of Trent there until the nineteenth century. These facts come from Justo L. Gonzalez' "Christianity in Latin America". I don't think that we need more text in the article. We have stated the controversy over the issue of slavery and we have given both sides of the debate. I really think that it enough addressing of Relato. NancyHeise (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) With respect, I think you are making a distinction between "fact" and "opinion" that is, to be polite about it, novel in historical work.

In effect, the paragraph is now three and half sentences saying "the Church did these good things" and half a sentence saying "of course, no pleasing some people." I'm afraid that is both completely unrepresentative of the state of the academic literature - as I effectively demonstrate above - and symptomatic of the problems endemic in all parts of the history section. (With one unsurprising exception: the sex abuse scandal is given far more weight than it deserves.) I could move on to various other parts of the section to repeat this, but what's the point? The basic problem is the exclusive reliance on the books discussed above, which are clearly not representative of historical work.

And its Relata. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I just counted and there are six lengthy paragraphs in the history text covering Latin America. Per Misplaced Pages guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Reliable source examples, " Textbooks in various academic disciplines often include a historical introduction to the discipline. The authors of these introductions are seldom as familiar with the historical literature as they are with their discipline itself. They write these introductions to provide some background to the discipline as it is currently practiced and to inculcate students into the values of the discipline. Such historical introductions should not be treated as historical research and should be used with caution. On many historical topics there are memoirs and oral histories that specialists consult with caution, for they are filled with stories that people wish to remember — and usually recall without going back to the original documentation. Editors should use them with caution."

That quote is copied and pasted from the guidelines page under the subsection "history". It is great to have so many different historians with so many different viewpoints on what the Church actually did in Latin America, from the apologists to the critics. Relata, you are relying on one part of the spectrum of historical research while we have included all viewpoints in ours - particularly excluding writer speculation - and including facts for which we have documentation and wikilinks (I just wikilinked the papal bull by Pope Gregory condemning slavery In Supremo Apostolatus. This is not the first time a pope condemned slavery, Paul III also condemned it in the wikilinked papal bull in the text and several other popes condemned previously had condemned it too beginning with Clement I. Gregory was upholding the teaching from previous popes). I respectfully disagree with your assessment of our text. NancyHeise (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe we disagree in our assessment of how to establish the consensus among historians. Please note my remarks below on the quality of the sources of my quotes. I note also that I chose quotes to specifically establish what the consensus is among independent, non-parochial academic historians of the area and the period about the Church's role. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Relato has raised some new points, largely with respect to slavery. I would make a couple of points on the sources he quotes.

• Book 1. Chesnut. Seems an opinionated source. Accuses unnamed 'ecclesiastical officials' of forcing indians to work on "church-owned haciendas." No specifics offered. I'm unaware that haciendas existed in this period. In failing to mention that the New Laws were instigated by the church, he also reveals a biased perspective. "priests gave benediction to slavocrats" What does this mean? That slave-owners were allowed in church? Hardly startling. No specific checkable facts.
• Nishida. Again a statement of opinion. No solid facts. How did the church allegedly co-operate with the portuguese in establishing African slavery?

My Koschorke book states that African slavery was an institution in Africa long before Europeans arrived. NancyHeise (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Grandin. Quote is again mostly heavy POV. "Spanish colonialism... perhaps the most brutal regimes of slavery the world had yet seen." Evidence for this? (The chinese buried slaves alive, the Aztecs ripped their hearts out...) Factually, compared to slavery in Protestant lands, Spanish and French slave codes, under church influence, did give some rights to slaves: appeal to courts; respect for marriage, families not to be split; religious holidays; rights to buy freedom. The Grandin quote also says "The Catholic Church was complicit in this system, either by justifying it in religious terms or through its own inquisitorial violence and extraction of revenues." Inquisitorial violence - in the slave trade??? The inquisitions dealt with heresy. And what are the exact complicit justifications being spoken of? To put something in the article we need some solid facts.
• Degler. More moderate, but again vague. Seems to be condemning the church for doing little to interfere with slavery. Several popes were amongst the first people anywhere to condemn the principle of slavery. However slavery was an institution that had always existed. It is even famously tolerated in the New Testament. The Church may not have been as radically abolitionist on the ground as some 21st century commentators would like. But is that an article-worthy observation? Saying some people in the Church in Brazil supported slavery may or may not be true. I don't know. But we'd need clear facts to give that a mention.

The issue of the Church and slavery per se has not been gone into. At the moment on the evidence available, I would say the balance of the article is correct in that I have seen no specific evidence that the CHURCH, as opposed to the STATE was responsible for violence or enslavement, and there is specific evidence that the Church spoke out against it. An author who writes a book is just as likely to be opinionated, POV and use weasel words as anybody else. Many vague accusations against the Catholic church turn out to be poorly substantiated when checked. To add to the article we do need something solid and factual. In extremis we could put in that degler didn't think the Church did enough to oppose slavery. But is there consensus that sentences need adding on slavery? Xandar (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My dear chap, I'm puzzled. I've detached from these books their conclusions. If you then wish to ask "how" and "why", you have to read the books, right? The point of the exercise was to demonstrate the academic consensus, and that this article cheerfully flouts it.

"To add to the article we do need something solid and factual." Any of the statements above, such as "The Catholic Church was complicit in this system, either by justifying it in religious terms or through its own inquisitorial violence and extraction of revenues" is a solid statement of fact, albeit one with which you disagree. So is "there is abundant evidence that officially the church showed little interest in interfering with the institution of slavery" or "plantation priests gave benediction to slavocrats". I merely point out that this distinction you seem to make between fact and opinion is in this case spurious.

Just a reminder: as compared to the other authors, who work at parochial universities and are writing generalist overviews, I've quoted area experts on religion and Latin American history, from prize-winning books and at major universities, including the director of graduate studies at Yale and the former President of the American Historical Association, the main grouping of academic historians. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Having looked in more detail at Degler's book it seems to be specifically written to challenge a pre-existing accepted academic view that Brazilian slavery was a lot less harsh than US slavery. Even so, the book does not provide any evidence, as far as I can find for a charge that the church was actively advocating or working for slavery. Xandar (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Degler book was written in response to a pre-existing general belief, as I quite clearly stated in my introduction to the excerpt. It created a new consensus, and is the canonical work on comparative slavery in the Americas today. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Is anyone looking into the plagiarism issue? Anyone? Karanacs (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That is the one thing that is currently holding me back from giving a support as I previously have. I detest plagiarism with a passion, and any article with it should not be allowed to exist, let alone be featured. The only thing I could really do, without having any good books on this subject, is to reword the phrases in question to make it sound less lifted, but that wouldn't accomplish all that much. Anyone have any better ideas? Benjamin 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What plagiarism issue? As far as I know, two incidents of text in the article were raised which it was claimed were similar to text in the quoted references. Plagiarism is extremely overdramatic language for that. If you have any incidences you want to bring up, please do so. Xandar (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Amazing allegation of plagiarism, really, that is a personal attack. This is the definition of plagiarism "Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement. Unlike cases of forgery, in which the authenticity of the writing, document, or some other kind of object itself is in question, plagiarism is concerned with the issue of false attribution." Two instances detailed by Karanacs and Andrew showed phrases lifted and placed in two sentences without the appropriate quotes needed. The two sentences were immediately followed by the actual references used with the entire quote from the book. Plagiarism is taking someone else's work and representing it as your own. It is not plagiarism if the sentence is immediately followed by the reference and actual quote - what occured here is not plagiarism but an error of punctuation. I am really offended that Karanacs is accusing me of plagiarism with these two examples of non-plagiarism. NancyHeise (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The "error of punctuation" made the lifting plagiarism. This is an incredibly serious issue, and I am concerned that the main editors of the article don't recognize that. Proper attribution means that not only is a citation given to show where it came from, but that if phrases were lifted in whole or part they must be quoted to explicitly show the reader that this is not the phrasing of a WP editor. I do not believe that the plagiarism was at all intentional (and I have stated that repeatedly), but it obviously happened twice that we found, which is two times too many. There could be 1 or 100 other instances of this type of "error of punctuation" in the article (or, best case scenario, everything else checks out fine). I cannot strike my oppose until someone goes through the article and verifies that no other whole phrases were lifted from the cited source material without using the appropriate quotation marks. I don't have access to the bulk of the source material and so can't do this verification myself. My question is whether anyone is doing this or is planning to do this? Karanacs (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Karanacs, but you are way off-line here. There has to be a little common-sense involved. For one thing the main offending sentence starts off with "Historians note that" - a signpost to the fact that the words that follow are in part at least a form of quotation. For a second point, having some word groups in common is not "plagiarism". Policy says that inline citations should directly correspond to the material they verify, therefore there should usually be a close match between (although not normally a direct copy of) material in a citation and material on the page. This is where your impossiblist demand comes into question. You are demanding that someone (not you, apparently) goes through over 300 inline citations, examines the original text of each work, and checks WHAT? That there are no word groups in common between each cited work and the article?? That is nonsense. Consider a common factual citation. Say, for example that a source says, "Willibrord converted the Germans." Even if that complete sentence occurred in an article - it would not be plagiarism. It is a simple statement of fact in concise form. Even a complete sentence like that cannot be copyright. If every book that said "Caesar conquered Gaul" invoved plagiarism, the law courts would be full of nothing else! The whole issue is bogus unless treated with some sense. Plagiarism, as Nancy said, is passing off others work and ideas as your own. there is nothing like that in the article, and I doubt that any wording similarities, even if found would be anything but coincidental, as per my example. The text has been altered, rearranged and copy-edited too many times. Anyway even checking through all 300 works would prove nothing. What if the nefarious plagiarist has not actually cited the book he copied??? Shall we check every book ever published for similarities? No. use common sense. if there are any particular passages you think might be important matter directly copied from another work, we can check those out. Otherwise your demands, if applied to every WP article, would just put wikipedia into gridlock for the next few years. Xandar (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Karanacs be the person going through checking for errors in punctuation if she is the one calling this plagiarism? How can someone come here and call this plagiarism and then cast a cloud over the whole article without intending to go through and back up their accusation? I already have almost all the sources. I can tell you there is no plagiarism yet I am not allowed to be the checker per Karanacs comments above. I think that if Karanacs doesnt want to check, then she should keep her oppose vote but she should not be continuing to call what occured here plagiarism without further verification of her claims. It would not be hard for her to do since almost every single sentence in the text is followed by a reference that either gives an internet link to the actual text or a reference to a book with page number and ISBN number. I personally think it is going to be very hard to prove plagiarism under these circumstances. NancyHeise (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It has already been proven that issues have been found with quotations not having quotation marks. Nancy, if you have most of these sources, then you are obviously the appropriate person to be checking that the article does not have more "errors of punctuation", provided you clearly understand what is appropriate paraphrasing and what is not. I do not have these sources and cannot get most of them quickly. By the time I can order them all on interlibrary loan this FAC will be closed. I am requesting that you (or someone else that has access to the sources right now) check that the article has no more "errors of punctuation" as you call them. Three reviewers have expressed concern with this issue on this FAC, yet none of the editors with easy access to the sources are willing to take a look and make sure the rest of the article does not have similar problems. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

From plagiarism.org, the following are considered plagiarism: "failing to put a quotation in quotation marks" and "The writer properly cites a source, but neglects to put in quotation marks text that has been copied word-for-word, or close to it. Although attributing the basic ideas to the source, the writer is falsely claiming original presentation and interpretation of the information.". Please understand that even if this was completely unintentional (which I am sure it was), this is serious and must be addressed. Karanacs (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)