Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Disaster management articles by quality/2

Archive 1 August 2007 – March 2008 Archive 2 April – June 2008

Nancy's reference templates

<ref>{{cite journal | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | journal = | volume = | issue = | pages = | publisher = | date = | url = | doi = | id = | accessdate = }}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news | last = | first = | coauthors = | title = | work = | pages = | language = | publisher = | date = | url = | accessdate = }}</ref>
<ref>{{cite web | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | work = | publisher = | date = | url = | format = | doi = | accessdate = }}</ref>
<ref>{{cite book | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | publisher = | date = | location = | pages = | url = | doi = | id = }}</ref>

First on your new talk page

I had to be the first to mark up your new talk page :-) I'm not aware if you've ever seen the humorous Fool's guide to writing a featured article; I hope you'll enjoy it and find it helpful! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

small point about unnecessary adversarialism

Nancy, just a small point about this edit summary. In fact, you are not reversing my edits. The process in that sentence has been as follows: I looked at the sources, and found that they did not justify the sentence's two claims (that fingerprinting and background checks were now required); I point this out on the talk page, and changed the article accordingly; you added a citation that justified one of those claims (on background checks), and added back the word "required"; I then looked at the same citation, noted that it was US-specific, and clarified the text again.

In fact, therefore, this is a fairly good example of how the process should work: collaboratively. There's no need, therefore, to present it as an adversarial process, in which you are "reversing" my edits.

Or to put it another way: you give the impression that you are engaged in an edit war; but you are not edit-warring, so why even give that impression? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

JB, you read me wrong, I did not intend to appear controversial. Please understand that when people have assumed I am being controversial, it is not my intention to be so. No offense was intended toward you. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to read people wrong. ;) I'm just saying that this is an instance of productive collaboration; and I've now noted repeatedly that I think you are getting better at that. Why hide the fact? Anyhoo... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am appreciative of your help. Im sorry we started out on a wrong note. I hope not to continue on that note. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Worried about this.

I'm not sure who put this into the Eucharist section --- "The New Covenant is, according to Catholic teaching, celebrated and renewed in the Eucharist."

The problem is that the New Covenant is not defined in the sentence, and it needs to be. Would it not be easier to replace this with something like "Jesus's redemptive sacrifice is, according to Catholic teaching, celebrated and renewed in the Eucharist." Another option might be "Jesus's sacrifice for humanity..." or "Jesus's sacrifice on the cross is, according to Catholic teaching, celebrated and renewed in the Eucharist."

What do you think? Xandar (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I added text and reference to make it clear, let me know what you think or change it if you have a better idea. Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A gift for you

Chocolate ... yummy

Hi Nancy, I'm travelling and have almost no internet access, but out of curiosity I checked to see if RCC was still listed at FAC. I saw that the FAC has now reached over 400 KB. I've never seen one get this long after a restart, so I thought you deserved a treat for hanging in there for so long. Karanacs (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kindness. I wish I could actually eat them! NancyHeise (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

another gift for you ;)

Nancy, I just saw the FAC was archived. Oh well. Please accept these as recognition of the many hours / days / weeks / months you have put into the article. Ceoil (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no presents (though I'd like to steal one of Karanacs's chocolates!), but let me also pass on my commiserations. I think everyone is most impressed by the amount of effort that you have put into the article, and into the FAC process. And I do hope that it can be improved, and can come back to FAC and pass with flying colours. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

2nd that. Ceoil (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

3rd. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A positive note

Your article is very well done, congratulations. I did not like the ending with the unique American problem having the last word. Please change, modify my addition anyway you want. (Here is my latest work, the template and most articles in it, many need more work Template:Pope Pius XII ) Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree that it would be nice to end the article some other way: I've mentioned this on the talk page. A short paragraph on Benedict would be good. However, your paragraph on him is a little along the lines of an altar call! Such a final section would have to maintain NPOV: the pope and his election were somewhat controversial, after all. Still, I do think it would be nicer to end with a new pope than with the sex abuse scandal. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There was a suggestion for a Conclusion at the FAC. AMbrosius's version was reverted by someone, but it's still there in the History archive. It could be the basis of a good, short conclusion. Xandar (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Further to the archive of FAC4. I've written something at Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church#Archived.3F. This was originally designed by Gimmetrow for SG, but I think it certainly applies here.

	The Trial by Fire award
	For enduring a piece of wikipurgatory and still shining, as gold refined by fire. Xandar 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your advice and kind words. I am flying today and wont be home until tonight -I will address all RCC concerns ASAP and i do agree that a conclusion would be appropriate. Suggestions are most welcome as to content and tone. Thanks you guys. NancyHeise (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Contacting FA objectors

I think we need to do this quite soon, in order to get the objections nailed down while the iron is still hot. I would suggest posting a message like the following on all the objectors/commentators talk pages:

• Feature Article Candidate Roman Catholic Church - suspension of nomination.

The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director because the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.

Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. To prevent the re-start nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under a single heading on the page. Thank you.

What do you think? The only thing left out is SandyGeorgia's idea of taking the prose/style objections later, once the organization/factual/POV objections have been looked at. The problem is that that takes two bites at the cherry, and we might have a poor response in a two-stage process, with old problems then recurring at FAC. That's why I think it better to have ALL the objections now. So we know what they are. Perhaps before re-submission we could then have a final ask-around about the finalized text to check for style objections. Xandar (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In theory, I think this is a good suggestion. In practice, however, I think you are going to anger a lot of the reviewers if you post a message such as this now. Many of the opposing reviewers appeared to disagree with your arguments against their opposes and at this point (after a six-week long FAC) are likely to refer you straight back to the FAC. I would wait at least several weeks before asking any of them to weigh in on the article again (everyone needs a break, including the two of you). If the two of you are raring to go anyway, I'd recommend looking through the FAC again and try to summarize what is already there because if those concerns aren't addressed somehow, people are likely going to reiterate their opposes next time. I have a few ideas I want to play around with in a sandbox that may help with some of the opposes but it might take me a week or two to get something to propose to you. Karanacs (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, I agree we all need a break but I want to pay close attention to what Raul wanted from us. The FA Director, Raul, said this "...What I'd like to see from all the remaining objectors is a list of specific problems with the article in its current form. I'd like the nominators to take some time and address the remaining issues prior to renominating this. I do want to see this featured, but it's not there yet." From reading this statement, it appears that he wants some action from the opposers right now and he wants Xandar and I to take our time responding to this list. I agree with Xandar here. I think that in order to satisfy what Raul has directed us to do, we need to post a message on the page of each objector asking for a list on the talk page. Then Xandar and I are to take our time addressing the list. Xandar, I would like to ask you to post this message if you have time. Let me know if you can not do this. Thanks.

I'm not sure where you got the "right now" part of Raul's message, and I'm concerned that you may be overlooking the part about "take some time and address the remaining issues prior to renominating this". That's a clear indication that it's not expected to come back right away, as time is needed. I agree with Karanacs that 1) reviewers (and you) need a break, 2) a message to them now is likely to get the result of them responding that their opposes are already listed on the FAC and haven't changed, and 3) I still recommed an orderly prioritized approach (prose/MoS opposes can be addressed after POV/sourcing and organization/flow are worked out). For example, Awadewit mentioned on the FAC that she'd have a list of sources after her (week?) travel; that's a great first starting place, and might be worth asking her about before moving on to other issues. I'd also reiterate something another editor mentioned weeks ago (can't recall the exact wording, but it's in your talk archive):[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] a good way for the RCC FAC to move forward might be for you and Xandar to participate at FAC and get a sense of how other FACs are conducted by nominators. Best of luck whatever you decide, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, Awadewit and all other opposers will never revisit the page if we do not invite them to. What you are telling me and what I am reading in Raul's message are not the same thing. Just so you and I are on the same page, I do not intend to resubmit this for FAC right away and I intend to follow Raul's suggestion to "take our time" in responding to opposes. We may never resubmit if we think that you and Tony are not going to give us fair consideration. We are not feeling very loved by either of you right now (or ever in the past). I may seek some advice from Raul before approaching this again. I dont want to waste two months at FAC again. NancyHeise (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree you have to prompt opposers to revisit; I'm just suggesting that rather than ask them all at once, you go back to the list of opposes,[9] and prioritize an order of approach, so you don't end up with just another restart of a restart of a restart with reviewers responding that their opposes have already been explained. Awadewit promised a list of sources, which would be an excellent starting place, while asking for example that Tony or Wackymacs address prose issues would make more sense after the other work is done. Again, I submit the best way to address the feelings you have about FAC is to get more involved with other FACs; if you do that, you'll find that I've never worked as hard for any FAC as I have for this one, and that Tony gave this FAC no more or less attention than he gives any other. I also don't think you've "wasted" any time at FAC; the article has continually improved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I answered all opposes speedily. No one went back to strike through. Awadewit said she'd be back in a week with sources to support her insupportable position -that was two weeks ago. I cant work with this. NancyHeise (talk) 04:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe (I could have this wrong) that in addition to the travel that she mentioned, Awadewit is currently working on her thesis. She's also a very busy editor, copyediting, reviewing and passing GAs, reviewing FACs, and writing her own FAs, so it wouldn't be at all unusual or unexpected for you to ping her to remind her of the list of sources she mentioned on the FAC. I do think pinging her for the info she mentioned on sourcing could be a most helpful next step, and that pinging all the other Opposers would logically follow after incorporating any new sources she might provide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I would counsel not pinging anyone, except perhaps Awadewit if she promised some sources that haven't yet materialised. My approach would be to take a hard look at the objections raised during the last FAC, try to summarise them, and then make sure each was addressed before taking the article back to FAC. In particular, make certain that you're happy with the structure of the article. There will still inevitably be objections from some reviewers no matter what you do, but I think that so many changes on the fly during the last nomination did fragment the prose somewhat; it's hard to get that right until the article settles down. Those who object to "supernatural religions" as a matter of course will likely still object, but that's life. Just my 2p worth, feel free to ignore. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed these entries after writing the "FAC admired" one below. No, Malleus, you're not getting it. I may be a religion hater, but I'm also a video-game and pop-music hater. These inner views have to be put to one side when reviewing FA nominations, and I feel that I do that—it's a matter of being professional. I see reviewing as responding to a complex set of technical matters, not of pushing any ideological agenda that I might have. Big difference. TONY (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Malleus. Your approach as far as I can see, is not the approach suggested by the FA Director. He said that objectors should place their specific objections to the article as it is now. The sense of that approach is that we get to see a complete list of what the remaining objections actually are, and can then address them outside of the fevered pitch of FAC, so that when the article returns to FAC only minor matters are left. We do not want another 2 month, 800k FAC. The objections remaining at the 4th FAC session are a confused mess, largely of vagueness, with people not having struck out addressed objections, or failing to specify exactly what they were objecting to. That is why all remaining objectors need to sort out what they still object to and specify that precisely on the Article's talk page so their objections can be addressed. This is more a suspension of the FAC process, than a new one, and editors would expect that ALL remaining objections will be raised at this time. If any objectors do not make use of this opportunity, I think it will reflect extremely negatively on any objections they choose to raise when the article returns to FAC. Xandar (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the reasons many of the opposes were not struck is that the reviewers did not feel that their oppose was adequately addressed. This is why Sandy's suggestion of summarizing the past FAC as a starting point is a good idea. I understand that you do not think that some changes are necessary, but taking the objections together as a whole rather than focusing on each specific objection might help to put things in a little better perspective. Please also note that since the FAC is closed they are not obligated to spend hours trying to pinpoint more detailed issues, and many won't make the effort if they feel their larger issues (already on the FAC) were not addressed to their satisfaction. Not everyone is as persistent as I am ;) Karanacs (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is that people were not being specific, and we wiill get nowhere now by taking a confused mass of old and vague objections, many satisfied, others not, and trying to address them. Most of them are too vague to address anyway, and need to be specified. We spent much time at the FAC trying to pin down what exactly was being objected to. This cannot continue. The FAC is not so much closed, as suspended, per the FA Director's comments, in which he asked that all objectors provide specific remaining objections so that they can be dealt with before re-presentation. If their objections are genuine and constructive, I do not see what objectors have to fear from this simple process. If people cannot be bothered to make the effort to co-operate and make their continued objections plainly and clearly, then they cannot expect objections they make at a future FAC to be taken seriously. There has to be some end the process of saying they have vague objections on POV or style, but can't be bothered to specify. The editors can no longer try to define by psychic powers what exactly these people are objecting to. Similarly, objectors insisting that their view of History is preferable to that in the article need to bring good reliable academic authorities to back their position, not just assert a position and keep their objection standing. Xandar (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) I know this is a relatively small point, but it's perhaps worth clarifying that Raul654 did not simply suspend the nomination; he quite explicitly failed it. I say this mostly because X seems to believe the opposite, and perhaps also because thinking of it merely as a suspension is getting in the way of the wholesale rethinking that, as I've said, I believe is necessary. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The FAC is archived, which means closed. Further clarification: it was not failed because it was too long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC admired

Dear Nancy, although I'm one of your worst ideological detractors—and quite rude to boot—I do want to congratulate you on the continual improvement of the RCC article during its second nomination; I hope you're not too upset at its archiving. It's hard for editors who are passionately involved in the subject to distance themselves from it in a way that produces the kind of NPOV that WP wants. But we need a good article on the institution, since it's such an important part of understanding the past two millennia, and even the current world. I can't guarantee that I won't make further negative comments next time, but I do believe that it can and will be promoted. TONY (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this very professional and respecful comment. I respond positively to all people regardless of ideological perspective when we all treat each other as intelligent human beings. Yes, I am upset that the FAC was archived and I personally feel that many objections were poorly made and not in any way reflective of FAC criteria. When I substantially addressed what I was able to address, comments were left unstruck by opposers who never came back to see if their comments were addressed. Others asked us to do things that were unthinkable, like Awadewit's comment to eliminate the first part of the history section - something that is unsupported by any historian (whom she promised to come give sources to support her position that there was no Roman Catholic Church prior to the 4th century). Many FAC reviewers contradicted each other in their desires for change. Some complained the article was too long, others wanted more content and expansion of existing content. No effort seemed to be made by Wikipedia to understand that many comments were non-addressable vague condemnations of the entire article that did not provide specifics to support the condemnation - like Karanacs constant accusation that we picked only the good things out of history. We repeatedly asked for examples of notable controversies that were not included. No one could pin this for us. So we were left with oppose votes on the page we could not address. Sandy's final comment to Raul before it was archived was a complaint that it was just too long for her to manage. We were archived after all that work because the project was controversial - it will be controversial again no matter how many FAC's we go through - some people just hate the RCC and we can't change that. At what point will Wikipedia make the effort to actually look at the opposes and judge whether they are actionable or not? I feel that this was never done and I also feel that Sandy has a tight relationship with many opposers and defers to their judgement incorrectly and unfairly and I use her comments about Awadewit above as an example. Awadewit's oppose was based on a very radical POV of Catholic history. It is so radical, that it is not part of Encyclopedia Britannica nor any of our top sources. Even National Geographic, no friend of the RCC, admits that the Roman Church existed from the beginning and that Peter was its first bishop. This book is part of our list of references. Yet Awadewit's oppose based on her unsupported radical POV is being coddled by Sandy. I can not spend time on this project if it will not receive the kind of attention from knowledgeable, non-POV people who will pass it on its merits not on whether its too much work or not. NancyHeise (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, I'm concerned and surprised at how much you have misunderstood. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could expand on this? I have no idea what happens behind the scenes, but Nancy is entitled to feel very frustrated at seeing very poor articles like Crackdown fly through the process, whilst endless vague or unadressable objections are made to RCC, many by people refusing to particularise their objections or to engage with editors on achieving a solution. Xandar (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Promised research

• Awadewit said she'd be back in a week with sources to support her insupportable position -that was two weeks ago. I cant work with this. - First, I already included a single source for my claims in the FAC - what I promised were additional sources. Second, I am extremely busy writing my dissertation and two conference papers. Many editors on Wikipedia ask me to review articles and I also edit articles as well. Please try to understand that all of us have multiple demands on our time. I hope to be able to get to this soon. The resistance I met at the FAC and the snide tone I encountered above, however, do not in any way make me want to dedicate my extremely limited time to this endeavor. I understand you are frustrated, but you are pushing editors who might otherwise want to help away. Awadewit (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

All of us have time problems. If you are objecting to an article, and intend to keep your objection standing, you need to back it up. Article writers and editors do not have to accept your view of history without solid proof that it is accurate - especially when it goes against the majority of cited references. If you term this "resistance" perhaps you misunderstand the objection process. You did not withdraw your objection and provided very little to back it up. You should have done one or the other, and been prepared to come to an agreed consensus. Xandar (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than provide no sources, as you claim, I actually did back up my objection with reliable sources - both the points about the early church history and the point about the 18th century. Instead of constantly accusing editors of misunderstanding the process, you might consider carefully thinking about their objections. Awadewit (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Others asked us to do things that were unthinkable, like Awadewit's comment to eliminate the first part of the history section - something that is unsupported by any historian (whom she promised to come give sources to support her position that there was no Roman Catholic Church prior to the 4th century). - This is a gross misrepresentation of what I asked for at the FAC and I provided a source for my claims at the FAC. This is an example of why I am reluctant to continue any efforts to research and/or edit this article. Awadewit (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You said that you wanted the position that the Church didn't begin until the 4th or 5th century to be in the article. That is undeniable. The only source you provided was a single fringe historian, who has been connected with the Da Vinci Code, and you provided nothing specific even from him. This is not enough to alter the article to reflect a tiny minority position. You do have to ENGAGE in the FAC process. We are always glad of constructive help and criticism, and have taken many suggestions from FAC editors, but we cannot do your research for you, or accept your beliefs as facts when they go against the scholarly consensus. Xandar (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked that a misleading series of insinuations be removed from the article based on the work of a tenured professor of religious studies, Bart D. Ehrman, and I gave a reference to his published work. Yes, he has written another book assessing whether or not the Da Vinci Code is factually accurate. Check out his credentials and the reviews of his works if you are skeptical. I would never ask anyone to accept a claim without evidence and I am glad that you demand it as well. Since the scholarly consensus is that the Church did not coalesce until the fourth century, however, I am glad that we agree that this fact should be changed. For references, see The Cambridge History of Christianity (2006), Hastings, A World History of Christianity (1999), Frend, The Rise of Christianity (1984). It will take me some time to type out the relevant quotations on the article's talk page and I'm not sure how much research I am expected to do for you, but that is something to get you started. Awadewit (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit, Xandar is not agreeing with your position, he is disputing it, please read his response again. If you want to know how unlikely we are to use Bart Ehrman as a source, please read this article in the Chronicle Review [10] accusing him of "scholarly malpractice". He is portrayed here as a radical historian who has been roundly criticized by his fellow scholars. In addition, none of your sources assert that there was no Roman Church before the 4th century. NancyHeise (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You have misunderstood me again - Xandar agreed that we should use the scholarly consensus. I pointed him to that consensus, which is that the Church did not coalesce until the fourth century, so I assumed he would want to use that consensus. Second, I see you have pointed to reviews of Ehrman's Judas book, not the book I was citing. I have cited a much less controversial book, with much less controversial material. You have now written "none of your sources assert that there was no Roman Church before the 4th century", but you seem to continually misunderstand what I am saying. Of course there was a Roman church. There was also one in Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, etc. As the books I am pointing to amply demonstrate, Rome was not the center of Christianity, but the RCC article suggests that the Roman Church was, especially doctrinally. That is what I am trying to change in the article - this emphasis on the Roman church being at the center of Christianity in the first four centuries - it was not. These books amply demonstrate that. I assume since you can confidently assert what these books say, that have said that you have read all of them? Awadewit (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A, Raul has expressed (see his talk page) a desire to consolidate this to Talk:Roman Catholic Church, which he is now watchlisting, so I'm going to copy this to there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

History of the Roman Catholic Church

A FA is only as strong as it's weakest link. The problem is not the article, but that the article has no base to rest on. The history article is very, very poor. This is a problem for the wikiproject as a whole. I have been working on the individual Catholic diocese articles, we are at several thousand now from only roughly 300 article previous. Most of the organisational problems have been sorted out so you can actually find the articles now. I understand that consensus for pull out the history section is not there, but the history article needs to be improved and expanded. It could easily be split itself into sub articles, defining each period of the Church. It would take extreme pressure off the top article, which is being asked to do too much right now. Please leave me a message at my talk page and we can go into this further. Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually working on a proposal to trim down the history section in the main RCC article, which would allow the details currently in that section to go into History of the Roman Catholic Church. I'm going to let it percolate for a week or two and then propose it at Talk:Roman Catholic Church. Karanacs (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I am all for updating the present history article on the Catholic Church. I am not for eliminating the history section from the present RCC article which is really just a summary, not a full blown history which is what the actual history article should be. We need the present history section in RCC because it contains our criticisms that are necessary to mention. If we pull the history section we will still have a history section except it will be entitled Criticisms as the entire history is full of opposing views. Please consider expansion of the present article on church history in a way that goes beyond what we have in RCC. No pressure is taken off of the RCC article by eliminating history, it only adds more problems. This is just my opinion. Please feel free to consult with the other editors and see what they think. Thanks for your input. NancyHeise (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not just the criticisms - the history section is also a great place to list some of the good things the Church has done for civilization - art and architecture, schools, etc. Karanacs (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

These, always few, were mostly removed after comments in the last but one FAC. If the history section is removed there will be further floods of "what about the Crusades/Inquisition/South American Indians/Nazis" type comments. But the current history article is woefully inadequate & should be greatly expanded - in fact I suspect better existing articles on smaller periods or aspects exist, and should be dug out & set up as "mains" for it. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not in agreement with your ideas here Johnbod. But I want to hear all opinions. Maybe we can all come up with an acceptable compromise in the end after some discussion. Raul did not favor a complete rewrite which is what I am hearing here. NancyHeise (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Shall we revise together?"

Nancy, per my recent comment on the RCC talk page. Awadewit has put in a tremendous amount of work evaluating the article's sources. She is one of Wikipedia's best editors. She knows what she is doing. If you can work with her, I swear, this article will be a certain pass at FAC. Believe me. Take up that opportunity that she is offering you. It is the single best option for this article that I have seen for the entire time I've been following it. She will work hard, and make you work hard, but it will be worth it. Together, if you can work together, you will produce one of the best articles on this site. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

JB, I cant work with someone who calls the best sources available and even ones used by Encycopedia Brittanica - "poor sources". Her radical POV comments about the RCC did not do a great deal to convince me that she knows what she is talking about. I will not coddle her as you and Sandy have done. She has offered her research which proves her earlier points about the origin of the RCC were incorrect. Now she wants to include a whole paragraph on the fact that the early churches met in homes - which all scholars agree upon and is not new information as she promised to give us. NancyHeise (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, I'm not coddling Awadewit. (She needs not coddling in any case!) I'm just saying that this is a great opportunity for you, and above all for the article. I have seen Awadewit work, especially with my students on El Señor Presidente. I can not speak highly enough of her abilities. I urge you to find a way to work with her, rather than against here. NB this does not mean that you have to agree with her on everything. But the article would come out of this in much better shape; it would be (I'm prepared to bet good money) a certain pass at FAC. And to boot, I think you would learn a lot about writing for Wikipedia, that would help you work on subsequent articles. Again, believe me. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

JB, I am all for working with people. How can you expect me to work with someone who comes in and suggests we toss all of our top reliable sources in favor of others, one of whom, Bart Ehrman, has been accused of scholarly malpractice from the entire biblical scholar community? Yet she insists we use his book that recieved good reviews four years before he is accused of deliberately misinterpreting the Gospel of Judas and perpetuating a fraud? (for money!) NancyHeise (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

But there's the opportunity for give and take here. Again, you don't have to agree with everything. She is saying there is a problem with the current sources. (And she is far from alone on this; you know that this problem will re-arise with any future FAC.) She is suggesting others. You disagree with some suggestions: tell her you don't think that Ehrman is appropriate. That's fine. But again, there has to be give and take, working together rather than thinking in terms of attack and defence. Again: the article will improve as a result. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) And it is not right to call Awadewit some kind of POV warrior. Her "POV" is in favor of scholarly sources. As such, I completely agree with it. But it is not either for or against the RCC. You can, I am sure, find better scholarly sources. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has a problem with additional scholarly sources. (Though whether Ehrman counts is a moot point.) What some of us worry about is the unjustified vilification of Vidmar and Norman and the insistence that they should be removed as sources. I am not particularly wedded to either, but I see no good reason why either should be debarred from use, especially as examples of legitimate schools of historical scholarship. I'm quite prepared to work with Awadewit, but she does seem to have a strong POV which goes against an extremely long and well-established academic consensus. Hopefully amicable agreement can be reached. Xandar (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sadly it may be too late. The problem is (as I've tried to say repeatedly) that Nancy, in particular, is acting as though she were "wedded" to the current sources. Awadewit and others have put forward serious arguments as to why other sources should be sought. There are plenty of other sources out there. It is not as though Vidmar and Norman are the only people who have written about the history of the Roman Catholic Church. You may not like the sources that Awadewit proposes, but surely you can find others that are more amenable to everyone. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm getting a distinct feeling of lateral thinking here.[11]. I don't think this line of reasoning is going to bring the article to FAC, ever. I think open engagement with people like Awadewit is needed, to distance the wood from the trees. You can counter-argument of course, but ye need to engage and if not agree, meet in a balanced middle ground. Ceoil (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nancy, can I offer a word of advice? Please don't misrepresent people's statements or demands - it often leads to conflict and sore feelings. First, I never demanded that you use Ehrman as a source in the article. When citing it at the FAC, I simply said it was the most accessible version of the view that I was citing. I have now cited a 1600 page, 2-volume Cambridge History that says the same thing, but I thought that Ehrman would be an easier book for you to read if you hadn't heard of the idea before. Second, the version of the first paragraph of the "History" that I suggested does not include anything about homes - I provided those quotations as background information to show the editors on the page what I was talking about. Finally, your statements reveal that you are not carefully reading what people are writing and I think that is leading to a lot of confusion. Whether you believe it or not, I really do want to find the best academic works and see what they say about these topics. However, that takes a lot of time and patience. None of the questions we are trying to answer here is easy. So, for example, the question of when the Roman church coalesced as a church is far from easy to figure out (this is not the same as when the Roman church was founded, by the way). We need to proceed carefully and try to figure out what different people say, what their evidence is, etc. However, the atmosphere on the article talk page right now precludes this. If you really want this article to be topnotch, this kind of debate must proceed slowly and carefully with much running to the library and consulting of books. It can be wonderfully fun, but we all have to be willing to admit we are wrong and we all have to be working toward the same goal. Right now, I'm not sure we are working towards the same goal. Right now, I think that the editors are working towards a featured article, come hell or high water. It is often best to work towards an article of the highest quality - the featured part naturally follows from that. Awadewit (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Ceoil above, please read Raul's comment here regarding issues pertaining to rewrite [12]. NancyHeise (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nancy with respect, Raul's word is not written in stone, and should not be used as a sheild. Believe me I appreciate and understand the massive effort that has brought such a substantial article to this stage - I'm just searching for a way forward from here. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ceoil. the idea of ripping the article up and re-writing virtually from scratch would get us nowhere. And make no mistake, that is what trying to eliminate the History section would do. (See my remarks in JBMurray's section of the RCC Talk page.) An action like that would sabotage the article and give it massively less chance of reaching FA in the foreseeable future. There is no demand for a total reorganization and rewrite, and no-one has made any valid case for such an act. Diverting our effort onto such a pointless task is a red-herring, akin to being sent on the run-around, and I would lean toward thinking it a mischievous suggestion. That is why we think the process of finding out exactly what people specifically object to in the article is the right one to follow. Xandar (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Was cross posted to my talk. Replied on Xandar's talk. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Awadewit, I do not apprecitate being told that scholarly works from top scholars with bibliographies and footnotes and that meet WP policies as reliable sources and are used by Encyclopedia Brittanica or represent a significant POV that WP:NPOV requires us to include - are poor based on your unsubstantiated claims that I provided links to refute on the article talk page. If this page does not make FAC, it will be because Sandy and Raul are listening to you guys instead of looking at the evidence provided to refute your claims. I do not consider it a collaborative effort when someone is deliberately ignoring Wikipedia policies and making claims about perfectly good sources that are incorrect. NancyHeise (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Nancy, you are the only one making incorrect claims. Not all of the works have bibliographies and footnotes, as I have documented, and none of the works are used by Britannica ("Additional readings" is not the same as "Works Cited"). Sandy and Raul are listening to us because we have backed up our claims. I see no reason to continue a conversation in which I have to repeat myself and which you continue to assert claims that are patently false. Awadewit (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Per [13] my sources are not listed as further reading by encyclopedia Brittanica, they are listed as sources used to create it, a Bibliography. Per this library [[14] the Norman book includes a bibliography contrary to your claim. The Vidmar book has bibliography and footnotes also contrary to your claim. I am tired of having to defend perfectly good sources and this does not help the article at all. NancyHeise (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, at the same time that you say you are tired of defending your sources, you dismiss every other source offered for use in the history section. Those two positions do not go well together. Karanacs (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats quite a comment Karanacs. Especially since the bibliography of the RCC article is one of the largest on Wikipedia. I have only rejected authors like Ehrman who are disrespected by their peers and/or radical POV's per Wikipedia policy. NancyHeise (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI: Main page day

Hi Nancy, I don't know if you subscripe to the WP:SIGNPOST, but I just got around to reading the last one and noticed that it had a great article on what happens the day an article reaches the main page. There is no doubt that Roman Catholic Church will appear on the main page after it passes FAC (probably very soon after). This might be a good link to keep around until then so you'll know what to expect. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-09/Dispatches. Karanacs (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate that very helpful advice and I will be considering all these things before ever deciding to bring the article to FAC. Right now, I think that I need to do some more research and add a few important things to the article. I am also going to seek out some academic experts who are not Wikipedia editors to come see the article and give me their professional opinions both on content and prose. Hopefully it will be acceptable to the FAC reviewers next time around. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nancy

Congratulations on the amount of work you have done on the Catholic Church article. --WikiCats (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks WikiCats. Thanks for your kindness to me. I really appreciate it. NancyHeise (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Nancy,

Thank you for your kind words of consolation, and the selfless advice you gave to me on my talk page. It is people like you who make me see that the world is not the dreadful place I often think it to be. Your kindness to me will never be forgotten. Love, Jeffpw (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was just very sorry to see you grieving so much when there are so many ways to continue to love people even after they have passed away. NancyHeise (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Have a great break, if I've caught you in time. I think we all need one! Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Fish

Hello. Not sure whether or not you've been asked this before (I'm reluctant to go nosing around in other people's archives) but what sort of fish are those on your userpage? They're HUGE.. Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi - sorry to get back to you a month later about your fish question (you asked me what kind of fish I caught as pictured on my user page). The fish is a Halibut. I'm not exactly sure how big it was but we guessed at about 80lbs. These fish are commonly caught in Alaskan waters and can grow to over 400lbs. They are extremely good white meat fish (as opposed to red meat salmon also caught in AK waters) and freeze well. We go every summer and bring back about three coolers of both halibut and salmon that we eat all year and share with family and friends. I took a lot of pictures this summer and will be hopefully improving the Wikiepdia page on Kodiak after they are uploaded and I have time to spend on the project. NancyHeise (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Meetup

Wikipedia:Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite - I RSVP'd with a regret. I'd love to go though. Maybe we can have one of these over here on the East Coast of FL soon. NancyHeise (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I created and nominated this picture for Featured status

Mountain roses and sitka spruce overlooking Raspberry Straight on Raspberry Island (Alaska)

- If anyone wishes to vote, please do so here [15] NancyHeise (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Raspberry Island

Nice work on expanding the Raspberry Island (Alaska)‎ article! I especially like the photos you added! --Kralizec! (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It made my vacation more fun taking pictures that I knew I could put to a good use. NancyHeise (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nancy. Nice to see you back from the Frozen North! It looks quite nice up there - but I've heard that biting insects are a big problem. I'm afraid the only beaches I have access to in Yorkshire are sheeting down with rain most of this summer. I've done a little work on the RCC article while you've been away, but not as much as I'd hoped, and there's still much to be done. The length of the History and Origins sections has come up for debate. The sections are a bit rough text-flow-wise atm after trimming, but we need to deal with the extent and balance of the content first. Welcome back! Xandar (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I know England is very beautiful in the summer, I hope you are out enjoying all that English outdoor beauty somehow. Yes, we encountered our share of biting insects. Some advice - if you ever go hiking in Alaska, take some good strong bug spray with you. Fortunately, the bugs shun the woods and the windy beaches and are never out on the water. I went over the RCC article. I could see that it had been trimmed but I felt that in doing so, the "brilliance" was thus eliminated. For instance, in the section covering the controversy about WWII - elimination of Pope JP II's actual apology to Jews, I felt, made the information kind of blah. I thought that inclusion of the actual quote made the article more interesting and worth reading. We need to be careful not to eliminate the things that make the article particularly "brilliant" (a FAC criteria). If it's boring, it's blah. I am not in favor of some other trims either and I actually have more info to add (see above). Perhaps I can just add what I want to add and then lets do a rearrange and trim of the info. If you don't like it we can toss it or put it into another article. NancyHeise (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that's one of the problems here - setting the appropriate level of detail for the article, and balancing that against over-all article length. Most of the pressure over the past few weeks has been to shorten. But that may not be representative. I take it you have looked at Karanacs suggested shortening? I think that goes too far in many respects. I take your point about having colour and interest in the article rather than being too bland. The cuts I made were hopefully less controversial, but by all means if you think something important was removed, put it back. I was just trying to find the right balance between having too much detail and having a piece that tells you nothing of interest. I've got a new book on the early church, further to comments on that section, and I hope to be adding to the relevant sections of the article too. I'm also not too happy with the Eucharist section, which seems over-complicated atm. PS I can't really see myself hiking in Alaska after seeing that film about grizzly bears! Xandar (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a healthy fear of bears myself, I pray a lot of Rosaries in AK :) Re: RCC, I am going to insert my new info before considering any cuts. I agree with you that the Mass section is way too complicated and could be simplified. I read Benedict's book "Jesus" this summer and dog eared several areas that could improve the Beliefs section - he says what we were trying to say but he says it even better - it will meet the "Brilliant" criteria. I think we can shorten the article by using that approach - finding scholars who can say the same thing we are trying to say but in a more concise and interesting way. NancyHeise (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Quotations can be very useful, but some, particularly from theologians, can be very jargon-filled and impenetrable. We need to be sure to select the brilliant ones! On bears, what would worry me the most is that there appear to be two types of bears, which you have to do opposite things to pacify! What pacifies one type, enrages the other, and vice versa! So, in the few seconds left to you, you have to identify the bear, determine its species, and then remember which set of actions is the right one. Maybe praying the Rosary IS best. Xandar (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. NancyHeise (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Neat Person

Thank you, I am flattered. I remember what you told me about your religious experience. It has served to heighten my zeal. Tourskin (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should be a priest. NancyHeise (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There is one thing that is stopping me from being a priest - a desire to start a family. If it is God's will that I be priest, then I beg him to remove this. However, I once did wish to be a priest, but was stopped. I now realize that if I had joined a seminary at the young age of 16, it would have been the right thing for the wrong reasons. Priest or not, I intend to be a doctor, so if I do become a priest, I may heal people spiritually and physically. Tourskin (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an alternative path that remains very attractive to me. Because I am an Eastern Rite Catholic, it is possible for me to start a family and then join the Priesthood. This is not acceptable in the Latin rite for reasons I agree with. I use to believe that only a path dedicated entirely to God or not all existed. In any case, I am currently training to be a deacon, which will take 8 years of theology and teaching, starting now!Tourskin (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin, I know several priests, the desire to have a family does not go away, it is something you choose to give up in order to follow God's invitation - it is a sacrifice - and something that makes a person's prayers loud and acceptable to God. I have a priest friend I love very much and for whom I pray for often. I was subtitute teaching one day at my kids school (Catholic) about six years ago and was on a break. I went to visit the Blessed Sacrament in the Church and while I was walking down the aisle to go sit in a pew, I had a profound religious experience of Jesus say to me "Honor your father" - the meaning to me was quite clear, he was telling me to honor my spiritual father, this priest. I have met several more people who consider this priest their spiritual father and I truly believe that when Jesus told his apostles that whoever gives up something, including wife and children to follow God's call, will receive much more - he was not kidding. I wrote a corny poem once when I gave a gift to our parish priests on Father's Day but it sums up for me the true meaning of being someone's father:

"Who can deserve it?

I don't suppose I knows..

the name of "Father" more,

than he who father's souls."

If you are wondering who is the special priest that I love and pray for, who Jesus told me to "honor", his name is Fr. Arthur Dennison, he is the pastor of Church of the Little Flower in Coral Gables, Florida [16]. He speaks five languages, does quite a lot to help the poor in Miami and abroad, and has been a priest for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami for over 35 years. He is a very sweet, humble and holy person, a heterosexual man who gave up the possibility of having a wife and children to follow God's call, and has done a tremendous job throughout. NancyHeise (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, I just came to the same conclusion myself. Recently, I confess I had to fight lust. I am a young man, and you probably know well how much of a mortal danger lust is to young men and even to older ones. I realized that if God had taken away my Lust, then my victory would not have existed, for the battle did not exist. Therefore, to be a priest, I must take up the cross and bear suffering at first, then enjoy Christ's wisdom. However, what has put my mind at a little doubt is that I only started seriously reconsidering being a priest after I had been rejected by two woman asking them out - they were the only ones I have asked out in my life. That is why I began to consider, "maybe God does not want me to be with a woman"? Priesthood is not taken up because one is rejected by women - then again, being a priest makes sense. I still really do want to serve God and be married. Right now I am trying to be a doctor. Therefore, if God's will is that I marry, or that I marry the Church as a priest, right now I will not need to make the decision because the paths won't diverge until after I (hopefully) enter and finish med school. Tourskin (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This [17] priest of the Archdiocese of Miami is also a cardiologist. It seems that a lot of the new priests coming out of the seminaries, are men who have had another career before giving in to God's call. One of the priests, I think in the Palm Beach Diocese is a widowed grandfather. Regarding lust - all people have sexual desire - when you get married it does not go away. Homosexual people have sexual desire, unmarried people have sexual desire, it is part of being in a human body. You think that only priests have to figure out how to be celibate? No. We are all called to chasitity and the Church teaches us ways to turn that desire into something useful. Instead of fantasizing about someone you love and find sexually attractive, try praying for that person instead. What really helps someone's soul is love. Love is what makes your prayer to God loud. We will never be ashamed for keeping God's commandment to love. It is how we express that love that determines if we are helping or harming that person's soul. I have another priest friend who was engaged to be married before he gave in to God's call. Did he stop loving this woman? Perhaps he is helped to be a good priest because he has a woman who loves him and prays for his success in doing God's will. I believe that is what Mother Mary and Mary Magdalene and the other women did for the disciples after the death and resurrection of Jesus. I think that the disciples would not have been able to fulfill their duties if they did not have the women doing their duty praying for them and for those they were ministering to. I think that is why Jesus did not give the priesthood to women, they have an equally important and complimentary role to the priests. We love them in prayer and are given duties "connected with spreading the Gospel". St. Bernard of Clarivaux wrote to the Countess of Brittany "Whereever I go, I feel you close to me. Just go to the bottom of your heart and you will find mine." I saw a TV show about a seminary and the vocations director was asked what he looked for in a potential seminarian. He said he wanted to know if the man had ever been in love, that he felt it was important for a priest to experience this. I think that whenever we follow God's call, he rewards us with love - in the greatest degree and satisfaction. St. Teresa of Avila also made this observation. So my prayer for you is to not be afraid to follow God's call, he will help you through it if you put your trust in him. NancyHeise (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Then for now, I shall live my normal life. Chastity and celibacy are different though - and I have never lost my chastity to another person, so I (wrongly?) imagine a married life is easier than an unmarried one. If I happen to experience a strong call to God, then I shall join. Tourskin (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just follow the Holy Spirit. Its really easy. If we want to know God's will, he is not going to keep it hidden from us. I am working on the Roman Catholic Church for exactly that reason. It is important to have a page on the Church that gives people the facts. I am happy to be working on something that does just that. I wish more intellectuals and academics would see how important it is and offer to help but they just laugh at me when I tell them. I am praying that God's grace will help them reconsider. NancyHeise (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol I had to go to your page to see if you had replied.. yes, follow the Holy Spirit. By the way though, I now remember why I thought about being a priest - I was just sitting and thinking, and rationally concluded that the only way to serve God is to do so with utmost faith, with the greatest effort. If God is the greatest, then the greatest amount of time should be given to him, even though he only demands an hour a week from most people, and also prayers to him (Mass + plus taxes,lol!). And therefore I concluded that being a Priest could achieve this. If I become a priest, it is not because so I will lead sheep, but because I want to rigorously defend Christ's Church on Earth. God gave me good academic skills, not so much leadership skills, although I make many friends quickly. With these academic skills I can try to give people the knowledge that they are missing. Tell me though, what do you think of marrying and then becoming a priest? I know that as a Latin Rite Christian you ma object, and I, and Eastern Rite Catholic, did not consider this option until recently. The official position of the Pope is that this is ok for Eastern Rites. Tourskin (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if I am a qualified person to answer your question. I think you need to ask God that question and see what he thinks. I will do what I know I can do for you - to pray for you to know God's will. NancyHeise (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your prayers and for this very meaningful conversation. Until next time and may God bless you. Tourskin (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What do youthink o this template I did?

Tourskin (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it is describing you :) NancyHeise ^talk 00:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You give me too much credit; I only made the template as a call to challenge others. I can imagine David calling out loud to others. Tourskin (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Influence

I do think this section is important, and can't really be left out. The section is headed Cultural influence, precisely to limit the remit to that aspect of the Church's effect upon the wider world. The point about spreading Christianity and the social benefits of that is important, and could be mentioned, but it would need to be brief and VERY carefully written to avoid POV and raising controversy. As for POV elements of the rest; much is pretty uncontroversial. Negative cultural effects i hadn't really considered. The main things would be the Galileo affair, with accusations that the church stifled science and creativity, and the status of women, which are important topics to briefly address. That would provide balance within the section and be quite useful in addressing these issues. Xandar (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to experimenting with this. NancyHeise (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC) )

Nancy_Heise talk 15:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nancy_Heise talk 15:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

NancyHeise(talk) 16:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

NancyHeise ^talk 16:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

NancyHeise ^talk 16:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

NancyHeise ^talk 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced paganism with infanticide in this section, since all religions consider opposing faiths to be "pagan", and the word also holds a lot of value judgements that could cause trouble later. Infanticide, however, is something that factually Christianity has opposed and helped eliminate. The rest of the additions are an improvement, however we do need to mention some critical views. Now let's see if the sig works... Xandar 22:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Smart. By the way, nice signature! NancyHeise ^talk 00:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Christianity

Carlaude, you are eliminating referenced facts from this page. Please explain to me why? They are university press and top scholarly works and you are providing no information to back up your edits. NancyHeise talk 18:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Tell me which and I will repond.

All edits so far have been on merit, but soon I will cut for size, as this section on RCC is longer than it needs to be.--Carlaude ^(talk) 19:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude, these are your edits eliminating highly referenced facts or inserting wording not in the references [18] [19] [20]

Please do not continue to eliminate referenced facts, that is considered vandalism. You need to discuss why we need to eliminate and build consensus, not just eliminate before someone is even finished trying to improve a page and do so without any reason or reference to back up the changes. NancyHeise ^talk 19:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Christianity#Christianity.23Roman_Catholic_Church

Let me ask you first if you, as a Roman Catholic, think being a Christian is the same as being a baptized Christian? can you be baptized and not a Christian?--Carlaude (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence reflects the reference. If you think that being a Christian means you are baptized, they why do we even need to say it? I only want the sentence to reflect the reference. I may mislead the reader to think that the sentence means only baptized persons and not those who have identified themselves as such on goverment census. Since one of the references is the United States CIA World Factbook, we need to leave the word "baptized" out and let the sentence represent the referenced facts only. NancyHeise ^talk 21:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nancy, for your response. I agree in principle with everything you say. However, we should not be too detailed, e.g. give figures how many schools are operated (and I am afraid an illmeaning person will take this as advertisement) and also not include things that are not specific in regard to informing the reader briefly about the various denominations. So while I agree that the Church of Rome is the oldest institution in the world, I think it should not be included in this article (however, it should be at articles about the RCC and the papacy). The impact on western culture is applicable for all of Christianity (though the RCC certainly carries the larger part). History is also largely covered in a separate section. I hope by now you will agree with my "first define, then count" view and will not revert it again. Regards, Str1977 ^(talk) 18:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

NancyHeise ^talk 17:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• See my reply here...--Carlaude ^(talk) 21:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

I added the image because I hadn’t seen any image of him in the article. I was wrong and deleted it. Good job on working on the article. Bewareofdog 21:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to unrelated subject matter

I believe that it should go to the Pope Benedict XVI page and/or the Íngrid Betancourt article page. I know the Pope would never boast, nor keep track of his success, but I think that this is a noteworthy example of his efforts at promoting world peace. For Betancourt, this is undoubtedly the most central moment in her life, and I am sure that she would agree. Therefore, perhaps we could include it in both of these pages. Whilst there is a lot of relevance to Columbia and the FARC, to me the gist of the story is that the Pope gave hope and love to a person once in a desperate situation. I thank you for letting me give my two cents. Your tireless efforts in Wikipedia have easily earned my respect, so by all means add it in however you see fit. Gabr-el 22:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion and terrific insight. I agree, it should be part of those pages. NancyHeise ^talk 16:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RCC Tag

why is it seen as 'provocative'? I recently was another non-features article page that had the tag (it just got removed) because it tells the reader that there are a whole host of edits coming where the reader might not know. Tells them to take the article perhaps with more of a check on citations. Lihaas (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added a discussion section at Roman Catholic Church to gain consensus of editors for keeping or removal of the tag. NancyHeise ^talk 01:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Halibut

I love those halibut pics in your page. I wonder what u guys did with those fishes. Do you also happen to have some pics for the Halibut page. Docku^Hi 01:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! We filleted those halibut right away, vacuum packed them immediately and froze them in a freezer run twice a day by a generator. Then we packed them in coolers and checked them on the plane as luggage and they are in our freezer here in Florida (the ones that havent yet made it to the dinner table). Yes I have a halibut picture for the halibut page - feel free to use the ones I have uploaded if you like. NancyHeise ^talk 01:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I see, was during vacation. awesome! Well, I like the pic of the huge halibut held by you and your son. Is that ok if i post it on the halibut page, just making sure? (or do you have other pictures of just halibut?) Docku^Hi 02:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, all of my pictures of real halibut have members of my family in them - if you want a picture of just the halibut, I have one I took of a mounted one that was in Mack's Sport Shop in Kodiak. I'll upload it and post it on your talk page. NancyHeise ^talk 02:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I also like the fishes held by you guys because it gives a sense of its size. I will try to post the fish alone and fish with your pics in the halibut page and see how the editors there respond. Docku^Hi 02:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Great idea! I hope it works out. NancyHeise ^talk 02:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I did, pls check it out here at Halibut. Thanks again. Docku^Hi 02:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I love it - especially since you provide a link to the Raspberry Island (Alaska) page which I substantially added content and all the pictures (except for the map at the top)! NancyHeise ^talk 02:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That is great. Docku^Hi 02:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the fish appears to be really white in one of the pictures. Is the difference because it is a different species or just visual artifact? Do you also happen to know the name of the species? Thanks. Docku^Hi 22:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Halibut are flat bottom fish - the underside is white and the upper side is brown. Both eyes of the fish are on the upper side because it rests on the ocean floor on its underside. NancyHeise ^talk 23:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

RCC Peer review

I've seen the progress & of course its mostly fine. I've been having access problems, which of course makes RCC especially difficult because of the size, but will respond soon. Hope the storms are missing you! New fish pics? I'll take a look! Johnbod (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your messages

Thanks for your kind correspondence. First, I'll say that i do not intend to edit-war there. But i shall allow myself to make a few comments for you personally as the major current editor of the article in question. (Just a tiny bit of background on myself: if you'll check the Ru WP, you are certain to see that i am one of the major contributors to Orthodox Christianity-related articles there; a bit here as well). Apropos my fact-tag: it might have been a somewhat clumsy designation of what i meant, though i tried to explain myself better in the edit comment; but my point is that the article's assertion "Through apostolic succession, the Church and many historians believe it to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter" obviously transgresses both NPOV and simple logic. The neutrality is breached because the statement implies (though it does not claim this directly) that the Roman Church has monopoly on these apostolic succession and continuity (a view, which is not exactly proclaimed by RCC herself, let alone Eastern Churches, which would strongly disagree). There is a problem with logic in that statement, in my view, because it appears to blend the quasi-historical continuity with the Vatican doctrine about "the Christian community having been founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter". Pardon my politically incorrect terminology borrowed from the Victorian vocabulary, but the latter phrase is a one of those Romish novelties, pure and simple. I am not going to discuss theology here, but an indisputable fact is that this is a point of doctrinal teaching - not something what secular "historians" would be saying. A more general remark, if i may: Quite frankly, i had last seen the article about a year ago and i was truely impressed by exactly the section that you have consensually bowdlerised. Let me be completely frank: it was the only interesting bit in there. And i mean it. Why? Because all there is in it now one can easily read elsewhere. The article now is a mere repetition of the Roman Catechism. In fact, it is off-topic. For it is not called "Catholic doctrine" or suchlike. The article is supposed to be about quite a specific organisation which is governed by an internationally recognised monarch (the Pope), with an enormous historical baggage of wars, power-struggle, financial machinations, you name it. Now it is a dictrinal propaganda piece. You may brush off what i have said above as my grumbling opinion. But the article ought to explain the term whereby it is designated; otherwise it is just not clear what exactly the topic is and while reading the intro it becomes even less clear as it sounds like a trite sermon. Believe me, this is not the way to write an interesting article in the WP: no one will be reading it beyond a few lines of the soporific intro. The only way is to expound data in a truely arms-length critical approach when a reader cannot see that it was written by proponents of the teaching - and this is exactly what WP:NPOV demands.Muscovite99 (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your observations. Yes, I disagree with your take on the article. When someone types into Wikipedia wondering about Roman Catholic Church, there are certain notable facts I think they would want to know about, these are listed in the lead and expanded upon in the body of the article, complete with the baggage of history you mention above. If a swath of historians consider it to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus, this is a notable fact that is not just a theological POV expounded by the Roman Catholic Church herself. The article mentions that the RCC has made several attempts to reconcile with Eastern Orthodox and considers it a true church of apostolic origin like itself. This can be found in the section on Eucharist as well as History sections. As far as your point about the Beliefs section being off-topic and a mere repetition of the Roman Catechism, none of the many editors who have come to the page or reviewed it over the past six months have ever suggested we eliminate that section but have specifically asked for more information in certain areas. It is included because it is what editors wanted to know about the Roman Catholic Church. Finally, WP:NPOV does not demand that data be offered by critical non-adherents to a topic, it demands that all notable facts be presented with reliable references. Significant minority views must be included as well in proper proportion. The fact that historians for centuries have considered Peter to be the first pope of the Roman Church is referenced to a non-Catholic, arms length, critical and scientific organization called National Geographic Society. This is not me, a Catholic convert making stuff up, this is me, a Wikipedia editor putting notable facts on the RCC page. Please see the difference. NancyHeise ^talk 23:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism on RCC page

I'll keep an eye on the page, but not all the recent IP activity was vandalism. [21] removed the vandalism. If the vandalism gets bad it can be semi-protected, although pages are rarely semi-protected during the FAC itself. Gimmetrow 00:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, you seem to be a most knowledgeable and reasonable person whose opinions I find very helpful. NancyHeise ^talk 15:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Portfolio

Very impressive! I'm very envious of people who can draw, & she can certainly get a good likeness. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Refs

The original refs are not mine, but from the main article. I have located two of them however:

Ref 202... When Science and Christianity Meet ... pp20-21

Ref 203... Dawn of Modern Science: From the Ancient Greeks to the Renaissance pp61-63 + 76

Xandar 01:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Xandar, that's all I needed to fix those refs. I'll get right on that in a while here. NancyHeise ^talk 01:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your prayers and kind words on my talk page. We were very lucky to have made it through the hurricane with only minimal damage. I can't wait until December - I hate hurricane season. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sincere apologies

Hi, NancyHeise. I'm very sorry I missed your note on my user talk page several weeks ago. I'd been extremely busy with school, and I hadn't had time to edit Wiipedia much for a few weeks. If you are still in need of some advice I'd be more than glad to help, and I apologise for not replying to your request! :-) Sincerely, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC).

Its OK, there's still time - please come have a look at the article at your convenience. Thanks for the time and attention you can offer. NancyHeise ^talk 00:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Henry 8 etc

Nancy - Henry "initiated" the Dissolution of the Monasteries, rather than just "supported" them, no? It was apparently Cromwell's idea, and an Act passed by Parliament, but Henry was the one who made it happen. I hope we are all done with this section now! When are you thinking of going "over the top" with the FAC? Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right Johnbod, Henry initiated and supported. Cromwell carried it all out (and was executed just after the last friary was eliminated). I have thought a lot about "when" to resubmit this for FAC and have not come up with a decision yet. After seeing what Hurricane Ike did to Texas I was considering waiting until after hurricane season just to make sure that I am not blown offline by the next hurricane in the middle of a FAC! Right now, I have another experienced editor who is coming to take a look at the article so I'd like to leave the peer review open for a while longer. I thank you for your seriously terrific help - through everything. Gosh - did you know that I was in church today thanking God for you? I am absolutely grateful from my heart! Thanks, you deserve a star but I think I'd like to wait to give awards until after the next FAC just so people don't think I'm currying favor with anyone. NancyHeise ^talk 00:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Nancy - your efforts continue to be heroic! I guess it shows what halibut (and prayer) can do - I must eat more (but you wouldn't believe the price of it here) :) Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The price is just as expensive here in FL! That's why we load up on it while in AK! FYI, the editor I asked to take a look at the article said this about it. [22] I was very encouraged. NancyHeise ^talk 00:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ooh - thanks again! I will be interested to see what happens this time - I notice FAC seems generally rather short of reviewers at the moment, but no doubt a tasty morsel like this will tempt many out. I think it is undeniably considerably improved, but many previous reviewers won't of course have had all their objections met. Let's see! Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic Church"

I'm sorry, but I believe that, as it stands, the statement in the article that the Roman Catholic Church is "officially known as the Catholic Church" is demonstrably false - unless, that is, the article makes it clear that this is not the only official name used by the Church herself. The present wording falsely suggests that "Roman Catholic Church" is never used officially by the Church itself.

Of the sources cited, the first is merely a newspaper article giving a writer's personal opinion. He shows that "Catholic Church" is used officially. He makes no attempt to show that no other name is used officially. He quotes the CCC thus: "The Church is catholic," the Catechism teaches, "[because] she proclaims the fullness of the faith...", as if that showed that the official name is "the Catholic Church" (uppercase C). He could have quoted the CCC thus: "The Church is apostolic," the Catechism teaches, "because she is founded on the apostles ..." - as if that showed that the official name is "the Apostolic Church". And so on, for other names.

The second source cited explicitly says that the name "Roman Catholic Church" is used in the constitutions of states that accord special recognition to that Church. Is that not an official use of that name? And is not the Church thus "officially known as the Roman Catholic Church"? The same source mentions "Holy Catholic Church" - as well as "Catholic Church" - as a name that "the authorities of the Church ... substitute for" the term "Roman Catholic Church", again showing that "Catholic Church" is not the only official name.

It is possible to give perhaps dozens of names that the Church in question officially uses to refer to herself. But in the context of the article it is surely enough to mention that "Roman Catholic Church" is in fact one of the many names. The three documents that I cited (the references to which you have deleted) are enough to show that "Roman Catholic Church" is in fact officially used, not only by civil authorities (whose terminology is also "official"), but also by the Church herself. More instances could be cited, but surely three are enough. Summary style would be better served by omitting the source that is only a declaration of someone's personal opinion and indeed also the one that does not say that "Catholic Church" is the one and only official name for the Church, and by citing instead actual official documents of the Church. Soidi (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Soidi, I must disagree with your logic especially since our references support the wording in the article text. The first reference is written by Kenneth Whitehead who served in the US Dept of Education as director of international education programs per [23]. His article was published by the very old and very respected Our Sunday Visitor Catholic newspaper of the Midwestern United States. He plainly states that the official name of the Roman Catholic Church is Catholic Church as used by the Church herself in her official documents. The second reference, written by a Methodist and originally published by Harvard University says the same thing and give instances when the Church has used another name as exceptions to the rule. These references have been vetted by a number of intelligent editors including a Catholic priest theologian and professor of history I asked to come look at the page for accuracy. Thank you for your insight and opinion but I must keep the article text true to the best references available and respect the consensus of editors and professional opinion offered. NancyHeise ^talk 02:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

He plainly states that the official name of the Roman Catholic Church is Catholic Church as used by the Church herself in her official documents. Does he plainly state that the Church uses no other name in her official documents, and that this is the one and only official name? If he did, he would be denying a demonstrable fact. Are papal encyclicals and other documents of the Roman curia anything other than official?

The second reference ... says the same thing ... What it says is that the Church is officially known as the "Roman Catholic Church" even in countries that give (or, at least, used to give when the reference was written more than a century ago!) special recognition to the Church. It does not even say that "Catholic Church" is the one official name used by the Church authorities themselves. On the contrary, it gives two names that they use, putting both of them on the same level.

... and give instances when the Church has used another name as exceptions to the rule. What rule? In fact it gives two names, only one of them being "Catholic Church", that the Church has used as exceptions to the rule that the official name in civil documents is "Roman Catholic Church".

Contra factum non valet argumentum: it is a demonstrable fact that the authorities of the Church do call the Church not only "the Catholic Church" but other names as well. The text of the Church's own documents trumps contrary-to-fact statements about what is in them. Soidi (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Soldi, after reviewing the references again after considering your comments here I must stand by my previous response to you above - the references clearly support the article text and provide clear reasons why the other names are used as exceptions to the rule. The Harvard University press book by the Methodist professor McClintock, speaking of the term Roman Catholic Church states "It is, however, not the official name used by the authorities of the Church–who rather dislike it, and substitute for it the name 'Catholic' or 'Holy Catholic' Church." "Holy" is an adjective and is not what has been used in signing official Catholic documents such as all those of Vatican II or even in the name of the official book of Catholic beliefs published by the Church, the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The next reference by Kenneth Whitehead, former US Dept of Education director of international education, in the old and respected Catholic Midwestern US newspaper Our Sunday Visitor also states "So the name became attached to her for good. By the time of the first ecumenical council of the Church, held at Nicaea in Asia Minor in the year 325 A.D., the bishops of that council were legislating quite naturally in the name of the universal body they called in the Council of Nicaea's official documents "the Catholic Church." As most people know, it was that same council which formulated the basic Creed in which the term "catholic" was retained as one of the four marks of the true Church of Christ. And it is the same name which is to be found in all 16 documents of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Church, Vatican Council II." Also found in this same reference is this quote "It is not, by the way, properly called the Roman Catholic Church, but simply the Catholic Church. The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council's official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included. Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as "I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church." Simply that -- Catholic Church." Thus we have two different, solid, WP:RS references supporting the article text. I think that unless a reliable reference can be found that states otherwise, we have to go with what our references support. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 16:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - I don't believe that Soidi's opening claim that:"The present wording falsely suggests that "Roman Catholic Church" is never used officially by the Church itself" is correct in any case. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The references show that the name "Catholic Church" is used. They do not show that the Church authorities use no other name. Perhaps on reflection you will come around to seeing that the wording ought to be altered, without any intervention by me on the article's Talk page. I will leave any such intervention until some time next month. There are two problems with the present opening phrase, "The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church". One is the word "officially", which lacks a modifier to show what officialdom is in question: in the civil law of many countries, English-speaking or not, "Catholic Church" is not the name by which the Church is officially known. Even if this problem were solved by an indication that it is the Church's own usage that is spoken of, there remains the suggestion that, pace Johnbod, the present wording does suggest that "Catholic Church" is the only name the Church uses officially, and you have been quite explicitly arguing for that idea above. The Church's official documents show that it does use other names; and pointing that out is no more Original Research than to point out that the letter e appears twice in the word "please".

You will see the petitio principii in your Whitehead quotation if you reread it as if you were a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church and believed that the "catholic Church" of which the First Council of Nicaea in 325 (and Ignatius of Antioch soon after 100) spoke was the Church from which the Western portion has regrettably seceded, but that is still the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. And you will notice that the McClintock quotation does not specify any name as the official name used by the authorities of the Church. "Holy" is an adjective, you say; so is "catholic"; so indeed is "Roman". I think that the only documents that the Pope signs with the formula "N., Bishop of the Catholic Church" are those of a second-millennium Ecumenical Council. And this minor matter is just one of the abundant pieces of evidence that show that the Church uses the designation "Catholic Church". Nobody denies that. But what about the pieces of evidence that show that the Church does officially use other names? It uses several, and officially, but let us keep to the controversial one: "Roman Catholic Church". Was this title used officially or was it not in the title of the document Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church of the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews? Soidi (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, there are many people who strongly deny that "Catholic Church" is the name of the body, and they are well-represented in the archives of the talk-page and FACs, some writing at almost equal length to yourself. Johnbod (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean that there are many people who, like myself, deny that "Catholic Church" is the sole name used by the Church, without by any means denying that it is a name (the usual one) used by the Church. Why have you failed to give any response to the two difficulties that I have raised above: the use of the word "officially" in a curiously narrow sense, and the demonstrable fact that the Church does officially use names other than (unqualified) "Catholic Church"? Soidi (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, typically they maintain that "Roman Catholic Church" is the official name, as used by various Anglophone governments etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC) (Then the substance-avoiding "put-down" remark is irrelevant to the present discussion. Soidi (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

Basically, on Wikipedia, what it all comes down to is not what we or anyone else thinks, it is what the scholars think. Even if we were experts on the subject, and some are, we are not allowed to place original research in the article. We are allowed to place what WP:RS say, preferable those who meet the top standards of WP:Reliable source examples. I have two of these top reliable sources supporting the wording in the aritcle text. McClintock's quote clearly states "It is, however, not the official name used by the authorities of the Church–who rather dislike it, and substitute for it the name 'Catholic' or 'Holy Catholic' Church." - he is referring to the use of Catholic Church instead of Roman Catholic Church as the official name of the Church. McClintock is a non-Catholic scholar whose book was published by Harvard University Press. Whitehead is an educational expert writing in a very respected Catholic newspaper. Unless Soidi can support his/her view with a better reference, we do not need to change the wording in the article. NancyHeise ^talk 15:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Are Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church and similar documents of popes and departments of the Roman curia not reliable sources? Is not "Roman Catholic Church", which is officially used by governments and law courts, another "official" name, unless the meaning of "official" is explicitly restricted (as at present it is not) to "officially used by the Church, whatever about the official use by other authorities"? And, a perhaps minor point, is it not true that McClintock only says what the official name used by the authorities of the Church is not, without saying what it is, merely mentioning two replacements that Church authorities use for "RCC", neither of which he qualifies as official or as the only name that the Church authorities use? Soidi (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Both of the cited references discuss instances (like your provided link) when Roman Catholic is used as opposed to Catholic Church. This is explained extensively by Whitehead's reference which Reader can access by clicking on the link provided in the Reference. I don't see the need to eliminate this important fact based on your argument and lack of scholarly works to support your opinion. I'm sorry that you disagree so wholeheartedly but you must provide references to back up your claim that Catholic Church is not the official name of the Church if you wish for me or anyone else to support elimination of present text. My references clearly support the article text stating that Catholic Church is the official name. NancyHeise ^talk 20:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to offer this [24] from the journal American Ecclesiastical Review published by Catholic University of America which can be used to supplement the present references but which I think is unnecessary.NancyHeise ^talk 22:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not deny that the Church uses "Catholic Church" as its official name. I do deny that it is the only official name it uses. Lack of mutual comprehension confirms that it is best to let the matter rest for a couple of weeks. By then there may be a change of mind on the part of one or other or both of us. Soidi (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The references to this sentence provide both a link and quote that discuss the instances of when Roman Catholic is used clearly stating it is a phenomena of the English language only as opposed to the worldwide Church and never in official Church documents about itself. Our presentation is in keeping with WP:summary style and adding more comment about this issue in the lead would violate this principle. Reader only has to click on the references to gain an education regarding the occasional use of Roman Catholic as opposed to Catholic Church by the Church herself. NancyHeise ^talk 19:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource vote

Hi Nancy, thanks for voting for me! May I ask what link you clicked that took you there? I wasn't aware of any notice here at Wikipedia that I'm running for admin at Wikisource. —Angr 04:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I cam here to ask the same question. Also a note that EVula replied to your vote. You can enable SUL at Special:MergeAccount. Giggy (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure where I was when I clicked onto Wikisource. I was searching through different files on Wikimedia Commons last night browsing through the pictures there for ideas on Wikipedia pages. I was not sure what Wikisource was so I clicked and ended up on the admin page. I thought it was connected to Wikipedia admin but I guess it is something different. Anyway, there is only one Angr in the whole world so I knew it must be you! :) I hope you get it and enjoy. NancyHeise ^talk 13:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay! Wikisource is one of Wikipedia's sister projects. Rather than building an encyclopedia, the goal of Wikisource is to be a virtual library, collecting digitized versions of source texts (books, articles, pamphlets, etc.) that have been previously published but are now in the public domain. For example, Wikisource has the entire King James Bible (and some other translations that aren't copyrighted), the complete works of Shakespeare, and so forth. Like Wikipedia, Wikisource is available in many languages; the Latin Wikisource is often of interest to Catholics because it has the Vulgate and the Latin versions of many prayers. —Angr 13:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's really interesting. I continue to be amazed at what is offered through my home computer! Thanks Angr, it looks like you're going to get admin with all those supports. NancyHeise ^talk 22:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

It looks like you've got some heavy hitters doing great work at the peer review, so I'm going to pass on this one. Best of luck. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. NancyHeise ^talk 01:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ok Nancy. Btw, I thought most of Ealgythyth (!)'s comments mostly pretty good - some were things I'd thought when I read through today. Not sure how much they'd trim though. There is a length issue with dial-up lines etc. Is there even a case for just cutting the article into 2 pages (volumes) with a "turn to page 94" link at the end of part 1, like a magazine? Unprecedented I know, but .... Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnbod, I agree, I just posted a thank you on the peer review page. I think many of the comments will significantly improve the page but some of Karanacs comments contradict some of your peer review comments and other editors wishes so I thought I would post those specific ones on the RCC talk page to find consensus either for or against making the suggested change and then post the result of that consensus decision on the peer review. For the most part, I think the comments are very good and will be addressing them over time. Let's see how the page turns out with their specifically suggested trims. I don't know what to think about the turn the page idea, Wikipedia is useful because it give Reader a one page summary of a subject, I think that is what makes Wikipedia worthwhile and why people actually read it. I would rather have a one page summary of the Catholic Church than a two page turner for that reason. I am all for trimming, it is just difficult for me to see what to trim and that is why I was so appreciative of Ealdgyth's good faith effort to help us in that area. NancyHeise ^talk 00:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is still material that can be cut. I have put my comments on the Talk page bullet points. There is a lot of detail that could go under organisation, and quotes that can be reduced under beliefs - which i think has got too long to be easily absorbed. With regard to the History section, however, I can only see very limited further cuts being possible without unbalancing the section by including only controversial or negative issues, or oversimplifying in a manner that will only provoke further argument and charges of POV. Either we remove the History Section entirely, (which transfers the problem to the History of the RCC article), or it has to stay very much as it is to preserve its integrity. If we removed the History section, we could keep Catholicism Today, and just place a prominent link to the "History of the RCC" article higher up in the main article Probably under "Origins". However that "solution" would probably find us facing charges of wanting to hide away the criticisms of the Church on Inquisitions, Crusades, Indians, Nazis, Condoms, Abuse scandals etc. So there is probably no simple solution.Xandar 20:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

ref tag example

[25] idea for wikipage. NancyHeise ^talk 03:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am just putting this here for my own editing purposes. NancyHeise ^talk 19:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Catholic institutions and personnel (as of 2000)

Institutions
Parishes and missions	408,637
Primary and secondary schools	125,016
Universities	1,046
Hospitals	5,853
Orphanages	8,695
Homes for the elderly and handicapped	13,933
Dispensaries, leprosaries, nurseries and other institutions	74,936
Personnel
Religious sisters	769,142
Religious brothers	55,057
Diocesan and religious priests	405,178
Bishops	3,475
Archbishops	914
Cardinals	183
Permanent deacons	27,824
Seminarians (men studying for the priesthood)	110,583

In 2000, worldwide Catholic institutions totalled 408,637 parishes and missions, 125,016 primary and secondary schools, 1,046 universities, 5,853 hospitals, 8,695 orphanages, 13,933 homes for the elderly and handicapped and 74,936 dispensaries, leprosaries, nurseries and other institutions.[172] Many of these institutions are at least partially staffed by religious sisters.[173] Worldwide, as of 2000, there were 769,142 religious sisters, 55,057 religious brothers, 405,178 diocesan and religious priests, 3,475 bishops, 914 archbishops, 183 cardinals, 27,824 permanent deacons and 110,583 diocesan and religious seminarians (men studying for the priesthood).[173][174]

The Church has affirmed the validity of Marian apparitions such as those at Lourdes, Fatima and Guadalupe while others such as Medjugorge are still under investigation. However, affirmed or not, pilgrimages to these places are popular devotions. [26] [27]

RCC

User:Ottava Rima/Roman Catholic Church. As you can see, I made some initial trims. There are still some cuts that can be made. The current version is 16,500 words. My version is 12,900. If you want to know my relationship with the field and my background, please contact me directly via my email. There are still some things that can be trimmed, and I believe this page can be below 135k in size. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ottava Rima, I have read your entire RCC version and I like it very much. I disagree with a few of your changes most notably the elimination of "official" in the first sentence which we have references to support and which is an important fact. Your page is very useful to me in my efforts to combine the most recent peer review comments and talk page comments regarding the trim. I am currently looking at everyones comments before I make any changes to a section to make sure I am reflecting everyone's wishes. Your page will allow me to see what you think each section should include and I appreciate that very much, it is a huge help. Some of what you left in some sections I had already planned to remove or place into the new notes section so I am sure we will all eventually be happier with the page when I am done incorporating all comments, including mine. As I am writing this, the page size is 12155 readable prose and I have much more to trim per peer review comments. Thank you for helping all of us come to an agreement on article size and content, I welcome your continued help and involvement in this process. NancyHeise ^talk 17:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a notes section would be unwise. With a topic this wide, any notes would be better put on individual pages deal with the subject matter. Otherwise, they quickly add bulk to the total size, which makes user like myself, who use dialup, unable to load the page completely. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an email. Please read it, keep it to email, and respond if you want to further talk. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me, yes I have responded to your email. NancyHeise ^talk 21:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been through the article now and made a few minor changes. It's looking really good, a great job well worth FA in my opinion. I'd like to be able to say with confidence that your next foray into FAC should go smoothly – well, I am confident it should go smoothly, but you know how fickle FAC can be as well as I do. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

\\\///

/ ~ ~ \

(| (o) (o) |)

--oooo---()---oooo-----------

I'm sure this FAC will be fine!NancyHeise ^talk 18:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

--ooooO-------Ooooo-----------

(::::) (::::)

\:::/ \:::/

(::) (::)

This is a really small thing, but I though I'd mention it anyway, do with it what you will. The {{Catholic Church}} template has "organisation", but the RCC article has "organization". Either is obviously perfectly OK, but I'd like to see them consistent. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

. (Y)

=(o.o)=

("')uu('")

Anyway, I wanted to note that I sent you a message via email. I think the idea would be very good, and I will be watching my email over the next week constantly, so don't hesitate to contact. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ottava - nice bunny! Yes I responded to your email, thank you for writing. Next time you write to me, please explain to me what your user name means. NancyHeise ^talk 13:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cite template conversion on RCC

Please don't do this by hand. It can be done automatically if needed. Gimmetrow 01:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll put the page back the way it was and let it be done automatically. Thanks for saving me a lot of time (and eye strain) NancyHeise ^talk 01:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sample. I'm not convinced this actually helps; a few people should compare load times for versionA and versionB. Gimmetrow 01:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, that's incredible! I had no idea a tool like that existed - it removed 10,000kB which would bring the present page down from 160,000kB to 150,000kB. I would like to use this tool on the actual page and eliminate as much kB as possible to help load time. Ottava says his dial up computer works OK on pages up to around 145,000kB - 150 is pretty close to that number. Can you just go and do this for us now? NancyHeise ^talk 02:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There may be reasons not to use citation templates, but page load time most definitely isn't one of them. Pages are server-side cached. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I am not an expert on this topic, if you and Gimmetrow think we should not make this change, I trust your judgement, please do what you think is best. Thanks for your time and attention here. NancyHeise ^talk 02:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Gimmetrow's two samples, there's a saving of something like 13kb to be had in the overall page size by not using the templates. It's not for me to say whether that's a worthwhile saving or not. SandyG isn't a fan of citation templates, whereas I am. Whichever you choose won't be a problem. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, as important as you are (to me) you are not the FAC directors assistant - so if Sandy prefers the other format and we can get it by clicking a button (as well as making Ottava happy) I think we should go ahead and do it. NancyHeise ^talk 02:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I spoke. Won't make that mistake again. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The size of the page on wikipedia isn't what matters for load time, anyway - it's the size of the HTML. If the manually formatted citations produced exactly the same links and styles as the cite templates, then the HTML would be the same. That's probably not the case, since the cite templates probably add some extra HTML tags around certain texts in the citation, but I have doubts the difference is very much. Keep in mind the HTML for RCC is about 100k. The javascript and CSS, over which you have no control, is also about 100k. The images appear to be over 400k - optimizing those somehow would help a lot more. Gimmetrow 02:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So cutting a picture saves more HTML? I'm going to go try this out. Also, I think I offended Malleus when I was trying to be funny in my last edit - he is a very important person to me and I truly respect his opinions whenever he offers them. I hope he continues to offer his opinions. NancyHeise ^talk 02:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are the numbers from some web optimization site - but now I'm not sure what they mean, since the raw html page is about 450k for me. The point is that decreasing the wikitext doesn't necessarily do anything to the html. Gimmetrow 02:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I just eliminated almost 30kB by eliminating two pictures. I think that should resolve this issue - I hope. I'll ask Ottava if load time has improved or not. Thanks for your help here Gimmetrow and Malleus. I am glad we did not have to get rid of the cite templates. NancyHeise ^talk 03:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

RCC Matters

• Re the Jesuits. the way the para was, the destruction of the Jesuits was not mentioned after the Reductions issue, which was a major instigating factor, and the papal changes of Clement XIV looked as though they took place before the destruction and re-installation, rather than afterwards. I think getting the chronology right is important here. However this depends upon whether keeping the Latin American material together is considered the greater benefit.
• On pictures. Don't lose too many. remember that they load separately from the text, so don't make as much difference to text loading times.

• Remember as well that they're cached, so may not need to be downloaded to client each time anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• On FA. Remember that I don't have the time this Autumn to play as large a part in the discussions and to and fro that I did last time. So hopefully, if we're going now, other editors can take up some of the duties of answering particularly historical criticisms that may arise. I'll try and look in, but due to my course, the time I have will be limited. Xandar 22:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Xandar for all your time and effort. We will be grateful for whatever time you can spend with us on this next FAC. I don't intend to lose any more pictures but I think it was important to lose the ones we did and get a page size that makes everyone happy without eliminating important facts. NancyHeise ^talk 22:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK I think it is more chronologically correct with your changes, let's just leave it. NancyHeise ^talk 22:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to appear like a Jeremiah, but that's not my intention. I have begun to wonder whether some articles are more damaged by the FAC process than improved by it, and whether the claim that FAs are wikipedia's best articles stands up to scrutiny. Is the idea that 17 million monkeys can't be wrong? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, don't get discouraged! Raul is the only person who makes a final decision. Let's give him a chance to do the right thing. If he fails the article, at least we can say we tried. In the meantime, have fun discussing the article with opposers, perhaps their oppose will result in some more important info going into the article. So far, that is all that has happened to the RCC through all these FACS and look at all the people who are so amazed at them. I had no idea there were so many people in the world who did not know these important things about the most important historical institution in Western Civilization - its scary what they are not taught in school isn't it? NancyHeise ^talk 03:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Raul has been awol for some time now. Who knows what strange ideas the aliens who abducted him planted in his brain. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they are good aliens. NancyHeise ^talk 03:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You clearly have a generous heart. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have often thought that about you - a generous and kind heart - because of all the times you have come to my aid when I was floundering here on the Wild West Wikipedia Wilderness. Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 15:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Good thoughts

I saw your message about going out of town for a couple of days. Regardless of our disagreements, I hope your trip goes well and you return safely. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind wishes. NancyHeise ^talk 14:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Hi again Nancy, it great to see the RCC article back and so much stronger! Re [28], as a suggestion, I'd let some objections stand, espically if they contradict earlier supports, and if meeting them would weaken the article. We're after concensus here, not pleasing everybody. And bear in mind that some people cant be pleased and there is no point in even trying. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Very good advice Ceoil. Trying too hard to meet objections can actually damage an article sometimes, as we've seen recently. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thats what I was thinking of specifically. Let them object; and off with them. Sandy is quite able to distinguish between valid and weakly based objections. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)