Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive2

Roman Catholic Church

previous FAC (17:08, 15 February 2008)

Check external links

NOMINATOR: I am nominating this again for FA since extensive reworking of the article has occured with several contributing editors including copyedits. These editors collaborated and worked together building consensus on addressing FA comments from last attempt and new comments emerging on the talk page. Thanks you for your time to come look at this article and give us your honest vote. NancyHeise (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Restart: old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support, as before. The concerns I had have been adequately addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Perhaps the most viewed and criticized article in Wikipedia! Even the infrequent unconstructive ones have been answered. Article is factually correct and readable. Student7 (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I sustain my support; the article is very comprehensive on aspects of the Church, its history, and its practices. It also has great prose and is very accurately presented. Hello32020 (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: This sentence in the WP:LEAD is ambiguous, but the interpretation most readily accessible violates WP:NPOV: "It traces its origins, via apostolic succession, to the original Christian community founded by Jesus." This could be interpreted as meaning either:

1. the Catholic church actively traces its own origins in this manner (which entails subjectivity), or
2. as an assertion of fact taken from common knowledge, verifiable historical fact etc.

I suggest that the latter interpretation is the one most readily accessible, as in for example:

1. United States Postal Inspection Service: "The Postal Inspection Service is one of the oldest federal law enforcement agencies in the United States. It traces its origins back to 1772..."
2. Cleveland State University: "The Cleveland-Marshall College of Law traces its origins to the founding of Cleveland Law School in 1897..."
3. etc.

Therefore suggest: "Catholic doctrine asserts that the origins of the Catholic church can be traced..." Ling.Nut (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE:Done. Thanks for the suggestion. NancyHeise (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not an improvement in my view, and actually much worse for NPOV. Is there anyone who would dispute that the origins trace back that far? Apostolic succession is a different matter of course, but this wording suggests the whole "tracing" is dubious. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE - I edited that sentence myself. Does that work? Nautical Mongoose (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The early history is documented by sources which do not clearly support the material as the history of the Roman Catholic Church. We are not permitted to assert claims that the sources do not, even if we think they are "obvious" or "natural" conclusions of the references. To avoid cluttering this FAC, I have posted specific examples of my concerns to the article talk page. Vassyana (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE - I have answered Vassyana on the talk page in depth. I will make brief reference here: Oxford History of Christianity has a subsection called "Rome" that speaks specifically about the Roman Church, my references clearly state that the quotes are taken from that subsection. The meeting of the apostles in Jerusalem in the year 50 is referenced to this subsection specifically discussing Rome on page 37. All of my sources specifically talk about the Roman Church existing from the beginning of Christian history. None of them make any argument in the other direction even Eamon Duffy who is considered my "other side of the argument" source. Thus it appears that there is a significant consensus of historians that contradict Vassyanas position. At least 25 of them counting all the scholars that are listed as authors of the books I have cited, 18 of them coming from the Oxford History book alone. One of my University press sources "The Roman Catholic Church, an Illustrated History" specifically states that the church was founded by Jesus in his lifetime.NancyHeise (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't understand the inclusion of the the bulk of the first paragraph of the "Final judgment" section, nor the relevance of the verses from Matthew 25 as quoted. The "as quoted" bit is important. Note here that by no means am I arguing doctrine etc. I'm merely saying that the bits as quoted aren't precisely relevant to this particular section of the Wikipedia article. Here goes:

1. I do see how one could make a case interpreting 25:34 as an instance of Jesus presiding over the separation of sheep and goats etc., "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." But my prob is that the bit as quoted omits "inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world", which would seem to me to be the most important point. Those words are the ones that pin Jesus' comments to the time of the Judgment, so those should not be omitted. However, the article does include what are apparently some reasons why those "blessed of my Father" will "inherit the kingdom." Thereafter follows a brief discussion of spiritual and corporal works of mercy. If you're still with me here (I hope), then what I'm saying is that although the discussion of spiritual and corporal works of mercy is surely connected to Final judgment, it is not properly considered a part of the section on Final judgment. That discussion should more accurately be placed in a section about... spiritual and corporal works of mercy? Social Gospel? I dunno. Something about the works we do here on earth... the spiritual and corporal works of mercy could be mentioned, but not discussed, in the "Final judgment" section.
2. The second paragraph, on the other hand, seems perfectly relevant to the section.
3. So I suggest taking only the first sentence plus my selected quote of the passage from Matthew 25 from the first paragraph, and then tacking those onto the beginning of the second paragraph. That leaves a one-paragraph section. Then more could (and perhaps should) be done to flesh that out. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

FINAL RESPONSE- Agree. I made changes to the section called Judgement and placed a new section under Jesus and Eucharist called Catholic Social Teaching. I think this is a better arrangement, thanks for the suggestion. NancyHeise (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have offered an alternate working version here Ling.Nut (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• STRONG Oppose. I do not think the article is there yet, I think we have made great improvements, but I know there is a richer body of source material that can be used as references. I will work to get this where it needs to be, but cannot support it in its current form. --Mike Searson (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE - Since the bibliography and footnotes section of the article are one of the longest in Wikipedia and I have spent myself in the library and buying books on Amazon to create the article, I am struck through the heart with this suggestion. If there are specific sources that Mike has in mind, that have not been used here, I am willing to get those sources if he can please provide the names. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, I do not have anything specific in mind. The problem is that no matter what the final product is...this article will come under the strictest scrutiny and will be held to a higher standard. For that reason, the sources have to be impeccable, regarding quality as well as with regard to content. None of the cited sources for example, specifically address claims about "Catholic church" vs "Christian Church"; which will be a major point of contention and already brought up in the FAC. I know that "Catholic Church" was used as early as 110 A.D. in Epistle to the Church at Smyrna and The Death of Polycarp in 125 A.D. these original sources should be cited as well as other sources pointing to these, I don't see it. Another editor as recently as this morning asked for citations on Universites, hospitals, etc. Whether because he wanted to nitpick the article or he legitimately did not know of all the various hospitals, universities, etc founded by the Catholic Church is immaterial; the bottom line is that I could not confidently source what he was asking for, because I did not know or trust the quality of the reference in question. I say all this as someone who has invested time and energy into this article, who is also a practicing Catholic. How can it be expected to stand up in the face of those with an obvious bias and agenda against the Church if it passes and ends up at FAR?--Mike Searson (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am adding new sources in hopes of winning Mikes support. Please see two new sources added today and two more to come tomorrow. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Two sources are not going to win my support. Since I started working on this article, I've really only noticed the sections I worked on in bits and pieces: history, liturgy, Tridentine Mass, sacraments, etc. As a whole the article is way too long, does not have an encyclopedic tone (some sections do, but overall it's not there), and the sourcing leaves much to be desired. I won't get into the MOS mess, because that's not my strong suit, but when they are pointed out by Sandy or Tony they need to be addressed quickly.--Mike Searson (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The article has taken a turn for the worse. Any signs of once engaging prose are now vestigal and any real facts about beliefs or dogma that a reader would want to gain have been eliminated. What remains of history, controversy, etc is now a watered down shell of what had the potential to be a great article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what Mike would like to see, I have worked extensively with both Catholic and non-Catholic editors who have agreed to the changes made to the article in its present form. I did re-add some of the beliefs section that was core material that got tossed in the vigor to reduce the size of the article but I dont think anyone is advocating tossing it again. I trimmed it with the help of other editors to eliminate redundancy. While I would like to make Mike happy, I have to listen to other editors concerns too especially when they are in agreement on certain issues. NancyHeise (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, I know you have been more than accomodating and I know you have been working hard to get it done properly, but I think the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater here. There is no mention of the Apostle Paul, the Roman Missal, the Tridentine Mass, rules for Communion, Holy Relics, yet there is mention and a wikilink to womenpriests. Scant mention is given to the pagan persecutions, penal laws, or the Catholic religious martyred by mohhamedans or nazis in WW2 in lieu of having space to talk about the Clerical sex-abuse scandal. We see nothing of Pope Pius X opposing modernism, changing the rules for reception of the Eucharist, or John XXIII trying to help the Church find her place in the modern world. What of the Irish monks of the Dark Ages who preserved ancient texts both sacred and secular so they were not lost forever like so many other texts were? Nothing about the church's impact on Art, architecture, music, or literature is present. The Precepts of the Church are glossed over, we see nothing concerning the Corporal and Spiritual works of Mercy, Gifts and Fruits of the Holy Spirit, the three Eminent Good Works, Cardinal Sins, Cardinal virtues, 3 Munera:Munus docendi, Munus sanctificandi,Munus regendi or anything that resembles what makes the Roman Catholic Church unique among Christian Churches; but we have plenty of information on Martin Luther. Nothing about vestments, Holy oils, the bells, incense, scapulars, medals, 7 sorrows and of Mary and Joseph, I guess I should be glad that at least the rosary gets a wikilink if no other mention. I do not feel that the present incarnation does full justice to its subject matter. It is not as comprehensive as it could be and unlike other subjects, it is not because of a lack of quality printed source material to document and reference these things.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have problems with this section:"Some Catholics who call themselves Traditionalists objected to the new Mass called Novus Ordo Missae which used vernacular language in favor of the old Mass called Tridentine Mass that used only Latin. Today, both forms of the Mass are celebrated with the vernacular being more common." The controversy had little to do with language, as the Novus Ordo is also said in Latin in quite a few parishes. Also, the drastic translations did not seem to occur in languages other than English. True, there were many who left the Church altogether, switched to an Eastern Rite, or went to Mass begrudgingly because the "New Mass" was seen as more of a Protestant type celebration...the thing is that there were also misapplications of the Vatican's instruction and outright lies about the status of the Tridentine Mass. In the 70's and 80's up to as recently as 2 years ago, people said the Old Rite was outlawed. It never was, JP2 issued an Indult in 1984 allowing the Tridentine Mass to be said with the permission of the Local Bishop. The Traditionalists represented a minority who held out.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have archieved my and Nancy's comments because the specific concern has been dealt with. I'm neither supporting nor opposing this article, but the one concern I brought forward has been dealt with.

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, I'll try to get a good long look at this tonight. Also will try to mine my library shelves for possible sources. Off the top of my head, for sources that oppose the concept of "one Church from the start"... look at the works of Bart D. Ehrman as a start. Specifically The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, which I'm rereading as we speak. Also Robin Lane Fox has written on the subject of early Christianity. Peter Brown (historian) was the acknowledged expert in late ancient history when I was in college, his The World of Late Antiquity: AD 150-750, Authority and the Sacred: Aspects of the Christianisation of the Roman world, and The Rise of Western Christendom would be especially appropriate. Getting into more depth (and more dense and scholarly) you have Ramsay MacMullen, whose Christianizing the Roman Empire: AD 100-400 is probably appropriate. Also dense is R. A. Markus' The End of Ancient Christianity. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE - I have removed this response because it clutters up the page.NancyHeise (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to removed text for context of subsequent responses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, please reread what I said. I didn't say "No church at Rome"... I said "one Church from the start", which is a different statement entirely. There are a number of scholars writing that feel that there were a number of different types of Christianity in the first century or two after Christ. Ehrman is one of those scholars. One of those types of Christianity is what became the Roman Catholic Church. Another became the Donatist church. Some others are Gnostic, and some were what is called Jewish Christianity. I haven't had a chance to read the article yet (I have HOPES of finishing up my revisions to William Longchamp someday!) but the last time I read it, it did have a regretable tendancy to assume that there was only one type of Christianity from Christ's death. There is scholarly disagreement with this view, and I must say that it is pretty extensive from what I've read. I'm not an expert in Early Christianity (I studied the High Middle Ages instead) but when even my college classes covered different varieties of early Christianity, it's pretty much a given that it is a significant viewpoint in scholarly circles. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, this article is called "Roman Catholic Church", not "Christianity". Why is anyone suggesting that we have to discuss other churches or the whole of Christianity? Does the FA on Girl Scouts USA discuss any other organization that helps girls? NancyHeise (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Because right now, the section on the history implies that there is only one church, and that it is the Catholic Church. The whole first part of the History section doesn't allow for scholarly opinion that there were other varieties of Christianity. Maybe if the History of the Roman Catholic Church article wasn't such a mess, it might not matter as much. Honestly, though, I really don't care. If my help isn't wanted, I have plenty else to do. I'm sorry if my opinion upsets you, and rather than be annoying, I'll just leave this discussion alone. Maybe User:Mike Searson can explain the issue better. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed response because it clutters up the page. NancyHeise (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to removed text for context of subsequent responses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that particular statement is that the Council of Jerusalem was just the START of the doctrinal differences. It didn't resolve them at all. They continued for another 150 years at least. Remember the exact texts in the New Testament weren't settled until the middle of the 300's. A number of scholars believe that there were a number of competing types of Christianity up until about 300 or so, perhaps a bit later. Even Eusebius wrote about them, although he called them heretics. I'll try to think of something that would make it clear without overburdening the article (I do understand that this is about the RCC, and that it shouldn't be dragged into a huge discussion of tangential information. But merely repeating the RCC version of things isn't correct either.) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

All of that is mentioned in the Church history. Please see the page. I added another sentence in the Roman Empire to make it clear that the Roman Church was not the only one and that there were competing beleifs. I am willing to insert more material but I really think that these things are clearly mentioned, even Arius is wikilinked and Vulgate as well when discussing the creation of the Bible. NancyHeise (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That new sentence, I can live with. Gah, wish I had plenty of time, I'd go work on the early Christianity articles, which are really in need of help. But the medieval stuff is just as bad.. so...

Check with others that that helps resolve things. I do still think you should read and use some of the books I've referenced above, instead of a National Geographic book on the Geography of Religion. But I really don't have time to devote to sourcing the statements to what I DO have on my shelves, so it's not fair of me to oppose if I'm not willing to do it myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have another reference and added another sentence to make it even more clear - please see the page, I think this should adequately address all your concerns. NancyHeise (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Works fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

ISSUE RESOLVED NancyHeise (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support You guys have no idea how hard my mom worked on this! She stays up past midnight sometimes to edit and cite stuff, and when I see her on the computer she's usually surrounded by a ton of books...that's it.StacyyW (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

< moved to talk page> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support This article is thoroughly comprehensive, well written, good reading, informative, and well cited. It covers a very broad topic on a subject that has irrevokably changed the world, and to which 1/7 of the world's population belongs. While it is certainly one of the most difficult subjects on Wikipedia to write a fair, NPOV, well-cited, and thorough article on, Roman Catholic Church is an exemplary article, and, IMHO, it has all of the qualities that I listed. I have read many Wikipedia articles, including many featured ones, and though I have only been on here for a year and a half, I feel that this is assuredly one of the best I have ever read. It is informative and doesn't appear to suffer from what in my opinion is one of the pitfalls of an online community such as this, choppiness. For me, this article flows very naturally, from the intro to importance to origins then beliefs, history, and finally the stats. It provides a plethora of helpful links to more lengthy explanations and definitions (etc.) where things need to be summarized. I think that the main flaw I find is the sheer length of the introduction, which may be unalterable due to, as I have said, the sheer breadth of the topic. If this can be changed, that would be wonderful, and if not, I find it perfectly understandable. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 00:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

<off topic commentary removed to talk page; this FAC has been restarted once, please stay on-topic relative to WP:WIAFA > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am just wondering if the 13 support votes on the previous page of this restart page still count. If not, may we contact those people to come see the article and revote? I dont think there have been any substantial changes to the article and there were only four opposes, one changed to support, another said she would change to support if I added more on art which I did, Vassyana has reasserted her oppose saying my sources all have to be Roman Catholic Church specific which they are and another voted no because he wanted to see a criticism section which is against what Jimbo Wales suggests. In accordance with Jimbo, we have incorporated criticisms throughout the article. NancyHeise (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC is not a vote; please focus on addressing actionable opposes per WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But to answer the question that was asked, there could be no objection at all to asking those who commented on the previous page to look at the article again and to confirm their opinion in this restarted nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a message on the talk pages of all those who voted on the previous page inviting them to come vote again. I did not invite those who have already come and voted. NancyHeise (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Support----This Article deserves to be A FA. Very well written. It follows each and every guideline of a FA. I had previously voted. I am revoting again.-->>>Kensplanet (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparing this article to the article Islam which has featured status, i cannot see any deficiencies in Roman Catholic Church.Further to the issues raised by Ealdgyth, I cannot see what more can be done than to say that other forms of Christianity existed at the time, as has been done. The fact is indisputable that the "Roman" Catholic Church today is the direct organisational continuation of the organised catholic church of the early christians. Xandar (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose—Not well-written; a "professional" standard is required. Here are examples just from the top, which suggest that 'the whole text' needs a good massage by someone unfamiliar with it. At issue are matters of grammar, style and formatting. There's redundant wording, and there are MOS breaches.
• "Alongside" and "also"?
• In the listy sentence at the end of para 1, why the comma after "hospitals", but not after "sick"? Sorry to be picky, but there are tons of commas already. Use the Oxford comma unerringly if you must, but frankly, the prose would run more smoothly if it were rationed to places where it is required for disambiguation.
• "by means of the liturgy regulated by church authority". Clunkiness and redundancy? Why not "by the liturgy, which is regulated by the Church".
• "as well as the ordinary laity, and those like monks and nuns who live a consecrated life under a rule." Same issue. Why "ordinary"? Remove "those like" (what does "those" refer to?). Comma required after "nuns".
• "intricately intertwined"—euuwwwh.
• "amongst". Well, OK in the 1960s, but plain English suggests losing the "st".
• Caption: "A 15th century painting depicting Jesus giving". Ing ing ing. Hyphen required. Also, the eucharist caption is a full sentence, not just a nominal group, so needs a final period, according to MOS.
• "with the vernacular being more commonly used"—ungrammatical and clumsy. Reword.
• "church-state conflicts"—Nope, en dash required. See MOS.
• Ellipsis dots need to be properly spaced: See MOS.
• Eucharist: is it going to be E or e? I see both.

MikeSearson took care of this list. NancyHeise (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

These were just random samples. Tony (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And lots more.

Random issues:

• Why is the Nicene Creed quoted in full? Certainly not unless there's a decent amount and depth of commentary on the wording in WP's text.

In light of making the article as short as possible we decided to quote it in full since any commentary would likely be longer than the actual text. We felt it was good form to give the reader the actual creed since it is also discussed in both the lead and history section and is the most important part of the church's beliefs.NancyHeise (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a good reason. The text needs to be elsewhere and the commentary here, linked to it. Quoting verbatim large tracts of text is inappropriate, especially where almost nothing is said about it. See the article on the US Constitution. Tony (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• "like a dove."—See MOS on final punctuation where the opening quote marks occur within a WP sentence.
• Many of the links and piped links are good. But there's a lot to link, and parts of the text are looking overly blue. This detracts from the high-value links and makes the text harder read and messy in appearance. I'd remove the repeat links for a more effective use of linking.

• 1c: Not good. Here are random samples (in which I found every item I sampled wanting in some respect).
  • Please audit the references for consistent, MOS-required formatting. For example: "The Roman Catholic Church an Illustrated History" (surely there's missing punctuation?). Hyphens instead of en dashes in a few pages ranges. The O'Connell book—does it start with "The" or doesn't it? There's a clash between the title in the reference list and the bibliography. Such sloppiness won't do in a serious, authoritative article.
    • WP:Foot subsection entitled Style Recommendations allows you to use a shortened form of the title in the text if the full title is in the bibliography. I believe the audit you suggest of the references has already been done by Karanacs with the help of SandyGeorgia.NancyHeise (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • All I've done in the references is identify which ones obviously failed WP:RS and which ones looked duplicated. I haven't done a comprehensive audit of the source formatting.Karanacs (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Nor have I; I have gone through a few times and left sample edits of minor MoS issues that needed attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 223: Why not send us directly to the "web site" that was the source for this NYT posting? Who knows what mistakes might have occurred in the replication.
    • Because we are trying to get away from self published sources. The New York Times is a very reliable third party source and we thought it was even better than using the self published source. NancyHeise (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't care how reliable you think the NYT is—there's absolutely no reason to link to its version rather than the original. Avoiding self-published links is to minimise self-promotion and POV; the display of an official text is not in that category. Tony (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't think there is any Wikipedia policy that would require me to eliminate using NYT in favor of a self-published source. Since I have been beaten over the head enough times over self published sources by Karanacs on this and another FA I did, I would prefer to keep the NYT piece. Thanks for your opinion, please respect that I have one too on this matter. NancyHeise (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 228: Author cited on the web page, but not given here ....
    • The name appearing above the article is just below an advertisement for a book, not necessarily the author of the article. NancyHeise (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • OK Tony (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm uneasy that the history has drawn on rather too few books, but I don't know the area, and can't determine whether sufficiently broad sources have been used. It's just that there are a lot of sweeping assertions that I'd normally want to question, or check the detail on. For example: "By the mid-third century, persecution was extensive throughout the empire.[121] The ferocity of the persecution varied, with tradition holding Decius and Valerian I prominent among persecuting emperors.[125][126] In spite of these persecutions, the effective systems of Roman roads facilitated evangelization.[127]" OK, I'll take these assertions on trust, but many wouldn't.
    • These assertions are found in many of our over 30 books used, they are very basic historical facts that I dont think anyone is going to question. We eliminated one of the books we used that had the same information because another reviewer was uncomfortable that the book was not specifically written about the history of the Roman Catholic Church. We are doing our best to make everyone happy here :0 ) NancyHeise (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But it is not only 1a and 1c that are at issue: the article fails to satisfy 1d (balance) and 1b (comprehensiveness). In summary, it is far too much like a text that the Church PR department would write. On the surface, it's a sequence of facts, but heavily skewed towards the historical and a very mainstream interpretation of the faith. There is little treatment of contemporary criticism of the political and social role of the church, everywhere, but especially in the third world. No proper treatment is given to those who would speak out against what the church has done to the hundreds of thousands of African women whose husbands were advised by their local priest (under orders from the Vatican) not to wear a condom, despite knowing that they were HIV positive (that's mass murder in the eyes of many) [oh wait, we do have this: "The church's rejection of the use of condoms, however, has provoked criticism, especially with respect to countries where AIDS and HIV infections are at epidemic proportions. The church maintains that countries like Kenya, where behavioral changes are endorsed instead of condom use, have experienced greater progress towards controlling the disease than countries solely promoting condoms.[213]", but it's heavily weighted towards the church's self-defence, and hello, the Herald Tribune (if the page could be accessed) looks like beating the depths of its own unresearched twaddle in that article; what about some scientific evidence rather than the musings of Catholic journalists? The exposures all over the catholic world of the sexual predation by priests of their flock, especially of the children among them, are not treated well: again, the church is made to look as good as possible in the text; many people would find this POV. Nothing about the current wealth and financial governance of the church.

In the effort to keep the page to a manageable size and provide Wikiproject Catholicism with a main article that would wikilink to all other pages in the project, we chose to mention all main facts supplying just what was necessary to give both sides of the issue and then wikilink to pages where those issues are discussed in depth. Each criticism has its own page where the subject matter is discussed in full, in addition to having the page Criticism of the Catholic Church be a main see also article in the top of the page. NancyHeise (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already suggested that the History sections need to be significantly reduced in size (they all link to daughter articles, and in their present length and detail suggest the need for a separate article on the history of the RCC). Thus, using the bloated size of this treatment as a reason not to introduce more balance here is not an acceptable defence. Tony (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have looked over the history section in an effort to comply with Tonys comment. However, compliance with his wishes will eliminate material that was inserted and expanded upon in order to comply with previous FA reviewers comments on this and a previous FA nomination. While I try to keep all FA reveiwers happy, it is not always possible to do especially when their wishes conflict. Please understand. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

SUMMARY: Needs thorough copy-editing by someone else. Needs the opinion of a disinterested historical scholar or two as to the balance of the account. The history sections need to be trimmed significantly. A more balanced angle on the deficiencies of the church is required. Quite simply, nothing less than a major overhaul is necessary.

Finally, two matters:

• First, as you'll see from my talk page, I'm no friend of supernatural religion. However, the substance of my review would not alter if that weren't the case, since I'm merely applying conventional standards of research and balance writing here.
• Second, I want to reinforce Sandy's point above about the fact that this is not a vote. Consensus is required for promotion. Too many reviewers appear to have flown by from somewhere else to support the article without properly engaging with the FA Criteria. Tony (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE: See talk page of user Tony for my comments in response to his final comments here. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

< Responses moved to talk page; Nancy, pls stay focused on WP:WIAFA. A second restart at FAC would be unprecedented; personal comments can be added to the talk page.> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There are a few referencing issues that need to be addressed.
  • Citation 194 (International Religious Freedom Report 2006) is wikilinked to a google cache which won't be there forever. Can you find the original page?
    • I changed the link to the actual document from US Dept of State and now its wikilinked to that page of the original document. Thanks NancyHeise (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The books in the References section don't include publication locations. That is generally standard.
    • This is copied from WP:Cite#full "Full citations for books typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, the date of publication, and page numbers. The name of the publisher, city of publication, and ISBN are optional"NancyHeise (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There are two listings for the Annuario Pontificio in the References section. The only difference between the listing is the ISBN. Are these actually different? If so, it is not clear in the footnotes which one is being referred to. If not, please fix the references so that this only appears once.
    • I have ordered the new Annuario Pontificio and will eliminate these with the most current information when I receive the book,hopefully in the next day or two.NancyHeise (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a. I must concur with Tony that the prose is not at the professional standard required here. After reading the article, I got much more of a sense of "persuasive essay" than encyclopedia article. The prose misses the mark significantly in serving its audience here. A thorough treatment by an uninvolved editor is required. --Laser brain (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote. We were not trying to write a persuasive essay, but a factual article that would help readers who wanted to know what the Catholic Church is, its beleifs, its community, its practices prayer and worship and history. I was inspired to put effort into this after I saw the FA on Islam which is very well done on a controversial subject. For people like me who just want to know the facts without all the fluff of a pro- Islam propaganda piece or arrows of an anti-Islam propaganda piece, it was refreshing to read just the facts and know what they believe and practice and history. I thought what we were creating with this article was identical and helpful to Wikipedia, especially to Wikiproject Catholicism who needs a top article to wikilink all other articles in the project. NancyHeise (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, it's NOT a vote. No one is going to do a count. Consensus is not 50% plus 1. Tony (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I do agree that this is certainly not a vote, it should be a process where support is given if criteria are met and things that can be fixed to bring the article up the critera are fixed. Consensus to me means overwhelming agreement with one thing, and Wiktionary gives it at "general agreement". As such, while not necessarily a vote, I have found in my experience with many AFD's that the amount of supports (with valid reasons, not just "per [insert user name]" is is inversely proportional to the chances of the article being deleted, or in this case, the article being denied Featured Article status. If there are 100 supports with valid, sensible reasons and 5 opposes with valid, sensible reasons, it seems to me that there is a consensus that the article is worthy of being featured. Therefore, while this is certainly not a vote, it is a measure of support versus opposition. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 02:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta/archive1, which was not promoted with 25 Supports and 8 Opposes. FAC is not AfD; it is not a "measure of support versus opposition". If there are valid, actionable Opposes, they should be addressed and the conversation should stay focused on WP:WIAFA. I don't think anyone participating in this FAC wants to see the article pass and then get slapped instantly into featured article review once it appears on the mainpage and is exposed to a wider, critical audience; that's why FAC is not a vote and valid actionable opposes should be addressed before an article is promoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And, to keep this page focused on WP:WIAFA, please direct any followup on this commentary to the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose.Support.Oppose. The article is very good. My only complaint is that either the article is U.S.-centric or the editors are too harsh on singling out the U.S. regarding the child abuse scandal. It was quite widespread in many countries and the first cases came to light in the 1980s. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It was difficult to find any information about the abuse scandals in other countries that comprehensively quantified the problem. Only the United States had extensive studies that developed a reportable conclusion. There is information compiled by the Vatican that give the worldwide figure of total accused priests compared to total worldwide priests and that figure is 0.02%. I have only found that figure in a Catholic News article quoting a cardinal. I currently have on order the new Statistical Yearbook of the Church, if the information is in there, I will add it. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't that hard to find sources :-) But, if you want to blame the US, so be it! I'm Canadian. The article is good. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment.I've flip/flopped on this article. The article needs to be tightened up. The article is not NPOV. The text confuses Christian doctrine with specific Roman Catholic doctrine. If it eliminated what is universal to Christian belief, then the nearly 10,000 words of bloat could be reduced to a decent size. This isn't supposed to be a repeat of the Catechism of the Church. A non-Catholic and especially a non-Christian reader will find the article hard going as it does not provide context for the reader but resorts to too much jargon. The Lead alone is written at an advanced level - grade 12.7 by the Flesch-Kincaid score - and at over 500 words in length is getting a bit long. I'm still bothered by the U.S.-centric section on the child abuse scandal. I said it earlier, it is easy to find good references to the scandal and its world-wide reach. Also, the scandal was being reported before 2001 outside of the U.S. Simply, the text is factually wrong. Thus, reading the article and pondering it some more, I oppose the article being promoted to FA at this time. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Its comprehensive, had many good images, has been reworked many times to be neutral and well written. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support -- I reiterate my earlier support. Coemgenus 19:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Since some have taken exception with the brevity of my support, I will repeat in full what I said at the last nom: "I'm not knowledgable about the issues with the pictures, but the article's text is clear, well-written, and NPOV on a topic that inspires a lot of POV." I still agree with this statement. Coemgenus 12:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support -- I also reiterate my earlier support. --Anietor (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Vote early, vote often. OK, all supporters please "reiterate" what the nominator still regards as a vote, and you'll swamp us. These support repeats should be struck through. Tony (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I think there is merely some confusion about what "restart" means in FA nomination, which may suggest that a reiteration of a prior position is warranted. Striking through suggests a change of position, no? The.helping.people.tick (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the images such as Image:Albrecht Dürer 022.jpg should be moved a little down, right now they are directly below the level 3 header, and due to their left alignment they are breaking the prose's flow. Outside of that there are few matters that concern me, nothing so particulary troubling to prevent being featured, especially if we take under consideration that religion based articles are always hot topics. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Per WP:MOS#Images, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings". ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made changes to the images due to this comment. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Actually, my heart says Support but my mind says Oppose. I realize a copious amount of sweat and tears has been poured into this article. I've been scanning through the previous FAC, and the article has come a long, long way. I offer my respect and thanks to all those who have dedicated themselves to this task. Unfortunately, however, FAs aren't (or shouldn't be) awarded for hard work and dedication. They also aren't awarded for the worthiness of the topic. They are awarded for possessing an outstanding degree of compliance with WP:WIAFA, and I'm afraid this article just isn't quite there yet:

First, I am immovably sure that the article needs far too much work yet toward compliance with 1a. It needs to be tightened, tightened, tightened. Redundancies need to be stripped away mercilessly. All too often, moreover, it is not readily apparent to me how the Bible verses quoted to support various points are directly relevant, or whether they are needed at all. Finally, the article is a bit overburdened with clunky turns of phase and overdecorated with commas. As one example, I reworded the following sentence:

• Previous: "In Catholic belief, before the creation of man, God created spiritual beings called angels, servants and messengers of God, who possess intelligence, will, and immortality."
• Mine: "In Catholic belief, before creating mankind God created spiritual beings called angels to be his servants and messengers. Angels are immortal, and possess intelligence and will."

• This sentence was originally in your form but was changed due to an FA reviewer who felt it sounded too much like the sentence was a statement of fact rather than a belief. It has been difficult trying to make various FA reviewers happy on these minor differences of personal taste. NancyHeise (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Immediately below this is another clumsy passage, which I didn't edit:

• "Originally created to live in union with God, the first humans, Adam and Eve, by committing this original sin, brought suffering and death into the world. This event, known as the Fall of Man, left humans separated from their original state of intimacy with God. This state of separation can follow the soul into death."

Too many commas breaking up twisty constructions, too many sentences start with "this" etc.

I don't claim to be a professional-calibre writer. I can't always pull the rabbit out of the hat, but I can clearly see when the trick has failed. It fails here, and throughout the article.

Second, as for 1b and 1d, well, you'll note the first thing I pointed out was a grammatical construction that created a violation of WP:NPOV. That construction, while fixed in the lead, stands unmolested in the "Origin and mission" section... and I think if I pored over the article I would find more such... I am not sufficiently well-versed in Catholic history etc. to mount a formidable opposing argument based on 1b and 1d. That would require the services of a domain expert. However, see my comments about magic and magicians above. I just... get the feeling... that the article speaks too much from a Catholic POV, uses Catholic arguments to make Catholic points, etc. So my conclusion is "Oppose based on 1a", and I retain nagging concerns about 1b and 1d as well. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE:Thank you for your comments. Issues such as personal taste on things like wording are difficult for us to make everyone happy. Sometimes, removing wording for one person to make him or her happy will often offend someone else who then sees an obvious bias that the other may not see. We have tried to keep everyone happy but I realize that we can't always be successful in that area. NancyHeise (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - as much as I respect the work that Nancy and others have placed into this article, it does not meet the current criteria per Tony and others. My main problem with the article is that it reads like a persuasive essay, not an encyclopedic article. All points of view must be considered and addressed per WP:NPOV, and that is simply not done here. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE:Thanks for your comments. I realize there is a tendency for some people to want to see more expansion on certain criticisms. Again, it is difficult to make everyone happy here. We have omitted no criticism of the Catholic Church. All are mentioned in brief summary and then wikilinked to other Wikipedia pages where the issue is discussed in further depth. We had to do this in order to keep the page length down to a minimum. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not limited to mere criticism. Different points of view are not necessarily criticism. Per above, the article is heavily favorable towards the Church. I am a Catholic and this is blatantly apparent. As I requested at the previous FAC, please work with the editors who have raised objections on this nomination and work with them. If you are confused, ask for clarification. Merely brushing them off and using ad hominem attacks is not going to help you in any fashion here. FAC is not a vote. As it stands, this nomination will fail unless you can address the oppose votes here. There can be fifty support votes and it would be irrelevant in every fashion possible so long as the objections remain. I implore you to cease your attacks and work with the editors here. Getting a third party copy-editor to fix the page per Tony's suggestion would be a start. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support, it clearly reaches the requirements of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. No question about it. I'm trying to maintain good faith, but from the words of the people who are opposing, it seems their issues are more centred to their personal opinion of the Catholic Church, rather than "is this article up to standard for FA". The article presents a thorough, complete, overview of the subject at hand.. including relevent criticisms to present a NPOV and over 200 citations. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support as before. The article still has room for improvement. However, it meets FA standards. It's a fairly good article on a complex subject. Majoreditor (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The sacrament of Penance is fully described in the section about Jesus, but receives only a mention in the paragraph about sacraments. Is that the way it should be? I mean... Jesus is connected to everything in Christianity, and so everything could perhaps be in a section about Jesus... but is that the logical place? Ling.Nut (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, really, we could have gone into depth on each sacrament in the paragraph about Mass where they are all listed. But it was more logical to describe each sacrament under the actual belief section from which the purpose of the sacrament originates. As you will see, the most basic sacraments are described within certain sections of Beliefs like Penance under Jesus - whose death is believed by Christians to have granted people the opportunity for forgiveness of sins for those who are sorry and repent - Sacrament of Penance. NancyHeise (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I just replaced a lower-case "p" with a capital P in "sacrament of penance". Just now found a lower-case "c" in one instance of sacrament of confirmation". Am I correct in assuming that words like confirmation and eucharist should always rec'v caps after "sacrament of.."? Penance is both a sacrament and a general English word, but what about eucharist/Eucharist? Ling.Nut (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I could use help capitalizing these. After reading the Wikipolicies I thought it best to lowercase them just to not appear POV. After another editor started to captialize them, I asked SandyGeorgia for advice and she told me to go ask Tony (who subsequently came over with a big Oppose vote). Tony advised me to capitalize them. I have been doing so as I go through but may have missed some - your kindness and help to get them all is much appreciated.NancyHeise (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a bit surprised that the Demographics & Membership sections are placed at the very end of the article... I would've thought that these, being more general, would come near the front.. are you following some template on this arrangement? It's a matter of style, but... Ling.Nut (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything about this article was conceived following the example of the FA on Islam which I found to be very helpful to someone like me who does not know much about that religion. Since some of my children's school friends are Muslims and it is respectful to people of different cultures to have some knowledge of their beliefs, I found the article extremely helpful. I organized this article along the same lines. I want this to be an FA so people can trust that the information is not some product of ignorant editors going back and forth on Wikipedia! NancyHeise (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Despite other editors' confessed (no pun intended) struggles adhering to WP:AGF regarding the Oppose votes, the fact is, you need non-Catholics reading this article. I just finished reading (and rereading, and re-rereading) "Church organization and community" and it didn't make sense to me. I suspect that's because Catholics, when reading, subconsciously "fill in the blanks" with missing information — whereas those blanks are chasms to me... The section seemed to omit key information, to include redundant statements, etc etc etc. I'm gonna try to work on a revised version in my user space, though I'm sure it'll contain some errors. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has been much improved by the contributions of non-Catholics. I especially appreciate the number of them who have been respectful of this religion and truly wanted to help Wikipedia have a decent article on the subject regardless of their personal feelings about the Church.NancyHeise (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Nancy is working on the Community section as per my comments; I'm working on an (unfortunately) competing version here. That version currently has tons of redundancy that can be cut cut cut. unfortunately I have to quit for the day now, but I hope we can work together. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I replaced my reworking with Ling Nut's making some minor corrections of fact. NancyHeise (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I must give extreme kudos to Nancy for maintaining her composure in the face of some of the extreme POV carping by certain people on this page. She must have spent over 100 hours of intense work on this project since nomination. No sooner does she work to appease one set of objections when a whole shaft more appears. There are vague criticisms saying the article is "too pro-Catholic", with no detail given, presumably because it doesn't follow their own prejudices. Is the "France" article too pro-French, I wonder or the Science article too pro-science? At the other extreme there are people like Dave1 who want the article to conform to their own personal style and word choice preferences, with numerous petty criticisms. References are removed because they aren't from books specifically looking at the Catholic Church, then someone objects that the source is too narrow! Finally when the history and belief sections are enlarged, and heavily referenced to include sections detailing issues that FA reviewers have said need to be included, others then turn up and say the sections need cropping! We will never get anywhere at this rate! Xandar (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

<remainder of commentary moved to the talk page; please stay focused on WP:WIAFA and remember that Islam and the article author are not being evaluated here (Roman Catholic Church is). Please continue this off-topic discussion on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment All I'm saying, which I do believe NEEDS saying on this page, (more is on the talk page) is let's have constructive relelevant, and specific criticisms only, not vague, general bad-mouthing, or saying "someone else could do it better." Saying "not well organized" or "should be better than this", is no use whatsoever to the process. If your point has any relevance, explain HOW and in what precise way you would prefer to see it organised, and in what precise way it should be "better", otherwise I would say the comment is irrelevant, and should be ignored. Xandar (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose It's covering a pretty big subject but it's not very well organized. Most of the covered topics have main articles so it really shouldn't be this long. The history is better off in its own article. "Origin and mission" is out of place. Obviously, a featured article doesn't need to be perfect but it should be better than this.Mike92591 (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple editors have just worked to trim the article in all areas. It was 132KB and is now 118KB. I have looked over every part of the article to remove excesses or redundancies as well as three other editors. I do not see any more we can cut without starting to violate FA criteria requiring us not to omit key information. NancyHeise (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support The article is well up to FA standard, which means (like its subject) not perfect. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Multiple instances of British English spelling. They didn't appear to be in direct quotes or book titles etc.; just in the body text. The overwhelming majority of the text (including section headers) is American English, so I assume that's the standard for the article. Look for: organisation, behaviour, criticised, baptised, favour, endeavour and travellers. I think that's all of them. Ling.Nut (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm fixing the British Eng. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am unfamiliar with the specific criteria for FACs these days, but if this is the sort of thing that people are allowing through, I am a little unhappy. In general, this article is not sufficiently neutral, does not rely sufficiently on disinterested academic scholarship - especially in matters related to the catechism, where Msgr. Barry is used, and in medieval history, where a book credited to "Harcourt Religious Publishers" is used extensively.

Wikipedia allows self published sources like the Catechism and Code of Canon Law when creating sections like "Beliefs". The other books referencing those sections are not self-published, even the Msgr. Barry book. The history section is referenced to over 30 books with several that are University press published and written by scholars that are then supplemented with a variety of books spanning a wide expanse of published sources on the subject matter. I think it makes the history section quite well-rounded. NancyHeise (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, self-published sources are allowed. Two things, however: our best articles should avoid them if possible; and in this case the Catechism is a primary source, which should be used with caution, and ideally only to support a secondary source for an interested reader. (I'd love to put that in terms of FA criteria. Its mentioned in WP:V, but not explicitly in the criteria. Typical. Prose should be "brilliant", but the quality of sourcing isnt addressed.)

The history section is strongly dependent on the Harcourt book, which is - as far as I can tell - a parochial publishing house in Florida. Relata refero (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Since "specific" complaints are also asked for, may I direct people to the section on the Church's history in the Renaissance. On the Church's role in the New World, this is all that is mentioned: "n December 1511, Dominican friar Antonio de Montesinos openly rebuked the Spanish authorities governing Hispaniola for their mistreatment of the American natives, telling them "you are in mortal sin ... for the cruelty and tyranny you use in dealing with these innocent people".[142] Although King Ferdinand enacted the Laws of Burgos and Valladolid in response, enforcement was lax. The issue did rouse a crisis of conscience in 16th century Spain. An outpouring of self-criticism and philosophical reflection among Catholic theologians, most notably Francisco de Vitoria, led to debate on the nature of human rights, and the birth of modern international law." Seriously? This is not the mainstream view of the Church's involvement, far from it.—This is part of a comment by Relata refero , which was interrupted by the following:

Amazing response - this was found in several books and is in fact the mainstream view. I am happy that the article will sufficiently reveal to people that the Catholic Church, as viewed by historians, has been an influence for good in the New World and is distinguished and separate from the harm done by Spanish explorers. NancyHeise (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It has indeed been a lasting and in many ways "good" influence. The activities of the Franciscans and the famous sermons of Vitoria and de la Casas are indeed relevant, and the fact that Vitoria's lectures at Salamanca on the subject are crucial to the history of international law and sovereignty is a nice point. That does not give an FA the right to skip over the accepted view that there were many problems, particularly its justification of forced labour under its stewardship (see Bruce E. Johansen), its vast holdings, and the close alliance with the Crown under the patronado real. The mainstream view? The Catholic Church "....was a government agency like any other... in return for assistance in conerting indigenous peoples to Catholicism, state officials were given the right to appoint Church officials and control its finances..." (Carlos Forment). For the final word, see the John Frederick Schwaller's introduction to The Church in Colonial Latin America which puts into perspective the thoeretical "wins" in Spain with the abject failure of adminstration of those principles on the ground. The way the section is written, it sounds the other way 'round. Relata refero (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the part of the article you are having trouble with and calling POV is this "In the Americas, the church expanded its missions in cooperation with the Spanish government and military. Junípero Serra, the Franciscan priest in charge of this effort, founded a series of missions which quickly became important economic, political, and religious institutions.[165] These missions brought grain, cattle, and a new way of living to the pagan Indian tribes of California. Overland routes were established from New Mexico that resulted in the colonization of San Francisco in 1776 and Los Angeles in 1781. However, by bringing civilization to the area, these missions and the Spanish government have been held responsible for wiping out nearly a third of the native population, primarily through disease.[166] This period also saw the church struggling against the colonial abuses of the Portuguese and Spanish governments. In South America Jesuits established semi-independent colonies or reductions to protect native peoples from enslavement. Pope Gregory XVI, challenging Spanish and Portuguese sovereignty, appointed his own candidates as bishops in the colonies, condemned slavery and the slave trade in 1839, and approved the ordination of native clergy in the face of government racism.[167]" This part of the article is referenced to two different Scholarly books published by University Presses supplemented with an online source. Clearly, scholarly works in agreement would constitute reliable facts that we can put in the article. Neither source mentions your "mainstream view". I have to use the best and most reliable sources over others and that is what the article has done. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was talking about the earlier section, which I quoted. This section uses a book published in the 1970s by the "Society of Californian Pioneers", and Duffy. I have no objection to the section on the 1830s, though it certainly doesn't tell the whole story; one would think the Jesuits had local church support, which wasn't the case. My concerns about the earlier section stand. Relata refero (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, reading that section, the Reformation is not put into sufficient context: "In Europe, the Renaissance was a period of renewed interest in ancient and classical learning, and a re-examination of accepted beliefs. On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses, which protested key points of Catholic doctrine as well as the sale of indulgences.[144] Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, and others further criticised Catholic teachings. These challenges developed into the Protestant Reformation.[145]" Criticised how? The only thing mentioned here is indulgences. Not good enough.—This is part of a comment by Relata refero , which was interrupted by the following:

This is what I was talking about earlier about not being able to satisfy all people. In an earlier FAC, reviewers wanted more info - we put it in and then this FAC they want the article to have less. Now we have less and we have reviewers who want more again. Several editors both Catholic and non-Catholic worked together to get the current version, many top sources were consulted and used for the current form of the history section. It was recently trimmed by Karanacs and Lingnut.NancyHeise (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but must repeat that from the point of view of an encyclopaedic article on the Catholic church, not having a few sentences on what caused the Reformation is very not-OK. Relata refero (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that more expansion of this section is needed. It was expanded to include the information this reviewer would like to see. It was subsequently trimmed by three non-Catholic and very expert FA reviewers in a recent vast trimming of the entire page. NancyHeise (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My comments on the need for context for the most major event in Catholic history stand. On the subject of who made the changes, it doesn't matter: they may be expert FA reviewers, but they've certainly screwed up the article here. Relata refero (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The end of the section sums up the problem with the entire article: "Baroque religious expression was emotional, with joyful and exuberant music and art intended to appeal to the senses. Emphasizing the humanity of Jesus and the motherly qualities of Mary, this style offered the common people a joyous religious experience." Depressingly in-universe, as it were, and completely ignores the mainstream scholarship: "The baroque is the glorification of established regimes: it is the art of authoritarianism that carries the awed observer away so he forgets to doubt and question" - Joyce G. Simpson, quoted in Jose Antonio Maravall; not to mention the stream of thought that links the baroque in religious architecture to spectacle, illusion and theatricality, for which see Karsten Harries on ethics in architecture.

I am not sure what FAs are coming to these days, if this is a representative candidate. Relata refero (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The section on Baroque is referenced to a non- Catholic church affiliated source and was inserted at the request of a non-Catholic FA reviewer. NancyHeise (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, the Baroque section is referenced to the book from Harcourt, the religious publishers. Relata refero (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no particular contradiction between the views on the Baroque quoted or mentioned, and Simpson (whoever she is) appears to be discussing the secular Baroque in particular; the passage in the article cannot reasonably be accused of "completely ignoring" mainstream views. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia NPOV requires an article to give the reader a fair representation of views. This does not preclude us from supplementing all of our 90% + books used to create the history section with the only one that is published by Harcourt Religion Publishers. In fact, it is to the advantage of the article not to be accused of being anti-Catholic by using at least one of these kinds of books to tie in with the others. We did not use just one book but over 30 including more than a fair amount of University press citations.NancyHeise (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

John: Joyce Simpson wrote the book on the French baroque. In this section she is talking about the general approach to the baroque in France; Maravall later on in the same passage goes on to point out the unitary structure of authority between the Church and secular power, and their common use of the baroque. This is absolutely the mainstream in art history. The passage may not "contradict" the mainstream, but it definitely ignores it.

Nancy: in this section the Harcourt book is the source for all the major claims. Relata refero (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments The article needs a thorough copy edit - there are awkwardly worded sentences, confusing diction, and easter egg links. Here are some examples from the lead.

Issues resolved, Awadewit

• The Roman Catholic Church, often referred to as the Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church, representing over half of all Christians and one sixth of the world's population. - "representing" is an odd choice here - perhaps "encompassing"?
• It is made up of one Western or Latin and 22 Eastern Catholic autonomous particular churches, and divided into 2,782 jurisdictional areas around the world. - This is the second sentence of the article - think of the readers who know nothing - choose either Western or Latin - make it as simple as possible.

• These are factual statements whose elimination would make the article less encyclopedic. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not asking you to eliminate that distinction - I'm asking you to postpone explaining or using it until later in the article. The lead needs to be as simple and straightforward as possible. It needs to be a summary of the article. Right now I think it is a bit too confusing for readers who are unfamiliar with religious language, for example. Think of science articles - they build in complexity - it's the same concept. Awadewit

• On Images: Obviously there is a plethora of art to choose from for this page and the editors have chosen lovely images (all listed as being in the public domain). However, none of the captions list the artists and only some list the dates. Many of these works are famous and beautiful (I studied a lot of them in my art history classes). It would be helpful to readers unfamiliar with the art historical tradition to identify the artists and approximate dates for them. Awadewit | talk 15:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

While we could change all captions to reflect only the origin of the artwork, I disagree that this would be an improvement to the article. The reader can click on the picture to discover its origin, the article is not about art history, it is about the Roman Catholic Church and these pictures are about subjects directly related to content in the article. We chose to caption the content of the picture rather than its origin in an effort to supplement reader's understanding of the article topic, not redirect their attention to an off-subject topic. NancyHeise (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clearer. I wanted only to add to the captions. Most artworks are identified in FAs and then have a commentary about how they apply to the article. It is both a gesture of recognition to the artist and a way to inform the audience. Awadewit | talk 14:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin and mission

• The church and scholars such as Edward Norman consider this to be the manner of the church's origin and cite historical records that support this belief. - Is there any way to characterize the group of scholars that Norman belongs to? Do they belong to a strain of thinking, for example?

"Dr. Edward Norman (born 22 November, 1938) was Canon Chancellor of York Minster and is an ecclesiastical historian. He lectured in history at the University of Cambridge. He is an emeritus Fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge and was Dean of Peterhouse for seventeen years and Dean and Chaplain at Christ Church College, Canterbury and Professor of History at the University of York. He is a member of the Peterhouse school of history. Norman also was a BBC Reith lecturer in 1978, discussing the relationship between religion and politics. Margaret Thatcher once invited him to Chequers, although Norman insists he is not a Thatcherite and says he is 'appalled by the results of naked capitalism'. He has left the Church of England and has converted to the Roman Catholic Church, although he claims these two actions are independent of each other." He has been involved with the Conservative Philosophy Group and has written for the Salisbury Review. this was copied and pasted from the Wikipedia page on Edward Norman, not an obscure historian from an obscure college. His book "Roman Catholic Church and Illustrated History" is one of our University Press sources used to create the article.NancyHeise (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can verify from somewhere other than Wikipedia that he part of the "Peterhouse school of history", that is precisely the sort of information we are looking for. Describing it would be even better than giving its name. For readers unfamiliar with the world of biblical studies, it is pretty much meaningless to cite a scholar's name, but if you can say "he uses this particular methodology", that helps them out a lot more, if you see what I mean. Awadewit | talk 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that we have to put anything in the article more than a wikilinked name of the author in the origin and mission section. It is easy enough for the reader to go to the page of that author and see who he is. I added a reference to the Wikipedia page on Edward Norman to support the claims made on his page. Is there some Wikipedia policy that requires more information on an author? I'm sorry, while I am complying with many of your requests, I do not see how this will make the article better. I think it will clutter up the messages being conveyed in the Origin and Mission paragraph and is unnecessary if we have a wikilink to the author, which we have for both authors cited.NancyHeise (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, Edward Norman is a top scholar at one of the worlds top Universities. Peterhouse school of history definition concentrated on these scholars views of politics in the 19th and 20th centuries. This is not relevent to the topic of the article.NancyHeise (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a wikipolicy somewhere about proper attribution of quotations. I'm sure someone here knows where it is. However, the real issue is that you can help the reader. Let me give an example. In the article about Mary Shelley that I'm currently working on, I just noticed the same problem. The article could say: "Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar write that..." Now Gilbert and Gubar wrote a very important book on women writers. It would be better, however, if the article said: "Feminist literary critics Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar write that..." That way readers know the perspective from which the scholarship is coming. It is these tiny details that help readers who don't know what you, the writer, knows. Awadewit | talk 00:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• The coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles at Pentecost brought this promised "church" fully into the world. The church and scholars such as Edward Norman consider this to be the manner of the church's origin and cite historical records that support this belief. What historical records? Could that information be added to the footnote? (Are you sure this is what they think the historical records support - that the Holy Spirit came down on Pentecost? There already is a sentence in the footnote implying that records support something else. Perhaps the sentence in the article needs to be reworded to reflect the claim in the footnote?)

Good point, I changed the wording of these sentences to address your comment. NancyHeise (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes so much more sense now! Awadewit | talk 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• The church believes that it follows these mandates by preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments. - Gospel and sacraments are still not explained yet - if they are not explained in the lead, they definitely should be here - again, just phrases

Gospel is wikilinked as well as sacraments. They are explained in Beliefs. NancyHeise (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

We need something before we get there, though, to help readers before the BIG explanation. And, what if they only read the lead? Many readers only do that. Awadewit | talk 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Addressed, I expanded a bit in the lead. NancyHeise (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Beliefs

• Material can be cut from the second paragraph of the "Beliefs" section because it repeats information about the apostolic succession that is already presented in the "Origins and mission" section.

Addressed

• According to the church the infallible sources of divine revelation are: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. The infallible teachings of the Pope form part of the sacred magisterium, which also includes the pronouncements of ecumenical councils and the "ordinary and universal magisterium". - These three parts of divine revelation need to be defined for those unfamiliar with them. For example, "Sacred Scripture (the Bible)..."

Addressed

• I would suggest deleting the text of the Nicene Creed - Wikipedia is not Wikisource and it is long for a quote. I know there has been a lot of discussion about this, but I want to register my support for this particular proposal.

Addressed

• People can be cleansed from this original sin and all personal sins through the sacrament of Baptism. - again, a small phrase explaining what Baptism is for those non-Christians out there

Addressed NancyHeise (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Catholics can be cleansed from all sins other than original sin through the sacrament of Penance. - again, just a small phrase explaining or giving an example for those unfamiliar with this tradition

Addressed NancyHeise (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• In the messianic texts of the Jewish Tanakh, which is also the Christian Old Testament, God promises to send his people a savior who will give his life as an offering for sin. - "as an offering for sin" - I don't think this is precisely right - isn't it more like as an offering for the people who had sinned or something like that?

Addressed NancyHeise (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Jesus preached that following him leads to the fullness of life and love. - This needs support from a Church document as well, since there are so many Bible verses that could refute it. (It is currently only supported by a Bible verse.)
• The "Jesus and Holy Spirit" section does not really explain what the Holy Spirit is. For example, it does not explain that it is part of the Trinity. Trinitarianism is a major theological position not mentioned in the "Beliefs" section. Pentecost is never mentioned in this section or explained, although it is alluded to in other places in the article. For readers unfamiliar with these concepts, we must try and explain them.

AddressedNancyHeise (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of the "Church" section seems to repeat the idea of the "mission" paragraph in "Origins and mission". I would delete the second paragraph of "Church".

AddressedNancyHeise (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest moving the long "final judgment" Biblical quote in the "Final judgment and afterlife" section to a footnote, especially since we are trying to reduce words. It does add anything to the section.

Addressed NancyHeise (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• I found the "Final judgment" section a bit confusing initially - I would have one paragraph entirely on the final judgment and one paragraph entirely on the afterlife. Right now, the final judgment is defined in opposition to the afterlife. It makes it a little difficult to realize that the first paragraph is supposed to be about the final judgment - it seems like a comparison/contrast paragraph. Some revising would help this.

AddressedNancyHeise (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Is there a wikilink or a Biblical footnote that can be put in for the "thief who was crucified next to Jesus"?

Addressed NancyHeise (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I would like to point out that I'm sure we all agree this article is very important and I would like to thank the editors who have put so much time and effort into it. I am hoping that by ironing out any little writing problems, we can also iron out any possible POV problems. Happily, focusing on the language of an article often has that effect. Awadewit | talk 13:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(off-topic) I remember now why I don't spend time near FAC. Precisely the belief you outline in the last couple of sentences, which really seems to have no grounding in fact. Relata refero (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Three editors, two of whom are not Catholics, who opposed the FA nomination have just spent a significant effort to eliminate POV and trim the article. I appreciate thier efforts and do not feel there is any POV left to eliminate without eliminating what the Catholic church thinks of itself - important content to have.NancyHeise (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I am more focused on the writing. Awadewit | talk 21:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of your points have been addressed like the Origin and MIssion sentence and easter egg links. Others are matters of personal taste that may conflict with the many qualified and often non-Catholic editors of the page who have gone over several times with improvements. Some of your comments will just make the page too long and off subject - wikilinks are provided for the reader who wants more explanation of terms like Gospel, liturgy, etc. Thanks for your comments. NancyHeise (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we generally don't talk about qualifications, but if you want to hear mine, I'm sure you would be satisfied with them. I have both on- and off-wiki qualifications. :) I would also argue that explaining core concepts such as the Holy Spirit early in the article are not off topic. Readers need to be helped along - they often skip parts of articles and when reading introductory articles such as this one, we might assume they are unfamiliar with the language of the Church. We should do all we can to assist them in understanding the material we are presenting. Awadewit | talk 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: those who have a problem with the length of the article please take a look at the comparable featured article Israel. Squash Racket (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• This article is 60kb of readable prose (to calculate this, I followed the directions at WP:LENGTH). According to that page, "> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". Awadewit | talk 15:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot has been done in the past few days to cut its size, esp. by User:Karanacs. If it fails and then receives intensive copy editing, a lot more will be done. If it passes, then it is perhaps unlikely that it will receive such intensive scrutiny. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Current readable prose size per Dr pda's prose size script of Roman Catholic Church is 56KB, Israel is 46KB, Islam is 41KB, and Atheism is 32KB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Further to size, here is a list for comparison purposes of the articles found in the on-line edition of Encarta.

• Roman Catholic Church (Encarta): 4,400 words
• Islam (Encarta): 9,700 words
• Christianity (Encarta): 7,100 words
• Atheism (Encarta): 1,500 words
• The current size (15 March 2008) of the Roman Catholic Church article: 9,700 words

I think it is not unreasonable to envision the main Roman Catholic Church article to be about 5,000 words. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Encarta. The current Catholic article on Wikipedia, is better than Encarta's (which is the purpose of this project anyway). Squash Racket brings up a great point, Israel's article was allowed to pass without having essential imformation stripped out of it, so should this article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If this article is cut to fit Wikipedias guidlines, it will omit basic facts - several editors have just trimmed everything out of the aritcle that is not core. We want a useful article, not a shell and this subject warrants a sufficient size to meet the FA criteria that requires it to not omit important facts. The Wikipedia guideline on article size states at the top of the page that if a subject warrants a larger size, then it is OK to ignore the guideline. NancyHeise (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Question for the MOS gurus I hate to ask this, but it must be asked if we are going to do this right: Are we going to go with "church" or "Church". This recently came up at the Zwingli article FAC, where we went with "the Church". The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers states that capitalizing the shortened form is a good idea in order to distinguish it from the generic use of the word. Here is their example: "The Democratic Party has always been the dominant party in this country. However, recently other political groups have begun to encroach upon the Party's territory." I have frequently seen "the Church" in published scholarship. Thoughts on this? Awadewit | talk 21:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The rule is that you use lower case unless you are naming the church. I went through this already with the FA Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. NancyHeise (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

But I am pointing out that grammar books disagree with this and perhaps we should rethink that decision. Awadewit | talk 14:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would support removing the Nicene Creed, as articles do not usually contain entire texts like that, and we are trying to reduce the size of this one (I was actually about to suggest this move). I would not support removing the entire "Beliefs" section. Awadewit | talk 02:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The Roman Catholic Church is an organization built around a set of beliefs. Take out the beliefs and it is no longer a church; it's a social outreach organization, or something like that. No way on earth can that section be tossed.... As for eliminating the Nicene creed: I too think it should go. But just removing it goes far beyond the bounds of WP:BOLD in my opinion. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Please see my trimmed version of the beliefs section. It is 530 words rather than 1,700 words. I've placed it at Talk:Roman Catholic Church#Tossing Beliefs Section and is in bold called 'beliefs and doctrines'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTE TO FA REVIEWER FROM NOMINATOR: Because two editors are now discussing eliminating the Beliefs section for this article and one has already eliminated the Nicene Creed (which I replaced) I am wondering if we can please have some kind of ruling on the RCC page as of my last edit. The page is currently being turned into something that I would not consider worthy of FA and would probably make me withdraw the nomination. These changes have occured without consensus of editors considering all of the support votes here and only a couple of opposes stating elimination of Nicene Creed and no one advocating tossing the entire beliefs section. It has been over two weeks that this page has been at FAC. I think it was perfect as of my last edit here which includes the polishing edits of SandyGeorgia, Lingnut and several other editors many of whom are not-Catholic and worked extensively to eliminate any POV and address issues brought up by the oppose votes on this page. How much longer do we go on without a decision and at what point can this controversial page receive protection from the kind of editing that is occuring now? NancyHeise (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Note I have since restored the page to the form it was in as an FA nomination. NancyHeise (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. All major edits should go through consensus on the article Talk Page. Xandar (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is true, then the article fails FAC #1(e). These differences and changes need to be worked out on the talk page. If there is edit warring and lack of consensus on the article in major ways, then the article clearly isn't stable. We can't force and article to be "stable" by reverting back to an earlier version. The concerns of these editors need to be addressed, or they need to be convinced to jump on board (or vice versa). Conflict like this isn't good for the nomination :( -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Also in view of the sheer weight of comments here; and in the interests of Nancy and others, who have spent far more time on the page than I have been able to offer, can objections be less matters of personal preference than things the objector or commenter really believes are breaches of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria? Perhaps mentioning the specific criterion they are referring to, and in what precise way they allege the criterion not to be met. Secondly, since the number of suggestions for change shows no sign of slowing down, there needs to be some sort of shape to this process. Perhaps if a number of us could agree a finished article, and then everyone can re-submit valid supports and opposes from that point?? Xandar (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the article has reached the finished point and do not want another revote. I would like the FA reviewer to please come and make a decision. It has been two weeks and the only issues coming up now are minor issues of personal taste with no breaches of wikipedia policies or POV. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nancy. I suggested a re-vote so the old objections could be weeded out and the process boil down to those who still have issues - and whether those issues are valid or not. At the moment I'm confused as to who is still opposing and for what reasons? Xandar (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that two weeks is a relatively short time for an article of this magnitude and potential controversy. It is also normal for the prose of an article to be carefully checked. That is part of what FAC is about. Awadewit | talk 14:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I personally think that when this page gets longer than the actual article in question, that's when a decision should be made. We're almost there! ;-) Seriously, though, I'm having a problem with a quite key sentence in the article, in the Reformation section or whatever it actually is: "On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses, which protested key points of Catholic doctrine as well as the sale of indulgences.[151]" When I started the All Saints' Church, Wittenberg article about the church the theses were posted on, I found out and was confronted about them not actually having been posted there. In our The Ninety-Five Theses article, under "Initial Dissemination", they mention that there is no contemporaraneous evidence supporting the posting of the Theses on the door. It references that statement to "Iserloh, Erwin. The Theses Were Not Posted. Toronto: Saunders of Toronto, Ltd., 1966." Now, in such an important article as this, I don't think that we should be putting as fact what may be question. Perhaps throw in an allegedly or historically or something, but I don't think that we should be saying that he did in fact post his theses there. Any thoughts, yea or nay? Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 15:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Might ask RelHistBuff. He's been working on Reformation articles recently. Might know. Awadewit | talk 15:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I reworded this and added a reference to support the rewording. My source says it was originally sent in a letter to the Archbishop of Albrecht who was the one selling indulgences to raise money. Luther then sent the 95 theses to other bishops hoping to spark debate and discussion in a scholarly fashion. NancyHeise (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My source (Bainton, p. 60) says that Luther did post a placard of the Ninety-five Theses on the Castle Church. Of course, there will always be many theories. Unless there are more publications other than Iserloh (who is by the way a Roman Catholic professor of church history at Trier) that support his claim, I don't think this theory should be given undue weight. An additional comment: I do think the coverage on the Reformation is weak. There are significant number of sentences devoted to the English Reformation (Anglicanism), but I think most Protestants would agree that the heart of the break with Rome lies within the German (Lutheranism) and Swiss (Calvinism) Reformation of which there is little description. Another question: why are the French reformers simply called "militant followers of Calvinism"? Is there something wrong with calling them Huguenots? --RelHistBuff (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• <off-topic comment moved to talk page> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)