Wikipedia:Peer review/Roman Catholic Church/archive3: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:02, 13 September 2008

Roman Catholic Church

Previous peer review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

I've listed this article for peer review because… the editors of this page intend to submit the article to WP:FAC. The page was improved since the last FAC by adding a closing section and demographics section as requested by some commentators in the last FAC. The history section has been trimmed and a main history article was created (History of the Roman Catholic Church). The Beliefs, Prayer Practices and worship, and Church organization sections were not a problem in the last FAC but the history section was criticized for lack of scholarly works and for using sources that were offering history from a Catholic point of view. The history section uses the most cited scholarly works: Bokenkotter, Duffy, LeGoff, McManners, Gonzolez, Haigh, Koschorke, and others. Please see Google Scholar to see how often these works are cited. Because WP:NPOV requires us to give all points of view of history, we included two books from notable professors of history: Edward Norman and John Vidmar. Vidmar's book has footnotes and bibliography and Norman's has bibliography and is published by a University press (as recommended by WP:Reliable source examples). The citations to these sources are small in number and are usually a double to another citation from one of the other more scholarly works. We included them in sensitive areas of RCC history to allow reader to see that scholars from all points of view agree on the sentences cited and we provided quotes from the various sources so reader could see this. Please review the article and provide a list of any comments you would like for us to consider. Thanks for coming to see and review the article! NancyHeise ^talk 20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Some random points - I should add more:

I think some mention should be made in the lead of the unified hierarchy of the Church, which is a prime feature distinguishing it from other large churches. This could also be brought out more in the Church organization section.

I spent an hour looking for a reference to put your thoughts into words - I was not successful but will keep looking. NancyHeise ^talk 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's hope someone can turn up something. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the language is rather complicated & confusing: "The sacred scriptures consist of the 73 books of the Catholic Bible. These are made up of those contained in the Greek version of the Old Testament—known as the Septuagint[43]—and the 27 New Testament writings found in the Codex Vaticanus and listed in Athanasius' Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter." - this, if kept as it is, should be balanced with a clarification that the great majority of this is as used by all Christian churches.

I made adjustments to this section per your comment here, please see again. NancyHeise ^talk 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God the Father, original sin and Baptism section - are Adam & Eve & the 7 Deadly Sins Catholic doctrine as such? The Vatican catechism is clearly taking a distancing line from the former. The latter should be qualified by a "traditional" or something - I don't believe they have ever had a very official status. This bit seems too detailed to me.

I made adjustments to this section per your comment here, please see again. NancyHeise ^talk 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus section has no link to "atonement" - odd given the level of detail it goes into.

linked. NancyHeise ^talk 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better; maybe: "it rejects as unscientific, efforts to use the theory to deny add:OVERALL supernatural divine design." if the ref supports that. Is "unscientific" the best word here? Outside the scope of scienbce is more the position, no? Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I used your wording instead of unscientific because it is in agreement with the authors meaning. I thought unscientific meant the same thing but "outside the scope of science" is more clear. Please see again. NancyHeise ^talk 21:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Although married men may become deacons, only celibate men are ordained as priests in the Latin Rite" - some mention of the millenium or so for which this was not the case would be appropriate - a "now" would be a start.

Added content and ref. NancyHeise ^talk 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE - nicely! Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eucharist section - a clearer short explanation of what a mass is is needed I think - how long it typically takes, Sunday obligation etc, priests say every day etc.

Trimmed, also please see the paragraph just above the Eucharist section. Do you think I need to expand it? NancyHeise ^talk 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"homosexual men who are sexually active, or those who have deeply rooted homosexual tendencies cannot be ordained" - well that's the theory certainly - some modification would be better.

What do you have in mind here, the page just states the facts at present. I think in the past, especially in the United States, homosexual men were welcomed into the priesthood, something the Vatican nixed after the recent scandals.NancyHeise ^talk 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the time (until the 60s) it was more "Don't ask, don't tell. I suppose now they do ask, but whether they always get told one may wonder. But without refs nothing can be added, clearly. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, these are all excellent points that will make the article better. I was even considering some of these issues myself but have been a bit sidetracked getting ready for Hurricane Ike! The Adam and Eve thing is Catholic doctrine but what I was considering is clarifying that this teaching is congruent with recent scientific discoveries and that Catholic doctrine accepts and incorporates the most widely held scientific views, which is in contrast to Christian denominations who take strictly the literal view of the Bible creation story. I just need to get a good reference that explains this otherwise it would be considered original research - working on. I agree with all of your points and will be incorporating them with refs as I get some more time. Thanks for these seriously good comments! :) NancyHeise ^talk 23:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Some more points:

The clergy statistics are very interesting, but:a) adding the term & link nun might be useful, and b) do the maths work for "religious sisters (nuns) who comprise over two thirds of all Church personnel"? - (in 000s) 769 nuns, 194 male religious, 405 "secular" priests gives 56% female, which falls to just 50% when all the other groups are added in. NB also, further on "In 2008, the Vatican affirmed that the scandal was an "exceptionally serious" problem, but estimated that it was "probably caused by 'no more than 1 per cent'" of the over 400,000 Catholic priests worldwide." - well over 400k if the religious are added in, on these stats.

Fixed - two separate sentences had priest figures, one included religious brothers and religious priests, the other included religious priests and diocesan priests. I broke these numbers out so they don't overlap.NancyHeise ^talk 04:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but "nearly 2/3" still doesn't seem precise - 769/1373, or 1264 without seminarians, still doesn't get over 61% according to the back of my envelope? Just use a %? Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, the reference actually says that religious sisters make up nearly 2/3 of all church personnel. I think the term church personnel might include lay employees also? The reference is not clear on that issue. I am just going to delete the statement since I can't get a more clear definition. Oh and I also just linked religious sisters in the Religious Orders section of the page which happens to be just above this section. Please see my changes and let me know what you think. NancyHeise ^talk 01:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's always dangerous mixing statistics from two sources. But "religious sisters make up the majority" seems clear, and is interesting. Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Some parts of Europe and the Americas have experienced a priest shortage in recent..." - "shortage of priests" better, and a mention of the very high average age of priests in the West & the looming problem ahead would be useful.

OK - added new wording and content to reflect this concern. I did not put in anything about looming problems ahead because the ref used is the best ref I could find and the interviewees declined to forcast the future or call it a crisis. I think it would be perceived as unencyclopedic and possibly POV to introduce speculation about any future problems. If I had a ref that I could put with speculation it might work but it will be a lightning rod of contention that I would rather not include anyway. What do you think? NancyHeise ^talk 02:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! DONE Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've copy-edited the bits on the arts somewhat, & will add a ref or two.
"As the Visigoths and Lombards moved from Arianism toward Catholicism,[225] missionaries such as Augustine of Canterbury, Saint Boniface, Willibrord and Ansgar took Catholic Christianity to the Germanic, Irish and Slavic peoples of northern Europe. Later missions reached the Vikings and other Scandinavians.[229]" - rather confused: Boniface & Willibrord were "Germanic" Anglo-Saxons, who were missionaries to the Continent. At this period no one took "Catholic Christianity" to the Irish, who Patrick & others had converted to Celtic Christianity, which had only loose links with Rome before the Synod of Whitby. These links, and the Hiberno-Scottish mission, should be worked in.

I note Xandar's comments below; I will suggest a wording later. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Inquisition - mention it was controlled by the Spanish Crown, not Rome?

Done. and Trimmed this section too. NancyHeise ^talk 04:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A growing sense of church-state conflicts marked the 14th century" - needs back-dating, & link to the Investiture controversy, & perhaps Guelphs and Ghibellines.

I will try to come up with a rewording. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In the late 15th and early 16th centuries, European explorers and missionaries spread Catholicism to the Americas, Asia, Africa and Oceania." Add "Beginning" at the start - relatively little spread actually in the period mentioned.

Done. NancyHeise ^talk 04:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty Years War - far from just a religious war, as shown by the leading power on the "Protestant" side being France under Cardinal Richelieu! Those statistics are endlessly disputed & too detailed for here - maybe put in a note.

I think the wikilink is sufficient, I eliminated most of the elaboration on this war. NancyHeise ^talk 04:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The pope is an international leader who regularly receives heads of state from around the world, and who holds a seat at the United Nations.[391]" Strictly, that is Vatican City.

Changed. NancyHeise ^talk 04:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent comments - I know how to fix the priest numbers in demographics, there is a double counting there. I will address all these comments hopefully by tomorrow. Thanks Johnbod! NancyHeise ^talk 19:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with some of the comments regarding the early missions in Europe. Boniface and Willibrord were working under papal authority and direction. Patrick and others indeed took Catholic Christianity to ireland. It later evolved into so-called "Celtic Christianity", and the differences, even later, were minor (dating of easter, clerical tonsure, etc). Xandar 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure a wording can be agreed; I'll try to suggest one later. There were Christians in the British Isles before the known missionaries arrived, & the known information is so scanty about the early period that when it "evolved" is just a matter of supposition. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kensplanet

Some points which may be raised in the FAC.
Jesus is overlinked. The same wikilink appears in the 2nd (Jesus Christ) and 3rd para.

Removed. NancyHeise ^talk 05:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Friday, Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday ->>>>>> Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter Sunday.....(comma before and). I think this needs to be done throughout the article although I'm not sure. If we put this up in main the comma automatically appears for 3+ terms.

see WP:COMMA, evidently we are allowed to use either form with exceptions. I went through the article during the last FAC eliminating the serial comma based on another editor's preference. The usage is consistent within the article and we don't really need to change it as per WP:MOS. NancyHeise ^talk 05:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Already had mentioned I was not sure. Kensplanet (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure words like saint (Devotional life, prayer, Mary and the saints) and seminary (Ordained members and Holy Orders) need to be wikilinked. Those are too. common to be linked.

Yes, because we have to consider that people of other faiths may be visiting the page and may not know these words that we might consider common. NancyHeise ^talk 05:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat ok for seminary. But all religions have their saints. Anyway, not a major problem. Kensplanet (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the late 15th and early 16th centuries, European explorers and missionaries spread Catholicism to the Americas, Asia, Africa and Oceania. Pope Alexander VI, had awarded colonial rights over most of the newly discovered lands to Spain and Portugal.
- Except Pope Alexander VI, all the other terms are very common and well known and shouldn't be wikilinked.

I agree, I went through and eliminated a huge number of wikilinks per your comments here. Please see the page again and let me know if you still think it is overwikilinked. NancyHeise ^talk 05:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I think there's overlinking, but can be easily fixed.
Kensplanet (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent observations Kensplanet - I agree with these and will make corrections to the article tomorrow. Thanks for taking the time to come and give it a once over here for us. NancyHeise ^talk 19:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 *"Some parts of Europe and the Americas have experienced a priest shortage in recent..." - "shortage of priests" better, and a mention of the very high average age of priests in the West & the looming problem ahead would be useful.
 :::OK - added new wording and content to reflect this concern. I did not put in anything about looming problems ahead because the ref used is the best ref I could find and the interviewees declined to forcast the future or call it a crisis. I think it would be perceived as unencyclopedic and possibly POV to introduce speculation about any future problems. If I had a ref that I could put with speculation it might work but it will be a lightning rod of contention that I would rather not include anyway. What do you think? [[User:NancyHeise|'''<font face="verdana"><font color="#E75480">Nancy</font><font color="#960018">Heise</font></font>''']] <sup> [[User talk:NancyHeise#top|'''<font face="verdana"><font color="#F6ADC6">talk</font></font>]]</sup> 02:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
+::::Fair enough! DONE [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 13:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 *I've copy-edited the bits on the arts somewhat, & will add a ref or two.
 *"As the Visigoths and Lombards moved from Arianism toward Catholicism,[225] missionaries such as Augustine of Canterbury, Saint Boniface, Willibrord and Ansgar took Catholic Christianity to the Germanic, Irish and Slavic peoples of northern Europe. Later missions reached the Vikings and other Scandinavians.[229]" - rather confused: Boniface & Willibrord were "Germanic" Anglo-Saxons, who were missionaries to the Continent. At this period no one took "Catholic Christianity" to the Irish, who Patrick & others had converted to [[Celtic Christianity]], which had only loose links with Rome before the [[Synod of Whitby]]. These links, and the [[Hiberno-Scottish mission]], should be worked in.