Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:45, 19 March 2009

Nancy's reference templates

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

• http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm
• http://books.google.com/books?id=SnJ1Er18Id4C&pg=PA152&dq=%22official+name%22+%22catholic+church%22&lr=#PPA152,M1

• http://books.google.com/books?id=hpGMsOM27FgC&pg=PA112&dq=catholic,+abortion,+mother%27s+health#PPA112,M1
• http://books.google.com/books?id=AgLmubyQqKoC&pg=PA278&dq=catholic,+abortion,+mother%27s+health&lr=#PPA278,M1

• Oxford University press book on anti-Catholicism http://books.google.com/books?id=cVwthOtTiI4C&pg=PA109&dq=criticized+Catholic+Church+teaching+on+homosexuality&lr=#PPP7,M1

citations

The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council's official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.

Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as "I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church." Simply that -- Catholic Church. There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!

So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it. That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the "branch theory" of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.

So the name became attached to her for good. By the time of the first ecumenical council of the Church, held at Nicaea in Asia Minor in the year 325 A.D., the bishops of that council were legislating quite naturally in the name of the universal body they called in the Council of Nicaea's official documents "the Catholic Church." As most people know, it was that same council which formulated the basic Creed in which the term "catholic" was retained as one of the four marks of the true Church of Christ. And it is the same name which is to be found in all 16 documents of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Church, Vatican Council II.

CC/RCC

We aren't getting anywhere again and I fear my presence may be causing more harm than good. Feel free to ask for my opinion, but I think resolution will be speeded by my withdrawl from the debate. Best wishes, -- Secisek (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Nancy, I am currently working on article Pope John Paul II and I was looking for a ‘fresh pair of eyes’ and for help on the article. Your name was mentioned by Casliber in a discussion on my talk page, as someone who may be interested to ‘chip-in’. So I thought I would invite you to take a look, and possibly give me your opinion(s) and advice, which would be most welcome. If you could spare the time, I would be most grateful. Kind Regards, Marek.69 12:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I know a lot about PJPII, I have read his biography and a couple of his books. NancyHeise 18:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's Great. Your knowledge will come in very useful to improving the article. I'm trying to check out all the facts on the page at the moment. Thank you Marek.69 21:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, I changed the wording of the lead, as you suggested, but could do with your input (and references) to get it just right. Kind Regards. Marek.69 16:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I also have started working on JPII ... we're trying to bring it up to GA. I was wondering if you'd considering voting at the WikiProject Catholicism Collaboration page, as we're trying to get some extra eyes/opinions involved. Thanks a lot! Can-Dutch (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, I thought you might be interested, Pope John Paul II is now at Peer Review. Please see: Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Pope John Paul II/archive2 -- Marek.69 02:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Seminary

So I found out that the training for the priesthood consists primarily of sleep deprivation, eating tasty junk food and watching Batman and other Christ-like figure movies lol. Gabr-el 02:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Gabrel, I am very interested to know about your seminary experience. I hope you will feel free to share it all with me as you go through it. I told my kids about you and we keep you in our prayers. God bless you! FYI, I make my kids watch a "Jesus" movie now and then, sometimes I watch them as I cook dinner and if they want to watch TV at that time, they are stuck watching a Jesus movie. My favorite ones are "Jesus" starring Jeremy Sisto (I love the Jesus and Mother Mary in that one) and "Jesus of Nazareth" starring Robert Powell (I love the Mary Magdalene, Saint Peter and Pontius Pilate). The first movie has the greatest scenes of Jesus with Saint Peter and the latter has the greatest scenes of Mary Magdalene and Mother Mary with the body of Jesus after he has been taken down from the cross. That last scene of her really brings home her suffering to me and I always think that watching these movies are just as good as any Lectio Divina. I hope you get necessary sleep and proper food. NancyHeise 00:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for all your prayers! The difficulty of making the sacrifices remains, but God provides me with answers in my everyday experiences. Yesterday the Bishop arrived and gave me and the four other seminarians a small lecture about the Priesthood and why one becomes a Priest. So far not much theology, that will be left a little later. I am still an undergraduate, but I am going to be taking Philosophy and Theology. My rite uses Scholastic Aramaic, or Syriac, in its daily prayers so the Priest is currently teaching us how to read and write it. I will do my best to get the sleep I need! God Bless you and your family!!!!! Gabr-el 00:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, well I am not an ordained priest but I am going to give you some theology: When you go to be a priest, you can not rely on other people to provide you with what you need. You have to say "Jesus, I trust in you." at those moments when you think you just can not go on. Repeating Saint Paul's words "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" is an act of faith that opens the doors of grace which allows God to send you the help you need in whatever form he chooses.

Personal story: I have been a volunteer and member of the Board of Directors at a local soup kitchen for many years (I retired from the board a few years ago). The founder of the kitchen died a few years ago, his name is Jimmy Rotonno, he won Governor Jeb Bush's Points of Light Award the year before he died. This man was a World War II veteran and a successful entrepreneur who retired comfortably. One day, he was driving down the road and saw a homeless man on the corner and said to himself "Why doesn't that bum get a job?" When he went home, he sat down and had a religious experience of Jesus telling him "Feed my people". He started the soup kitchen with his own money and that of some society people who helped him out too. The kitchen does not sell anything and does not hold any fundraising efforts. It has happened on occasion that money ran very low and there was some wondering among board members if the ministry could continue. Jimmy would pound his fist on the table and say "This is God's ministry, if he wants it to continue, it will continue." Lo and behold, some stranger would donate a huge sum and the kitchen would continue on. Once, there was no food to feed anyone and it was about time to open. Some volunteers wanted to go to the store quickly and get something to feed people but Jimmy would just say "The Lord will provide." As soon as he said that, a truck pulled up full of meals to hand out. This kind of thing happens all the time there. I can see now that if God has called you to do something, he is able to work a lot of good if we just keep saying "Jesus, I trust in you." (I have his picture with those words at the top of the staircase in our home. NancyHeise 01:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Omnio Pro ChristoGabr-el 02:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Just on the topic of Jesus films. Have either of you seen the silent 1929 King of Kings, directed by De Mille? Forget the first scene with Mary Magdalene and the zebras. But the rest of the film is awesome - and a sign of what the 1960s epic King of Kings could have been if De Mille had survived to direct it. Xandar 02:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Xandar, I'll have to check that one out now. My kids have never seen a silent one. NancyHeise 14:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw the talking version of King of Kings. Gabr-el 20:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The "talkie" version isn't nearly as intense as the silent version. I've always thought it an enormous pity that Cecil B De Mille died before he could remake King of Kings himself, as he remade The Ten Commandments. The Jesus films of the sixties; King of Kings and The Greatest Story Ever Told, just seemed tired, plodding and "going through the motions," compared to earlier films that had more "faith" in them. Xandar 00:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. You may have heard a story that illustrates what I said about the sixties films. I'm not sure how true it is... John Wayne played a cameo as the Centurion at the crucifixion on TGSET. He said his line: "This man surely was the Son of God." very flatly. The Director pleaded, "Say it with awe, Duke." Wayne then is supposed to have said: "Aw, this man surely was the Son of God." Xandar 00:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Too funny! I'm sure he meant no disrespect. NancyHeise 19:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm cracking up ;)!!!!!!!!! As for the seminary experience, lol, maybe I should just get a video or something lol. Gabr-el 22:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Im on the far right: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1443830&l=ecc52&id=507283644 lol facebook I know but who cares.Gabr-el 20:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Neat picture! Thanks for sharing that with me. How's everything? NancyHeise 20:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Good, adoration helps A LOT. Gabr-el 23:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope you also have some hobbies and enjoy other things besides Church. Remember PJPII had good friends (even women friends) that he spent time with and he often went hiking and spent time outdoors. If we don't enjoy the things God gave us to enjoy we can become very dull and boring and unhappy. The best priests are those who are well balanced men. A priest I know likes Agatha Christi books and spent time learning new languages as well as jogging and sailing. Another priest I know who works in a high school goes to Mexico every summer to work in the Indian missions and brings volunteers with him each summer. Another one is an avid scuba diver. NancyHeise 23:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course! Lol Gabr-el 02:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.kaldu.org/2009/01/Jan28_09E1.html - All the Bishops of my rite visited the Pope and they mentioned the opening of the first Chaldean seminary outside of Iraq - wooow, I'm famous without them knowing my name!Gabr-el 03:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gabr-el I visited the link and paged through the St Peter's diocese info as well as viewing the pope's meeting with the US bishops. I have to admit that I did not know much about the Chaldean Catholics in the US until meeting you. I hope all is well with you at the seminary. I pray for you. God bless you. NancyHeise 17:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

God Bless you, your Husband and your Children. Gabr-el 01:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: comments

Good morning, Nancy. You left a comment at the USS Iowa FAC concerning the use of Jargon. I left a reply that would require a little teamwork between us, but I haven't heard back from you in nearly a week and was growing concerned that you may have forgotten about this particular post. I have come to ask if you would review your comment and my proposal and then update your comment accordingly so that I can determine whether or not I need to come up with a plan B. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, I stuck my comment after seeing that shakedown was appropriately linked. NancyHeise 19:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Be it known to all members of Misplaced Pages that NancyHeise has copyedited the article USS Iowa (BB-61), and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Misplaced Pages community, thereby earning the Copyeditor's Barnstar and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Incidentally, your suggestion in the FAC has been transferred to the page User:TomStar81/Iowa class battleship featured topic work group, where a suggestions been made that those working on the Featured Topic push look into this and see if your copyediting for Iowa can be carried over to the other three completed battleships. God will, in a few months, the ad-hoc group will be credited with the first ships exclusive featured topic. Until then Nancy, take care and God bless. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I never knew there were featured topic work groups - I learn something new here every day - neat! I hope it all works out, ping me when you put it another article up for FAC and I'll come by to take a look. NancyHeise 15:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Hi Nancy, I'm sorry I've been hit and miss on here (very busy in real life). I'll try and respond tomorrow. I saw your other post and have just been too busy to read through the whole document. Apologies--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, whatever help you can offer is much appreciated! NancyHeise 06:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation?

What is this business of a "Request for mediation" on the "officially known as" dispute? What does it entail? Before I sign up, I would rather like to know, who mediates, on what basis, and what procedure is involved. Xandar 00:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I've looked into it myself, and signed up. Xandar 17:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was busy and totally forgot! Gabr-el 19:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

About time. I doubt the accusation of sock-puppetry is valid though, both account have history, one of them has been editing since 2007. Hopefully, we can get this resolved and be done with it again for a time. -- Secisek (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I just popped in to, uh, use the 'pedia, and saw your message. If something 'happens' requiring attention, you may need to use the email function to flush me from my burrow. Shenme (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh! Welcome back from the burrow! NancyHeise 18:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Great! Hopefully we can resolve this issue and move on. NancyHeise 18:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Gimmetrow's two sources:

Unflattering book review by Saturday Review of Literature of one of Gimmetrow's sources see page 173. This is not a reliable source as this review states that the book contains inaccuracies. This is the actual page of the other source written by a Lutheran who also claims on the same page that the Catholic Church today is not part of the Catholic Church before the Council of Trent, obviously a fringe POV theory and also not a reliable source NancyHeise 18:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism article

Nancy, I've been drawn in to a debate of a contentious section of the RCC Criticism article. (I've tried to avoid that page, but the History area does need sorting out) Its all at Talk:Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church. If you have time perhaps you could have a look in and perhaps make suggestions. Xandar 12:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, I'm sorry I have not been able to help there, I have company visiting for the week and as you know, yesterday was the Superbowl so I have been doing a bit of entertaining. It looks as though you have the help you need from others though. NancyHeise 17:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

American football is a mystery to me. It goes on for hours, and they keep stopping every thirty seconds for a chat! Xandar 16:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh! Its a mystery to me too, which is why I can never go to an actual game, I need to watch it on TV so the announcer can tell me what is happening and explain it with replays! :) I was not much of a fan until the Miami Dolphins started to come back from the slump of last year. For some reason I found myself rooting for them to win and looking forward to the next game. My husband and my son were mystified that I was actually watching a game with them. NancyHeise 17:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ten Commandments

How about "The Ten Commandments in Catholic moral teaching"? Another question: Would it be better to add something about the numbering (CCC 2066), which would puzzle those who use a different numbering? Defteri (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I plan to clean up the references to the Catechism but I wanted them there so I could then create a ref for them. I don't like the name you suggest, I think it is too long. Do you have anything more concise to suggest? NancyHeise 00:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I REALLY have to congratulate you. How in the world did you put togheter such a comprehensive article on the Ten Commandments? Wikimedia should pay you! --Againme (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I teach religious education at my church as a volunteer and I really like my Misplaced Pages hobby! NancyHeise 19:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I created today Project Rachel because I saw the red link in your article. May be you would like to help expand it. Regards. --Againme (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that is an important part of the Catholic pro-life movement and healing ministries. I will try to find a good ref to help expand that page as time permits. NancyHeise 12:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and suggestion for a biography

Hi Nancy. I just wanted to say that I really appreciated your comments on the Calvin FAC. I also believe that the RCC article (as well as many other articles on the Catholic Church) should become FAs and I really salute your great efforts. For awhile, I reflected on whether I should go to the university library and help out on the RCC article. In the end, I decided that the nature of Misplaced Pages makes improvements in articles on major religions and theologies to be nearly impossible (too many controversies). Maybe I am too pessimistic, but that's why I had concentrated on biographies (e.g., Calvin rather than Calvinism, Cranmer rather than Anglicanism). So perhaps you may want to consider trying to bring to FA an article on one of the Doctors of the Church or a scholastic philosopher like Aquinas, Duns Scotus, or William of Ockham? I would certainly join you, so if you decide to go ahead, you are welcome to drop me a note. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks RelHist! I do not share your pessimism on the possibility of bringing religion articles to FA nor do I consider the effort a waste of time and I hope you will change your mind and consider an FA on Anglicanism. I am presently working on The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology, it is in peer review right now and I invite you to come have a look if you like. I intend to submit it to FAC afterward. Roman Catholic Church is in mediation over the name issue but I still have hopes for FA. I intend to keep trying! NancyHeise 16:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please follow the mediation format

Hi Nancy,

Could I ask you to respect the format of the "Initial Statements" phase of the mediation?

As User:Shell wrote "NancyHeise: I understand the instinct to respond when you feel someone is incorrect, but its important that starting out, everyone has a chance to state their position and even more importantly, give their ideas for how this dispute could be resolved. We may get into these detailed discussions later, but for now, lets stay away from debating each others points."

If you rebut everybody's statements, they will feel obliged to respond to your rebuttal or to rebut other people's initial statements including your own. This could easily lead to a free-wheeling dispersed debate rather than a structured mediation which is what you requested and what, I presume, you wish to have.

If it had been up to me, I would have reverted your responses to the initial statements but this is not my mediation so I am letting Shell call the shots.

Nothing personal here nor am I writing this solely because I dispute what you wrote. I'm just saying that not following the format makes it hard to control the process.

--Richard (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Since I am the person who initiated the mediation, I felt my comments were necessary to offer a reason why Gimmetrow and Soidi's POV's have been rejected. Thank you for pinging me. I must add that I do not appreciate you comments in Mediation. There are no sources that say there is any official name other than Catholic Church as used by the Church in official documents. Other sources recommended by Gimmetrow and Soidi violate the parameters of WP:Reliable source examples under subsection entitled "Religious sources" and WP:OR. You are not helping us by bringing up those rare instances of Roman Catholic used on some websites which are not considered WP:RS, especially when we have already told reader in the note that the Church uses the term to refer to the Roman rite as opposed to other rites. I think you are adding to the problem, not helping. NancyHeise 18:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I confess that there is a dearth of reliable secondary sources that assert that "Roman Catholic Church" is used in official documents and contexts and yet I remain convinced based on the evidence of primary sources that it is used that way. I am flummoxed by the lack of sources to establish what seems to be an obvious fact. Yes, I know this falls in the category of WP:OR which is why I am far less passionate about this issue than Soidi/Gimmetrow/Defteri. However, I also feel that it is inappropriate to simply dismiss the issue as OR because common sense tells me that there is a real issue to be dealt with here.

I am sorry that you feel that I am "not helping". I think a more congenial phrase would be to say that I disagree with you and Xandar on this point.

--Richard (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ten commandments at peer review

I have left some final comments on the review page. Congratulations on a fine article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll answer the links question shortly - other (non-wiki) duties pressing! Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, "bald links" (a term I remember from my earliest wiki days) are direct links to external sources, such as you have in the Numbering section at Exodus 20: 2–17. I see you also have direct links to parts of the Catechism scattered through the article; I should have picked these up earlier. All these links need to be properly formatted as citations. The link at (See ) in the Numbering section is to the wiki article Ten Commandments In my view the link should be done thus: numbering the Commandments.

I also notice that there is a citation to "Rosen", though no such source appears in the list of references. The two online sources (Addis & Hebermann) should have access dates added.

I see that while I've been doing this a POV banner has been added.

Thanks Brian, I'll re format those links as you have suggested. I have also invited the person who tagged the page (Karanacs) to come offer some specific comments as to how to improve it. NancyHeise 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Naming Issue

Nancy. I'm not to happy with "which titles itself" the Catholic Church, for the same reason I don't support "which calls itself" the Catholic Church. Both forms of wording carry the unfortunate implication within them that this is a false or presumptuous claim. Compare "Mr Barnet, who calls/titles himself Lord Delamere." Also, "Which titles itself" could be subject to the same objections that have been used against other forms of wording, ie. that the Church has also sometimes "titled" itself by other names. The word "officially" does provide precision, and limits the use of that argument.

If "Officially known as the Catholic Church" is pedantically (and in my view incorrectly) resisted, another, even less challengeable, form of words that could be agreed in order to achieve a solution could be: "The Roman Catholic Church, in official usage, the Catholic Church." Xandar 10:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I am OK with both "titles itself" and "in official usage" - I just want to come to a solution to this issue that everyone is OK with. I am presently recovering from a nasty case of the flu, sorry I have'nt been around to help out. NancyHeise 14:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the bold liberty of copying the comment left above by Xandar to the mediation talk page on the grounds that those comments are freely licensed per GFDL and that, if he had wanted them to be private, he could have emailed them to her.

I feel that the mediation is currently being hindered by a lack of active participation by Xandar, Gimmetrow and Soidi. The conversation so far has primarily been between Nancy, myself and Defteri with occasional endorsements by Soidi. However, IMO, the dispute has been primarily between Xandar, Nancy and the "consensus of 15" on one side vs. Gimmetrow, Soidi and Defteri on the other side. I kind of side with Gimmetrow, Soidi and Defteri although, like Nancy, my interest is more in finding an amicable resolution to the dispute than in being entrenched in any particular position.

I would urge Xandar to express his positions himself on the mediation talk page. It is difficult enough to find an acceptable solution without having to guess what key players are thinking and what they will and will not accept. In this case, I knew a priori what Xandar's position would be but it is more valuable if he expresses it himself than if I have to say "Well, I don't think this is something that Xandar would accept".

--Richard (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I am not sure that most parties are aware that the mediation is ongoing since it took awhile to be accepted. NancyHeise 17:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise that discussion was going on on the mediation page's talk page. I'd checked the main page several times, but nothing seemed to be happening. Xandar 11:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the conversation on the mediation talk page, Xandar. It was very strange not having you involved.

Nancy, Gimmetrow and Soidi certainly know that the mediation is being discussed on the talk page. They seem to be letting Defteri lead the charge for their POV and that's OK with me. We can't all be talking; it would be too cacophonous. Can you advise the rest of the involved parties that the discussion is proceeding on the mediation talk page? I don't expect them to all weigh in but it would be good if they are at least reading the discussion and have a chance to provide input if they wish to, especially if we start to converge on a proposed resolution.

--Richard (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

10Cs in RC theology

Done, but I think I've told you before that in fact I am a Catholic! That's great on the art - maybe she'll have a WP bio one day! All the best, & sorry I can't keep up with the mediation - there comes a point where you can't face catching up with a long page, especially when it is reheated like this one. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Johnbod, thanks - sorry I thought you were Anglican for some reason. NancyHeise 01:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

10Cs in RCt: Problem about "Sunday"

I raised this point in earlier discussions. The second paragraph of the Third commandment section still begins: "Because Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday..." I have two problems with this. First, the concept of "Sunday" did not exist at the time of the Resurrection. The bible refers to "the first day of the week", but if the day had a name, it certainly wasn't "Sunday". Secondly, although Christians believe in the Resurrection, the neutral voice of the article requires this statement to be qualified. I believe I suggested a wording such as: "Because they believe that Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week, the Sabbath is observed by Christians...etc". Please consider the formulation, to avoid an obvious POV objection. Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Brian, I have not been on Misplaced Pages since I posted the note on your talk page and I have been meaning to work on those comments. I just changed that sentence to your formulation here and I thank you for pointing this out to me and for all of your other terrific comments! NancyHeise 18:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Mediation page

Nancy, a table of currently suggested wordings has been placed on the RCC naming mediation page for comment/additions. Perhaps you could comment on the suggestions. Mine are included on the proviso that they settle the dispute. Xandar 00:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Time to Rename the Article

Hi, Nancy. There's another vote on the mediation page.

However I'm more and more coming over to the view that the RCC article should go back to the name Catholic Church, and that we should adopt the official WP process for the move. The current argument can be cited as one of the reasons for the change. I'd argued against it on the basis that it would cause too much trouble. However, I now think it is the proper change and should be less trouble than we are now going through due to the obsessiveness of certain parties - who are determined to bar any formulation under "RCC" that declares that Catholic Church is the proper or official name. We have now had over six months of non-stop argument just on a wording to show that the Church's official name is NOT RCC.

On thinking it over and looking at the naming rules again (especially the precedent of LDS -"Mormon Church", which now has its own naming guidline at Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(Latter_Day_Saints), I think it will be easier to argue the move than to keep on with the debate on "official". Unlike "official" or "proper", which some people wish to argue cannot be used if ANY other usage has ever occurred, all that has to be proved under WP policy for a move to Catholic Church is that this is the most commonly used, self-identifying, or preferred name of the Church. The two main arguments against the title change are that members of certain denominations would oppose (which is specifically not a relevant factor under WP policy), and ambiguity, which is solved by the already-existing first line disambiguation link and a redirect from "Roman Catholic Church," as is standard practice. We would still need a note, but it would just have to set out the various forms of evidence. The only other problem with a change would be the thousand odd articles now starting "Roman Catholic Diocese of..." etc. But I do not think those need changing at once so long as the main article bears the right name. Xandar 10:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Xandar, I posted a response on that page. I can live with renaming the article if that is what everyone agrees to. NancyHeise 02:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you expressed support for options 1 and 2. My opinion is that Option 1, starting the sentence with "Catholic Church", but leaving the article titled "Roman Catholic Church", breaks WP Lead guidelines, and so would be unlikely to survive FAC. In my opinion that "solution" would be no solution at all, since it would just start the whole rigmarole again at FAC when someone insisted that the article should start with the words RCC to comply with WP policies. We would then have to reargue the wording from scratch. That's why I oppose Option1.

On the renaming issue. I don't think everyone will support renaming, but that may still be the best way forward.Xandar 11:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Gospel of Mark

Hi Nancy, in my time at the Seminary, my Rector told us about one scholarly interpretation of Mark, that shows that Mark the Evangelist believed that Jesus Christ is God. The thing is most scholars believe Mark does not think Jesus is God, because of a "backward" thinking of their's. For example:

Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" - Mark 2:7

But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." - Mark 2:11

This above verse is wrongly interpretted as having Jesus say, "I may not be God but the Son of Man has the authority to forgive sins". Of course, Jesus does not say this. The facts are:

• Jesus acknowledges that God can forgive sins
• Jesus acknowledges that humans (Son of Man is "Human nature" in Aramaic, bar nasha) can forgive sins
• Jesus forgives sins

• Jesus does not say I am not God and your right. He says he can forgive sins. So the possibility of Jesus being either God or Human is open here. Interestingly, we know Jesus to be both Man and God.

Look at this too, its very beautiful:

but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, because they all saw him and were terrified. Immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid." - Mark 6:49-50

You know, in the Old Testament period, there is a common saying among the Jews of the time - "If you see someone walking on the water, it is either God or a ghost". Look at the above passage - Jesus refutes that he is a ghost (and obviously he isn't, he is alive!) by asking them to take courage. Furthermore, what does Jesus say? IT IS I. The Greek words for IT IS I translates to YHWH in Hebrew. Jesus is not a ghost, he is God above the water.

Now then this too:

And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus. - Mark 9:4

In the over gospels, Jesus is not mentioned talking to Elijah and Moses, only being with them. Most of these pathetic interpretations say that this passage shows Jesus is equal to the prophets. However, what these foolish interpreters miss out is that in the Old Testament, both Elijah and Moses went up a mountain to talk to God, but never got a chance to see him directly. Finally, after thousands or hundreds of years, they have fulfilled their wish to talk to God. That detail about talking to Jesus is key here, its what sets Mark apart from the other gospels.

Finally:

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone" - Mark 10:17

The traditional interpretation is that Jesus is saying he is not Good, because only God is good. However, thats not what Jesus says. He says:

• God is good, alone.
• Why call me good?

Now to say that Jesus is not good is ridiculous, and thats not what Jesus says. But to say that God is not the only good one is Heresy against the words of the Bible and of God, because Jesus says God alone is good. Therefore, if Jesus is good, and ONLY God is good, then Jesus is God.

Very random way to say hi! But yeah, I thought I would share this with you. Theres also so much more in Mark, its absolutely awesome. Its so under-rated. Gabr-el 21:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gabr-el! Thanks for coming by to say hi. Hows the seminary? Are they feeding you and letting you sleep enough? Regarding Gospel of Mark: I think it is when Jesus tells the apostles not to reveal that he is the Messiah (after Peter reveals that he knows Jesus is the Messiah) that we see God's method. He tests mankind by not making it too obvious he is God. He could have easily come down from the cross or performed some fire and brimstone miracle to make the Jews believe but that would have fallen into the category of one of Satan's temptations in the desert "throw yourself down, God will command his angels to catch you". Rather, it seems that he lets the events of our lives bring us to a crossroads of either belief - which leads to spiritual sight where we see him everywhere - or disbelief - which leads to spiritual blindness where we can't see him anywhere. "To he who has, more will be given, and to he who has not, it will be taken away even what little he has". I think that this statement by Jesus is talking about man's faith. The person with no faith does not have what is necessary (faith) to open the door to God's grace and experience those little and big miracles that come with it. The person with faith continutally gets more faith because by opening that door of grace, they see more and more of God's responses to their requests for help, help that seems to come too coincidentally and too perfectly and too often to have been chance. Jesus also said "much is expected of him to whom much has been given". So those of us who have directly experienced the reality of the Risen Jesus have no excuse if we subsequently fail to open those doors of grace for lack of faith when we already know that all we have to do is ask! NancyHeise 01:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow

Hi Nancy. Gimmetrow has now started edit-warring to raise the temperature by inserting a dubious tag in the RCC lead sentence. I have explained in the article talk page why I have removed it. Xandar 11:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I now see you spotted it earlier. Xandar 12:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping Xandar, I don't know where he thinks he can tag something that has been agreed to by consensus. The last consensus stands until we have a new consensus and I think his behaviour is inflammatory. I am considering a complaint to Administrators board. NancyHeise 16:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure an AN complaint would do much good. Gimmetrow's behaviour has been irational and erratic for some time now (another recent example) but the admin noticeboards are really only there as a support vehicle for the administrators themselves. Colour me cynical, but a report would achieve nothing. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus, it has been my personal experience, with an occasional rare exception, that the most unhelpful obstructionists to creation of an article and article advancement comes from administrators who are abusing power instead of using their power to help improve Misplaced Pages. It has also been true that the most helpful of people who should be administrators, curiously, are not. NancyHeise 17:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, people are unlikely to do a check on an administrator with good evidence. Holding the mop designates that the community does or at one point did have trust in that person, which means that a lot of people (including myself, and I assume the checkusers) are sceptical when admins are accused with little evidence when they are in a content dispute with the editor that is requesting the check. I have no opinion on the matter, but I thought I should mention this - and diffs are pretty vital. Have a good day. :) — neuro 02:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Inflammatory behaviour is inflammatory behaviour, whether an administrator is in a content dispute with the person making the accusation or not. You simply confirm what I said above: "the admin noticeboards are really only there as a support vehicle for the administrators themselves." --Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus I agree. I am not sure what harm would be caused by simply applying the WP:Checkuser tool to Gimmetrow, Soidi and Defteri to see if they are the same person. If they are not the same person, it would help people like me who have difficulty treating them as different people. I think if it were me, I would be asking for them to use the Checkuser tool just to prove my innocence - unless I wasn't innocent! NancyHeise 16:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, you and Malleus are going off the rails with this talk of admin abuse. I have not seen any evidence of Gimmetrow using his admin privileges on Roman Catholic Church or any of the users. In fact, I don't think he mentioned his adminship at all. I pointed it out to suggest that it was less likely that an admin such as Gimmetrow or myself would violate Misplaced Pages policies to the extent of being subject to ARBCOM sanction. (Not that admins are never sanctioned by ARBCOM but the percentage of such admins is relatively small.) I have not used my admin privileges on Roman Catholic Church except to suggest that I might do so in order to stop edit-warring. --Richard (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have seen several recent examples of Gimmetrow's unreasonable behaviour. As for yourself Richard, I think that "I have not used my admin privileges ... except to ..." just about sums it up. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I bristled when I read that, but on reflection, you're right. If I did that, it would be suggestive of admin abuse. However, on reflection, what I wrote above is not what I actually did. My recollection is that I indicated that, as an involved admin, I would restrain from using my admin privileges but that since edit-warring could warrant page protection and/or blocking, I would find an uninvolved admin who would do the honors. I was not personally involved in the edit-warring in question. If you doubt it, I can provide the diffs.

As for Gimmetrow, I never said that being an admin meant that an editor was perfectly reasonable and observant of all Misplaced Pages policies. What I said was that being an admin meant that the editor in question was less likely to violate policies in a way that was actionable before ARBCOM. "less likely" but not "impossible". --Richard (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's quite unnecessary to provide any diffs; I have no reason to doubt that what you say is true. I haven't had the required high boredom threshold to take part in the RCC's ongoing official name saga anyway, which to be honest I simply consider to be an astonishing waste of productive editors' time and effort, that could be better spent elsewhere. As for Gimmetrow, you and I will just have to agree to disagree. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Ottava Rima: "WP:CIVIL is very clear that making false claims is against the civility policy. Consider this your warning". Gimmetrow 18:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ottava is entitled to his opinion, and to interpret WP:CIVIL in whatever way (s)he wishes. I note simply that it says no such thing. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, you may not be aware that Checkuser is considered an invasion of privacy and that, as such, is only performed on the basis of good evidence of a suspected violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Thus, the attitude "I can't see what harm..." displays an insensitivity to the high privacy concerns around the use of Checkuser. Even admins cannot run Checkuser. It is a separate permission that is granted via a separate election process. Unlike admin actions which can be reverted, the invasion of privacy resulting from running Checkuser cannot be undone if the information is released.

Please read WP:Checkuser carefully to understand the criteria under which it is performed. I grant that this case is not obviously outside the criteria but it is not obviously within them either. Solid evidence based on diffs indicating a pattern of editing activity suggestive of sock-puppetry would be required. Typically, this involves edits made to the same pages or related pages at the approximately same time. The argument would be something like: "X edited Talk:Roman Catholic Church at 1:59pm and Y edited the same page at 2:02pm. This happened on multiple occasions suggesting that the pattern is not coincidence."

Also, regarding your suggestion that certain editors make requests for Checkuser on themselves, please note that such requests are routinely denied on the English Misplaced Pages.

I would suggest, moreover, that the evidence provided here suggests that sock puppetry is not in play here. (Except for User:Soidi who is a declared sock of User:Lima).

--Richard (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, I am not sure what evidence the diff you provided shows, maybe because I am not an administrator. Thank you for explaining the Checkuser function to me, that is very helpful. I am also not sure that a non-admin has the tools necessary to provide evidence of sockpuppetry and it would be very helpful to me and others if somone with those tools could look into the matter. I thought that at least by bringing the issue up at the Sockpuppet investigations page, I would be helping Misplaced Pages by at least alerting them to a problem here that might be easily rectified but it has already been declined. NancyHeise 17:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The diff I provided was intended to point you to this section in Talk:Roman Catholic Church. In that section, I provided evidence (1) that the editors involved were relatively established editors with the exception of Defteri who has been around for "only" 9 months and (2) the editors involved had made a fairly large number of edits in a number of diverse articles (i.e. not just related to this dispute). These arguments tend to argue against sock puppetry since sock puppetry usually involves relatively new single purpose accounts whose only edits are to vote on one side. If Afterwriting and Defteri are sock puppets, the puppet master has gone to an unusual amount of effort to use the socks to make bona fide edits to other articles. I would counsel assuming good faith and not wasting any more time worrying about sock puppetry.

NOTE: None of the analysis that I performed requires admin privileges. The first analysis was done simply by scanning the contributions of the editors involved via the User contributions link in the "toolbox" section to the left of the Misplaced Pages frame. The second analysis uses Soxred93's tool but a quick examination of the URL will indicate how to use it. Consider the URL for Gimmetrow's count analysis for example.

RE: the declined Checkuser request - yes, that's what I expected and was trying to warn you of. The "solid evidence" that the Checkusers are looking for is a pattern of edits whose times are so suspiciously close together that they suggest the same editor logging on to one account, making a comment and then logging off and logging on to the other account to support the first comment. Other evidence would be a tendency to edit the same articles and talk pages or to use the same phrases. Soxred93's count analysis suggests that the editors in question edit in the same area (Christianity and Catholicism) but the specific articles that they edit do not show a high level of overlap.

--Richard (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard, your statement "Other evidence would be a tendency to edit the same articles and talk pages or to use the same phrases." perfectly states why I think they are the same person. I am not sure if I can agree with your analysis that they do not overlap but the matter is already dead. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me, I appreciate that very much. NancyHeise 05:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

FAC nom

Hi Nancy, I've transcluded your nomination of the Ten Commandments article onto WP:FAC. It looked like you started the nomination and then forgot to include it at the main page. If you meant to wait a little bit, you'll want to remove the tag from the article talk page when you remove the nom from the FAC page. Karanacs (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Karanacs, I appreciate that you noticed my error because I was not aware that I missed a step in the process. I have withdrawn the nomination in light of Sandy's list of to do's still needed before it can be considered for FAC. Thanks anyway. NancyHeise 00:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that the article has been withdrawn so fast. I'll take care of the background process for removing the nomination; please don't remove the tag from the article talk page. A bot will remove it this weekend when the FAC list is processed again. As for Sandy's comments about preparation, please understand also where she is coming from. While we don't expect nominators to be perfect, usually after a few nominations all of us can recognize where our weaknesses are. That way we can ask for help before we submit any more nominations, and have a lot less work for the nominator or reviewers to do when a new article is nominated. (My personal weakness is not including enough background information, so I always get someone to check whether I've explained some concepts in enough detail before I nominate an article.) There are several peoeple who are MOS experts - Sandy could probably give you a list of some of them. Then next time when you think an article is about ready for FAC you can ask one of those experts to do an MOS check and make sure that those criteria are being met. Karanacs (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks! NancyHeise 01:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ten Commandments

You really are a glutton for punishment Nancy! I'm beginning to wonder if you haven't committed some awful crime against humanity, and getting an RCC article through FAC has been given to you as a penence. :lol:

I was sorry to see that you had to withdraw the commandments article from FAC. SandyG does have a tendency to come across as "this whole article is crap, I don't know why you're wasting everyone's time with this" based on a few MoS errors, or an inconsistent citation style, but it's just her way. Her general approach is to oppose first, then maybe strike the oppose later. Others prefer to comment and then maybe support or oppose later based on the how the comments are dealt with, which is what I always prefer to do. Each to their own.

What I really came to say though was that I think this article will struggle to get through FAC for a couple of reasons, the most important of which is the large number of lists. The MoS really does deprecate lists. (I think the punctuation problem SandyG alluded to was that some of the list elements end in a fullstop and some don't. None of them should end in a fullstop unless it's a paragraph, much like image captions.) The other potential problem I see is the number of external links in the body of the article. External links should only appear in the External links section.

Anyway, chin up, I'm sure you'll make it with a Church article soon. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 13:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)