Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:32, 19 February 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Catholic Church article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Catholic Church has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result October 7, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed January 17, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed January 29, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed January 30, 2008 Peer review Reviewed February 7, 2008 Good article nominee Listed February 15, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 18, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 8, 2008 Peer review Reviewed June 1, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 13, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 19, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept October 4, 2008 Peer review Reviewed November 8, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Catholicism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Catholic Church article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Template:Archive box collapsible

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 27, 2007.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Agenda

Open issues

• Relations with Nazi Germany
• Divorce
• Cultural influence
• Slavery
• Human sacrifice
• Albigensian Crusade
• Inquisitions
• Talk:Catholic_Church/Origins
• Sexual abuse cases
  • I disagree that the sex abuse issue is closed. I think the article is now POV anti-Catholic since it does not mention how the Church implemented changes to prevent future abuse. NancyHeise (refraining from signing so this does not get archived by bot)

I disagree that many of these are considered open issues. No one is arguing most of them. I would keep "relations with Nazi Germany" open and "cultural influence" as well. I think that these issues are vastly understated in the article in a way that glosses over or significantly omits the good done by the Church in these areas. I have compiled a list of sources to improve the Cultural Influence section here someone keeps eliminating it from this tray. Please do not edit my post - Thanks, NancyHeise (refraining from using signature so this section does not get archived by the bot)

Use --~~~ (three tildes instead of four) and your signature will not be timestamped and therefore the bot will continue to ignore this section when archiving.

Nancy, no one is arguing these issues because they have either disengaged from this article Talk Page or they are wrapped up in the silly and useless fight over the Tags. I am taking the initiative to reorganize things in a way that will hopefully allow those who are interested in various subtopics to discuss them without being distracted by the other foodfights that erupt on this page.

Nancy, you will find a link to your sources in this subpage: Talk:Catholic Church/Cultural influence.

--Richard S (talk)

Inre: Relationship to Nazi Germany, I've been looking for content that might suggest that the agreement was forced, in duress, or somehow influenced by the fact that the church, (no army), was trying to strike an accord with the NSDAP, (big army). It might be somewhere in the archived sections, I've looked through about a dozen pages through relevant links, but it's kind of a big mess of debate. The idea, most basically, is just that the church "had" to agree to something like the Reichskonkordat whether they agreed with it or not. Any sources, essays anybody that isn't just conjecturing randomly? 137.99.77.174 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

Settled issues

• Catholic vs. Orthodox

Proposed Reformation Section

Reformation and Counter-Reformation

The Protestant Reformation began as an attempt to doctrinally reform the Catholic Church from within. Catholics reformers opposed what they perceived as false doctrines and ecclesiastic malpractice — especially the teaching and the sale of indulgences, and simony, the selling and buying of clerical offices — that the reformers saw as evidence of the systemic corruption of the church’s hierarchy, which included the Pope.

In 1517, Martin Luther included his Ninety-Five Theses in a letter to several bishops. His theses protested key points of Catholic doctrine as well as the sale of indulgences. Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, and others further criticized Catholic teachings. These challenges developed into a large and all encompassing European movement called the Protestant Reformation.

The English Reformation under Henry VIII began more as a political than as a theological dispute. When the annulment of his marriage was denied by the pope, Henry had Parliament pass the Acts of Supremacy, 1534, which made him, and not the pope, head of the English Church. Henry initiated and supported the confiscation and dissolution of monasteries, convents and shrines throughout England, Wales and Ireland. Elizabeth I, {second Act of Supremacy, 1558} outlawed Catholic priests and prevented Catholics from educating their children and taking part in political life.

The Catholic Church responded to doctrinal challenges and abuses highlighted by the Reformation at the Council of Trent (1545–1563), which became the driving force of the Counter-Reformation. Doctrinally, it reaffirmed central Catholic teachings such as transubstantiation, and the requirement for love and hope as well as faith to attain salvation. It made structural reforms, most importantly by improving the education of the clergy and laity and consolidating the central jurisdiction of the Roman Curia. New religious orders were a fundamental part of this trend. Orders such as the Capuchins, Ursulines, Theatines, Discalced Carmelites, the Barnabites, and especially the Jesuits strengthened rural parishes, improved popular piety, helped to curb corruption within the church, and set examples that would be a strong impetus for Catholic renewal. Organizing their order along a military model, the Jesuits strongly represented the autocratic zeal of the period. Characterized by careful selection, rigorous training, and iron discipline, the Jesuits ensured that the worldliness of the Renaissance Church had no part in their new order.

To popularize Counter-Reformation teachings, the Church encouraged the Baroque style in art, music and architecture.

Toward the latter part of the 17th century, Pope Innocent XI reformed abuses that were occurring in the Church's hierarchy, including simony, nepotism and the lavish papal expenditures that had caused him to inherit a large papal debt. He promoted missionary activity, tried to unite Europe against the Turkish invasion, prevented influential Catholic rulers (including the Emperor) from marrying Protestants but strongly condemned religious persecution.

Not bad as a condensation. However the work of the Jesuits and Teresa of Avila need to be in here too. Xandar 00:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's excessive detail that belongs in a separate article. Most of the stuff in these sections does. I do not disagree with much of what is being said (the tone may have an apologetic ring to it at times, but it's at the very least 90% accurate), but all of that extraneous stuff makes this piece excessively long and about as boring as a dog's ass. I think the separate individual articles need to be improved, with much of what has been put in here. This piece is simply too long and despite what I am sure are the best intentions of the editors involved, it does not do any service to the Church by being so unweildy. It needs to be summarized, there is too much unnecesarry detail. The byproduct of this is an article which does not inform because it cannot engage the reader. If you really want to improve this article, the key is to improve the seperate pieces and use the lede from those, here. Or just ignore suggestions from people who want to improve it...go and edit war, go through RFC's, take the personal attacks from snarky creeps, and scratch your head when this is still a B-Grade article 4 years from now.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well hopefully we can get it concise and comprehensive. The foundation of the Jesuits is a HIGHLY significant event though. Xandar 01:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar wrote "the work of the Jesuits and Teresa of Avila need to be in here too". The work of the Jesuit missionaries is mentioned in the "Age of Discovery" section. I am going to copy a couple of paragraphs from Counter-Reformation. It may be too long but let's discuss it and see what is really important to say.

Without taking away from the importance of Teresa of Avila as a saint and "Doctor of the Church", I don't see why it is important to mention her in the "History" section. --Richard S (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Richard. What makes Teresa of Avila so important that she much be mentioned in the article? Why is the foundation of the Jesuits so important? We must justify inclusion of facts in the article - not just trimming. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree Teresa can be cut, and the text above gives the Jesuits, who should certainly be in, enough at this level of condensation. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. With regard to the spirituality of the Church, Teresa of Avila, Therese of Lisieux and John of the Cross are notable. History can be more than just political developements you know. I don't think our article includes enough of this kind of history and could do with some more mentions elsewhere. Although I think too much is being said in the first paragraph regarding Jewish law. This could be trimmmed a bit. NancyHeise 22:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Final Conclave

When I was in college (and now I'm dating myself), I read a book by Malachi Martin entitled "The Final Conclave". In this book, Martin describes the tension between the liberal/progressives and the conservative/traditionalists in the Church. Written in 1978, Martin's thesis was that the selection of the next Pope would be driven by this battle for the soul of the Church.

Well, here we are 32 years later, and we can look back and see how things have played out. Neither side has completely won although my personal take is that the conservatives have been more in the driver's seat than not. Liberation theology has definitely been smacked down.

The shift towards the conservative end of the spectrum is the work of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

What's my point? We don't really talk about this battle for the soul of the Church except that we do mention liberation theology and the traditionalists but the way the end of the history section is written, those issues could be considered by the reader as no more important than Regensberg and "structures for defecting Anglicans".

I think the Catholicism of the 1990s and the 21st century has a different face from the Catholicism of the 1960s in a bunch of different ways. Use of the vernacular in the mass, fewer white Europeans as a percentage of the whole, not so militantly leftist or even progressive, a focus on sexuality and its attendant moral issues, issues regarding adequate supply of clergy.

Now, the above is OR but I think we can find reliable sources who analyze the past quarter century or so of Church history and come up with a very similar list.

This is what I think the end of the article should be about instead of degenerating into a bunch of disconnected bits of recent news that lacks any unifying theme.

NB: In what I wrote above, I am not necessarily in favor of the conservatives or the liberals despite some indications of what my personal position might be. For the purposes of this article, I'm more interested in describing what happened than in advocating that one side should or should not have won.

--Richard S (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to feel the conservatives versus liberals thing is heavily overstated by commentators. Media groups and others tend to have a small cabal of "liberal catholics" who they can go to for rent-a-quotes to try to present a picture of a divided church. However I think the vast majority of clergy and active laity around the world are mainstream, and approve of both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict. So the "battle for the soul of the Church" thing is over dramatic. We've seen this in protestant denominations, where liberals have dominated, the group seems to diminish and implode due to a lack of enthused believers in the pews. Whereas the more conservative groups flourish.

Vatican II was the big triumph of the Liberals - of whom both Popes Benedict and John Paul were numbered. But I believe this was always a top-down phenomenon, with liberal academics leading the movement, and a more reluctant laity following (or leaving). SO I don't think Liberals v Conservatives is a good theme to guide the final section. The Church versus secular power seems more a theme in the west, whilst elsewhere the Church's relations with other faiths would seem to be the central theme. Xandar 23:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Xandar. Richard, your proposal is very ORish. Since when has the Church not had groups of dissenters? These have existed since the beginning and have spawned all of the various offshoots of Catholicism since. The Church has never ordained women, it has never approved of abortion or birth control and has always had celibate priests - even before it became mandatory for the Western (but not Eastern) rite. These are the issues that are a thorn in the side to "liberal" (mainly US) Catholics but unless there has been some sort of impact on the Church because of their efforts I don't think its worth mentioning. We already mention the events that did have an impact by dissenters (the Reformation, Vatican II, etc.). I think that is all that's needed.NancyHeise 22:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Canada and Other Countries on Sex Abuse Cases by Catholic Priests

Editor Farsight001 reverted my edits adding links to wiki links to articles on sex abuse cases in Canada and other jurisdictions. This editor has previously reverted edits on Catholic sex abuse cases by replacing words confirming the problem is world wide with words suggesting it is limited to a few jurisdictions. See for example this edit by Farsight001:
# 08:44, 31 December 2009 (hist | diff) Catholic sex abuse cases ‎ (Undid revision 335070820 by Sturunner (talk)rv pov edits re-added with no explanation given. take to talk first)
203.129.49.145 (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC) :And? If you're just posting to complain about my edits, then you posted in the wrong place. We actually have a consensus that those things should not be mentioned in that place. This issue has been brought up in the past, which is why I (and others) removed it. It deserves mention in this article. Just not where it was put. Plus it's already mentioned last I checked. There is no need to slap it everywhere like you'd slap fragile stickers on a Fabergé egg you're mailing.Farsight001 (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Stricken as requested by Farsight001 below. --Richard S (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I misspoke and mis-edited. I saw a similar sized paragraph with two links added, like there was to the paragraph I was ranting about above. I would strike the above if I knew how. Though that brings up another question - why are there so many articles on Catholic sex abuse? It seems that they should exist as one article.Farsight001 (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The primary (and most valid reason) for so many articles on Catholic sex abuse is that the main article was too long and so we needed subsidiary articles at the country and diocese level to get the details out of the main article. However, there is a problem that there are editors who feel that it is important to put in many details that I think are not relevant. In particular, there is one particular victim who feels it necessary to insert the monetary amount of his settlement as well as some other minor details of the case which he feels are important. I have pushed the principle that, for the most part, names of specific abusers, specific victims, and specific settlements need not be included in Misplaced Pages articles. I have had limited success in advocating this principle. --Richard S (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

we all wish you limited success. Your 'principle' only works to the advantage of the abusers. If the matter has been ruled upon in open court and a conviction entered on the public record its not for you to then create some'principle' by which the information is suppressed. That only makes it harder for institutions like this to reform the structural problems that lead to so much sexual abuse of children by priests in the first place.203.129.49.145 (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentences

I take Richard's point about the consensus to include 'RCC' at the start of the lead - I personally think it could be left to the note to explain - but leaving that aside (and the church/demonination question) there is still too much information thrown in that could easily wait until the demographics section: is the number of Catholics (practicing and lapsed) as a percentage of Christians/the world's population really such an important fact that it has to be presented so prominently?

I therefore propose the following:

"The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian denomination with more than a billion members. It is a communion of the Western, (or Latin Rite) Church, and 22 autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches (called particular churches), comprising a total of 2,795 dioceses in 2008."

Haldraper (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am on Richard' side here. A new reader can not be sent to Notes to know what the Roman Catholic Church is. There is so much extra in the article it does not make sense to economize on 5 words upfront. History2007 (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of historical accuracy, we should be aware that History2007's comment is true but does not capture the real issue at hand here. There was a huge dispute as to whether this article should be title Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church. I won't go into the details but the compromise reached after a year of mediation and possibly a million bytes of Talk Page discussion was to title the article Catholic Church and mention both names in the lead sentence. Anything which breaches this compromise is likely to open up the old dispute and we will go around and around for months. As it is, I expect that someone will come along sooner or later to push one side of the dispute or another. Until then, however, I think it is better to let things lay dormant in the interest of peace. --Richard S (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for heaven's sake leave it. There are far too many undiscussed changes being made, which as we have seen from past experience, only causes trouble down the road. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Richard, if you read the Long Island Expressway document I wanted the article called Roman Catholic Church. But the inclusion of the RC term upfront is true in any case. My concern now is the same as Johnbod's in that the edit turmoil we are witnessing within this page now may spin out of control and result in a 2009 world crisis type situation. So I think everyone should try to calm their edits and do things by agreement. History2007 (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If you read my proposed opening sentences you will see that both CC and RCC are retained - it is the comparisons between the number of Catholics (both practicing and lapsed) and the total number of Christians/world population that have been cut as unnecessarily prominent for the lead.Haldraper (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason for deleting a few numbers (whose correctness no one disputes) and which give a perspective. Why delete those instead of all the other excess baggage elsewhere in the article? Who does it hurt to have these facts there? I find these facts informative. History2007 (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about decluttering the lead here, I'm not disputing the facts just whether they need to be so prominent. The Catholic Church is the biggest Christian church with over a billion members. That's useful info that a general reader might come here looking for. But Catholics as a percentage of Christians/the world population? That kind of detail belongs in the demographics section.

There is another issue: unlike the lead, the demographics section makes clear that the 1.1 billion figure includes both practicing and lapsed members. I think if you want these figures to stay in the lead we need to make it clear there too. Haldraper (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that I did not know the ratios until I read it in this article. And I actually found it interesting. So I do not see it as "clutter" at all, but useful information. Clutter comes further in the article. The info about the formation of SF&LA is now thankfully gone, but there is clutter further in history. As for lapsed vs nonlapsed, that can of course be clarified, and I wonder how one counts these people anyway. Is there something like a Geiger counter that the priest holds to the head of a Catholic to determine how lapsed he/she is? Are there references for a catholic Geiger counter type device? But more seriously how do these numbers come up? History2007 (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see no problem with teh act that there is no "faith meter" for Catholics, but is there one for Christians? If not, it should say number of lapsed Catholics or Christians is not known, for there could be more lapsed non-Catholics than Catholics, who knows? So please modify as such. Thanks. Then I wonder if given that there are physics Noble prize winners who report to the pope, if a few of them could be commissioned to make a faith meter (wink).... but that is another story.... History2007 (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

History2007, things are clearer here than you think. If like me you're been baptised a Catholic, then you're a Catholic. Those who follow the obligations of the faith set out in canon law (attend mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation, confess mortal sins at least once a year) are practicing Catholics, those who don't are lapsed. Most other Christian churches do not have a similar codified way of measuring who is a practicing member so don't have the concept of 'lapsed members'.Haldraper (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If I did not know it, I bet there are others who do not. But instead of clarifying there, I saw that there is actually a half-written article on lapsed Catholic, so it really needs a link. And the lapsed article seems lapsed itself, and needs a clean up. History2007 (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• By that test, Martin Luther is a Catholic; and as for the test of practice, you may want to look up "Easter lily" on Urbandictionary (I heard it from an Anglican). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am amazed, we actually agree on something PM. My prayers must be working.... But let me point out that these are rough numbers for all religions, e.g. Misplaced Pages says that Shinto currently has about 119 million known adherents in Japan. with an obscure reference to some LOC unnamed source. I really have no idea how one measures these things for either Shinto or Pentacostals, etc. By their nature, these are soft numbers, and Catholic numbers may be less soft than others due to a central office etc. (but that is a guess on my part, no sources). History2007 (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: it's both appropriate and nornal to list the (approximate) number of adherents in the lead section; see the articles on Anglicanism and on the Orthodox Church. I have no strong opinion as to whether it belongs in the first sentence or later on in the lead section. Perhaps we should leave it as is for now. Majoreditor (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with leaving it as is, but not just for now, for a long while. There are just too many edits to the lead, with no noticeable improvements. These are soft numbers, of course, but most new readers would want to know it. Personally, I did not know that Catholics are 1/6 of the world population (until I read it here) because I had not divided the two numbers, so it is useful information. History2007 (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree too. The article info on church membership reflects what every source on the Catholic Church also says. Its in every encyclopedia on the subject. It would be very weird for us to exclude it for obvious POV reasons. NancyHeise 22:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Permanent tattoo, (excuse me tag) on the page?

This page seems to attract tags right at the top at the drop of a hat. The current reason is that someone "could not find a section tag" for a few references. That is no reason for using guilt by association to tag the entire page. Smaller "fact" tags can be added where needed. There is no reason to throw the page out with the bath water and tag it all when a few references are in question, say less than 2% of total. This page is MORE referenced than most Misplaced Pages articles around. History2007 (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

History2007, please refer to the discussion above in the Present section on non-third party sources initiated by Hamilstonstone. It certainly isn't a case of me 'discussing with myself' as you say or 'a few'/'less than 2%' of references.

"This page is MORE referenced than most Misplaced Pages articles around."

Agreed, it's a pity most of them - especially in the History section - don't meet WP:INDEPENDENT.Haldraper (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, there are hundreds of references here. If a "blanket tag" is added, seeking help, how is anyone going to sort out which ones you question, specially since the length of this talk page makes War and Peace look like a brief note on a paper Napkin and it is practically impossible to trace through it. So the references in questions need to get individual tags. There is no other way. One can not accuse the entire article with a blanket indictment. History2007 (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The way to get rid of such a tag is to fix the references - and the text - substituting independent, reliable, sources and citing them for what they actually say. It would appear that majority of these "citations" do not satisfy those criteria; 2% is a flat lie.

I realize that it is easier to whinge than to actually improve an article - but that is really no excuse for this section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no. I think we got you upset again PM. But actually, I do not have a problem with the references in this article. I think whoever has a problem must mark the references they see as problems one by one and explain the objections on the talk page, instead of issuing a blanket accusation. History2007 (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Marking them note by note on the article page would create a bigger mess than the tag at the top of the page, though i understand your point. I have outlined the issue in principle in an earlier talk section - as Haldraper briefly notes, the issue generally is one of independence. Very briefly, here's a hasty sketch of sources that may not meet that standard. The detail depends however on context (eg. a church source can be OK for citing the church's own claims about its own doctrine).

• Barry (office holder; ?church press)
• Benedict XVI, and other papal statements - context is of course important
• Coppa (church press; possible POV issues in terms of close alignment with church organisation)
• Froehle & Gautier (church press; Froehle - possible office holder?)
• Kreeft (church press; may also be POV issues with author, that would require checking against other reliable sources)
• Kung (office holder)
• Langan (office holder, though not ordained)
• Madrid (church press? POV/reliability issues)
• Marthaler (church press, office holder)
• McGonigle (church press)
• Mongoven (church press)
• Murray, Chris - just not sure this is a reliable source anyway - nothing to do with the independence issue, just a query as i'm working through the list.
• Nichols (?church press - not sure about this source)
• Norman - (grey area, but certainly a POV that would require checking against other reliable sources)
• Orlandis (office holder, church press)
• Schatz (?office holder; ?church press)
• Schreck (?office holder, church press)
• Sobrino (office holder)
• Vidmar (office holder, church press)
• Walsh & Thavis (Thavis an office holder of sorts; title suggests church publication; not clear on details)

This is the first time I have made a systematic, albeit cursory, run through the entire reference list. My observation would be that it appears to lean toward conservative sources, some of which i would also question as to quality / reliability (regardless of POV), including some of the works from Regnery Publishing (eg. Woods Jr). That may be considered to have an effect on the neutrality of the WP article: this is perhaps best dealt with as a separate, later discussion. For now, the above list is my starting point for identifying potential problems with the independence of sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We've been through this dozens of times. Because a historian is English doesn't mean he can't be used as a reference for the England article. because a historian is Anglican doesn't mean he can't be used to reference the Anglicanism article. Because a historian is American doesn't mean he can't be used on the USA article. The important thing is: is this a proper historian whose book is of academic or reliable status. Trying to accuse any historian who happens also to be a Catholic of bias is idiotic. Xandar 02:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors, but that is not the point i was making, so your comment does not apply to the issue i am raising. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The question is what issue you are raising. Your list interpolated above is next to useless since it doesn't tell us what statement is being referenced to each author that is being challenged, what precisely is meant by the term "office holder" in each case, and what is meant by Church press, or your guesses about whether it is a "Church" press. Your definitions seem very loose and unreliable. As far as I can see a first party source is one written, published and sanctioned by the Vatican, a Bishops Conference, or a religious order acting in an official capacity. Xandar 02:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, i pointed out at the outset that this was a quick sketch designed to begin to focus the issue, and i added the qualifier "The detail depends however on context (eg. a church source can be OK for citing the church's own claims about its own doctrine". So thanks for pointing out what i already pointed out. I am indicating that in general the above sources may be challenged from the point of view of their independence from the subject matter. In some cases, it is because the person appears to hold a church office of some sort - by which i generally mean being a priest / O.P. or similar, or an employee of the church. By church press i mean a press that is owned or controlled by a Catholic church organisation (or a Christian press, in some contexts). If I udnerstood correctly your "first party source" comment, i would suggest that it is not relevant to the core issue of independence / reliability etc. Are my definitions a bit loose? Yes, and i said so. Are they unreliable? I may have made some mistakes - it was a difficult exercise, and done in haste to keep the discussion moving - but the core issue remains: we have a large number of sources, quoted extensively, that are not independent of the organisation that they attempt to describe. Editors should aim to replace them with higher quality sources - of which, as can also be inferred from my above list, there are also many in this article. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes Xandar, "We've been through this dozens of times" and you still don't get it. "Trying to accuse any historian who happens also to be a Catholic of bias is idiotic". Clearly. That is exactly the point I made to hamiltonstone in the discussion in the 'Present' section above, citing the use of Edward Norman and Anthony Rhodes as examples. That is NOT what we are talking about. Please don't throw it in as red herring again in order to avoid the real issue which is those sources such as Bokenkotter, McGonigle and Vidmar who are ordained members of the Church and therefore fail WP:INDEPENDENT. Haldraper (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Kung has been in quite a bit of trouble with the Church hierarchy for his opinions before. Although he is ordained, I suspect his works can be considered more independent than others, as he's proven a willingness to speak his mind regardless of the personal consequences. That said, I wouldn't use his books for any of the beliefs sections, but for history I think they will be fine. I would much prefer if the history section relies solely on university press-published books. That would eliminate many of the sources currently used, as many were published by Church-related organizations. However, on WP university presses are considered the most reliable, and I suspect there are hundreds if not thousands of potential books that could be used. Karanacs (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs makes a very valid point: there are enough reliable third party sources on the history of the Catholic Church that there really is no excuse for the section on it in the article relying so heavily on those like Bokenkotter, McGonigle and Vidmar who clearly fail WP:INDEPENDENT. Haldraper (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Bokenkotter's book is the most respected source on Church history of any book ever printed on the subject. It is the most widely used source by universities as a textbook for three decades although it is not a textbook but a secondary source. I have previously listed many universities who use it as a source do I have to do it again? Also, in an effort to cover differing scholarly opinions in certain sections of the article, we use various sources, including but not limited to Catholic press ones. None of our sources are discredited by scholarly journals. Some people have wanted us to use discredited sources but I think it is better to stick with those that do not have bad reviews and are used by a wide range of Catholic and non-Catholic universities as textbooks. This is an indication of their mainstream acceptance which is what Misplaced Pages asks of us. NancyHeise 22:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I really think it is quite preposterous for people to start claiming that no source written by an ordained person, or apparently anyone connected with the Catholic Church, can be used in the article! The idea of Haldraper that certain notable sources "fail WP:INDEPENDENT" for this reason is nonsense. First WP:INDEPENDENT is an ESSAY, not policy. The relevant policy is Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Second, even the essay doesn't make the claims Haldraper bases on it, being primarily about establishing NOTABILITY - which does require third-party sourcing. Thirdly, labelling every ordained Catholic, or publishing house connected with Catholics as self-published and unreliable is ridiculous. It's like arguing that any research produced by a believer in evolution is biased. The key issue contained in WP:V is reliability and academic authority. And that's what our references generally have.

That is why hamiltonstone's little blacklist is entirely unhelpful. What we are concerned with is whether information is challangeable or not, not whether who produced it is on someone's personal blacklist. So. If anyone is challenging references, let them bring forth their arguments (referenced of course), about why the information sourced to X in each particular sentence is wrong, and the validity of any alternate view. The reason we have the sources we do is that at the initial FAC, the history section was criticised for relying upon non-specialist books, covering the history of Christianity in general rather than Catholicism. So editors found books about the history of Catholicism. So. You are free to challenge referenced material, but the challenge needs to be specific and referenced, not a blanket charge that "Prof X is a Catholic, he can't be trusted." Xandar 01:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, you seem determined to misrepresent other peoples' positions here. "Prof X is a Catholic, he can't be trusted" Who has said anything remotely like that? I specifically talked about Norman and Rhodes as academics who also happen to be Catholics whose use as sources is entirely unproblematic. I repeat: your throwing this is in as a red herring isn't helpful in addressing the real issues, it only serves to obscure and confuse them.

You're right that WP:V rather than WP:INDEPENDENT is policy. But I still think it informs how we assess whether sources meet that policy. You also write "it is quite preposterous for people to start claiming that no source written by an ordained person, or apparently anyone connected with the Catholic Church, can be used in the article!". Yes it would be if anyone actually had. No one as far as I can see - and certainly not me - is proposing that Bokenkotter, Duffy, McGonigle and Vidmar be excluded because they are non-third party sources - WP:INDEPENDENT doesn't stipulate that, merely that they shouldn't be relied upon exclusively as the History section does currently, to the exclusion of the many reliable third party sources that do exist. Haldraper (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages policy on reliable sources goes into detail about using sources respected as "mainstream". These sources meet this criteria. With regard to Bokenkotter and Duffy, our article would look really ridiculous if we did not use these, they are the most mainstream books out there. No other source is used as often as Bokenkotter as a university textbook and the BBC used Duffy's book to make a documentary about the Church. Vidmar's citations mirror Bokenkotter's and provide an extra layer of certification for our article. NancyHeise 20:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention also that Duffy and Bokenkotter are cited by almost every encyclopedia including Encyclopedia Brittanica in their Catholic Church articles. We are using them because they are so widely respected and cited by other scholars as well, see googlescholar. NancyHeise 21:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. As I have said, if there are individual things cited to these, or any authors, that people want to challenge, bring them forward, and we'll sort them out. But lets not start trying to say certain authors can't be used. Xandar 02:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

For the third time Xandar, who has said any such thing? Haldraper (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Pope John Paul I-Did He Exist?

The extent to which this article has degenerated into propaganda for this sect is reflected by the fact that Pope John Paul I is not even mentioned, despite the immense significance of his death in 1978 in terms of highlighting problems with the catholic Church. I added this referenced sentence: In 1978 Pope John Paul I died after only 33 days in office and unsubstantiated rumours continue of his plans to embrace such ideological change and dismiss senior Vatican officials over allegations of corruption.ref: George Gregoire. Murder in the Vatican: The Revolutionary Life of John Paul and The CIA, Opus Dei and the 1978 Murders. AuthorHouse. 4th edition (2008) ISBN-10: 1434387224 ISBN-13: 978-1434387226. If no mention is made of the death of John Paul I in 1978 and the implications of the controversy about his death for the Catholic Church it only indicates the extent to which this article (with all its self-serving internal references) has drifted from the required neutrality150.203.35.200 (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The section you edited was part of the history of the Catholic Church. 33 days vs 2,000 years...do the math.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

On that analysis beginning of the universe-microseconds so therefore also irrelevant. His death was highly significant for critics of the Catholic Church. The fact his existence is not even acknowledged in the article indicates the extent to which this article is not neutral by accepted[REDACTED] standards. Why is there no Criticism of the Catholic Church section for example? Is it because the Catholic Church is protected by God from falling into error. What a convenient way to avoid normal[REDACTED] standards.150.203.35.200 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

Lighten up, Francis. :) It's all about the weight of the information. In the big picture, his unfortunate death was a minor blip. You think it is highly significant, but other critics do not seem to agree with you. God does not protect this article, He tried to but a few of the regular contributors ran Him off.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mike that it was too long an edit, although personally, I think the JP-I death was unclear at best - the only thing they did not say about his death was that it was a scuba diving accident in the Holy Sea or a ski slope accident down Mount of Olives. So that type of thing needs a brief reference to a "controversies" article. If you have other problems, you should bring them up one by one, as you did this one. But I think you are overheating a little bit. History2007 (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

this issue is illustrative of the lack of required objectivity in the article- as evidenced by the fact that most of the references come from the Church itself and there is no section from external perspective or criticism. It doesn't meet Good Article criteria in this respect. You asked Who knows what God thinks about this article? Whether this institution has deviated so far from the ideals of its founder that its no longer recogisable as related to Him is an issue better debated elsewhere.But those who have criticised the Catholic Church should have their views expressed here if the article is to meet required standards150.203.35.200 (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not critisize this article because I want to live more than 33 days. But I think you are overreaching. History2007 (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid wacky fringe conspiracy theories don't belong in the article. Xandar 01:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, JP1's death should not have been "unclear". The Vatican is the Church's own worst enemy most of the time. They lied about JP2 celebrating Mass the morning he died and with JP1 they tried to change a few "facts"...like he was discovered dead in bed by a housekeeper (nun), but that would make for bad press so they changed it to his personal secretary. He was reading a secular book, but they changed it to The Imitation of Christ or the Lives of the Saints. So it makes it look like there was a coverup. I'm not saying it wasn't or that the nutters might be half correct, but again...it's a minor blip on the big picture. How this exceedingly long and poorly written piece maintains its GA status is beyond me, but inserting half-cocked conspiracy theories is not the way to improve it. Hack about 50% of the unnecesarry fat out of the history section and you might be onto something. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they should hire Alastair Campbell to avoid that type of unprofessional PR activity in the future. Let us send them an email recommending him.... But yes, it was a blip overall, although an unusual blip. History2007 (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've started a "Criticism of the Catholic Church" section. Would you please desist from ad hominem attacks and allow an objective viewpoint to be expressed in this article. If you delete the "Criticism of the Catholic Church" section an application will be made for Good Article status to be reassessed.150.203.35.200 (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous editor. You seem to have turned up on this page with an attitude, and be here simply to add hostile POVs to the article. This is not what we are here for. As far as "Criticism" sections are concerned. these are not now encouraged by Misplaced Pages. the individual issues are dealt with as they arise. As far as abuse is concerned, the current wording was recently agreed by editors. One-sided diatribes such as those you want to add are not permitted. Xandar 02:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Xandar his addition is subject to Misplaced Pages:BRD anyway, so can not just get in unannounced. Your removal was fine. History2007 (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The person concerned seems to have started editing today, and his edits consist of diatribes added to this article and the JP I article. The wikilawyering he adds above seems to indicate that this individual has knowledge of WP and therefore is likely to be a sockpuppet. Xandar 02:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet downunder? Who would have thought? But his anger seems freshly minted, although he seems to remember page histories.... but I do not recognize his tone, maybe you do. History2007 (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

JPI death theories fall under WP:fringe and are not notable enough to be included in this article. NancyHeise 22:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Reassessment of Good Article Status for Catholic Church

Just because I have a different point of view from your doesn't mean you should insult me. I hereby formally request any sympathetic logged-in editor to apply for this article's Good Article status to be reassessed. I believe it it is too verbose, has insufficient objective sources, is not neutral (has minimal criticism of the Catholic Church). There is a vast debate taking place about whether the Catholic Church and what many academic commentators consider its polarising views on non-ordination of women, mandatory priestly celibacy, covert support of pederasty, double standards on homosexuality, deleterious impact on population control and protection from sexually-transmitted disease, are helping or hindering planetary survival. This important debate in teh published literature is not accurately reflected in the article as it stands.150.203.35.200 (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, he said "planetary survival", so it might be Al Gore using a sock puppet and starting a new angle if your sock puppet theory is correct. But I think "planetary survival" is way off topic in these discussions. History2007 (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how non-ordination of women, priestly celibacy, or most of these other subjects, (all dealt with in the article) threaten planetary survival. But these rants and failure to engage in discussion are just far-out POV. How about calming down, Mr Anonymous, and realising that the article is not here to be a rabid denunciation of Catholicism, but to provide a cool and balanced description. It's clear you're not new to Misplaced Pages - so what is your real WP name and account? Xandar 03:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

history, I looked at this talk page on your recommendation and just reading the above debate it seems to me the anonymous editor is making a fair point in saying the john paul 1 death was significant enough to merit inclusion - the fact his successor was a real reactionary whereas as I understand it jp1 was different is also significant - his sudden death had ramifications. Also the ganging up tone of you and xandar is quite arrogant sounding and hostile, it lacks humility, a Christian principle, and if he is a stranger, remember jesus said 'anyone can act friendly to friends, the point is love your enemies.' Not exact quote, but something like that.Sayerslle (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no. I meant this very very long talk page is an example of what a talk page should not be, not an example of what should be. The page is really long. History2007 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching the edit/revert/discussion regarding John Paul I and I have to say that it's a close call. John Paul I is the only Pope not mentioned in this article since Pius XI (whose reign started in 1922!). Yes, JPI's reign as Pope was only 33 days but the choice of "the next Pope" after Paul VI was a crucial one (cf. my earlier discussion of Malachi Martin's book "The Last Conclave"). It seems to me that there is value in focusing on the politics of the two papal elections though with less emphasis on the conspiracy theory stuff about JPI's death. --Richard S (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think as Mike said above, it could be called a blip of some type over a 2,000 year span, so it deserves a brief mention at best, not a dissertation or section. But if you do not mention the death circumstances, what else is there? The politics can not be discussed briefly enough, so just gets a link. History2007 (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Richard, I think that belongs in the Pope article not here. NancyHeise 22:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What are the FACTS on this issue? The Pope died after one month. End of story. All the rest are the usual fringe conspiracy nuts manufacturing dross. Was JP 1 even exceptionally liberal? No. He banned the sedan chair, then brought it back when the public didn't like the move. JPII banned it, and it stayed banned. As for anything else. Are we going to put in the USA article how JFK was killed by the CIA so that he wouldn't stop the Vietnam war? Elvis, of course, works night shift at my local supermarket. He confirmed that the REAL Paul McCartney died in 1965... Xandar 00:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There are no universally agreed upon facts on it. Many people, myself included, feel that the "story did not fit" but all that supports that feeling are intuitive hunches, and many conflicting theories which do not amount to solid evidence. Hence based on WP:Fringe the intuitive unhappiness and the conflicting theories can not be supported in a main article here. History2007 (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Institutions section

I think this could be expanded. I do not agree to the cuts recently made to this section but Im not going to argue. There are recent news articles claiming that the Church operates a quarter of all the world's hospitals and this is notable enough to be mentioned in this section. We should also consider mentioning that a substantial number of all the schools in third world countries as well as the US are run by the Church. I don't think it is enough to tell people the numbers of these institutions without giving them context as to what they mean. NancyHeise 22:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see our propaganda hound is back. Really, Nancy, we are not here to praise the church - or to damn her - especially by quoting misleading or dishonest statistics like this. The number affiliated with the church may be that - although I suspect that this is counting apples and oranges (what is a hospital? do Bellevue and a missionary station in the brush each count as one?) - but operated by the church is going too far. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The image (at right) Nancy keeps removing as unsourced, is in fact sourced on its image page; as I know because Nancy was told so. It is now sourced here, and in the article. I trust this nonsense will now cease; if not, I intend to note it as further evidence of Nancy's endemic bad faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see our personal-attack hound is back. Please try to stick to facts and be constructive. Xandar 01:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ratios vs numbers

I think the statement that "I don't think it is enough to tell people the numbers ... without giving them context as to what they mean" is true not just here, but in general. Most people will find it hard to understand numbers without knowing the comparative ratios. It is one thing to say company X owns Y supermarkets, but MUCH more informative if one also says that company X owns 24% of all supermarkets in the US. So these ratios should be stated in most cases. Some type of map will be informative.

I do not understand the situation with the map. Personally I find maps very informative in general, be they about churches, supermarkets or product usage maps. There is a source on the map page on Wikimedia, but the stated source has no map, just numbers. How do we know that the numbers correspond to the map? But a map would be very nice if a reliable one can be found. History2007 (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We had this map in our article before. I put it there. It was roundly tossed by many editors who kept saying it was unsourced. I am not in favor of keeping unsourced information in the article, it will not pass through FA so why keep putting this in there? NancyHeise 15:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I went to the map page and removed the claim that it has a source. So as is, it is unsourced. I left a message for the person who loaded the map to see what the source was. Have not had a response yet. The data "looks right" but that does not constitute a source. I think if no source is found the map has to go, but I do wish a new map could be found. This current unsourced map was informative to me, and I would hope that a sourced one can be found. As for FA passage, I pay no attention to ratings, what matters is how informative the article is with reliable sources. History2007 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing citations of the actual source used is academic fraud. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Academic fraud? Come on you can do better than that..... You need to get more creative with your insults here. Use some more complicated terminology to release your frustrations, it will help you deep down........ (do the dots bother you?).... NEWSFLASH: The claimed source had no map.... NEWSFLASH: The claimed source had no map.... History2007 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The map consists of the countries of the world tinted by percentage of Catholics. It makes, therefore, two claims: the boundaries of the countries, which are - on that scale - uncontroversial, and the percentage of Catholics, which the source supports. Which of them does History2007 insist is unsourced? (We could not simply take a map from the source if it had one; that would be copyright violation on the creative act of drawing.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

How do we know the numbers on the website correspond to the shadings/colorings on the map? Manual verification? History2007 (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The map violates Misplaced Pages policies regarding statistics. You can say what the source says about stats but you can't interpret them yourself. Making your own map violates that rule and that's why it was deleted long ago when I tried to use it. NancyHeise 19:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I could ask no better illustration of the fraud which has caused this article to be protected.

• The map shows France, for example, as orange.
• Its label shows that orange means "60-79% Catholic".
• The source cited says that France is 75.54% Catholic.
• Where is the "interpretation"? The policies that forbid it admit simple arithmetic, even above the level of 60 < 75.54.

I will be back in a week to see if Nancy and History2007 have been barred, as they deserve to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Translation: You are relying on a manual verification of the data by checking the numbers for France. Did you check Lithuania? How about Belgium? How about Madagascar? Did you check them all or just the home of Mona Lisa? How do we know you did not make an arithmetic error anywhere? Do Misplaced Pages editors need to gather in groups to count numbers on maps? I do not think so..... And are you leaving us for a week? Sigh...... History2007 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Horrors! I'm checking the data by looking at the map (and seeing it appears reasonable), selecting a country, and looking at the source (the same would be required to check the data if we presented it as as a table).

Are these scare italics about manual intended to insist on some sort of OCR, which is less reliable than the human eye, especially for things like this, where the format differs radically?

How do we know I didn't make an arithmetic error anywhere? Because I didn't do any arithmetic. I observed immediately that 75.54 (which the source states) is more than 60, as I observed immediately that the image of France is orange.

History2007 is free to check Lithuania, Belgium, and Madagascar for himself; since the source is in numerical order, it won't take him much longer to do the whole map; the only real difficulty will be checking that the Guyanese states not in the source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as the map as concerned, it tends to mislead by having a bottom limit of 20% catholic population, which makes it appear that there are no significant numbers of Catholics in major parts of the world where in fact millions of catholics live. If the map is to be retained it probably needs a 10% field. Xandar 02:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No more than it tends to mislead by suggesting 20% for Saudi Arabia. But this is the same thing again: if it doesn't push my POV, it's anti-Catholic. Please stop before an admin sees you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it turned out that said map was full of errors anyway. So moot point. History2007 (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it turned out that there were two cases where the color does not reflect the source (Lithuania, for example, is 80.01% Catholic, but is shown in the 60-79 range - I'm whelmed), and one where the source is almost certainly wrong itself. The former may well be due to the source being updated since the map was drawn. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, no and not so, as usual. In the "proposed correction" a few African spots that were yellow are now green. Which is correct I am not sure, but there are inconsistencies beyond Lithuania which I had picked by pure chance as an example. Translation: I was right to question the accuracy of the map. Period. History2007 (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, PMAnderson, there were many more errors (or at least, discrepancies between the source and the map). I put my corrected version of the map here so that you can see the differences. Ucucha 18:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

← I very much like the concept of having a map. However, there's still errors in the data. For example, Syria is less than 10% Catholic, while Lebanon is approximately one-quater Catholic. There's other data in the source which looks suspicious as well; for example, the population of the United Sates is approximately 307 million, not 285 million. (The two links I've supplied are to the CIA World Fact Book, which is a fairly reliable source for country demographics.) Does anyone have thoughts on how to fix this mess? Majoreditor (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes (though note that the source actually gives no data for Lebanon; cf. my version of the map). The source is also questionable because it is apparently from the Church itself, and thus not independent of the subject. The best way to proceed would be to create a map on the basis of an independent reliable source that lists sensible percentages for all countries, but such a source may not exist. Ucucha 04:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha has a point, and my position against church sources has been outlined elsewhere. In this case, my suggestion is to use the revised version by Ucucha (or similar), with a caption along the following lines: "Catholic church figures for church adherents as a proportion of the population". As long as the reader knows the source is the church, i would accept this unless there is a reliable source with contrary figures. If there is, then we might have to abandon the exercise, or use multiple sources for the map, and a footnote discussing them.hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic schools data can be improved

This book published by the respectable and non-Catholic Church affiliated Routledge publishing company contains valuable information we can use to expand the information on Catholic schools. Please see pages 149-151 . Notable points I think should be included in the article are:

• Catholic schools are respected around the world for quality education
• Over 50 million children attend Catholic schools around the world
• In some countries, these schools represent the main school system, "particularly in some African countries"
• There are a lot of points we could cover, please see the source and offer your suggestions. Thanks. NancyHeise 18:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I can look at that later, but I do not know how to get a map out of the book, given the copyright issues. I searched for a map, and the one that has a source is called SPAM in the Wikidatabase. The 50 million children number is interesting and significant and if a ratio can be added will be useful. If that section gets much larger, it will justify its own article (title to be decided) but will b einteresting. History2007 (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see you back Nancy but you seem to have returned with some bad, POV-pushing habits. For e.g., do you really, honestly, hand on heart think "Catholic schools are respected around the world for quality education" is NPOV? I just had a quick look at your source which mentions exam results for Catholic schools in Britain. If you're going to put that in as a plus for the Church, I'm going to have to dig out the data that suggests that far from it being a result of their "religious ethos" it's actually because of social selection, middle-class parents being more motivated to impress the parish priest, more able to contribute resources etc. We don't want to go down the tennis match road again do we? Haldraper (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper, that opposing argument is addressed on the very pages of the Routledge book I provided as a source. It says that this analogy is not supported by evidence. I provided a solid reference with actual respectable facts about the Catholic Schools in an effort to improve our Catholic Institutions section. I am not POV pushing, I am information pushing. What is POV about the source I have cited? Here it is again, pages 149-151 NancyHeise 21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OK Nancy, I'll play the game! You really think "Catholic schools are respected around the world for quality education" is NPOV? It's hardly surprising is it that the book discounts the opposing argument to the one it's making is it! But don't worry, I know plenty of reliable sources that show just what I'm saying if you really want me to go get them. Haldraper (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is practically undecidable if they are respected or not. I can not see how one can readily prove or disprove that statement. And respect is a very soft (and culturally varied) concept. It will take $100 million in opinion research fees to even approximate the validity of that statement. Now if anyone has the funds ready, I will be glad to start the research next week.... History2007 (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha, ha, do you need an assistant? I come very cheap, expenses only! Haldraper (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The article certainly contains research to suggest that Catholic schools are more effective than many state schools, though I don't know if we can fit that in here. The number of children attending Catholic schools though, and their pervasiveness in some countries is notable, and should be shoehorned in if we can. We could probably use a separate article on Catholic schools. Xandar 02:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

After reading page 149 (150 is not available to me for a preview), I'm unsure what time period the "50 million" number is coming from. Many of the studies quoted are from the 1960s through 1980s, which seems a bit outdated. I think that if we want to include this type of info we ought to look for more recent studies published in journals, rather than a non-university press book that focuses more on outdated studies. Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs, the book is published by Routledge which has as good or better reputation for fact checking as University presses. Are you suggesting that a Routledge book is inferior to a University press? NancyHeise 21:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the book is not citing old data, it cites various studies from 1960's all the way to 2001 on page 149 that all say Catholic school students performed better. This information should be in our Catholic Institutions section, it comes from a seriously NPOV source and is published by Routledge. How can anyone not want this in the article? NancyHeise 21:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of reasons not to want this in the article - many of which have been listed above this post. One major reason not yet mentioned is that Google book previews often don't give enough information to verify that what you see is placed in the appropriate context (I, for example, can't view page 150). I'd want us to have read the entire chapter at the very least. Second, we have no idea whether this is scholarly consensus, or just the interpretations of the scholar who wrote this chapter in the book. Third, the book is vague on some of the numbers (there were 50 million students...when? is that current? is that a count of all students in the last X years? The book is not clear.) Fourth, some of the studies cited are quite old. Education in the US has changed a lot in the last 50 years, and I suspect that is the same in other countries as well. Fifth, a lot of what I could read was specific to studies done in Britain, and we cannot extrapolate from that. Sixth, "quality education" is a value judgement, and different scholars/individuals may have very different interpretations of what that means. Does it mean students make X score on an assessment test? That Y % of students graduate? Seventh, I didn't actually read anything that claimed that "Catholic schools around the world are respected for quality education". I think that claim issynthesis and an exaggeration. Eighth, there are myriad reasons why Catholic schools represent the only - or main - schools in an area, and if you are the only school, how can one judge whether the education provided is better or worse in that region? There's nothing to compare it to. Karanacs (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Google is not God. If you want to check a book source, and Google doesn't provide a free preview of the page(s) you want to see, I'd suggest finding a library. If they don't have a copy, ask about an interlibrary loan. There's more than one way to check a source. Gentgeen (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with you there - the ILL department at my library knows me well. The problem occurs when editors use partial Google book previews as sources for inserting new information into the article. Karanacs (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous vandalism

The point of view implicit in the title of this article (that Roman Catholic is somehow the invention of Protestants alone) is now being added by an anon.

In case someone believes there is a question of fact here, permit me to quote the Mexican Constition of 1824:

The religion of the Mexican nation shall perpetually remain the Roman Catholic and Apostolic. The nation protects it by wise and just laws and prohibits the exercise of any other.

Was this (which prohibits the exercise of all forms of Protestantism) drawn up by Protestants? (The printed Spanish text says la Católica, Apostólica, Romana; a set phrase, with a standard abbreviation, in all the Western Romance languages.) Can we have an end to this fraud, at least? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Again this was gone into in great detail in the year we spent discussing the naming issues. As PMA will note if he reads the old Mexican Constitution he cites closely. The exact wording is: "La religion del la nacion mexicana es y perpetuamente la Catolica, Apostolica, Romana". 1) it is talking about the religion of Mexico. 2) Catholic, Apostolic and Roman are separated by commas. In other words they are not a name but a description. This, as we discussed at enormous length at the time of the debate, is part of the traditional description of the marks of the true church. The church is Catholic, Apostolic and Roman in its qualities. That is not the same as the name "Roman Catholic Church" which means something quite different, and was invented in the sixteenth century in England. Xandar 01:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting that there has to be a "discussion" of the term Roman Catholic here on the talk page. There is a fully referenced article written by yours truly with the help of another editor about the history and origin of the term Roman Catholic. Maybe that should be referenced somewhere instead of a new discussion.... History2007 (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A fascinating article; it disagrees with the OED twice in the first sentence, on a matter of English philology. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so it is philology that disturbs you... I thought the causes of your disturbances were much more deeply seated. Does the use of extra dots also bother your psyche? ....History2007 (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I am annoyed by academic and intellectual dishonesty. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to share more of your deeper troubles with us? It will be fascinating..... History2007 (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be enough if you would exhibit the intellectual and academic honesty characteristic of Roman Catholic scholars like Acton and Knowles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have never been to Acton superintendant. History2007 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have now supplied links for anyone else ignorant of the historiography of Roman Catholicism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well done superintendant, well done!. Talking of historiography, do you have a histogram of the number of insulting words you use per sentence as you get more and more upset? How about an Influence diagram of that with the use of advanced words? That would be interesting. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tag wars AGAIN

PMAnderson has started re-inserting old banner tags at the top of the article which editors had largely come to the conclusion were unconstructive and misleading. His activities on this article seem to have devolved into nothing but vandalism and disruption. He has done NOTHING constructive to resolve or debate or justify the "issues" he claims to be upholding. All he has done is make negative and abusive personal comments about editors and their motivation on the talk page, and edit-war disruptively with no genuine attempt whatsoever to argue a referenced position or come to consensus. All he seems to be seeking to do is raise the temperature, sabotage constructive discussion, and stir up trouble on the page. I have removed the disruptive tags. PMA needs to adopt a constructive non-disruptive attitude or go elsewhere. Xandar 01:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have come to think that this cycle will not stop until some type of admin action takes place. It is clear that edit history repeats itself on this page. I am not sure what the best remedy may be but whoever has a suggestion, please discuss it here. Based on a simple reading of Wiki rules it seems that anyone can add a tag any time anywhere. But that needs to be balanced with talk page discussions. After ALL the statistics about section sizes etc. and trims from the sections etc. the size tag was applied to the whole article again, instead of the history section. So what is the point of talk page discussion here if the stats obtained on the discussion are largely ignored? So some type of admin action will be needed, as Richard suggested. So what is the way to start a petition for that without a multi-month request for comment? History2007 (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I support administrative action; and recommend it be directed against those who think that suppressing the symptoms of dispute will make the disease, the unreadable length and intolerable tendentiousness of this article, go away. If two or three editors were banned from this article for six months, the subject matter experts (I am not one, save in certain areas) would be able to clean up this article and maybe even earn it an FA. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're not a subject matter expert, then how is it you know so well what does and does not need fixing here?Farsight001 (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

PMAnderson/Septentrionalis has not offered any useful edits on the article but has been THE source of contention and edit warring. I have stayed out of this after I was accused by Karanacs of being disruptive just to see what would happen if I stepped away. Nothing has changed because even though the article has become very anti-Catholic POV cutting out valuable referenced context, PMAnderson/Septentrionalis still feels a need to make it even more POV. I do not see the value in any of this editors contributions except to create a battleground mentality.NancyHeise 15:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Come off it, Nancy. You are not in any position to accuse any other editors of creating a "battleground mentality" - give us a break and stop this constant and tedious nonsense. Afterwriting (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/NancyHeise shows. It contains evidence of the same behavior long before I arrived; this page contains the remarks of Molon Labe - driven away while I was away from this article; and the same thing may be expected to continue after I depart, until Nancy, Xandar, and History2007 also leave. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, can you give us one example of "anti-Catholic POV" from anywhere on the page? Haldraper (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I think that elimination of the content that showed Reader all of the POV's regarding controversies such as the Pius XII and sexual abuse scandal has made the article anti-Catholic POV. I also think that the discussion below is evidence of an inability for some editors to even consider the fact that the Church is vociferously repressed in the media with regard to its view of condoms and the AIDs epidemic in Africa. I merely provided several sources which discuss the issue and outlined the important points. This is a notable controversy that our article presently covers in an insufficient way that excludes new scientific research supporting the Church's point that condoms will not cure Africa's AIDS epidemic, behavoir change will. NancyHeise 18:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for not answering Nancy :-) I asked you for one example of "anti-Catholic POV" from anywhere on the page, i.e. one sentence that you think is unduly biased against, misrepresents the views of or unfairly criticises the Church. Haldraper (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry my answer was not satisfactory enough. Here's my second attempt.

1) The sexual abuse sentence just tells Reader that since the end of the century, sexual abuse has been a problem in such and such countries. It omits some important information like

• The majority of abuse happened in the US during the 60s and 70s by priests who were vicimizing post pubescent teenage boys.
• The number of priests accused is about 1% of worldwide priests
• There are almost no new cases in the past five years
• The Church in the US implemented rules and the Worldwide Church implemented rules to prevent future abuse such as strenghtening the prohibition against ordination of men with strong homosexual tendencies.

If this information is omitted, it makes it appear as if the Church has done nothing to deal with the problem and that its a continuing problem. That is POV anti-Catholic.

2)World War II paragraph is so basic it omits all mention of the different scholarly opinions by summarizing it all in a blob that just says its the subject of continuing debate. This is a major controversy, FAC criteria asks us to sufficiently address all major controversies and I dont think what we have is comprehensive enough. Omission of the fact that the most respected Israeli Historian, Pinchas Lapide, concluded that the Church under Pius XII saved "hundreds of thousands" of Jews from the Nazis is anti-Catholic POV. NancyHeise 21:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Nancy but I think you'll have to do better than that: not 'omissions' but actual words!

As you know, all the pro-Catholic POV things you cite about Catholic sex abuse cases/WWII were trimmed together with anti-Catholic POV as a way of achieving NPOV in those sections as the result of long discussions involving multiple editors. Haldraper (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Shorter Nancy: If it doesn't state my POV, it's anti-Catholic. We've been here before. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No. One can be unbalanced by eliminating certain facts as well as by adding material. Xandar 01:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

True in principle, irrelevant to the issue at hand. If these were generally agreed to be factual and equally generally agreed to be among the most relevant facts (so as to be appropriate to a short summary in an article on a different subject), that would be an argument that they must be included; but they are not. They are the apology (again) for the Church - and belong (among all other points of view) in the article on the scandal, not here.

But this is still evasion of the question Haldraper asked: what anti-Catholic language is there? Where are the immured nuns, the diabolic inspiration, the plot for world domination? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, Nancy and Xandar have a binary-valued way of looking at POV. What is not pro-Catholic POV is anti-Catholic POV. If the pro-Catholic defense to criticisms of the Church is not presented, then that is inherently anti-Catholic. In this manner of thinking, NPOV is the "balancing" of pro-Catholic POVs against anti-Catholic POVs, being careful not to give undue weight to the anti-Catholic POVs. (Since it is not conceivably possible that undue weight might wind up being given to the pro-Catholic POVs.) It is (apology in advance to those who think this is overly harsh) this kind of tendency towards apologetics that makes this article long and tedious to read. --Richard S (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, if the article's section on history were written summary style with bigger and better articles giving proper treatment to each period in history the entire POV thing would be moot. Get that crap out of this article that way multiple fractured perspectives don't need to dwell on unneccesary details here. They can be hashed out and given due measure in other articles. As it is now, the article is unwieldy and only gets more so as it is mired in these constant POV edit wars. Eliminate the bulk of the history section by giving it its proper place in another article and it doesn't reek of apologetic tracts; the tenets of the Faith can be better covered to all sides here and historians can wring their hands in the appropriate historical articles. I say this as a practicing Catholic and am ashamed to say that this piece looks like a bag of ass and probably will continue to do so as long as this fat is allowed to stay in it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As the stats showed, only the history section is long, nothing else really. History2007 (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Statistics are a blunt tool at best for such things - no substitute for editorial judgment; a section here is long when it says more than necessary.

But let's trim the history section then and take another look at other sections afterwards. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This subject matter warrants a larger article. If you look at this subject in any encyclopedia, it covers a substantial number of pages. There are Featured Articles on Misplaced Pages which are much longer than this article. I think it would be strange to have a short article on this topic in light of this information. NancyHeise 21:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The simple fact is that for many reasons, including alternate versions on other media, we need a comprehensive article, which isn't just as eries of links to other unwritten or enormously straggly articles such as History of the Catholic Church. We therefore must achieve a balance between comprehensiveness, due weight and length. So while sections can be trimmed, (ie reworded for conciseness), reductions will be in the nature of 25% or so, since the basic information must remain. Xandar 22:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Shorter Xandar: the special pleading and propaganda must remain. No, they should not; and that is why Xandar should be banned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Everyone who disagrees with PMA "must be banned" it seems. Perhaps this is a new policy PMA has just written. Xandar 22:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I have supported the bans of single-purpose disruptive POV-pushers for points of view which I share - whether this is one is none of your business. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for edit to protected article text

{{editprotected}} In the section "Second Vatican Council and beyond", there is this sentence "The Church maintains that in countries like Kenya and Uganda, where behavioral changes are encouraged alongside condom use, greater progress in controlling the disease has been made than in those countries solely promoting condoms." The quoted sentence has two citations, neither of which support the assertion made in the sentence. Specifically, the assertion in the sentence is that "the Church maintains that X is true". Both sources support the assertion that X is true but not the assertion that "the Church maintains that X is true".

Neither source mentions the Catholic Church nor has there been any indication offered that the Church relies on these sources or similar studies in defense of its theological position.

My request is that both citations (401 and 402) be either removed or commented out and that a {{cn}} tag be inserted in their place.

--Richard S (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK... any objections to the above request? If so, please state the rationale for your objection below. --Richard S (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the change. We shouldn't be doing synthesis in the article - which means the article shouldn't use sources that never mention the Church and its policies to justify Church positions. Karanacs (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Object. Simply because certain editors have not fully studied the issue is not a reason to selectively remove important balancing text. there is no consensus for such a change. Xandar 01:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Condoms issue

I just came by today to offer this interesting bit of news regarding this controversy from the Harvard University's Crimson newspaper see . We may want to use this to improve our article's coverage of this issue. NancyHeise 14:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's another source on this issue, Washington Post but its an opinion piece. However it offers some facts we may want to follow up on like the fact that the Church has done more to help AIDS victims in Africa than any other organization . NancyHeise 14:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interview with a BBC reporter and Harvard's professor Green on the issue. . NancyHeise 15:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think our article could be improved with these souces by summarizing what they are saying and that is: 1)The Church has been roundly denigrated in the media for its stand on condoms 2)several peer reviewed scientific studies agree with Pope Benedicts explanation 3)A promiment Harvard scientist came out in defense of the Pope NancyHeise 15:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, this guy's argument seems to have no relevance to the Church or this page given that:

he doesn't share its opposition to the use of condoms (he just thinks they're not that effective at stopping the spread of AIDS)

even there, his views are based on scientific/rational 'risk analysis' rather than the Church's theological objections to all forms of artificial contraception.

your three point summary seems to me a classic example of a faulty syllogism and WP:SYN:

1. the nasty anti-Catholic press is always criticisng the Church for opposing the use of condoms on moral grounds.

2. now a Harvard scientist has said the same thing (even he hasn't if you read to the end of the article).

3. quick, let's get some pro-Church apologia on it into the article. Haldraper (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC criteria require us to cover all notable controversies. Our article presently covers this notable controversy but for some reason leaves out the fact that several peer reviewed scientific studies support the position for which the Church is being publicly, routinely and roundly denigrated in the media. If we want an NPOV article it would help if we include the opinion of this Harvard scientist in charge of AIDS research there who specifically mentions the pope's correctness in addressing this subject. One of the points made by the source says that the Church has done more to battle AIDS in Africa that any other organization. I think these are important issues our article fails to address and is part of the reason why I still think its got an anti Catholic POV slant. NancyHeise 18:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems only last week that Xandar was complaining that the article included controversies which did not involve every national Church and every century; and now I look, it was. This has both defects. Are you sure you wouldn't be happier at Wikinews? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, if, as you suggest, the Church's opposition to condoms was based solely on the scientific grounds that they are ineffective against AIDS, rather than part of its general theological objection to artificial contraception, and if the scientist quoted in the article also now opposed their use, what you say would have some weight. As neither of those things is true, it has none. Haldraper (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper, the controversy centers on the fact that some people argue that the Church is an obstacle to solving the AIDS crisis because it condemns the use of condoms. This researcher has said that scientific studies show increased use and availability of condoms increases the prevalence of unsafe sex and that the only thing scientifically shown to work in Africa is behavioural change where couples follow the Church rules of marital fidelity. NancyHeise 21:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it depends what you're intending to write: I get the impression we're going to get some POV about how mainstream scientific opinion now supports the Church's ban on condom use glossing over the fact that this is based on theological not scientific grounds.

I actually think the current version confroms to NPOV and adding to it would constitute undue weight:

"The Church's rejection of the use of condoms has provoked criticism, especially with respect to countries where the incidence of AIDS and HIV has reached epidemic proportions. The Church maintains that in countries like Kenya and Uganda, where behavioral changes are encouraged alongside condom use, greater progress in controlling the disease has been made than in those countries solely promoting condoms." Haldraper (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

But if scientific studies tend to back some of what the Church is saying with regard to condoms, shouldn't that be included, rather than it just being "the Church claims..."? Xandar 02:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The question is what you define as "some of what the Church is saying with regard to condoms". As I said to Nancy above, if the Church had opposed condom use on the scientific grounds that they're ineffective against preventing AIDS, been criticised for it and now been vindicated by a peer-reviewed scientist who had also come out against their use your arguments would carry great weight.

Unfortunately:

1. the Church's opposition to condoms has never been based on science but is part of its general theological view that any use of artificial contraception is a mortal sin.

2. the scientist himself if you read the article doesn't oppose condom use.

I think you're trying to shoehorn this guy's scientific work to provide rational covering for your religious moral rules. Haldraper (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

1. I'm absolutely certain that every scientist working in this field, will tell you that sexual monogamy (one and only one sexual partner for both) will drastically reduce the chance to get infected by AIDS. Thats in a nutshell what the catholic church is saying (I hope, because I'm not catholic...). Pure science, better a rational argument. You think I'm wrong? OK, show me the scientific evidence supporting your point. Based on this point of view of the church, why should you use condoms? Well, and for family planning see Natural family planning, which are as safe as artificial ones, if done properly.

2. The scientist Mr Green basically says the same (but without the moral point of view), but adds that when you're engaging in high risk sex (no sexual monogamy) condoms should be a backup. Better they should always, consistently and correct(!) be used to reduce(!) the possibility of catching AIDS and other STDs (ABC strategy). Here comes the problem. First condoms are not 100% safe for a number of reasons (scientifically proven!), and more importantly are not used always and consistently by too many people for every sexual high risk there involved in. If you have in Africa HIV-infected man who believe having sex (better raping) with a virgin will cure HIV can you blame the church for that. But also the sexual networks (long term partners, Polygamy) in Africa is a huge problem, because condoms are normally not used by the majority of people in long term relationships. Do you? BTW, the church is not teaching polygamy. In some western countries up to 50% of the newly infected with HIV is because of high risk sex between man. Are they saying, we're not using condoms, because of the catholic church and what the pope says? So is the church teaching sex between man? Than you could blame her. Do you? If you are not following the teachings of the Catholic church outlined in point 1 and e.g. visit a prostitute or engaging in sex with other men and have sex without a condom and catch HIV, you cannot blame the church for that. In this case it is your individual responsibility (to use a condom), not the collective responsibility of the church to teach it. What you're doing is Cherry picking, which is just not fair. BTW, I'm not catholic. --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus, unlike you I am a Catholic (albeit a lapsed one) and I can tell you that have radically misunderstood the basis of the Church's opposition to condom use. It is not the scientific/rational case you present (and which is not distinctively Catholic anyway, all Christians believe in monogamy) but rather flows from its theological view of all use of artificial contraception as a mortal sin for reasons that are already summed up well on the page thus:

Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae...rejected the use of contraception...asserting that these work against the intimate relationship and moral order of husband and wife by directly opposing God's will

"The scientist Mr Green basically says the same", well he supports the use of condoms as well so a slight difference with the Catholic Church's position there surely!

For a non-Catholic, you seem very defensive of the Church. Cherry picking is actually what some people want to do with this source in order to push their own POV. Haldraper (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

But the current wording states ""The Church's rejection of the use of condoms has provoked criticism, especially with respect to countries where the incidence of AIDS and HIV has reached epidemic proportions." This says nothing about WHY the Church opposes condoms, the implied criticism is that the Church's position harms AIDS sufferers. Therefore scientific evidence that rebuts the criticism is relevant whatever the reasoning behind the Church's opposition. In fact, as Cyrus Grisham says, the Church's advocacy of monogamy is actually the best and safest preventative against AIDS spread. Where condom use encourages continued risky sexual practices, it does act as a negative factor. But the important point is that research runs counter to the accusations made against the CC. Xandar 01:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone tell me this discussion is a joke. Add a sentence about the church's position re birth control if you wish, but looking under rocks for scientific evidence that can be twisted to support that particular moral position is too bizarre for words. Guess what: if you don't have sex, you can't get a sexually transmitted disease! Wow! Now, go and read the hundreds of articles, policies, research etc on the management of STDs in general, and HIV (BTW not AIDS, if we are going to be accurate), and then realise that some of the above contributions to this discussion are ludicrous. WP:FRINGE anyone? I am increasingly understanding why editors, supposed to remain civil and assume good faith, end up, in the face of some of the nonsense here, like PMA - ranting. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely Hamiltonstone: "monogamy/chastity will protect you from AIDS". Give that man a Nobel prize! (And by the way Nancy, Edward C. Green is not as you claim a professor at Harvard, merely a research scientist). Like I said, it's not even as if monogamy/chastity are distinctive Catholic beliefs, unlike its opposition to artificial contraception whose theological basis is already outlined on the page.

Whether you agree with him or not, Green uses a different method to the Church ('risk analysis' versus theology) and reaches a different conclusion (monogamy/chastity and condoms versus monogamy/chastity and a ban on all artificial contraception). To claim they are "saying the same thing" takes mental gymnastics I am not capable of, maybe that's why I'm a lapsed Catholic :-) Haldraper (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This would have to be one the silliest suggestions ever proposed regarding this article and, unfortunately, only confirms the concerns that some editors have about the article's lack of scholastic and NPOV integrity. The fact that such a silly proposal was even made in the first place is mind boggling. If if wasn't so silly it might actually be funny. Afterwriting (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar wrote above "But if scientific studies tend to back some of what the Church is saying with regard to condoms, shouldn't that be included, rather than it just being "the Church claims..."? Xandar 02:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)" I agree with this approach and would like to include this in the article. It is POV to simply state "the Church claims" when the leading Harvard AIDS professor supports the claim through peer reviewed scientific research. NancyHeise 21:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Such hostility to including scientific evidence! I wonder why? Xandar 22:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

How many reasons do you want? Because it isn't a question of scientific evidence in this context (it is an account of church teaching / moral principles). Because his view is being misquoted: "Green insisted that he is not against condom use. “I am against saying that we are doing all that we can because we have exported so many cartons of condoms,” he said." Because even if it wasn't being misquoted, it would be fringe. Because it would not be the application of scientific method. Because it ignores the bulk of sources in order to pick one that fits with one particular POV. Because while some behavioural modification programs have achieved success, i doubt there are any experts in the field who think that opposing condom use (as one amongst several strategies) does anything other than make the epidemic worse. And so on. Above all, it is about church moral teaching and debate about its consequences - as soon as the Pope says that epidemiological research will affect the church's position on the subject, then the science might become relevant in this WP article. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that this article is the appropriate place to highlight theological and scientific details on condoms. Majoreditor (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is silly and specious to try to link Green's work to the Catholic stance on condoms. It is just another example of the desire of some editors to indulge in apologetics rather than write an encyclopedic article. Moreover, even if Green's work were more directly germane to the topic, if we are trying to reduce the length of the article, expanding it by getting into the details of individual controversies is not the way to achieve that goal. Sigh... --Richard S (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, why do you keep claiming Edward C. Green is a "leading Harvard AIDS professor"? He is not a professor, he is a merely a research scientist! Haldraper (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it might be, because of this definition of professor: "In some English-speaking countries, it refers to a senior academic who holds a departmental chair, especially as head of the department, or a personal chair awarded specifically to that individual.". Just keep in mind that Mr Green is a Senior Research Scientist. So he might be a Prof. The Harvard Crimson, the daily student newspaper of Harvard University, calls him a Prof. (see here: HSPH Prof. Arouses Condom Controversy: Faithful partnerships provide answer to AIDS crisis in Africa, Prof. and Pope say). So I guess Nancy Heise could call Mr. Green a Prof. Best regards --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Cyrus, but all of this discussion of Green is way off the point. Haldraper, please drop the issue of Green's professional credentials. They are irrelevant. The point here is that detailed discussion of controversies are not appropriate in this article. Even if we were to choose to indulge in such, Green is a scientist and the Church's position is based on theology/ethics, not on science and public health. Finally, the effort to vindicate the Church is an exercise in apologetics which we should eschew. So, please stop already. Everybody... --Richard S (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right Richard: whatever his title, Green's scientific opinions have no relevance to the moral and theological positions taken by the Church and therefore as you say do not belong on this page. Haldraper (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Richard. I just wanted to add that science and theology/ethics are distinct areas! Science cannot tell you how to live. This is the area of theology/ethics. Maybe there is for some people a small conflict between these areas, but I cannot see one in this case. Let's get back to the topic. I guess Nancy is critical of this part in the article:

„The Church's rejection of the use of condoms has provoked criticism, especially with respect to countries where the incidence of AIDS and HIV has reached epidemic proportions. The Church maintains that in countries like Kenya and Uganda, where behavioral changes are encouraged alongside condom use, greater progress in controlling the disease has been made than in those countries solely promoting condoms.“

If this is not the controversial part, Nancy, where is it?

Maybe we should slash the controversial parts and then link directly to Catholic Church and AIDS and Condoms#Position_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Church or Catholic_teachings_on_sexual_morality#Use_of_condoms. What do you think? --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The simple fact is that some people want to include negative attacks on the Church and not include the refutation. The scientific evidence was being proposed, not with regard to whether Prof X believes in condoms, but whether there is tangible independent evidence that responds to the reported "criticism" of the Church on this issue. That is why it is germane. Xandar 22:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, as per my {{editprotected}} request in the section immediately above, the problem here is that the article text is indulging in OR and synthesis by constructing an argument for the Church which the sources do not indicate that the Church makes.

I am not very knowledgeable in this area but I have not seen any pronouncement from the Church that defends its stance on pragmatic issues such as efficacy. Making such an argument would be analogous to the Church arguing that abstinence is superior to birth control in reducing teen pregnancy. Such an argument is in the domain of social policy and some evangelicals do make such an argument. However, it is not at all clear to me that such an argument is withing official Church teaching. The Church is not nearly as concerned about the efficacy of social policy as it is with morality. To be concerned about the efficacy of social policy would be to open the door to moral relativism.

From the perspective of the Church, premarital sex is immoral whether or not it results in pregnancy. Similarly, from the Catholic perspective, the use of condoms is immoral whether or not it results in reduction of pregnancy or STDs.

Thus, the sources in the current article text have the same problem as the one that Nancy proposed. The sources in question do not mention the Catholic Church or its position regarding condoms. Nor do we have any evidence that the Catholic Church relies on such scientific studies to support its position.

Thus, while some people (e.g. evangelicals and Catholics) might wish to construct such an argument, it is not at all clear that the Catholic Church constructs such an argument. This leads me to conclude that, in the absence of citations to reliable sources who explicitly make the argument in question, the current article text is the result of synthesis.

--Richard S (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Richard sums up the point very well here: if you want an expert opinion on Catholic theology, don't ask a scientist! Haldraper (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Richard is this qoute : "That's a shame, for a report like Faith Communities Engage the HIV/AIDS Crisis offered an opportunity to rethink the failing group consensus and to point toward the central fact that has emerged from all the recent studies of the HIV epidemic: What the churches are called to do by their theology turns out to be what works best in AIDS prevention." in the article AIDS and the Churches: Getting the Story Right from Edward C. Green and Allison Herling Ruark in First Things. I'd say its a contoversial subject... BTW, there are also certain problems with condoms according to this study: Does it fit okay? Problems with condom use as a function of self-reported poor fit with the result that some are I qoute: "Finally, they were more likely to report removing condoms before penile–vaginal sex ended (AOR 2.0). (those reporting ill-fitting condoms )" Best regards --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus, first of all, this article is the wrong place to have any extended treatment of the topic. Such a treatment belongs in Catholic Church and AIDS. We simply don't have room in this article to get into detailed discussions of any controversy.

But, even if we did want to do more than mention the existence of the controversy, it would be critical to draw a distinction between the statement "The Church maintains that in countries like Kenya and Uganda, where behavioral changes are encouraged alongside condom use, greater progress in controlling the disease has been made than in those countries solely promoting condoms" and the statement "What the churches are called to do by their theology turns out to be what works best in AIDS prevention."

The first statement, which is in the current article text, makes an assertion about what the Church "maintains". As I've stated above, this is a pragmatic argument which suggests that its position on condoms is somehow based on efficacy of different approaches to the AIDS epidemic. Can someone point me to a source where the Church maintains what this statement says? Once again, this is not an area where I am an expert but I am highly skeptical that the Church would promote an approach which combines "behavioral changes" with the promotion of condoms as such an approach would involve an implicit condoning of the use of condoms. I do not believe that the Catholic Church is endorsing this combined approach. Maybe my understanding of Catholic teaching is incorrect. If so, someone please educate me.

The second statement, which is at the end of AIDS and the Churches: Getting the Story Right makes a different assertion. It says "What the churches advocate from a theological perspective turns out to be what works best". This is NOT the churches endorsing the public health approach from a theological perspective. This is one (or more) public health experts endorsing the approach of the churches from a pragmatic perspective.

It is crucial that we understand the difference between these two assertions.

At the risk of oversimplification: churches don't care about what works best, they care about what is morally right. Conversely, public health experts don't care about what is morally right, they care about what works best. (Of course, those are gross oversimplifications but we should start with those as the basic premises and then admit that, in truth, churches do care somewhat about efficacy and public health experts do care somewhat about morality. However, in each case, those are second-order issues which take a backseat to the primary concern.)

--Richard S (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolutions

The article is again locked until disputes are resolved. As such, it would be helpful for us to list what SPECIFIC disputes remain to be resolved. We're looking here for specific resolvable disputes that relate to particular statements or sections within the article. "Article is POV" or similar-style statements will not be helpful in this context. Please stick to particulars. Xandar 02:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I think the lock was good, in order to calm things down. It will come off in a few days anyway. No big deal there really. History2007 (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Secular vs. spiritual power

Shouldnt there be a sentence in the lead about how worldly the Church has been for much of its history, its very butter wouldn't melt in its mouth isnt it , the lead? Sayerslle (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. It's factual. "Worldly" is an opinion or value judgement. What is "worldly"? What is wrong with being worldly? How do you judge what is "too" worldly? It's not something we can do. Xandar 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In this, at long last, agreement to remove all value judgments? We could shrink the article to 100K, doing that alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Worldly" does imply a value judgment (i.e. "wordly=bad" vs. "spiritual=good"). However, we might consider presenting this value judgment not as if it were fact but qua "value judgment". The question is whether it is a notable POV. Many years ago, I read a history of Christianity whose primary thesis was that the institution of Christianity as the state religion of Rome was a critical turning point because it ensured the survival and growth of the religion AND, at the same time, entwined the interests of the church with that of the state. This transformed the religion in ways that made it more "worldly". The Donation of Pepin increased this worldliness by giving the Church lands which further increased its wealth. The thesis of the book was that wealth and political influence are corrupting secular interests which diminish the emphasis on the spiritual aspects of the religion. The book postulates that Vatican I was a response to the loss of the Papal States and the need of the Vatican to focus more on its spiritual power. The author claimed that the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope is an example of this shift towards spiritual power rather than secular power. Unfortunately, I forget the name of the author and the book was titled "History of Christianity" of which there are many such books.

My question to other editors is whether this thesis is one that has substantial support (I think it does) and whether we should be presenting that thesis in this article. If so, how would we do it?

--Richard S (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is one of the key themes that is missing from the history section. Karanacs (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ida Gorres , in a letter in the 1950s .." only a few years ago I thought Emperor Otto I just marvellous and was full of admiration for his genius in raising the bishops to Reichsfürsten - politically it was a brilliant decision - Yet how often was their charismatic office as pastors overshadowed by their temporal mission and worldly achievements. " Sayerslle (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of this stuff is little more than individual speculation. I would certainly not see it as a controlling "theme". If we did add something about those crticizing the church as "worldly", and highlight their viewpoint, then we would have to add the countervailing arguments and evidence as well - that most of the Church was both spiritual and provided spiritual and moral sustenance to the faithful and society in general. It would also be necessary to work out what weight could be given to any individual opinion of certain events. I'm not saying that all this is impossible, but it would require a lot more than just including pot-shots at the church or the views of individuals on the "true" reason behind Vatican I or the effect on theology of the Donation of Pepin. Xandar 22:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Potential new history sources to consider

I'd like to begin a more in-depth assessment of Catholic Church history, focusing on broader patterns rather than some of the details that are currently in the article. None of what I read may end up in this article, but at least I will have a better understanding of the pieces and how they fit together. I did a lot of searching on Google books today to identify potential works that I might want to order. My criteria were that the book must have been published in the last 15 years by a university press, and it should present a broader overview of history rather than be narrowly focused on an event. In some cases, these books appear to have several chapters that would be applicable toward the Catholic Church, while the rest of the book may not. I don't have access to JSTOR or many other academic - or Catholic - journals. Would someone be willing to look for reviews of these books and see what other academics think of these? I'd also be curious to know others' opinions of these works and their authors, so that I can prioritize the order in which I might read them. Basically, if you think you might complain about these sources later, I'd appreciate knowing that up front so I can first read those that might be more acceptable to the editors here.

• Cushing, Kathleen G. (2005), Reform and the papacy in the eleventh century: spirituality and social change, Manchester University Press, ISBN 0-7190-583-3 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
• Helmholz, R.H. (1996), The spirit of classical canon law, University of Georgia Press, ISBN 0-8203-1821-3
• Hinson, E. Glenn (1995), The church triumphant: a history of Christianity up to 1300, Mercer University Press, ISBN 0-86554-436-0
• Bireley, Robert (1999), The refashioning of Catholicism, 1450-1700: a reassessment of the counter Reformation, Catholic University of America Press, ISBN 0813209501
• Hsia, R. Po-chia (1998), The world of Catholic renewal, 1540–1770, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521445965
• Pocock, J.G.A. (2005), Barbarism and religion: The first decline and fall, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521672333
• Power, Daniel (2006), The central Middle Ages: Europe 950-1320, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0199253129
• Fletcher, Richard A. (1999), The barbarian conversion: from paganism to Christianity, University of California Press, ISBN 050218590 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
• Cameron, Averil; Ward-Perkins, Bryan; Whitby, Michael (2000), Late antiquity: empire and successors, A.D. 425-600, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 052135919 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
• Phillips, J.R.S. (1998), The medieval expansion of Europe, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0198207409 (good chapter on Catholic missions to Asia)
• Butler, Jon; Wacker, Grant; Balmer, Randall Herbert (2007), Religion in American Life: A Short History, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195333292
• Partner, Peter (1998), God of battles: holy wars of Christianity and Islam, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691002355
• Sundkler, Bengt; Steed, Christopher (2000), A history of the church in Africa, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 052158342X
• Hastings, Adrian (1996), The Church in Africa, 1450-1950, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0198263996
• Gill, Anthony James (1998), Rendering unto Caesar: the Catholic Church and the state in Latin America, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0226293831
• O'Collins, Gerald; Farrugia, Mario (2003), Catholicism: the story of Catholic Christianity, Oxford University Press, ISBN 019925995X

Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The only one of these I have seen is the Fletcher, which is a very good book where I can judge it; Averil Cameron is one of the leading living Byzantinists. Pocock is on Gibbon, himself, so he may be slightly off-topic here - but the quality of the book may be indicated by the fact that 3 of the 4 volumes of the 2005 printing are out of my local library - and both volumes of the 1999 printing are stolen missing.

I would commend Peter Brown, The rise of Western Christendom : triumph and diversity, A.D. 200-1000 even if it is from 2003. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly will not oppose adding more sources. Ealdgyth said that an article like this one should have about 100 sources. We currently have about 80 books and I'm not sure how many internet sites. Hastings The Church in Africa is already part of the present bibliography. Not sure about any of the others. NancyHeise 21:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting list - though some of the titles look a little specialist. Xandar 22:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Karanacs, those generally look like very promising leads. You will be aware of my recent previous posts on sources, and my views about some of them. With such excellent scholarship to choose from, i would suggest that these should not only add to the current list, where possible they should supplant those that might be disputed (I am aware there is no consensus around which sources are not independent, and i understand that makes this a less-than-straighforward task!) As to your query about views on the list, I would reject Robert Bireley's book, as he is an S.J., working at a Catholic institution and publishing through a Catholic press. I would want multiple sources anyway in this case, so i would save yourself the reading. Hsia, in contrast, appears to have impeccable credentials: see the CV here. I would have concerns about the last work, as Gerald O'Collins is also an S.J. and authors books that expound the faith in a mainstream context. I imagine they might be reasonable accounts of Catholic theology, but I'm sorry, this simply is not an independent author when it comes to the story of the church. I know others may not agree: if so, one of my responses would be - why insist on including sources such as this that are contested, when there appears to be a significant volume of independent scholarship? You're doing a great job, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be useful here to discuss independence on its own terms. Hamiltonstone may be right in practice, but he is wrong in theory; the present article is wrong both in practice and in theory.

What this article ought to do, per NPOV, is to present facts which are agreed on by almost everybody (saying "everybody" would give a liberum veto to Ian Paisley, Ellen G. White, and Patrick Walsh, S.J.) - Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, atheist, Orthodox, Muslim, Martian... Where there is controversy, this summary article should (at most) say so; again, the parties will usually agree on that, if on nothing else.

The best way to do this is to source claims to both Protestant and Catholic sources, with an admixture of others. This would demonstrate consensus. In practice, Hamiltonstone's solution, of omitting Roman Catholic clergy would produce much the same text; if everybody else asserts a given historic fact, Catholic clergy usually assert it too - especially historians, like Knowles.

The worst way to do this is to cite nobody; but this article is now using the next worst: Citing only Catholic scholars, and among them, scholars of particular ideologies. Why should our reader believe that even other Catholic scholars concur with statements sourced to Vidmar alone, much less Protestant or Buddhist scholars? (Often they will; Vidmar does not appear to anywhere near as partisan as our editors - but how can the reader know?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is PMA: I was only addressing the question of independence of sources. Identifying the consensus view in the expert literature; and reporting ranges of views, are two things that should go without saying in addition to dealing with the question of the independence of sources. Aside from that, i disagree that the "best way to do this is to source claims to both Protestant and Catholic sources, with an admixture of others". The article is not, or should not, be a battle between two particular branches of the Christian church. The main sources should be neither and, particularly for the history section, locating such sources is not a huge problem, as i think Karanacs and others are showing. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

But a source need not be unaffiliated to be sound. I cited David Knowles above because there is a famous tribute to his work: in reading his histories there is no way to tell that he was a Benedictine monk. That level of impartiality is not defunct, and a literate editor like Karanacs should be able to cite even a partisan source only for those points where other sources are likely to agree with him. Is Bireley is a great historian or merely a hack? I do not know; either is possible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Simply for reasons of interest (and familiarity with English) relatively few Buddhists or Moslems have written scholarly histories of Christianity in English. Similarly, few Jews have done so, simply for lack of numbers (although I agree that B. Netanyahu's work on the Inquisition should be consulted). I would oppose relying solely on the dogmatic atheists for the same reasons I oppose relying solely on the dogmatic Catholics. That doesn't leave many non-Christians. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this says anything about you personally :-), but you speak of everyone as though they have a religious affiliation, and you appear to imply most non-Christians are "dogmatic atheists". That doesn't square with my sense of the scholarly literature or the few CVs i've checked. There are regular historians out there, writing on the history of the church, and who have no particular religious views. They're the ones upon whom we should rely most heavily - professional historians with no clear religious affiliation, publishing in the secular peer-reviewed press. As far as i can tell, there's plenty of them. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There are regular historians out there, writing on the history of the church, and who have no particular religious views No, these are regular historians, and therefore they are not expressing their religious views, lack thereof, or mixture - insofar as they are good neutral-voiced historians. But in fact most of them do hold some views on ultimate things, even if it be blandly secular agnosticism - and in practice few blandly secular agnostics become church historians.

Yet, some Church historians have become secular agnostics.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And not without reason. Granted. (I could go on to argue, with Bertrand Russell, that there is a difference between Protestant agnotics and Catholic agnostics, but enough.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I will agree that we should rely most heavily, as historians do, on those who are professional rather than polemical - but we can't tell which ones those are by the letters after their names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The article should cite the best sources possible, reguardless of religious affiliation. Sources which slavishly tow the party line of the Catholic Church will hardly qualify as best. However, Hamiltonstone's proposal to omit Catholic clergy is ridiculous. Anyone familiar with the Jesuits know that they're certainly willing to challenge Church dogma and assert critical thought. Application of a priori litmus tests are repulsive. Once again ... judge each source based on its own merit. Majoreditor (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Adrian Hastings will give plenty of scope for those arguments we all love so much about perceived bias, with interesting twists. Many of these seem over-specialized. We have in total perhaps less than 200 words on Africa, and to use a dedicated book of several hundred pages to source these will almost inevitably involve OR by precis. Phillips seems mainly about travel, trade and politics, Partner & Pocock well off-topic. Others like Hsia seem useful, but I hope that other satellite articles are also improved from any books used - inevitably much more can be added to these than here. Much of Hinson is online - he appears to be a Southern Baptist Vidmar, as it were - see his Preface. But perhaps useful. Johnbod (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is not to resource already sourced information, but, ideally, to eventually rewrite the section to be more focused on broader themes. The first step is to start reading to see where we might need even more reading. Thanks for your analysis. Karanacs (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes? And what are these "broader themes"? The selection of such themes could well be highly problematic. At the moment the theme is chronology with due weight, which I think is appropriate and accessible and follows most sources. As far as sources go, it would be unbalanced in the extreme to try to eliminate all catholic sources, as some seem to want. We would then be left with a range from neutral to hostile. The strange thing is that very few of the facts verified by current sources have actually been challenged, leading one to suspect that the "change the sources" argument is largely a red herring. Xandar 22:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of possible broader themes; we should include only those which are broadly agreed in reliable sources. I expect the worldliness of the Church before Hildebrand (and also during the Avignon period) would be two of these. The present recurring theme of "the Church was misunderstood, boo-hoo" is not; it is merely the fixation of a few partisan editors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, how were the current topics in the History section chosen? On what basis would you argue that this "chronological narrative" is not problematic? The "broader themes" that I see would include: spread of Christianity via evangelism, the medieval period, the Crusades, the Great Schism, the Inquisition, the Reformation, the Age of Discovery and the spread of Christianity by missionaries in "discovered" (i.e. conquered) lands, Enlightenment and the separation of Church and State, the modern era (from about 1870 onwards). Even within these "broader themes", there is room for discussion as to which events should be included and which should not. Are you asserting that most sources discuss Church history from a purely chronological perspective and do not organize the material according to themes such as I have outlined? --Richard S (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, you equate "non-Catholic sources" with "neutral to hostile", which is fallacious. Anyway, i don't want to see hostile sources used, any more than i want to see used sources that are not independent of the article subject. We're looking for the neutral ones. I'm happy to see what comes of Karanacs efforts - i thought the selection of sources looked pretty good. If they turn out to be largely off-topic (johnbod), then obviously they won't get used. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please allow me to suggest a different perspective...

There are facts on one side and opinions and interpretations on the other side. Sometimes the line between the two sides can get blurry. Different interpretations can color what people perceive to be the "facts" of the situation. For example, is it a fact that the Eastern Orthodox split off from the Catholic Church or is it the other way around? Of course, the neutral interpretation is that the two parts split apart and neither really split off as a splinter from the other.

Where facts are involved, we should seek to make a neutral presentation of those facts. However, there are times when we must describe a POV because that POV is so notable that it would be unencyclopedic to omit it. For example, if we feel that it is important to mention the criticism of the Church's action/inaction during the Holocaust, it is obvious that we should cite those who make the criticism even if that criticism is POV. We have to make sure that we assert "some people criticize the Church for failing to ..." rather than asserting "the Church failed to ..." as "fact". If we choose to present the defense against the criticsm, then we should cite the sources that make that defense even though the defense is also POV.

If we are concerned about the sources being POV rather than neutral, the real issue is that there are concerns about the article text being POV rather than neutral. We should re-examine the article text and determine whether it adequately treats the topic in a neutral fashion, presenting facts as such and opinions or interpretations as such.

--Richard S (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. My only caveat is that we should, more often, simply say that there is a controversy, and direct the reader to other articles and the sources. This approach makes it more important that there be sources on both sides. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Richard, your statement that "Different interpretations can color what people perceive to be the facts of the situation" in this case should read "Different emotions can color what people perceive to be the facts of the situation". Anyone who even begins to deny the impact of emotions on judgment needs to study the psychology of decision making (briefly but inadequately sketched here) - a large field there. This is an emotional topic (understatement of the week I guess) so there will be three main groups of emotions:

• Highly pro Church
• Highly anti Church
• Those in between, with a few such as KeranaCS (in my opinion) surprisingly unbiased.

Given Misplaced Pages rules on consensus, whereby 12 teenagers can override Steven Weinberg on physics articles, it will just be a question of numbers, so might as well start counting, instead of debating a lot. History2007 (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the sources, Richard is right to say that what is important is the reliability of the facts rather than who verifies them. On this "themes" idea, Richard's selection of possible themes shows up the big problems of such an option.

spread of Christianity via evangelism, the medieval period, the Crusades, the Great Schism, the Inquisition, the Reformation, the Age of Discovery and the spread of Christianity by missionaries in "discovered" (i.e. conquered) lands, Enlightenment and the separation of Church and State, the modern era (from about 1870 onwards).

That would roughly follow a chronological pattern, but with the disadvantage of forcing it into a strait-jacket of arbitrarily-chosen "themes". The suggested list produces a group of largely negative-slanted themes and gives many of the named issues Undue Weight. The whole process of selecting themes is fraught with POV issues. Why, for example, are the Crusades, The Inquisition and the Great Schism more important as themes than Monasticism, Technology and the Universities, or the Investiture Controversy? Xandar 01:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

End of the article just collapses into blithering about unimportant stuff

Like many other Misplaced Pages articles, this article ends by drifting off into blithering about relatively unimportant stuff. :Since the end of the twentieth century, sex abuse by Catholic clergy has been the subject of media coverage, legal action, and public debate in Australia, Ireland, the United States, Canada and other countries.

The 2005 election of Pope Benedict XVI saw a continuation of the policies of his predecessors. His first encyclical Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) discussed the various forms of love and re-emphasized marriage and the centrality of charity to the Church's mission.

The Church worldwide actively encourages support for political figures who would "protect human life, promote family life, pursue social justice, and practice solidarity," which translate into support for traditional Christian views of marriage, providing help for the poor and immigrants, and supporting those who oppose abortion and euthanasia.

In October 2009, the Vatican announced the creation of new ecclesiastical structures to receive Anglican converts to the Catholic Church.

I say "relatively unimportant stuff" because, in the context of 2000 years of church history, these are not very salient issues.

Worse yet, so little is said about each point that the average reader is unlikely to understand what is being said "between the lines".

For example, we don't say anything about the Church's reaction to the sex abuse scandal. At the very least, we should say that the sex abuse scandal forced the Church to institute better procedures to prevent, identify and deal with sex abuses.

What's the point about "actively encouraging support for political figures"? Why does that bear mentioning? Is it because the Church didn't do that until recently or because nobody thought it objectionable until recently?

Why was it necessary to create "new ecclesiastical structures to receive Anglican converts to the Catholic Church"? Haven't there always been Anglican converts to the Catholic Church? What's new in the 21st century. (Of course, the answer is that some Anglicans are upset about the ordination of homosexuals but we don't say anything about that so how is the reader going to divine this important piece of the puzzle?)

Finally, even a middle school student knows that a piece of writing is supposed to end with a conclusion. This article has no conclusion. It just ends with the discussion "creation of new ecclesiastical structures to receive Anglican converts to the Catholic Church."

I think Sister Mary Ignatius would be none too happy with this poor excuse for a writing assignment.

--Richard S (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ Vidmar, p. 184.
2. ^ Bokenkotter, p. 215.
3. Bokenkotter, pp. 223–224.
4. Vidmar, pp. 196–200.
5. ^ Bokenkotter, pp. 235–237.
6. Moyes, James (1913). "Anglicanism" . In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
7. Schama, pp. 309–311.
8. Vidmar, p. 220.
9. Noble, p. 519.
10. Vidmar, pp. 225–256.
11. Solt, p. 149
12. ^ Bokenkotter, pp. 242–244.
13. Norman, p. 81.
14. Vidmar, p. 237.
15. Murray, p. 45.
16. ^ Duffy, pp. 188–191.

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Philosophy and religion good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• GA-Class Catholicism articles
• Top-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• GA-Class Religion articles
• High-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Selected anniversaries (March 2007)
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics