| Revision as of 11:37, 30 January 2010 editVanishedUserABC (talk | contribs)78,528 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:04, 30 January 2010 edit undoHamiltonstone (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers23,272 edits →Related point, same section of article: mapNext edit → | ||
| Line 384: | Line 384: | ||
| ::::::This is certainly an argument for the map to be properly referenced. If there are estimates that differ, from sources that might be more reliable, then the map should be revised accordingly, and the refs added. But as long as it is built on sources that meet ], then i think it is better in than out. ] (]) 10:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC) | ::::::This is certainly an argument for the map to be properly referenced. If there are estimates that differ, from sources that might be more reliable, then the map should be revised accordingly, and the refs added. But as long as it is built on sources that meet ], then i think it is better in than out. ] (]) 10:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::The map is unreferenced. I am removing it. If someone wants to add a map, please provide a ref too. This is the same reason the first map we had in this section got canned by other editors. ] <sup> ]</sup> 02:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC) | :::::::The map is unreferenced. I am removing it. If someone wants to add a map, please provide a ref too. This is the same reason the first map we had in this section got canned by other editors. ] <sup> ]</sup> 02:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| {{outdent}} I have only been at this article a few weeks, but i'm finding the way people work here pretty frustrating. Nancy, the map is ''not'' unreferenced. The referencing is currently confined to the image page itself (]). Whether the website in question should be regarded as reliable is another matter. However, the author of the cite sets out the sources, and unless anyone wants to bring forward alternative figures that are regarded as reliable, i don't see the justification for responding to the issue by deleting the entire thing. It is one of the most useful objects in the whole article, and i cannot understand this approach to its summary deletion. Let's keep it and work on the sources - perhaps have a discussion section on the talk page here where people can bring in data sources and discuss them? ] (]) 12:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==modern persecutions of the Church== | ==modern persecutions of the Church== | ||
Revision as of 12:04, 30 January 2010
| Skip to table of contents |
| 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. |
|
| 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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. |
|
| 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
 | 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.
Settled issues
Challenges facing the Church - "clerical sexual abuse of minors" among others
There are a couple of threads regarding "challenges facing the Church".
It seems the problem is that we write "the challenges that the Church faces are X, Y and Z..." and the implication is that this is somehow a statement that can be made as an objective truth (that is, as if the statement "one challenge that the Church faces is X" has a binary truth value: TRUE or FALSE).
In fact, such assertions are purely subjective by their very nature. Even the Pope does not make such assertions with infallibility. No one in the Church can make such assertions as objective statements of fact. Such assertions are inherently subjective judgments of importance and priority. Even if the Pope did say, "I think these are the challenges that we face...", the rest of the Church is not obliged to agree with him as to the members of the list or their priority. In fact, I seriously doubt that all Church leaders agree on what the challenges are. Liberals will differ from conservatives. United Statesians will differ from Latin Americans who will differ from Europeans who will differ from Africans who will differ from Asians. You get my drift?
Thus, if someone want to insist that the direct quote of a single source can state unequivocally what the canonical list of challenges is, forgive me while I pick myself off the floor laughing. The only way that we could present such a list would be if we were willing to admit any "challenge" for which a reliable source can be provided. I'm sure you can find a reliable source within the Church who views dealing with clerical sexual abuse as an "ongoing challenge". BTW, if any Wikipedian attempts to assert unequivocally that X is or is not a "challenge facing the Church" based on his/her own personal reasoning, that is original research. And, if anyone wants to concoct a list of challenges from various sources, that borders on synthesis especially if the resultant list does not appear in any published source.
Which brings me to the next point... What makes people "inside" the Church the only valid sources for determining what challenges the Church faces? If some or all of the Church leadership are in denial about a challenge that confronts the Church, does that make the challenge disappear?
In conclusion, I think this is an unwinnable battle as the assertion is currently phrased. My preference would be to remove it from the article altogether. However, if we must discuss "challenges", then we should source each and every challenge and state explicitly who sees it as a challenge for the Church. We should also avoid restricting the acceptable sources to only those that represent the Church. Instead, we should be willing to accept sources who can reasonably assert that "X is a continuing challenge for the Church". Thus, in the case of "clerical sexual abuse of minors", I think we should accept a citation to Thomas Doyle, Richard Sipe or Patrick Wall. If anyone wants to dispute inclusion of this challenge, then let them provide a source who says it is not a challenge for the Church.
--Richard S (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, and I agree the language of "challenges" would be best removed altogether. i would expect a section that read something like this, (illustrating it in part using the clerical sex abuse issue):
- "Contemporary analysts of the Catholic Church have argued... (cites). In Papal (encyc / as appropriate), Pope X has said Y (cite). However, (insert issues from independent cites about the same issue). John Doe, considering the B trend / issue, has observed that (whatever). In several countries, investigations of clerical sexual abuse have led to commissions of inquiry (cite), and to concerns that (whatever).(cite country A)(cite country B)(cite country C). At the same time, the Church has been increasing its (whatever) (cite)." And so on.
- You comment that we "should also avoid restricting the acceptable sources to only those that represent the Church." That strikes me as understating the position. We should ensure that most of the sources are not those that "represent the Church". This goes back to fundamental principles concering reliability of sources, and use of independent publications, and ensuring this is an article about the Church, written from an external point of view. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- PS I don't agree with you about a risk of synthesis, though. Lists of stuff assembled from multiple sources are normal here. A problem would only emerge if one tried to imply that sources relating one of the issues on the list were somehow suggesting the full range of issues existed. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Heh, heh... well, everybody has their own intepretation of NPOV, OR and SYNTH. A couple of years ago, I got my head beaten in by another Wikipedian who didn't like my writing the lead of an article to say "There are four major theories about X's relation to Y". He didn't think that there were any valid theories about X's relation to Y and so he thought it was synthesis to suggest that there were four such theories. In any event, what I meant is that we have to be careful to assume that we can construct a canonical list of "challenges to the Church". AFAIK, there is no such canon and we should be careful not to imply that there is one. --Richard S (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- And yet the edit warring continues over inclusion of "clerical sexual abuse scandal" as a "major issue facing the Church". If the edit war continues, I will ask an admin to step in. Xandar and Afterwriting, Hamiltonstone and I have suggested ways in which this dispute can be resolved. Please consider finding another way other than reversion. Administrative action may follow if this dispute is not resolved. --Richard S (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- PS I don't agree with you about a risk of synthesis, though. Lists of stuff assembled from multiple sources are normal here. A problem would only emerge if one tried to imply that sources relating one of the issues on the list were somehow suggesting the full range of issues existed. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- To accommodate a reference to the sexual abuse scandals in the "issues" section it will require rewriting - not just an insertion. I don't object to this. I object to the reference being constantly inserted in an inappropriate context - especially by an anonymous editor with a personal agenda against the Roman Catholic Church who won't engage in discussion in a resonable and intelligent manner but instead goes on with all sorts of nonsense about being "persecuted". It is his/her contentious editing and attitude that is the real problem - and reversion is appropriate unless the article is rewritten to appropriately include reference to the sexual abuse scandals. Please direct any proposed "administrative action" where it properly belongs - to the anonymous and contentious editor who keeps putting the reference in for his/her own ideologically-driven reasons. Afterwriting (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
If the edit-warring continues, I will ask an admin to intervene and let the chips fall where they may. My personal perspective is that the anon has a point even if he is inserting the phrase in "the wrong place". Edit-warring is inappropriate and harmful to the project. If you can see an appropriate way to accomodate the anon's attempt to contribute, then please do so. Just because he/she has an agenda that you don't agree with doesn't mean you should work to frustrate that agenda. Do a little wiki-jiu-jitsu and turn his/her inappropriate edit into something that improves the article.
Or, if you can't get the anon to discuss with you, use Hamiltonstone and I as surrogates. You and I have both been editing this article for some time now. I think you can trust my willingness to work constructively on this article even if we disagree.
My perspective on this is that the Church hierarchy would like to see the clerical sexual abuse scandal as something that they've put behind them. Policies and procedures have been put in place that they think will bring the problem under control. Thus, from their perspective, this is not a "major issue" going forward. Some people disagree with them and think that there is something deeper to fix. Or, they just don't like the Church and want to use this issue to attack it.
To my mind, this makes it an issue or challenge facing the Church. Now, it appears you and others want to talk about a different set of issues and not commingle those with issues like the sexual abuse scandal. How can we talk about both set of issues and yet differentiate the two kinds of issues? Can we characterize the two sets as different in some way?
--Richard S (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am not attempting to "frustrate" anyone's "agenda" - but the fact that the anonymous editor has an agenda is not irrelevant to this edit war. The reasons for the reversions of the anonymous edits have been adequately explained in a moderate manner but have been responded to with abusive comments. Of course sexual abuse is an "issue facing the church" but the anonymous editor is failing to understand the context in which his/her edits are being made. As I have already written - and you seem to agree - to include the issue in the way the editor wants the article needs some reasonably significant rewriting. If you are willing to begin this process I will be grateful. Afterwriting (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- The anonymous editor seems to be a single-issue account, devoted to spreading anti-catholic polemic across various articles. His knowledge of Misplaced Pages formatting and tools gives rise to the suspicion that he may well be a banned editor, returning on a "mission", or using WIkipedia as a platform. As such, and from his evident refusal to discuss the matter rationally on the talk page, I would regard continued reversions by him as vandalism, not subject to the three-revert rule. The "moral equivalence" Richard appears to see between this person and the long-term editors who have reverted his edits, and who told him to discuss matters, is therefore mistaken.
- On the issue of mentioning Sex Abuse cases in the lead. 1) The lead reflects the weighting and content of the main article, in which the sex abuse cases in certain countries have a particular weighting, with respect to the rest of the content of the article, which describes the faith as a whole, its organisation, beliefs and 2,000 year history. This article weighting, following the principle of avoiding WP:Undue Weight does not qualify the topic for placement in the Lead of this article. 2) In the articles on certain particular national Churches, article coverage of the cases may be significant enough for Lead mention, that is not so here. 3) Reference to the cases is also an aspect of "recentist" tendencies, not germane in the "big picture" of encyclopedic coverage of the religion as a whole, worldwide and over history. Recentism, wrongly emphasising a subject because it has recently been in the media, is to be avoided in WP articles. As far as the "issues facing the Church" sentence goes, those in the list were agreed on as major worldwide issues, of long-term duration, and germane in every one of over 200 countries with Catholic heirarchies. Xandar 23:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am not attempting to "frustrate" anyone's "agenda" - but the fact that the anonymous editor has an agenda is not irrelevant to this edit war. The reasons for the reversions of the anonymous edits have been adequately explained in a moderate manner but have been responded to with abusive comments. Of course sexual abuse is an "issue facing the church" but the anonymous editor is failing to understand the context in which his/her edits are being made. As I have already written - and you seem to agree - to include the issue in the way the editor wants the article needs some reasonably significant rewriting. If you are willing to begin this process I will be grateful. Afterwriting (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not otherwise going to involve myself in the discussion, but I'd like to clear up the speculation about the anonymous editor a bit. I ran into the person, when he was still editing as a registered user (and as a coincidence, I also know his real life identity). He stopped using that account quite a while back, but continued editing anonymously. He has been editing actively from multiple different IPs and also owns a new registered account that seems to be somewhat active at the moment, too. He has otherwise been a benevolent contributor. It seems that this IP has been purposefully isolated for edits of a more controversial nature. I don't believe this single-purpose account use has been disruptive, however, since I can confirm, that his overly-emotional manners have been—unfortunately—equally problematic on earlier, unrelated occasions. However, the editor has never been banned, as far as I know. I am not going to reveal his account names in respect for his anonymity. —Quibik (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Then this would seem to be a sockpuppet account - which is also very seriously against WP rules. Xandar 00:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not otherwise going to involve myself in the discussion, but I'd like to clear up the speculation about the anonymous editor a bit. I ran into the person, when he was still editing as a registered user (and as a coincidence, I also know his real life identity). He stopped using that account quite a while back, but continued editing anonymously. He has been editing actively from multiple different IPs and also owns a new registered account that seems to be somewhat active at the moment, too. He has otherwise been a benevolent contributor. It seems that this IP has been purposefully isolated for edits of a more controversial nature. I don't believe this single-purpose account use has been disruptive, however, since I can confirm, that his overly-emotional manners have been—unfortunately—equally problematic on earlier, unrelated occasions. However, the editor has never been banned, as far as I know. I am not going to reveal his account names in respect for his anonymity. —Quibik (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- The sentence in question is Modern issues facing the Church include secularism, "Modernism", sex abuse of children by Catholic clergy and opposition to the Church's teachings on abortion, euthanasia, birth control, and sexual ethics. This is, as a whole, more cheerleading - and, as a claim about "every one of over 200 countries", it is extraordinarily dubious: a citation for the modernist threat to the Church of Uzbekistan, or the euthanasia crisis in the Church of Zambia, would be most welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- The only source listed for this is Shorto, Russel (8 April 2007). "Keeping the Faith". The New York Times. Retrieved 29 March 2008.. This does not contain the list in question; it includes neither "Modernism", "Modernist", nor "Euthanasia"; it does, however, discuss the sex-abuse scandal at some length, and quote a notable theologian on it's being indicative of wider structural problems. Therefore this sentence does not represent the source; and the current edit-war drives it further from what the source actually says. (Not that incidental comments by reporters in NYTimes Magazine articles are the best source for this sort of thing anyway; but at least it would be a source; as it stands the statement has none.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I put the reference back in. I am an editor. I am an admin. I am a Catholic. It is a legitimate point that the Church faces major social challenges across the world these days. Sexual abuse by minors has been proven to be not only widespread, but also covered up by individuals as far ranging as the current Holy Father. This situation is well within the bounds of a defined "challenge" to the organization. For those of us who are Catholic, this is a humiliation, and it is a humiliation because it is true. We have to deal with that, and denying the truth of it is by far the wrong approach. What Would Jesus Do? My guess is he would write an honest encyclopedia article. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Although child sexual abuse is certainly sensational, it is not accurate. The main issue is the vow of celibacy for those in the priesthood. This is a sacred vow that demands strict adherence from all sexual encounters. From its beginning it has never been observed perfectly. Attempting to limit the topic to the sensational is shortsighted; frankly I dislike sensational stories because it always appeals to the lowest common denominator of humanity. The Church should deal with it, but the focus is observe vows, personal righteousness and purity. It is not exclusively, "don't abuse children". Painting the topic as such is dishonest and is the wrong approach. --Rider 01:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- The main issue is the vow of celibacy for those in the priesthood. That is an opinion; it belongs on an Op-Ed page, not an encyclopedia.
- As a mere matter of history, no vow of complete abstinence was required "from the beginning" - although it has been required for a very long time. Such vows have indeed never been perfectly and universally kept (what vow ever has been?); but there is a grievous difference between violating a vow of celibacy with consenting adults and with minors, as the Church (when it finally faced the question) admits; many Catholics would hold that there is also a difference between violations per and contra naturam.
- I suppose we should be glad that our anti-sensationalist is not editing, say, the Hindenburg disaster. Would he leave out the fire as sensational? It surely was; but it was also consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Are you attempting to engage in a personal attack? Please don't begin, you are out of your league. Children should know better than to speak when adults gather. This rule applies when the ignorant gather where the learned discuss.
- I am not a Catholic and never have been. I have no vested interest here. However, I believe it is folly to discuss a recent tragedy as if it was a major criticism for an entity that has been around for arguably 2000 years. It is short-sighted. Please do not attempt to correct something where no error existed. You interpreted poorly; my statement was from the beginning of celibacy, not the beginning of the church itself.
- You seem to want to skim over the issue. The issue is that priests have made a commitment to live one way and some have problems with their vows. I have problem listing the way in which they have problems, but attempting to paint the entire priesthood as having a problem again falls into the same old problem of sensationalized writing. I can see why some might enjoy reading the National Enquirer, it titillates, but it does not inform nor discuss the issue from a macro level.
- All I am proposing is covering the issue first from the macro level and then moving to the micro level. In doing so, we are able to cover the history of the church and not simply cover current events. Capisce?--Rider 05:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- You are missing the point, but rightly pointing out that there are other issues. The abuse and the violation of the vows by the abuser. The controversial element is not that there were bad priests, but that the Church hierarchy was aware of the crimes and actively shuttle offending priests around from parish to parish and turned the victims into pariahs. You are correct that the Church has been around for thousands of years, which is why we include bad things like the Inquisition, or the cover up of child rape alongside the good things, like Mother Theresa. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- We had a longer section on the abuse issue, which most editors here decided to shorten only a few weeks ago. Hiberneantears is free to look at the discussion that took place then. His personal sensationalised and emotionalised view of what took place is not relevant to an encyclopedia treatment, which is based on facts and due weight. Xandar 23:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- My objection is not to the sexual abuse issue (which says no more than the source will support), but to the rest of the sentence, which is an indiscriminate laundry-list, owing much more to the prejudices of certain editors than to the source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- The sexual abuse list and book quote don't belong in the lead - which is designed to be a proportionate summary of the whole article, avoiding Undue Weight. On those criteria, and on criteria of recentism and Undue Weight, this does not belong in the lead. I know certain people want to define Catholicism via a largely US "scandal", but that is an attempt to push an anti-Catholic political view which is not tolerable. As far as the world church is concerned this is a local issue. Xandar 23:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- The same argument would show, much more strongly, that modernism, secularism, euthanasia, gay rights, and so on, do not belong in the lead, and indeed they do not; they are concerns for some Catholic Churches, not for all, and they are concerns for the twenty-first (or in the case of modernism, of the nineteenth) century, not of all time. This is why I propose to remove this unsourced laundry-list. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- The sexual abuse list and book quote don't belong in the lead - which is designed to be a proportionate summary of the whole article, avoiding Undue Weight. On those criteria, and on criteria of recentism and Undue Weight, this does not belong in the lead. I know certain people want to define Catholicism via a largely US "scandal", but that is an attempt to push an anti-Catholic political view which is not tolerable. As far as the world church is concerned this is a local issue. Xandar 23:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- You are missing the point, but rightly pointing out that there are other issues. The abuse and the violation of the vows by the abuser. The controversial element is not that there were bad priests, but that the Church hierarchy was aware of the crimes and actively shuttle offending priests around from parish to parish and turned the victims into pariahs. You are correct that the Church has been around for thousands of years, which is why we include bad things like the Inquisition, or the cover up of child rape alongside the good things, like Mother Theresa. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
First of all, I still think it could be useful to consider two lists of "challenges": first, a list of challenges as viewed by the Church leadership and second, a list of challenges as viewed by objective (to the extent that this is possible) outsiders.
Obviously, both lists will overlap but how they are worded will depend on the perspective of the list-maker. I think we should be able to source the elements of the first list (i.e. all we have to do is find pronouncements of various Church leaders and opinion-makers). The second list may be harder to find but I think it would be worth looking for.
Secondly, StormRider wrote "All I am proposing is covering the issue first from the macro level and then moving to the micro level." This makes obvious sense. So... what are the "macro level" issues? There is a macro level issue around the fact that the Catholic Church has a distinctly different perspective on human sexuality than liberal secular humanists do. However, the Catholic sexual abuse scandal is not directly related to that (unless you accept the proposition that this scandal is about homosexual priests).
The issues surrounding human sexuality include: abortion, contraception, premarital sex, open sex, homosexuality... all of these are issues where the Church takes one stance and some part of the world outside the Church takes the opposite stance. In the case of the Catholic sexual abuse scandal, the issue is actually mostly an internal one. It is a question of how to prevent sexual abuse, report it when it happens and respond appropriately to the reports that are made. This is about internal policies and procedures which, from the Church's perspective, have largely been put into place at the level of the Vatican (Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith), at the level of the episcopal conference and at the level of the diocese and parish. Whether these policies and procedures are adequate is open to debate. Those who wish to bash the Church may argue that it is not. Only time will tell. We cannot possibly resolve such a controversy here and now. Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. We can only note its existence.
Can we come up with wording which captures the above nuances?
--Richard S (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe, but the LEAD isn't the place to do this. The lead SUMMARIZES what is in the main article text. It is not for writing and referencing new material. If there is to be a section on this, it has to be a new sub-section within the MAIN article text. Xandar 00:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- The lead should not have reference to sexual abuse unless we want to also include references to persecutions of Catholics around the world in places like India, Iraq, Malaysia, Africa etc. The lead is a summary of general issues related to the whole church. Sexual abuse is one of those issues that has only affected certain specific areas like US and Ireland. In the US, this was an issue that was in the news for a certain period of time. We never hear about new sex abuse cases anymore here in the US. I think the issue falls under the category of "recentism" which Misplaced Pages policy asks us to be careful about. This article has covered the sex abuse crisis and conensus overruled my efforts to have a more in depth coverage of the issue in favor of a brief mention with a wikilink. Based on this - I don't see how the issue merits a mention in the lead when consensus of mainly non-Catholic editors practically wiped it out of the article. NancyHeise 16:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- We are not Amnesty International, which is one venue to publicize obscure claims of religious persecution. Take your agenda and write a blog; that's what they're for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Based on the above arguments, I would be inclined to take all mention of issues facing the Church out of the lead. If we do mention issues facing the Church at all, it should be in the History section. I do think clerical sexual abuse should be included in any such list. Just because the issue has been "settled" in the U.S., doesn't mean it has been settled everywhere. There are ongoing investigations in Ireland, for example. --Richard S (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support that. Executing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I now support use of the POV tag since the article has now elimnated any mention of how the Church implemented changes to prevent future sexual abuse or any mention of its prevalence in other institutions that teach children like the US public school system where it is reportedly "ten times worse". We want an article that is WP:NPOV which requires us to give reader both sides of the story. Right now, it tells reader nothing except one side with a very anti-Catholic POV sentence. NancyHeise 05:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Shorter Nancy: The article doesn't apologize for the Catholic Church and present her as the misunderstood good guy by presenting everything which might be said in her defense. No, that's not neutrality; that would be presenting Nancy's point of view, which is fully, perhaps excessively, presented in the subarticle (to which this links). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I now support use of the POV tag since the article has now elimnated any mention of how the Church implemented changes to prevent future sexual abuse or any mention of its prevalence in other institutions that teach children like the US public school system where it is reportedly "ten times worse". We want an article that is WP:NPOV which requires us to give reader both sides of the story. Right now, it tells reader nothing except one side with a very anti-Catholic POV sentence. NancyHeise 05:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support that. Executing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Based on the above arguments, I would be inclined to take all mention of issues facing the Church out of the lead. If we do mention issues facing the Church at all, it should be in the History section. I do think clerical sexual abuse should be included in any such list. Just because the issue has been "settled" in the U.S., doesn't mean it has been settled everywhere. There are ongoing investigations in Ireland, for example. --Richard S (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- We are not Amnesty International, which is one venue to publicize obscure claims of religious persecution. Take your agenda and write a blog; that's what they're for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- The lead should not have reference to sexual abuse unless we want to also include references to persecutions of Catholics around the world in places like India, Iraq, Malaysia, Africa etc. The lead is a summary of general issues related to the whole church. Sexual abuse is one of those issues that has only affected certain specific areas like US and Ireland. In the US, this was an issue that was in the news for a certain period of time. We never hear about new sex abuse cases anymore here in the US. I think the issue falls under the category of "recentism" which Misplaced Pages policy asks us to be careful about. This article has covered the sex abuse crisis and conensus overruled my efforts to have a more in depth coverage of the issue in favor of a brief mention with a wikilink. Based on this - I don't see how the issue merits a mention in the lead when consensus of mainly non-Catholic editors practically wiped it out of the article. NancyHeise 16:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Tags again
A third banner tag was added to the article top without an attempt to define or justify its existence. One of the existing two has not been justified or defended since insertion, and the remaining POV tag, is one on which discussion on specific issues seems to have dried up, I have therefore removed all 3 as unjustified. As I said, when this tagging outbreak started - these tags are being misused. Top Banner Tags are not justifiable, when what is being argued about are matters that only pertain to certain sections of an article. They are not justifiable when no resolvable issues have been raised. Nor are they justifiable when there is no constructive ongoing discussion of issues that can be resolved. Tags are not meant to be permanent features of all articles, and we cannot have an ever-increasing billboard of misused tags litering the article. Xandar 23:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I put them back. Let's settle this issues first, then remove the tags. Leadwind (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- No. There is no justification for these tags on the whole article, and you don't have a right to try to keep them there as permanent fixtures to suit your own POV, and which remain until the article matches your anti-catholic POV. a) None of them refer to the whole article - so they are in the wrong place b) at least two of them are not being particularised or discussed by their originators at all - there is no attempt to properly raise "settle issues" so these must go, c) the other tag refers to local issues which need to be particularised and (if vitally necessary) tagged locally, not misleadingly on top of the entire article. That is why local and inline tags exist. As I said before, and have been proved correct, allowing one tag merely encourages other people with POVs to add more and more with less and less relevance and justification. Now we're up to three unjustified tags. This has to stop. Xandar 12:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
To avoid extending this dispute again, I have added a SINGLE temporary template to the top of the article, which covers all matters. This does not mean that I agree the template is justified, since only certain sections of the article are actively disputed, and some of the issues raised are never going to be agreed by everyone. However it is offerred as a solution to the banner-tag creep afflicting the article, until more issues are settled. Xandar 12:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Lead, do you actually think the entire article is POV or do you think specific sections are? IMHO, the tags that were used were not legitimate. First, I have heard no editor state the entire article is POV. Second, if there is not specific list of legitimate areas of correction, the tag is meaningless. Third, it is not appropriate to use tags unless others support the claims being made. Personal preference is not a legitimate reason to use tags. If there are truly sectional complaints, then please add them there and not tag the entire article.--Rider 12:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- My objection to these sorts of tags covering the whole article is that they mislead readers into distrusting the 90% of information that no-one disputes. As such they are misleading and disruptive to the purpose of Misplaced Pages. I put the REVIEW tag in place before StormRider's comments, but that too will mislead readers as to the unchallenged sections of the article if it remains where it is. I therefore propose that this (or any other tag) should be moved to cover the section in dispute ONLY. Xandar 12:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Lead, do you actually think the entire article is POV or do you think specific sections are? IMHO, the tags that were used were not legitimate. First, I have heard no editor state the entire article is POV. Second, if there is not specific list of legitimate areas of correction, the tag is meaningless. Third, it is not appropriate to use tags unless others support the claims being made. Personal preference is not a legitimate reason to use tags. If there are truly sectional complaints, then please add them there and not tag the entire article.--Rider 12:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with the tags as well. I just removed a tag that told Reader that the article is currently under review. What is the purpose of that tag? This aritcle is under review like all Misplaced Pages articles are under review - all the time : ) NancyHeise 15:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's a miracle! Nancy just undid an edit by Xandar. (Now removing the tongue from my cheek.) Afterwriting (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
At least half of every section I have considered in this article is either slanted or erroneous. Therefore I seriously doubt that 90% of it is acceptable (and even if it were so, the reader needs to warned to trust nothing; 10% error rate is too high).
The way not to be tagged for writing propaganda is not to write propaganda. Some editors plainly find this price exorbitant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Overapplication of banner tags is a scorched earth policy. We don't need them three-deep on top. Majoreditor (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, overapplication of banner tags is a problem, but so is 'under-application'. My point is, articles end up with as many tags as there are problems. They serve to alert other editors to issues needing attention; they serve to alert readers to known issues or disputes regarding the article. The discussion on this talk page appears to me to indicate the accuracy of the bias and factual accuracy tags. i have no issues about the article length, but accept that others might. Xandar suggests one should not tag the whole article when some sections are not problematic. I however lean toward PMAnderson's views about the extent to which there is problematic content. Just a small number of examples of all sorts of issues:
- Whatever one thinks of what the lead should say, everyone here is aware that there are problems with the lead's final sentence and its relation to the body text.
- There is no section on etymology or the differing views about the name. I am well aware there has been a debate about the name of the article itself etc, but it is odd for the article to have no equivalent section to that that begins the article on Islam.
- "According to Catholic doctrine, the Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Jesus Christ". I don't think Christians are the only ones who have churches, but the word Christian is missing from the sentence.
- "One of these, Simon Peter, was made their leader when Jesus proclaimed "upon this rock I will build my church ... I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven ... " This sentence lacks a qualifier such as "Catholics believe that..." While such a phrase would be repetitive if used every single time one was referring to beliefs, in this sentence it is important, because this sentence flags an important area of doctrinal dispute (as I understand it - this isn't really my field).
- "Although in the past some Biblical scholars thought the word 'rock' referred to Jesus or to Peter’s faith, the majority now understand it as referring to the person of Peter." Well, do they? This is an awfully important point. And what is the citation? An encyclopedia britannica entry! In any case, given the lines that follow this sentence, the text is arguably misleading.
- The beliefs section appears to lack an external analysis of Catholicism as a religion. I don't think i've found text that describes it in comparative or abstract terms, for examples as being a monotheistic religion. Its geographical or historical origin is not properly placed (eg. "The Catholic Church has its origins in the region of the Middle East now known as Israel / however one might quite put this, with the birth of an individual called Jesus and known as Jesus Christ, approximately 2000 years ago"). No, not those exact words, i'm not a great scribe, but you get the idea.
- The section on beliefs, subsection on social teaching, begins: "In addition to operating numerous social ministries throughout the world..." This phrase is irrelevant to beliefs and should simply be deleted. Its presence however may have a POV-pushing effect by putting a particular spin on the context of social beliefs.
- The introduction to prayer and worship states "All Catholics are expected to participate in the liturgical life of the Church, but individual or communal prayer and devotions—while encouraged—are a matter of personal preference" - which is fine i guess, but this is the kind of description where i would want to see independent third-party publications also making this assessment - the cited source is not.
- The section on intercommunion - the sentence "The same is not true for Protestant churches." lacks a citation, where one is most certainly needed.
- "Religious orders often make praying the Liturgy of the Hours a part of their rule of life; the Second Vatican Council encouraged the Christian laity to take up the practice". Is there no literature that analyses the extent to which this is the case? And why is "Liturgy of the Hours" a separate (and preceding) section from "devotional life and prayer"?
- Almost all of the text of "devotional life and prayer" is cited to the Catechism. There must be a plethora of secondary sources and some external analysis by students of comparative religions, for example, of the devotional life of the Catholic Church. This section is incredibly deficient in this regard.
- "Devotional journeys to the sites of biblical events or to places strongly connected with Jesus, Mary or the saints are considered an aid to spiritual growth, and can become meritorious acts if performed with the right intention" - I have previously pointed out the POV of this sentence, particularly its latter part, and the lack of a citation for the sentence is a further problem. However the entire section on Mary and the saints lacks any insight from independent analysis of this distinctive feature of Catholicism - one which i thought had attracted much commentary.
- Church organisation: no citation for "The pope is assisted in the Church's administration by the Roman Curia, or civil service. The Church is governed according to formal regulations set out in the Code of Canon Law."
- "All 23 particular Churches of the Catholic Church..." Have we been told what this means? If so, i missed it.
- "While some consider this to be evidence of a discriminatory attitude toward women, the Church believes that Jesus called women to different yet equally important vocations in Church ministry" This sentence is structured to imply that the "some" are outside the Church. However some are inside the church, and this is not therefore an adequate representation of the debate.
- "Since the Church condemns all forms of artificial birth control, married persons are expected to be open to new life in their sexual relations" What on earth is this supposed to mean? Truly church jargon, and POV jargon at that.
- "Church law makes no provision for divorce, but annulment may be granted when proof is produced that essential conditions for contracting a sacramental union (valid marriage) were absent." This appears not in the section on doctrine, but on church organisation and community. The lack of any mention of the way in which i this works in practice in contemporary societies is bizarre. If an alien came to earth and read this sentence, together with the later sentence about there being a billion (or so) Catholics in the world, it would reasonably conclude that this billion people never get divorced. I think i can confidently say that that is nonsense.
- "Tertiaries and Oblates" - no cites past the first sentence.
- "Catholic institutions, personnel and demographics" - the text of this section is made problematic in all sorts of ways, but principally by being written to highlight ways in which the Catholic Churhc is growing or large. If it is small, as in Asia, we are told "yet it has a large proportion of religious sisters, priests and parishes relative to the total Catholic population". If there was a balanced para covering each continent, this would not necessarily give rise to a POV issue, but as it stands it is a problem.
- I'm not going to touch the history section, which is in worse shape, but about which i know less than other able critics like PMAnderson.
- So, some specifics were asked for - there are a few examples. Is every sentence and para a problem? Not in my view. Are there questions of accuracy and neutrality in every major section? I believe so. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have to say, the above list, as "justification" for banner tags on the whole article, is the biggest load of rubbish I have seen for a long while. Most of the above cavills and niggles have not been mentioned before, and others are so minor as to require no more than a mini-tag next to the point, requesting better citation. However do points such as "church administration is assisted by the Roman curia" really need a separate citation? Are these points that rate the whole section of the article POV or factually incorrect? I don't think they come close. We have always been willing to deal with individual points as they are brought up, but a lot of this seems bogus dregs and detritus to try to retrospectively justify the tags. Other topics above are merely matters of hamiltonstone's personal opinion on tone and sourcing. As far as etymology goes, that has been covered in Note 1 , which was produced and agreed at great length through the arbitration process. There is little of any substance in the above list, and certainly nothing to justify tagging the whole article as POV or factually inaccurate. Xandar 01:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, you have seen at least one bigger load of rubbish: the article you and Nancy have ruined. Every section of this article is POV and factually incorrect; and you both revert every effort to fix them, and remove the tags intended to attract neutral editors and warn innocent readers. If this happens again, the article should be protected until Xandar and Nancy are banned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have to say, the above list, as "justification" for banner tags on the whole article, is the biggest load of rubbish I have seen for a long while. Most of the above cavills and niggles have not been mentioned before, and others are so minor as to require no more than a mini-tag next to the point, requesting better citation. However do points such as "church administration is assisted by the Roman curia" really need a separate citation? Are these points that rate the whole section of the article POV or factually incorrect? I don't think they come close. We have always been willing to deal with individual points as they are brought up, but a lot of this seems bogus dregs and detritus to try to retrospectively justify the tags. Other topics above are merely matters of hamiltonstone's personal opinion on tone and sourcing. As far as etymology goes, that has been covered in Note 1 , which was produced and agreed at great length through the arbitration process. There is little of any substance in the above list, and certainly nothing to justify tagging the whole article as POV or factually inaccurate. Xandar 01:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, overapplication of banner tags is a problem, but so is 'under-application'. My point is, articles end up with as many tags as there are problems. They serve to alert other editors to issues needing attention; they serve to alert readers to known issues or disputes regarding the article. The discussion on this talk page appears to me to indicate the accuracy of the bias and factual accuracy tags. i have no issues about the article length, but accept that others might. Xandar suggests one should not tag the whole article when some sections are not problematic. I however lean toward PMAnderson's views about the extent to which there is problematic content. Just a small number of examples of all sorts of issues:
- This demonstrates Xandar's deep and lasting bad faith:
- We have wide-ranging disputes, covering many sections of the article. That would be sufficient, in any other article, to justify tags, even if there were sections which were consensus; as there are not here. But Xandar objects because the discussions are focused - as Johnbod not unreasonably requested.
- Hamiltonstone just went through and listed issues throughout the article, as requested. Xandar now objects because they are novel.
- This is Morton's Fork: if you spend much, you must be rich and can afford more taxes, if you spend little, you are saving money and can afford more taxes; but that is famous as an example of corrupt reasoning. So here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- This demonstrates Xandar's deep and lasting bad faith:
Y'all sure know how to make a man feel welcome arahn here. Xandar, i apologise for not meeting your high standard. You are quite right, some of the items i picked up were niggles not directly related to the templates, forgive me for mentioning them. Remove them from the list, however, and the problems still stand. Whether something has been mentioned before is not relevant, a point that i see has been raised on this talk page previously. I didn't edit here until a few weeks ago, and i'm getting some clear feedback on why i and others might not last the distance. I suggest you look at my edit history, my GA reviews, some of my other contributions as a reviewer and ask which is more likely: that I'm an anti-Catholic POV pusher, a twit, or someone who might be trying to help. I'm sure if some editors work hard enough, new minds with new perspectives can be kept away from this article, but that would be to its detriment. This isn't my field. I've said that a few times now - i'm offering an independent perspective from a reviewer's point of view, and I can only hope that some of the ideas are taken up. Why information as important as that contained in Note 1 is not in the main article text is beyond me, but i will assume good faith that the arbitration had a consensus that this was a good encyclopedic solution to whatever the issues were. In the meantime, i will try and periodically continue to contribute to the discussions here. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Xandar is correct to point out that raising issues on talk is supposed to precede, or coincide with, tagging, and very few of these mostly very reasonable points had AFAIK ever been mentioned before, though now of course they have been. Make sure you keep taking the pills, PMA. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hamilton, I have to agree with John; your points are fine, but attempting to use them as justification for the tags is just pure folly. Also, a few of them are simple edits that are not controversial, just make them and be done with it. I become mystified when worship needs a third party reference, rather than the Church itself stating what it believes. I am curious, how do you know the quality of the history section as you have admitted that you are not qualified to comment. That sounds too accusatory, but being direct is worthwhile and I hope you get the drift. Some points, I simple think amount to your personal preference and I happen to have a different opinion.
- As a non-Catholic I am confident I have no ax to grind and no one could accuse me of being "pro" Catholic. PMA has a definite ax to grind, but seems to think he is neutral; he is anything but neutral. Be bold, make what edits you want and don't be surprised is some stay and others don't. That is life here at Misplaced Pages. But attempting to use those comments for reasons of placing a tag are not appropriate here or on any other article. --Rider 03:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Storm Rider. I didn't place the tags there. I'm responding to complaints by others that nothing was raised here. Just trying to help the discussion, though it isn't quite being taken in that way.
- While I haven't read back through the talk archives, i would have thought that the range of issues regularly and recently identified on this talk page was consistent with the tagging (perhaps with the exception of the 'length' tag) - i would have thought an element of common sense was involved. Based on the conduct on this talk page, i find it hard to believe any edits i mentioned above would be non-controversial (other than finding missing sources, which i am not in a position to do). Which did you have in mind? As to your comment "I become mystified when worship needs a third party reference, rather than the Church itself stating what it believes", this remark exemplifies one of the issues with a number of articles about religion, not just Catholic Church: beyond a summary of doctrine (and not always then, in my view), it simply isn't acceptable only to cite what the church itself believes. When we write a biography of John Doe, we do not rely to any significant extent on John Doe himself, except when establishing his own views; why do we rely on sources internal to a church for our understanding of a church? It is one source that can be used to establish formal church teaching or theology, but that's about it. You ask: "I am curious, how do you know the quality of the history section as you have admitted that you are not qualified to comment". The answers are first: because i am a scholar who understands about the use of sources and about the construction of a reasoned argument. Second: because I have some experience as a historian and therefore some knowledge of what this section should 'look like' - accepting that i am not particularly familiar with the specific subject of this history. Third: because i am reading some of the debates on the talk page and can make a lay person's (i don't mean that in the ecclesiastical sense) judgement about what is going on in those arguments.
- Like others above, i don't think PMA's reactions were particularly calm, but neither have been some of Xandar's posts (was it really necessary to brand my list "the biggest load of rubbish I have seen for a long while"?). Like the top of the page says, discussion here can get heated. I've been around Misplaced Pages for over three years, Storm Rider; I have a pretty good idea what life here is like. And on most of it, it is not the way it is on this talk page. Yes, I've seen worse; but i've seen much better. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- The {{length}} tag is sufficiently justified by the length of the article; recommended article size is 32K. But since removing the "goo and dribble", the special pleading and the dishonest quotations of irrelevant sources, will do a great deal to shrink the bloat, I would be prepared to wait to see the results of a small experiment.
- If efforts to solve Hamiltonstone's list of problems can proceed in an expeditious manner, without revert warring and hysteria, there may be no need to retag. If these fail, I see only two alternatives: tagging as an atrocity, or protection as a failed article. (Well, dispute resolution is a third, but it does not promise anything short-term, even given such appalling behavior as the owners of this page exhibit.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- The point is that banner tagging of the whole article is disruptive both for readers and editors - this is especially so when, prior to Hamiltonstone's list of largely minor points, the only sections under which continuing disagreements have arisen have been some of those under History and effect on society. None of this justifies tagging the whole article with accusations of POV and factual falsehood. That is the genesis of my "biggest load of rubbish" comment. The points individually may in some cases have minor merit. The "rubbish" was the attempt to raise them as some form of afterthought justification for mischievously placed tags. I could go to any significant article on Misplaced Pages and (given a free hour) produce a list of niggles like Hamiltonstones. (And the gnats of possible POV on which some people choke, pale into insignificance compared to bloated camels such as Islamic Golden Age, which some people swallow easily.) If I went to United States article, for example, I could raise dozens of similar "issues" and many more serious, with regard to POV self-praising language, US-based sources, cover-up of the extermination of the native peoples, relations with Mexico, non mention of controversial US foreign policy etc. etc. If I went there or to any similar major article and started banner-tagging it for similar concerns, the tags would not last more than minutes in most cases. I am quite prepared to go through Hamiltonstones list of concerns and try to settle them. What I object to is using them as an excuse for past disruptive tagging. Xandar 10:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think the text at Misplaced Pages:Template messages/Cleanup bears some reading: "The purpose of such templates is to inform other editors and readers at a quick glance what potential problems there are with article content and to spur improvement in the spirit of Misplaced Pages...In articles that are heavily edited or discussed, templates can be used to indicate ongoing problems or disputes in order to attract outside help and caution readers that the content may be shortly subject to change." "Tagging of the whole article" is something Xandar calls disruptive. I would say first, that it is consistent with the intended purpose of banners, and second, is less disruptive to a reader than section tagging is. I will repeat myself though: i didn't put the tags there. I'm supportive of their presence while these discussions take place. If someone didn't do a thorough job of explaining their tagging, well, two wrongs don't make a right. However, IIRC, Leadwind triggered much of this discussion recently with a tagging which s/he did immediately explain at the talk page. It was just that some other editors didn't like what s/he said.
- If you think all my points were minor, then i clearly haven't expressed them well. I will have another try when i have more time. But to spell out something that i did not make clear as i quickly jotted that list: the absence of references in places isn't just a matter of looking for one to match the text - it is something that also alerts us to potentially insufficiently researched sections.
- PMA, "tagging as an atrocity, or protection as a failed article"?? Surely we can continue to disagree at a cooler temperature than that? I first came across your work at a couple of other articles on, IIRC, ancient history and mediaeval history, and you were doing a great job there, including setting me right on a couple of things. Let's keep working on the content.
- Finally, i'll repeat myself again. I came here as an outside voice and as a reviewer, not intending to be a content contributor. I got bugged into doing a bit (see below), but i really didn't and don't see that as my role. Anyway, gotta go. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Concerning Misplaced Pages:Template messages/Cleanup, the majority of the relevant text was not quoted by Hamiltonstone. It reads. "In general, an editor who places a template message to indicate a problem like this should explain their rationale fully on the talkpage of the article. If the consensus of the other editors is that there is a problem or an editorial dispute that deserves such a clean-up template, then the editors should work to fix the problem as quickly and cleanly as possible so the template message can be removed. If the consensus is that there is no problem, then the message can be removed immediately. For heavily monitored articles, please do not add or remove template messages of this sort without using the talk page." Quite a few of these principles seem to have been ignored by the banner-tag posters. I certainly don't believe there is a consensus that the tags were justified either in content or location.
- Similarly tags are meant to highlight issues or areas of dispute. Tagging the whole of a major article when only certain areas are in dispute is clearly misleading and disruptive. Leadwind's tag was a clear example of this. In addition tags are there as temporary indicators, to be sorted and removed as quickly as possible. This is not possible where template posters do not specify exact and specific curable problems and work actively and in good faith to solve them. Tags are not there to be stuck on an article semi-permanently - until editor X deigns to come down from the heights to okay the article suits his preferences.
- Hamiltonstone's issues are only valid if he is actively helping solve them. Post a wodge of complaints and then buzz off is not helpful to the article. Xandar 23:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- The point is that banner tagging of the whole article is disruptive both for readers and editors - this is especially so when, prior to Hamiltonstone's list of largely minor points, the only sections under which continuing disagreements have arisen have been some of those under History and effect on society. None of this justifies tagging the whole article with accusations of POV and factual falsehood. That is the genesis of my "biggest load of rubbish" comment. The points individually may in some cases have minor merit. The "rubbish" was the attempt to raise them as some form of afterthought justification for mischievously placed tags. I could go to any significant article on Misplaced Pages and (given a free hour) produce a list of niggles like Hamiltonstones. (And the gnats of possible POV on which some people choke, pale into insignificance compared to bloated camels such as Islamic Golden Age, which some people swallow easily.) If I went to United States article, for example, I could raise dozens of similar "issues" and many more serious, with regard to POV self-praising language, US-based sources, cover-up of the extermination of the native peoples, relations with Mexico, non mention of controversial US foreign policy etc. etc. If I went there or to any similar major article and started banner-tagging it for similar concerns, the tags would not last more than minutes in most cases. I am quite prepared to go through Hamiltonstones list of concerns and try to settle them. What I object to is using them as an excuse for past disruptive tagging. Xandar 10:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- If efforts to solve Hamiltonstone's list of problems can proceed in an expeditious manner, without revert warring and hysteria, there may be no need to retag. If these fail, I see only two alternatives: tagging as an atrocity, or protection as a failed article. (Well, dispute resolution is a third, but it does not promise anything short-term, even given such appalling behavior as the owners of this page exhibit.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Xandar, I'm sorry for putting back all three tags. The POV is the most important one. So this time that's the only tag I restored. Let's keep the helpful, informative POV tag in place until we get the POV issues handled. Leadwind (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- A number of problems arise here
- Your complaints, when challenged on the Tag here, on 23rd December, were almost exclusively on the History section. The tag, if proper, should therefore be on that section, not the whole article.
- Many of the issues you raised were a scattergun of criticisms, some of which depend on assertions of whether the Orthodox or Catholic viewpoint of certain issues is the more neutral one, others are in my view based on errors on your part (eg purgatory, infallibility), while some others are issues about which the majority of current editors have taken a different view (space given to inquisitions, abuse etc.) Solving these to your satisfaction might make a majority of editors opposed. You have presented no proposed solutions to these "problems" to see how they fare.
- This brings us to the other issue which is your good-faith active participation to resolve the issues you raise in connection with the tag. Since the placement of the tag you have not attempted to further discuss the issues you have raised, or put forward alternative wording based on NPOV sources. If a tag is to remain anywhere on the article the tagger needs to do this and make a genuine effort to produce well-weighted NPOV text. And if a consensus you don't like emerges from discussion, you don't have a veto. You haven't done this so far, which severely weakens your right to maintain a tag. Xandar 00:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I type astonished. Xandar has managed to cut, paste, and emphasize guidance while showing no signs of having read it. If there were a good-faith effort to resolve a problem, there is no need for a tag; but Xandar's chief effort has been to deny problems. Similarly, were there consensus there were no problem, there should not be a tag; but (contrary to Xandar's repeated assertion) a few editors is not consensus. Is anyone but Xandar and Nancy prepared to claim that the issues which have filled this talk page for months, under several different hands, do not exist? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- People, people! Instead of engaging in unnecessary ad hominem argumentation and mudslinging in general, let's make a serious effort to get this article NPOV. Put all prestige aside and concentrate on the content of the article. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 09:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- My point remains. The tag has been put in the wrong place, and if its originator does not raise the issues that it supposedly serves, and work in good faith to speedily resolve them, then the tag is illegitimate, and has to go. So lets see if Leadwind is ready to state his remaining issues, and we can determine what the consensus view is on each of them. Xandar 02:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- The article is thoroughly disputed. Does anybody have the chutzpah to deny this?
- The tags are in the right place to indicate this.
- The chief reason that the atrocious text and sourcing of the article have not been cleared up is revert-warring by certain editors.
- The way to deal with such gentry - short of dispute resolution - is to make them use up their reverts elsewhere
- I am therefore restoring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- My point remains. The tag has been put in the wrong place, and if its originator does not raise the issues that it supposedly serves, and work in good faith to speedily resolve them, then the tag is illegitimate, and has to go. So lets see if Leadwind is ready to state his remaining issues, and we can determine what the consensus view is on each of them. Xandar 02:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- People, people! Instead of engaging in unnecessary ad hominem argumentation and mudslinging in general, let's make a serious effort to get this article NPOV. Put all prestige aside and concentrate on the content of the article. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 09:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
HEY! What a freakin' waste of time all of this is. This section alone ("Tags again") is 33kb long. Good grief! A pox on both your houses. The presence or absence of the tags is not going to achieve anything. It's a minor tactical issue and we're just getting bogged down in this silliness. Can we get back to discussing the substantive issues? Pmanderson and others, you know I sympathize with many of the issues that have been raised here but I just can't see how this obsession with tags is going to help resolve any of them. If you feel that you cannot achieve a resolution to this dispute, then open one or more RFCs as a precursor to mediation. --Richard S (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that too much heavy weather has been made of them; but - again- the way to make tags go away is to improve the article. I will defer the {{accuracy}} tag until there is another revert war for an unsourced, unverifiable, or absurd claim; let's see how long it takes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- PMA Your contributions here over ecent weeks have been almost entirely negative - largely limited to backing anyone, with whatever cause, who is attacking or disrupting the article in any way, and making ad-hominem attacks on editors. The point remains that there is no serious dispute on 90% of the article text, and what disputes remain are largely concentrated in certain sections - thereby making the tag(s) improper and misleading. I would agree with Richard that we should get down to the active work of producing text that is accurate and agreed by most reasonable editors. I also repeat that if no good faith attempts are made to raise, discuss and resolve the specific issues any tags refer to, those tags should go, Xandar 23:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- All of this article is in dispute; all of it deserves to be in dispute. Hamiltonstone's list, immediately above, selects from sections throughout the article. It is shameful enough that some editors can see nothing better to do with Misplaced Pages than an orgy of self-pitying apologetic, but they should not be surprised when their efforts to violate core policy are tagged, which is absolutely minimal - a real clean-up would begin with throwing out half the present text root and branch. I see no purpose in further discussion with a propagandist and a liar. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think the article is POV but not for the reasons stated by PMAnderson. My concerns center on the changes made by PMAnderson and others that hide the good done by the Church during World War II, significant contributions to developement of modern society glossed over in the Cultural Influence section, and cut out of the sexual abuse section that told reader about how changes were implemented to prevent future abuse and that showed how it is "ten times worse" in US public schools. These changes make the article clearly POV against the Church. WP:NPOV requires providing reader with both sides of the story if there are two sides. In these instances, we clearly have two sides - FAC criteria requires us to cover notable controversies - these, presently, are not covered very well. NancyHeise 05:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is the same complaint as above: The article doesn't apologize for the Catholic Church and present her as the misunderstood good guy by presenting everything which might be said in her defense. No, that's not neutrality; that would be presenting Nancy's point of view, which is a very partial, not to say partisan, representation of a complex situation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think the article is POV but not for the reasons stated by PMAnderson. My concerns center on the changes made by PMAnderson and others that hide the good done by the Church during World War II, significant contributions to developement of modern society glossed over in the Cultural Influence section, and cut out of the sexual abuse section that told reader about how changes were implemented to prevent future abuse and that showed how it is "ten times worse" in US public schools. These changes make the article clearly POV against the Church. WP:NPOV requires providing reader with both sides of the story if there are two sides. In these instances, we clearly have two sides - FAC criteria requires us to cover notable controversies - these, presently, are not covered very well. NancyHeise 05:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- All of this article is in dispute; all of it deserves to be in dispute. Hamiltonstone's list, immediately above, selects from sections throughout the article. It is shameful enough that some editors can see nothing better to do with Misplaced Pages than an orgy of self-pitying apologetic, but they should not be surprised when their efforts to violate core policy are tagged, which is absolutely minimal - a real clean-up would begin with throwing out half the present text root and branch. I see no purpose in further discussion with a propagandist and a liar. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- PMA Your contributions here over ecent weeks have been almost entirely negative - largely limited to backing anyone, with whatever cause, who is attacking or disrupting the article in any way, and making ad-hominem attacks on editors. The point remains that there is no serious dispute on 90% of the article text, and what disputes remain are largely concentrated in certain sections - thereby making the tag(s) improper and misleading. I would agree with Richard that we should get down to the active work of producing text that is accurate and agreed by most reasonable editors. I also repeat that if no good faith attempts are made to raise, discuss and resolve the specific issues any tags refer to, those tags should go, Xandar 23:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Catholic institutions, personnel and demographics
Having been upbraided by a couple of editors, i thought i would look further at some of the issues i identified, only to find more edit warring and removal of tags by Xandar, now after at least two editors had set out some reasons why they would be a good idea. I suggest everyone actually read the intro text at Misplaced Pages:Template messages/Cleanup, i'm not sure I would read it as supporting much of the conduct here - whether it comes to placing tags without discussion at the talk page, or removing them. Be that as it may...
I see there has been some dispute, esp between Nancy and PMA, over (amongst many other things) this:
France, Ireland, Spain and the United States have experienced a shortage of priests in recent years as the number of ordinations has fallen in those countries.
which Nancy altered it to this:
While some areas of Europe and the US experienced a dip in the number of new seminarians in recent years church ordinations throughout the world since 2000 have continued to steadily increase.
I have no issue with the latter part of Nancy's version, but the former is not neutral, nor accurate. It is not a particularly fair reflection of the particular source (which is, after all, headlined Catholic Priest Shortage). It also reflects a disinclination to make a simple search for other sources (not that this is Nancy's particular responsibility). So here are some others:
- A papal homily - hopefully everyone can accept that as a source!
- aggregation of sources and concerns about the decline, from a US-based organisation working within the church
- this 2005 story from MSNBC
- this 2007 story from Reuters re Mexico
- this 2008 article from USnews
I hope these can be put together to stabilise the text on this subject. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest that the "aggregation of sources" mentioned above, is cherry-picked by a particular group with an agenda, even though it does contain some factual nuggets. The Pope Benedict homily is a primary source which is ambiguous without interpretation. As far as the newspaper articles go, most are vague and apocryphal. The 2008 article is the best source here, which applies mainly to the US and quantifies the decline ther, but adds that overall worldwide there has been an increase in priest numbers.
- From your post above, it seems your problem could be quite easily solved by changing the sentence to:
- While some areas of Europe and the Americas have experienced a significant decline in the number of new seminarians in recent years church ordinations throughout the world since 2000 have continued to steadily increase.
Xandar 00:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks - i already made a change to reflect the sources. You are not assuming good faith Xandar. That list was arrived at in a perfectly simple manner: i googled "Catholic priest shortage", and they all came from the first page of hits, apart from the homily, which i found at a related Misplaced Pages article. i would not consider the news articles to be "vague and apocryphal", and at least they come from reasonably reliable sources. They have the added merit of being from third parties - independent of the issue. However, i've added a good scholarly book as well, so the strength of the material is greatly improved. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
the mass church may be kind of boring but it depends —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.27.124 (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Related point, same section of article
Currently, the text includes this: "Known for its ability to use its transnational ties and organizational strength to bring significant resources to needy situations,..." However, the cite for this is a book i would argue is published from within the church (see my earlier remarks about the publisher, Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, Georgetown University). I think Froehle and the book are OK sources for facts such as church size and structure, but not for claims about the church's reputation, which is what the above clause involves. The clause needs a source external to the church, or to be deleted and replaced with other facts. For example, it might be something like "The church maintains a worldwide development aid organisation X (cite), and its branch Y is an international crisis response organisation with a budget of Z (cite)..." The latter version would be better anyway, as it gives the reader more information than the current vague wording. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree the sentence is a bit vague as it stands. I would appreciate something a bit more solid. Xandar 22:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think some recent edits by Haldraper have improved the article. The map is useful, but it needs a caption, and to be separated slightly from the table on institutions and personnel. There's only one point on which i disagree - H. removed the expression "Some countries including..." While i generally favour precision in WP articles, the expression in this particular case was designed to avoid a "shopping list": they were not the only countries covered by the available references. IIRC, Mexico was included, as may have been "Western Europe" or "Europe" in general. While less precise, i would favour returning to a wording that makes clear that the effect is not as narrowly confined as "France, Ireland, Spain and the United States". hamiltonstone (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Xandar for fixing the map image to address the points made by hamiltonstone. I'll also check the ref he talks about re list of countries but I'm pretty sure it only mentions the ones in the text.
I see "Known for its ability to use its transnational ties and organizational strength to bring significant resources to needy situations,..." has been slipped back in, despite the consensus here that we need a source independent of the Church for it. I won't cut it for now as long as someone comes up with one.
I've also firmed up the sentence on the priesthood with Vatican statistics reproduced in the source on numbers of priests and those preparing for ordination rather than the journalist's own very vague "slowly but steadily rising" which gives a slightly misleading picture on its own.Haldraper (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually Hal, unless it changed in the interim, "Known for its ability..." seems to have been replaced with a better clause, about the existence of transnational relief organisations. This is better, though it would be great to get a second cite, directly to the relevant orgs, not just to the Froehle book. I am otherwise happy with how this paragrraph is shaping up - thanks for your improvements (and Xandar's). hamiltonstone (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I just took a look at the map and it will not pass FA because it causes sandwiching of article text. I think the section looks better without the map. Also, this section needs to include references to Caritas, Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Charities, it is incomplete without mentioning these very large, worldwide Catholic charity organizations. NancyHeise 04:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- The map adds significantly to the information in the section and is a good graphic. It will need a reference. But Nancy's suggestion would be a case of the tail wagging the dog. The map is valuable, so we will find a way to make it work. The table is actually of less interest - or shoudl i say harder to interpret - than the map. But i expect we will find a way to keep both. The section already mentions the groups listed by Nancy in aggregate terms, where it says "Church operates transnational relief organisations across the world..." I don't think CRS or Catholic Charities should be mentioned specifically, as they are single-country orgs (United States). Mention them, and we will be off into another shopping list. For this reason I have removed reference to them from the lead (where their appearance is even less appropriate). Mentioning and/or describing Caritas in a sentence would be good. That could be an extension of the existence sentence in the section, or a stand-alone sentence. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that this map is reliable. for example, look at how the source data for the map (a data table from Catholic-Hierarchy.org) claims that the population of Syria is 42.5% Catholic. That just isn't the case. Similarly, the map shows Lebanon as blue color (less than 20% Catholic), while most estimates range between 25% and 45% Catholic. Majoreditor (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is certainly an argument for the map to be properly referenced. If there are estimates that differ, from sources that might be more reliable, then the map should be revised accordingly, and the refs added. But as long as it is built on sources that meet WP:RS, then i think it is better in than out. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- The map is unreferenced. I am removing it. If someone wants to add a map, please provide a ref too. This is the same reason the first map we had in this section got canned by other editors. NancyHeise 02:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is certainly an argument for the map to be properly referenced. If there are estimates that differ, from sources that might be more reliable, then the map should be revised accordingly, and the refs added. But as long as it is built on sources that meet WP:RS, then i think it is better in than out. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that this map is reliable. for example, look at how the source data for the map (a data table from Catholic-Hierarchy.org) claims that the population of Syria is 42.5% Catholic. That just isn't the case. Similarly, the map shows Lebanon as blue color (less than 20% Catholic), while most estimates range between 25% and 45% Catholic. Majoreditor (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- The map adds significantly to the information in the section and is a good graphic. It will need a reference. But Nancy's suggestion would be a case of the tail wagging the dog. The map is valuable, so we will find a way to make it work. The table is actually of less interest - or shoudl i say harder to interpret - than the map. But i expect we will find a way to keep both. The section already mentions the groups listed by Nancy in aggregate terms, where it says "Church operates transnational relief organisations across the world..." I don't think CRS or Catholic Charities should be mentioned specifically, as they are single-country orgs (United States). Mention them, and we will be off into another shopping list. For this reason I have removed reference to them from the lead (where their appearance is even less appropriate). Mentioning and/or describing Caritas in a sentence would be good. That could be an extension of the existence sentence in the section, or a stand-alone sentence. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I just took a look at the map and it will not pass FA because it causes sandwiching of article text. I think the section looks better without the map. Also, this section needs to include references to Caritas, Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Charities, it is incomplete without mentioning these very large, worldwide Catholic charity organizations. NancyHeise 04:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually Hal, unless it changed in the interim, "Known for its ability..." seems to have been replaced with a better clause, about the existence of transnational relief organisations. This is better, though it would be great to get a second cite, directly to the relevant orgs, not just to the Froehle book. I am otherwise happy with how this paragrraph is shaping up - thanks for your improvements (and Xandar's). hamiltonstone (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I have only been at this article a few weeks, but i'm finding the way people work here pretty frustrating. Nancy, the map is not unreferenced. The referencing is currently confined to the image page itself (
). Whether the website in question should be regarded as reliable is another matter. However, the author of the cite sets out the sources, and unless anyone wants to bring forward alternative figures that are regarded as reliable, i don't see the justification for responding to the issue by deleting the entire thing. It is one of the most useful objects in the whole article, and i cannot understand this approach to its summary deletion. Let's keep it and work on the sources - perhaps have a discussion section on the talk page here where people can bring in data sources and discuss them? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
modern persecutions of the Church
- I think the article fails the FAC criteria because it does not mention modern persecution of the Church. Please see the links below and consider how we can incorporate this important information. Thanks.
- Recently, Catholic churches and orphanages were burned and Catholics murdered by Hindus in India .
- There has been a decades long conflict between violent Muslim extremists and Catholics in the Phillipines Catholic priests are targeted for violence by Muslim militants there
- Iraqi Muslims have been blowing up churches (Chaldean Catholics are part of the Catholic Church) and murdering Catholics
- Vietnam government is in a clash with the Church
- China as a long history of persecution of Catholics and priests up to the present day
- Africa persecutions are usually at the hands of Muslims this is just one story about one part of Africa but there are countless sources for this
- Middle East - Here's one POV that should be included
- We might even want to consider mentioning recent legislation in UK that many Catholics consider anti-Catholic such as the requirements that caused the Church to close its adoption services. Xandar might have more info on this kind of persecution - some might call it legal persecution.
- I am not sure but I think there is some kind of persecution of the Church in Venezuela under Hugo Chavez and in Bolivia, maybe someone else here can research those areas. I know that there are some Muslim countries that do not permit Catholics to practice their faith - Saudi Arabia is one. These are pertinent issues that should be mentioned in a concise way if we want our article to be comprehensive. NancyHeise 05:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
NancyHeise 05:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Nancy, you've raised this before and as before I just don't see how we could include all this information in a NPOV way. Take one example that I'm familiar with living in Britain. You describe the withdrawl of the Catholic Church from adoption services here as the result of "anti-Catholic...persecution - some might call it legal persecution". It was the result of equality legislation requiring adoption agencies to consider potential parents on merit regardless of their sexuality. Gay and lesbian couples clearly do not share your interpretation of the change, seeing the previous situation as anti-gay legal discrimination. To be NPOV would require us to include a counterview on each of your nine examples which not only would take us back to a tennis match-style text but significantly increase the length of an article arleady tagged as overlong.Haldraper (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- There are other issues here too. The case of Iraq for example is, as far as one can tell - including from the source Nancy cites - not anti-Catholic but anti-Christian. In other cases the incidents may be reported in the west as religious, but actually be nationalist or ethnic in nature. Analysing these cases can be very difficult, and i would want better sources for the analysis than news reports. In any case, if it is anti-Christian, it does not belong in this article. I expect that may be the case for some of the other cited examples: the violence or persecution is not against Catholics, but against Christians or evangelicals (or, as i think might be the case in India, against any rival faiths). There might be a place for discussion of this in an article on contemporary Christianity, but not on the Catholic Church. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. The persecutioon (for whatever reason) of catholics is a very notable subject and should be included. Now it may be in some cases that (like Nigeria) muslims just attack any Christian Church, and as often or not it is a Catholic one. In Iraq the majority of Christians are Catholic, eastern or western. So the persecution, which is very real, falls most heavily on them. I believe figures show at least half the catholic population has had to flee since the invasion. Stating "this is anti-christian persecution rather than anti-Catholic persecution", is a bit like saying you shouldn't mention the persecution of Russian jews in that article, because they weren't persecuted as Russian jews, but just as jews. Catholics do suffer persecution for different reasons in many countries. I would however separate physical persecution, as in Iraq, Somalia, India etc, from, "harrassment"of the church as in the UK adoption, or some similar situations. Xandar 17:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- The sources do not support Hamiltonstone's argument. Catholic churches, clergy and members were killed and/or persecuted on a significant scale and should be reflected in the article. If other Christians suffered or if Christians in particular were targeted, that can also go into the Christianity article. However that does not erase the fact of this Church's particular sufferings which are notable enough to be mentioned. NancyHeise 02:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Haldraper, responding to your point - I think we may want to consider mentioning the clashes between the Church's beliefs and the homosexual agenda that has led to the legal tangles described above. I think we could do this in an NPOV way and keep it to one sentence. NancyHeise 03:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Nancy, speculation on other people's "agendas" is the stuff of blogging, not of encyclopedias. There is no consensus on the matter; if there were consensus on each other's purposes, there would probably be no issue. Peddle your point of view somewhere else, and let the gay activists, with which we are also plagued, do the same. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Haldraper, responding to your point - I think we may want to consider mentioning the clashes between the Church's beliefs and the homosexual agenda that has led to the legal tangles described above. I think we could do this in an NPOV way and keep it to one sentence. NancyHeise 03:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- The sources do not support Hamiltonstone's argument. Catholic churches, clergy and members were killed and/or persecuted on a significant scale and should be reflected in the article. If other Christians suffered or if Christians in particular were targeted, that can also go into the Christianity article. However that does not erase the fact of this Church's particular sufferings which are notable enough to be mentioned. NancyHeise 02:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. The persecutioon (for whatever reason) of catholics is a very notable subject and should be included. Now it may be in some cases that (like Nigeria) muslims just attack any Christian Church, and as often or not it is a Catholic one. In Iraq the majority of Christians are Catholic, eastern or western. So the persecution, which is very real, falls most heavily on them. I believe figures show at least half the catholic population has had to flee since the invasion. Stating "this is anti-christian persecution rather than anti-Catholic persecution", is a bit like saying you shouldn't mention the persecution of Russian jews in that article, because they weren't persecuted as Russian jews, but just as jews. Catholics do suffer persecution for different reasons in many countries. I would however separate physical persecution, as in Iraq, Somalia, India etc, from, "harrassment"of the church as in the UK adoption, or some similar situations. Xandar 17:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- There are other issues here too. The case of Iraq for example is, as far as one can tell - including from the source Nancy cites - not anti-Catholic but anti-Christian. In other cases the incidents may be reported in the west as religious, but actually be nationalist or ethnic in nature. Analysing these cases can be very difficult, and i would want better sources for the analysis than news reports. In any case, if it is anti-Christian, it does not belong in this article. I expect that may be the case for some of the other cited examples: the violence or persecution is not against Catholics, but against Christians or evangelicals (or, as i think might be the case in India, against any rival faiths). There might be a place for discussion of this in an article on contemporary Christianity, but not on the Catholic Church. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- On the issue at hand, I see no evidence that the terrorists of Iraq bomb the Roman "Chaldeans" more than the Nestorian "Assyrians", or the handfuls of Iraqi Protestants. Indeed, they are probably attacked less than the rival sects of Islam. So also in the other cases. Go revel in self-pity somewhere else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with Nancy that persecution of Christians should be relegated exclusively to the domain of another article. There are at least three categories of persecution of Catholics:
- Persecution of Catholics qua Christians (i.e. they are not specifically targeted for their Catholicism but for their Christianity). In this case, it doesn't matter if the "majority of Christians in Iraq are Catholic". The point is that they are being targeted as Christians not as Catholics. Similar arguments might be made re persecution of Catholics in Somalia, India and Vietnam
- Persecution of Catholics qua Catholics (e.g. persecution of Catholics by Protestants or Orthodox where the Catholics are being targeted specifically for their Catholicism)
- Persecution of Catholics for reasons which are not primarily religious in nature (e.g. sectarian strife in Northern Ireland where ethnic and socio-economic class differences come into play). In other words, that conflict is not primarily religious in nature but pulls in a lot of other issues unrelated to religion.
IMO, we should mention persecution in categories 1 & 2 but we should make sure to differentiate the two categories so that the reader knows which ones are persecution of Catholics qua Christians and which ones are persecution of Catholics qua Catholics.
--Richard S (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding persecution of Catholics as Christians versus persecution specifically as Catholics. I think the distinction is largely on the basis of who is doing the persecuting. In other words other Christians persecute on the basis of denomination. religions outside Christianity are less bothered what denomination of Christian is being hit, since by and large they don't distinguish between Christians. However it is still persecution of Catholics because of their beliefs/practices. For example of Zoroastrians took over Iran and started persecuting Muslims, would it be worth arguing wheteher it was persecution of Muslims or persecution of Shias (the vast majority of Muslims in Iran)? Xandar 11:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Demographics
The following was just deleted from the article as non-notable:
"In 2000, 65% of members lived in the Southern Hemisphere.(ref)Scotchie, Father David (15–28 January 2010). "Unity in Diversity". Orlando, Florida: Florida Catholic. pp. A19.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)(endref)"
While the material didn't have the greatest source (also mentioned in the deletion as an aside since the editor didn't want it there anyway), it still IMO is notable that most Catholics live in the otherwise least populated, and smallest land mass of the two hemispheres. The church considers it very significant and talks about it often, since projections are for continuing expansion of the population there and not in the 1st world countries (for example). Student7 (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Student7, I didn't think your edit really added anything: we've already got the percentages for each continent, it's pretty easy to see where most Catholics live from that. And your source clearly failed WP:RS, that's hardly 'an aside' given it's a key Misplaced Pages policy.Haldraper (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Haldraper, I think you are incorrect in declaring the Flordia Catholic invalid. Student7 is using it to make a non-controversial statement about demographics. The Florida Catholic is the official newspaper of the Florida dioceses, it is published by Bishop Thomas Wenski. Why would this official source not be considered reliable for church demographics especially when the info is mirrored by the source used by all newpapers - Froehle? NancyHeise 02:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Because it has an interest; it is the interest of every religious body to exaggerate its membership. Disraeli's quote above was spoken when the interest was particularly strong - denominational schools were subsidized by the British Government in proportion to the numbers of congregants - but clout, if not mere vainglory, are sufficient motives. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Haldraper, I think you are incorrect in declaring the Flordia Catholic invalid. Student7 is using it to make a non-controversial statement about demographics. The Florida Catholic is the official newspaper of the Florida dioceses, it is published by Bishop Thomas Wenski. Why would this official source not be considered reliable for church demographics especially when the info is mirrored by the source used by all newpapers - Froehle? NancyHeise 02:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Pmanderson and Haldraper, I think you are getting too wrapped up in the minutiae of the specific statistic and the reliability of the source and thereby missing the big picture which is, as Student7 writes, quite significant.
- I think it is worthwhile to mention that "65% of members live in the Southern Hemisphere". However, I also think we need to connect the dots for the reader so that he gets what the point of this statistic is. Student7 wrote "most Catholics live in the otherwise least populated, and smallest land mass of the two hemispheres. The church considers it very significant and talks about it often, since projections are for continuing expansion of the population there and not in the 1st world countries". Even in the United States, the primary driver of growth in the Catholic population is not from the white Anglo population but from Hispanics and other immigrants. This demographic trend also counterbalances shortages of priests in First World nations by providing more seminarians from the Third World peoples. What we need to do is provide a comprehensive picture of the demographic trends I just described and provide citations to reliable sources.
Length and content
I saw that a length tag went up on this page. Two questions: "Is there a lot of text?" Yes. "Is this a big institution?" Yes. So from a practical viewpoint, it must be made clear which text could possibly be sent into exile without diminishing the value of the article. I do not see any section that can be deleted, but a haircut for the history section may be suitable. But that section is towards the end anyway, and does not get in the reader's way. I think for the tag to remain there a "practical suggestion" is necessary, else the tag should be removed. Each section in the article informs the user of some aspect of the Church, so no section can be deleted. The Church has a long history, so expecting the presentation of its history to be short enough to be written on a paper napkin is unrealistic. Yet, I personally find the history section somewhat long. My suggestion would be to agree to just trim that section by 15% to 25% and stop there. The reader who wants more history can read the history article. A related fact is that the history article gets about 20% of the number of visits of this article, so obviously many people are interested in history anyway. Another reason the article seems longer than it is, is that the notes and footnotes sections are huge. In fact that is a clear case of "footnote wagging the article". It seems that whatever text could not find its way into the article was relegated to "second class text" and went into the footnotes. That can, and should be seriously trimmed. History2007 (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think the "length" tag is largely mischievous. Quite a few articles on big topics, and some on considerably smaller ones are of similar length, so while a marginal trimming is possible. I don't think much can be lost from the main text. Xandar 10:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I do not see how a trim can happen to any section except history. Any trim from other sections will lose information that is fully relevant. However, I think some of the details in the history section just make it hard to read, to the point that I have not even read that section in full. So if you want feedback on that section, I find it hard to read through and if anything a lighter version would teach more, since people may actually read it. As for mischievous motives within Misplaced Pages, I am absolutely certain that no such activities have ever taken place within the pages of this revered encyclopedia (wink). But when criticism is launched against an article, it often focuses on the "weakest points" (at times selected subconsciously) and in this case, it may have just reminded everyone of the fact that some of the longer paragraphs are just hard to read through. History2007 (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Pogatchnik, Shawn (13 April 2005). "Catholic Priest Shortage". CBS News. Retrieved 4 April 2008.
- Pogatchnik, Shawn (13 April 2005). "Catholic Priest Shortage". CBS News. Retrieved 4 April 2008.
- "Vatican: After decline, number of priests rises slowly". USA Today. 28 April 2009. Retrieved 17 January 2010.
- Garber, Kent (18 April 2008). "What to Do About the Priest Shortage". US News and World Report. Retrieved 17 January 2010.
- "Vatican: After decline, number of priests rises slowly". USA Today. 28 April 2009. Retrieved 17 January 2010.
- 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