Talk:Catholic Church/Essjay's edits

message: This exercise is a pain in the butt and I doubt it will turn up any issues.  However, I am convinced by Firsfron that we have to do it to deflect any criticism related to Essjay's fraud.  ("Hate the sin, not the sinner."  Losing Essjay is a real loss to Wikipedia)
I propose that we find every edit that Essjay ever made to this article and review it.  I'm not sure how good the edit counter is but we know that there are at least 24 edits to review.
If we want to be really thorough, we will also review Essjay's comments on this Talk Page but that's of secondary importance. 
If you go back to the earliest edit in the edit history and then page forward using your browser search function to look for "Essjay", you should be able to find all of the edits that he ever made.  
I suggest that we list each edit here according to the format of my first entry below.  If the edit looks OK, just provide the diff and a comment saying that it looks OK.  It would be good if at least one other editor looked at the diff and provided a "looks good to me, too" confirmation.  After that, only objections need to be recorded. 
--Richard 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this who thing is a mess.  I am not a regular contributor on this page, but would be happy to check behind you (or whoever) as a second set of eyes.  If you list the edits (as you did below) I will verify.  -- Pastordavid 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

message: Revert, with note left on talk page. Discussion may need to be reviewed. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment on talk page here, where Essjay claims the work cited is reputable. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue of group identity names is often contentious, although there is a policy on it: WP:NCI (Self-identification).  I cannot answer for that group, but in principle this should be straightfoward.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue was thrashed out and settled on Traditionalist Catholic.  Lima 05:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: --This edit only made the term used correspond to the title of the article referred to, so there is nothing to correct.  Lima 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: May 13, 2005

message: Essjay rewrites this section. There was apparently an edit war with user:Boothy443. Boothy is subsequently blocked, though I do not know the circumstances behind this particular block. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you say there was an edit war? And it seems Boothy443 was blocked a number of times, but mainly for vandalism, 3RR, civility issues, etc. and not for anything connected to this particular edit. He seems to have been mostly reverting vandalism here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no edit war here (I was fooled by Boothy's rv edit summary, and didn't check further). However, this is not the revertion of vandalism; it appears to be additional material added by Essjay. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies; I was unclear. The pronoun was in reference to Boothy, not Essjay. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem; understood (now). Firsfron of Ronchester 23:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Both the original and new suffer from being less than encyclopediatic; this gives both moderate POV concerns.  New is considerably longer with additional content.  Rewording and consolidating could improve things tangibly; sourcing would help greatly to incorporate appropriate new content.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I mistaken in thinking that the whole of that edit has long disappeared from the article?  Are we fact-finding the article, or are we instead putting Essjay on trial?  Lima 08:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: --In the article there is no trace of this edit, so there is nothing to correct.  Lima 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war on May 22, 2005

message: Reverting removed section Firsfron of Ronchester 22:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks ok as reversion of unexplained deletion. --Richard 22:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me, too, for the record. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Other than returning his additions (among other things) in his first (?) edit which could be improved, this action was better done than not (I agree with above).  Not an endorsement of perfection of the reverted content.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --In the article there is no trace of this edit, so there is nothing to correct.    Lima 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: June 1, 2005

message: What of these? These may also be the same ones which Essjay/another user claimed Essjay was an expert during the content dispute. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit above looks OK.  I might like to have kept some of the text that he deleted but I know not everyone would agree with me.  I think our focus should be to look for any egregiously bad edits especially those that might be factually incorrect or POV.  --Richard 00:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Lots of material changing here so its hard to generalize but I suspect Richard's right: some content was improved and some may not have been.  Kudos for the sectional organization though.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --In the article, the parts affected by this rearrangement have been completely rewritten, so there is nothing to correct.  Lima 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: June 20, 2005 20:21

message: Readded "particularly on doctrinal grounds." Seems minor, and doesn't seem to be present in the current article. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks OK. --Richard 22:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also.  Wording for style may be debatable but I do not object to it on POV grounds.  The issue it qualifies is however probably the most historically contentious issue wrt neutrality in the entire article.  I would not be surprised if some others might reasonably and in good faith disagree with me about its POV.   Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: --In the article there is no trace of this edit, so there is nothing to correct.  Lima 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: August 12, 2005 23:28

message: This is linkspam removal. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without commenting on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the specific link, the edit looks to be OK as a "linkspam removal". --Richard 21:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same conclusion. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Thirded" ;-)  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: --Nobody has suggested that this link be reinserted; there is nothing to correct.  Lima 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: August 20, 2005 20:29

message: Reverting vandalism. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks OK as removal of fake AFD. --Richard 22:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems here. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: --This was a useful edit, so there is nothing to correct.  Lima 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: July 15, 2005 15:29

message: Among Essjay's edits discussed above were the qualification of several passages about anti-semitism, and the position of the church towards it today. Looking at them, for example  and the later edit using similar language , the comments were made  above that there were no similar passages present in the article now. 
On Aug 12, 2005 there was a section Anti-semitism,  within a larger section called "Criticism", referring to a main article"Relations between Catholicism and Judaism" ,and there was in June 06 a section of "Perspectives on the Catholic Church",  there is not one now.  There clearly was a decision to move he sections elsewhere.  Not even the discussion of the Inquisition mentions Jews.
I am not necessarily urging that such sections be restored; the achieved balance in the article should not necessarily be disturbed. It is obvious enough there is criticism from Christians of other denominations, from those of other religions, and from the altogether unreligious. Perhaps there should be links to help people find it.       
But I cannot help wondering whether Essjay may in this article have made better edits than some of those made by others.  DGG 00:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: edits with respect to anti-semitism