Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 11

message: I would like to draw your attention to this AFD discussion.  The article is badly organized and poorly written and thus a rewrite is probably in order.  I have suggested that a more NPOV title would be Authority of the Catholic Church.  I would like to solicit your opinions on the current article along with any suggestions for improving, salvaging or rewriting it.  --Richard 08:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, just to clarify, the pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra (from the chair [of Peter]), and when speaking of matters of faith and morals.  In other words, if the pope came out and said the world is flat, it would not be considered an infallible statement. Guldenat 05:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Micael......the title "Sacred Tradition" would make more sense for the article, but ulimately should be spilt and various sections moved to better homes.  Another problem is "validity."  That is a legal term -- not a theological one.  The article seems to be unclear as to its desire -- Law or Theology.DaveTroy 10:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Validity of Catholic Church Authority]] 

message: The current link to Holy Orders does not go to the article on the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but to Priesthood (Catholic Church).  While understandable, I believe the sacrament page to be better written, better cited, as well as containing more information.  Should the link be switched back?DaveTroy 08:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Restore? 

message: This Talk Page is too long and is making this exercise harder than it needs to be.  I'm moving the log of Essjay's edits to Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Essjay's edits.
See you there.
--Richard 22:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviewing Essjay's contributions to this article 

message: Pardon me, but the roman catholic church has NO sacrament of penance!!! It's confession.  Penance is given after confession.  I have edited that part, kindly arrange it should someone change it to penance again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.77.200.93 (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well.  Fortunately, the matter is easily settled by just agreeing to using the terms used in the catechism.  As an aside, the tone of the initial comments were a little harsh, guys.  Let's not forget about assuming good faith.  I think the originator of this discussion (Mr. IP?) and HarvardOxon should ask each other for forgiveness...I mean absolution...I mean, oh, never mind.   ;-)   --Anietor 22:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My dear Wikipedians, according to the Liturgy, the name is Ordo Paenitentiae and the CIC refers to Sacamentum Paenitentiae, while the Catechism does use other words, don't forget that it is a teaching, not a legal document.  The legal name is PENACE, while confession is act that takes place within the sacrament, as is Reconciliation.  The penance that HagermanBot refers to is the satisfaction imposed by the minister upon the penitent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveTroy (talk • contribs) 10:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have an authoritative teaching document (Catechism of the Catholic Church), an authoritative legal document (Code of Canon Law, canon 959), an authoritative liturgical document (the Ordo Paenitentiae), all of which call the sacrament simply by the name of "Penance".  Enough said.  Lima 11:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confession not Penance

message: There seems to be an awful lot of puerile vandalism going on in the article. Someone always repairs it - but what a waste of time, and what a distraction.
The vandals typically seem to be anonymous; maybe to semi-protect this page would be just the thing. 
I am comparatively new to Wikipedia: has semi-protection for this article been discussed or requested? Thank you. 
Ivain 00:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been protection and semi-protection of this article and similar ones (like Pope Benedict XVI).  It's unfortunate, but the subject matter is always going to attract vandals.  I think the problem with protecting the article is that the vandalism will never go away...there will always be vandals, kooks and extremists looking to put their mark here, so  unless the semiprotection is permanent, we'd be back to where we started as soon as it is removed.  Fortunately, this article is also very well monitored.  It's often a race to see who will revert vandalism first (kind of a nerdy game, huh?).  It's also important to put the warnings in the vandals' talk pages, even the IP addresses, since that can result in the vandals being blocked.  It's not a perfect safeguard, but it's one more tool.  --Anietor 19:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about requesting semi-protection? 

message: The sex abuses in the Catholic Church are a tragic story, and I do not support the misconduct itself or the actions to cover the misconduct. I do not believe that the cases play a fundamental part in the Church's role in the world or represents its viewpoints. The article on the Catholic Church should be about the Church's mission, faith, and doctrine. The Cases should take on a major role in the History of the Roman Catholic Church article. PennsylvaniaPatriot 01:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your sentiment PennsylvaniaPatriot.  The fixation on the sex scandal is more an American problem, and given the 2000 years of Catholic Church history, it would seem strange to have it mentioned in the article.  We certainly don't want the Wikipedia to be trendy. Guldenat 05:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right. It's just not encyclopedic to have it there. It should be taken out, with a link to the main article in the "see also". --Paularblaster 01:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course its encyclopedic to have it, not only according to church documents this has been a problem for 250 years. As to comparing to other religions, they don't have there own country which they can use to give legal protection to wanted pedophiles. Also this scandle touches every country that the catholic church opperates in. WP:Idon'tlikeit is not a reason for deleteing it while NPOV is a clear reason to have this mentioned. (Hypnosadist) 13:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex Abuse 

message: Despite suggestions from Fishhead64 and Lima to let this go, I believe that consistency is a virtue and that all articles in Category:Roman Catholic Church by country should use the same convention in their title.  Since Catholic Church in Sweden is the sole exception, I am proposing to change its title to match the other articles in Category:Roman Catholic Church by country.  
Please express your opinion at Talk:Catholic Church in Sweden.
--Richard 07:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are far too many editors in the Wikipedia who have an ideological agenda to make all references to "Catholic" be "Roman Catholic".  (Related to that is the pseudo-scientific distortion to change "Church" to "-ism".)  Common sense is radically broken here. patsw 19:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've stated... I am not interested in fighting the "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic" debate here.  I simply wanted to have article titles for all countries follow a single convention.  If you wish to change that convention, feel free to propose a change.  If you feel that Roman Catholicism in country X should not cover "Melkite, Maronite, Chaldean, Armenian and Syrian Eastern Rites" in country X then start a new article on the subject.  --Richard 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move: [[Catholic Church in Sweden]] => [[Roman Catholicism in Sweden]] 

message: The foot notes section is messed up. I would fix it if I knew how. :/  Mashtato 16:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Mashtato, for drawing attention to this.  It was my mistake.  I apologize.  Lima 16:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes Section 

message: The section named "Inquisition" has the text "the Inquisition, were aimed at securing religious and doctrinal unity within Christianity through conversion, and sometimes persecution, of alleged heretics." 
However, conversion I take to mean "conversion to the Catholic faith, from some other faith", and a "heretic" in these cases refers to "a person belonging to the Catholic faith, but who has heretical views". This would mean that the sentence in the article states that it aimed at "conversion to the catholic faith... of Catholics.", which does not seem possible. Perhaps aimed at "repentance and retraction of heretical views" would be a more accurate aim? DanielDemaret 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting question you raise, DanielDemaret.  But actually, a convert can refer to a heretic who "returns" to the true catholic faith.  It does not require that the convert be of another faith.  Therefore, a convert may be an infidel, a (catholic) heretic, or a schismatic.  Check out this entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia for more details.  --Anietor 22:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law defines heresy as "the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith".  Being a Catholic is not part of that definition; being a Christian is.  More important, changing one's religion is not the original and basic meaning of "conversion": "Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; And sinners shall be converted unto thee" (Ps 51:13 - KJV); "My brethren, if any among you err from the truth, and one convert him ..." (Jm 5:19 - KJV).  Lima 08:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would never object to an edit that helps clarify a point, as long as it is accurate.  My response to your initial post, DanielDemaret,   was based on your statement that YOU thought conversion meant "from some other faith", which is not correct.  Don't take my or Lima's comments so personally.  "Conversion", the word and the act, has a rather complex meaning.  I actually agree with you that many readers may misunderstand the term as used in the article.  But it is used correctly.  One thing to do is to link the word to the religious conversion article.  I will do that.  However, that article has a few issues itself, and should be cleaned up a little.  It's not very clear...I'll try and edit that one in a bit.  --Anietor 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "conversion of heretics" ? 

message: On May 4, i did some moving around of sections, and where it seemed necessary added a brief intro. I was asked to provide a little more info on some of those moves, given how almost everyone who edits this page has a heightened sense of editorial defensiveness or a particular apologetic agenda. Basically, it seems that for most people, they want to know what the beliefs, worship, and organization of a church are, along with history and in this case, the terminology issue. Most everything else falls into one of those categories. My moves were just to clean up the table of contents, not really to delete or change much of anything. Many of the one or two line entries i did add would welcome expansion and polishing, i just hadn't had time. The two major examples: Prayer and Worship section, and Nature and Mission of the Church section. 
In Catholic prayer and worship, liturgy is distinguished from devotion and spiriutuality. There are only three things that are considered liturgy: Sunday Eucharist(Mass), the other Sacraments, and the Liturgy of the Hours. All else is devotion, private prayer, spirituality, etc. It seemed helpful to make that distinction. 
In the Church, all the sections on ministry, membership, clergy, laity, religious, worldwide distribution... all seemed to me aspects of what the church is and what its about. I just put them all under a single section header. Protoclete 17:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization of content

message: This has the caption "A map of medieval universities shows the universities established by the Catholic Church in Europe". The article on  medieval universities explains that this is not the case: some were established by students and teachers, like Bologna, others by the state, such as Oxford and cambridge, while others were founded by the Church. The article uses the map in a misleading way, to suggest that all medieval universities were established by the Church. --Duncan 07:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *snip* I agree. Feel free to edit boldly. --Meyer 17:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Church is not just composed of the priests but the laity as well. Please read section on the laity. The laity are the Church. Read also the section where the photo appears, on church and science. It talks about the contributions of Catholic lay scientists. Even the state at the time were Catholic monarchs!! Rabadur 10:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we should separate actions of lay mambers of the church through and with church, from actions taken by people who happen to be Catholic because of their location. It's misleading to suggest that anything done by a catholic is done by the Church. --Duncan 11:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest we remove map of medieval universities 

message: Add up the censuses for all the countries and you don't get 1.1 billion. (Alex71va 11:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Says who?  Lima 11:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1.1 billion Catholics?? 

message: I am going to take the last paragraph of the article and move it to a section about homosexuality and priesthood.  First of all there is no proof that most cases werre by homosexuals, second there is a difference between a pedophile and a homosexual.  Pedophiles don't necesarily choose their victims based on gender but based on age.  Plus, it sound way too POV.  I want to try to make it sound NPOV.  Cjrs 79 00:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have twice removed language in the sexual abuse section along the nature of making the abuse cases a matter of homosexuality and not of pedophilia. It is rare that I break the 1RR guideline, but I feel that this edit is extremely misleading and outright original research. Individuals do not sexually abuse minors because they are homosexuals anymore than the reason for Ted Bundy's actions being because he was heterosexual. It is terrible to link criminal activity to one's sexual orientation. The cited source does NOT do this, and it is original research to make the claim. Here is a proposed compromise. What I believe editors are trying to say is that the majority of the sexual abuse did not technically fit one common definition of "pedophilia" because many of the victims were post-pubescent. I believe the current wording and citation makes it clear that this is the case. However, adding commentary that the abuse was related to or caused by homosexuality is simply not what the source is saying (and making that connection here, without a source, is original research). What do others think? Please discuss this before reinserting the disputed language. Thanks.-Andrew c 17:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with removing an explicit reference to homosexuality.  My difficulty was with the version that from the report about the study quoted only: "It said that 22 percent of the victims were under 10. It added that 51 percent were 11 to 14 years old and 27 percent were 15 to 17 years old."  That has now been remedied.  Lima 04:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexuality and Priesthood

message: User:Lima removed the following text with an edit summary suggesting that we should not reference "one country's law".
:According to the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary, "Roman Catholic is the designation know to English law, but 'Catholic' is that is ordinary use on the continent of Europe, especially in the Latin countries; hence historians frequently contrast 'Catholic' and 'Protestant', especially in reference to the continent; and in familiar, non-controversial use, 'Catholic' is often said instead of 'Roman Catholic'".
I reverted Lima's deletion and restored the text because Lima's edit summary suggests that he may have missed the point being made here.  The purpose of citing the text is not to appeal to "English law" but simply to say that, in English legal documents, the phrase "Roman Catholic" is used but historians tend to use "Catholic" instead of "Roman Catholic" because that is the standard usage on "the continent of Europe".  
In effect, the Oxford Unabridged is saying that the "Roman Catholic" vs. "Catholic" argument is uniquely English because the Anglican Church (which has special legal status in the UK) claims the term "Catholic" and insists on styling the Church of Rome as "Roman Catholic" whereas this dispute does not exist on the continent where Christians are either "Catholic" or "Protestant" and there is no "third option".  If the quoted text needs clarification, we should add that clarification but, IMHO, the text is very germane to the topic of nomenclature.
:The argument above completely disregards the existence of the Orthodox Church, which considers itself the Catholic Church--and it does have parishes on the continent. So there is in fact a "third option." MishaPan 00:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have presumed from the start that the text should read "... is the designation known to English law, but 'Catholic' is that in ordinary use on the continent of Europe ...")  "English law" seems to me (wrongly?) to mean something much more precise than what Richard calls "English legal documents" (in the sense of "legal documents in English").  To me this quotation adds nothing substantial to what is already in the article.  Even if Richard's interpretation is correct, the observation is irrelevant: it is the English-language Wikipedia that we are editing, not that in any other language.  It may be that I misunderstand it, so I leave the discussion to others.  Lima 19:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I personally doubt that the quoted text is directly from the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary. First of all, the dictionary is entitled Oxford English Dictionary; there is no Oxford Unabridged Dictionary. Secondly, I find it hard to believe that the editors of the OED haven't mastered subject-verb agreement. Finally, a Google search finds strikingly similar text from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and the 1978 Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion, but nothing out of Oxford. Gentgeen 09:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, here is it copy and pasted from the OED online (2nd ed, 1989)  ROMAN CATHOLIC is the designation known to English law; but ‘Catholic’ is that in ordinary use on the continent of Europe, especially in the Latin countries; hence historians frequently contrast ‘Catholic’ and ‘Protestant’, especially in reference to the continent; and, in familiar non-controversial use, ‘Catholic’ is often said instead of Roman Catholic.-Andrew c 13:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm very much in agreement with your argument here. One slight question, though: you state regarding (Eastern) Orthodox: "I know they are autocephalas [sic] and AMMV". What does AMMV mean? I did an internet search, and found "American Merchant Marine Veterans", "Add to Make Market Value (US customs policy)" and "Ash Meadows Milk Vetch" (!?), none of which seems to fit the context. MishaPan 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford Unabridged Dictionary : "Roman Catholic" vs. "Catholic" 

message: As far as I am concerned, these vandals should be banned from using Wikipedia.  It's not cute and it's not funny.  Maybe if the computers get banned from Wiki, someone will do something about it.  People have said, "well, they might be using a computer at a public library."  Well, if that public library gets shut out of Wiki, I guarantee you, they will have a record of who did it, and they will take the appropriate action.  My neighbor told me tha anyone on AOL is automatically banned from editing on Wiki... they had so many problems.A E Francis 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandals

message: Personally, I think this article is more written for catholics than an accurate representation of Catholic history.  Being a Christian and not a catholic myself, I find it offensive to say that the catholic Church was started by Jesus Christ and that Peter is the first Pope.
In actuality, the Roman Catholic Church was started by Constantine I, and until that time the Christian faith was largely persecuted.  Popes, Bishops, and Cardinals had no such existence until after it became a state religion formed by Constantine.  Until then, you were just a "Christian".
It would be more accurate to say that the denomination known as Catholicsm was begun during the reign of Constantine, and according to Catholic faith, Peter is understood to be the first Pope.
207.34.120.71 19:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article clearly states that "The Church traces its history...", letting the reader know that it is how the Catholic Church describes its history.  It is important to include how the Church identifies its own history and origins (just as articles on other churches would need to note).  That doesn't make it a POV article, or inaccurate.  It is important to know.  Otherwise, it would be necessary to include "according to the Church" or "the Church claims" to thousands of sentences in this, and other religous-based articles.  Researchers, readers, students, etc., reading this article will want to know about Catholic doctrine, and how the Church views its origins.  The same would be true if I wanted to learn about Lutheranism, Judaism, Islam, etc.  Informing me that Jews trace their history to 2000 BC when God entered into a covenant with Abraham is not an inaccurate representation of Jewish history.  It's what I would want to know.  I think there is an implied caveat "the following is not scientific and historically proven fact" when one reads an article about a religion.  There's no need to make it explicit, is there?  --Anietor 19:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Anietor. Encyclopedia articles are about the topic and not critiques of the topic. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree.  "The Church traces its history ..." is the appropriate terminology to use to describe an accepted belief of the Catholic Church.  "The Church claims to trace its history ..." would only be appropriate terminology if there were a question as to whether the Catholic Church believes itself to have been established by Jesus Christ, which there is not. -- Cat Whisperer 21:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, early Church scholars are agreed that bishops were present long before Constantine I. -- Cat Whisperer 21:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement in the article is factual and neutral.  All it says is that the church traces its origins to the apostolic age.  It doesn't say that others do.  (In a non-religious context, one could say that the Romans traced their history to Romulus and Mars-- also a factual statement, as it refers only to what the Romans held, not what others hold.)  It is not however factual to say that the church was started by Constantine.  The history of the creation of the episcopal structure of the church is far more nuanced than that.  Kablammo 21:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Richardshusr, I agree with your argument to a point. This article must not be a panegyric to the Roman Catholic Church nor should any article in Wikipedia be a paean to its subject. But ... in an argument ad absurdum, should the Roman Catholic article carefully counter balance every point of argument with the Protestant counter-argument, and the Protestant article were to do the same, then - logically - the two articles would be functionally equivalent. That is, argument A vs. counter argument B is equivalent to argument B vs. counter argument A.  Then to extend the argument, one could make the Catholic and Protestant articles equivalent to the Anglican article, and thence to every article in the pantheon of all religions where every article would feature nothing but all the possible arguments and counter arguments in all the combinatorial majesty known to logic. No, I think the Roman Catholic Church article should be about the Church and not a forum for opposing viewpoints, or a quest for a grand unified article of comparative religion. But that is just my argument. The official Wiki policy is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Religion and must be followed in writing a good article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with above.  Reading the article for the first time I note that statements of belief ARE delineated as such with terms like 'The chuch believes...' and 'The church maintains...' etc.  Going beyond such delineation moves into the relm of critical debate which is beyond the scope of this article.  I see no difference in how the RC church is treated in this article then any other religion is treated in their respective articles.--Lepeu1999 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Richard, the second sentence in your last post is clearly POV. The fact you disagree with how the Church traces it's origin does not mean that it is not true.  It not being proven is a far cry from simply labeling it false. Guldenat 19:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It does not imply historical fact at all.  Quite the opposite, actually.  If it were presented as historical fact, it would say the Church "originated" or "was created" or something similar.  The article's current language of "traces its origin" is not POV at all.  As stated above, the article clearly states that "The Church traces its history...", letting the reader know that it is how the Catholic Church describes its history, not how Wikipedia describes it.  Inserting weasel words like "claims" throughout the article is not only unnecessary, it is also POV and, frankly, makes for a sloppy-looking article. --Anietor 00:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Anietor. Most all Christian denominations trace their origins to Jesus and the Apostles. The current wording is hardly misleading. Majoreditor 02:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical, or a Document of faith? 

message: Reading about the $660 million settlement between the Archdiocese of LA and sex abuse victims got me thinking about the church's money.  Is there information available about the total wealth of the Catholic church?  I think those would be interesting facts to include.
:Individual dioceses and eparchies as well as some religious orders keep their own books. I do not believe that there is a consolidated balance sheet kept anywhere. TMLutas 21:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic Church finances and property holdings

message: Is there anything written about Jesus as a teenager?Just think of what positive views that it would give to our youth;where is it?
:Possibly some uncannonical works.  Nothing that would go in this article. -- SECisek 22:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the bit in Luke where he stayed behind at the Temple while his parents started the trip back to Nazareth. He was 12 at the time, but that's almost a teen. Actually, I don't think there's even anything in non-canonical texts about Jesus' teenage years. All the "fanfic" I can think of is from his childhood. These include some not-so-admirable incidents, such as striking dead other children who annoyed him. This is from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which also contains the incident of Jesus making sparrows out of clay and bringing them to life. Oddly, the sparrow incident is canonical for Muslims, since it was written into the Koran. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  teenage Jesus 

message: In the second sentence, the community is said to be founded by "Jesus Christ".  I would like to discuss changing that to "Jesus of Nazareth", as I believe that is the more universally accepted historical term.  "Christ" is more of a religious title which may not be as applicable a reference to this person to, say, a non-Christian.  And certainly that title can be introduced later and expounded upon as needed.  
I know this may be a sensitive issue, so I wanted to bring it up here, and while I thought of being bold, I will defer until there is some consensus to make this change.  Please chime in with pros and cons of this change; I have stated my (pro) opinion above  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to making the change.  It seems to me that Pope Benedict's recent book, titled Jesus of Nazareth, affirms the Catholic acceptance of that way of referring to Jesus.  The.helping.people.tick 03:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that book is indeed intended to have a historical (among others) perspective, so that title choice makes perfect sense.  And I am sure other Christians acknowledge the title too, even if "Christ" may be better suited for certain purposes. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 12:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not just "Jesus", the name of the article on him? Lima 05:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems acceptable too (as is "Jesus Christ" for that matter), although my preference would still be Jesus of Nazareth, as this is completely unambiguous.  Not that many would be confused upon implementing your suggestion, but I note that while "Jesus" does direct to the proper page, it has an  tag on it, suggesting that vanilla "Jesus" could be improved upon for that page.  But in any case, I am glad the discussion is being taken up.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 12:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead reference to Jesus: best term? 

message: The BBC report from which the controversy originated did not say - as anonymous editor 24.65.11.121 from Calgary, Canada has said in his addition to this article - that "the website Wikiscanner revealed that they (the Catholic Church) had removed information pertaining to the sexual abuse scandal from the Catholic Church wikipedia page."  It was more guarded than the Calgary editor, when it said that the website "purportedly shows that the Vatican has edited entries about Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams."  Even that is inaccurate.  All that the website found was that some anonymous editors of Wikipedia had worked from computers served by ISPs in the Vatican, just as I could see that anonymous editor 24.65.11.121 worked from a Calgary computer.  I cannot tell whether the Calgary editor is an official of the city of Calgary or of the ISP Shaw Communications, Inc.  And I certainly do not suppose that the Calgary editor did his editing on behalf of the city authorities of Calgary or of Shaw Communications.  Yet the Calgary editor wanted Wikipedia to say that it has been "revealed" that the few anonymous edits of Wikipedia from computers in the Vatican (perhaps in the Domus Sanctae Marthae, which is reserved to cardinals and other officials during conclaves - and is then cut off from contact with the outer world whether by Internet, telephone, radio or whatever - but normally receives visitors from many places and many churches) were done by "the Catholic Church"!  Lima 04:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia Editing Controversy" 

message: Is the phrase "in view of the sensibilities of other Christians" an unencyclopedic euphemism for something? A.Z. 18:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sensibilities of other Christians 

message: Well I don't know if anyone here happens to be interested in the topic but the recent Zeitgeist Movie is fairly rabidly anti-catholic for the first third of the movie.  There has been a lot of discussion about the movie on the blogosphere, and a lot of authors have really come out debunking the Horus=Jesus thing.  Anyway, I started the article and am rapidly wishing I hadn't as there seem to be interesting points of view coming out of the woodwork - folks quite interested in reptillian satanists theories and all sorts of things. So I think that article could use a subject matter expert.  I was contemplating adding a link here as well.  Sandwich Eater 18:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  Excuse me, but (1) I do not harbor anti-catholic views, (2) It's innappropriate of you to assert that I do, (3) I am not clear on what your issue is with stating what the conspiracy theories are or addressing them elsewhere.  Sandwich Eater 19:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes Sandwich, I did not detect anything anti catholic in your post at all.  However, I'm not sure that a movie be linked on this page, otherwise we'd have to link other movies concerning Catholicism like *sigh* The Da Vinci Code, which an alarming amount of people take as factual. Guldenat 19:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zeitgeist Movie

message: May I suggest to El C that it would be better to freeze the article in a form other than that given it by a recent anonymous contributor whose first language seems not to be English ("has been of forefront"; "Cathlic (sic, and without article) church also extablished (sic) hospitals").  Lima 04:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now that the page was only semi-protected.  It wasn't really frozen.  Lima 11:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 September 2007 protection 

message: It seems to me like this article places too much emphasis on Vatican II, based on that as a council it gets much more attention then virtually all the other councils combined.  To me this is mentioned explicitly because, relatively speaking, it is still more or less a council of our time.  However, historically their were many other councils that were much more important, namely the First Council of Nicea and the Council of Trent.  "The Catholic Church undertook one of the most comprehensive reforms in its history during and immediately after the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)" lacks citation, and seems to be the opinion of the author. Personally, I move that the information regarding Vatican II be slimmed down, especially since it has it's own Wiki Page. Guldenat 22:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can definitely agree with you, Guldenat, and I would go further to suggest adding more information on the other Councils, because they were so important.  A minor slim down of Vatican II, with a redirect to the Vatican II page, I think, would be just fine for this article.  However, I would hesitate to remove too much information, as I think it would be better to balance this particular article by adding more information than subtracting it. Stanselmdoc 02:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vatican II 

message: I think this whole page needs a major rework to bring it closer to a NPOV. From my brief study of the page, it seems to be full of overly Catholic-sympathetic language, especially in the "Beliefs" section. For example: "It is in cases in which sexual expression is sought outside sacramental marriage, or in which the procreative function of sexual expression within marriage is deliberately frustrated, that the Catholic Church expresses her grave moral concern." could only have been written by a Catholic. I lack the necessary expertise to addess this issue myself, but addressed it must be.
Static Sleepstorm 12:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Editor 65.141.251.61 has made some changes which I have reverted several times.  The proposed edit, while it has some merit, also has serious problems.  A few:
*The definition of who is a Catholic is not supported and, it seems to me, idiosyncratic.
*The citations go to foreign-language (Polish?) pages; note that this is an English WP page, and citations are best when also English-language.
*The edit is POV, as seen in 65.141.251.61's charges of statistics-manipulation.
For these reasons, I hope we can discuss the proposed edit here rather than continue reverting each other.  Thanks!  The.helping.people.tick 18:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is a Catholic? 

message: "Catholicism spread among the Germanic peoples (initially in competition with Arianism); the Vikings; the Poles, Croats, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Finns and Estonians." 
Exactly these nations and no more? Squash Racket 13:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not.  But it did spread among these.  Add more if you like.  Lima 15:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My proposal would be something like: 'Catholicism spread all over Europe'. Squash Racket 16:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to Bulgaria etc.  (The northern peoples mentioned became Christian after 1054.)  Lima 16:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think mentioning nations' names is less exact than that. And you can also refer to parts of Europe the religion didn't spread into. You could say: 'except for the Southeastern part of the Continent'. A good map would help. Squash Racket 16:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholicism in medieval period 

message: This article lacks enough in-line citations to pass a GA, let alone qualify as "A class".  I have demoted it to "B" which is more realistic. "A" suggests that it is approaching FA. If this were nominated, it would be quick failed in a heartbeat.  More citations will improve this article. -- SECisek 16:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Class

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 7, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?:  There are a multitude of Manual of Style problems with this article, and much of the prose is very poorly written. Repetition of the same facts in multiple sections, Blockquotes of less than four lines, single-sentence paragraphs, sections that need integrating with other sections (Example:Modernity and Vatican 2), and sections that go into excessive detail (Salvation) are all present. Also, many sections lack the appropriate mainarticle or see also templates. These don't even begin to deal with the extensive grammar and minor style issues needing to be reviewed.
:2. Factually accurate?:  This is a problematic area for the article. Remember, the bare minimum of inline citations is one at the end of each paragraph and for quotations. The only exception to this rule is the introduction, as lead sections often speak in generalities. For true GA status, a direct citation to any statement likely to be challenged (see WP:V) is desirable. I would normally list all the sections needing inline citations, but there are so many here it would be ridiculous. Especially of note are the  tags in Inquisition and Sexuality, as the presence of these is a quick-fail criteria.
:3. Broad in coverage?:  Covers all points.
:4. Neutral point of view?:  I'm not going to go into all of the individual phrases that violate the fair treatment side of NPOV, but they are many. More importantly, several sections fail to honestly and fairly address all significant points of view. The Inquisition section is utterly shameful in glossing over the brutal role of the Church in that episode in history. Both the Modernity and Church doctrine and science read like defenses of the Church, as the former leaves out a significant criticism of the Church (that it fails to fulfill the needs of a modern humanity with modern morals).
:5. Article stability?  No recent or on-going conflicts between good-faith contributors.
:6. Images?:  A few minor issues here.  The CouncilofClermont.jpg has no author information. Image:Johnvianney.jpg and Image:Map of Medieval Universities.JPG have deprecated public domain tags, which need replacing. Image:Sainte Monique.jpg has no source info, which is still required even if the image is in the public domain. While the following are not failing GA criteria, the images need work per WP:MoS#Images. Remember that sandwiching text between images on both sides is discouraged, and that the article has plenty of space for the images to be more spread out in general. Also, having a lead image situated to the right is desirable.
Closing comments: Because this article meets one or more the quick-fail criteria and the major improvements needed would require more than the maximum hold period of a week to complete, I have failed it without a hold period.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment.  Thank you for your work so far. 
— VanTucky Talk 23:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination