Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 44

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What is the point of us spending days and weeks discussing making this page NPOV when Nancy just takes and break and then comes back and adds all the POV material back in again, with some more as well for good measure?

It's all there, all the ridiculously one-sided, apolgetic stuff on African colonisation, Franco, the Reichskonkordat, all the peacocky language on the 'challenges' the Church faces in converting people and weaselly words on the Pope and science, all the things rejected as POV on the talk page and carefully trimmed away which most of us I think hoped - and some maybe even prayed - we'd seen the last of.

I've come close recently to walking away from this page like so many editors exasperated by Nancy's blatant pro-Catholic POV-pushing. If this behaviour doesn't earn her some kind of ban from the arbitration committee I may well do, otherwise I'm wasting my time in trying to achieve NPOV here. Haldraper (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have asked you to identify what is POV in the section above this one. I made the sentences match the references, something you and Richard did not do when you eliminated stuff and reworded sections. I kept your rewords and just added to them to help them match the refs. Please stop jumping to conclusions, that is a violation of WP:assume good faith. I added a concluding section based on talk page discussions on this page and the new research I did the other day where it revealed other encyclopedias treatments of their Catholic Church articles. These also concluded with discussions about the current pope. I am not being POV by following the example of other tertiary sources which are strong indications of scholarly consensus. NancyHeise ^talk 18:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, please identify the POV in Catholic institutions. It has been discussed that the section needs to be expanded and I will be adding even more text to expand the discussion of Catholic education and missions per the example of other tertiary sources which provide us with an indication of how much is due weight. Right now, we have seriously understated the importance of these items in comparison with their treatment in other tertiary sources and we need another paragraph or two to cover them. I don't think you can contest the neutrality of basic facts and that is what you are doing here. NancyHeise ^talk 18:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy do you believe in Africa for example, the arrival of Catholic Belgium, and Leopold II of Belgium in the Congo, was unalloyed good news for the inhabitants. A chance for them to get some education? ho, and er, hum. Sayerslle (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, Sayerslle, here's the article text "By the close of the 19th century, European powers had managed to gain control of most of the African interior.[363] The new rulers introduced cash-based economies which created an enormous demand for literacy and a western education—a demand which for most Africans could only be satisfied by Christian missionaries.[363] Catholic missionaries followed colonial governments into Africa, and built schools, hospitals, monasteries and churches.[363]" It is referenced to The Church in Africa 1450-1950 by Adrian Hastings 2004 Oxford University Press. Please remember that what secular rulers do is not the same as what the Church does. The European powers that "gained control" were not the most saintly of people at times but that is not part of the history of this organization. The establishment of churches, schools, missions and hospitals in Africa by the Church is relevant. If you would like to add information that is Church-related from reliable sources, you are free to offer it up. I suggest having a look at The Cambridge History of Africa which is on googlebooks here [1]. NancyHeise ^talk 19:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on NancyHeise! That's clearly a POV. You know the controversy - some saw missionaries as an unalloyed force for good who were saving the souls of savages whilst others saw them as mere tools of colonialism. Both could probably provide endless evidence for their respective positions. Neutrality requires that either both POVs are mentioned or that we just have a bland neutral statement. --Tediouspedant (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a single editor on this page with no special powers. I provided article text sourced to an Oxford University Press source. I don't know what else to add. If you are such an expert, please add what you think I have missed. I offered a googlebooks source that meets

WP:RS above if you or the other guy dont have access to sources. I am trying to help. Here's the link again to the Cambridge University Press's The Cambridge History of Africa [[2]. I invite your help with research but honestly, I don't like to be bashed over the head for adding highly sourced material. If you have a source that disputes my additions, I'd sure like to see them. NancyHeise ^talk

19:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What's POV? OK, here goes. Although I don't really know why I'm bothering because from your last comment you're fully determined to add yet more pro-Catholic POV, never mind acknowledge the reams you've just re-inserted.

Apart from the pro-Franco apologetics, we've been through all this stuff and rejected it as POV. I repeat: what was the point if you just sit it out and then revert those changes to NPOV en masse to get the Catholic POV you want/seem to think your

ownership entitles you to? Haldraper (talk

) 18:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

1)Secularism has seen a steady rise in Europe, yet the Catholic presence there remains strong. This sentence is cited to CARA of Georgetown University, which is the same one that is used by all major newspapers around the world for reliable statistical information about the Church and its institutions. According to this source, the Catholic presence in Europe remains strong because it has a greater number of Catholic institutions, and personnel there than anywhere else in the world. A disproportionaltely large number of priests reside in Europe compared to other countries, there are a larger number of Catholic universities and hospitals as well perhaps this is because Europe has a much older Catholic history than other countries but this does constitute a "Catholic presence". Do you have a source that disagrees or offers another point of view? I searched but could not find any.

2)Because of what it cites as a greater need, it also operates a greater number of Catholic schools...here The same source, CARA says that in Africa, schools outnumber parishes by three to one because the Church considers there is a greater need for educational institutions there. How is this POV? Sometimes facts are just facts Haldraper.

3)Challenges faced include suppression of non-Islamic religious practices by Muslims in Sudan...oppression in communist countries like North Korea and China...reaching indigenous populations where over 715 different languages are spoken This is exactly what the source says - same source used by all major newspapers - CARA. Do you have a source that disputes this? When is a fact considered a fact by you? When it is provides a negative point of view?

4)The new rulers introduced cash-based economies which created an enormous demand for literacy and a western education—a demand which for most Africans could only be satisfied by Christian missionaries According to the cited Oxford University Press source this sentenced is refd to, this is because the only people willing to provide education to Africans were Christian missionaries - not secular governments or other religious faiths.

5)the hierarchy of the Church subsequently supported the rebel Nationalist forces led by Francisco Franco and explained this position in a common letter that cited the violence and persecution directed against the Church by the Republicans Again, that's just what the source says. It tells Reader what the Church did and why which is the purpose of this article. The common letter is mentioned in all detailed histories of this event with regards to the Church, I am following their lead.

6)After enduring persecution and some violence against Church institutions and some Catholics, the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany signed the Reichskonkordat (July 1933) which guaranteed the Church some protections and rights in exchange for dissolution of the Catholic political party That is what the ref says. Telling Reader that the Church signed a concordat with Germany has been disputed on this page as being POV. In response to those accusations, I have provided the context required by FAC criteria. Mentioning dissolution of the Catholic Party is not a pro-Catholic POV since that party was part of Hitler's political opposition.

As in ages past, the pope remains an international leader... This sentence is a fact.

WP:cite

does not require us to source facts that are indisputable. Do you know of anyone who disputes that the pope is an international leader of a sovereign nation who sits on the United Nations?

In contrast with periods of religious and scientific intolerance in the past, today's Church seeks dialogue like this with other faiths and Christian denominations. This sentence, like the one above is a fact supported by documented evidence of meeting between the Pope and numerous leaders of other faiths and Christian denominations. The Archbishop of Canturbury Rowan Williams just met with him not too long ago. I can add a citation to this sentence if you like. Not sure I can understand why you are so upset about it though. NancyHeise ^talk 19:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

+ Haldraper has accused me of POV pushing because I added facts about Africa in the Catholic institutions section and the industrial age that discuss the introduction and presence of Catholic education in that country. Our article never tells Reader about the many persecutions against Catholics and other Christians by Muslims in that country. It never tells Reader about the child sacrifice and polygamy that is commonly practiced there by paganists. There is no mention of female genital destruction and other practices that the Church has consistently fought against. I have not introduced these relevant items into the article but I think the POV accusers do not realize that there is a lot of stuff we could introduce that would help Reader have a better understanding of Catholicism in Africa. Omission of these relevant items makes me think that the article slants toward an anti-Catholic POV. NancyHeise ^talk 19:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

CARA? Enough said.

It's the assumptions underlying your cheerleading that drive the pro-Catholic POV: the Church faces 'challenges' in reaching people because of the languages they speak? How inconsiderate of them! Maybe they're happy as they are and don't want to be 'reached' by the Catholic Church. The need for European education in Africa is also just assumed ('the white man's burden'), good job the Catholic Church was there to fill the gap! Oppression of Catholics/unjust expulsion of missionaries in North Korea and China or understandable resistance to foreign interference after centuries of colonialism? I'm not arguing either side, just that coming down on the former as you do is POV.

We spent weeks discussing the multiple issues surrounding the Reichskonkordat, the motives of the Catholic Centre party in promoting it etc., all now binned in the interests of yet more pro-Catholic martyrology.

I dispute the Vatican is a state like others, it's only existed since the 1929 Lateran Treaty between the Pope and Mussolini's Italian fascist regime so yes I do think describing Benedict XVI as an international rather than religious leader is debateable to say the least. Haldraper (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper, if you provided sources to support your assertions it would be helpful. Right now, you are upset simply because I added information to make sentences match the sources and meet an important FAC criteria (context). Your personal opinions about the pope not being an international leader (the Vatican is a sovereign, internationally recognized state that is part of the United Nations. NancyHeise ^talk 20:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

er, I don't need to 'provide sources' to show your POV. Whether your text matches your sources is irrelevant as to whether it's NPOV given most of it is straight from the Church: Bokenkotter, CARA etc. Haldraper (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide me with a link to a scholarly review that says these are not top sources? I have defended the use of Bokenkotter quite successfully on this page due to the fact that his book is the most oft used in university (both secular and religious) classrooms as a text on Church history. It is considered so mainstream that it has been used for three decades in classrooms and had three reprintings. CARA is the source used by all major newspapers for current and reliable facts on the Catholic Church's institutions. NancyHeise ^talk 21:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper. I am simply flabbergasted by the sentences you claim are somehow "pro-Church POV". These are just neutral sentences. You are making the fundamental error of failing to assume good faith of other editors, ands so, instead of looking at the edits and sentences on their individual merits, you seem to be saying "personality X has made these edits. Personality X is a POV-pusher in my opinion. Ergo the edits are POV." This is not the way to work productively on any article. I really think that my suggestion of entering a formal mediation on remaining matters in dispute may be the best way forward, and help us focus on the references and sources rather than personalities.

Nancy. As I've said to others, it is probably best that we introduce all significant changes proposed for the text here on this page so that we can get agreement before insertion. That can help lower the temperature. Xandar 23:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with Haldraper's anti-Franco bias in favour of nun killers beholden to Stalin (I gathered in Trotskyite thought the SU were state capitalist traitors to the "class struggle" anyway?). Regardless, its probably POV to call Caudillo a "rebel". Against what did he rebel? When viewed in the general context of the history of Spain; the Republic's masonic government, Marxist internationalists were the real innovators, the importers of alien creeds, rebels against Eternal Spain. All Franco and the military did was continue the Reconquista, stepping in to liberate Church and country from peresection by her most infamous enemies, restoring a lasting peace, law and order. The truth may sting. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Good heavens, is the venerable "nun-killer" meme still around after all these years? This page is nothing if not educational! Bishonen | talk 02:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC).

6,832 Spanish Catholics, including priests, nuns and laity were murdered for their religion by actors loyal to the NKVD and beholden to foreign colonial ideologies imported for neo-imperialist aims (primarily Marxism and Freemasonry). Intended to destroy Spain for being Catholic and attack the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ. Some verifiable examples of this include—featuring in the "Catholic Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War" book, it details how republicans first raped a small group of nuns, bound and tied their feet to the tails of horses, then set their hair on fire, sending the horses off on a gallop.

Another details how a priest was shot in the skull, stripped and hung up in a butcher's window while dead, from a metal hook with the sign "fresh meat" under his corpse. Some "meme". Go to the Holocaust page and see how far mocking genocide minimalisation will get there. I don't find rape and murder a "joke" or a "meme". That Haldraper is disgruntled about Franco couragously standing up, to put a stop to the acts of these hell beasts by thoroughly vaquishing them is one thing. That he has the gall to try and make-out that mentioning the systematic mass murder of thousands of Catholics by those reds, on an article about the Church, is "pro Catholic POV" is simply contemptable and far beyond the pale. Yorkshirian (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, sorry if your flabber was gasted but NPOV means you can't tell from which viewpoint the person writing the text is coming. Can you honestly say any of the folllowing fit that description?

"Challenges faced include suppression of non-Islamic religious practices by Muslims in Sudan...oppression in communist countries like North Korea and China...reaching indigenous populations where over 715 different languages are spoken"

• I wouldn't say the use of the words "suppression" or "oppression" are POV, if supported by the majority of sources. Oppression in Communist countries is pretty much universally recognised. (Xandar)

It's not by a Muslim, a member of the Chinese Commmunist Party or an adherent of an indigeneous religion is it?

"The new rulers introduced cash-based economies which created an enormous demand for literacy and a western education—a demand which for most Africans could only be satisfied by Christian missionaries"

African nationalist?

The sentence is factual, education was too expensive for colonial governments to undertake on a mass basis. This was a sentence I was okay with removing, though, because it doesn't add much. (Xandar)

the hierarchy of the Church subsequently supported the rebel Nationalist forces led by Francisco Franco and explained this position in a common letter that cited the violence and persecution directed against the Church by the Republicans

supporter of the Spanish Republic?

• A supporter of the Republic would have to accept that this is what happened. The sentence even goes so far as to say that the Church "explained its position..." as, etc. I can't see any quarrel with this on POV lines. The Spanish Church were driven into the arms of Franco by the stupid brutality of the "republicans". I see this as similar to Britain making common cause with Stalin's Russia in 1941. Stalin was a mass murderer, but the enemy of my enemy becomes my friend. (Xandar)

"After enduring persecution and some violence against Church institutions and some Catholics, the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany signed the Reichskonkordat (July 1933) which guaranteed the Church some protections and rights in exchange for dissolution of the Catholic political party"

Academic who thinks the Reichskonkordat was the result of a dirty political deal between the Zentrumspartei and Nazis?

• But formerly we mentioned some of the other Concordats which were nothing to do with Nazi government, setting the German concordat in context. Mentioning the German concordat alone, produces an anti-Church POV - namely implying that the church somehow allied itself with Nazi Germany in particular. And since very few readers will know what a concordat was, this needs a brief explanation if the subject is to be raised at all. With those provisos the text is balanced. As for your theoretical academic, we would have to see what his views were, how he backs them, and how widely that view is supported. (Xandar)

"As in ages past, the pope remains an international leader... "

• Statement of fact. What better wording is there? (Xandar)

The Italian opponents of the Lateran treaty?

"In contrast with periods of religious and scientific intolerance in the past, today's Church seeks dialogue like this with other faiths and Christian denominations."

Richard Dawkins?

• I'm not sure what Dawkins has to say on this matter, but there is no doubt that the CC is constantly (some would say too often) in dialogue with every major faith. In fact again the sentence presents a negative viewpoint, since it repeats the legend of Church "scientific intolerance", which (apart from Galileo) is actually far from the truth. Xandar 02:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, it's nice to see that guardian of NPOV Yorkshirian is back with "the Republic's masonic government, Marxist internationalists were the real innovators, the importers of alien creeds, rebels against Eternal Spain". Perhaps he could point out where I have said "that mentioning the systematic mass murder of thousands of Catholics by those reds, on an article about the Church, is "pro Catholic POV"" as opposed to arguing against the claim that it was the sole reason the Church lined up with Franco? Haldraper (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought Christianity was an alien creed anyway. I mean Jesus and Paul and Peter werent native Iberians. Its Hebraic in origin, Yorkshirian. In fact in Antony Beevor's book on Spain he says the Republican violence was never a policy and tended to flare up , and that the systematic use of violence was a Catholic, I mean Francoist National Catholic, policy. Sayerslle (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sayerslle, as you try to argue it's not a black and white story, evil was done by both sides as always happens in a violent confrontation. Franco's forces also killed some priests, Basques, because they were on the opposite side[3]. Chadwick, who is/was the source for the assertions on this talk and article page clearly left his historians hat on the peg when he wrote that in a book targetted at the pop christian market rather than his peers. As for Africa and the colonial period, I think the most recent example of this blending with the good and the bad is Rwanda where the White Fathers cultivated the Hamitic theory of race origins[4] that stoked the flames of ethnic division. There is at least two Catholic priests serving life sentences (UN sanctioned courts) for genocide related crimes[5][6] along with nuns sentenced for burning people alive[7][8]. The numbers involved in Rwanda exceed by a large amount those exterminated under Franco's regime. There was of course noble and brave Catholic people who did stand up for the good. Taam (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Chadwick, I looked him up , because he seemed to be writing some kind of novel, and he is a 'clergyman-scholar' - some of these writers, it would be like describing the famine in the ukraine in Stalins time, citing 'Pravda' for the details, they are so biased. I didn't know about the Rwanda priests, its scarcely believable. In Spain in the 30s my point was to get some balance in the text, context. I got a book on Spain out of the library today , by Antony Beevor, and hhere, p.96, ; " Cardinal Goma stated that 'Jews and Masons poisoned the national soul with absurd doctrines'..its hierarchy rallied to the cause of the right and prominent churchmen were seen giving the fascist salute' All this is in 1936, very shortly after the rebellion. I just dont believe Xandars presentation. Like you said, its not all priests, ' a few brave priests put their lives at risk by criticizing nationalist atrocities,' but 'the majority of the clergy in nationalist areas revelled in their new found power'. Sayerslle (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sayerslle, I have added some links above. Chadwick would normally be regarded as a reliable source when citing his scholarly works. The book in question is one step above a coffee table book and it crossed my mind when seeing the above passage that maybe it wasn't even Chadwick who wrote it. This is not unknown, I can think of at least one very famous Catholic writer who, according to someone who should know, became effectively a brand name for other peoples writing. I have Beevors book as well as the Hugh Thomas book that was highly regarded when it came out in the early sixties. Both have been updated, in the case of Beevor I think he now covers new material that surfaced from Soviet archives post 1989. Taam (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the links, .depressing..I didn't realise Rwanda, was under Belgian control too once..As for Chadwick surely he would not have allowed a book to be published in his name if he hadn't written it..I looked at the edition of the Beevor/Spain book I got out and I'm relieved it is the 2006 revised edition of the 1982 edition. I'm going to start reading it properly tomorrow, not just dipping in. I really feel that 'by their fruits you shall know them' and its not good enough to say , well there are always some priests you can name who were fascists, but it tells us nothing about the Church..something went badly wrong in the Church , anti-communard in France, anti-semitic, anti-Dreyfus, anti-democratic they can't escape the history that paved the way for the tragedy of mid 20th century.Sayerslle (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think people may get the wrong impression about catholic scholarship and how the Church has engaged with the world since the latter part of the 20th century by reading these talk pages, and indeed the article itself. You quite rightly raise terrible faults that only became recognized after the disasters such as the holocaust. The Second Vatican Council produced many notable documents that took account of these events, lowered the barricades and opened the Church up to dialogue with the world. JP2 in particular constantly apologized for the wrongs of the past in a spirit of humility, a purification of memory by repentance. What we have here is the old approach with the "Church" denying the obvious failures of its human dimension: arrogance, conceit, pride, that is always characteristic of a certain element of control freaks who are attracted to the Church because of its hierarchical structure. The political version of it is fascism or the other varieties of totalitarian government. The danger to the world is the ideologue, believer or non-believer, who thinks they have a monopoly on Truth. Flying passenger jets into buildings, Rwanda, the Holocaust, exterminating whole chunks of a population to satisfy the grand social planning of a Stalin are all manifestations. You quote scriptures: "you shall know them by their fruits" but the question is has the Church turned back the clock or is it only a reflection of the editors present here, with notable exceptions. I think it's the latter. Taam (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, stop it now. Your fellow editors aren't fascists, they're people who disagree. Calling each other fascists is disruptive. This page is to discuss edits to the article. No more ad hominems, no personal observations about Franco, Hitler, Trotsky, or Pol Pot. Just sources and editing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's about the what I think is the misrepresentation of catholic scholarship by selective use of sources that gives the impression that the modern church is fascist leaning, anti-democratic, by excusing the excesses of Franco's regime and blaming everything on the "other side". That ain't so as far as I know but is a reflection of the editorial choices of some contributors. I was trying to point out to Sayerslle that the problem is not Catholic fascism, something that appears to trouble him, but rather a phenomena that crops up outside of religion - maybe I didn't express it well. Whatever I may think about the editors in question I didn't accuse them of fascism above, please also remember there are indeed people in Europe who don't think of fascism as a pejorative word, indeed they proclaim it. I don't know what other editors political affiliations are - it's about sourcing. PS I was never able to make successful edits to this article even when sourced from Catholic scholars because of the reasons currently highlighted at Arbcom. Taam (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"I didn't accuse them of fascism above" Okay, my mistake. Sorry I misunderstood you. "Please also remember there are indeed people in Europe who don't think of fascism as a pejorative..." I don't care. If someone persistently disrupts the talk page, it will be necessary to suspend his editing rights. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom Harrison, you wrote above Your fellow editors aren't fascists... But Yorkshirian wrote, .." he is disgruntled about Franco courageously standing up to put a stop to the acts of those hell beasts by thoroughly vanquishing them.." You have to read with an open mind..deciding you are not dealing with people who admire a fascist dictator, full stop, is disruptive because it means you can't be reading carefully what people are writing. I admire Simone Weil, I have political opinions, we all have political affilitations of some kind,it just seems to me writing your fellow editors are not fascists.. is dogmatism. Sayerslle (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper, your solution to the POV you think exists is to eliminate all of the information all together. That's not a solution. One of the problems faced by the Catholic Church in Muslim countries is suppression of "non-Islamic religious practices". I'm just wondering how would you reword that bit of information to make it more neutral? NancyHeise ^talk 19:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If every atrocity committed against a Catholic is to be documented in detail then presumably, in the interest of neutrality, we should be documenting every atrocity committed by the Spanish Inquisition against non-believers. I think that it is unnecessarily inflammatory to do either. NPOV means you can't tell from which viewpoint the person writing the text is coming. NPOV has not been achieved here. --Tediouspedant (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We do not document every atrocity committed against Catholics - or we would need another hundred pages. Significant events like the Spanish massacres do need mention, however. Xandar 01:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The section "Catholic Institutions" is trying to tell Reader facts about Catholic Institutions. One of the problems faced by the Catholic Church in Muslim countries is suppression of "non-Islamic religious practices". Are you suggesting that we can't tell Reader that Catholic institutions in Muslim countries are suppressed? How is that in violation of POV? How is that not just a fact? Are there any Catholic universities or orphanages in Saudi Arabia? NancyHeise ^talk 21:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sayersle wrote "well there are always some priests you can name who were fascists, but it tells us nothing about the Church..something went badly wrong in the Church , anti-communard in France, anti-semitic, anti-Dreyfus, anti-democratic they can't escape the history that paved the way for the tragedy of mid 20th century."

It's interesting that the leftists systematically massacre nearly seven thousand priests, monks and nuns, who were teaching, tending to their churches and nursing the sick - and the Church is to blame? Amazing. No doubt the people Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin killed were all to blame as well - for not seeing how progressive this process was? The simple fact is that if we're going to judge a philosophy by the behaviour of its followers, the "rationalists" and atheists have a body count that exceeds that of Catholics and Christians a dozen times over. So lets stop with the Black legend stuff, and concentrate on the reliable balanced sources. Xandar 01:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The quote about it being Nationalist violence that had a systematic aspect, and Rebublican violence 'flaring up' tendency is from Antony Beeors book on Spain, that is a reliable, balanced source as far as I know. It is abig book , but just dipping in, I see " In July 1936 the Catholic pressa abroad sprang to the support of the Nationalist uprising and castigated the anti-clericalism of the republic. The most sensational accusations , the rapes of nuns, a similar fabrication dating back to the Middle Ages when it was used to justify the slaughter of Jews. Two unsubstantiated incidents became the basis for a general campaign of astonishing virulence..The Bishop of Pamplona called the war 'the loftiest crusade that the centuries have evre seen...Leaflets with photo-montages of Christ flanked by General Mola and Franco were issued to Natinalist troops.." This is in Beevors books, the identity ofChurch with fascist cause is hardly controversial, but I will keep looking for info. You seem astonished that the Church might be judged by its actions, or the actions of its bishops, but 'by their fruits you shall know them". Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao are all execrated by everyone except a ver few, or some old nostalgic people in Russisa I believe- the language you use"No doubt the people Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin killed were all to blame as well..", unhinged talk really.. Its like if I missed the New York Giants versus the Dallas Cowboys, and after the game , was told I could read 2 versions of the game .1 - written by the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders, or 2 - written by Phil Simms, and Troy Aikman - I know which version I'd rather read. And that is all I am saying. I mean we have the cheerleader version, I'm praying over time editors with sufficient knowledge and integrity and moral seriousness will move toward the Simms-Aikman version. You are very very biased, your calls for balnce, and reliable sources are breathtaking , - your pal Nancy used a source above in the debate, and hid its real meaning by using it so selectively it became a lie. Mote - log - its in the gospels you never read. Sayerslle (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Beevors, like a lot of the English liberal-left, have a romanticised sympathy for the Spanish Republican cause that leads them to make excuses for it. Other sources are fairly clear that the killing of so many priests, monks and nuns was, and had to be, a pretty organised process. See Payne. "During the first months of the fighting most of the deaths did not come from combat on the battlefield but from political executions in the rear--the "Red" and "White" terrors. In some cases the murder of political opponents began more or less spontaneously, but from the very beginning there was always a certain degree of organization, and nearly all the killings after the first few days were carried out by organized groups." Xandar 01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A strong point of contention, which I would bring up is the incorrect and Orwellian use of the term "fascist" by Sayerslle. Francisco Franco is not considered a fascist by any serious scholar of the era. He was a

Latin Conservative

, a general in the Spanish Army, who during the Spanish Crusade in defence of his country and the Catholic religion, became the head of state and regent of the nominally restored kingdom of Spain. The only place I have seen him called a "fascist" is in the polemic propaganda of Marx-Trotsky sympathisers (coincidentally, Sayerslle also claims to have once been in the SWP on his page). Marx-Trotsky themselves were spurred on to formulated their systems, primarily through an unceasing hatred of Jesus Christ, His Church and Europe in general; their intellectual claims are unreliable for this article.

Fortunetly for Christians, Benito Mussolini despite being skeptic and atheist, left the Church alone. The fascists in Italy didn't carry out systems of mass murder against people for being Christians, unlike Soviet Union controlled areas (Hungary, Poland, in addition to Spain). So there is nothing we can mention in the article, you seem to consider it a "fault" that Mussolini didn't persecute the Church? As for linking the anti-Jewish sentiment of the Third Reich to the Church, this is dishonest. We must consider (1) many NSDAP were members of the

rosicrucian-masonic Thule Society. (2) Intellectually a radical, leftist, non-Catholic, anti-Jewish intellectual lineage developed in Germany, derived from Bruno Bauer, Wilhelm Marr, Richard Wagner, etc. As well as a popular reaction to extremists like Kurt Eisner and Rosa Luxemburg who tried to overthrow the state. That mostly racial German-Jewish conflict, is on a very different basis to the theological Catholicism-vs-Rabbinic Judaism conflict of the Middle Ages. The collective guilt strategy is completely impotent against any true son of the Church btw. - Yorkshirian (talk

) 21:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful not to personalize this. Tom Harrison Talk 21:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's close this section if we can. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added information to our World War II paragraph that includes the JPII papal apology and a link to the "We Remember, Reflections on the Shoah" page. I know that this section had been trimmed but I would like to look at this again due to the historical importance of the popes apology regarding relations between Catholics and Jews. I noticed that the tertiary sources mention JPII's efforts in this area and I think our article has a huge hole in it in this regard. Please take a look at what I added, perhaps it can be shortened a bit or some of it placed in a note but I think its very important to have it in the article. Let me know what you think. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 20:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, given that the consensus was to remove this text, can you please justify its addition on the talk page rather than just insert it? You asked me earlier to supply an instance where you have inserted text into the article against consensus - this is one very obvious example. Consensus was very recently that this should be removed. Karanacs (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As with every other section, Nancy has ignored consensus and gone in feet first with her POV-pushing. Hence the page protection. Haldraper (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that I was not part of that very tiny consensus to eliminate major points of Catholic history that had been agreed by many past consensus' of many more editors. After reviewing the tertiary sources in the library and noticing that they all included much information about John Paul II's activities, including his historic mending of relations with the Jewish people, and especially since it was a FAC comment by Taam, I felt it would be more accurate and NPOV to include mention of this event since it acknowledged church guilt for the very thing that the previous sentence just says is being debated. I think that we should consider mediation on the World War II paragraph and call together the past editors of this page to participate. NancyHeise ^talk 20:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, consensus can - and often does - change. Please do not begin again the tired - and repeatedly refuted - meme that FAC discussions established a permanently binding consensus. This was discussed recently. A new consensus was reached on what the text should be. Given that fact, it is most appropriate to discuss on the talk page rather than just overwrite that consensus with what you, personally, believe is a better text. Please initiate the discussion rather than unilaterally go against the new consensus. Karanacs (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs, I am not replacing the entire article text as before the trim. I have agreed to a trim. However, as happened in the sexual abuse paragraph, which was redisscussed above[9], we took another look and noticed that is was wildly cut and needed some clarification to meet FAC criteria and NPOV. I am proposing the same sort of discussion after doing new research that made me notice that we "wildly" cut something out that other encyclopedias thought was quite significant in the history of the Church. I have not instituted some POV since it is quite negative toward the church, its just an important fact. NancyHeise ^talk 20:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem in this particular case is that there was no "we" - just you. "We" should happen on the talk page. Karanacs (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And that is where I brought it after doing further research on the subject, something that others have not done either before nor after the trim. NancyHeise ^talk 21:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus above for the additions that you made. Karanacs (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I just made them on Sunday, its been one day - maybe we can see what other involved editors have to say and I also suggest that maybe this paragraph would be a good candidate for mediation as well. NancyHeise ^talk 22:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this addition. [10] There had been a consensus to remove this previously and I have seen no consensus to add it back. Please establish a consensus for its inclusion here before readding it. Note that I oppose its addition because it a) gives undue weight to this incident/controversy, b) appears to have no purpose in the article other than apologetics (thus giving the section a pro-Catholic POV, and c) states one author's opinion as fact. Karanacs (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no point in these back-and-forth changes. Pick something, discuss, and come to a consensus. Have a not-a-vote if necessary. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Practicing Catholics worldwide

Start with this one, if you want: although the number of practicing Catholics worldwide is not reliably known.<ref name=bbcfact>{{cite news|title=Factfile: Roman Catholics around the world|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4243727.stm|publisher=BBC News|date=1 April 2005|accessdate=24 March 2008}}</ref>

Include, or not? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes but not in the lead. It is in the section entitled "Catholic Institutions" and it should be there. If we put it in the lead then we are going to have others wanting to put little "niggles" like this in there also like how many scholars agree that the Church is the original Church instituted by Jesus. No one agreed to the Lapsed catholic sentence in the lead, it was added by Haldraper without any discussion. NancyHeise ^talk 20:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's what hangs on it though. Without those lapsed Catholics it wouldn't have over half of all Christians or one-sixth of the world's population. Without saying the latter in the lead, it implies all 1.15 billion are practicing Catholics. All or nothing is the answer. Haldraper (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The term "practicing" is not in the lead. I think you are assuming something that is never discussed but is brought out nevertheless in the section of the article devoted to such a discussion.NancyHeise ^talk 20:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec x2) This is qualifying a statistic that is given in the lead already. The wording of the sentence is currently (very) poor, but if the statistic remains it should be qualified. Perhaps the sentence could end after "is the world's largest Christian church." I don't think that is disputed and it would need no qualifier. Karanacs (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC) PS to Nancy - "practicing" is implied in the wording. Most non-Catholics don't inherently understand that there is a difference between a "practicing" Catholic and a "Catholic" in terms of number reporting. Karanacs (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Do the sources that report the statistics typically qualify it? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC) eh? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Anybody? Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Include in modified form and with better references. I suggest the following version:

...although scholars dispute the exact numbers of practicing Catholics.[shitstorm of references]

In other words, we should say where the potential controversy stems from (scholars) and cite them to hell, just so no one gets the wrong impression.UberCryxic ^(talk) 20:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And you are suggesting this all be put into the lead which per

WP:Lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article? What's to stop everyone else from demanding we put every little clarification in the rest of the lead? Where do we stop? If I am not allowed to put in the fact that many scholars agree with the Church's position of its own origins, why are we allowed to put in this clarification about practising or not? I don't see this in the reference at all, it just says that there is no reliable way to know how many are practising - never uses the word "lapsed" at all. How can we justify this without a source that uses that term and applies it to the worldwide figure of Catholic population that uses CIA worldfactbook, a source that uses census figures where people have self identified themselves as Catholic? NancyHeise ^talk

21:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, I've never understood your problem with this: if you're not practicing you're lapsed. The advantage of saying lapsed instead of practicing is that we can then have a piped link to Lapsed Catholic so non-Catholics who unlike you, me and Xandar may not appreciate the distinction can go and see what it means. Haldraper (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, we're not dealing with a "little clarification" here. We're dealing with a crucial part right off the start that we better get right. As soon as you make the decision to include the number of Catholics so early in the article, every reputable qualification and explanation about those figures is fair game, as long as it remains succinct. What we're proposing is just a few extra words, and that proposal should not be shot down through logical fallacies about slippery slopes. Stick to the current debate and don't become sidetracked with other issues. Normally, I would share your concerns about length, but not when the stakes are so high. No one is rejecting the CIA, but see my comments above about why "approximately" covers the statements from all reputable sources.UberCryxic ^(talk) 21:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Lapsed Catholic" or "non-practising Catholic" does not have to mean ceasing to be a Catholic, any more than "adulterous Catholic", "murderous Catholic", "actively homosexual Catholic", "womanizing Catholic", "fraudulent bankrupt Catholic" ... 86.45.161.12 (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Remove it. Not necessary in the lead. All figures for all faiths are generally presented as "overall" figures like this. No one goes on about "lapsed muslims", "lapsed Buddhists" or or "lapsed Anglicans". Xandar 01:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression you were a Catholic Xandar. I was obviously wrong. You're comment that "No one goes on about "lapsed muslims", "lapsed Buddhists" or or "lapsed Anglicans" shows a total ignorance of the distinction between practicing and lapsed Catholics, a concept that doesn't exist in the faiths you mention. Anyway, I apologise for assuming you knew what we were talking about. Maybe it would be better if you withdrew from this discussion until you understand why we need to qualify membership figures by referring to Lapsed Catholics. Haldraper (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

@Haldraper...what? Only YOU make that distinction as a fundamental point. I think it says a lot about how you and just you think about the issue. It is the other way around, NOBODY makes that distinction. To be frank, the only people who make that distinction are those who have an agenda against Catholics. It seems clear to me that you have a very limited understanding of Catholicism. You should understand that Catholics consider themselves to be a people. Start there rather than thinking of it as an 'ideology.' You cannot just "stop" being a people unless you consciously and willfully make an effort to renounce it.Phail Saph (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Lapsed" is a
  WP:weasel word
  and will invite a lot of controversy to the article that we don't need.
• Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and Joe Biden all profess to be Catholic but they are not necessarily "practicing". These same would be offended if they were defined as "lapsed".
• To some Catholics, the term "practicing" means they dont use birth control and go to church on Sundays and observe the Church rules on holy days of obligation and fasting. To others, it just means that they go to Church on Sunday and teach their kids about Jesus so I do not support any discussion in the lead about who is practicing or not -
• I oppose use of the word "lapsed" because it has an entirely different meaning than "non-practicing". Lapsed means that you no longer believe what the Church teaches, you have rejected the faith and there are many "non-practicing" Catholics who have not gone so far as that.
• "lapsed" is nowhere mentioned in the only reference we have referring to "practicing" Catholics. Because it is not mentioned and its meaning varies to different people, it is unencyclopedic of us to use it in our article. NancyHeise ^talk 21:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If remove the statistic from the lead, this becomes a moot point. Karanacs (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So far there is no consensus for that and I would like to hold up all of our FACs and peer reviews that we have had with this statistic in it and no one disagreed with it. This suggests a long standing consensus, one that is in line with its treatment in most scholarly sources and the tertiary sources on the subject of the Catholic Church. NancyHeise ^talk 21:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the tired and incorrect meme that a failed FAC or a poorly-attended peer review constitutes consensus for anything, especially if the issue was not explicitly discussed. See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive41#Consensus_and_.28archived.29_FACs for the consensus among FAC reviewers. Karanacs (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

NOT include. I don't even know why it is there. It is factually incorrect. Whether a catholic practices or not, they are still Catholic unless they renounce. I'm willing to debate this for a little but this is like debating why 2+2=4. Is a Jew not a Jew if they don't practice or a Muslim? And don't say that Jews are not just a religion but a people. Are Americans not Americans if they don't support their country and perhaps even commit acts of treason? Of course not. You cannot revoke citizenship; it can only be given up by the free will of the individual. Again, to show how ridiculous this statement is and how the people who are writing that do not understand Catholicism, it is logically impossible as the statement implies that only perfect Catholics, whatever that means, can actually be Catholics. If you don't understand why think about it for a few minutes. There is far more to Catholicism than a self-identified statement on some survey on why an individual may or may not consider themselves to be "practicing."Phail Saph (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well said - thank you - I agree - and welcome to Wikipedia! If you need some help please see the links to Wikipedia policies on my userpage. NancyHeise ^talk 02:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome Nancy!Phail Saph (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If 'lapsed' is a weasel word in the sense of being "evasive, ambiguous, or misleading" then so is the Church itself which uses it as a synonym for non-practicing. (Btw Nancy, Ted Kennedy doesn't profess to be a Catholic, if you missed it he's dead). There is no controversy here: we already define in the Prayer and worship section what it means to be a practicing Catholic, lapsed/non-practicing is merely the opposite of that for someone who has been baptised a Catholic (like myself who is not remotely 'offended' to be described as such), as is made clear on the Lapsed Catholic page.

If you want to say 'it is not clear how many practicing Catholics there are worldwide' with the BBC ref to support it, that's fine (I think a piped link to Lapsed Catholic would also be helpful) but above all we should avoid giving the reader the misleading impression that 1.15 billion people on the planet attend mass in a Catholic church every Sunday and confess their sins to a priest at least once a year. Haldraper (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You made my point. I could not have asked you to better explain yourself. The whole point of an introductory paragraph is to state unmolested basic facts. If you wish to make a section that relates to issues regarding just "who is 'really' a Catholic?" like Jewish people do with "Who is really a Jew?" then do so in that other section. I do not know how you how you cannot see that you are equating the definition of Catholic and hence the unit to be counted with people who "attend mass in a Catholic church every Sunday and confess their sins to a priest at least once a year." That is not the definition of who is a Catholic. Like I stated before you are using a standard of perfection as the counting measure. If that were the case every Catholic would be a Saint. You can use this for any other category. In fact, thinking like this is how fascists think. The only "real" human, Aryan, or whatever is one who is perfect against some fantastic image. For instance, I am not a practicing Catholic. I go to church once a month on average and confess maybe once every two years yet I still consider myself to be a Catholic. When people try to "type cast" me into nationality, race, etc., I usually end with I'm a Catholic. That is my "culture" in a very real sense. For you to say or imply that I am not a Catholic is insulting and like I've said already simply not true. I highly recommend you talk to a priest.

As to the difference between lapsing and practicing, it is irrelevant and is leading the discussion nowhere. Whether someone practices, "lapsing," or whatever moniker you choose is irrelevant to who a Catholic is.Phail Saph (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of examples where the Church itself uses 'lapsed' as a synonym for 'non-practicing' contrary to what Nancy claims:

"fallen-away Catholics, lapsed, non-practicing"

Here is another one of these logic things. If a fallen away is equivalent to non-practicing and according to Haldraper this means that they shouldn't be counted since they aren't "really" Catholics then the statement fallen-away Catholics is also equivalent to a non-Catholic Catholic. How can you be both Catholic and not Catholic at the same time. It is clear to any reasonable person that the prase "fallen-away Catholic" implies that the person is still a Catholic and not being used as a term to denote a previous state of that person whose current state is non-Catholic. Here's another one. If they are not "really" Catholics do they have to convert back into Catholicism? Of course not. Again, people are confusing being in a state of sin with being Catholic which implies that a Catholic is perfect which is definitely not true.Phail Saph (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

http://thebishopfabianbruskewitzfanclub.blogspot.com/2006/11/bishop-bruskewitz-at-cci.html

"ways of reaching lapsed, non-practicing Catholics"

http://www.hawaiicatholicherald.com/Home/tabid/256/newsid884/265/Default.aspx

Haldraper (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Phail Saph, you've completely misunderstood what I'm saying: I'm not arguing that lapsed Catholics aren't Catholics and shouldn't be counted but rather that it should be made clear to the reader that the 1.15 billion figure includes both practicing and lapsed Catholics. Haldraper (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have more useful tips. In general, this article needs to be vastly restructured. Here are some of its main problems and some of my ideas about how to solve them....

• It's nearly 200 kb. I realize the topic is important, but there is almost no article on Wikipedia that can justify that kind of size. Pretty much the only articles that should be 200 kb are lists. I advise significantly shortening the Beliefs section and the History section, although you'll have to use your best editorial judgment about what to remove. I also advise completely deleting the Prayer and worship section and integrating some of its material into the other parts of the article. Use summary style and consolidate the remaining material into big and chunky paragraphs. I don't want to see any of that skinny chopped up crap; it makes the article look ugly from an aesthetic perspective. Also, in reference to size, many poor users from developing nations read Wikipedia, and loading a 200 kb article on dial-up is not fun.
• The History section needs to be first! Come on. That's like...standard protocol.
• The article is way too trigger-happy when it comes to citations. Just like almost no article should be 200 kb, no article should have nearly 450 citations. Everything with this article has the feel of a bodybuilder pumped full of steroids. It seems hard to believe, I know, but sometimes people go overboard with citations. There's no reason why a simple claim about the number of priests in the Church should feature five citations.
• The Cultural influence section....my oh my....can you say WTF? Because I can....multiple times. Seriously, WTF? After reading that section, the summary of a reader coming into the article with a tabula rasa would be something to the effect of: the Church is feminist, abolitionist, pro-science, and the creator of the modern world. Thanks Catholicism! We couldn't have done it without you! Except...we did do it without you (it's called the French Revolution, look it up), and the way this article whitewashes the anti-modern, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, fundamentalist, and rabidly conservative traditions of the Catholic Church in the last few centuries is absolutely appalling.

Anyway, we can start there. This article has lots of problems, I'm afraid.UberCryxic ^(talk) 22:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Reading the last bit..That's like I felt when

Leeds United...I mean I agree with you.Sayerslle (talk

) 22:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The greatest signing they made in the last 40 years and the biggest mistake when they sold him surely! That being said the Leeds team of the early seventies were something else. I guess this guy isn't one of your favourite footballers?[11]Taam (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, not him or his team, I would lean toward

Atletico Madrid, and Mussolini apparently was Lazio. I heard a vrey interesting radio programme about a team supported by the Israeli far right. I think when Cantona left, it was Manchesters belated revenge for us getting Johnny Giles. Sayerslle (talk

) 13:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OK how about this team: Xandar and Nancy can attack when required but defensive possession football is their main interest. You just cannot get the ball off them, and that's the complaint of their own side who are always shouting for a turn!

The goalkeeper is a young guy K. Wojytla, he really was in real life[12]. His goal kicks reach out to every side of the park. Like all members of the great Dutch national side he can talk about anything under the sun in after match intereviews.[13]

The club song is "One" by U2[14], well if Liverpool can have "

You'll Never Walk Alone|

", why not? A mysterious young woman follows the team, handing out flowers everywhere. If someone gets pricked by a thorn in a rose she smiles and says "love" as if this answers everything. Everyone likes her including the other teams. It's always a good match when she is there, no matter who wins.

As far for me I want to play a Geoff Hurst role and always have the last shot, like everyone else in the team. "They think it's all over". Taam (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That is funny, ..I can just hear some of the players ,looking at me and going 'he's not in the team is he, he cant play for toffee..' and me thinking of that song at fulham.' if you're hit on the head, and you're sat in row z, thats a volley from yorkshirian.. and then I dont know how we could win much with such a defence, and then haldraper, however good a player, would mean leeds- manchester, could be fights. But then the manager would sort that out.Sayerslle (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm kneejerk Celtic as well but outside Glasgow the Catholic-Protestant thing is definitely exaggerated, certainly in my home town of Manchester where the supposedly Protestant team City have plenty of Catholic fans (including several priests of my acquaintance) and the supposedly Catholic team United have had a long line of Northern Irish Protestant players: George Best, Norman Whiteside, Sammy McIlroy, Keith Gillespie. Haldraper (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

But Matt Busby was Catholic, right. Even I was Manchester City on Saturday come to think of it, good ol Tevez, and Craig Bellamy sticking it to John Terry and Chelsea. But, moving on...Sayerslle (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Matt Busby was indeed a Catholic, a Knight Commander of St Gregory no less, as were the club's owners and players like Pat Crerand, Tony Dunne and Nobby Stiles (brother-in-law Johnny Giles btw) but he always insisted it never affected his selection policy - Bobby Charlton, Denis Law, George Best - and famously said "the only cross that matters at this club is the one from the wing to the box." Haldraper (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if we need an article on the subject at all, since clearly everyone already knows all there is to know about it. Johnbod (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't need a POV piece of apologetics.Sayerslle (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as size goes, we can get it down to 140kb quite easily once we get agreement on text and cut the notes. Many articles on far less extensive topics weigh in at around 140k. The history section is last because it is long, and needs to be quite long. Therefore people interested in other topics need to see those first. Not all articles put History first. As far as cultural influence goes, most of the material is pretty much uncontroversial. The CC has boosted ARt, culture, education, architecture, music, human rights etc. There's an awful lot of "What did the Romans ever do for us?" in the criticism of this. However additional references have been invited. Xandar 01:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah we all know

other crap

exists on Wikipedia. That's not a good excuse to prevent us from improving the article. I don't want to set any hard numbers, but I'd be fine with something around 140 kb. Our main focus, however, should be on removing extraneous content, not on obsessing over what specific number we have to reach on article size. Certainly we should agree, at the very least, that the current version is excessively long. Not all articles on these kinds of topics put a section on history first, but the general convention is that history goes first because it represents a good introductory step to the rest of the article. It doesn't matter how long History is; it should still be first.

Cultural influence is uncontroversial like the sky is yellow with pink ribbons. The Catholic Church fundamentally opposed every major step of modernization (every single one), and it's absolutely mystifying how this article can credit the Church for helping to end slavery (perhaps the sky is yellow with red ribbons?), saying it considers women equal to men (or maybe the sky is red with yellow ribbons?), and moderating the excesses of colonization ((*@&#(*&@(*&!?!?@!). And on science: I'll agree that the Church was instrumental in the development of several important intellectual and educational endeavors during the Middle Ages, but the tradition of the Church in the last four centuries—since Copernicus—has been fundamentally corrosive to the interests of science. The first few paragraphs of that section are just....were they written by a comedian by any chance? It's pretty funny stuff, if nothing else. Now, this section definitely deserves to highlight the major contributions that the Catholic Church has made to Western civilization and to the world in general, but let's please be accurate in what we state. In other words, I'm not urging the inclusion of the Church's anti-modernization efforts in Cultural influence. That stuff belongs in the History section instead. I'm just saying Cultural influence needs to be respectful of that thing....what's it called......oh, reality.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to shorten the article, you could set an example on the talk page. The remarks about the sky and ribbons, "written by a comedian," and some other *@&# could well be left out. The result would be less likely to antagonize, and more likely to persuade. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comedy is my way of persuading, but your general point is well-taken and well-accepted.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not funny to me. I am an editor and participant here too and having my efforts mocked does not help us come to agreement but actually creates a "battleground mentality" on the talk page, one that we have been sincerely trying to get rid of on this page for some time. It upsets me and I have complained that no admin ever seems to step in and tell editors about

WP:civil or educate them on how to have a normal, constructive discussion. I am thankful for Richard's presence on this page, but I have less respect for others who do nothing when they see an editor being mean to another. Its like they don't care at all. I think that there should be a new admin test or, just like we have to vote to keep our local judges, we should have a vote each year to see who keeps their adminship. I think that would help them be better admins. NancyHeise ^talk

21:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the good words, Nancy. Perhaps I should have been more assertive in smacking down incivility. One reason that I didn't do so was because I generally avoided blocking good-faith editors who were not blatant vandals. Another reason was that I did not consider myself an uninvolved admin and therefore my blocking editors or protecting the page could be considered a

conflict of interest. I think it is good for Tom harrison to serve as an impartial referee. In any event, I have resigned my adminship and so I couldn't take admin action now even if I wanted to.. --Richard S (talk

) 06:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm here because I think can help steer this discussion and this article to a better place. I hope you'll cooperate with me because I certainly plan to cooperate with you, despite current and previous conflict.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's start

Please review my suggestions below and offer your own as well. The following suggestions are meant to be, at first, very incremental, but they will eventually build up to more substantial proposals. I will label ongoing discussion about these suggestions as Ongoing, I will label discussions where we have reached agreement on a Suggestion as Consensus, and I will label marginal progress as Tentative Agreement (see below). No Suggestion is fully resolved until we hit Consensus. These are the basic ground rules.

I expect to issue hundreds of Suggestions over the next few months, and I hope you all do the same. If it takes scrutinizing every little world, rewriting every paragraph, and citing every controversial thing....then that's what we're going to do to come to some sort of satisfactory conclusion to the saga known as the Catholic Church article on Wikipedia.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's just what we have been doing for the last 41 archives worth. If you read back you will find that none of these suggestions are new, & several have been raised again in the last ten days or so. You will also find several previous unsuccessful attempts to systematize discussions here, all of which have petered out. The problem here is not starting discussion threads, but finishing them. Coming in as you have with a violent POV does not exactly help, or is it possible that you think you are NPOV on this matter? Surely not. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I said we should take it step by step. I didn't say how long it would last or how difficult it would be. I've seen much worse on Wikipedia than this article, and judging by your time here, you probably have too. I am not sorry that my violent POV disturbs you, but I am sorry that the even more atrocious POV of the article itself—the reality we're dealing with now—apparently does not. Or maybe it does. That's why we're here: to find out where everyone falls, or stands.UberCryxic ^(talk) 14:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod's right, your not proposing anything that hasn't already been hashed out. See the last FAC. Even your attitude is right in line with those who come here with a chip on their shoulder about the Church and rant that the Cultural Influences section is some kind of POV until they actually go take a look at the scholarly sources and university history textbooks we have citing the section. It is a mainstream representation of the cultural impact of the Catholic Church - a much shortened version that what other encyclopedias may treat the subject. I was just in the library the other day and saw that Encyclopedia Americana has sections for Catholic Mission and Education that are as long as their treatment for history of the Church - all of this is under the section "Catholic Church". In addition, if you take a quick look at Encyclopedia Brittanica, it opens its article on the Catholic Church with a very long commentary on what the Church has done and how important it is to anyone wanting to know anything about anything. NancyHeise ^talk 21:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for going through all areas of disagreement systematically, step by step and coming to consensus on each point. Unfortunately UberCryxic seems to be bringing up "new" points which have not been argued over recently, but we can hopefully move on to resolving some of the matters that still remain in the History and Cultural Influence sections. This could take some time, (I'm talking in terms of weeks, especially when references have to be controlled and weighted) so everybody have patience - and don't bring too many new issues forward until we have settled enough of those in the pending tray. What has railroaded us before has been when people lose patience and abandon one topic half-way through in order to bring up some other subject. Xandar 01:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is in a rush, and we should take our time to resolve these complicated disputes. It's fine if it takes years. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(Opening a subsection for every minor suggestion because I anticipate each one will spark its own war. Again, that's fine...I just want you all to be psychologically well-prepared for this long road ahead) The second sentence should read as follows:

Approximately one-sixth of the world's population is Catholic, although the number of practicing Catholics worldwide is not reliably known.[references].

Ideas? Thoughts? Discuss here.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a new issue that you have raised. I don't see any reason not to include the "half of all Christians" phrase, which seems to be the major change proposed, apart from splitting into two sentences.

If we were to have a cut of the lead phrasing, it would be simpler and more effective just to go with The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,[note 1] is the world's largest Christian church with more than a billion members., and forget the second sentence altogether, leaving the rest for the article text. Xandar 02:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with your above compromise Xandar. We just mention the numbers and leave out stuff about proportions or practicing Catholics until the body, where we could develop it further. See: we're already getting somewhere.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Xandar (this makes twice!) that we should cut this sentence and leave it for the body of the article. Karanacs (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I still disagree for reasons mentioned in the section prior to this one. NancyHeise ^talk 21:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I like Xandar's suggestion - it's fine to cover the extra detail in the article body rather than the lead. Majoreditor (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well this was my suggestion (just because I do want the credit), but yes most of us here seem to be in agreement, and this version will be the first sentence of the article when the protection comes down. We have Consensus.

Nancy, I respectfully acknowledge your disagreement, and I respectfully ignore it as well, given the large number of editors who are on the same page here.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly respect consensus and I saw that you moved the information to the Cultural Influences section. I like your edit and I think its fine in that section. You did a nice job today with your edits to the article and I appreciate your help. NancyHeise ^talk 21:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod wrote "I notice by the way we have Catholic Church and slavery, a rambling, incoherent and contradictory account, which ought to benefit from all this learned discussion here, but as usual probably won't."

I created the article because there were editors who wanted to add detailed information about the Catholic Church's position supporting slavery to counter the claim that it helped to end slavery. I felt that that adding all those details would make the article unnecessarily long so I created an article to delve into the topic more deeply.

After I created the article, some editors have built on the initial attempt but not much attention has been given to it. I would welcome some more attention and recommendations for improving that article. Feel free to leave your comments at Talk:Catholic Church and slavery. It's on my watchlist.

--Richard S (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Richard, I didn't look at the article history at all! Well, it's better than nothing, & I will try to add, and maybe reshape it a bit. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Johnbod. You can imagine how horrible this article would be if we had allowed even a small portion of Catholic Church and slavery to be inserted into it. My feeling is that controversies should be beaten to death in a subsidiary article and just a summary of the controversy should be included here. I think much of the recent discussion on slavery should be copied over to Catholic Church and slavery. If no one else does it, I will do it when I have time. --Richard S (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely - I am trying to do this. It is a perennial problem here that very long arguments over a single sentence in this article, which could relatively easily, once the research has been done, be turned into whole sections in the more specialized articles, just get left to rot in the archives here. I'm not going to add any of the recent Spanish stuff to that article, but somebody should. I see now the slavery article has a lot of cut and paste from other relevant article, which largely explains the way it is now. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of Jesus disciples were quoted to be vegetarians and tee-totalers although the arguement goes that Jews who did not partake in a weekly sacrificial feast would be in trouble. Anyway, after Jesus death and the scattering of the disciples, his brother James would preach to the congregation. Vegetarianism was part of what James preached and he thought that it was one of the ways of Jesus. A local and rather unsavoury character, violently opposed to Jesus weakling followers, by the name of Saul who had seen Jesus once himself got to learning more about Jesus teachings through stories of James. Saul eventually turned over a new leaf and became a preacher of the ways of Christ renaming himself Paul after a night out homeless trying to sleep with his head on a rock. He also decided to preach that James way of being a vegetarian was weak as a Jew. Shortly afterwards James met an early death through assasination opening a way for Saul/Paul to take over and guide James congregation of what would eventually become the Christian church. Anyway, I don't see any mention of James on this article. Maybe he shouldn't be mentioned here, I don't know. Saul is always considered the major apostle but it's rather interesting to leave a key element out of it entirely. Caretaker managers are rarely left out of the history of a football team. ~ R.T.G 13:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that his page is not a general forum for discussion of the subject. Did you have a specific change in mind? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

James is out of inclusion right now. He inherited the reigns from his brother. Remarkably, he was assasinated and the local Sheriff of Notingham, now a leaf-turner, was ready to assume his position under a false name. It's riveting stuff. I know why it is not included here. Who cares about James when you've got the great Saul? James being so meek and dead, who on earth carries on like that? I am saying that James inclusion in the article would improve it. I do not need a general forum to discuss that here. Thanks, ~ R.T.G 17:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this talk page needs to be shorter. It is too long to download. Takes forever. Talking image (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This is only the latest of 43 talk pages! How would you shorten it? --Tediouspedant (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how. It seems there are a bunch of editors with specific points of view and they seem to be arguing about stuff that has little to do with the article. At least, that is what it seems to me. :). Talking image (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some of us are arguing to remove stuff from the article; others feel that this article should be "positive" about its subject, and insist on including every unsourced eulogy they can imagine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This Talk Page is automatically archived by

Please go slowly, and give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Tom.UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, please move slowly. I suggest you stop now and give today's changes time to settle. There's always Catholic Church and slavery, or Spanish Civil War, which I see has its own page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's important to hear the actual words of the Church sometimes don't you think - rather than spin doctors. If content is cut, I just hope the principle of NPOV is remembered and it isn't just a list of atrocities committed against an a-political, pure-spiritual, un-worldly - fantasy.Sayerslle (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I really appreciate the way you are helping us. Some of us can not be on the page everyday to engage in discussion so it is very helpful to have a stopping point where the new edits can be reviewed and agreed by others. I just went through today's changes and I think Uber's edits are fine and appreciate his/her? time to go through and make these improvements. I reverted one of his edits to the wording in a picture showing Jesus giving the keys to Peter because he did not use the name of Peter, he changed it to say "man in robes" and I think that should be discussed first - Johnbod is more of an expert on our pictures than I am. I am not agreeing to Sayerslle's edits to the Spanish Civil War section. These are not neutral and they change a sentence cited to a reference "Alonso" that does not say what that reference says. NancyHeise ^talk 21:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The quote from the bishops of Spain's collective letter addressed to the bishops of the world, in support of the civic-military uprising - the reference I gave for that was The Blood of Spain by Ronald Fraser, p.415..I dont know what Alonso is, it must be a ref for part of what precedes, the bit Xandar wrote.Sayerslle (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it to the talk page. It seems like it would be reasonable to just edit the alt text, instead of removing it completely. Surely that the figure in the painting is Peter isn't in dispute. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, you may need to read

WP:ALT. This is a relatively new concept on WP, and writing alt text is very different from writing a picture caption. Alt text is intended primarily for readers who cannot see the pictures, so that they can have an understanding of what the image is. We are not supposed to use names, but only describe what is very obvious visually. So for that picture, by looking at it we can tell only that it is "a man in robes". The caption can inform the reader that this man is Peter, but the alt text can't make that leap. Karanacs (talk

) 22:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Although often interpreted that way, I don't think the policy is quite that inflexible - "man in robes" is not exactly descriptive, outside a degree ceremony. Iconographically he is of course identified by the keys themselves, and his usual white beard & solid figure & face. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be getting a battle of additions to the Spanish Civil War section, none of them agreed here, and with too much particularisation and detail. Xandar 01:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Both warned, Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs, the alt text said "Colored fresco showing a man in robes kneeling down to receive a key from Jesus." What should it say to satisfy the MoS? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"On a piazza laid out on a grid, Jesus hands two huge keys to the kneeling Peter, in the centre of a group of men" would be better I think. Or "Apostles" for men. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A combination of the two would probably be best. My suggestion would be -> "Fresco showing a piazza laid out on a grid, where a long-haired man wearing kingly colors gives two huge keys to a kneeling man in robes. Others watch the ceremony." In Battle of the Alamo I had to rewrite an alt text so that it didn't refer to "Mexican soldiers", because there was no way to tell from the picture alone that they were Mexican, even though anyone who has read the article knows that is who the picture showed. Alt text is hard to write. Karanacs (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It is easier if you are anyway used to analysing and describing images. How can you tell it is a fresco from the image? Anyway this is in the caption. The identification of the Virgin Mary has I think been accepted by the Prophet Eubilides in alt text, and at the least Jesus should be the same. "Kingly colors" means what exactly? He is not wearing scarlet and ermine. Is it a ceremony? In what sense are "robes" being worn? Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Purple usually indicates royalty. You're right about the fresco bit being in the caption, so it could be removed, and if Eubilides has signed off on identification of Mary (I hadn't seen that one) then we're probably okay with using Jesus's name. Karanacs (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's

Imperial purple. I don't think, as a matter of art history, that it has that implication here, although it might. It's rather an assumption to make without a ref. Johnbod (talk

) 19:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tyrian might be better; the actual dye is redder than that, but I doubt Perugino knew it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Beliefs section should be retitled Beliefs and practices and all of the material of the Prayer section should go under there, with the section heading for Prayer deleted. This Suggestion does not involve content disputes, although future ones will. Suggestion IV only involves organization.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm just guessing, but it is possible you are not actually very interested in religion? Many readers are. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Is harassment on talk pages your calling card John? Just curious...because it's not the first time I've seen this, and it won't be the last. If your intention is to intimidate, you're wasting your time, and you're not very good at it. Stick to the discussion about the article and leave aside my personal preferences.UberCryxic ^(talk) 14:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked at articles for other Christian denominations and some have these bundled and some do not. Considering that Catholic Church practices are based very strongly on ritual, it is probably wise to keep this a different section. I do like the idea of renaming the section from "Prayer and worship" to "Practices". I think "practices" may make more sense to non-Catholics - having "worship" in the section header could lead more people to think "OMG, they's worshiping Mary/idols/whatever". Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not in favor of any changes, either Uber's or Karanacs. This is a minor gripe you guys and I disagree that any Reader is going to somehow be misled by our section titles or that your suggestions are somehow less misleading. I think they are more misleading. Catholics are praying and worshipping, not practicing a trade or profession. NancyHeise ^talk 21:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Practices" is actually a fairly common term used to describe what one actually does as part of a religion (and searching on "religious practices" and Catholic brings up lots of google hits). I think that for Protestants, at least, "Practices" more accurately describes the section (which does venture a little bit into other things, such as Confession and fasting). This isn't something I feel very strongly about, I just thought the change was slightly more accurate and slightly more accessible to non-Catholics (and non-Christians). Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs, I am not particularly stuck on the terms either but I don't think its much of a secret to non-Christians that Christians, Muslims, and Jews "pray and worship". If that person has a computer, chances are he/she probably has some sort of elementary education at least. Gosh where could the world possibly be going if there are actually some people out there who don't know this? Oy vey! NancyHeise ^talk 21:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Again I think uniting the two sections would be a mistake. They are both quite long, and we would end up with one extremely long section. On naming, while the phrase "Beliefs and Practices" works as a phrase, for some reason, "Practices" on its own does not. It tends to bring up a picture of obscure rituals taking place in secret. "Prayer and Worship" is better and more accessible, I think - unless someone can think of a better title. Xandar 00:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

← Hmm, I gotta go with Xandar on this one. The two sections are relatively long and full of sub-sections. Merging them together will create a monstrously long section. We can revisit the merging issue if, at some point, the two sections are shorter. Majoreditor (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there will be support for this. It might be best to table the discussion as no consensus for a change. Karanacs (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Majoreditor (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I agree too. This fizzled out quickly!UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Its always the benign twist that exacerbates me. In the "industrial Age", the sentence " By the close of the 19th century European powers had managed ( great euphemism) to gain control of most of the African interior..creating a demand for literacy and western education.." Or put another way, " Arriving as part of the unseemly Scramble for Africa, the latest wave of Christian colonization forced society to run along lines of their choosing - involving intense economic exploitation, and African soldiers in two world wars. When the Nazis captured Africans they were filmed extensively for propaganda purposes with sneering soundtrack "See who fights for Western civilization.." If I saw a missionary I'd say "You may mean well, but please, go away, and take your friends with you".Sayerslle (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think you're seeing an intention of bias where none exists. However we don't need to go into why and how the western powers gained control of Africa. (Idealistic protection and anti-slavery, or cynical resource-grabbing) We just need to state they were there and missionaries followed with hospitals, churches and schools. Xandar 02:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And political claims for the sponsoring states. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh lord, are there really claims that the Western powers went into Africa motivated by "idealistic protection" and "anti-slavery"? What are the sources that make those assertions?

The contemporary ones; Henry Stanley, for example, goes on at great length about the idealism of the Congo Association, which paid him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Xandar. This article seems to want to treat the missionaries as being independent of the secular explorers, colonists and administration. The general thrust seems to be "the secular folks were the bad guys but the missionaries were there to do good and, for the most part, did a lot of good and not enough evil to be worth mentioning here". Does this represent the consensus of the mainstream of historians?

It seems to me that there is an alternative viewpoint that would consider the missionaries to be an integral part of the colonial effort. Much damage was done to native peoples by the missionaries as well as much good. At Mission San Francisco de Asis, there is an exhibit whose accompanying text asserts that natives who ran away from the mission were forcibly brought back. If that's not slavery, it's a close approximation thereof.

While I would not support a purely negative assessment of Catholic missionaries, it seems to me that the current article text is too purely laudatory and fails to capture the complexity of the role that missionaries played in the colonization efforts of the secular explorers and settlers.

--Richard S (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Complex certainly. If we're talking about the 19th century, especially in Africa, the attitude of governments and colonial administrators to missionaries was very variable in French and British colonies - often openly hostile in India and French North Africa, where I think they were often just banned. They were seen as potentially stirring up trouble with the native populations. The French Third Republic (1870-1940) was avowedly secular, often agressively so (bits from the article):

1880: The Jesuits and several other religious orders were dissolved, and their members were forbidden to teach in state schools.

1882: Religious instruction was removed from all state schools. The measures were accompanied by the abolition of chaplains in the armed forces and the removal of nuns from hospitals. Due to the fact that France was mainly Roman Catholic, this was greatly opposed.

-This period is a very different story from the Iberian empires in the 17th century say. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

In India, of course, we are discussing Anglican and Dissenting missionaries; and the India administration (the Hon. the East India Company) banned them because they (all too often) offended against local religious sentiment and caused riots. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We should not discuss the British colonial experience as those are not Catholic missionaries for the most part although many of the experiences may be shared.

The bottom line here is that an NPOV treatment of the issue must necessarily mention the good with the bad. We are not doing that in the current text. The Iberian colonial experience reads something along the lines of "Bad Iberians abused native Americans. Noble Catholic missionaries tried to protect them but ultimately disease decimated their numbers." (We thus imply that disease is the main culprit and that Catholic missionaries have no culpability in the destruction of the native American culture and civilization). Now, there is sourceable truth in all that but the juxtaposition of half-truths can lead to a lie. (NB: I'm not calling any editors liars, just saying that the article text presents a lie.) How do we fix this?

I think we should look at what role the Catholic missionaries played in the colonization process. The objective, as I understand it, was to Christianize the natives so that they could become good, productive members of a European-style society in the colonies. In effect, the goal was to make them good serfs. To that end, native religion, languages, customs and leadership were targeted. Did missionaries bring education and health care? Yes. Were their motives good? At the individual level, they probably had the best of intentions. However, we are not just judging motives but describing historical impact which, in my opinion, is mixed. Whether the net impact

Are there sources who criticize the conduct of Catholic missionaries towards the native Americans (i.e. specifically the Catholic missionaries as opposed to the secular colonials)? Such criticism can be found on the Web but those sources are not very reliable. We need a more scholarly source.

--Richard S (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No, there were plenty of Catholic ones too in India, as elsewhere in the British Empire, & there are now plenty of Indian Catholics. Missionaries were unbanned in Victorian times, but disapproved of: Anglican missionaries operated right outside the Anglican system of Indian dioceses. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that the Note on slavery includes this sentence "Nonetheless, Catholic missionaries such as the Jesuits worked to alleviate the suffering of Native American slaves in the New World. " In light of recent discussion, I wonder if this sentence might be a bit too glib. This tends to suggest that Catholic missionaries primarily were intercessors to "alleviate the suffering of Native Americans". Anyone have opinions on whether this is an accurate portrayal of their role? --Richard S (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't my area of expertise, but my impression is that the Jesuit's primary purpose was to promote the Catholic faith among the native population. Education was a strong secondary purpose, deployed to support their primary objective. Alleviating the suffering was also a secondary purpose, although certain Jesuits were undoubtedly focued on it more than others. In short, I'm OK with the sentence as long as it isn't rendered in a context which implies that Jesuits were primarily social workers to the Native Americans. Majoreditor (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think my question was too circumspect. I grant that the primary purpose of all missionaries (not just the Jesuits) was to promote the Catholic faith using education as a tool. In the process, I'm sure the good fathers, friars and sisters all thought they were improving the lot of the Native Americans. I wasn't asking whether their purpose was the benefit of the Native Americans. I was asking whether the efforts of the missionaries was effective in improving their lot. First, were their efforts unequivocally beneficial or were some of their actions detrimental. From my perspective, there is destruction of their way of life (i.e. hunter/gatherer vs. settled agrarian), their language, their leadership hierarchy and their customs. However, at the moment, this is just OR. Does anyone know of a good source to support this assertion? Secondly, I was asking whether the missionaries were truly effective in their purpose. Did they truly differentiate themselves from the secular colonists or were they just colonists working for the Church rather than for their own self-aggrandization? Our text suggests that the missionaries were primarily noble and pure in purpose (and perhaps in action). This might be a somewhat one-sided portrayal. --Richard S (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I tagged a sentence as POV on the basis of undue weight and sloppy research and urge it to be removed. J.A. Jungmann, one of the foremost liturgical scholars of the twentieth century wrote in The Mass of the Roman Rite: "The beginnings of the Latin Mass in Rome are wrapped in almost total darkness. The oldest documents to register such a Mass are nearly all the work of diligent Frankish scribes of the eighth and ninth centuries, and even with all the apparatus of literary criticism and textual analysis, we can hardly reconstruct any records back beyond the sixth century, certainly not beyond the fifth. For the most part whatever is here transmitted as the permanent text – especially the canon, but likewise the major portion of the variable prayers of the celebrant, and the readings – is almost identical with present-day usage”. Fr Jungmann wrote this in 1948, and by “present-day usage” he meant of course what we know as the Tridentine rite Mass. No documents have come to light since 1948 which in any way alter or modify this statement. Here is Pope Benedict XVI's (then Cardinal Ratzinger) opinion on this:"After the (2nd Vatican) Council… in place of the liturgy as the fruit of organic development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Didache and Justin are presumably evidence on the Greek liturgy under the Roman Empire; I don't see that either of your citations need be strictly incompatible with the quote in the text. They do, indeed, come close to contradicting each other: what has organically grown and developed has usually changed in the process. More explanation, or less, may be indicated, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to break it down simply. Here is the text that I am disputing:

"In its main elements and prayers, the Catholic Mass celebrated today, according to professor Alan Schreck, is "almost identical" to the form described in the Didache and First Apology of Justin Martyr in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries".

On its face, I do not believe this to be a true statement, as First Apology, gives an overall "guideline": "people gather, we read from the prophets, priest gives a sermon, people receive communion". One might say that a Lutheran Service meets that criteria. As Jungmann wrote, "we can hardly reconstruct any records back beyond the sixth century, certainly not beyond the fifth". Cardinal Ratzinger's observation was that the new rite (Ordinary Form) was neither a "return to the old" nor was it a living natural change, in his view, it was " a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product". I say remove the entire sentence as it is unintentionally misleading/poorly written at best, pure unadulterated bullshit at worst. Maybe it's just the words "almost identical" that I have a problem with, by his definition, my dog is "almost identical" to a Komodo dragon as both have two eyes, 4 legs, a head and a tail.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sounds sensible. Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Last thing I will say, when Xandar changes the text to '6800 were killed,..subsequently some of the hierarchy supported Franco'..does he source that? Do you source that Xandar? The chronology, not the total? On this contentious article in particyular, as if, monomane that you are, this isn't the only article you police anyway- damn right people might suspect Ownership. Source your '6800 killed', 'subsequently..' or else what gives you the right to pontificate, and lay down the law? Sayerslle (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Silentium consentire, thats what it said in man for all seasons - silence agrees, so you admit you twisted the truth. Don't twist things to suit your delusions . Sayerslle (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sayerslle, It's nothing to do with me, or anyone else "twisting things" or laying down the law. These are the facts. 58 churches were destroyed and and 37 priests were killed in cold blood in 1934. In 1936, To quote The splintering of Spain: cultural history and the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939] By Chris Ealham, Michael Richards, (Cambridge UP), "The Spanish civil war was the occasion for the greatest anticlerical bloodletting Europe has ever seen. This extraordinary outpouring of violence claimed the lives of 4,184 priests and seminarians, 2,365 monks and brothers, and 283 religious sisters." This "began immediately after the generals coup d'etat on 17-18 July 1936. In the remaining days of July 861 priests and religious lost their lives... August took the lives of another 2077 clerical victims, killed at an average of over 70 a day." Your own reference, Nicola Rooney, states that the first support by a Spanish Bishop for the Nationalists occurred after a month of these killings, on 15th August 1936, and the quote mentions the bloodshed. The other bishops spoke even later. To quote Franco and Hitler: Spain, Germany, and World War II By Stanley G. Payne, (Yale UP) p 13 "...during the opening months of the Civil War.. nearly 7,000 clergy and many thousands of lay Catholics were slaughtered. To an even greater degree than anticipated, Catholics rallied to the Nationalists en masse, left as they were with scant alternative." So the facts in the article are clear and well supported, the members of the Heirarchy who backed the coup did so only after thousands of priests had been slaughtered by the Republicans. Xandar 00:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with "Subsequently..." as written by Xandar is that it introduces both

WP:SYN

because it implies to the reader that if it had not been for the intial killings of clergy the bishops would not have blessed Franco's armed rebellion as a Catholic crusade. There is of of course no way of referencing this because there is no way of knowing if they would, although the previous hostility between the Church and the Second Republic makes it likely I think.

There are a number of POV/OR traps here:

1. asserting, as Xandar wants to do, a direct, exclusive link between the killings and the Church's support for Franco.

2. just saying that the Church supported Franco without mentioning anti-clericalism.

3. excusing the Church's support for Franco on the grounds of the killings (I think the current text almost does that).

We should stick to facts - priests killed, bishops statements etc without engaging in OR/SYN to produce POV text. Haldraper (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Even in Xandars proffered text it says, " to an even greater degree than anticipated Catholics rallied to the Nationalist cause.." Hmmmm. As if Franco weren't Roman Catholic, as if the Falange weren't Roman Catholic. As if the cause to which they rallied, were not their own cause in any case. The Nicola Rooney reference is not my own reference, Xandar, Haldraper provided it, and its useful. I provided a quote from Beevor about the Catholic writer Bernanos's horror at what he saw the Nationalists do on Majorca. This'stuff' was hacked down long ago by johnbod I think, to leave room for the Old Catholic Church, you know that massively important thing in the history of the Catholic Church. Anyway all these questions are legitimate areas of inquiry, and I'll keep reading about it I think, I'll order The Blood of Spain - an oral history of the SCW, it looks interesting. I want to find out what the Bishops had been saying 1931-1936, as well as after the Roman Catholic cruzada of Franco was unleashed. Sayerslle (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"Subsequently" is simply the correct factual word. The quoted backing for Franco ocurred AFTER the killings. End of story. There is nothing OR?SYN about that. The previous alterations made it appear that backing was given to Franco BEFORE the killings, or that the killings were in response to Church backing for Franco. That is not the case. And it is those edits that present the wrong information. Sayersle wanted to mention Spanish Church backing for Franco. Okay, but if not put in the correct order and context, the false impression would be given that the Church just decided out of the blue to back a Fascist regime which turned out to be very vicious. That too is POV and false POV. Haldraper's point three shows exactly what I mean. He says that presenting the facts in the right order might "excuse" support for Franco. It is not our business here to complain that the facts will "excuse" anything. Sayerslle seems to confuse the Nationalists with the Church. We are discussing the Church, not refighting various minor facets of the Spanish Civil War. Xandar 23:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We mustn't give the false impression that the Church decided out of the blue to back a Fascist regime, but we must give the impression that anarchists and Republicans decided to kill priests and nuns out of the blue. I must I must..we mustn't confuse this ..we must..I must..we mustn't..little hitler.Sayerslle (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Subsequently is a clear misstating of the historical facts. Its not confusing the nationalists with the church facing the obvious support the nationalists got from official church representative. The catholic hierarchy on all levels supported General Franco and his sympathizers rhetorical and with concrete action well before the outbreak of the civil war and did so forcefully after the start of the armed conflicts. As early as in September 1936 first the Pope Pius XI distinguished in blessing of Spaniard exiles between the christian heroes of the right and the savage barbarians of the left (14.) than the Bishop of Salamanca published a long pastoral letter (The Two Cities) naming the nationalist/fascist uprising a crusade(30.) ("Franco" by Paul Preston, Copyright 1994 by Basic Books, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. S. 184-185).

To even remotely insinuate, the Church would have been kinda neutral in the lengthy struggles of the republic is not just POV, its a clear distorting of historical facts. In 1933 for example Pope Pius XI published a quite frank (no pun intended) enzyclical (dilectissima nobis) which condemns the republic for all kind of things, insinuates that its decision to forfeit any state religion also forfeits any rightful claim for authority and has passages like this:

"24. Meanwhile, however, with all the soul and heart of a father and shepherd, We emphatically exhort Bishops, priests, and all those who in any way intend to dedicate themselves to the education of the young to promote more intensely, with all their strength and by every means, religious teaching and the practice of Christian life. And this is so much more necessary since the new Spanish legislation, with the deleterious introduction of divorce, dares to profane the sanctuary of the family, thus implanting, with the attempted dissolution of domestic society, the germs of saddest ruin for civil well-being. Faced by a menace of such enormous damage, We again recommend to all Catholic Spain that laments and recriminations be put aside, and subordinating to the common welfare of Country and Religion every other ideal, all unite, disciplined for the defense of the Faith and to remove the dangers that threaten the civil welfare.

25. In a special way, We invite all the Faithful to unite in Catholic Action, which We so often have recommended and which, though not constituting a party but rather having set itself above and beyond all political parties, will serve to form the conscience of Catholics, illuminating and corroborating it in defense of the Faith against every snare."

To remove the dangers that threaten the civil welfare (like the right to divorce!). Thats an open call to put away the republic in one way OR another. Full Text here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_03061933_dilectissima-nobis_en.html.

By the way, the "Catholic Action" Pius XI mentions here is a movement which was incorporated in the political group CEDA which supported Francos Rebellion after loosing the 1936 election.

But now, what about the normal clergy, where they involved in the earthly, political and armed fights or really only nuns tending to the sick? Lets here a clear position on that:

"[...] And all this was done with the active involvement of the Catholic Church. In every village, town, and city, it was the Spanish Church hierarchy (which had called for a military coup during the Republican government) and the priests who prepared the lists of people to be executed. A primary target of the repression was teachers, considered major enemies by the Church. Its active opposition to the popular reforms by the Spanish republican governments, and its calling on the Army to rebel against the popularly elected government, explains the fury felt by large sectors of the working class, led by anarcho-syndicalists, toward the Church. The day after Franco’s coup, large numbers of people decided to take justice into their own hands, burning churches and killing priests. These violations took place against the wishes of the democratic state, which actively opposed such actions. Terror was never a policy of the Republic. It was, however, part and parcel of the fascist state. [...]"

Now this quote is not of some radical left ideologist but from Vicente Navarro Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at the Pompeu Fabra University, Spain, and The Johns Hopkins University, USA. In 2002 Navarro was awarded the Anagrama Prize (Spain’s equivalent to the Pulitzer Prize in the USA) for his denunciation of the way in which the transition from dictatorship to democracy has been engineered, in his book Bienestar Insuficiente Democracia Incompleta, De lo que no se hable en nuestro pais (Insufficient Welfare, Incomplete Democracy; a book about what is being silenced in Spain). (The quote is coming from here: http://www.vnavarro.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/the-spanish-civil-war.pdf)

This guy sounds at least as credible as the clearly biased man of the church Monsignor Vicente Carcel Orti which seams to be the main source of the numbers mentioned above, at least if you compare it with this internet source: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7999&CFID=23811582&CFTOKEN=60559071.

--84.74.150.14 (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated opinion quoted from a US left-wing political website is not a reliable source for material for Wikipedia. Xandar 02:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be useful if editors read Mary Vincent's essay, the part of the collection called Splintering of Spain actually being quoted above. The habit of reading out of context is a serious problem with this article.

As the introduction says, Mary Vincent is expressly writing to deny that the "ahistorical discourse of 'martyrdom', which sees the purge of priests as only the latest episode in a long-established and unchanging persecution" can explain the deaths. To use her article to state that point of view in Wikipedia's voice is manifestly improper; she herself is evidence that it is not consensus among sources.

In addition, she says clearly that the purge was after the coup d'etat of July 1936, a reaction to it, and that incitements to violence were rare; this was not ideological. She also (obviously correctly) calls the Spanish peasants (who did the killing) anarchists - not Marxists, therefore. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the comments of the straw poll was that the shorter version omitted Saint Augustine; this is not true - both versions have the same text.

Other writers such as

Pope Clement I, Justin Martyr, Augustine of Hippo influenced the development of Church teachings and traditions. These writers and others are collectively known as Church Fathers

.

This is, however, terminally vague; and although all three authors are mentioned in the source quoted, they are an indiscriminate selection among the Church Fathers. What three or four authors should we use, and what should we say about Augustine? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Antony Beevor is not a neutral source with regard to Catholics and the Spanish Civil War. He shows a marked anti-Catholic bias and it has been noted that he will gloss over or rationalize the murderous anti-Catholic rampages of that time. Mamalujo (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Beevor is slanted in his view towards the Republican side, and this needs to be taken into consideration when balancing sources. Xandar 01:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the image of Guernica and the comment sourced to Beevor that the Church had backed the Franquist propoganda that it had been done by Republicans, I think it gives undue weight to a perhaps unwitting support of propoganda in the heat of war, and for the same reason it is POV. Moreover, it is especially noxious when it is sourced to an author who has been noted in the press to have an anti-Catholic bias. I'd propose it be removed for those reasons. Mamalujo (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Juana Sangroniz then, a

Carlist . " Our consciences were uneasy about it. After living through the raid, we knew only too well that the destruction had come from the air. The reds had hardly any planes, we knew that too. Amongst our own we'd admit the truth: our side had bombed the town and it was a bad thing. "But what can we do about it now?" we,d say ; it was better simply to keep quiet. The propaganda was so patently untrue." see H.Southworth La Destruction de Guernica Paris , 1975, or the Blood of Spain by Ronald Fraser. Still if you and Xandar reckon you know different, , well, what you reckon, perhaps it was unwitting, I think if you reckon that Mamalujo that settles it. Sayerslle (talk

) 01:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if it wasn't unwitting, which it may or may not have been, you haven't addressed the question of weight. It seems to be undue weight and POV regardless, but if the Church had been unaware that the claim was false it would seem even more so. You list a quote above that someone says " we knew only too well that the destruction had come from the air" - who is we - does the source attribute that knowledge to the Church? La Destruction de Guernica, isn't that in French? It's a little difficult for those of us who aren't Francophones to discuss that source. Even if the Church had knowledge of the falsity of a piece of propaganda and supported it, which I don't think has been demonstrated, it seems this is a rather peripheral fact, particularly to include an image of Guernica, as if the Church were somehow complicit in that, rather than having made some knowing or unknowing misstatement after the fact. It's highly charged POV on a peripheral issue. Definitely not NPOV. Mamalujo (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I recommend removing the image and would prefer that we retool the "Industrial age" history section. It focuses far too much on persecution of the Church and persecution by the Church. Other Industrial-era events are lost in the persecution text. Majoreditor (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the paragraph to the state it was in when the page was frozen on the 1st of March. Can we have all sugguestions for alterations discussed here to gain a consensus on any change of wording. Xandar 02:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I love what you decided to do here with the Spanish Civil War sentences! Please feel free to spread your genious around the entire history section. Though, just wondering if Beevor can't be used as a left-liberal, are Chadwick, a 'clergyman-scholar' and Butler, not likely to skew in favour out of romanticised sympsthy for the Church's suffering and exaggerated the number of martyrs. Really great job though.Sayerslle (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In short, Orlandis, Vidmar and Bodenkotter (sp?) must be used and followed, although they are avowedly Catholic authors, arguing for the Church; Beevor can't be used, because he supports the Republican cause and opposes the Church's (undisputed) support for a right dictatorship. This is a recipe for a biased article.

What we should do is include those statements about the Spanish Civil War agreed on by both sides; for which we must cite both sides. If there is someone who denies Beevor's claims, we should consider silence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We should go back to the even shorter version, which I think contained no controversial facts, though it was objected to as a summary, despite containing links. At the moment there is just too much. Guernica is still in copyright, & a fair-use rationale could not be constructed for this article. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea; if you can supply a version link, that might be helpful. This article should be a summary - the only conceivable exceptions would be where we have no main article on a subject, which is not the case here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The photo was from Wikimedia Commons, ..if it goes back to the original I think there should at least be some mention of the political alignment of the Church. If the church were a victim that had held itself aloof from worldly politics and addressed itself to the kingdom that is 'not of this world', fine, but it didn't, it never has, and its political alignment should at least be alluded to. The burning of convents etc , earlier in the 30s was widely condemned, by Republicans as well as the Church itself, and it is simply not true to say the Church had no option but to throw its rhetoric behind Franco. ( Like in

GRAPO and then moved from one extreme tot he other, may have interesting views but is no less ideological a commentator on the period than Beevor. Sayerslle (talk

) 16:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

History of the Catholic Church should have a longer mention (at the moment it just has a "persecution-only" sentence - one the longer but balanced drafts above could be used), giving both Church support for Franco as well, but for here, in a section detailing persecuting of the church, I think just mention the very large Spanish death-toll and a link is enough, with a short section somewhere earlier of the general alignment of the church with conservative forces, which I think belongs at the 1815 bit, though referring forwards. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No on both counts; I am disappointed in you. This is POV; to claim that it is a consensus point of view is to answer yes to both questions that follow, with a straight face: Is it consensus, among all points of view,

• that the Church's role in the Spanish Civil War was solely that of victim?
• that Franco was a "conservative force" in exactly the same sense as the Holy Alliance?

I invite citations affirming either from a non-clerical source. Silence would be better - as often. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say any of that. I said the old short mention "I think contained no controversial facts, though it was objected to as a summary, despite containing links." In an article on the CC, and a passage on its persecution, I think the death-toll of non-combatant clergy is the single most important fact, "with a short section somewhere earlier of the general alignment of the church with conservative forces". Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We started with a half sentence saying that over 6,000 priests and religious were killed, then added a sentence saying that the Spanish Church then supported the Nationalists. Anything else is too much detail. As far as irrelevant pictures of Guernica with implausible attempts to try to link this German bombing with the Catholic Church. There's no justification for such an insert at all. Beevor's statement that the Spanish Church supported Francoist denials is unreferenced in his book, and contains no details of the alleged support or its context. I have found no other reference to this so far, which again seems to shed doubt on what was said, by whom and in what context. Even if the claim were 100% true, however, it would still be too particular and minute to include in this article. PS I never said we couldn't use Beevor, I said Beevor was pro-republican and should be considered as such when balancing sources. Xandar 21:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest we remove the POV portion about overthrowing the "elected and established" government. It is false and misleading - the elected and established govt had already been subverted from the left. Payne and other noted scholars recognize that before the rebellion the Popular Front had abandoned the constitution and the Republican form of government for leftist revolution. He even explicitly says that had the Republicans remained loyal to the constitution there would have been no civil war (specifically because the conservatives would have still had an influence in the government and would have moderated the anticlerical portions of the constitution which beginning in 1936 could have been done by majority vote). Also the term estimate regarding clergy and religious killed should be removed. It wasn't an estimate but a meticulous calculation. Mamalujo (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

These are fringe views. The Spanish cabinet continued in office throughout the war; the Communist influence on it began in 1937 - after the war had begun - and became predominant only in 1938, because of the necessities of war, and because their major foreign support (Stalin, the only willing counterbalance to Hitler and Mussolini) insisted. This article is not the place to push dubious Falangist propaganda - and if Payne says this, his writing does not represent the consensus of scholarship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm getting interested in the subject , Mamlujo, could you give me a few leads, I've got Payne on the list, then 'other noted scholars', can I have a list, 4 or 5, a mini-bibliography. I'm still confused why people like Orwell, and Picasso , and Weil didn't rally to Franco's side against monsters..The Church by getting behind Franco, backed Hitler and the

Mussolini sent soldiers from Catholic Italy, so the Catholic Church is there with Hitler and Mussolini and Franco. I read that there has been a spate of Francoist books that resuscitate the basic theses of Francoist propaganda, like Tomas Borras, or the secret policeman Eduardo Comin Colomer and Mauricio Karl, so preferably scholarly works not the stars of the best sellers lists and of tertulias, ( which means radio debates, apparently). Thinking about it, you're right that the clergy and religious total dead is likely to be accurate - the reason being of course killings by reds and anarchists , formed an essential part of the Franco regimes internal propaganda and meticulous account kept. "Hundreds of the priests and nuns they killed have gone down the beatification conveyor belt at the Vatican in recent years" (Giles Tremlet - Ghosts of Spain), - thousands of the victims of Francos repression were left in roadside graves or even stuffed down wells. One well in Caude, is said to be the last resting place of up to a 1000 people. George Orwell said of Barcelona " I recognised it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for." Paul Preston has written that the torrent of books recently published, " has produced a generally critical vision of the insurrectionary officers of 1936." The Church supported Franco and his Nazi and Italian Fascist allies. And the Nationalists killed Basque priests, and the Church said nothing, but they don't seem to count in this narrative. Sayerslle (talk

) 22:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, my friend you are on a tangent, but as long as you're going there, I'll join you. Orwell, and Picasso , and Weil were what Stalin called useful idiots. Picasso was a communist, Orwell joined the Marxist POUM while in Spain and Weil was an anarchist. The Church by "getting behind Franco" did not back Hitler. Franco didn't even back Hitler during the war. If you read Payne's work on Hitler on Franco you'll see that the Catholics were left with little alternative (p. 13). Catholics, despite an anticlerical constitution that deprived them of rights, were working within the system to moderate those extremes until the left subverted the constitution. You'll also read that Hitler approved of the persecution of the Church in Spain (p. 170) and would gladly have let them be exterminated but for the communist presence. Franco was a lothesome character, but he was the lesser of two evils, Catholics at the outset of the war had seen a fifth of their clergy murdered and hundreds of churches destroyed. Mamalujo (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Never heard Simone Weil called an idiot before. Still, my friend, the other scholars? Sayerslle (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be meandering quite far off topic here, Sayerslle. Franco's purported "victims" were for the large part Marxist-Leninists, anarchists and Grand Orient members. This article isn't about any of those topics at all, so Franco's policy in regards to them is quite irrelevent here (though perhaps we can include how the national forces regarded their struggle as a Holy War against Bolshevism). All the reader needs to know is the relevent outline, in regards to the subject of this article, pertaining specifically to the Catholic Church. The important summary being, that the republican forces commited a systematic program of mass murder against the Church int he form of its priests, nuns and laity.

Marxist-Leninism is a more suitable article to write reels about the "victims of Francoism". - Yorkshirian (talk

) 01:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither systematic nor done by the Republic. Nor was the Spanish peasantry, which did do it, largely Leninist nor even Marxist - not that our fellow editors seem particularly in tune with the divisions of the left. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Orwell fought and wrote for POUM, against which one of the first Stalinist purges -in Spain- was directed; see his Homage to Catalonia, which includes a (generally negative) assessment of the Republican government. Calling the author of Animal Farm a useful idiot casts doubt on whether the opinionator has read the first or understands the second. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

How long did the Spanish Civil War last? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wait. We have an article on the Spanish Civil War, 17 July 1936 to 1 April 1939. So three years, I guess. I'd like to get an idea because, "In Germany, the reformation led to a nine-year war between the Protestant Schmalkaldic League and the Catholic Emperor Charles V. In 1618 a far graver conflict, the Thirty Years' War, followed. In France, a series of conflicts termed the French Wars of Religion were fought from 1562 to 1598 between the Huguenots and the forces of the French Catholic League. The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre marked the turning point in this war." See, wow, a nine-year-long war, and then the Thirty Years War, that's going to take some talk page discussion and, what 13 paragraphs in the article if it's to be given proportional coverage. Better get Jimbo to allocate some space on the hard drive for the talk page archives. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes well how long was Jesus talking. 3 years. But look what a fuss has been made about it. The mid 20th century was quite packed, and to see the Church in the lead-up is interesting. Sayerslle (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod and PMA have suggested that a shorter summary is preferable. I agree. There's no good reason to go into too much detail about the Spanish Civil War in this article. Majoreditor (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. NancyHeise ^talk 03:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Check out the 423 references and 98 books linked to this article. What percentage of them are "neutral"? Almost none. What percentage are even remotely critical or skeptical? Almost none. We don't have "neutrality" in this article - we have almost complete censorship. To be fair, the same is true with any article on any religious or political group that has an assertive and coordinated group of supporters. It's just a systemic flaw with how Wikipedia is edited. --Tediouspedant (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds just about right. Probably wikipedia is stronger on uncontentious subjects and adoxography. Sayerslle (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This argument is getting unproductive. We are here to concentrate on producing a concise factual text. I propose the following short wording to cover the Spanish Civil War issues as they affect the Church.

• During the 1936–39 Spanish Civil War, the Church was targeted by Republicans and anarchists who destroyed its property and killed an estimated 6,800[361] priests and members of religious orders. Subsequently the hierarchy of the Church in Spain supported the rebel Nationalist forces led by Francisco Franco.[362][363]

I think that, with links, says all that is needed to be said. Xandar 00:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your version says it all. As Johnbod says, its all written on water anyway.

Ozymandius, Xandar, look on your mighty edits, and despair. Sayerslle (talk

) 01:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Where are we on this - is this proposed wording okay with most people, or is there another no-less succinct version that has more support? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

10:59, 7 March 2010:

During the 1936–39 Spanish Civil War, in which the Church was targeted by Republicans and anarchists who destroyed its property and killed an estimated 6,800 priests and members of religious orders,[357][358] the hierarchy of the Church supported the rebel Nationalist forces and Francisco Franco's rebellion against the established and elected government, [359] and explained this position in a common letter that cited the violence and persecution directed against the Church by the Republicans.[360]

Proposed above:

During the 1936–39 Spanish Civil War, the Church was targeted by Republicans and anarchists who destroyed its property and killed an estimated 6,800[361] priests and members of religious orders. Subsequently the hierarchy of the Church in Spain supported the rebel Nationalist forces led by Francisco Franco.[362][363]

Shorter yet (just for comparison):

In the Spanish Civil War the Church, targeted by Republicans, supported Franco's Nationalists.

That's still longer than "In 1618 a far graver conflict, the Thirty Years' War, followed." Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It says, -persecuted so therefore, politicised. Whereas , maybe, politicised , therefore sometimes persecuted. ..Why did some identify the Church, the monarchy and right wing politics..Who is

requetés were also often guilty of barbaric excesses,' according to Paul Preston( fellow of the British Academy, decorated by King Juan Carlos, LSE professor) "What made the horrors committed seem worse was that they were carried out under the benign gaze of the Church and perpetrated by the forces of Law and Order".. Archbishop of Zaragoza , 11 August 1936, " this violence is carried out not in the service of anarchy but legitimately for the benefit of order, the Fatherland and Religion... etc, etc.. Even a couple of sentences, could convey at least something of complex historical realities, no?Sayerslle (talk

) 15:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Preston is generally regarded as leftist, as is his wife. He claims in his book that Franco was "even worse" than fascism. His personal opinion on whether the Carlists were right or not to use the amount of force that they did is entirely irrelevent to the article. "Barbaric" is in the same category as "extremist, terrorist" and so on, obviously not neutral. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

But the article is not seeking an imprimatur - presumably scholarly work from across the range can/should be used. Like mamlujo who said beevor had been called 'left-liberal' by some Christian book reviewer, as though obviously that disqualified it - its like the article can only use books approved by a clique of Catholic censors. Sayerslle (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the short version Tom mentions above: In the Spanish Civil War the Church, targeted by Republicans, supported Franco's Nationalists. It's neutral and brief. Majoreditor (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Shorter yet: Say nothing at all and link Spanish Civil War in the See also section. Or maybe most people are content with the status quo? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Silence would be best; but the short version In the Spanish Civil War the Church, targeted by some Republicans, supported Franco's Nationalists. may do for now. The question of who targetted the Church is much more complex than this (many of those who struck at the Church and other major land-holders had no particular fondness for the Republic either), but it may do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

PMA's short version looks good. I like the qualifier "some Republicans". Majoreditor (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No. I do not think we can pass over and conceal what has been described in the historical sources as "..the greatest anticlerical bloodletting Europe has ever seen." The phrase "targeted by Republicans" does not even hint at the killing of nearly 7,000 religious and 13 bishops. Xandar 02:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Shorter Xandar: This is the most extreme expression I've found, so the article must quote that as though it were consensus; but we can't cite anybody who disagrees, because they're left wing - by hypothesis. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not my business, I guess, whether it's long or short, if it has consensus. It seems like it might me easier to keep it as short as possible and push all the detail onto the linked page, but whatever works. Agree on something here, long or short. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for brevity, but there must be enough factual basis to give people some idea what happened - and to explore matters further if they wish. The following is quite short enough, I think: In the Spanish Civil War, after over 6,500 priests and members of religious orders were executed by Republicans, the Spanish church hierarchy supported Franco's Nationalists. This tells us what happened, without weasel-wording, and specifies that the Spanish heirarchy, not the Church as a whole, supported Franco. Xandar 20:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think to say nothing would be a mistake. Payne calls the Spanish Red Terror the most violent and extensive percecution of Catholics in Western History. I think he overstates it somewhat, but considering that I believe about 20% of the clergy of the nation were killed, it would seem to deserve a mention. Xandar's proposal above seems brief accurate and neutral. With regard to "some republicans", I don't know that it's necessary. Sources say that in the leftist zones the only segment that eschewed the terror against the church were the Basques. Mamalujo (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Since meticulous care was taken to record every death of a priest, could you give the totals, and the months they were killed. How many were killed before the rebellion, how many in July , August , September 1936 etc. Did clergy ever use anti semitic 'Jewish-Bolshevik' rhetoric, did any priest encourage the murder of anarchists and reds, did priests give lists of those who were not 'devout' etc.to Falangists.. The portrait of a poor , persecuted Church , in the context of what was happening to many , many people, its 'anti-foreign' rhetoric and embrace of Fascist-Nazi aid to 'purify' Spain, your obsession with the language of terror against the Church, when the Holocaust was looming, prepared for by a major defeat for anti-fascists, - is nauseating. Payne is a revisionist, fringe historian, , its mixed up with his views about the Cold War, he sees it all through some anti - Communist lens - but if democracies had not been so anti-interventionist, had aided democratic impulses and forces, if those forces that vaunt their 'moral' role had played one, then Stalin wouldn't have been the only game in town..it's complex,.do you know when the religious were killed Xandar?, otherwise 'in the SCW, after.6500.were executed..the church etc' remains a problem for me. Do you deny, in any case, that the Church through CEDAetc, and the Carlists, etc were overwhelmingly anti-left and , by seeking worldly influence were putting themselves ito the firing line, same as, anarchists, and all shades of other political s did Context. Balance. NPOV.CEDA El Debate Condor Legion. In the end maybe there should be a Catholic Church (orthodox) version, adnd then a couple of others a 'heterodox' version, and an outright 'heretics' version . All could be entertaining. I read your version with the Laughing Policeman in the background in my head, you know the chorus . Sayerslle (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"Payne is a revisionist, fringe historian..." Yeah, he's a real nutcase. This from the NY Times, that bastion of right wing apologies, "With the publication of Stanley G. Payne's massive and eminently judicious study we at last have the means of understanding the man and his regime. America's most prolific historian of Spain has produced what must surely become the standard work on this subject." From Yale's

Juan Linz : "Stanley Payne is recognized as the most serious and informed foreign historian of modern Spain in a whole range of areas." The reason I have been refering to Payne is because he is considered the preeminent english speaking scolar in this area and is recognized as neutral. That's why I refrain from citing Beevor, obviously anti-Catholic, or Warren H. Carroll obviously pro-Catholic. Mamalujo (talk

) 00:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus on this: "In the Spanish Civil War, after over 6,500 priests and members of religious orders were executed by Republicans, the Spanish church hierarchy supported Franco's Nationalists."? Mamalujo (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia article says this Mamlujo ; " In Payne's view what he calls political correctness i.e a general pro-leftist bias in academia has led to an underestimation of the guilt of the Republican side" .."Payne has defended the work of

Blaise Pascal could re-materialise to deal with the jesuits..you can't get a straight answer..when were they killed? It must also contextualise the violence to be NPOV, point out, concisely the Church's politics before as well as after the rebellion. Some of the speeches of the clergy are really vile..you don't want a whited sepulchre do you?Sayerslle (talk

) 02:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just read this, for the pre-history of the violence "

Francesc Ferrer i Guàrdia, who had evidently nothing to do with the rioting, was sentenced to death at the urging of the Catholic hierarchy and on the basis of onviously false testimony..I'll look more into the pre-history of the Terror against the Church and keep you posted Mamlujo. Strong authoritarian/hypocrisy/intolerance - this is many years ago, a lot of blood has flowed under the lamppost since then..Sayerslle (talk

) 10:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, we do not have a consensus for Mamalujo's text. It is the "ahistorical discourse of 'martyrdom'", which Xandar's source wrote against, and it distorts the order of time. The Spanish hierarchy supported the coup of July 1936 when it happened; the killings took place after and because of the coup; and they were not all done - or even mostly done - by the officials of the Republic, as the proposal would suggest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion on and off for some time. While no official Arbitration remedies, such as

Thanks Jubileeclipman! "Find better sources"? Why didn't I suggest that! :)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

See above section. Current disputes are resolved. Now we have to work on improving the current version.UberCryxic ^(talk) 01:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not. I strongly object to the long version of the history section, as below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've cut what I thought were the most obvious examples of POV and for the first time in a long while the page has no POV tags on it. Before people RV, can you ask yourself if what's there is NPOV and if you think it's not come and discuss it here first? I don't really want to stick all the tags back on. Haldraper (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I endorse these changes. I'm glad changes to the article are happening more freely and organically now, with no interferences. The size from the compromise version yesterday has come down significantly. We still have more to do, but let's keep this up.UBER ^(talk) 17:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As of this version, the article is at 7,600 words. But, as I mentioned below, content is creeping into excessive footnotes and quotes in citations; the citations are the same size as the article prose (46 KB each). The article is gradually becoming more readable, but there are still load time issues, likely caused by the images and excessive content in notes and citations (which aren't counted in prose size). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As of this version, prose is at 7,350 words, and references are down from 47KB to 38KB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sentences as overcited as this example are screaming either poor sourcing, synthesis or POV-pushing:

• After violations of the Reichskonkordat signed in July 1933 between the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany which had guaranteed the Church some protections and rights,[209][210] Pope Pius XI issued the 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge[209][211][212][213] which publicly condemned the Nazis' persecution of the Church and their ideology of neopaganism and racial superiority.[213][214][215][216]

We see overciting throughout, indicative of same:

• Catholics believe that Jesus designated Simon Peter as the leader of the apostles by proclaiming "upon this rock I will build my church ... I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven ... ".[29][39][41][42][43]

If Catholics believe something, stated as fact, it shouldn't need five sources. This problem is part of the bulk and unreadability of the article, and gives the impression that high quality sources haven't been consulted and used.

It's also indicative that more aggressive summary style could be applied in the main article; all of these statements that have dozens of citations are not likely to be summaries of key concepts, worthy of inclusion in a broad overview article, and may also indicate

Was this article written from high quality sources and broad overviews, or just a patch job of whatever text someone thought should be added, based on whatever sources could be found? Why does one sentence need eight citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The article starts off with history. If this were a place article, that would be great! Followed by geography, climate, etc. Kind of funny for a church, though, IMO. Isn't what the church says it does or says it believes in, more important? Usually the subject of an article is permitted to place it's best foot forward, followed by criticism, which is, I'm sure, profound, in this case.

Saying "the church is the sum total of its history" is not quite adequate IMO. Adolf Hitler has a rather positive article, by comparison. You'd think that history/Wikipedia would take a more dim view (by comparison). Student7 (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't what the church says it does or says it believes in, more important?

Absolutely not, to answer your question. From an encyclopedic perspective, what people actually do is always the most important factor, and that's the quick and easy rationalization for history sections usually coming first. Also, Wikipedia specifically advises us to use secondary sources in large numbers precisely to avoid problems with what people claim they believe, so what the Catholic Church says it believes is generally irrelevant to what reputable scholars say it believes. The latter get more preference. Why? Because you'll find writings from Stalin saying he supported free speech. People could have ulterior motives for making certain statements, and that's why we stick with reputable sources.UBER ^(talk) 23:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in the content here, but just a general point. We do allow people and organizations who have articles about themselves to make clear what their positions are fairly early on, though this version was too top-heavy in that regard. Maybe once you have a good working draft completed, consideration could be given to having a brief section at the start, maybe two paragraphs on core positions, then moving on to history. I make this suggestion only in case the issue of "history first" becomes a major sticking point; if most people are fine with history first, that's okay too.

One thing I'd suggest is removing some of the references. Something is causing a slow load time, and that's probably at least in part to do with the large number of citation templates (they're maybe not the only things doing this, but they can't be helping), and quite a few of the sentences have multiple refs after them, which surely can't always be needed e.g. "According to its doctrine, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.[38][39][40]" The load time has been causing me problems as an admin trying to follow what's going on, so it can't be making things pleasant for editors and readers. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I said same at Talk:Catholic_Church#NPOV; just loading diffs here is a pain! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

For topics that are as heavily disputed as this one, secondary sources should be used overwhelmingly. The more controversial the subject, the more likelihood of deception or manipulation, hence why primary sources are a bad idea for these kinds of topics. And when we do include material from the Church, there should always be a secondary source corroborating it, unless it's something as obvious as "The Church said this". But with statements like the Church believes, the Church thinks, etc...it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a reputable source or two attached as well.UBER ^(talk) 00:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right, but with something sensitive like this you have to be careful not to drown out the voice of the subject. You also need to be careful not to define primary source so widely that anyone associated with the church becomes a primary source. I'm not saying you've done this, by the way, because I haven't looked; just making a general point. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I'll agree with that. And no I have never added a single source to this subject. Right now, the daunting profusion of sources is the problem, which seems quite strange to say on Wikipedia.UBER ^(talk) 01:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

One caveat to your position Uber is that churches teach, they do not believe. If one is attempting to illustrate the doctrines of a church we necessarily would cite their doctrines as they state them. Secondary sources may be ideal, but the quality of the source becomes paramount. For example, going to a Southern Baptist scholar for a review of Catholicism might introduce a skewed view of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Alternatively, a reputable Catholic scholar should provide a reliable summary of the Church's doctines. I suspect we are saying the same thing, but I think clarity is vital at this point in the process.

The reason so many reference are used in religious topics is because they are so contentious. The Catholic Church (I am not Catholic) has garnered an enormous amount of critical information over its nearly 2,000 year history. Every point has been disputed in this article and the only way out of conflict is to reference everything. Most of the controversial religious articles incurs the same type of referencing. If you know an alternative way when so much controversy exists, please share it. --^StormRider 01:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

An answer to that is in my post on the straw poll; anything that is triple, cuadruple cited in a broad overview article probably doesn't belong here, and should go in daughter articles, with this being a summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

From an absolutely uninvolved editor: FWIW, this article came to my attention when a few months ago I tried to link from another article and crashed my browser. I had a look at the article and saw it was huge, had a look at the talk page, also huge, and have been lurking for a while. Today I can finally load the article. Before all other considerations comes the most important: readers must be able to access the page. I commend everyone who has been working hard to make that a reality.

talk

) 02:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just looking at some of the

overlinking (it's everywhere, and the sea of blue makes the article as hard to read as the overcitation, but I know editors have more important things to focus on right now), but while I was in there, I saw an insane amount of detail on less than broad issues. I won't specify them, prefer to leave those to more involved editors, but the article could still use a much deeper cut on content to daughter articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 02:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The overlinking makes it very difficult to read. Also, though this would take time, the templates should be taken out of the text and maybe consider using a system such as short notes to minimize load time. I still have to wait for the diffs to load, but that's not as problematic as having the article itself be inaccessible to readers. I'd be happy to help if help is needed.

talk

) 02:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2)

Re - overlinking. Hallelujah! Thank goodness someone else has noticed this and identified it as a problem. One of the reasons for the overlinking is the attitude that this article is intended to be an index to all the "important" articles related to the Catholic Church. Thus, various editors have argued along the lines of "we must keep the text about personage X or event Y in the article so that we can link to it". Thus, we wind up with single sentences about Teresa of Avila, Junipero Serra and Bartolomeo de las Casas just so we can link to their articles. This led to overly long text which was made up of short choppy sentences that didn't provide a flowing narrative but instead consisted of a bunch of non sequiturs. Long text is difficult enough to read but text that doesn't engage the reader and carry him along is just a chore to read. It would be great if we could chuck the "gotta link to every important article" mentality and just write good narrative prose. --Richard S (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That again leads back to a broader problem: poor sourcing, sticking sentences together according to individual ideas of what should be included, rather than reliance on broad overview high-quality sources, giving due weight to the most significant issues, and summarizing other issues from daughter articles. Lots to be done here, but many able hands are on the task. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I travel frequently to three different locations where I'm forced to a dialup, and can't access articles like this one was from those locations ... I've raised this many times here, trying to explain that an article that more than half the world can't see benefits no one, and I frequently raise

WP:SIZE issues at FAC, but most Wiki editors have fast connections, and don't take the concern on board. I'm a strong advocate for appropriate use of summary style, because I see the problem every time I travel! Also, I can't recall ever seeing an FA with 37 citatons in the lead (10 is high), and that alone indicates the level of problems in the article. If you have to overcite the lead, it means there are likely POV UNDUE or synth issues, or overreliance on inferior sources in the text. The lead should be a summary of the article, with only surprising statement or quotes needing citation. The overciting is indicative of broader issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 05:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, thanks for sharing your story. It might sound maudlin and melodramatic, but you're exactly the kind of user I was trying to help in my efforts to change the article—you and many others across the world who do not have the benefit of DSL or FIOS and who often have to wait up to a minute to load ridiculously long articles (kb-wise) on Wikipedia. You're absolutely right: nothing matters more in Wikipedia than access. It doesn't matter that an article is splendidly or horribly written if people have difficulty getting to it. I only wish that more people had taken your sensible advice instead of making this one of the bitterest and most contested articles in the history of Wikipedia. Thank you again.UBER ^(talk) 05:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I do have a high speed connection, but for some reason, until the recent cuts, it took as long as a minute to load the page. It would have been an interesting test to see whether the long version would have loaded on a dial-up connection. Didn't mean to sound melodramatic—I was merely curious to see why the browser crashed but not surprised when I saw the article size. But this brings up another consideration: I purposely removed the link to here from the article I was working on. I'd imagine quite a few Wikipedia articles link to CC and any link that impedes a reader is a useless link which is counterproductive.

talk

) 14:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha no no...I meant my statement was melodramatic. You sounded fine.UBER ^(talk) 06:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been on this issue since I had to try to do MoS cleanup at four different FACs (and was unhappy that the article kept appearing at FAC with the same MOS issues-- I don't mind cleaning up MoS the first time), and just accessing the diffs was a hairpuller. The issue now is that this article needs so much work just to make it readable, that a prioritized ToDo list might help as far as a plan of attack. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In the History section, I think it is important that we make sure to tell the reader not just "what happened" but also answer the question "so what?". Too many times, we throw out facts but don't explain why these facts are important.

For example, one could have read the section on the French Revolution and gotten the impression that a bunch of priests were killed and churches destroyed but the Church survived the Revolution and Napoleon and, in the end, won by being stronger for the experience.

Is this true? The Church may have had its prestige enhanced by the Pope's opposition to Napoleon but was the Church in France as strong in the 19th century as it was in the 18th century? I would think that it wasn't.

I think the suggestion that everything was hunky-dory and even better than before after the fall of Napoleon is the result of an excessive focus on positive pro-Church sources rather than an objective look at the Enlightenment-inspired transformation that started with the French Revolution and ends with the loss of the Papal States in 1870.

The 19th century brought waves of anti-clerical violence, harsh anti-clerical laws and milder legislation which ultimately effected a separation of church and state to various degrees in different countries. This theme of "separation of church and state" is not explicitly mentioned in the article and yet is important in any secular understanding of the history of the past 250-300 years (well, maybe even the last 1000 years). This is one of the big "so what?" points that I think the History section of this article should make.

This is not to say that the Church did not play a strong role in the politics and culture of countries after the 19th century. However, the role it played was markedly changed by the loss of temporal power (through loss of land and wealth).

Anti-clericalism probably also affected the Church's politics by pushing it towards the right (specifically affecting Pius XI's opposition of Communism).

--Richard S (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Church became, in fact, much weaker in France (but also in general) after the Revolution, although the explicit cause for that weakness is not found in the 19th century, but the early 20th. It was the famous 1905 law that permanently broke Catholicism in France, although it just formalized the prevailing attitude of the French government, which had already shut down thousands of religious schools and deported thousands of priests and nuns as part of its effort to establish secular, state-run education. I would think this law definitely deserves some contextual appearance in the article as part of the broader theme of the declining influence of the Catholic Church.UBER ^(talk) 18:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What the encyclopedia needs is a good, neutral, sourced history of the Church of France, beginning well before the Revolution. It would be clearer, and more in accord with what real histories I have seen - including the reliable Papalist ones - to present the French Government and the Papacy as the major players, going back at least to the Gallicans, if not the kidnapping of the Pope in 1308; despite the many arguments for bad text for the sake of links, Gallican is not linked to from here. The Enlightenment and the Protestants are minor figures, although each important in their century. (Whether this will fit here is again another question.)

Presenting this, as we have done up to now, as the martyrdom of the Church at the hands of the EEEE-vil Revolutionaries, is not only partisan ignorance, but flat wrong. The Civil Constitution of the Clergy was the work of the King's ministers, not the Jacobins, who were not to come to power for three years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I would actually say the relationship of Napoleon III with the Church (he protected the Church, then later betrayed it out of cowardice) is more relevent than Napoleon I. Though I think its fair comment, that the Satanic inspired vanities of Philosophism would have pushed the Church closer towards the various masculine monarchies and even, paradoxically Britain (Congress of Vienna). - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.

Is Satanic inspiration a consensus explanation in the sources for anything since the Gadarene swine? ;-> (Although I am indeed reminded of Kipling's use of Gadarene.) Is this view, quite seriously, commonly enough held to warrant space on this talk page?

Is cowardice a claim that Napoleon the Less had no better uses for his troops in 1870 than defending Rome, even at the cost of war with Italy in that dreadful summer? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

One of my pet peeves about the History section has been the lack of broad overviews. The sense that I got from the previous looong version was a rattling narrative of facts with all sorts of hidden agendas but very few overt themes. My mind kept screaming "and so what? Why should I care about that?".

One thing that would help to address this issue is the use of lead paragraphs for every subsection. This lead paragraph should follow many of the same guidelines as lead paragraphs for articles. That is, it should summarize the whole section into a single paragraph. It might only consist of two or three sentences but those few sentences give the reader an overview of what will follow and even allow him to skip the rest of the section if he so chooses. In theory, we should be able to construct a very terse summary of the History section by just combining the lead paragraphs of each section.

I have made a preliminary attempt at implementing this approach with the "Reformation and Counter-Reformation" and "Age of Discovery" sections. I also broke out the treatment of the "Enlightenment" as a separate section again. Doing this makes it easier to write the lead paragraphs. (Or more specifically, merging these two topics makes it difficult to write a good lead paragraph.)

--Richard S (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I agree with your point. Concise "overview" paragraphs may be appropriate for certain sub-sections, provided that they comply with summary style guidence. Perhaps a brief overview pargraph would be useful at the beginning of the History section? Majoreditor (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I too agree, subject to referencing and NPOV of course. It may also be possible to thereby reduce some of the "rattling narrative of facts" that follows and thus the overall length of the page.Haldraper (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the introductions that you crafted for those two sections, Richard. I actually think those summaries would be a good basis for rewriting the sections...In the case of the Age of Discovery, we may not need to write much more than that. Karanacs (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I too also agree, but especially for the first two subsections of History, which need to be written in summary style. Right now, they're just a jumbled and incoherent collection of facts.UBER ^(talk) 18:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(Note that this thread is on the article talk page, not the review page.)

Majoreditor asked me to comment. For the readers' digest version, skip to point 4. To see where my conclusion comes from, see points 2-3.

1. My understanding of events is as follows (UTC): 02:00, Mike Searson creates the talk page template to start a community or individual GAR; 02:06 UberCryxic creates an individual GA reassessment page; 02:12 Mike Searson begins his review, adding to the individual GA reassessment page.
2. Guidelines for community and individual GARs have been stable since July 2008: see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/guidelines. The purpose of individual GARs is to allow easy changes of GA status by uninvolved reviewers, so that the more resource intensive and time-consuming community GARs are only used when necessary.
   • Individual GARs can range from a form of "speedy delisting" when an article manifestly fails to meet one or more GA criteria, to a thorough re-review, with a hold period aimed at improving the article to GA standard. The editor initiating the review is the one who makes the final decision. Individual GAR pages were introduced in 2008 not to make delisting articles more difficult, but to make the process accountable: a permanently linkable page for the article history, with the reviewer and reasons for the decision clearly identified.
   • Community GAR is now intended for cases where the GAN and individual GAR processes fail to generate a consensus. This provides a useful litmus test: if an individual GAR is highly likely to be disputed, and hence lead to a community GAR, then it is probably better to head for a community GAR from the beginning. This is one way to determine what "uninvolved reviewer" might mean in a given situation.
3. In this case either article editing stats (see e.g., [15]) or review and talk page comments suggest to me that an individual review by Mike Searson, Ubercryxic, or several other editors contributing here, would likely be disputed as either involved or partisan, and hence lead to a community GAR anyway.
4. I see two ways to proceed.
   • We open a community GAR on the article. This is likely to be contentious, as editors will be addressing controversial issues of broadness, focus and neutrality. To mitigate this, community GARs, like FACs and FARs, have associated talk pages, where off-topic discussions can take place or be refactored.
   • An uninvolved editor delists the article purely on grounds of instability, and without prejudice concerning other issues. No point is made, no new confrontation is created. I would be willing to do that, but if editors would prefer someone else, there are several people I could ask, who would only delist if, in their objective opinion, the stability criterion has not been met in the recent edit history. Geometry guy 21:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that if we had a consensus of several neutral parties (I'd be happy with you and one other of your choice) that the stability criteria has not been met, then the article should be summarily delisted. The talk page has been contentious enough lately, and I fear that a full GAR will just be more of the same. This would also alleviate the issue that both NancyHeise and Xandar are blocked and could not participate in a full GAR. Karanacs (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Geometry guy, I would be fine with you delisting the article on your own, but do as you see fit. I'm not sure on the exact policies here as you can tell.UberCryxic ^(talk) 21:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur that G guy should speedy delist, minimize drama. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Geometry Guy has been heavily involved in previous FACs here, so cannot really be regarded as "uninvolved". The question of stability obviously depends on what version we end up working with. If it is the old one, the issue is more one of "over-stability" compared to the last GAR version. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That is partially correct. I commented critically on (only) one previous FAC in 2008 and have commented barely at all since then. This is one reason why I asked if another editor would be preferred. Geometry guy 21:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked NancyHeise for her input on this question. She responded with the following. Karanacs (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I read the thread and I agree with Johnbod. Because of Geometry Guy's involvement in the FAC process, particularly his non-neutrally worded and lengthy oppose vote, I think that he would not be viewed as a neutral candidate. NancyHeise talk 21:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[16]

That's fine as far as I am concerned. If there is to be an individual reassessment for stability, then it can be done by another reviewer. Similarly for community reassessment, I close many of these, but if community reassessment ends up being preferred, I would be happy to recuse in this case, even though I have moved on since 2008. Geometry guy 22:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

When there is doubt it is best to recuse yourself. This is a very interesting topic when it is the discussion page that is full of edits and the article itself has been rather stable. Given the behavior and edits of a few of the people that have commented here, it is clear that they are not even close to being neutral or objective. I am curious who you might propose as a "neutral" party? Religious topics tend to be contentious by their very nature. Please let me know exactly who you find that is neutral or at least capable of being neutral on this topic. --^StormRider 22:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Neutral" is the wrong word, in my view. What is needed is an uninvolved and experienced reviewer who is able to focus on the GA criteria and be impartial and objective. There are plenty of these. Geometry guy 22:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Geometry guy. I am fine with either a community GAR or with an uninvolved editor conducting an individual GAR. Majoreditor (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now contacted two editors I greatly respect for their judgment, SilkTork and EyeSerene. I did so entirely onwiki for maximum transparency; their comments can thus be found in a discussion on my talk page. They both concur with the stability concerns, and I think at least one of them would be willing to conduct an individual GAR to delist on that basis. Alternatively, I think at least one of them would be willing to close a community GAR should one take place. Geometry guy 11:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. However, I wonder if this is the best time to do a review. The article is hardly stable and so many changes are made daily that it would be almost impossible to review. If you think it is important to delist, move ahead. It may be better to just delist because of all the editing. On the other hand, it may be wiser to wait until things settle down and review the new product being produced. At the current speed we are only talking a week or two at most before this group achieves their desired end. I can't believe maintaining a GA designation for two additional weeks will create any harm to Wikipedia. If you move forward immediately, a community GAR would be better. This has been a rather contentious process and no need to fan the flames. The more people involved in the process the easier it is for all to swallow the resulting medicine. --^StormRider 20:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

New GAR

The article is unstable, and has other GA criteria issues which means that it is not currently a good article so could reasonably be delisted. My initial view was to delist and recommend a period of one month of stable and productive editing to allow for issues to be addressed before renomination. However I have noticed that there is positive editing taking place. As the aim of GA is both to improve articles, and to motivate editors to improve articles, then it doesn't really matter which way round the process goes (delist and renominate in one month, or allow one month of editing under a GAR), as long as progress is being made. I would be hesitant to impede the progress being made on the article by delisting now and potentially demotivating a bunch of willing editors. So I recommend allowing a period of editing to improve the article, trusting the editors to do the right thing and move the article in the right direction through co-operation and negotiation, and then a close review to look at any unresolved issues. This should be done under a new GAR as the existing GAR has been set up by editors who are involved in the article. I would be hesitant about setting up a community GAR as I feel those responsible for making decisions as to the article's NPOV should be independent and uninvolved - a community GAR might invite heated debate from involved editors. Picking up a suggestion that EyeSerene has made - [17] - I feel a joint GAR between EyeSerene and myself might work. I will get in touch with UberCryxic and Mike Searson to close the current GAR. Then open a new GAR to be conducted by EyeSerene and myself, which would be run under the condition that it would run for at least a month, and if there is any disruptive editing in that time the article would be delisted. The first action of the new GAR would be to put the GAR on hold for seven days to allow productive editing to continue without interference, and then EyeSerene and myself will look at the article in seven days to see how close the article is to GA criteria, and to make our observations. A decision to close the GAR as either keep or delist would be a joint decision between EyeSerene and myself. SilkTork *^YES! 16:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with the above EyeSerene^talk 09:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As a reply to the recent set of edit summary remarks and reverts concerning the placement of a comma in the lead sentence, and its replacement by the word "and", the reason editors had a comma in the sentence is because the comma is correct in the sentence context. Its removal and the change to "and" is incorrect.

The comma serves as a parenthetical offset between two related phrases. "approximately one-sixth of the world's population" is an expansion or exposition on the phrase "more than a billion members", and not an introduction of a new fact. The removal of the comma and the addition of "and" in the lead indicates that the world's population statistic is an added fact separate from "one billion members". Here that is not the case.

Consider the following example: "Joe is a typical human, possessing two feet, the standard number of pedal extremities." It would not be correct to write "Joe is a typical human, possessing two feet and the standard number of pedal extremities." because the addition of "and" makes the final phrase redundant. However, "Joe is a typical human, possessing two feet and two hands." would be correct given the introduction of a new fact.

I will not revert the edit, but it would be a minor improvement if a content-involved editor were to change or revert the "and" edit. If the original comma is too confusing as placed, perhaps the lead sentence should be reworded to avoid its use. This need not be a controversial change. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Does it look better now?UBER ^(talk) 20:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that fixes the problem. -- Michael Devore (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The article text has this sentence "Nevertheless, Amerindian populations suffered serious decline due to new diseases, inadvertently introduced through contact with Europeans, which created a labor vacuum in the New World."

This sentence is factually true but there are a couple of problems with it. First, as I've indicated before, there is the general tendency towards this section being exculpatory... "bad conquistadors/secular colonizers" vs. "good, noble missionaries" but alas! best efforts of missionaries to "save" the Amerindians fails due to the onslaught of European diseases. I remain unconvinced that the role of missionaries in the Americas was primarily salutary. Of course, they did bring many benefits to the natives but I think it is more accurate to see the effect of Christian missions as a "mixed bag". Certainly, there are strong POVs in the "real world" who highlight the negative effects of Christian missionary work. It is arguable whether such POVs represent the mainstream but they are, at least, a strong and salient POV that needs to be presented here to provide a "full picture" of the real world perspective on this topic.

Also, the ending of the sentence "which created a labor vacuum in the New World" begs the question "and so....? what's your point?". It's like we raise the issue of a labor vacuum and then drop the topic, moving on without explaining what the relevance and significance of that labor vacuum is.

Of course, the answer is ... "the inability to enslave and exploit Native Americans as cheap labor led to the importation of African slaves". Until we fix the "big problem" of how to present the role and effect of Catholic missions in the post-Columbian Americas, the least we can do is fix this awkwardness. I propose just deleting the words " which created a labor vacuum in the New World" on the grounds that entering into an explanation of African slaves is a bit of a digression for an article of this scope. If we were talking about History of the Catholic Church in the Americas or Catholic Church and slavery, there is a natural segue into a discussion of the legitimacy of slavery in Catholic teaching and the conflict that African slavery in the New World poses for the anti-slavery stance taken by the Catholic Church. However, I don't think we want to get into this level of detail in this article.

--Richard S (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree, also inadvertently should go; it is somebody struggling with the smallpox-laden blankets story; since this (in my experience, your mileage may vary) has usually been blamed on the eighteenth century British or the US Cavalry, it is doubly inappropriate here.

This involves several off-topic controversies. (What was the population of North America in 1450? Is the answer knowable?). Dump the topic, the exculpation, and the praise of missions all in one lump - or that is my advice. 22:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It is clear from historical accounts that within the Catholic church there were both supporters and opponents of the genocide of the Amerindians. One opponent of the genocide was a Catholic priest, Don Frey Bartolomé de las Casas, OP, who wrote numerous books documenting the events, including The Devastation of the Indies, (1552) [republished by Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore & London, 1992], as well as History of the Indies [translated by Andrée M. Collard, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, 1971] and In Defense of the Indians [translated by Stafford Poole, C.M., Northern Illinois University, 1974]. A few extracts from The Devastation of the Indies give a flavor of the events: With my own eyes I saw Spaniards cut off the nose, hands and ears of Indians, male and female, without provocation, merely because it pleased them to do it. ... Likewise, I saw how they summoned the caciques and the chief rulers to come, assuring them safety, and when they peacefully came, they were taken captive and burned. ... [The Spaniards] took babies from their mothers' breasts, grabbing them by the feet and smashing their heads against rocks. ... They built a long gibbet, low enough for the toes to touch the ground and prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Savior and the twelve Apostles. ...Then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive. ... As the Spaniards went with their war dogs hunting down Indian men and women, it happened that a sick Indian woman who could not escape from the dogs, sought to avoid being torn apart by them, in this fashion: she took a cord and tied her year-old child to her leg, and then she hanged herself from a beam. But the dogs came and tore the child apart; before the creature expired, however, a friar baptized it. Read also the essay Lights in the Darkness in Christian History magazine [Issue 35, 1992] by Dr. Justo L. González [adjunct professor of theology at Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur, Georgia]. On the Conquest of the Americas he says: It was one of the bleakest times in the history of Christianity. In the name of Christ, thousands were slaughtered, millions enslaved, entire civilizations wiped out. - In the name of Christ, natives were dispossessed of their lands by means of the Requerimiento. This document informed the native owners and rulers of these lands that Christ’s vicar on earth had granted these lands to the crown of Castile. They could accept and submit to this, or be declared rebel subjects and destroyed by force of arms. - In the name of Christ, the natives were dispossessed of their freedom by means of the encomiendas. The crown entrusted natives—sometimes hundreds of them—to a Spanish conquistador to be taught the rudiments of the Christian faith. In exchange, the natives were to work for the conquistador—the encomendero. The system soon became a veiled form of slavery. Even worse, some encomenderos left the natives underfed and overworked to the point of death. González however then proceeds to describe how these events were condemned by several leading priests including Don Frey Bartolomé de las Casas and the Dominican Antonio de Montesinos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.43.37 (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

82.71.43.37, I appreciate your perspective since it is very close to my own. However, the quotations you provide do not refute the thesis that there were "bad conquistadors and colonial settlers" who frustrated the "good intentions and directives" of the Spanish Crown and the Vatican. If we look at what the Spanish Crown said (especially Queen Isabella) about treatment of the Amerinidians and what the Popes said about the same topic, we are left with this thesis of evil being done in spite of the noble intents of the Spanish Crown and the Popes. In this thesis, all the bad things done "in the name of Christ" was done by the bad people "on the ground" but not "at the top, back home in Europe". This might be the "mainstream" opinion but I'm not convinced that it is. Me personally, I think the truth is closer to "plausible deniability" i.e. "Yes, we understand that these bad things need to be done but we ain't sanctioning it officially". But that's just my personal opinion. Does anyone know of reliable sources that address this question directly? --Richard S (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

... is still everywhere, but one thing that jumps out is the chart in the "Hierarchy, personnel and institutions" section; that data could be summarized to one sentence, and the chart moved to the daughter article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not one sentence but certainly a lot less than is there now. Does anyone else get the feeling of "the mice will play while the cat's away" and that certain blocked editors will be returning with a vengeance to this page next week to add/reinsert a lot more "detail essential for the reader"? Haldraper (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No I do not get that feeling.UBER ^(talk) 19:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, a new mouse on the block :-) All I can say is: stick around and see! Haldraper (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's try not to raise the conversation level a bit, please! Karanacs (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, per Karanacs, the past is behind us. Nancy and Xandar have essentially agreed not to revert anything. It's not going to be a problem. Have some faith in people Hald.UBER ^(talk) 20:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a cycle of glorious song, a medley of extemporanea; consensus on neutrality can never go wrong - and I am

Marie of Roumania. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

22:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. The titles of the Pope(such as successor of Saint Peter, Vicar of Christ, etc) and what the heirarchy is actually for is very relevent to a summary of the Church. This section actually needs more work, the mentioning of canon law, etc and I think we should mention religious orders in this section too—ie, Dominicans, Francisans, Jesuits, etc. The info about homosexuals been disuaded from being part of the clergy should probably be put into a note. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There must be a way to summarize this information without stuffing the section with useless titles though.UBER ^(talk) 22:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The titles are not "useless" at all (explain the claim?). They are the titles held by the Papacy. The fact that the Church holds the Pope to the Vicar of Christ and the successor of Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles is directly pertinent to why the Church claims to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is a central tenant of the religion itself. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That might be true, but the article should not adopt the perspective of the Catholic Church. To the world in general, the Pope is known as the Pope, not as the Vicar of Christ or whatever titles he possesses within the organization. It's not a big deal either way, but it just seems like the kind of ancillary details we're trying to trim.UBER ^(talk) 23:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Yorkshirian. These titles explain much about the structure and history of the church hierarchy, particularly regarding the papacy. It shows continuity with pagan traditions (pontiff), linkage to the apostles (St. Peter), primacy over other churches (prince of the apostles) and linkage to God (vicar of Christ). Whether one professes to believe the legitimacy of these titles is another story. But the sentence communicates important concepts which anchor key Catholic beliefs. Majoreditor (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added pontifex maximus, which may make the continuity clearer. I doubt many non-Catholics would call the Pope "Supreme Pontiff of the Church Universal" - except with bitter irony - but as a note on Catholic usage, this should be unobjectionable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not opposed to keeping the titles but I would like to offer my perspective. To me, the titles are basically trivial details. I don't disagree with Majoreditor that the titles could "explain much about the structure and history of the church hierarchy, particularly regarding the papacy. It shows continuity with pagan traditions (pontiff), linkage to the apostles (St. Peter), primacy over other churches (prince of the apostles) and linkage to God (vicar of Christ). " if the meanings of the titles are explained. However, I suspect that most Catholics would be unable to explain these meanings "off the cuff" and the meanings of these titles will be absolutely lost on the average reader, especially if that reader is not Catholic. Thus, I would say that we could lose the titles without really detracting from the article. If the titles are as important as Majoreditor asserts, then we should explain them briefly. I think they're not that important and are more important as catechesis for the faithful but not in an encyclopedic article. --Richard S (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Something to be said for this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The titles only deserve one sentence, and wikilinking should be sufficient if readers want more details. Majoreditor (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I know we've been over some of this ground before but I still think the opening sentence of the lead is very see-sawy and choppy:

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,[note 1] is the world's largest Christian church with more than a billion members,[note 2] approximately one-sixth of the world's population. The number of practicing Catholics worldwide, however, is not reliably known.[15]

Everything is qualified by the succeeding text or in the two notes. The membership figures are also well discussed in the relevant section. I therefore propose a new opening sentence that avoids these problems:

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,[note 1] is the world's largest Christian church.[note 2] Haldraper (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that shortened version. Karanacs (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed text is an improvement. Majoreditor (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I also endorse this proposal. Since you made it, go ahead and implement the changes yourself Hald.UBER ^(talk) 00:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose because it doesn't mention the number of world-wide members. It considers the Church only in relation to schismatic and theologically heretical Christian groups rather than the entire world itself. The

I can live with keeping the numbers on the end. Not sure what "It considers the Church only in relation to schismatic and theologically heretical Christian groups rather than the entire world itself" means. Will make change. Haldraper (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed this further following Karanacs' later edits: the RC/Catholic distinction only made sense together with a Note and is now covered in the etymology section. On the other hand, the Note on membership figures didn't add much to the text, it just added more refs. I've therefore converted it into a single ref. Haldraper (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I added back in the "also known as ..." for now. It's generally accepted practice to put alternative names in the lead, and this clause essentially serves as the summary of the new Etymoloy section. I'm also concerned that by removing this, we invite others to edit-war over the name that is shown. Karanacs (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fair enough, Karanacs. I think the your first point carries more weight than the second though: we shouldn't be deterred from making bold changes for fear of edit wars. Haldraper (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed this section down to the above yesterday, only to have Haldraper flyby revert the trim with no proper explination. My rationale for the trim is simple; in the current article there is far too much weight to relations between Church and Third Reich (a whole paragraph is obviously undue weight), which in the larger picture are insignificant, it deviated from core facts, with pure opinion, polemic and so on. At the same time the article doesn't mention the Catholic authoritarian governments which were actually supported by the Church (Franco is, but we can also mention Salazar and Dollfuss) as well as explaining why the Church supported it (these governments tried to merge Catholic social teaching with their political program). Also I trimmed the gory details of Mexico down to just "anti-Catholic killings", since it gets the point across in a shorter form. Same with explinations of the term Conspiracy of Silence. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, you seem to think there is undue weight about relations between the Church and the Third Reich: in fact, there is half a sentence about the Reichskonkordat and it is only there as background for Pius issuing Mit brennender Sorge when it was violated. The sentence was not added by anti-Catholic editors trying to show up the Church for signing a concordat with the Nazis but by Nancy who wanted to highlight the fact that the Vatican had issued an anti-Nazi encyclical in 1937.

I'm not against adding info on the Chuch's support for right-wing regimes like

Antonio Salazar's Portugal but we need to do in a NPOV manner and not, to quote you, "with pure opinion, polemic and so on" as you did with your previous attempt - "Grand Orient led government...anti-Catholic killings" (source=Blood Drenched Altars|publisher=EWTN Global Catholic Network: reliable?) - and which gave the section the feel of a far-right, 1950's Catholic tract rather than an encyclopaedia article. Haldraper (talk

) 09:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the conflict in Mexico, well it mentioned rapes, killings and other attacks anyway. The purpose of these attacks were anti-Catholic and it simply gets it across in fewer words.

history of anti-clericism is well documented.- Yorkshirian (talk

) 09:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that a single sentence that covers both the

reliable source. Haldraper (talk

) 10:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Focus on the ethnic conflict between Jews and Germans deviates from the topic of the article, namely the Catholic Church, to present fringe far-left/secularist polemic (off-topic and undue weight). The subject is notable on a history of the Jews, or one of the Third Reich, but not a summary of the Catholic Church. Since the Church was not a combatant in it, then it is unrelated to the article. It also evokes a partisan religiously bias, pro-Judaism/anti-Catholicism take on the complex Middle Ages dispute when such comment is entirely irrelevent to a section on the 20th century (particularly since German anti-Jewish sentiment of that period, derives from secular sources such as Richard Wagner, Wilhelm Marr, Bruno Bauer and other radical Hegelian and Kantian currents).

Far more relevent is that the German Third Reich broke the terms of the accord with the Church, which led to direct hostilities between the two (and even potential support of an assasination attempt on Hitler). The invasion of Catholic Poland and the Church opposition to it (hence against the aggression which incited WWII, that caused the deaths of 90 million) is directly relevent in a summary. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, as a Freemason and a Catholic, I'm not crazy about putting a lot of weight on this. I prefer Hal's wording here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The anti-clerical/freemasonry point seems pure

WP:FRINGE

claim that Hitler attacked Poland because it was 'Catholic Poland' rather than part of an expansionist foreign policy that saw the invasion of and deaths of millions of citizens of countries with Catholic, Jewish, Protestant and Orthodox populuations.

I find it quite amusing that you characterise the current text on the Church and the Nazis/Holocaust as a "far-left/secularist polemic...[that] evokes a partisan religiously bias, pro-Judaism/anti-Catholicism..." given that it essentially a slightly trimmed version of the section as originally written by that well-known far-left, secularist polemicist and anti-Catholic partisan Nancy Heise. Haldraper (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you all please refocus this discussion on the content (which is clearly a mess with eight citations to support one sentence)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshirian opines in his usual fashion: "Calles was a freemason, his government was anti-clerical, therefore international freemasonry was directing anti-clericalism in Mexico." Gosh, its so difficult to argue against this sort of logic. Honestly, Yorkshirian, can't you do better than this? I'm starting to think you are just intentionally winding us up with all this conspiracy theory rhetoric you go on with. Afterwriting (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you all please keep this discussion focused on the content ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of back and forth here about what to include, what not to include, how much weight to give certain issues: it's not clear to me if content is being decided based on due weight according to the highest quality sources, or just personal opinion. Long ago,

One of the things I've noticed while doing source verifications is that there are a lot of sources that reference only one fact in the article. This implies to me that the paragraphs in question were likely constructed based on our own opinions of what's important rather than what the survey of sources thought was important. I'm going to continue the verification because that will at least help us identify errors in the current text, but I think the history section, at the very least, needs to be looked at completely differently - by reviewing the source materials again and perhaps finding new sources to read. I can't do this all on my own, as I have other projects I'm also trying to finish. Can anyone else help? Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made a (hopefully helpful!) start by cutting down the refs to one per point in the industrial age section. Haldraper (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia and Karanacs that we should consider what other sources consider important. Alas, I have neither the time nor the resources to help in that effort. Until then, I would prefer that we keep the current set of topics. I am all in favor of removing excessive detail but I oppose completely deleting any of the following topics: Terrible Triangle, Reichskonkordat/Mit Brennender Sorge, Liberation Theology, Sexual abuse cases. --Richard S (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard I'm not aware anyone wants to remove any of those, except Yorkshirian with Reichskonkordat/Mit Brennender Sorge, and possibly Liberation Theology. The emphasis is on cutting excessive detail/sourcing, not whole issues. Haldraper (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandy asked if I would help perform a literature search. As much as I would like to help this article move forward, I am in the end stages of trying to finish my dissertation, so I cannot do so at this time. What I can do is lay out the kind of plan I would use as a guideline for others to follow. Let me know if such a plan would be useful to others.

talk

) 20:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

How is there no mention WHATSOEVER in this article about the sexual abuse that has come along with the Catholic Church for decades?? Seriously. Everywhere in the world, in every newspaper, there are consistently new reports of children being the victims of sexual abuse, at the hands of a Catholic Priest/Bishop... Wikipedia has a duty to discuss this. (Even the Pope's brother is guilty of this. THE POPE'S BROTHER!) Get with it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.57.156 (talk • contribs)

Actually, Wikipedia doesn't have a "duty" to discuss anything. Besides, there are lengthy articles on the sexual abuse cases elsewhere on Wikipedia -- this page is summarizing a 2000-year-old organization.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a sentence in the history section on the sex abuse scandal -- the end of the 20th century,

undue weight, the sex abuse scandals don't rate much coverage because they are, while a very tragic situation, ultimately, a very small portion of the Church's 2000-year history. Karanacs (talk

) 20:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

However, if the emphasis on the present state of the Church urged by some, presently blocked, editors were to prevail, the sex abuse scandal would merit more room, as part of the present standing of the Church. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)