Matthew 5:32–35 Matthew 5:32–35
The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council's official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.
Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as "I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church." Simply that -- Catholic Church. There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!
So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it. That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the "branch theory" of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.
So the name became attached to her for good. By the time of the first ecumenical council of the Church, held at Nicaea in Asia Minor in the year 325 A.D., the bishops of that council were legislating quite naturally in the name of the universal body they called in the Council of Nicaea's official documents "the Catholic Church." As most people know, it was that same council which formulated the basic Creed in which the term "catholic" was retained as one of the four marks of the true Church of Christ. And it is the same name which is to be found in all 16 documents of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Church, Vatican Council II.
We aren't getting anywhere again and I fear my presence may be causing more harm than good. Feel free to ask for my opinion, but I think resolution will be speeded by my withdrawl from the debate. Best wishes, -- Secisek (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nancy, I am currently working on article Pope John Paul II and I was looking for a ‘fresh pair of eyes’ and for help on the article. Your name was mentioned by Casliber in a discussion on my talk page, as someone who may be interested to ‘chip-in’. So I thought I would invite you to take a look, and possibly give me your opinion(s) and advice, which would be most welcome. If you could spare the time, I would be most grateful. Kind Regards, Marek.69 talk 12:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I found out that the training for the priesthood consists primarily of sleep deprivation, eating tasty junk food and watching Batman and other Christ-like figure movies lol. Gabr-el 02:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im on the far right: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1443830&l=ecc52&id=507283644 lol facebook I know but who cares.Gabr-el 20:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, Nancy. You left a comment at the USS Iowa FAC concerning the use of Jargon. I left a reply that would require a little teamwork between us, but I haven't heard back from you in nearly a week and was growing concerned that you may have forgotten about this particular post. I have come to ask if you would review your comment and my proposal and then update your comment accordingly so that I can determine whether or not I need to come up with a plan B. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words. Incidentally, your suggestion in the FAC has been transferred to the page User:TomStar81/Iowa class battleship featured topic work group, where a suggestions been made that those working on the Featured Topic push look into this and see if your copyediting for Iowa can be carried over to the other three completed battleships. God will, in a few months, the ad-hoc group will be credited with the first ships exclusive featured topic. Until then Nancy, take care and God bless. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nancy, I'm sorry I've been hit and miss on here (very busy in real life). I'll try and respond tomorrow. I saw your other post and have just been too busy to read through the whole document. Apologies--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is this business of a "Request for mediation" on the "officially known as" dispute? What does it entail? Before I sign up, I would rather like to know, who mediates, on what basis, and what procedure is involved. Xandar 00:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About time. I doubt the accusation of sock-puppetry is valid though, both account have history, one of them has been editing since 2007. Hopefully, we can get this resolved and be done with it again for a time. -- Secisek (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, I've been drawn in to a debate of a contentious section of the RCC Criticism article. (I've tried to avoid that page, but the History area does need sorting out) Its all at Talk:Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church. If you have time perhaps you could have a look in and perhaps make suggestions. Xandar 12:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about "The Ten Commandments in Catholic moral teaching"? Another question: Would it be better to add something about the numbering (CCC 2066), which would puzzle those who use a different numbering? Defteri (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nancy. I just wanted to say that I really appreciated your comments on the Calvin FAC. I also believe that the RCC article (as well as many other articles on the Catholic Church) should become FAs and I really salute your great efforts. For awhile, I reflected on whether I should go to the university library and help out on the RCC article. In the end, I decided that the nature of Wikipedia makes improvements in articles on major religions and theologies to be nearly impossible (too many controversies). Maybe I am too pessimistic, but that's why I had concentrated on biographies (e.g., Calvin rather than Calvinism, Cranmer rather than Anglicanism). So perhaps you may want to consider trying to bring to FA an article on one of the Doctors of the Church or a scholastic philosopher like Aquinas, Duns Scotus, or William of Ockham? I would certainly join you, so if you decide to go ahead, you are welcome to drop me a note. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nancy,
Could I ask you to respect the format of the "Initial Statements" phase of the mediation?
As User:Shell wrote "NancyHeise: I understand the instinct to respond when you feel someone is incorrect, but its important that starting out, everyone has a chance to state their position and even more importantly, give their ideas for how this dispute could be resolved. We may get into these detailed discussions later, but for now, lets stay away from debating each others points."
If you rebut everybody's statements, they will feel obliged to respond to your rebuttal or to rebut other people's initial statements including your own. This could easily lead to a free-wheeling dispersed debate rather than a structured mediation which is what you requested and what, I presume, you wish to have.
If it had been up to me, I would have reverted your responses to the initial statements but this is not my mediation so I am letting Shell call the shots.
Nothing personal here nor am I writing this solely because I dispute what you wrote. I'm just saying that not following the format makes it hard to control the process.
--Richard (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have left some final comments on the review page. Congratulations on a fine article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy. I'm not to happy with "which titles itself" the Catholic Church, for the same reason I don't support "which calls itself" the Catholic Church. Both forms of wording carry the unfortunate implication within them that this is a false or presumptuous claim. Compare "Mr Barnet, who calls/titles himself Lord Delamere." Also, "Which titles itself" could be subject to the same objections that have been used against other forms of wording, ie. that the Church has also sometimes "titled" itself by other names. The word "officially" does provide precision, and limits the use of that argument.
If "Officially known as the Catholic Church" is pedantically (and in my view incorrectly) resisted, another, even less challengeable, form of words that could be agreed in order to achieve a solution could be: "The Roman Catholic Church, in official usage, the Catholic Church." Xandar 10:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but I think I've told you before that in fact I am a Catholic! That's great on the art - maybe she'll have a WP bio one day! All the best, & sorry I can't keep up with the mediation - there comes a point where you can't face catching up with a long page, especially when it is reheated like this one. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I raised this point in earlier discussions. The second paragraph of the Third commandment section still begins: "Because Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday..." I have two problems with this. First, the concept of "Sunday" did not exist at the time of the Resurrection. The bible refers to "the first day of the week", but if the day had a name, it certainly wasn't "Sunday". Secondly, although Christians believe in the Resurrection, the neutral voice of the article requires this statement to be qualified. I believe I suggested a wording such as: "Because they believe that Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week, the Sabbath is observed by Christians...etc". Please consider the formulation, to avoid an obvious POV objection. Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, a table of currently suggested wordings has been placed on the RCC naming mediation page for comment/additions. Perhaps you could comment on the suggestions. Mine are included on the proviso that they settle the dispute. Xandar 00:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nancy. There's another vote on the mediation page.
However I'm more and more coming over to the view that the RCC article should go back to the name Catholic Church, and that we should adopt the official WP process for the move. The current argument can be cited as one of the reasons for the change. I'd argued against it on the basis that it would cause too much trouble. However, I now think it is the proper change and should be less trouble than we are now going through due to the obsessiveness of certain parties - who are determined to bar any formulation under "RCC" that declares that Catholic Church is the proper or official name. We have now had over six months of non-stop argument just on a wording to show that the Church's official name is NOT RCC.
On thinking it over and looking at the naming rules again (especially the precedent of LDS -"Mormon Church", which now has its own naming guidline at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Latter_Day_Saints), I think it will be easier to argue the move than to keep on with the debate on "official". Unlike "official" or "proper", which some people wish to argue cannot be used if ANY other usage has ever occurred, all that has to be proved under WP policy for a move to Catholic Church is that this is the most commonly used, self-identifying, or preferred name of the Church. The two main arguments against the title change are that members of certain denominations would oppose (which is specifically not a relevant factor under WP policy), and ambiguity, which is solved by the already-existing first line disambiguation link and a redirect from "Roman Catholic Church," as is standard practice. We would still need a note, but it would just have to set out the various forms of evidence. The only other problem with a change would be the thousand odd articles now starting "Roman Catholic Diocese of..." etc. But I do not think those need changing at once so long as the main article bears the right name. Xandar 10:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nancy, in my time at the Seminary, my Rector told us about one scholarly interpretation of Mark, that shows that Mark the Evangelist believed that Jesus Christ is God. The thing is most scholars believe Mark does not think Jesus is God, because of a "backward" thinking of their's. For example:
Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" - Mark 2:7
But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." - Mark 2:11
This above verse is wrongly interpretted as having Jesus say, "I may not be God but the Son of Man has the authority to forgive sins". Of course, Jesus does not say this. The facts are:
Look at this too, its very beautiful:
but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, because they all saw him and were terrified. Immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid." - Mark 6:49-50
You know, in the Old Testament period, there is a common saying among the Jews of the time - "If you see someone walking on the water, it is either God or a ghost". Look at the above passage - Jesus refutes that he is a ghost (and obviously he isn't, he is alive!) by asking them to take courage. Furthermore, what does Jesus say? IT IS I. The Greek words for IT IS I translates to YHWH in Hebrew. Jesus is not a ghost, he is God above the water.
Now then this too:
And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus. - Mark 9:4
In the over gospels, Jesus is not mentioned talking to Elijah and Moses, only being with them. Most of these pathetic interpretations say that this passage shows Jesus is equal to the prophets. However, what these foolish interpreters miss out is that in the Old Testament, both Elijah and Moses went up a mountain to talk to God, but never got a chance to see him directly. Finally, after thousands or hundreds of years, they have fulfilled their wish to talk to God. That detail about talking to Jesus is key here, its what sets Mark apart from the other gospels.
Finally:
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone" - Mark 10:17
The traditional interpretation is that Jesus is saying he is not Good, because only God is good. However, thats not what Jesus says. He says:
Now to say that Jesus is not good is ridiculous, and thats not what Jesus says. But to say that God is not the only good one is Heresy against the words of the Bible and of God, because Jesus says God alone is good. Therefore, if Jesus is good, and ONLY God is good, then Jesus is God.
Very random way to say hi! But yeah, I thought I would share this with you. Theres also so much more in Mark, its absolutely awesome. Its so under-rated. Gabr-el 21:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nancy. Gimmetrow has now started edit-warring to raise the temperature by inserting a dubious tag in the RCC lead sentence. I have explained in the article talk page why I have removed it. Xandar 11:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, you may not be aware that Checkuser is considered an invasion of privacy and that, as such, is only performed on the basis of good evidence of a suspected violation of Wikipedia policy. Thus, the attitude "I can't see what harm..." displays an insensitivity to the high privacy concerns around the use of Checkuser. Even admins cannot run Checkuser. It is a separate permission that is granted via a separate election process. Unlike admin actions which can be reverted, the invasion of privacy resulting from running Checkuser cannot be undone if the information is released.
Please read WP:Checkuser carefully to understand the criteria under which it is performed. I grant that this case is not obviously outside the criteria but it is not obviously within them either. Solid evidence based on diffs indicating a pattern of editing activity suggestive of sock-puppetry would be required. Typically, this involves edits made to the same pages or related pages at the approximately same time. The argument would be something like: "X edited Talk:Roman Catholic Church at 1:59pm and Y edited the same page at 2:02pm. This happened on multiple occasions suggesting that the pattern is not coincidence."
Also, regarding your suggestion that certain editors make requests for Checkuser on themselves, please note that such requests are routinely denied on the English Wikipedia.
I would suggest, moreover, that the evidence provided here suggests that sock puppetry is not in play here. (Except for User:Soidi who is a declared sock of User:Lima).
--Richard (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Richard (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nancy, I've transcluded your nomination of the Ten Commandments article onto WP:FAC. It looked like you started the nomination and then forgot to include it at the main page. If you meant to wait a little bit, you'll want to remove the tag from the article talk page when you remove the nom from the FAC page. Karanacs (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You really are a glutton for punishment Nancy! I'm beginning to wonder if you haven't committed some awful crime against humanity, and getting an RCC article through FAC has been given to you as a penence. :lol:
I was sorry to see that you had to withdraw the commandments article from FAC. SandyG does have a tendency to come across as "this whole article is crap, I don't know why you're wasting everyone's time with this" based on a few MoS errors, or an inconsistent citation style, but it's just her way. Her general approach is to oppose first, then maybe strike the oppose later. Others prefer to comment and then maybe support or oppose later based on the how the comments are dealt with, which is what I always prefer to do. Each to their own.
What I really came to say though was that I think this article will struggle to get through FAC for a couple of reasons, the most important of which is the large number of lists. The MoS really does deprecate lists. (I think the punctuation problem SandyG alluded to was that some of the list elements end in a fullstop and some don't. None of them should end in a fullstop unless it's a paragraph, much like image captions.) The other potential problem I see is the number of external links in the body of the article. External links should only appear in the External links section.
Anyway, chin up, I'm sure you'll make it with a Church article soon. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 13:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, I apologize for the delay (I've been very busy at home). I have now responded to your post on my talk. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nancy, as a long-time lapsed catholic I'll take your word for it :-) I know limbo isn't a dogma but if it isn't a state of afterlife either how would you describe it, a theological conjecture maybe? Haldraper (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying the souls of the unbaptised go to purgatory? Haldraper (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know the Pope didn't 'close limbo' and that it remains an acceptable opinion to hold although not one taught as revealed truth by the church. It seems to me that you can say the souls of unbaptised infants are in limbo or pray that God in his grace admits them to Heaven by removing their original sin. What I don't grasp is how anyone thinks they're in purgatory given that before the age of reason they are incapable of committing personal sins that would require purgation before they can enter Heaven. Haldraper (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi nancy, I'm not sure I'm the person you want! I described myself as a lapsed catholic but atheist would be more accurate. Like many former practising catholics, I have an interest in catholicism to the extent that I am interested in how those who remain explain the contradictions and obscurities that have led us to lapse. Best wishes Haldraper (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. also standardised the RC theology entry by removing limbo as state of afterlife Haldraper (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any Wikipedia spell check tool that will examine an article and point out all the spelling errors, but the Firefox browser will underline all misspelled words in red while you are in edit mode, and that's what I generally use to check an article. As mentioned in WP:SPELL, you can copy an article and paste it into a MS Word document for checking. Wikipedia does have "Live spellcheck", which can be activated after you install the User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool. That monitors changes as they are made by other editors, and if a known misspelling is present, it will give you a chance to correct it. The log of these is often boringly quiet, then sometimes gets so frantic that it can fray your nerves, and you have to let a lot of them go. It also only catches one misspelling at a time. Since many misspellings show up in articles as they are vandalized, you will soon find yourself reverting changes and then leaving warnings on vandal's talk pages (tedious and not very enjoyable for some), or receiving complaints from other editors that you are reverting and NOT leaving warnings. Your user page may also become a target for vandals once you strike up a conversation with them. Hope this helps. Chris the speller (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nancy, commenting here because I believe this is getting off topic on the Dawkins talk page. I'm not sure what the point of your comment was, but it is worth remembering that Dawkins (and others) claims to have been deceived by the producers of Expelled as to the intentions of the film, and to have had his interview selectively edited. In any case the words Dawkins used were "highly unlikely possibility", and to quote Dawkins without that qualifier is intellectually dishonest. As a scientist, Dawkins has to keep his mind open to any possibility, even fairies at the bottom of the garden, for instance. Unlike religion, science cannot rely on faith or belief, and everything we know in science stands ready to be discarded with the presentation of better evidence. But if you were to ask him if there was any evidence to support intelligent design, his response (and the response of science in general) would be "none at all". Regards, --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, you have a misspelling on your user page: "Humiliaitons" where you probably mean "humiliations". Mark Shaw (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I voted already, and have also posted a support. :)Gabr-el 23:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, I think the article is much, much better now! I haven't had a chance to read it in awhile and I was very impressed. I hope that you found my comments helpful, and I really do believe that improving the history of the Catholic church article has made this article that much better. Thank you for all your dedication and hard work! Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks Ben, yes your comments are always helpful. NancyHeise talk 15:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When Conservapedia was up at FAC I put it on watch. I saw a link on the talk page to an essay by a former admin there. I thought it was very interesting, and read it all the way through. Doing so made me think of you and the articles you seem to work at diligently here at Wiki. To me, Wiki does not seem to lean left, but I avoid areas that are contentious where I might be able to make a more educated assessment about that. Since some of the articles I edit address homosexuality, I find that they subjected to quite a bit of protest, vandalism, etc., so to me it seems that this is among topics that attract passionate responses from both right and left. At any rate, though bronze stars seem to evade you (which I attribute to taking one such a massive topic as the RCC), I don't glean from you that you concentrate on RCC topics for the stars. I think your work is valued and very important here. I just wanted to say that. --Moni3 (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:NancyHeise/Archive 5 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as NancyHeise/Archive 5's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear NancyHeise/Archive 5!
Peace,Rlevse~
A record of your Day will always be kept here.
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, the new nomination process is still ... well ... new :) I think you ended up with two copies of archive1 because there was an article name change, which starts over the numbering. When you added the subst:FAC, did it automatically go to archive1? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copy and paste from what I posted there, but: It's been a while since I've seen the reference source, but it came from a periodical database that omitted the page numbers, similar to how MyWire does. However I added an issue number based on what issue it exactly was. Will that suffice?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it because the tag is almost certainly incorrect. It appears to be an image that was just released to the media, for use in the media, without clear licensing terms. Now the source link is dead, but I don't think it would have been any use even if it were live. We need an explicit release saying a photo is freely licensed or PD. You may want to read WP:COPYREQ and look into contacting the woman directly. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have opposed your current FAC as I believe File:Smoking_Crack.jpg is inappropriate. I hope the subject in the image can turn a corner, and if they do having this image follow them round is only going to fuel prejudice against them and make it more difficult to leave the past behind. Fasach Nua (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nancy, as you and your talk page stalkers are probably wikipedias greatest experts on the finer nuances of the Catholic/RCC debate, I wonder if any of you could suggest appropriate categories for Cistercian Order of the Holy Cross? (Hopefully without reigniting the edit war there). ϢereSpielChequers 14:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The little ship Aurora was promoted today; many thanks for your support there. Brianboulton (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, when you get a chance, purchase a copy of the New Jerome Biblical Commentary. It is -the- major Catholic gloss of the Bible. It is large and very sound. It has helped me for a very long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nancy. I wanted to let you know that I archived the 10 commandments nomination together and to explain why. The nomination has already been open two weeks, and while it garnered one support (good job), it also had one oppose and two comments that all said the same thing - they did not think the article was comprehensive without a bit more historical perspective. I understand your point that this information was not in the sources that you consulted, and I agree that it may be harder to find. I hope you can work with Ottava, Gimmetrow, and Ioannes and possibly find additional sources that can provide at least some of this information. I suspect that with those additions your next FAC for this article should be pretty smooth. Best of luck! Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the Martin Bucer FAC was archived. In my opinion, this was closed too early. I have renominated it; would you please vote or leave a comment on the new FAC? See Talk:Martin Bucer and click on "leave comments". Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nancy, I don't think I can meliorate the Roman Catholic Church article... because it is already very good! The portals in the article should be in See also. It is ready for another FAC. Thoughts?
Hi Nancy I wonder if you or your TPS's would mind casting an eye over Stara Olszówka, there's an RCC related issue that looks unlikely to me. ϢereSpielChequers 11:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following the debate at WT:FAC, and have also read your remarks above. It will be a great pity if you do decide not to submit further Catholic articles to the FAC process. I can understand the frustration, particularly after the hijacking of the Ten Commandments candidature, and it does seem that there is a prejudice among editors against such articles that the process does not always handle well. It also seems to me that editors who are supportive in a general way during the preparation stages of these articles ought to be a lot less timid about committing themselves to support during the FAC process itself. Where were these troops when they were needed during the Ten Commandments FAC? However, these are important and much-consulted articles – Roman Catholic Church gets over 150,000 hits every month, probably more than all my featured articles put together – which greatly enhance the encyclopedia, and their qualities will be recognised, one day. I don't know if you have any immediate plans to resubmit RCC; if you have, please let me know if I can help in any way. Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gabr-el 22:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.kaldu.org/2009/05/images/wov_may2009/images/wov_09%20072_jpg.jpg The two girls in the middle wearing baige have made vows and within a year will be made nuns, like the two on the ends.
On another joyous moment, 3 more young men will join the seminary. Gabr-el 04:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A vast improvement. I think we are really close. -- Secisek (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, would you consider perhaps blanking your post regarding Ottava Rima at ANI? Feelings ran strong on both sides last night and there's a chance that someone whose opinion is the opposite will try to get in the last word (with matters going downhill from there). You have the right to your opinion, of course, yet it may be better to let sleeping dogs lie. DurovaCharge! 16:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "People will stop posting on this page when the character assassinations stop". Note though that people had stopped posting on that page and had stopped posting on OR's page. I'm not sure it is wise to open the lid of this Pandora's-like box? David D. (Talk) 18:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you that I have no anti-Catholic bias. The comments I described as "hate speech" were most emphatically not ordinary expressions of religious belief; I was condemning the mode of expression, not the underlying religious belief. Everyking (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talk later Fasach Nua (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to your question about the template on my talk page.
In addition, someone has put a citation-needed tag on this statement in the main article about Mit brennende Sorge:
Checking on this, there is no direct reference to Hitler by name in the encyclical, although tere are strong hints in the wording. Perhaps the article sentence needs a wording change? Xandar 22:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nancy. At one point you mentioned that you might be willing to review some of my articles. I'm polishing up another article on an incident in early Texas history, the Fredonian Rebellion. If you have time and the inclination, I'd really appreciate any feedback you might have to help me improve the article, especially instances where I assumed that users understood more than they probably do. If this isn't something you are motivated to do right now, that's fine, just let me know. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes— stick to what the cited references state— AND the cited references does NOT use the term "Protestants," NOR does it use the term "other Christians." The cited reference does not blaim the term on anyone and we don't have to blaim the term on anyone. --Carlaude talk 08:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, I saw your post on Johnbod's talk re noming the above for FAC vs GAC. I'm lurking in background watching all this as it goes on, and honestly I dont think you would gain from a much from GA review, likely only further headache and knashing of teeath. I think go for FAC at your leasure, let you judge that - the difficulty you encounter is not because of the quality of your work, but because of the subject matter of your work. As if you needed me to say that, and with my usual disclamers of being lasped, etc etc. Best.... Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nancy, I see that you dipped into Smetana a couple of weeks back. That was before I had started to post my expansion of the article, which I have now done. It is still raw round the edges and in need of further work - probably needs to lose 500+ words, and some further fact-checking is necessary. I shall be away from Wikipedia until 3rd June, but if meantime you care to make another visit and perhaps leave a comment or two, that would be much appreciated. No pressure, just if you have the time. Brianboulton (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, this is among the best responses I've seen from you at FAC, showing progress in how to best handle critique and concerns raised at FAC. Good luck this time! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for an excellent review of Fredonian Rebellion. I've been busy and finally got to take a look at your comments today. I will definitely be updating the article to include some of your points. I really appreciate your help! Karanacs (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nancy; I don't think we should remove works of renown scholars, experts on certain subjects, simply because they are not in English. But by all means, feel free to try to verify and add refs for all his claims. I'd expect it should be possible for some - but please note that English scholarship does not go into the same level as details as Polish on many issues specific to Polish history (and that holds true for all other languages, both ways). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The recognition was much appreciated — though it may be premature :) Sunray (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main problem with the RCC page is that inevitably the editors who contribute to it are practising Catholics who not only are (understandably) unable to write from a NPOV as required by Wikipedia but see it as their role to defend, excuse and deflect criticsm from the RCC. To go through my rv edits:
1. I think it is OK to say the RCC believes itself to be the continuation of the church founded by Jesus. To say that view is shared by 'many' rather than 'some' historians' is not OK for two reasons. Firstly, how do you quantify 'many': ten out of twenty, fifty out of a hundred? Secondly, there is no consensus amongst historians that Jesus existed as a human being (as opposed to Napoleon or Abraham Lincoln). A historian who asserts that he did is speaking from religious conviction not contemporary evidence.
2. The section on the twentieth century is particularly unbalanced (although the ones on the Middle Ages and European conquest of South America also go out of their way to put the Church in a favourable light). I have no problem with describing the actions of left-wing movements and the regimes in Eastern Europe against the RCC but that should be balanced by a description of the role the Church played in supporting military/fascist regimes in Spain, South America etc.
The use of and captioning of the photograph of the concentration camp being liberated is particularly unbalanced. Why a organisation that lost some two thousand members - as opposed to six million Jews - should seek to present itself as a major victim of the Nazis is beyond me. It is also complicated by the role of the Catholic Centre Party in assisting the Nazis' rise to power in 1933.
3. The sex abuse scandal section is riddled with POV statements that try to put the best case for the Church. The idea that people in the past regarded psychiatric counselling as an suitable alternative to informing the police in cases of child sex abuse is a myth only held by the RCC. Then there is the blurring of homosexuality with paedophilia. Finally, the (from what I can see rather whacky, right-wing commentator) on whose slim shoulders is rested the defence that other institutions are also guilty of turning a blind eye to abuse. I've always found that an odd response to the revelation that the RCC had been engaged in decades-long, systematic abuse of thousands of children: 'Other people did it as well as us'.
4. WYD: 'popular' is subjective, unreferenced and clearly POV.
Ask yourself a simple question: would sometime reading the article as it now stands think it was an objective, encyclopaedic article or one written by adherents of the organisation being described? I think if you're honest, you have to admit it's the latter.Haldraper (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Nancy. Could you explain to me what the voting is about roughly? I thought I knew but am a little confused. Thanks, and God Bless. Gabr-el 19:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nancy, I am not trying to vandalise the RCC page, just trying to make it more balanced and its tone less 'defensive'. It would be a big help if you could explain: why Dougherty's comments about the US school system are relevant to the section on sex abuse in the RCC (I'm in England so have a different perspective on this, especially the very widespread child sex abuse by Irish priests) 2. why the link I posted to the article by the US Catholic bishop discussing the ban on the ordination of gay priests can't be included 3. why the section on science has to written from a perspective of praising and promoting the RCC ('In contrast with periods of perceived [implying not real - HD] religious and scientific intolerance in the past, today's Church seeks dialogue like this with other faiths and Christian denominations", "provides the pope with valuable insights") rather than a NPOV with facts presented objectively as you would expect in an encyclopaedia. Thanks. Haldraper (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, I have some comments regarding your post here. First, I found out through my sekret sources that I am getting a nice Father's Day gift soon. That will certainly help bring some context to issues where the nature, tone, and balance of coverage of these issues is relevant. I have read snippets of Jenkins' stuff about the abuse scandals, and while some of it was uncomfortable reading, I never got any sense that this was anything other than a guy who was trying really hard to simply find out what really was going on, in particular writing neither a hatchet piece nor a revisionistic hagiography. So I look forward.
As to your personal question about coverage, we both know about liberal media accusations. While there is without doubt some substance to some of them, I think that dangerously obfuscates a far larger form of media bias, that for having story arcs with a victim, a villain, and (if the reporter is lucky) a hero. So media coverage of things tend to converge to certain templates, even if those templates are poor reflections of reality.
For example, due to reasons likely elaborated in Jenkins above, the archetype of priests/church as villain is a far more captivating one in many Western circles than nearly any others we can come up with. This phenomenon is visible across many, many other areas. Look at the coverage of the recent ArbCom case about CoS. It was all about "sekret group censors Scientologists" rather than "Wikipedia protects itself from disruption": ArbCom is a more "captivating villain" than a bunch of anonymous editors. The same thing happens in medicine, e.g., coverage of the (so called) thimerosal controversy (or nearly any other medical controversies for that matter; rich doctors, big drug companies, etc. fit the archtype better than a microscopic germ or a subtle rearrangement of DNA base pairs).
Thanks for listening, and keep up the good work. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometime ago, you mentioned that you would notify all participants about moving the discussion to the article talk page. Are you still willing to do that? If so, do you think it would be better to do it now or when we make the actual move? Sunray (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am delighted that "Ten Commandments" is holding its own at FAC (thanks largely to your unflappable handling of the opposition) and I look forward to seeing its promotion soon. Meanwhile, I have finally got Smetana to PR. You made a few comments earlier, chiefly about family information. I have now added just about everything on his family that is available on the public record; Smetana's wife and daughters played no part in his musical life and were not public figures in their own right, so there isn't much more that can be said. Anyhow, if you can find time to read all or some of the article, I'd be very pleased to have your comments. As I say in the PR preamble, the article badly needs some fresh eyes. Brianboulton (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the "Outcome of mediation" to the article talk page. Would you be able to ping the original participants now? Sunray (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have said the JW Project's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
