Wikipedia:Peer review/Roman Catholic Church/archive3

Roman Catholic Church

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the editors of this page intend to submit the article to WP:FAC. The page was improved since the last FAC by adding a closing section and demographics section as requested by some commentators in the last FAC. The history section has been trimmed and a main history article was created (History of the Roman Catholic Church). The Beliefs, Prayer Practices and worship, and Church organization sections were not a problem in the last FAC but the history section was criticized for lack of scholarly works and for using sources that were offering history from a Catholic point of view. The history section uses the most cited scholarly works: Bokenkotter, Duffy, LeGoff, McManners, Gonzolez, Haigh, Koschorke, and others. Please see Google Scholar to see how often these works are cited. Because WP:NPOV requires us to give all points of view of history, we included two books from notable professors of history: Edward Norman and John Vidmar. Vidmar's book has footnotes and bibliography and Norman's has bibliography and is published by a University press (as recommended by WP:Reliable source examples). The citations to these sources are small in number and are usually a double to another citation from one of the other more scholarly works. We included them in sensitive areas of RCC history to allow reader to see that scholars from all points of view agree on the sentences cited and we provided quotes from the various sources so reader could see this. Please review the article and provide a list of any comments you would like for us to consider. Thanks for coming to see and review the article! NancyHeise talk 20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments Some random points - I should add more:

  • I think some mention should be made in the lead of the unified hierarchy of the Church, which is a prime feature distinguishing it from other large churches. This could also be brought out more in the Church organization section.
I spent an hour looking for a reference to put your thoughts into words - I was not successful but will keep looking. NancyHeise talk 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's hope someone can turn up something. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the language is rather complicated & confusing: "The sacred scriptures consist of the 73 books of the Catholic Bible. These are made up of those contained in the Greek version of the Old Testament—known as the Septuagint[43]—and the 27 New Testament writings found in the Codex Vaticanus and listed in Athanasius' Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter." - this, if kept as it is, should be balanced with a clarification that the great majority of this is as used by all Christian churches.
I made adjustments to this section per your comment here, please see again. NancyHeise talk 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • God the Father, original sin and Baptism section - are Adam & Eve & the 7 Deadly Sins Catholic doctrine as such? The Vatican catechism is clearly taking a distancing line from the former. The latter should be qualified by a "traditional" or something - I don't believe they have ever had a very official status. This bit seems too detailed to me.
I made adjustments to this section per your comment here, please see again. NancyHeise talk 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jesus section has no link to "atonement" - odd given the level of detail it goes into.
linked. NancyHeise talk 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better; maybe: "it rejects as unscientific, efforts to use the theory to deny add:OVERALL supernatural divine design." if the ref supports that. Is "unscientific" the best word here? Outside the scope of scienbce is more the position, no? Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I used your wording instead of unscientific because it is in agreement with the authors meaning. I thought unscientific meant the same thing but "outside the scope of science" is more clear. Please see again. NancyHeise talk 21:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although married men may become deacons, only celibate men are ordained as priests in the Latin Rite" - some mention of the millenium or so for which this was not the case would be appropriate - a "now" would be a start.
Added content and ref. NancyHeise talk 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE - nicely! Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eucharist section - a clearer short explanation of what a mass is is needed I think - how long it typically takes, Sunday obligation etc, priests say every day etc.
Trimmed, also please see the paragraph just above the Eucharist section. Do you think I need to expand it? NancyHeise talk 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "homosexual men who are sexually active, or those who have deeply rooted homosexual tendencies cannot be ordained" - well that's the theory certainly - some modification would be better.
What do you have in mind here, the page just states the facts at present. I think in the past, especially in the United States, homosexual men were welcomed into the priesthood, something the Vatican nixed after the recent scandals.NancyHeise talk 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the time (until the 60s) it was more "Don't ask, don't tell. I suppose now they do ask, but whether they always get told one may wonder. But without refs nothing can be added, clearly. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, these are all excellent points that will make the article better. I was even considering some of these issues myself but have been a bit sidetracked getting ready for Hurricane Ike! The Adam and Eve thing is Catholic doctrine but what I was considering is clarifying that this teaching is congruent with recent scientific discoveries and that Catholic doctrine accepts and incorporates the most widely held scientific views, which is in contrast to Christian denominations who take strictly the literal view of the Bible creation story. I just need to get a good reference that explains this otherwise it would be considered original research - working on. I agree with all of your points and will be incorporating them with refs as I get some more time. Thanks for these seriously good comments! :) NancyHeise talk 23:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Some more points:
  • The clergy statistics are very interesting, but:a) adding the term & link nun might be useful, and b) do the maths work for "religious sisters (nuns) who comprise over two thirds of all Church personnel"? - (in 000s) 769 nuns, 194 male religious, 405 "secular" priests gives 56% female, which falls to just 50% when all the other groups are added in. NB also, further on "In 2008, the Vatican affirmed that the scandal was an "exceptionally serious" problem, but estimated that it was "probably caused by 'no more than 1 per cent'" of the over 400,000 Catholic priests worldwide." - well over 400k if the religious are added in, on these stats.
Fixed - two separate sentences had priest figures, one included religious brothers and religious priests, the other included religious priests and diocesan priests. I broke these numbers out so they don't overlap.NancyHeise talk 04:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but "nearly 2/3" still doesn't seem precise - 769/1373, or 1264 without seminarians, still doesn't get over 61% according to the back of my envelope? Just use a %? Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, the reference actually says that religious sisters make up nearly 2/3 of all church personnel. I think the term church personnel might include lay employees also? The reference is not clear on that issue. I am just going to delete the statement since I can't get a more clear definition. Oh and I also just linked religious sisters in the Religious Orders section of the page which happens to be just above this section. Please see my changes and let me know what you think. NancyHeise talk 01:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's always dangerous mixing statistics from two sources. But "religious sisters make up the majority" seems clear, and is interesting. Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some parts of Europe and the Americas have experienced a priest shortage in recent..." - "shortage of priests" better, and a mention of the very high average age of priests in the West & the looming problem ahead would be useful.
OK - added new wording and content to reflect this concern. I did not put in anything about looming problems ahead because the ref used is the best ref I could find and the interviewees declined to forcast the future or call it a crisis. I think it would be perceived as unencyclopedic and possibly POV to introduce speculation about any future problems. If I had a ref that I could put with speculation it might work but it will be a lightning rod of contention that I would rather not include anyway. What do you think? NancyHeise talk 02:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! DONE Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've copy-edited the bits on the arts somewhat, & will add a ref or two.
  • "As the Visigoths and Lombards moved from Arianism toward Catholicism,[225] missionaries such as Augustine of Canterbury, Saint Boniface, Willibrord and Ansgar took Catholic Christianity to the Germanic, Irish and Slavic peoples of northern Europe. Later missions reached the Vikings and other Scandinavians.[229]" - rather confused: Boniface & Willibrord were "Germanic" Anglo-Saxons, who were missionaries to the Continent. At this period no one took "Catholic Christianity" to the Irish, who Patrick & others had converted to Celtic Christianity, which had only loose links with Rome before the Synod of Whitby. These links, and the Hiberno-Scottish mission, should be worked in.
I note Xandar's comments below; I will suggest a wording later. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spanish Inquisition - mention it was controlled by the Spanish Crown, not Rome?
Done. and Trimmed this section too. NancyHeise talk 04:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to come up with a rewording. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • BEFORE:"A growing sense of church-state conflicts marked the 14th century. Clement V in 1309 became the first of seven popes to reside under French influence in the fortified city of Avignon.[279]"
  • AFTER:a)"Driven by political instability in Rome, in 1309 Clement V became the first of seven popes to reside under French influence in the fortified city of Avignon.[279]
I have inserted your wording on this one. NancyHeise talk 03:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
b)"Despite the huge prestiege and influence of the church, the High Middle Ages were marked by tension between the church and secular rulers, above all the Holy Roman Emperors. The Investiture Controversy of the 11th century was the first of a series of fierce disputes, which led to the excommunication of no fewer than five Holy Roman Emperors in the period, as well as kings of France, England, Portugal and other realms. Locally important families divided themselves into supposedly pro-Papal and pro-Imperial factions of Guelphs and Ghibellines in Italy and elsewhere.

-Add as ?2nd para of the section? Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your suggestion here was too detailed so I inserted a different sentence with link to investiture controversy with a reference to the university history textbook by Noble called "Western Civilization, The Continuing Experiment". I searched Duffy and Bokenkotter but the investiture controversy was not even mentioned in their indexes. Noble's book is just as good if not considered a better source and it had a small section on the issue. I think that a sentence with wikilink is enough coverage of this issue. Are you OK with my insertion? NancyHeise talk 03:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well grudgingly. You can be sure Bokenkotter in particular covers the Investiture Controversy & its ramifications in enormous detail, but presumably not using that term. Duffy must have a good section too - try Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor in their indexes. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I want you to be very happy with the article, not grudging acceptance so I have added content and Bokenkotter ref as well. NancyHeise talk 03:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Thanks! That's very good now. I know people don't get as excited by these things as by the Spanish Inquisition etc, but I think we need to cover the objectively big things briefly. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the late 15th and early 16th centuries, European explorers and missionaries spread Catholicism to the Americas, Asia, Africa and Oceania." Add "Beginning" at the start - relatively little spread actually in the period mentioned.
Done. NancyHeise talk 04:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thirty Years War - far from just a religious war, as shown by the leading power on the "Protestant" side being France under Cardinal Richelieu! Those statistics are endlessly disputed & too detailed for here - maybe put in a note.
I think the wikilink is sufficient, I eliminated most of the elaboration on this war. NancyHeise talk 04:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The pope is an international leader who regularly receives heads of state from around the world, and who holds a seat at the United Nations.[391]" Strictly, that is Vatican City.
Changed. NancyHeise talk 04:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent comments - I know how to fix the priest numbers in demographics, there is a double counting there. I will address all these comments hopefully by tomorrow. Thanks Johnbod! NancyHeise talk 19:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with some of the comments regarding the early missions in Europe. Boniface and Willibrord were working under papal authority and direction. Patrick and others indeed took Catholic Christianity to ireland. It later evolved into so-called "Celtic Christianity", and the differences, even later, were minor (dating of easter, clerical tonsure, etc). Xandar 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure a wording can be agreed; I'll try to suggest one later. There were Christians in the British Isles before the known missionaries arrived, & the known information is so scanty about the early period that when it "evolved" is just a matter of supposition. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered all the comments except this one. I intend to do some more research on this and put up a few sentences that will hopefully make both Xandar and Johnbod OK with the content. I am not sure we need so much detail on this section because it is not really a controversial area but I want to include the links suggested by Johnbod above. Give me a couple more days to get to this one. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 01:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about (+ links, refs):
  • BEFORE:From 590 Pope Gregory the Great dramatically reformed church practice and administration, launching renewed missionary efforts.[234] As the Visigoths and Lombards moved from Arianism toward Catholicism,[231] missionaries such as Augustine of Canterbury, Saint Boniface, Willibrord and Ansgar took Catholic Christianity to the Germanic, Irish and Slavic peoples of northern Europe. Later missions reached the Vikings and other Scandinavians.[235]
  • AFTER:From 590 Pope Gregory the Great dramatically reformed church practice and administration, launching renewed missionary efforts.[234] These were matched by the Hiberno-Scottish missions of the Celtic Christianity of the British Isles, which had become effectively cut off from Rome by the barbarian invasions. Missionaries from both Italy, such as Augustine of Canterbury, and from the north, such as Saint Boniface, Willibrord and Ansgar took Christianity to the Franks and other Germanic peoples. Later missions reached the Slavs, Vikings and other Scandinavians.[235] In the same period the Visigoths and Lombards moved from Arianism toward Catholicism,[231] and in Britain the full reunion of the Celtic churches with Rome was effectively marked by the Synod of Whitby in 664.

How about that? Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I really think that is too detailed for the main RCC article but is OK for the History of the Roman Catholic Church article which is listed as a see also in RCC's history section. Are you sure we need more detail here? I think that since it is not really a contentious point that we can have just a summarizing general overview like we have without all this detail. Can we leave this level of detail to the History of RCC article and keep RCC more on a summary level? Are you OK with that? NancyHeise talk 03:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What detail? This is all the coverage we have on 200 years of the church's history! The last 500 years are covered at a far more detailed level, & I think some balance needs to be kept. Plus it is of particular English-speaking interest, and only adds 2 lines. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE - I think the Coptic bit could be in a note, but am happy to see what others have to say. Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the word Viking. I think the word should not appear in the article, unless used specifically to refer to the period of time referred to as "The Viking Age" (or to refer to raids on Catholic churches and properties). The people were Nordic, Norse, Norsemen. A strange phrase (whether taken directly from a source or not) is "the Vikings and other Scandinavians"; those who 'went in Viking' were seamen and raiders while "other Scandinavians" stayed home and farmed. "Scandinavia" is probably too geographically restrictive for your purposes. The can of worms can easily be avoided by using the three N words mentioned. --Hordaland (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this insightful observation. I am looking into this right away!NancyHeise talk 16:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


OK, Johnbod and Hordaland, I have addressed both your issues regarding the spread of Christianity to Northern Europe. I used Johnbod's words tweaked a tiny bit to comply with the references I used (McManners and Vidmar). I want to note that McManners uses the term "Vikings" so I think it is more correct to use that term and Vidmar was the only ref to speak to the scholarly disagreement on the origins of the Irish missions (Hiberno-Scottish mission) and Celtic Christianity and Synod of Whitby. None of my other scholary sources discussed any of these links that Johnbod wanted to see and I want to point this out because I think the Vidmar book is really an important scholarly source that fills in gaps left by other scholarly sources. Vidmar is key to producing an FA quality article here. NancyHeise talk 17:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All my comments are fully addressed now - thanks for your thoughtful responses. I think the article is in good shape for FAC now. Many problems people had last time have been dealt witrh, though others were pulling in contradictory directions, so we can clearly never satisfy everyone. Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kensplanet

  • Some points which may be raised in the FAC.
  • Jesus is overlinked. The same wikilink appears in the 2nd (Jesus Christ) and 3rd para.
Removed. NancyHeise talk 05:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Friday, Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday ->>>>>> Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter Sunday.....(comma before and). I think this needs to be done throughout the article although I'm not sure. If we put this up in main the comma automatically appears for 3+ terms.
    Main articles: Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter Sunday
see WP:COMMA, evidently we are allowed to use either form with exceptions. I went through the article during the last FAC eliminating the serial comma based on another editor's preference. The usage is consistent within the article and we don't really need to change it as per WP:MOS. NancyHeise talk 05:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. Already had mentioned I was not sure. Kensplanet (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure words like saint (Devotional life, prayer, Mary and the saints) and seminary (Ordained members and Holy Orders) need to be wikilinked. Those are too. common to be linked.
Yes, because we have to consider that people of other faiths may be visiting the page and may not know these words that we might consider common. NancyHeise talk 05:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat ok for seminary. But all religions have their saints. Anyway, not a major problem. Kensplanet (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I went through and eliminated a huge number of wikilinks per your comments here. Please see the page again and let me know if you still think it is overwikilinked. NancyHeise talk 05:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent observations Kensplanet - I agree with these and will make corrections to the article tomorrow. Thanks for taking the time to come and give it a once over here for us. NancyHeise talk 19:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All Kensplanet comments addressed. Thanks Kens! NancyHeise talk 01:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have found an error in this following sentence: As the representative of Vatican City, he also holds a seat at, and occasionally addresses, the United Nations. I think it's the Holy See, not Vatican City, which holds permanent observer status at the U.N. Majoreditor (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed this to Holy See per your comment here. Thanks for coming to the page to help out here. NancyHeise talk 01:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will attempt to review the article tonight or tomorrow afternoon. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]