• http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm
• http://books.google.com/books?id=SnJ1Er18Id4C&pg=PA152&dq=%22official+name%22+%22catholic+church%22&lr=#PPA152,M1

• http://books.google.com/books?id=hpGMsOM27FgC&pg=PA112&dq=catholic,+abortion,+mother%27s+health#PPA112,M1
• http://books.google.com/books?id=AgLmubyQqKoC&pg=PA278&dq=catholic,+abortion,+mother%27s+health&lr=#PPA278,M1

• Oxford University press book on anti-Catholicism http://books.google.com/books?id=cVwthOtTiI4C&pg=PA109&dq=criticized+Catholic+Church+teaching+on+homosexuality&lr=#PPP7,M1

• Harvard researcher supports Benedict on behavior change and condom use http://webmail.aol.com/41921/aol/en-us/mail/DisplayMessage.aspx

Matthew 5:32–35 Matthew 5:32–35

Source analysis

source and link	cited by	produced or approved by Scholarly expert on the Catholic Church	Primary document	date published, self published	meets WP:V
Kenneth Whithead One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic [1]	EWTN, Our Sunday Visitor	Yes, the sources citing this book have scholars on their editorial staff [2] and various PhD's and other experts per [3]. and members of the Catholic Hierarchy on their board of directors in addition to being member of SIGNIS and the world's largest religious media organization [4], [5], [6]	No	1996, published by Ignatius Press, not self published	yes
Catechism of the Catholic Church [7], [8]	cited by all Catholic Churches and required by all in teaching the faith	yes, created by numerous Catholic experts who are scholars	yes	1994 by Libreria Editrice Vaticana, a self publishing source	Yes because self published sources are allowed to be used in articles about themselves
Academic American Encyclopedia [9]	cited 92 times by Googlescholar	yes	No	1995, published by Grolier, a third party	Yes
Encyclopedia Brittanica [10] "The Church of Rome alone, officially and in popular parlance, is the "Catholic Church".	cited by 2 [11]	yes	no	1911, published by University of Virginia	yes
Catholic Encyclopedia definition of Roman Catholic here[12]; definition of Catholic here[13]	cited by 22 [14]	yes	no	1913, published by Robert Appleton Co	yes
New Catholic Encyclopedia [15]	cited by 1	yes	no	1967, published by Catholic University of America	yes
Merwin-Marie Snell, PhD [16]	per Googlescholar, this author is an oft cited notable expert on Catholic Church [17]	yes	no	1903, published by Dominican College	yes

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]

Sure, I know a lot about PJPII, I have read his biography and a couple of his books. NancyHeise ^talk 18:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's Great. Your knowledge will come in very useful to improving the article. I'm trying to check out all the facts on the page at the moment. Thank you Marek.69 ^talk 21:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nancy, I changed the wording of the lead, as you suggested, but could do with your input (and references) to get it just right. Kind Regards. Marek.69 ^talk 16:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I also have started working on JPII ... we're trying to bring it up to GA. I was wondering if you'd considering voting at the WikiProject Catholicism Collaboration page, as we're trying to get some extra eyes/opinions involved. Thanks a lot! Can-Dutch (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nancy, I thought you might be interested, Pope John Paul II is now at Peer Review. Please see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Pope John Paul II/archive2 -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:54, 25 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]

Gabrel, I am very interested to know about your seminary experience. I hope you will feel free to share it all with me as you go through it. I told my kids about you and we keep you in our prayers. God bless you! FYI, I make my kids watch a "Jesus" movie now and then, sometimes I watch them as I cook dinner and if they want to watch TV at that time, they are stuck watching a Jesus movie. My favorite ones are "Jesus" starring Jeremy Sisto (I love the Jesus and Mother Mary in that one) and "Jesus of Nazareth" starring Robert Powell (I love the Mary Magdalene, Saint Peter and Pontius Pilate). The first movie has the greatest scenes of Jesus with Saint Peter and the latter has the greatest scenes of Mary Magdalene and Mother Mary with the body of Jesus after he has been taken down from the cross. That last scene of her really brings home her suffering to me and I always think that watching these movies are just as good as any Lectio Divina. I hope you get necessary sleep and proper food. NancyHeise ^talk 00:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you for all your prayers! The difficulty of making the sacrifices remains, but God provides me with answers in my everyday experiences. Yesterday the Bishop arrived and gave me and the four other seminarians a small lecture about the Priesthood and why one becomes a Priest. So far not much theology, that will be left a little later. I am still an undergraduate, but I am going to be taking Philosophy and Theology. My rite uses Scholastic Aramaic, or Syriac, in its daily prayers so the Priest is currently teaching us how to read and write it. I will do my best to get the sleep I need! God Bless you and your family!!!!! Gabr-el 00:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I am not an ordained priest but I am going to give you some theology: When you go to be a priest, you can not rely on other people to provide you with what you need. You have to say "Jesus, I trust in you." at those moments when you think you just can not go on. Repeating Saint Paul's words "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" is an act of faith that opens the doors of grace which allows God to send you the help you need in whatever form he chooses.

Personal story: I have been a volunteer and member of the Board of Directors at a local soup kitchen for many years (I retired from the board a few years ago). The founder of the kitchen died a few years ago, his name is Jimmy Rotonno, he won Governor Jeb Bush's Points of Light Award the year before he died. This man was a World War II veteran and a successful entrepreneur who retired comfortably. One day, he was driving down the road and saw a homeless man on the corner and said to himself "Why doesn't that bum get a job?" When he went home, he sat down and had a religious experience of Jesus telling him "Feed my people". He started the soup kitchen with his own money and that of some society people who helped him out too. The kitchen does not sell anything and does not hold any fundraising efforts. It has happened on occasion that money ran very low and there was some wondering among board members if the ministry could continue. Jimmy would pound his fist on the table and say "This is God's ministry, if he wants it to continue, it will continue." Lo and behold, some stranger would donate a huge sum and the kitchen would continue on. Once, there was no food to feed anyone and it was about time to open. Some volunteers wanted to go to the store quickly and get something to feed people but Jimmy would just say "The Lord will provide." As soon as he said that, a truck pulled up full of meals to hand out. This kind of thing happens all the time there. I can see now that if God has called you to do something, he is able to work a lot of good if we just keep saying "Jesus, I trust in you." (I have his picture with those words at the top of the staircase in our home. NancyHeise ^talk 01:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omnio Pro ChristoGabr-el 02:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the topic of Jesus films. Have either of you seen the silent 1929 King of Kings, directed by De Mille? Forget the first scene with Mary Magdalene and the zebras. But the rest of the film is awesome - and a sign of what the 1960s epic King of Kings could have been if De Mille had survived to direct it. Xandar 02:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Xandar, I'll have to check that one out now. My kids have never seen a silent one. NancyHeise ^talk 14:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the talking version of King of Kings. Gabr-el 20:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "talkie" version isn't nearly as intense as the silent version. I've always thought it an enormous pity that Cecil B De Mille died before he could remake King of Kings himself, as he remade The Ten Commandments. The Jesus films of the sixties; King of Kings and The Greatest Story Ever Told, just seemed tired, plodding and "going through the motions," compared to earlier films that had more "faith" in them. Xandar 00:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. You may have heard a story that illustrates what I said about the sixties films. I'm not sure how true it is... John Wayne played a cameo as the Centurion at the crucifixion on TGSET. He said his line: "This man surely was the Son of God." very flatly. The Director pleaded, "Say it with awe, Duke." Wayne then is supposed to have said: "Aw, this man surely was the Son of God." Xandar 00:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too funny! I'm sure he meant no disrespect. NancyHeise ^talk 19:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cracking up ;)!!!!!!!!! As for the seminary experience, lol, maybe I should just get a video or something lol. Gabr-el 22:23, 13 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]

Neat picture! Thanks for sharing that with me. How's everything? NancyHeise ^talk 20:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, adoration helps A LOT. Gabr-el 23:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you also have some hobbies and enjoy other things besides Church. Remember PJPII had good friends (even women friends) that he spent time with and he often went hiking and spent time outdoors. If we don't enjoy the things God gave us to enjoy we can become very dull and boring and unhappy. The best priests are those who are well balanced men. A priest I know likes Agatha Christi books and spent time learning new languages as well as jogging and sailing. Another priest I know who works in a high school goes to Mexico every summer to work in the Indian missions and brings volunteers with him each summer. Another one is an avid scuba diver. NancyHeise ^talk 23:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Lol Gabr-el 02:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.kaldu.org/2009/01/Jan28_09E1.html - All the Bishops of my rite visited the Pope and they mentioned the opening of the first Chaldean seminary outside of Iraq - wooow, I'm famous without them knowing my name!Gabr-el 03:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gabr-el I visited the link and paged through the St Peter's diocese info as well as viewing the pope's meeting with the US bishops. I have to admit that I did not know much about the Chaldean Catholics in the US until meeting you. I hope all is well with you at the seminary. I pray for you. God bless you. NancyHeise ^talk 17:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God Bless you, your Husband and your Children. Gabr-el 01:53, 8 February 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 reminding me, I stuck my comment after seeing that shakedown was appropriately linked. NancyHeise ^talk 19:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that NancyHeise has copyedited the article USS Iowa (BB-61), and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning the Copyeditor's Barnstar and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:19, 13 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]

I never knew there were featured topic work groups - I learn something new here every day - neat! I hope it all works out, ping me when you put it another article up for FAC and I'll come by to take a look. NancyHeise ^talk 15:56, 8 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]

Thanks Mike, whatever help you can offer is much appreciated! NancyHeise ^talk 06:32, 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]

Okay. I've looked into it myself, and signed up. Xandar 17:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was busy and totally forgot! Gabr-el 19:57, 23 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]

I just popped in to, uh, use the 'pedia, and saw your message. If something 'happens' requiring attention, you may need to use the email function to flush me from my burrow. Shenme (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! Welcome back from the burrow! NancyHeise ^talk 18:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Hopefully we can resolve this issue and move on. NancyHeise ^talk 18:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Gimmetrow's two sources:

Unflattering book review by Saturday Review of Literature of one of Gimmetrow's sources [18] see page 173. This is not a reliable source as this review states that the book contains inaccuracies. This is the actual page of the other source written by a Lutheran who also claims on the same page that the Catholic Church today is not part of the Catholic Church before the Council of Trent, obviously a fringe POV theory and also not a reliable source [19] NancyHeise ^talk 18:26, 29 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]

Xandar, I'm sorry I have not been able to help there, I have company visiting for the week and as you know, yesterday was the Superbowl so I have been doing a bit of entertaining. It looks as though you have the help you need from others though. NancyHeise ^talk 17:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American football is a mystery to me. It goes on for hours, and they keep stopping every thirty seconds for a chat! Xandar 16:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! Its a mystery to me too, which is why I can never go to an actual game, I need to watch it on TV so the announcer can tell me what is happening and explain it with replays! :) I was not much of a fan until the Miami Dolphins started to come back from the slump of last year. For some reason I found myself rooting for them to win and looking forward to the next game. My husband and my son were mystified that I was actually watching a game with them. NancyHeise ^talk 17:07, 5 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]

Yes, I plan to clean up the references to the Catechism but I wanted them there so I could then create a ref for them. I don't like the name you suggest, I think it is too long. Do you have anything more concise to suggest? NancyHeise ^talk 00:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I REALLY have to congratulate you. How in the world did you put togheter such a comprehensive article on the Ten Commandments? Wikimedia should pay you! --Againme (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I teach religious education at my church as a volunteer and I really like my Wikipedia hobby! NancyHeise ^talk 19:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I created today Project Rachel because I saw the red link in your article. May be you would like to help expand it. Regards. --Againme (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is an important part of the Catholic pro-life movement and healing ministries. I will try to find a good ref to help expand that page as time permits. NancyHeise ^talk 12:02, 10 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]

Thanks RelHist! I do not share your pessimism on the possibility of bringing religion articles to FA nor do I consider the effort a waste of time and I hope you will change your mind and consider an FA on Anglicanism. I am presently working on The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology, it is in peer review right now and I invite you to come have a look if you like. I intend to submit it to FAC afterward. Roman Catholic Church is in mediation over the name issue but I still have hopes for FA. I intend to keep trying! NancyHeise ^talk 16:54, 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'm sorry. Since I am the person who initiated the mediation, I felt my comments were necessary to offer a reason why Gimmetrow and Soidi's POV's have been rejected. Thank you for pinging me. I must add that I do not appreciate you comments in Mediation. There are no sources that say there is any official name other than Catholic Church as used by the Church in official documents. Other sources recommended by Gimmetrow and Soidi violate the parameters of WP:Reliable source examples under subsection entitled "Religious sources" and WP:OR. You are not helping us by bringing up those rare instances of Roman Catholic used on some websites which are not considered WP:RS, especially when we have already told reader in the note that the Church uses the term to refer to the Roman rite as opposed to other rites. I think you are adding to the problem, not helping. NancyHeise ^talk 18:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I confess that there is a dearth of reliable secondary sources that assert that "Roman Catholic Church" is used in official documents and contexts and yet I remain convinced based on the evidence of primary sources that it is used that way. I am flummoxed by the lack of sources to establish what seems to be an obvious fact. Yes, I know this falls in the category of WP:OR which is why I am far less passionate about this issue than Soidi/Gimmetrow/Defteri. However, I also feel that it is inappropriate to simply dismiss the issue as OR because common sense tells me that there is a real issue to be dealt with here.

I am sorry that you feel that I am "not helping". I think a more congenial phrase would be to say that I disagree with you and Xandar on this point.

--Richard (talk) 16:34, 21 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]

I'll answer the links question shortly - other (non-wiki) duties pressing! Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "bald links" (a term I remember from my earliest wiki days) are direct links to external sources, such as you have in the Numbering section at Exodus 20: 2–17. I see you also have direct links to parts of the Catechism scattered through the article; I should have picked these up earlier. All these links need to be properly formatted as citations. The link at (See [1]) in the Numbering section is to the wiki article Ten Commandments In my view the link should be done thus: numbering the Commandments.

I also notice that there is a citation to "Rosen", though no such source appears in the list of references. The two online sources (Addis & Hebermann) should have access dates added.

I see that while I've been doing this a POV banner has been added.

Thanks Brian, I'll re format those links as you have suggested. I have also invited the person who tagged the page (Karanacs) to come offer some specific comments as to how to improve it. NancyHeise ^talk 19:57, 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]

I am OK with both "titles itself" and "in official usage" - I just want to come to a solution to this issue that everyone is OK with. I am presently recovering from a nasty case of the flu, sorry I have'nt been around to help out. NancyHeise ^talk 14:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the bold liberty of copying the comment left above by Xandar to the mediation talk page on the grounds that those comments are freely licensed per GFDL and that, if he had wanted them to be private, he could have emailed them to her.

I feel that the mediation is currently being hindered by a lack of active participation by Xandar, Gimmetrow and Soidi. The conversation so far has primarily been between Nancy, myself and Defteri with occasional endorsements by Soidi. However, IMO, the dispute has been primarily between Xandar, Nancy and the "consensus of 15" on one side vs. Gimmetrow, Soidi and Defteri on the other side. I kind of side with Gimmetrow, Soidi and Defteri although, like Nancy, my interest is more in finding an amicable resolution to the dispute than in being entrenched in any particular position.

I would urge Xandar to express his positions himself on the mediation talk page. It is difficult enough to find an acceptable solution without having to guess what key players are thinking and what they will and will not accept. In this case, I knew a priori what Xandar's position would be but it is more valuable if he expresses it himself than if I have to say "Well, I don't think this is something that Xandar would accept".

--Richard (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I am not sure that most parties are aware that the mediation is ongoing since it took awhile to be accepted. NancyHeise ^talk 17:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that discussion was going on on the mediation page's talk page. I'd checked the main page several times, but nothing seemed to be happening. Xandar 11:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining the conversation on the mediation talk page, Xandar. It was very strange not having you involved.

Nancy, Gimmetrow and Soidi certainly know that the mediation is being discussed on the talk page. They seem to be letting Defteri lead the charge for their POV and that's OK with me. We can't all be talking; it would be too cacophonous. Can you advise the rest of the involved parties that the discussion is proceeding on the mediation talk page? I don't expect them to all weigh in but it would be good if they are at least reading the discussion and have a chance to provide input if they wish to, especially if we start to converge on a proposed resolution.

--Richard (talk) 16:20, 22 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]

Johnbod, thanks - sorry I thought you were Anglican for some reason. NancyHeise ^talk 01:46, 4 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]

Brian, I have not been on Wikipedia since I posted the note on your talk page and I have been meaning to work on those comments. I just changed that sentence to your formulation here and I thank you for pointing this out to me and for all of your other terrific comments! NancyHeise ^talk 18:32, 5 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]

Thanks Xandar, I posted a response on that page. I can live with renaming the article if that is what everyone agrees to. NancyHeise ^talk 02:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you expressed support for options 1 and 2. My opinion is that Option 1, starting the sentence with "Catholic Church", but leaving the article titled "Roman Catholic Church", breaks WP Lead guidelines, and so would be unlikely to survive FAC. In my opinion that "solution" would be no solution at all, since it would just start the whole rigmarole again at FAC when someone insisted that the article should start with the words RCC to comply with WP policies. We would then have to reargue the wording from scratch. That's why I oppose Option1.

On the renaming issue. I don't think everyone will support renaming, but that may still be the best way forward.Xandar 11:32, 10 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:

• Jesus acknowledges that God can forgive sins
• Jesus acknowledges that humans (Son of Man is "Human nature" in Aramaic, bar nasha) can forgive sins
• Jesus forgives sins

• Jesus does not say I am not God and your right. He says he can forgive sins. So the possibility of Jesus being either God or Human is open here. Interestingly, we know Jesus to be both Man and God.

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:

• God is good, alone.
• Why call me good?

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 Gabr-el! Thanks for coming by to say hi. Hows the seminary? Are they feeding you and letting you sleep enough? Regarding Gospel of Mark: I think it is when Jesus tells the apostles not to reveal that he is the Messiah (after Peter reveals that he knows Jesus is the Messiah) that we see God's method. He tests mankind by not making it too obvious he is God. He could have easily come down from the cross or performed some fire and brimstone miracle to make the Jews believe but that would have fallen into the category of one of Satan's temptations in the desert "throw yourself down, God will command his angels to catch you". Rather, it seems that he lets the events of our lives bring us to a crossroads of either belief - which leads to spiritual sight where we see him everywhere - or disbelief - which leads to spiritual blindness where we can't see him anywhere. "To he who has, more will be given, and to he who has not, it will be taken away even what little he has". I think that this statement by Jesus is talking about man's faith. The person with no faith does not have what is necessary (faith) to open the door to God's grace and experience those little and big miracles that come with it. The person with faith continutally gets more faith because by opening that door of grace, they see more and more of God's responses to their requests for help, help that seems to come too coincidentally and too perfectly and too often to have been chance. Jesus also said "much is expected of him to whom much has been given". So those of us who have directly experienced the reality of the Risen Jesus have no excuse if we subsequently fail to open those doors of grace for lack of faith when we already know that all we have to do is ask! NancyHeise ^talk 01:21, 15 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]

Actually I now see you spotted it earlier. Xandar 12:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping Xandar, I don't know where he thinks he can tag something that has been agreed to by consensus. The last consensus stands until we have a new consensus and I think his behaviour is inflammatory. I am considering a complaint to Administrators board. NancyHeise ^talk 16:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure an AN complaint would do much good. Gimmetrow's behaviour has been irational and erratic for some time now (another recent example) but the admin noticeboards are really only there as a support vehicle for the administrators themselves. Colour me cynical, but a report would achieve nothing. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Malleus, it has been my personal experience, with an occasional rare exception, that the most unhelpful obstructionists to creation of an article and article advancement comes from administrators who are abusing power instead of using their power to help improve Wikipedia. It has also been true that the most helpful of people who should be administrators, curiously, are not. NancyHeise ^talk 17:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, people are unlikely to do a check on an administrator with good evidence. Holding the mop designates that the community does or at one point did have trust in that person, which means that a lot of people (including myself, and I assume the checkusers) are sceptical when admins are accused with little evidence when they are in a content dispute with the editor that is requesting the check. I have no opinion on the matter, but I thought I should mention this - and diffs are pretty vital. Have a good day. :) — neuro^(talk) 02:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammatory behaviour is inflammatory behaviour, whether an administrator is in a content dispute with the person making the accusation or not. You simply confirm what I said above: "the admin noticeboards are really only there as a support vehicle for the administrators themselves." --Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Malleus I agree. I am not sure what harm would be caused by simply applying the WP:Checkuser tool to Gimmetrow, Soidi and Defteri to see if they are the same person. If they are not the same person, it would help people like me who have difficulty treating them as different people. I think if it were me, I would be asking for them to use the Checkuser tool just to prove my innocence - unless I wasn't innocent! NancyHeise ^talk 16:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy, you and Malleus are going off the rails with this talk of admin abuse. I have not seen any evidence of Gimmetrow using his admin privileges on Roman Catholic Church or any of the users. In fact, I don't think he mentioned his adminship at all. I pointed it out to suggest that it was less likely that an admin such as Gimmetrow or myself would violate Wikipedia policies to the extent of being subject to ARBCOM sanction. (Not that admins are never sanctioned by ARBCOM but the percentage of such admins is relatively small.) I have not used my admin privileges on Roman Catholic Church except to suggest that I might do so in order to stop edit-warring. --Richard (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen several recent examples of Gimmetrow's unreasonable behaviour. As for yourself Richard, I think that "I have not used my admin privileges ... except to ..." just about sums it up. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I bristled when I read that, but on reflection, you're right. If I did that, it would be suggestive of admin abuse. However, on reflection, what I wrote above is not what I actually did. My recollection is that I indicated that, as an involved admin, I would restrain from using my admin privileges but that since edit-warring could warrant page protection and/or blocking, I would find an uninvolved admin who would do the honors. I was not personally involved in the edit-warring in question. If you doubt it, I can provide the diffs.

As for Gimmetrow, I never said that being an admin meant that an editor was perfectly reasonable and observant of all Wikipedia policies. What I said was that being an admin meant that the editor in question was less likely to violate policies in a way that was actionable before ARBCOM. "less likely" but not "impossible". --Richard (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite unnecessary to provide any diffs; I have no reason to doubt that what you say is true. I haven't had the required high boredom threshold to take part in the RCC's ongoing official name saga anyway, which to be honest I simply consider to be an astonishing waste of productive editors' time and effort, that could be better spent elsewhere. As for Gimmetrow, you and I will just have to agree to disagree. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Ottava Rima: "WP:CIVIL is very clear that making false claims is against the civility policy. Consider this your warning".[20] Gimmetrow 18:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava is entitled to his opinion, and to interpret WP:CIVIL in whatever way (s)he wishes. I note simply that it says no such thing. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 17 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]

Thanks Richard, I am not sure what evidence the diff you provided shows, maybe because I am not an administrator. Thank you for explaining the Checkuser function to me, that is very helpful. I am also not sure that a non-admin has the tools necessary to provide evidence of sockpuppetry and it would be very helpful to me and others if somone with those tools could look into the matter. I thought that at least by bringing the issue up at the Sockpuppet investigations page, I would be helping Wikipedia by at least alerting them to a problem here that might be easily rectified but it has already been declined. NancyHeise ^talk 17:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The diff I provided was intended to point you to this section in Talk:Roman Catholic Church. In that section, I provided evidence (1) that the editors involved were relatively established editors with the exception of Defteri who has been around for "only" 9 months and (2) the editors involved had made a fairly large number of edits in a number of diverse articles (i.e. not just related to this dispute). These arguments tend to argue against sock puppetry since sock puppetry usually involves relatively new single purpose accounts whose only edits are to vote on one side. If Afterwriting and Defteri are sock puppets, the puppet master has gone to an unusual amount of effort to use the socks to make bona fide edits to other articles. I would counsel assuming good faith and not wasting any more time worrying about sock puppetry.

NOTE: None of the analysis that I performed requires admin privileges. The first analysis was done simply by scanning the contributions of the editors involved via the User contributions link in the "toolbox" section to the left of the Wikipedia frame. The second analysis uses Soxred93's tool but a quick examination of the URL will indicate how to use it. Consider the URL for Gimmetrow's count analysis for example.

RE: the declined Checkuser request - yes, that's what I expected and was trying to warn you of. The "solid evidence" that the Checkusers are looking for is a pattern of edits whose times are so suspiciously close together that they suggest the same editor logging on to one account, making a comment and then logging off and logging on to the other account to support the first comment. Other evidence would be a tendency to edit the same articles and talk pages or to use the same phrases. Soxred93's count analysis suggests that the editors in question edit in the same area (Christianity and Catholicism) but the specific articles that they edit do not show a high level of overlap.

--Richard (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, your statement "Other evidence would be a tendency to edit the same articles and talk pages or to use the same phrases." perfectly states why I think they are the same person. I am not sure if I can agree with your analysis that they do not overlap but the matter is already dead. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me, I appreciate that very much. NancyHeise ^talk 05:29, 18 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]

Thanks Karanacs, I appreciate that you noticed my error because I was not aware that I missed a step in the process. I have withdrawn the nomination in light of Sandy's list of to do's still needed before it can be considered for FAC. Thanks anyway. NancyHeise ^talk 00:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that the article has been withdrawn so fast. I'll take care of the background process for removing the nomination; please don't remove the tag from the article talk page. A bot will remove it this weekend when the FAC list is processed again. As for Sandy's comments about preparation, please understand also where she is coming from. While we don't expect nominators to be perfect, usually after a few nominations all of us can recognize where our weaknesses are. That way we can ask for help before we submit any more nominations, and have a lot less work for the nominator or reviewers to do when a new article is nominated. (My personal weakness is not including enough background information, so I always get someone to check whether I've explained some concepts in enough detail before I nominate an article.) There are several peoeple who are MOS experts - Sandy could probably give you a list of some of them. Then next time when you think an article is about ready for FAC you can ask one of those experts to do an MOS check and make sure that those criteria are being met. Karanacs (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 01:43, 19 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]

Malleus, you are really helpful to me always. I appreciate your advice more than you know! However, it might come as a surprise to you that I do enjoy my Wikipedia hobby very much and I often tell my family and friends what happens here. I am always amazed to see what people think of different issues, especially on the Church. I am always amazed also at how little others know about the Catholic Church and its teachings so I really think I am making a worthwhile contribution to all mankind by sending up articles on the Church - I am trying to be humorous but not completely sarcastic about that. : ) Even if you are not a Catholic, it is helpful to know what they believe since they comprise almost a fifth of the world's population - who wants to be ignorant? We all want to know what others believe - World Religions was the most interesting University course I took (after Corporate Taxation that is). Also, I did not know about her oppose process, that is helpful to know and it is also nice to see that I am not the only one who writes articles she finds unworthy! I think it was best to withdraw considering the amount of work that she says it needs and because I want to add quotations and more references to help quell some of the comments that have doubted what the sources are saying. That will take some time. Anyway, thanks for your Wiki hug. NancyHeise ^talk 14:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, thought that the tone of Sandy's oppose was a bit over-the-top aggressive (all part of a zeal for the highest standards, I'm sure). I can understand why you withdrew so rapidly; personally I would have held on a little longer, answered some of Sandy's points, waited to see what others said. Wikipedia is based on consensus, and it would be interesting to know how other regular FAC reviewers might have reacted. Work on it, bring it forward again, and have better luck next time! Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian, thanks for all your help with this article and remember - Bill Gates was "just a kid" once, and he changed the world even so. Greatness is not determined by age. NancyHeise ^talk 22:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm - to be honest, I was using "kid" in a rather broad sense, being (slightly) older than you, but I'm flattered you see me as the next Bill Gates. Anyway, let me know if you want help (copyedits, prose checks etc) with your revisions. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess I need a more positive outlook on life if I consider myself to be not a kid! Thanks for all your help, I will ask for it again before I send it up to FAC. NancyHeise ^talk 17:12, 20 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]

The term used in our books is Purgatory. NancyHeise ^talk 17:49, 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]

Consider reading the article on Limbo. In particular, read the section titled "Modern era" which says:

On April 22, 2007, the advisory body known as the International Theological Commission released a document, originally commissioned by Pope John Paul II, entitled "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized."[21]

After tracing the history of the various opinions that have been and are held on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, including that connected with the theory of the Limbo of Infants, and after examining the theological arguments, the document stated its conclusion as follows:

Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us.[22] We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy.[23]\

What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.

Pope Benedict XVI authorized publication of this document, indicating that it is considered consonant with the Church's teaching, though it is not an official expression of that teaching.[24] Media reports that by the document "the Pope closed Limbo"[25] are thus without foundation. In fact, the document explicitly states that "the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis" (second preliminary paragraph); and in paragraph 41 it repeats that the theory of Limbo "remains a possible theological opinion". The document thus allows the hypothesis of a limbo of infants to be held as one of the existing theories about the fate of children who die without being baptised, a question on which there is "no explicit answer" from Scripture or tradition.[24] These theories are not official teaching of the Catholic Church, but are only opinions that the Church does not condemn, permitting them to be held by its members.

--Richard (talk) 18:35, 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]

Haldraper, I'm glad you have joined Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you possibly on some Catholicism articles if that is your interest. I recently created The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology and would like to know what you think. NancyHeise ^talk 22:24, 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]

Well gee, I was raised by an Atheist and originally converted to Christianity and got baptized in the Episcopal Church after my first religious experience and then to the Catholic Church after another religious experience. (whole story here [21]) My atheist mother once asked God what she could do to be a better person and got an answer. She did not like the answer which told her to give up a persistent sinful activity that she said she did not wish to give up. She gradually lost her faith afterwards and continues happily in her sinful activity which she does not seem to realize harms other people besides herself. I might have become just like her had I not been blessed with the graces I recieved and listened to them instead of saying "no" to God.NancyHeise ^talk 14:20, 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]

This is very helpful! Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 19:21, 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]

Hi Michael, I did not post that to cause a fuss! Sorry if that is what happened. I just happened to watch the film and Dawkins clearly states his belief in the possibility of Intelligent Design. If Dawkins has been quoted somewhere saying that he was decieved, that can go onto his page but we can't just omit the fact that he stated what he stated. It was a very long statement that is clearly not interrupted. Stein asked him if he was 100% sure that there was no God. Dawkins said he was not 100% sure and Ben Stein asked him to put a number on it and he said 99%. So Stein then pointed out that according to Dawkins there was a 1% chance that there was an intelligent designer and Dawkins replied affirmatively and then elaborated on that subject saying that it could not have come from a "God" but was probably from some aliens from another planet who evolved without the help of "God". NancyHeise ^talk 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nancy, no problems but I am interested in your comments, given that you can't have a theological objection to evolution, so it must be cultural. It is a pity that you choose to take your lead from the Stein film, which is clearly a propaganda piece. It contains several logical inconstancies. Most evident is the claim that intelligent design is scientific, then attack science as "atheistic". Then there was the attempt to link evolution to Hitler. Science is of course morally neutral, what people then draw from science is up to them. On top of that the film presents several "failed" academics as "victims" of this "conspiracy", when other factors were involved in all cases. As for Dawkins comments that he was 99% sure there is no God, this seems to me to be entirely consistent with his position as a scientist, and indeed as an atheist. To be 100% sure of course would require an act of faith, and deny the possibility of further contradictory evidence becoming available. Dawkins of course has been critiqued for drawing science into religion, or at least atheism. You might be interested in looking at evolutionary theists such as Keith Ward, Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Alister McGrath and John Polkinghorne, all of whom you can read with more profit than Stein. Lastly in your post on the Dawkins page you refer to a "Berlin Wall", which you attribute to Dawkins. In my experience the teaching of intelligent design in science classes is opposed by almost all biological scientists, and most other scientists as well, simply because it is not science, but at best theology. Without trivialising anything, lets see if I can give an example. You are a CPA, and would be aware that depreciation is a somewhat difficult concept for the lay person to get their heads around. Imagine if somebody came up with a proposal that depreciation was when you no longer "appreciated" an asset, you could claim back all the money you spent on it. More than that they proposed this interpretation should be taught in school accounting classes. CPA's would naturally oppose this proposal. This person then gathers a list of supporters, mostly small business people, backyard bookkeepers, and various people with no qualifications in accounting. Maybe a couple of maverick CPAs lend their support. They then demand that schools "teach the controversy" and accuse the CPA professional associations of erecting a "Berlin Wall" against their interpretation of depreciation. Replace CPA with biology scientist, and depreciation with evolution, and you can see what I mean. Enough of me for now. Regards, --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, thanks for your post. I am a member of the Roman Catholic Church which sees evolution as a possible explanation for how God created humans but rejects the theology of those Atheists like Dawkins who use evolution to promote their own religion but call their evangelization "science". However, my personal opinions aside, I posted the info on Dawkins talk page to suggest that the page is incomplete without mentioning that he as been criticized -very publicly- by Ben Stein who states that Dawkins is the "architect" of the "Berlin Wall" in the science classrooms that keeps out all discussion and scientific evidence of intelligent design. Even if I did not agree with this statement, if I were creating a page on Dawkins, I would include this as one of the notable criticisms that Wikipedia requires in order to make the page comprehensive and unbiased. NancyHeise ^talk 15:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nancy, I appreciate your position. However I do think you are mistaken in believing that Dawkins was somehow responsible for a "Berlin Wall" against intelligent design. You in fact are doing a disservice to your own scientific and educational community, who have been in the forefront of opposition against this attempt to teach theology as science. Dawkins certainly was not a motivator or or a witness at the Dover trial, for instance. My experience of Americans (and I guess most people) is that they tend to get prickly when foreigners "interfere" in their internal affairs. Maybe that was Stein's objective, to paint the objection to intelligent design as some sort of "foreign, atheist plot". I note for instance that Stein didn't bother trying to interview people like John Haught, an American Catholic theologian who testified against intelligent design at the Dover trial. Personally I think the critics currently referred to on the Dawkins page (some of whom I mentioned in my previous post) are far more substantial than Stein and his rather crude propaganda piece. On that I guess we will have to disagree. Regards, --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:19, 28 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]

Thank you! Those extra letters seem slip into my work now and then! Thanks. : )NancyHeise ^talk 18:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nancy! Just saw your note on Chris the Spellers page. This doesn't answer your question. It's a reminder that some articles are in British English, rather than US English. So if you apply a spell check, you need to take this into account. If you change an article with consistently British Spelling to US spelling or vice versa, it makes people very cross. Amandajm (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an endless source of curiosities - Thanks for letting me know that important piece of info! NancyHeise ^talk 23:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already read WP:SPELL, you might find this a good time to do so. I use American spelling unless it's obvious that the article has already committed to British spelling and then I conform to the existing spelling although grudgingly. As for a spell check tool, I recommend using the Firefox browser. The auto spell-check (similar to that in MS Word) is useful. --Richard (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to install firefox and I have run out of time today. Can you post a link here where I can maybe read up on how to install this? Thanks for being helpful! NancyHeise ^talk 17:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Installing Firefox couldn't be easier. Just go to their web page, click the big green button, and follow the instructions. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:01, 27 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]

I appreciate that very much. I appreciate your work too. I guess we are both dealing with the same problems, just from different sides of the aisle! Thanks for your kindness, it is refreshing. Sorry I haven't been around FAC lately, I've been very busy and when I do get some Wikipedia time, it is vacuumed up by a mediation and an article I created. NancyHeise ^talk 16:20, 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]

30 Mar for you. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Day, Nancy! Ariel♥Gold 23:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! You guys are so sweet! I am definitely adding this userbox to my page - what a nice gift : ) NancyHeise ^talk 00:14, 31 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]

No, I initially put Archive2 in the template but the link went red. It went blue when I changed it to Archive1 so I left it that way. NancyHeise ^talk 21:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think all is working as intended then, because of the article name change: just checking! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 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 think you need to tell Reader as much info as you can, maybe tell us what periodical database too. NancyHeise ^talk 02:55, 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]

Thanks, I replaced it with something else already. NancyHeise ^talk 22:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've left a message on the RC Ten Commandments talk page, pointing out a sentence that really needs dealing with in terms of the FAC. Richard mentions something there too.
• And we seem to be getting close to agreement on the CC note. Xandar 18:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Xandar, someone else fixed your sentence because I was at a loss on how to reword it. I think it was Richard who came to the rescue there. Thanks for all your terrific help with the RCC note issue. I will be very surprised if we get a referenceable note out of it because is seems that the most respectable sources are not being respected! However, since I have already said that over and over again, I don't see how I can be of more help. I just hope to get a note that can be accurately referenced to reliable sources and is not the product of WP:OR. NancyHeise ^talk 04:26, 13 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]

Hi Were, I am friends with a nun who has been a member of the Cistercian order for over 50 years. I have read many books on the order but have never heard of this one. I see that it is not affiliated with the Catholic Church or the Anglican Communion so it looks like it is a new breed. I can not be of much help there. Thanks for coming by anyway! Take care. NancyHeise ^talk 23:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well its categorised now - I'm guessing one of your Talk page stalkers noticed this! ϢereSpielChequers 08:42, 13 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]

Great! I already posted my joy on your user talk page. Its a great article Brian, I enjoyed reading it and I don't think I had much to say towards improving it because it was already well done. NancyHeise ^talk 04:22, 13 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]

Ottava, thank you! How are you? Thanks for coming by to say hello! NancyHeise ^talk 22:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine. Busy working on various things. I wish I wasn't conflicted out of working on such pages or I would lend a direct hand. But, I'm sure you get enough claims of bias and the rest, so you wouldn't need more trouble. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly Ottava, I am amazed at the accusations of bias when I am just putting the facts on the page as they exist in a plethora of modern scholarship, Catholic and non. I think it does not matter that I have covered everything, people are going to launch their accusations against me no matter what I put on the page. However, there is this neat little saying that goes something like "If you build something, someone is going to try to destroy it - build anyway". I like to live by that principal and not get too worked up over those people. NancyHeise ^talk 23:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here was I thinking that "10 Commandments in Catholicism" would be a fairly non-controversial article to take through FAC! It seems that as soon as a Catholic article comes up a bleeper goes off somewhere and the hordes come forth. I kept out of it since it was very much nancy's article, and I wanted to see what would happen if I wasn't there "antagonizing" people. Xandar 22:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Xandar, nothing is helped by antagonization, we get enough of that already by those who want us to do original research. NancyHeise ^talk 19:18, 26 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]

PS I also want to compliment you for the way you conducted yourself during the nomination. I know it's a frustrating situation, but I thought you did an excellent job remaining calm and engaging the reviewers in a more constructive way. Thank you! Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karanacs, I am not sure I have much faith in the FAC process anymore. It seems that we are expected to do WP:Original research now and I am not very good at that. I prefer to use the information that the actual experts use in their books covering the subject matter and try to stay away from speculation that is not covered in these books. Thanks anyway. NancyHeise ^talk 19:05, 26 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]

RelHistBuff, I left a message on the talk page. I am really sorry about your FAC, mine was archived too - I also felt it was closed too early and for unreasonable reasons. NancyHeise ^talk 19:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your kind words. I was really shocked because it came out of the blue. I was busily addressing every issue and just when I thought I got nearly everything, "Bang!". Well, I hope that we will get our articles back on FAC again soon. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RelHist, I am very discouraged in the FAC process. My FAC was closed based on the most ridiculous requests and I don't think that these people realized that I covered the topic only to the extent it was covered by scholars. They wanted me to go beyond the scholars and pointed to original documents as examples - thats WP:OR. I think I am wasting my time at FAC and I am not sure I want to waste my time anymore. NancyHeise ^talk 23:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your note on my talk page. I hope you don't get too discouraged! --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:21, 27 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?

And how are you doing? I've become an admin. You are Roman Catholic. What role does religion play in your life? AdjustShift (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AdjustShift, congratulations! That's great! To answer your questions, I think the RCC article is ready for another FAC, we are just working through a mediation regarding the article name right now and we don't want to renominate until we get that worked out. There have been no changes to the article and no major discussions about anything else since the last FAC so really, the only issue is the name which is quite minor. Regarding your question on the role of religion in my life - it helps shape my daily decisions and how I treat other people. If not for my religion, my talk page and all of my edits might include more than a few expletives! : ) NancyHeise ^talk 19:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After some further thought on the FAC process, I am considering leaving this project to someone else. I am not sure there is enough objectivity in the Wikipedia community and I believe there exists quite a lot of anti-Catholic hatred from some editors who post an oppose merely to stop the article from progressing to where it should really be. Unless the FAC decision makers positions include some real effort other than counting supports and opposes, I do not think that any religion article can pass. I thought that my FAC Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism would be able to prove that a religion article could pass but that process punctuated for me the futility of the effort. NancyHeise ^talk 23:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy, I completely understand that you are frustrated. Religion-related articles are difficult to get through FAC, in large part because there is so much information written about them; it becomes a huge task to try to distill all the information into a non-POV article. Please be assured that FAC delegates do more than count supports and opposes, and we throw out any arguments that are unable to be addressed. I realize that your sources didn't cover the information that was asked for in this most recent FAC, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other sources (there are so many written about various pieces of the RCC!) that do. I encourage you to work with the opposers and see if there are any sources that cover the information they asked for. If you can't find any, then at the next FAC nomination you'll be able to state that very clearly and neutralize any objections on those points. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that religion plays a role in your life. As a religious individual, I think we give so little time to religion in today's secular world. And please don't leave WP. We need editors like you on WP. You are one of the few editors who have tried to get some religion-related articles to FA. I analyzed your work on Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism and they are praiseworthy. We need you, Nancy. I've not worked much on religion-related articles on WP, but I'll try to contribute to religion-related articles. I'm thinking about working on the bio of C.S. Lewis. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at the comments on the article, Gimmetrow and Ioanes Pragensis both seem to be envisaging a different sort of article to that which was written, which is basically how the Church TODAY relates its teaching to the commandments. They seem to want a lot more historical perspective and more about historical conflicts and disputes. I can see room for some of this in the article, the suggestion of discussion of the protestant iconoclast movement is a good one. Including a discussion of why calling Jesus God is not breaking the first commandment is going too far. The topic could become endless if the article tried to deal with 2,000 years of debate and controversy on every issue related to a commandment. It would useful to find out if particularly IP has a list of exactly what subjects the article needs to include to be comprehensive in his opinion, and gain a support. That would help to see if there is a resolvable solution or whether the opposition is so open-ended as to be unsatisfiable. Xandar 22:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Xandar and Adjustshift and Karanacs, I am undecided on whether to participate in any more FAC's on religion articles, the process seems to be stacked against a genuinely informative and accurate product in favor of an article that focuses on every whim of every Wikipedia editor including those who make comments that are not based on modern scholarship. If it were up to the opposer to provide a solid source that supports their oppose, I think the process could improve and encourage real quality articles but that scenario does not presently exist.NancyHeise ^talk 18:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Nancy is taking too extreme a stance to suggest that history of the TC in Catholic theology would be OR. There is certainly some material about history of the TC that can be included in the article. I've already added some text in this regard. My argument would be more about scope. I am not convinced that the article would be improved by a "comprehensive" discussion of the history of the Ten Commandments in Catholic theology. The article is plenty long as it is. I should also point out that the article is far better than some of the stuff that has come out recently as "Featured Article of the Day". There is some significant variability in the standards for what passes as a Featured Article. --Richard (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Richard, I saw your edits to the page and I appreciate all your very fine help. NancyHeise ^talk 21:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Thanks Were, Pope John XIX is one of those worldy popes that slipped into power during the corruption of the Church in the Middle Ages. Aren't we all glad that the Church survived that period with the help of God's grace? :) Robert Novak claimed that he converted to the Church after realizing that no institution could have endured the mistakes of men the Church has endured if it were not divinely ordained. NancyHeise ^talk 15:02, 4 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]

Brian, just this morning I was thinking about this issue and wondering if there might be someone other than me who might consider being the nominator for RCC FAC. I am not very good at navigating FAC comments but perhaps someone like you could nominate the article, navigate the responses and I could be your assistant helping you? Would you consider this? I think you said you were not a Catholic, even better! That would show the article to be just an effort to make an informative article on the subject, which is what it is! NancyHeise ^talk 14:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help get this article through the FAC barrier, but I'm not sure that what you suggest is the best way forward. A nominator with 0 edits and no history withh the article arouses suspicion, even with the consent of the main editor. There are also about 25 other editors with 50 or more edits (some with many hundreds), who might have views on this. I could possibly join you as a co-nominator, but I would need to be a lot more familiar with the article than I am at the moment, and also to bring myself up to speed with the debates at recent FACs. All this will take time, as I am currently nursing other projects. I don't know what your preferred timescale is for bringing RCC to FAC again, but if you are in no particular hurry, and can give me a few weeks to study the article, I'll be better able to judge if the co-nom option is a plausible idea. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian, I responded on your talk page. NancyHeise ^talk 21:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got your reply. It would suit me if the next RCC push for FA was delayed until the fall. I am about to nominate Clements Markham to FAC, then when that's over I'm taking a short break, then I have two music articles and an archbishop to keep me busy over the summer. Given no time pressure, I can get to know the RCC article better; I have already started this process, by sorting out the hyphens, ndashes, page ranges and nbsps. I'll have to decide later whether to join you as a co-nom, or whether to continue working behind the scenes. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The musical articles are the biography of Bedrich Smetana, and his best-known opera The Bartered Bride. The archbishop is Cosmo Gordon Lang. All these exist, in rudimentary form. My job is to make them great. Doing lots of Smetana research at present. Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, I read all these articles just now and posted some comments on their talk pages for the things that jumped out at me. I will do more as time permits and the articles progress. NancyHeise ^talk 15:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy, if you have not seen them already, there are some comments on this topic on my talk page from Qp10qp, Ealdgyth, Johnbod, and me. Some ideas to consider... --RelHistBuff (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RelHist, I responded to them on your talk page just now. NancyHeise ^talk 21:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Happy Mother's day. May the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, intercede for us all; may you bring Jesus Christ for your children, as she brought Jesus Christ for all her children. Praise be to God, Amen.

Gabr-el 22:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh Gabr-el, thank you for this wikihug. I am sending you a smile back. I was offline yesterday while my husband cooked crepes for everyone and my daughter took all of us to Morikami Museum. I had a very nice mothers day made even nicer by your kind note. I was wondering how you are doing? NancyHeise ^talk 01:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing pretty good, thank you. The Greeks have a saying "to the brave, a few words are as good as many", so let us leave it at that! The card was a coincidence; I was trying to put up a template, like the one I have at my user page that has the picture of Jesus on the left, and the emblem of the Papacy on the right (except I wanted to replace the left with a Theotokos and the right with St Monica and her son, St Augustine). The images and the text just didn't work out. Then one change I did made clumped it all up vertically, as if like a card! So there we have it; sometimes when it doesn't go according to our plan, it does so to go according to the One in Heaven! All praise and glory be to God, Amen. Gabr-el 02:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: where is it that you wish to direct me in the discussion? I am very lost by all the debating and screaming of POV. My opinions and yours coincide; just tell me where to vote "Yes" - lol. Gabr-el 02:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I trust in your judgment; I am too lazy to participate unfortunately, in the discussion right now, and I am also very busy. Gabr-el 02:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am hoping to have a final vote at some point just so we can point to a consensus if it is later challenged. I'll let you know if we get to that point. Take care and God bless you! NancyHeise ^talk 02:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good news[edit]

By the way, good news; tomorrow (that is Friday May 15th), two young women will be making their vows, and after that will be ordained nuns. Wooow!Gabr-el 04:07, 15 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]

Congratulations, I will keep you and all of them together with you in my prayers for you! Thanks for sharing, that is really good news! NancyHeise ^talk 13:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A vast improvement. I think we are really close. -- Secisek (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can it really be true? I will believe it when I see it! :-) NancyHeise ^talk 17:55, 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. Durova^Charge! 16:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, that was only my second post on that long running conversation. I did not participate in the whole affair except for those two comments. I do not feel that I should strike my post that was sticking up for an innocent person who was being unfairly and abusively maligned. I can refrain from posting any more comments which was my intention anyway if you like. I hope you left this message on the pages of others who were posting more than a few comments. NancyHeise ^talk 17:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should you should remove your posting either, and neither do I think Durova should have asked yo to. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 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]

I was not party to those discussions and part of my reasons for staying neutral was because I do not know you nor have I worked with you. I was reading what other people had written, many of whom I have worked with - people who both supported and opposed you. My experience with admins has been a very mixed bag. There exist on Wikipedia real admins who really abuse their power for their own purposes, not for Wikipedia's benefit. Wikipedia needs some kind of review board to weed these out if there are to be any efforts made on articles that Readers really want like Roman Catholic Church, Martin Luther, Thomas Beckett and such. Right now, the only FACs that get through are those that are almost always completely obscure subjects that not many people go looking for on Google but might be interesting if they stumble across. Not too many people are encouraged to write or protected from POV warriors with admin power to move the more coveted kinds of articles along. If you get admin, I hope you will use your power to help editors who are trying to create decent articles with referenced facts and help protect them from the obstructionists. Some powerful admins were ones I found most difficult in my dealings with RCC and another Catholic article. There is a difference between helping an article progess along the path of creation using Wikipedia polcies and promoting unreferenced POV. These admins promoted unreferenced POV and supported each other. The people I have found most useful were not admins, curious, I don't understand it. NancyHeise ^talk 18:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk later Fasach Nua (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just while you have me thinking about this, the Roman Catholic Church has some stunning imagery, both in terms of paintings and architecture, perhaps if you come across something, you may wish to consider nominations to Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates Fasach Nua (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fasach, I tried nominating a picture I thought was worthy of being Featured once and I was laughed off the page. Before I nominate anything I'll be sure to run it by you first OK? Wikipedia is humiliating enough already. : ) NancyHeise ^talk 21:02, 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:

Drafted by the future Pope Pius XII[367] and read from the pulpits of all German Catholic churches, it described Adolf Hitler as an insane and arrogant prophet[citation needed] and was the first official denunciation of Nazism made by any major organization.[368]

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 Xandar, I'll go have a look. The source says it refers to "the Fuhrer". There was only one of those in Nazi Germany and his name was Hitler. NancyHeise ^talk 15:49, 15 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]

I would be happy to review this for you. I should be able to accomplish this over the weekend as I have time. Thanks for the invite. NancyHeise ^talk 23:46, 21 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]

Our Scholarly Reference states:

McBrien, Richard (2008). The Church. Harper Collins. p. xvii. Online version available here. Quote: The use of the adjective "Catholic" as a modifier of "Church" became divisive only after the East-West Schism ... and the Protestant Reformation ... In the former case, the West claimed for itself the title Catholic Church, while the East appropriated the name Holy Orthodox Church. In the latter case, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome retained the adjective "Catholic", while the churches that broke with the Papacy were called Protestant.NancyHeise ^talk 22:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may be other sources that say that Protestants use the term "Roman Catholic" for the purpose of sectarian polemic. McBrien may even say it somewhere in his book. However, the text quoted above does not say that. McBrien says that the use of "Catholic" as a modifier of the "Church" became divisive but it doesn't say who made it divisive or why it became divisive.

BTW, this is an excellent quote. I'm surprised that we haven't incorporated the first sentence in the text of the article.

--Richard (talk) 16:41, 28 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]

Nancy - sorry I missed your last 2 posts till now, as others came in just after - we need a counter on the new messages thing! Congratulations for your daughter, that's really impressive - I hope all goes well for her. I'm not sure about FAC/GA - it might be tricky at FA, mainly because, as I think I said before, the subject is not tightly defined, and people could ask for all sorts of additions one had never imagined. GA I never bother frankly, but one would expect it to pass. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for GA because it is a good article that meets GA criteria. I also think it meets FA criteria but since I do not have the time or the patience right now to navigate a FAC I am just going to try to at least get it listed as GA. Ceoil, I agree that my difficulties lie partially with the subject matter but they also lie with other issues pertaining both to my abilities (or inability) to navigate FAC and with the FAC process itself. Perhaps in the near future, things will change that will allow articles like these to pass. NancyHeise ^talk 22:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in the near future, things will change ; only through effort and the work of advocates like yourself. Funnily enough, for all my avowed, pig headed, athesism, I find myself emersed in articles mostly related to Christian iconagraphy these days. Go figure! Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy your company Ceoil, I am glad you come by sometimes. I do not intend to work to change anything at FAC. I was just referring to the tendency for inefficiencies of a process to be recognized and dealth with by those who wish to see Wikipedia improve. There are some things at FAC that could be improved upon. I am not the only person who sees them and I have already spoken out about what I think is wrong and needs fixing. NancyHeise ^talk 17:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Ceoil, I went to Church this morning and was thinking a lot about our conversation here. I do not see why we can't try for FA again. I would like to see what kinds of comments are generated anyway. If the article meets FA criteria, which it does, I don't see why it should not be treated fairly and promoted. Comments that are unfair, if they come, can be discussed on the FA talk page. Let's see what happens this time around. NancyHeise ^talk 15:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed; best of luck with it! I was going to say I'll say a few Hail Mary's for you (common irish phrase, not meant literally), but of course you know I won't. I'll cross my fingers instead....good enough? ;). I had an unfortunate episode at FAC recently[22], and the one thing I learned is that unfair comments are best left stand ignored; often attemps to argue against them just sink you further into a hole, and when that happens, well, soon you are dealing with pile on / drive on opposses. Ceoil (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice - thank you very much. I might ping you for your thoughts when I encounter a comment that I dont know how to handle. I am not a little bit sad that you wont pray a few Hail Mary's though :( I was once praying a Rosary for a priest that I love and I had the spiritual experience of seeing that my Hail Mary's were like putting money in his pocket to help him before he went off on a long journey. Another experience I had was when my son was little and he had been sick for several days with the most severe flu. He was so dehydrated that he could not even take a sip of water without having to throw up again. I decided to take him to the hospital but before leaving, I sat on his bed and prayed a Rosary first. At the momment that I finished the last bead, he sat up and said "Mom, I am so thirsty, please get me a drink of water". I did, he drank the whole thing and never threw up. He was actually fine after that and I never took him to the hospital. NancyHeise ^talk 21:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've watchlisted the FAC, and would be happy to help out where I can. I have often seen the power of prayer myself, having had my great grandmother, both my grandmothers, and my maternal grandfather live with my parents almost in sucession over a period of 34 years (my mother has cared for her whole adult life, up until her own father died last christmas - longevity is a big issue/blessing in our family!). Prayer was alsways a great source of comfort to them, especially towards the end, and of course without doubt that which lifts the spirit or heart lifts the body. We have different explanations for that though! Ceoil (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my article Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism it talks about the connection between body and soul when discussing the sixth commandment, see Love of husband and wife section. Scientific evidence supports the benefits of prayer. Some people like to tell us it is all in our minds and that prayer is the effect of the power of mind over body but do they really know? Another personal story: When my 17 year old was just 17 months old and her sister was 3 we used to live on the water in Lighthouse Point, Florida. We had a screened in porch with a pool that had a pool fence around it. I was playing with my two daughters out on this porch when my 3 year old said she had to go to the bathroom. I quickly picked her up and took her to the toilet and was holding her on it when I experienced what I have since come to call "Christine's guardian angel" - it said very clearly in my mind "You better check on Christine". This message was not generated by my own thoughts and it came to me with a dire feeling of emergency to boot. I left my 3 year old on the toilet and went to the sliding glass door just in time to see Christine on the outside of the screened patio shutting the door and running as fast as she could to the water. I ran to get her as fast as I could and caught her just as she was about to take a flying leap into the water off the dock. If I had waited a split second longer or ignored that supernatural message, I would not have seen her at all or thought that she went outside because the door was usually locked and there was a hedge that blocked your view beyond the door. People who tell you its all in your mind do not know what they are talking about. NancyHeise ^talk 01:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do they really know? No, but given the arch of scientific progress to date, someday they will, IMO. Unless of course they don't blow us all up in the process (long term thats more likely than you'd imagine). Nancy, I have no real interest in arguing with you over this as no-way will I convince you, and you have no chance at convincing me. On such matters I always tend to respectively disagree; a very close friend was diganosed with a stage 4 brain tumour 4 years ago (30 yrs at the time) with a prognosis of 18 months. No doubt his faith has helped him beat those odds, and who am I to question that. I have openions, but thats all they are. Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Ceoil - I did not think we were arguing, at least that was not my intention. I really like you, I hope my religious stories don't scare you away from my talk page. You are a very interesting and respectful person and I have no problems with respectful disagreement. NancyHeise ^talk 02:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, don't mind me. I like to hear differing views, as long as we can be honest about where each of us are coming from. And I think we can here. Talk later. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ceoil, I like hearing your views too. Looking forward to our next conversation.NancyHeise ^talk 01:19, 3 June 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]

Hi Brian, when I went to have look I noticed that it needed more info on his personal life. The tendency of Wikipedia biographies is to dwell a little too much on the person's accomplishments and be a little light on the man's family and personal hobbies. Biographies are about the person not necessarily his accomplishments so I seem to make that comment a lot when reviewing biographies. NancyHeise ^talk 01:21, 3 June 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]

I am probably older than most other editors on Wikipedia. There is a saying that you can't teach old dogs new tricks but I am trying! : ) NancyHeise ^talk 16:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that story all too well right now :) Old dogs can learn new tricks, but it can be painful! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No pain, no gain. NancyHeise ^talk 16:33, 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]

Your welcome, let me know when you want me to have another look. NancyHeise ^talk 17:17, 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]

I agree with you. Some of those Polish books you use might already be translated though, did you check that publishing house I linked on the FAC page that specializes in translation of Polish books to English? NancyHeise ^talk 01:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure none of those books are translated :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recognition was much appreciated — though it may be premature :) Sunray (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Whatever the outcome of the mediation, you have done yeoman work in putting up with us and helping guide us to the current state. You deserve kudos for that. --Richard (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Richard! (as usual) NancyHeise ^talk 17:41, 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]

Haldraper, I have moved your comments above to the Roman Catholic Church talk page [23] and answered them there. All information on the RCC article was coordinated with the help of over 20 editors, most of whom are not Catholic as documented in one of our FAC attempts. In addition, all information in the article is cited to the most reliable sources per WP:reliable source examples. You are not the first person to be surprised at the facts surrounding the Church organization. Many have come to insert information they thought was true but discovered that there was no scholarly source to support their information. What scholarsh think of the Church and what some people think of the Church do not always jibe which has made me wonder often where all the anti-Catholic points of view come from, certainly not from scholars it appears. Thanks for your comments, please see the RCC talk page for individual answers to your questions above. NancyHeise ^talk 19:15, 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]

I responded on your talk page Gabr-el. NancyHeise ^talk 19:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand and will place my vote shortly after this post. Gabr-el 20:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haldraper is persisting in edit-warring and taking chunks out of the article without discussion. He has form for this with other related qand unrelated articles, and is risking a ban. Can you keep an eye on the page? Xandar 14:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am checking it now and then, Richard and Anietor are helping too. I was hoping you could continue to help too. Thanks Xandar. NancyHeise ^talk 15:50, 8 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]

Haldraper, I have answered your comments on the RCC talk page. The ban on gay priests is already in the paragraph and cited to our best reliable source. Regarding "percieved", that is up for discussion - I did not put that in the article, someone else did. As you are "perceived" by many editors now to be a vandalizing POV warrior, you may not be the best person to eliminate this from the article. Talk first - make changes after coming to agreement later and you will be better received. : ) NancyHeise ^talk 16:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take out "perceived" and you are not implying, but STATING, without reliable references that the Church was scientifically intolerant. I do not think that complies with the facts at all. The statement as written reflects criticism of the church without endorsing it - which is the right balance. Haldraper states on his page that one of his main interests (and sole religious interest) is "Roman Catholicism". Since he does not seem to be very supportive of Catholicism, it would seem his "interest" is in an anti-catholic direction... Xandar 22:07, 9 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]

Thanks Baccyak, I should be thanking YOU! NancyHeise ^talk 16:57, 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 think we should do it when we make the actual move. That should be any day now right? NancyHeise ^talk 01:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That will be fine. Sunray (talk) 06:28, 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]

Brian, I will be happy to come help you on Smetana, thank you for inviting me. NancyHeise ^talk 21:15, 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]

With pleasure! Thanks!NancyHeise ^talk 14:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have said the JW Project's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]