Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Closing remarks

The RfC was initiated on March 26, 2010 by NancyHeise, who disagreed with recent editing at Catholic Church that moved, removed, or rewrote several sections. Nancy presented three versions of the article for consideration: a "short" version (more or less the current version), which Nancy opposed; a "medium" version proposed by Nancy; and a "long" version, which had been on the page before the recent edits, or was a former version that Nancy had edited before initiating the RfC.

The RfC was the latest in a series of dispute-resolution efforts regarding this article. Earlier steps included Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church, Jan–Jul 2009 (deleted); Requests for comment/NancyHeise, Oct–Dec 2009; a Request for arbitration, declined on March 2, 2010; and a previous straw poll abandoned on March 11, 2010 after allegations of canvassing. A neutral description of the RfC was posted by SlimVirgin and Sunray on several wikiprojects, the article talk page, the village pump, the peer review talk page, the FAC talk page, the philosophy and religion RfC page, and the talk pages of the top forty editors to the article and its talk page who hadn't already commented. Xandar expressed the view that not enough editors had been notified. Forty-three editors commented between March 26 and April 9.

It was agreed on April 2 that the RfC would close on April 9 at 23:59 UTC. Three editors—NancyHeise, Xandar, and Johnbod—asked that it be left open for longer. It was closed after two weeks for two reasons. First, comments had mostly come to a halt. Secondly, NancyHeise had opened discussion on March 13 about organizing an RfC or second poll after the failure of the first one, so by the time it began on March 26 "poll fatigue" had set in among the article's editors, and it was felt that closing after two weeks would minimize disruption and ill-feeling. Anyone wanting to comment after the RfC has closed should feel free to do so on the talk page.

Conclusions

The RfC showed a clear consensus in favour of working from the "short" version; various reasons were cited by twenty-seven editors, including that its length was more appropriate, its references had been checked, it was easier to add than remove material, and the "long" version had been disputed for years (see views by Sarek of Vulcan, Septentrionalis, and Stephen B Streater).

A majority identified Nancy and Xandar's behaviour as problematic and responsible for the content dispute, or described Nancy's editing as too favourable toward the church; see above and views by Hesperian, by Harmakheru, by SandyGeorgia, and by History 2007. Fifteen agreed that Nancy should take a voluntary one-month break from the article and talk page, or that a three-month topic ban should be imposed; see view by SandyGeorgia. Several said that the RfC was harmful or pointless. Ten agreed or partly agreed that, regardless of the specific content issues, the way the "short" version of the article had been inserted was uncollaborative, or that an article such as this could not be written using Wikipedia's bottom-up model; see views by History 2007 and by Ling.Nut. Eight agreed that the "short" version was inadequate, inaccurate, or a travesty; see views by NancyHeise and by Xandar.

Nancy announced just before the RfC closed that she had decided to take a break. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

Previous discussion and attempts at dispute resolution[edit]

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

Statement of the dispute[edit]

Three versions of the Catholic Church article have been proposed to serve as a basis for further article improvements.

  • 1 short version 104 Kb, (46Kb, 7500 words, of text)
  • 2 medium version 141Kb (65Kb, 10500 words, of text)
  • 3 long version, 180 Kb, (75Kb, 12000 words, of text)
  • Please indicate which version you prefer and why. There is a clear understanding that these versions have flaws, and whichever version is proceeded with as the basis for improvement, nothing in that version should be regarded as established by consensus. Xandar 20:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this summary
  1. especially the last sentence, which is essential for progress. Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by NancyHeise[edit]

  1. 2 or 3 I support using either version 2 or 3 because Version 1 contains so many inaccuracies, citations errors and serious omissions. It is easier to use Version 2 or 3 and trim them than try to build up Version 1. In addition, Versions 2 or 3 have been vetted by the greater Wikipedia community. They incorporate the work of editors over the past two years including the last peer review and FAC. There were 25 supporters of the article in that FAC and 9 opposers. Version 2 or 3 incorporate the opposers comments as well as those of a successful mediation since that FAC. Version 1 is a new creation by editors who do not have any of the sources used to create the article and installed their version of the article on the page after a one day straw poll that was declared invalid by the overseeing administrator. Because of the serious errors and omissions in that version and because of the inappropriate way in which it was installed into the article in violation of Wikipedia policies, I have opened this RFC to find out which version the wider community prefers. I think Version 1 is unacceptable as a basis for further improvements for these additional reasons:
  • Version 1 was created by people who do not have the sources and changed both sentences and citations in an effort to drastically reduce the size of the article. As a result, version 1 contains many inaccuracies.
  • Version 1 contains drastic citation errors especially in the Beliefs section where whole sections are either unreferenced or cited wholly to original documents in violation of WP:Cite and WP:OR. That section, in order to be in accordance with Wikipedia policies must have citations to secondary scholarly sources. The other two versions do have proper citations to both secondary and primary sources in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
  • Version 1 contains gaping inaccuracies like the lopsided emphasis on explaining the priesthood with virtually no explanation of lay people or religious orders. The Church considers each of these to be equally important in the life of the Church and the article violates WP:NPOV in this regard.
  • Version 1 does not tell Reader anything about what the Church actually does. Version 2 and 3 tell Reader about Catholic institutions. It operates the worlds largest non-governmental school system. It operates many universities and hospitals. Version 2 and 3, in a neutral way, gives Reader a table that lists the various organizations run by the Church this table was eliminated by the creators of Version 1.
  • Version 2 or 3 do not omit whole sections of Catholic beliefs like prayer and the saints. By not mentioning them Version 1 is in violation of WP:OR because it arbitrarily chooses to emphasize some beliefs and omit others. Version 2 or 3 follow the pattern set by scholary experts on the subject of Catholic Beliefs providing space for those aspects emphasized by the scholars themselves.
  • Version 1 does not tell Reader anything about the Church's contribution to Western Civilization. If you read a university textbook on this subject, you will see whole sections devoted to discussion of the Church. That is because the Church is intimately involved with the developement of Western Civiliation and this is not POV but scholarly consensus. I think Version 1 violates WP:NPOV because it omits this information.
  • Version 1 does not satisfy FAC criteria that states that an article must be comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; In an effort to create a short article, where length was the only issue, the creators left all mention of criticisms to daughter articles. This created article text that does not meet the comprehensive criteria of FAC.
  • Version 1 does not satisfy FAC criteria that states that an article must be well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; This is exposed in the Beliefs section alone as well as the sections identified above that Version 1 lacks. Version 2 or 3 do meet the thorough and representative survey criteria. Someone went through Version 1 and eliminated citations because they said there were too many, in the process, they left sentences without citations that supported the article text and created sentences that are cited to sources that do not say what the sentence purports - some examples: see citation number 166, 206, the last paragraph in Membership (second sentence is an inaccurate statement and is unreferenced),
  • Version 1 contains many violations of NPOV, see for example the second paragraph in Early Christianity. This is singly referenced to a Protestant author, an Anglican priest. In contrast Version 2 or 3 are careful to include the views of all POVs including Catholic, Protestant and others. The corresponding paragraph in Version 2 or 3 is in the Origin and Mission section. NancyHeise talk 20:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this summary
  1. Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC), given the essential caveat in the "Statement of the disputea" bove that "nothing in that [chosen] version should be regarded as established by consensus. I think version 2 is the best starting place. I agree with many, but not all, of Nancy's points above. Any article on the CC should be testing boundaries of length, given the size of the subject, and the beliefs & other "religious" (not historical) sections are extremely important, though not I'm afraid regarded as such by many on the talk page who are all but exclusively concerned with history & "cultural influences", ie the CC's interaction with the rest of the world, but not the church itself. That is where version 1 is really inadequate. In general I disagree with Sarek that addition is easier than subtraction of material, though I know that the recent (& not so recent) history of this article is a very poor example for my argument. All three versions have major flaws, & it is essential that everybody concerned accepts that, or at least acquiesces with it. I also think his point about referencing cuts both ways. Most of the version 1 material derives from version 3, but the integrity of the old references remaining, which must be very many, cannot be taken for granted. Equally the new references added in version 1 could be carefully recycled if needed. There are certainly too many refs in all three versions, but that does not mean all referencing is adequate. The most widely-objected to passages should be swiftly removed, even if something is agreed for re-insertion later.[reply]
  2. The unagreed changes made to produce "short" Version 1 radically alter the article making it unfit for purpose, randomly removing huge amounts of key material and completely destroying what should be its core elements on the present-day church - namely the Beliefs and Practices , the Organisation, the Cultural Influences and the Mission and Purpose sections. An article on the basis of the short Version 1 is incomplete and unbalanced. Xandar 20:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. Version 1 seems bowdlerized. The tone should not be quick lits, but an in depth encyclopedic report. Student7 (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Marauder40 (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. EastmeetsWest (talk) 06:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC) The short version is a real travesty. Its editors seem set on reducing one of the most ancient, complex, largest and most significant human institutions and belief systems to something haphazard and elementary. It is really time to end this campaign which does such violence to the facts. Sure the long version ought to be trimmed. But, honestly would Britannica's article on the same subject be forced into an arbitrary length limit as if it were of the same relative import as any minor topic? You will find that Catholicism is one of the longest articles in any reputable Encyclopedia. Perhaps WP does not want to be Encyclopedic or at least not responsibly so. EastmeetsWest (talk) 06:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree - Process is important to me and the manner in which the short version was produced violated Wikipedia policies and the spirit of our cooperative, consensus driven style of editing an open encyclopedia. More importantly, the content of the article was sacrificed to meet a standard of article length that is irrelevant in today's world of high speed internet connections. The article should be long enough to cover the topic and this topic cannot be properly covered in a short article. --StormRider 21:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. patsw (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC) (Nancy's summary is correct on the content and on the process.)[reply]

View by SarekOfVulcan[edit]

I feel it's better to work forward from the current (what the statement above calls "the Short") version. Experience has shown me that it's generally easier to add information that's needed than to remove information that may or may not be unneeded. Also, there has been a lot of reference checking done on the current version that may not have been carried back to the other versions, and I don't want to restore inaccurate citations.

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Huon (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Esoglou (talk) 05:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Decidedly.[reply]
  3. Richard S talk) 06:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Consider it a kind of "zero-based budgeting". We need to reconsider much of the article as being excessive detail. It has been almost impossible to get anything deleted due to false appeals to "existing consensus" when no such consensus has been shown to exist. --Richard S (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Μολὼν λαβέ Agreed--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC) With the understanding that none of the presented options are good, and all need stringent source checking and verification. The one saving grace of the "short" version is that some of this source verification and checking has already taken place. Also - by "short" version, I mean the page currently at the article title Catholic Church. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Majoreditor (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hesperian 01:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Harmakheru ✍ 05:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Haldraper. I particularly endorse Richard S's comments. Haldraper (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Afterwriting (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC) It's a radical approach but the only one that I have any confidence in even if it might seemingly conflict at times with some policies.[reply]
  13. Dana boomer (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. per Ealdgyth. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. UBER (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I have done a great deal of clean-up work on the references in the current ("short") version of the article, removing references that weren't used in the article, identifying passages where the citations did not actually support the sentence, etc. This work is by no means done, but many of the issues that have been fixed still exist in the other two proposed versions, and I certainly don't want to spend another half a day cleaning them up a second time. I also find it easier to add information than to remove it, per WP:V. This version needs a lot of work, but I think it will be easier to work with than the others. Karanacs (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. This seems the most appropriate version to work from at present. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Carlaude:Talk 02:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I like the long version, but this is a better starting place. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Concur with the above. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. --BirgitteSB 21:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Leadwind (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by Hesperian[edit]

This RFC presents a false dilemma. There is no need to choose between a small number of not-particularly-good versions, as though they are the only versions that ever have and ever will exist. In fact there are an infinite number of versions to choose from: just go ahead and edit the article.

To buy into this false dilemma is to choose a polarized debate in which opposing camps wage war against each other without ever seeking a middle ground. This RfC is a call to arms, and thus profoundly harmful. We could be getting on to writing a really great version, a version worth choosing, if only every single attempt to do so wasn't stymied by garbage like this.

Hesperian 23:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary
  1. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC), but not the charaterization of "garbage"[reply]
  2. Sayerslle (talk) All three versions are seriously flawed, but 2 and 3 are suffocatingly flawed.
  3. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC) including the characterization as garbage.[reply]
  4. Esoglou (talk) 05:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC), but not the "garbage" characterization.[reply]
  5. Richard S (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC) if this "false dilemma" RFC is being characterized as "garbage", then I agree with the characterization. We should be focusing on the specific issues that need fixing, not trying to decide between versions as all versions are flawed. --Richard S (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Μολὼν λαβέ this RFC is a time-waster, a poor attempt to distract anyone willing to make a meaningful scholarly contribution to this article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Quite honestly, if the amount of effort that went into this RfC had been directed to working on the article, it would be in better shape. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree with false dilemma issue—further, the framing of this RfC is reminiscent of Goldilocks pricing; nevertheless, collecting views on the article in the moderated environment of an RfC may prove helpful. Geometry guy 15:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. It's better to work through issues on the article's talk page rather than launching an RfC. Majoreditor (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Vercingetorix08 (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC), I think that it is true, the debate has devolved into a fight where nothing is getting done,. necause no one will let anyone do anything. I don't think that Xandar and Nancy are wrong on everything, and neither is Uber; they are all, however, frustratingly sure that their way is the only way to go, and compromise is not possible.[reply]
  11. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Harmakheru ✍ 05:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Afterwriting (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Agree, particularly with Ealdgyth's comment. Dana boomer (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Concur that the RFC was an unnecessary waste of time, that the same effort should have been put into the article, and that the RFC has only stalled work on the current version which was progressing well prior to the RFC. Unfortunately, it seems a necessary step in dispute resolution to being able to move forward in the face of long-standing misunderstanding about How Wiki Works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. UBER (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. This RfC is a prime example of why many of the editors on the talk page have been speaking of "filibusters" stopping any real progress from occurring on the article. All editors have been invited to provide specific examples of what should be improved; what we got instead was this RfC. Karanacs (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. The word "garbage" may be a little harsh since it's a good faith attempt at improvement, but I generally agree. -- Ϫ 06:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Gimmetrow 20:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by Septentrionalis[edit]

Version 3 is the oldest text here; it has been disputed, quite literally, for years, by many editors. Despite Nancy's original statement, it is over 180Kb long, incluing the notes and footnotes; it will not load in reasonable time, even in the computer I am presently using, which has a very close connection to the Internet backbone. Version 2 is Nancy's own abridgement.

Version 1 is the version presently being worked on in article space. It was produced by taking a trial abridgement by User:UberCryxic and restoring the entire history section of version 3, which contains almost all of the text under dispute.

At that point, they were verbally identical in the chief area of dispute; any flaws in citation in version 1 were shared by versions 2 and 3. Since then, a large number of flaws in verification in version 3 have been fixed; a partial list of fixes is shown at Talk:Catholic_Church/Archive_46#Verification_Issue_1:_Inquisition_text_cited_to_Black and the following sections; the process of emendation continues. Where the text has been amended, Version 1 is better; where it has been abridged (which is largely in non-controversial sections), it is in summary style and the others are not; elsewhere, they are identical, but Version 1 is being improved - and, again, the others are not.

Version 3 contains (or contained; Nancy is free to alter her drafts), such POV language as:

Secularism has seen a steady rise in Europe, yet the Catholic presence there remains strong.
the Church faces challenges in reaching indigenous populations where over 715 different languages are spoken. (a quotation from a diocesan bulletin, where adoption of a Sympathetic Point of View is appropriate)
By spreading Christianity it battled, and in certain cases eventually ended, practices like human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide and polygamy of evangelized cultures beginning with the Roman Empire. (Also factually incorrect)
After a papal legate was put to death by the Cathars in 1208, Pope Innocent III declared the Albigensian Crusade. Abuses committed during the crusade prompted Innocent III to informally institute the first papal inquisition to prevent future abuses (a somewhat -er- incomplete view of the Inquisition and its purposes.)
Mit brennender Sorge, Pope Pius XI "condemned the neopaganism of the Nazi ideology-especially its theory of racial superiority...". Drafted by the future Pope Pius XII and read from the pulpits of all German Catholic churches, it described Hitler as an insane and arrogant prophet and was the first official denunciation of Nazism made by any major organization (A tad one-sided and incomplete; the last clause may not even rise to a half-truth: the date is March 1937, to claim that no other "major organization" had denounced Naziism by then involves an -er- extremely well-chosen definition of major)

In short, Versions 2 and 3 are POV forks by a single-purpose account (some 65% of Nancy's main-space edits are on this article alone). They egregiously violate our length guidelines, in addition to our core policies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Harmakheru ✍ 05:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Haldraper (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Concur that the policy breaches in Versions 2 and 3 are substantial, and some of these have been corrected in the current (shorter) version 1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. UBER (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Μολὼν λαβέ Agreed--(Mike) -Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree that the problems in version 3 are years old; consensus at prior FACs has been that the article had numerous problems. Karanacs (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final note[edit]

I must note this talk page note by a different editor, which is based on what he "remains convinced" a book he has not seen "must mean", although it does not say anything of the sort, and offers no evidence for what the editor is sure it must say. This is the endemic problem here; edits of what the editor is sure of, whether or not the source supports it. This is not the Wikipedia way. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to engage you on this point in a different forum such as Talk:Catholic Church. I'm even willing to admit that I may be wrong although I haven't yet seen convincing evidence that my common-sense reading of Bokenkotter's use of "some" and "many" is wrong. However, this is the wrong forum for such discussions and so I invite your or a third party to move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Catholic Church or Talk:Catholic Church as they see fit. --Richard S (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by Esoglou[edit]

The faults of the longer versions are particularly evident in a section that has survived into the short version, not only because in the long version it is more or less hidden away in a footnote but above all because all attempts to edit it were immediately reverted on the grounds that, having previously been adopted by a certain group, it was untouchable. I refer to the section that in the short version is headed "Etymology", but for which a more accurate heading would be "Name".

In ways similar to the "simple example of original synthesis" given in WP:SYN, it repeatedly suggests that the only name for the Church is "Catholic Church":

  • The name "Catholic Church" appears in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church – implying (on the basis of a single book) that this is its only proper name.
  • It is also the term that Paul VI used when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council – implying that no other name is correct, although these documents were only 16 (out of the many thousands he signed).
  • The name "Roman Catholic Church" has also been used in documents involving ecumenical relations – implying (falsely) that only in such documents is this other name used.
  • However, this title is disliked by some Catholics – omitting the important fact that the stated dislike of the unidentified some does not prevent the Popes and other authoritative Church leaders from using it officially.
  • Within the Church, the name "Roman Church", in the strictest sense, refers to the Diocese of Rome – hiding (while not explicitly denying) the fact that this name is used (also) for the Church as a whole.

Because the champions of the longer versions are not policing the short version with the same rigidity that they applied to all elements of the long version, I have now succeeded in adding to the short version a sourced statement to balance this last example of original synthesis, and have even been able to indicate grounds for doubting the accuracy of the transcription given of an ill-identified quotation from the New Catholic Encyclopedia. In the long version, any such attempt was rebuffed on the grounds of a previous consensus among editors whose point of view was much narrower than that of later editors.

SarekOfVulcan said that it's generally easier to add information that's needed than to remove information that may or may not be unneeded. The accuracy of his remark is borne out by the experience of editors attempting to deal with these statements, which are misleading, not just unneeded.

This section also bears out what Johnbod said above about the persistence into the short version of ill-sourced statements that were inserted in the long version. It is easier to fix these in the short version, which is, for this reason also, a better base on which to build improvements. And worthwhile elements in the long version can be added to this base more easily than the longer one can be pruned for its improvement. Esoglou (talk) 05:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has now improved this section of the short version of the article by inserting an explicit statement that the Church refers to itself also as the Roman Catholic Church and as the Roman Church (among other names); it now needs just a pruning of the needlessly numerous proofs that the Church also calls itself the Catholic Church. However, the observations above still apply, without alteration, to the corresponding text in the long version of the article, and the contrast between the two versions at this point continues to show how inadvisable it would be to choose the long version, whose guardians have been turning a deaf ear to all observations on this and other sections. Esoglou (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this summary
  1. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Esoglou's identity makes no difference to what he says. He is correct, and this is one of the problems with all three versions; Version 3, and its remnants in the others, do not represent anything so universal as the viewpoint of the Roman Catholic Church; they represent a faction within Catholicism.[reply]
  2. Carlaude:Talk 02:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by Harmakheru[edit]

It seems to me that this RFC is just another attempt by Nancy and Xandar to impose ownership on the Catholic Church article. Some of the things the two of them have said on the CC talk page in recent days strongly suggest this, as well as other problems that are even more disturbing. For example:

  • Nancy announcing that "we" (presumably meaning she and Xandar) "allowed" others to produce a new version: "Although it violated policy, we allowed the new version to be processed by those who wanted it to allow them to produce a version to put forth in our upcoming RFC that will ask editors in the Wikipedia community which version they prefer. [1]
  • Nancy declaring what "will" happen as a result of the RFC: "The version of the article on the page right now, is there in violation of Wikipedia policy. If the RFC produces a result in favor of the new version, it will stay, if not, it won't." [2]
  • Nancy implying that only she and her supporters have the requisite sources and knowledge to properly edit the article: "I would like to know if there is anyone on this page besides myself, Xandar and Johnbod who has any sources or personal training needed to improve the Beliefs section?" [3]
  • Nancy flatly declaring the same: "No one ... has any of the sources used to create the Beliefs section yet you saw fit to remove article text and references and reword sentences and add completely new sentences all without any sources. Your defense of the Mary text really put the exclamation point on your lack of personal knowledge about Catholic beliefs. ... The only way to fix this is to allow me, the person with the sources, to put the old Beliefs section back in the article and then trim it but all I am hearing is threats to fight me tooth and nail for wanting to make the article accurate. That is why we have to go to RFC. There is no compromise from this segment of editors here." [4]
  • Nancy declaring again that opposing editors do not know enough about the CC to be editing at all: "This whole article is so unbelievably incorrect I am so amazed at people's defense of it. It reveals a basic misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of the Catholic Church organization. I would like to help correct these oversights by reinstalling the old version and coming to agreement on trims from there." [5]
  • Xandar echoing Nancy's claim that opposing editors have "no knowledge" and "no interest" in the subject matter: "The article is not "progressing" - since it has regressed with the removal of material on beliefs, Organisation, Structure and Catholic practice, that many editors have worked on over a period of years. This has been ripped out without discussion, or even consideration of the substantive issues, by people with no knowledge and seemingly no interest in the subject matter!" [6]

To these examples (and many more could be given) we must also add Nancy's astonishing response to Ling.Nut's comments here on the RFC page itself (see below). Ling.Nut suggested that the only way out of the impasse on the CC page would be to create "a panel of people who are deemed responsible enough to follow NPOV as well as academically-inclined enough to do the job well". Amazingly, Nancy immediately nominated herself as an appropriate candidate for such a panel: "I could agree to be part of a group of editors to do this. I think that you are correct in noting that POV pushing is a big problem for this page." All this despite the fact that she has historically been one of the worst POV pushers on the CC page, has repeatedly demonstrated that she doesn't know how to tell scholarly sources from non-scholarly ones, and often can't properly comprehend genuine scholarly sources even when one is presented to her.

The mind boggles. Harmakheru ✍ 05:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Haldraper (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sayerslle (talk) If editors had no interest in the article why would they even be arguing over it? Aarrgghh.
  3. Afterwriting (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Strongly agree - all too sadly true.[reply]
  4. Mike Searson Agree.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. A long-standing problem, as the RFC on Nancy, linked to above, will show. Harmakheru is too modest to mention this discussion on its talk page, in which he explains in detail that a source which does not say what Nancy would like to say cannot be used to support it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The POV pushing, ownership, and policy breaches have been long-standing in previous versions of the article, in spite of unprecedented numbers of editors who opposed the previous text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. UBER (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Carlaude:Talk 02:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Ling.Nut[edit]

This RFC is futile. There is no hope that Wikipedia's bottom-up approach will ever, ever create an article (no matter how summarized and abbreviated) that does justice to the huge and (most importantly) hugely controversial topic of the RCC. Even if... quite literally, by miracle... we could get an outstanding article, the POV vultures from both pro-RCC and anti-RCC camps would then gather about the body, empowered by Wikipedia's blind adherence to WP:CONSENSUS, and hack the thing to shreds (giving it a sky burial, of sorts). The only hope for this article is if someone, somewhere finds a way to alter Wikipedia's culture in order to permit the top-down appointment of a panel of people who are deemed responsible enough to follow NPOV as well as academically-inclined enough to do the job well. [Please do note that I only believe this approach should be adopted in extreme and exceptional cases involving articles/topics that are not only chronic RfC/ANI/article protection/POV war troublemakers, but also are very complex topics. I happen to think that WP:CONSENSUS works extremely well in 99.99% of Wikipedia's articles]. I hold out very little hope that this will happen, at least not in the near future. But that is then; this is now. Now there is no hope. This RFC will churn itself along, with varying degrees of wailing and gnashing of teeth, to some sort of stopping point – only to be resurrected approximately nine months or a year from now. Then lather, rinse and repeat.

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Me, of course. • Ling.Nut 10:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I could agree to be part of a group of editors to do this. I think that you are correct in noting that POV pushing is a big problem for this page. It took us 9 months in a mediation to be able to include article text that tells the Reader what is the actual name of the Church, the one it uses for itself and, according to all of the tertiary sources and scholarly sources that discuss the subject say it "claimed as its title" (their words). NancyHeise talk 20:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree in part; this is some of the down-side risk. Another down-side risk would be the appointment of a committee including people who claim credentials but who can't tell neutrality from a hole in the wall. But while this RfC is going, the article is being improved, largely because it has received enough attention to overrule the small group of wilful editors who were keeping it frozen on version 3. Let's see what happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - religiously based topics are controversial by their nature. Everyone has an opinion and many feel their opinion should trump scholarly sources because...they "feel" what the truth is and, in this instance, the Catholic Church is not true, ergo we need to demonstrate its falsity. It also surprises me that there are so many editors that accuse others for their lack of neutrality and yet fail to see their own twisted POV pushing editing. When pointing a finger at another there are always three fingers pointing back at one's self. Even with a qualified board of knowledgeable editors writing the text, the article would always be open to editing. Our articles are not static. With in months and years it would be changed by the same bickering and vitriol we see currently. Not very optimistic, but it is the reality of Wikipedia. -StormRider 14:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree, & also with what SR's just said. Peter jackson (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of Xandar[edit]

The reason for this RFC is that on 11th March enormous non-consensus changes were made to the Catholic Church article by a group of editors. These unagreed changes radically altered the article and made it unfit for purpose, removing huge amounts of important core material belonging to the article, and completely destroyed what should be the central elements of the article - namely the Beliefs and Organisation sections. If you look at the "long" or original version of the article, and compare it with the "short" form, currently on the page, you will see that the

  • Removal of the History section from the bottom of the article to the top.
  • Completely removing entire referenced sections, including Origin and Mission and Cultural Influence.
  • Massively cutting, by two thirds, and badly re-writing the Prayer and Worship, the Beliefs, and the Church organisation sections, along with their subsections.

This undiscussed change, made by people unfamiliar with the topic, destroys the article and turns it into a clone of the History of the Catholic Church article. The content of the Beliefs and related sections have had most of their logic removed, leaping seemingly at random from subject to ill-explained subject. Coverage of important and vital issues such as Pilgrimage, purgatory, social teaching, creation, angels, salvation and free will has vanished completely. Coverage of Monasticism has also gone, as well as coverage of the Church's educational and social work. This makes the article sub-standard, and it no longer does its encyclopedic job of explaining the Church TODAY to readers. Comparison of the long version of the article with that on Islam, or Orthodox Church or Anglicanism, shows that these articles, along with the foreign language versions such as the Spanish Language, the Italian Language, and French Language, versions of the Catholicism article ALL follow the long article formula, brutally changed om March 11th. Issues of cutting length can be resolved by CONSENSUS trimming that maintains core content. The "short" version is a catastrophic non-consensus change that destroys the purpose and function of the article. I can support either the longer or medium version of the article to work from.

Update POV tags are perfectly proper to indicate that an article is under dispute. Their purpose is to alert outside editors to the dispute. Since this is the purpose of an RFC I cannot see how alerting more editors to the dispute can be "skewing the RFC" as Sandy Georgia alleges. What I see are further attempts to attack individuals instead of discussing the drastic unagreed changes made through edit-warring that she supports. I also see attempts seeming to be made, as made in the original straw poll, to try to limit participation in these discussions. Sandy Georgia's continued personal attacks and smears of other editors whilst ignoring of the illegal edit-warring, abusive postings and other tactics used by the editors on her side of the dispute really beggar belief. She needs to take a break from Wikipedia in order to reset her focus on article content rather than personalising what, without her negative contributions, might be a better handled and less acrimonious discussion. Xandar 20:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this summary
  1. Xandar 19:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with you Xandar. The cuts also created a lot of citation and content errors many of which require a person with knowledge of the Church and sources to fix. Because Version 2 and 3 are more accurate both in citations and content, I feel it would be easier to trim either of those versions than try to build up version 1. NancyHeise talk 20:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by SandyGeorgia[edit]

Catholic Church has been a battleground of ownership, suffering from canvassing and a failure to understand fundamental concepts, workings and policies of Wikipedia like correct sourcing, NPOV, consensus, What Wiki is not, and more for at least two years. Throughout four (five) very combative FACs, a mediation, an RFC and an ArbCom request, the policy failures have not been understood yet by the two editors most responsible for the battleground; accusations of abuse of power, abuse of adminship, and false claims of consensus for a highly disputed article have dominated all talk page and other discussions, with evidence that the involved parties simply do not understand the purpose of Wikipedia or how dispute resolution works. Progress on the article has been stalled for at least two years, with many experienced FA writers giving up and vowing never to return to the battleground article. Suggestions from admins that the proponents of the overly long, poorly sourced, POV version that was present until recently (referred to here as versions 2 or 3) should take a voluntary break from the article to allow it to stabilize and for work to progress have not been well received.[7]

It is my belief that the battleground on this article can only be addressed if editors NancyHeise and Xandar take a voluntary one-month break from the article and its talk page so that other editors can work more productively towards reviewing and correcting the sourcing and improving the article structure, due weight, and size. Their long, disputive, disruptive diatribes on the article talk page stall any progress, fail to evidence an understanding of how Wiki works and how to correctly use sources and work towards consensus to write a neutral, encyclopedic article, further the battleground, and divert attention from the work needed. In spite of lengthy discussion about the need to avoid canvassing (that has affected every discussion of this article to date), Xandar once again refused to accept a neutral post to WP Catholicism,[8] and NancyHeise continues to allege unfair adminning on the article.[9] [10] It seems that any one who attempts to enforce policy on the article comes under bad faith accusations, and there is nothing short a full advocacy piece for the Catholic Church that will satisfy them, and I don't believe work can progress on the article in such an environment, as other editors must constantly face bad faith allegations and eventually give up and leave. I believe NancyHeise means well, but she is simply unable to separate her strong POV from article editing, and unwilling to fully understand Wiki policies, guidelines, and encyclopedic purpose. If the behavioral issues continue, the article will once again end up before ArbCom; I believe it is time to formalize a request that both NancyHeise and Xandar take a voluntary one-month break from both the article and its talk page so that the battleground can subside and work can continue.

Update: by attempting to install POV tags on only one version (the current) of the article put forward in this RFC (in spite of long-standing concerns about the POV of the Versions 2 and 3), and then forum shopping the issue to AN/I during a good-faith RFC that is not going in her favor,[11] NancyHeise has yet again prejudiced an ongoing method of dispute resolution and colored the RFC-- exactly as happened with the canvassing in the last straw poll. I am altering my call for a voluntary one-month break for Nancy to a three-month ban from the article and talk page; she simply seems unwilling and unable to let consensus decide the direction of this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this summary
  1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Μολὼν λαβέ Agree. (Mike) --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would offer a qualified endorsement: I think Nancy especially can usefully contribute to Beliefs (as she has done recently by helping to improve the section on Mary) but her and Xandar definitely need to leave off editing History, Cultural Influence and Institutions until they can conform to WP:NPOV. Haldraper (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Afterwriting (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Endorse. It seems to me that both Nancy and Xandar's recent discussion comments - and their apparent difficulties in understanding why so many other editors have considerable problems with their comments and behaviour - doesn't indicate that there is likely to be any willingness on their part to give up seeking to control the article even for a short time. The major problem is that they don't even seem to have any recognition that this is what they are constantly doing - whilst also constantly complaining about all sorts of policy and civility violations by others. They may mean well but they are driving many of us bonkers in the process.[reply]
  5. Richard S (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Endorse original statement. And endorse comments by Haldraper and Afterwriting.(HOWEVER, I do not endorse a ban of any length for NancyHeise or Xandar. A voluntary break of 1 month might do them good, though. Richard S (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  6. UBER (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Harmakheru ✍ 16:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Entirely agree, except that a month is not nearly long enough, and the absences should be enforced, not voluntary.[reply]
  8. I was not planning to endorse this until Nancy decided to tag the article during the ongoing RfC. Given her previous efforts to keep tags off the article at all costs, I see the fact that she has inserted them now as disruptive and an attempt to skew the RfC. This, combined with her implied accusation that UberCryxic abused administrator rights (which he doesn't have) at the ANI thread for reverting her tagging (a task that does not require admin tools), her continued misinterpretation of administrator responsibilities[12] and of the purpose of dispute resolution [13], and her recent complaints that administrators are not neutral because they do not agree with her[14] are about the last straw on my patience. I now wholeheartedly endorse her removal from the article. I reserve comment on whether the same should be extended to Xandar. Karanacs (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per this and this, and comment, NancyHeise and Xandar should definitely take an enforced break from this article. Nancy in particular seems to edit little else. The article needs new contributors for it to progress. Aiken ♫ 21:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Like Karanacs, I had no intention of endorsing this summary until i saw, on top of all the other egregious actions taken by Nancy, the article tagging - i cannot believe the editor in question has failed to notice how this action contradicts hers and others' arguments of exactly the opposite nature just a few months ago. I agree with the proposal (which i also made a month ago in yet another dispute forum for this article) to have an article or topic ban of three months. hamiltonstone (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Carlaude:Talk 02:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I must agree, since I have already suggested this to ArbCom. This is not punitive; it would be intended to see what can be made of the article without Nancy's constant involvement - since her involvement, over a period of years, has not resulted in an article which reflects its own sources, much less the consensus of sources, and has resulted in an extremely controversial article - in all senses. (Added 22:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC): Delay in implementing this may now have cost us a learned and useful editor.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Agree with the spirit, but I don't think the concrete suggestions would actually solve anything. See LN above. Peter jackson (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Stephen B Streater[edit]

I often edit and read Wikipedia on my mobile phone. When I'm on WiFi, it works fine, but on a dodgy mobile connection it can take an age to load a long page, and often loses connection. This is particularly problematical if I am editing the article. So, for practical reasons, my preference is to keep to the 100kB guideline for the article. It should not be an exhaustive book about the subject, but an informative and referenced account of it.

As this is such an important article, linked to from many places, details should be made available in separate articles, wikilinked from here. You can see this working well in the article Mathematics, where thousands of articles detail important results, with the main article is more about the structure of the subject.

To me, it's an issue of not seeing the wood for the trees. Less is more, if you can find the bits you are interested in more easily, and get drawn in.

As for which version to start with, I have no a priori opinion as I haven't seen the old version. The current one definitely needs more work. Personally, if I was starting with the old referenced version I might have been tempted to split this up into articles, leaving a much briefer main article, rather than edit it down and lose the work already done.

As I find with my home videos, when they are shorter, people ask for more and spend more time watching. It is better to stop and for them to ask why have you stopped than to carry on and for them to ask why haven't you stopped. On that note, I'd better stop ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Afterwriting (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Someone with some (un)common sense![reply]
  2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Μολὼν λαβέ (Mike) Agree.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 12:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. There are real reasons why we have WP:SIZE . Karanacs (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Richard S (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by Kraftlos[edit]

As someone who participated in the mediation, I cannot support any version of this that eliminates the note that accompanies the introduction. I'm not saying that X group at Y time agreed to the note so it has to stay, everyone knows consensus can change. But that note was the basis of the mediation settlement, it should not be changed without good reason (I don't see length as valid reason, and it certainly is not POV).

As for the length of the article. This is a broad topic that links to a lot of other articles and as such it would be unhelpful to be too brief here. I'm fine with a long version of the article; however if it is shortened, any content that has been cut should at least be covered in sub articles and not eliminated entirely. It feels like people are moving too fast with this. If POV is an issue, that can be hashed out (I know how long and tedious these conversations can become). And it doesn't have to be that particular longer version. Note: people on mobile phones should either use a Wikipedia app or Wikipedia's mobile version of the site, both work great.

As for this RfC. It think this question is overly broad. It's a bit unreasonable to ask participants to read through three rather long articles and compare and contrast. There's so much here, even though I'm somewhat familiar with the article, it's really tough. It probably would be better to just make a proposal to re-add specific text to the current version. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Endorse remark that it would be better to just propose addition of specific text to current version. Esoglou (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Partial endorsement: I believe the mediation was flawed by lack of participation from opposing views, and consensus can change, but I do agree that text should be moved to daughter articles (it is my understanding that it was), and that starting from a shorter version and deciding how to better use summary style for readding text-- only after a proper extensive literature search is done, and proper sources are used-- is the way to go. I do not agree that the current version moved too fast; changes have been urgently needed in this article for two years, and there was long-standing broad agreement that cuts were needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I endorse this statement "This is a broad topic that links to a lot of other articles and as such it would be unhelpful to be too brief here. I'm fine with a long version of the article" NancyHeise talk 14:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Marauder40 (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by History 2007[edit]

I was really trying to forget about this page, but people keep asking me for comment. So here are my reluctant comments based on the request from Sunray. But please do not ask me for comments for another year. Part of the reason I will bother to comment now is that last Friday, Mar 26 2010, Jay Leno joked that: "Wikipedia was offline after an overheating problem at one of its data centers. It was pretty bad. For a while there, people had nowhere to go for phony, inaccurate information". Despite all the work that goes into Wikipedia, the perception out there is still that it has "phony, inaccurate information". I am not sure what represents the best of Wikipedia, but this article, and the process that got it into the current mess most probably represents its low point. I hope the example of this page can be used by the community at large to "change the rules" that govern Wikipedia, because the current set of rules have little hope of success here.

Some time ago, I advised Xandar to walk away from this page and its discussion for a while, and gave specific reason. So please read that first if you want to follow the rest of what I type below, for I do not want to repeat it. In essence I said that the version that Xandar and Nancy were maintaining had good knowledge, but looked at the Church through rose colored glasses, perhaps due to an over excited belief in the Infallibility of the Magisterium. I walked away from the page because I could not deal with Nancy's push to paint the church as ever so beautiful from every angle. But that does not mean that I find the current version as suitable, or the methods used for its establishment as acceptable. I see the current page, and the process that elected it through "elections held at midnight" followed by intimidation tactics (yes, I did say intimidation tactics) against users such as StormRider as a shame for Wikipedia. I think the current page should be rejected, not only because its content is hopeless, but because its method of election was inappropriate and a shame for Wikipedia and will open the door to future whip cracking against those who object to snap elections.

But we must also face facts here. As is, the position of Nancy and Xandar is reminiscent of the final scene from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Those of you who have seen it recall that Reford and Newman have a thousand rifles aimed at them while they discuss going to Australia. All that remains is for someone to shout "fuego". But what happens to the page after that? Who has the knowledge and determination to fix it? It does not seem to matter, for the current page defies logic. Let us look at the problems and the contradictions here. The one keyboard, one vote policy no longer works. Consider a user such as user:Johnbod. Look at the long track record of what the man has done and the impressive articles he has written. How many votes does he get? One. How many votes does a physics student with no obvious knowledge of the topic of this article get? One. Does that make sense? The new version of the article came about all of a sudden almost overnight via a snap election at midnight and I think those who support it may support it as much to be against Nancy/Xandar than because they like the page.

I think Wikipedia is not using its resources here. To make a long story short, the only way I see for improving this page is the following:

  • Accept NONE of the proposed versions. Start fresh.
  • Do not allow a melee again. Have only 4 editors involved.
  • Use international Wikipedia as a starting point. There is "substance" there.

I suggest that Johnbod, RichardS, Mike Searson and Haldraper be the 4 editors who start fresh. They have been the least emotional of the people who know the topic, and there is a good chance that they can actually work together and use that scarce commodity known as logic. And you may note that none of them is deeply within the Nancy/Xander camp here. The French Wikipedia article is not great, but the German, Italian and Spanish versions are in pretty good shape. And Google Translate can be used to extract the basic ideas from them very easily. You may note that their section structure is pretty interesting. Once these 4 editors have created a starting page, that can be subject to comment from the audience at large. Until then, they should be left to work among themselves.

Now, may I be left out of this discussion for at least a year please? Thank you in advance for not leaving me a message on this topic. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I agree with this analysis, and thanks for the very kind words about me! The article has certainly suffered from too many cooks, especially as one stage insists on using too much sugar, and others too much salt. Starting from scratch would be ideal - the history section in particular is now so pulled about, with each few words often having a different author, and the connection between points often dislocated by recent cuts, that a new version with fewer authors and fewer sources will have to be done at some point. I don't know about the others, but I have to recuse myself from being one of the Four Wise Wikipedians, mainly because I won't be able, or willing, to spare the enormous amount of time needed, and also because I don't have many of the ideal sources that would be needed, or ready knowledge of many areas. I've said before that we do lack an involved figure with really good knowledge of the area, and sources to hand, who is respected by all sides, but that person isn't me. I think the other figures would be suitable candidates, and I'm sure there are others, not currently around on the article, who might be tempted.[reply]
  2. Carlaude:Talk 20:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Agree, but I would not require those four to start from scrach, or the like. They can start from whatever the FourWW see as best.[reply]
    The article becomes full edit protected (except when they agree otherwise) and understood to be edited only by them. After they agree to open it to more input (or 3 months, whichever comes first), then other people can propose any edits to it they want on the talk page like any other edit protected page. Changes take place if those four have agreement/consensus on the change. This status of limited editors continues indefinitely until/unless the four have consensus to change the system (in all or part), or the larger community (with at least four other users plus these four) have consensus to change it. Relacements/additions to them are made the same way.
    These are meant to just be my ideas to make this "limit to four" idea practical. Still open to other ideas.
  3. Agree with much of the analysis of the problem, including the comments on Xandar's talk page, but Wikipedia policy has no provision for such a proposal. Peter jackson (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse much of what History 2007 wrote, especially in his note on Xandar's Talk Page but not including his proposal for "Four Wise Wikipedians" which I object to in principle and in practical implementation. I agree with Peter jackson that Wikipedia does not provide for this sort of thing and, moreover, I assert that such an approach is counter to Wikipedia's culture of collegial and collaborative editing among a community that is open to all. Finally, and this is not false modesty, I am not worthy to be one of the Four Wise Wikipedians if the task is writing of the article. I have not the time, the knowledge, the skills nor the access to sources. This is the strength of Wikipedia's collaborative culture. Everyone contributes according to their ability and desire. (Well, OK, some contribute in a way which does not match their abilities but that is the weakness of Wikipedia). I would prefer to continue to moderate discussions by helping to reconcile opposing viewpoints. When it comes to reading sources and writing text, those are not my forte. I still think what we need is people to moderate the discussion so that we can actually get some where instead of endless bickering interspersed by serial RFCs and the occasional trip to ARBCOM to see if they would be gracious enough to put us out of our misery (no such luck so far). --Richard S (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Marauder40 (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Leadwind (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by ...[edit]

Users who endorse this summary

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion[edit]

All comments not related to an endorsement and all threaded responses should be directed to this page's discussion page.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Catholic_Church&oldid=1138660356"