Misplaced Pages

Once again, I do not see the profit in posting large tags on article sections. I thought we had decided not to go down this road since it leads to confrontational attitudes. Tags should be used to highlight issues for discussion by editors, and we are already discussing issues in order as they arise. So long as we are following that procedure I don't see any need for tags. We certainly can't have tags pasted all over the article simply because individuals don't like the style of certain long-standing passages. I haven't removed the tag for the moment, so long as we and the tagger stay focussed on a productive resolution of this one issue, and don't start diverting on to others or posting more tags. I would have preferred Haldraper to put forward productive and referenced suggestions that would meet his objections. Xandar 00:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: European colonisation of Africa - agree, where did this "demand" come from? From the colonists or the colonized? If the colonists, then we should not make the paragraph sound as if the Church was doing a great and glorious thing. The Church has gone into colonies as part of the colonial effort. One POV would assert that, for the most part, the Church was complicit in the abuses and oppression of the colonial system. Others might wish to argue otherwise but we should not present solely an apologetic narrative here.

Re: Land reform - also agree; the Church was not necessarily singled out but rather seen as an integral part of the existing oligarchical power structure; this theme runs throughout the anti-clericalism from the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution (admittedly the Orthodox Church there but it's the same issue, different church). For the most part, anti-clericalism wasn't about persecution for religious reasons, it was about rooting out part of the power structure.

In response to Xandar's comment below, I'd like to amend my comment above... wrt to the Reform War in Mexico, the Church does seem to have been the primary focus of expropriation of properties and other legal restrictions. This was done in the backdrop of a conflict between liberal and conservative forces but the Church was certainly a primary target. However, if we look at anti-clericalism as a global phenomenon, the general context is usually one of liberal/left reformers against a conservative alliance of Church and landed aristocracy. --Richard S (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean primary target, or disproportionate target? IIRC various Church bodies owned a quarter of the land in Mexico in 1911, long after Juarez; it would be hard to have any meaningful land reform program without making that mass of land a primary target. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "in the twentieth century" - I'm not sure what your point is here. I agree with the substance of the paragraph. If your issue is about style, we can tighten up the prose to be less "vague".

--Richard S (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

On your last point Richard, yes. I've not read the sources but I'd be surprised if they're as vague as the text here: surely the number of priests and nuns killed in the Spanish civil war and the suppression of the Church in Stalin's Russia are well-documented enough for us to give more precise figures and dates.Haldraper (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with all of these is that all sides had no hesitation about inventing figures and atrocity stories; the Spanish Civil War was Orwell's justification for claiming that history had ceased to be possible in 1936. Published works repeat each side's claims; now a thorough and careful reading should be able to identify who the neutral and cautious historians are - but will we do it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

On the issues being raised:

• Missionaries. I don't think the stated reason for sending missionaries is that important to the article. I don't particularly see it as being "apologetic" though, just an attempt to set context. As for "riding roughshod over local traditions", that may be one POV, but I don't think it is justified since conversion or not was voluntary. It's a bit like saying TV rides roughshod over local traditions. It's just a part of change and the spread of ideas.
• I don't see how the next para is written from a "Catholic POV", or what Haldraper's idea of a "neutral" POV would look like. This seems an incredibly vague objection.
• On confiscation of land, is there evidence that the Church was not particularly targetted? It would seem from my readings that this would tend to be so, particularly with reference to monastic lands (strangely, the ones most communally owned). In some places there were general land seizures and redistributions, but this was by no means the majority.
• I have no objections to sorting out the "vagueness" in the last quoted paragraph. Better figures can probably be found from reliable sources. Xandar 01:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, I don't see posting a tag as disruptive or confrontational: as the pov-section one says, it's to highlight the fact there's a discussion on the talk page to try to resolve the issue. Whether the passage is 'long-standing' is neither here nor there, it may just mean no one's noticed or challenged the POV before.

I was going to let other some people comment before proposing my alternative but given Xandar's objection, here goes. It's based on Karanacs' points that less is more and that we shouldn't attempt to speculate on the Church's motives or offer alibis for its actions but merely describe them so the reader can form their own opinion.

By the close of the 19th century, European powers controlled of most of the African interior. Catholic missionaries followed colonial governments into Africa, and built schools, hospitals, monasteries and churches.

In Latin America, a succession of anti-clerical regimes came to power beginning in the 1830s. Church properties were confiscated and basic civil and political rights were denied to religious orders and the clergy. During the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War, in which the Church supported Francisco Franco's Nationalist forces,

In the twentieth century, confiscation of Church properties and restrictions on religious freedoms were carried out by various left wing governments. In the Soviet Union, persecution of the Church continued until 193 with the execution and exiling of clerics, monks and laymen, confiscation of Church implements and closure of churches.

Haldraper (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Tags, particularly general tags, are tending to get misused (see below). If everyone who disagreed with the tone or the content of a WP article was allowed to keep a banner tag on it there would soon be no significant WP articles without such tags. The purpose of tags is to alert editors to a problem, and generally this is after taking it to the talk page has not produced a response or debate.
• On the specific text points... Most of this is okay with me. However I think there should be a link to the Cristero War, as an example, and the words "anti clerical regimes" should be linked to Richard's new article. My main complaint is the Spanish Civil War wording which suggests Church support for Franco prior to the massacres. I haven't seen good support for that. The first attacks on the Church came well before Franco's action. I would propose:

By the close of the 19th century, European powers controlled of most of the African interior. Catholic missionaries followed colonial governments into Africa, and built schools, hospitals, monasteries and churches.

In Latin America, a succession of anti-clerical regimes came to power beginning in the 1830s. Church properties were confiscated and basic civil and political rights were denied to religious orders and the clergy. In Mexico this eventually led to the Cristero War. At the start of the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War, in which the Church eventually supported Francisco Franco's Nationalist forces,

In the twentieth century, confiscation of Church properties and restrictions on religious freedoms were carried out by various left wing governments. In the Soviet Union, persecution of the Church continued until 193 with the execution and exiling of clerics, monks and laymen, confiscation of Church implements and closure of churches. Xandar 02:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

After what I wrote below, I feel a little discomforted to ask for more detail but I do think a little more detail is needed.

• "succession of anti-clerical regimes" - in what countries? Mexico is obvious, perhaps Colombia, Argentina and Venezuela as well? See Anti-clericalism in Latin America. I wouldn't provide any details of what happened in those countries. Just mention them e.g. "succession of anti-clerical regimes in countries such as Mexico, Colombia, Argentina and Venezuela".
• I also don't like that we start out saying "In Latin America..." and then jump to "At the start of the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War". It almost sounds like we don't know that Spain isn't in Latin America. I would like to add just a few words to separate the two ideas e.g. "Anti-clericalism also resulted in violence and expropriation of Church properties in Spain and the Soviet Union." The word "also" indicates that we are no longer talking about Latin America.
• "carried out by various left wing governments" - once again, which ones? Soviet Union and Cuba. Anyone else? Let's not be vague here. We need not provide details but we should mention specific countries and time periods.

--Richard S (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

One problem with this is that left wing is an ill-defined term. Is anti-clericism by itself enough to make a regime left-wing? Some will say so, others will not. For those who think so, large parts of this are redundant; for those who do not, it is wrong. (There is an old jibe that Latin American politics is two gangs of generals playing Ins and Outs, with the only policy difference between them being Church policy. It's dated considerably, and it was never wholly true; but it's a good first cut.)Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this again, I think a little more rewriting/cutting would eliminate both the POV and vagueness problems without losing the meaning we want to convey:

In the 19th century, Catholic missionaries were sent to the new European colonies in Africa where they built schools, hospitals, monasteries and churches.

In Latin America, anti-clerical regimes came to power beginning in the 1830s which confiscated Church properties and denied basic civil and political rights to religious orders and the clergy. During the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War, priests and nuns were killed by republicans and anarchists.

In the twentieth century, confiscation of Church properties and restrictions on religious freedoms were carried out by governments in Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela. In the Soviet Union in the 1930's, persecution of the Church included the execution and exiling of clerics and the confiscation and closure of churches. Haldraper (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

This whole article is slanted toward the Catholic POV. Perhaps that's inevitable. Given the history of this page, it seems that WP policies are really not sufficient to get this sensitive topic the fair treatment that it deserves. The defenders of the Catholic POV are able to stall every effort on every front to make the article NPOV. Let's inform the reader of the situation up front so that the stalling tactics don't mislead our readers into thinking that the article is balanced. Leadwind (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have legitimate POV concerns, please state them. I'm removing the tag until those concerns are stated - otherwise how are they supposed to be addressed? Mamalujo (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read the tag. Don't remove the tag until the dispute is resolved. The issue here is that the article has several POV problems, and the defenders of the Catholic POV stall each discussion so that the page doesn't progress. The various POV issues have been pointed out long ago. Leadwind (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Mamalujo, OK, here's what's biased about this article.

Most encyclopedias use the term "Roman Catholic Church" for their entries on this branch of Christianity. WP uses the RC-approved title of "Catholic Church," a term that historians use for the united East-West church that prevailed until 1054.

The Great Schism is described as the East splitting from the West, when in fact it's the West that innovated the filioque, Papal supremacy, original sin, and other details that differentiated it from the East and from the united past.

The history of the "Catholic Church" largely follows the RC POV that the early, unified church was the RCC. Historians disagree, labeling the RCC as the Western branch of the church that split with the Eastern branch.

The origin section states the RC view but never plainly states the historical view.

In accord with the RC POV, Protestant churches are referred to not as "churches" but as "denominations." In RC POV, the RCC is the "church" but the Baptists don't comprise a "church," nor the Lutherans, etc.

The text makes no distinction between ecumenical councils (the last in the 9th century) and the strictly western councils that occurred later. Vatican II was not ecumenical because it excluded the East, etc.

Unusual elements of RC practice, such as adoration of statues of saints, is downplayed, even though it's characteristic of Roman practice.

History ignores changes in the RCC, such as the "birth" of purgatory in the 12th century.

The various Inquisitions are methodically downplayed.

The disgraceful history of the popes prior to the Reformation is downplayed.

The establishment of papal infallibility in 1870 is downplayed.

The pope's reasons for not opposing the Nazis more strongly are given lots of positive play.

The sex abuse scandal is not described at all, except for the pope's response to it.

Leadwind (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an odd list of "POV" complaints; IMHO, they say more about your own POV than that of the article.

1. A church is entitled to call itself what it chooses. It is the very height of neutrality to allow any entity to name itself and that has been done for this article just as we do for any other. Several of your points seem to relate to this issue. What other encyclopedias do is irrelevant and actually may be an example of being POV also.
2. The fact of the schism is there was a split. It is possible that putting either church in a superior position is POV, but I am not certain. This is hardly something to label an entire article as POV, but if you think it is significant then both church article should be changed to reflect there was a schism where both separated from the other.

I am getting the impression your position is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church and reflective of age old complaints between these two venerable institutions. As a non-Catholic, I tend to not buy into these type of "disagreements" because that is what they are and they are not POV issues. The rest of your points follow this tiresome tirade that is most often seen in all things critical of the Catholic Church. When placing a tag it is required that you give specific examples and not these broad brush strokes. I would advise you to specifically bring forward the sentences and how you propose they be changed so that this can be quickly remedied.

Please remember that neutrality is not the absence of position, but that both sides are given equal standing. It is perfectly letimate that an article's topic be primarily told from its position as long as critical position is also stated. This article does that. --Rider 03:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I certainly don't say that the article, and its language, should not be improved on some of these points, but others just reflect that this is not a traditional Evangelical blasting of the Church, which it is not. On the first point, I suggest Leadwind look briefly at the endless arguments that produced the new name in the summer, which should dispel any illusion that the motives for the current name are those he suggests. The bit "Unusual elements of RC practice, such as adoration of statues of saints...." well displays both Leadwind's POV and his ignorance, both of which we have seen before. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is an article about which i was aware there was some intense discussion, but I had not contributed to, nor read. I happened across Leadwind's comments (while looking for something else), and decided to read the article. I was, to put it mildly, somewhat surprised by the content and, Storm Rider's comments notwithstanding, I have to largely agree with Leadwind. The over-arching problem appears to be that the article tends to report what the church says it is and does, rather than what independent third-party sources say about these things. It is not enough to occasionally use phrases such as "The Church believes that..." There then needs to be text primarily based on what those analysts outside the church say about it. Storm Rider was asking for specific examples. It is hard to know where to start, but there are a few below. Incidentially, surely Storm Rider is incorrect in saying "It is perfectly letimate that an article's topic be primarily told from its position..." This reads to me as a fundamental rejection of the Misplaced Pages pillar of NPOV. Anyway, some examples:

• "Cultural influence: "The church rejected and helped end practices such as human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide, and polygamy in evangelized cultures throughout the world, beginning with the Roman Empire." The crucial information lies in note 7, not in this fatuous sentence. This surely borders on propaganda compared to what independent scholarly analysis of the history of the church would show. In reality, this church (and others) followed a complex and uneven path toward developing views about a range of issues such as slavery. The path was neither filled only with honour nor dishonour. Other non-faith related factors played significant roles in the domestic and international politics and economics of, for example, the slave trade. It is not a matter of either blaming or exonerating the church. It is however a matter of representing these things in a neutral manner. This particular sentence is beyond the scholarly pale.
• "Catholic universities, scholars and many priests including Copernicus, Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Nicholas Steno, Francesco Grimaldi, Giambattista Riccioli, Roger Boscovich, Athanasius Kircher, Gregor Mendel, Georges Lemaître and others, were responsible for many important scientific discoveries". Placing this sentence under the heading "cultural influence" makes it sound as though their intellectual contributions were a product of their catholicism. For some, this would certainly be true; for Copernicus it would appear a stretch. And having no citations at the end of this sentence is all the more astonishing, as I would suggest that the claim that the discoveries by these people is in some way related to their catholicism appears to me a claim that requires verification.
• "Over the course of its history, the Church has influenced the status of women, condemning infanticide, divorce, incest, polygamy and counting the marital infidelity of men as equally sinful to that of women. The official Church teaching considers women and men to be equal, different, and complementary." This is an appallingly unbalanced reflection of non-church independent scholarly discussion, not to mention some emanating from within the church. If this text is to stand, i would expect at least two more sentences on other views about thehistorical church's influence on the status of women, and current alternative views about its existing influence.
• "Mary and the saints": "Devotional journeys to the sites of biblical events or to places strongly connected with Jesus, Mary or the saints are considered an aid to spiritual growth, and can become meritorious acts if performed with the right intention". No citation for these claims, the last one being truly extraordinary. "can become meritorious acts if performed with the right intention" - says what independent third party source?
• "Western Europe alone has more than 6,000 pilgrimage destinations which generate around 60 million faith-related visits a year" = a subtle example of advertising-like language and hyperbole being used: this one I've fixed myself - the use of the word "alone" here is inappropriate.
• "Ordained members and holy orders": "The Church teaches that since the twelve apostles chosen by Jesus were all male, only men may be ordained as priests. While some consider this to be evidence of a discriminatory attitude toward women, the Church believes that Jesus called women to different yet equally important vocations in Church ministry. Pope John Paul II, in his apostolic letter Christifideles Laici, states that women have specific vocations reserved only for the female sex, and are equally called to be disciples of Jesus." By structuring the discussion sentence in the "While..., the Church believes..." format, and then following this up with the apostolic letter, the section favours the official church view, rather than a dispassionate analysis. The article also uses the language "the Church believes...", which reveals a particular theological stance - that the church is a unitary entity capable of belief. This itself is a Catholic view, and should not be retained in Misplaced Pages article text. The correct language would be "Official church doctrine states..." or "Papal teachings have stated..." or similar.

These are just a few thoughts, and i hope the article will be overhauled in stages to place more reliance on the content of reliable third-party peer-reviewed scholarship in some key areas where it apepars to be lacking. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider, "I am getting the impression your position is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church." Not even close. It's just that the Eastern church was under the thumb of the Emperor and had no room to innovate doctrine. The Western church, on the other hand, had no emperor over it and was free to make up all sorts of stuff. And details like the Filioque were useful for converting western, Arian barbarians. The Eastern Orthodox Church is measurably and demonstrably more like the early united church than the Roman Catholic Church is. Leadwind (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In general, I agree with Leadwind and Hamiltonstone that there is a strong POV-bias to this article. Some of these points (e.g. slavery and women) have been raised before and have not been settled yet. I like Hamiltonstone's analysis better than Leadwind's but many of Leadwind's points are also worth considering. I would urge the editors of this page not to dismiss their points summarily but to weigh each one individually and consider whether the wording could be changed to address the issue that is raised. Such an effort will help the article pass FAC. --Richard S (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The page is protected again due to edit warring over the POV tag. I was going to say this is getting old, but that's so last millennium. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Good. Protection merely formalizes the existing stalemate, and it does (like a tag) warn the reader to take this cum grano salis. Let's make it perpetual. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Procedural complaints

Unfortunately this is what happens when we (mistakenly) allowed one person to start putting tags on the page. Immediately everyone else with an anti-Catholic POV turns up, and starts edit-warring more and more tags onto the page - disrupting the article and the whole constructive discussion process.

There would be some small justification for tags if editors here hadn't tried to establish a process to discuss and come to reasonable agreement on any disagreements, in which we discuss facts and sources. However some people don't seem to want this. What we get are people like Leadwind who has clearly not bothered to read even the recent discussions on the talk page, and comes in with a list of ridiculous anti-catholic rants and no intention of co-operation. Instead he decides to edit-war his Personal POV on to the top of the article and so disrupt the whole process. I do not see how we are ever to make progress on the article when this sort of disruption is tolerated - and given support by blocking editing of the article. If every POV-pusher who dislikes the Catholic Church is free to disrupt the article with tags instead of participation - and so block progress endlessly - we will never get anywhere. This it seems is what PMA wants, but we are going to have to keep and enforce ground rules on the page to make progress.

We can't have people jumping in, tagging the page and running off - as people like Carlaude have done. Nor can we have people tagging the page because they don't personally like the tone - or the fact that positive things are said about the article's subject occasionally. We have a process for systematically and rigorously going through the text to identify genuine, evidence-backed changes that need to be made. People who do not want to input constructively into that process, without tagging, edit-warring and other disruptive tactics, should be ignored. I am quite prepared to discuss genuine points evidentially, but what we too-often see on this page are people who come in with a combative attitude, based on prejudice or misconception. We do not see these people complaining at Golden Age of Islam or other articles on religion which take a far less critical stance than this article does, and that leads me to believe that factionalism is what is inspiring a lot of this disruption. Xandar 01:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, aw don't be so mean. I know you'd like everyone to ignore me, and I know you think I'm just an ignorant anti-Catholic bigot. But maybe I'm a legitimate, fair-minded editor with good points that other editors agree with. Meanwhile, I see that you have side-stepped the content of my criticisms. Leadwind (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is a vote on removing the POV tag, please count me in on the removal. The tag has no place here, and I predict that after a large amount of useless verbal flagellation by all concerned it will be removed in time. These types of tags and other items usually show up on Good Friday, end of the year etc. not just on this page but also other places such as Crucifixion in March/April etc. The timing seems to be part of the laws of nature. The end result will be less than 2% change to the article which will make no major difference to the readers at large, except creating sad memories for all involved in the debate. Merry Christmas. History2007 (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If we accept your premise about it being the "laws of nature" and what you believe to be the author of those laws, do you not think your conclusions are in opposition to the law giver?Taam (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• No, Xandar, this is what happens when several editors think that there are pervasive POV problems with an article, discussions are stonewalled, and one point of view declines to acknowledge the presence of disputes.
• Saying that we have a "thorough and rigorous" (bolded or not) process is like praising the swiftness, impartiality, and responsiveness of the United States Senate; in the participants in the logjam, it is vanity and deception; in anyone else, it would be a joke.
• The justification for general tags remains exactly what it was: when most of the individual sections of an article are subject to complaint, the whole thing is open to question. The way to get rid of general tags, as of any tag, is to fix the article so that almost everyone can tolerate it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

We all seem to agree that it will take a long time to work through the issues on this page. Let's just leave the tag up until we're done. Seems pretty simple. Leadwind (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The article in key sections is very POV, in particular the Cultural influences section created by Xandar and Nancy Heise from an apologetics perspective. What seems to happen is that they have the right to impose such material then defend every single word that is subject to change. They both have the habit of taking what seems the legitimate and substantive criticism raised by other editors and then sarcastically using the same words against their "opponents" - reeking of deception in the process. This is my sincere wish for Christmas eve and without any hint of malice: please Xander and Nancy Heisse leave this page alone and let peace and goodwill prevail in 2010. Taam (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not. We're not having the article littered with misleading banner tags, put up by people with individual peeves, and wanting them to stay in place until they are personally satisfied. We've already seen that when one person gets away with placing a tag instead of engaging, then all sots of others think they have a "Right" to do so. That way every Misplaced Pages article would be a mess of misleading banner tags, since every article will have people who disagree with its tone or aspects of content selection and presentation, and want their personal tag to remain forever - or until the article is rewritten to suit them. Which will of course make the article "POV" to someone else - who will then add more tags.

General tags on the whole article are ridicuous when the genuine issues raised amount to about 2% of the content of the article. Moans about the "tone" and theological misconceptions not included. The way to raise serious points is to engage constructively on the talk page, and be prepared to see other people's positions. The way forward is to raise any individual issues, come up with solid reliable references to back up your position and then discuss and attempt to reach agreement - not to make a load of general accusations of POV and plaster banner tags everywhere. As for Leadwind's specific points, he would get a lot better reception if he had come in with the right attitude. I don't think anyone can genuinely say that we are not prepared to discuss all topics, and adapt to criticism. However there are references for virtually everything in the article, and if you want changes you need to argue a very good case. A lot of Leadwind's points show a failure to read through recent debates when issues such as origins of the Church, abuse, the Nazis and naming were discussed in depth. the split between east and West has also been heavily discussed, and leadwind's comments on this and the naming of Ecumenical councils seem to represent a factional viewpoint. Points such as alleged "adoration" of statues of saints, and the supposed invention of purgatory, reflect the sort of criticisms that emerge from low-quality websites with a deep misunderstanding of Catholioc theology. Leaving aside all this, there is very little meat in leadwind's objections at all to justify a tag of any sort, let alone a general one. Leadwind is free to continue to make his points, but he needs to bring them up in the context of the various sections that are being reviewed. Xandar 00:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I post this reply with some reluctance, it being hardly seasonal; but this really contains too many absurdities to ignore.

• As a minor point, it would be pleasant to have statistics, even rhetorical statistics, make some sense. This article is long, but 2% of its whole length is only 4100 characters ≈ 750 words; 2% of the text would be much less. The matters already in queue, including Hamiltonstone's samples (and they are only samples of a much wider problem) amount to more then that.
• I don't think anyone can genuinely say that we are not prepared to discuss all topics, and adapt to criticism. I do so say, genuinely and with the utmost conviction. This is another quarter-truth; the people Xandar calls "we" are willing to repeat ad nauseam that their text is "perfect, consensus of all editors, and can be objected to only by bigots". This is not discussion - especially in response to an editor who dissents. They also revert-war, and have meat-puppets revert-war against any changes - or even acknowledge that there is a conflict (this is why the article is presently protected).
• supposed invention of purgatory. Xandar has a fine hand at invective, but a most parochial understanding of the republic of letters; consider, pray, the results of a search for "the invention of purgatory". Some of the results are indeed theological treatises, both Protestant and Catholic, but Jacques Le Goff, Stephen Greenblatt, Andrew Cowell, Robert A. King, Richard K. Fenn suppose it; are they writing low-quality Protestant websites?- and that's just the first page of hits.

This last may in fact reveal the root of the problem; there are all too many here for which the alternatives are (1) their own school of theology within the Roman Church and (2) Protestant lies; there is nothing else - not the history of ideas, not psychology, not analysis of texts. This may well be heresy; but it is certainly not compatible with "Misplaced Pages is not a battlefield", which is policy; as here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• But let us see whether this adaptability is more than self-praise: a dozen sentences are criticized in this (second-level) section, mostly above the break. Is there a proposal to abandon any single one of them, especially in this overlong and overburdened article? I will reconsider my opinion of anyone who does so, even our two most prominent stonewallers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti-clericalism in Latin America

On further reflection, I realize that I know relatively little about anti-clericalism in Latin America. I have further concluded that Misplaced Pages does not cover this topic very well. To remedy these deficiencies, I have done some very basic research and created an article titled Anti-clericalism in Latin America. This is really just a somewhat longish stub. It is not even a start as it only covers the subtopics that have been discussed in Catholic Church and other related Misplaced Pages articles.

The article needs to be expanded to provide a more comprehensive treatment of the topic.

Your assistance is solicited to improve this new article.

--Richard S (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the History section

There are a number of editors who have expressed the opinion that this article is too long. One area of focus is the History section which has been characterized both as too long and having a POV bias. It has been suggested that shortening the History section will help to reduce the amount of bias. I agree with these assessments and with the suggestion to shorten the History section.

With this in mind, I have re-read the History section and my assessment is that the first part of it (the part before the "Age of Discovery") is actually reasonably well-written. There are perhaps some areas in the first part that need attention to fix POV bias but it is hard for me to see how it could be trimmed very much.

However, starting with the section on the "Age of Discovery", the prose starts becoming more detailed and more verbose. I attribute this to a desire to address various controversial issues with each side attempting to add more information to counterbalance the points made by other side and all in the name of NPOV. This is what happens with our current presentation of slavery as well as our presentation of the Reichskonkordat and Mit Brennender Sorge.

IMHO, what we need to do is to trim back the treatment of the last few hundred years of Church history to match the summary style used to present the first 1500 years or so. We need much less detail in the main text. If there is a need to present detailed information, it should be done in a Note.

We need not, for instance, go into detail about the anti-clerical violence in Mexico. It would be sufficient to mention that it happened and give the period in which it happened. IMHO, it is far more important to communicate to the reader that anti-clericalism was not an isolated phenomenon popping up in some countries but was rather a liberal attack on the Church which was, at the time, generally associated with conservative, landed power structures.

--Richard S (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with almost all of this; the last sentence may be a difference in phrasing, which would be emended in actual drafting. However, speaking of a "liberal attack" on the Church is an oversimplification; most of the anti-clericals would have been content with "a free Church in a free State". The liberales supported toleration, economic efficiency (including equitable taxation), and (in some cases) an agrarian law; the Latin American clergy opposed all of these - the first in principle, the other two because they would have borne some of the costs.

But this is no more "an attack on the Church" than the numerous Italian princes who have found themselves at war with the Papacy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the general point, although more recent periods should be given some more space than remoter ones. But there is more trimable in the later than early sections. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with a trim, but we do need to agree to work through the sub-sections IN ORDER. Just constantly dotting about from one topic to another is getting us nowhere and is really frustrating. We do need some discipline here. If we are agreed on the sections prior to Age of Exploration, let us all say so, note the agreement on this page, and pass on to the next, deal with that and move on etc. No tagging, no edit-warring, no dealing with topics out of the agreed rotation. People may list their concerns here, but we deal with them in the strict, decided, order. That way we could get this thing sorted in a couple of months (hopefully.) Xandar 02:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Xandar. I was just reporting my overall assessment. To my mind, the question is whether we take the subsections in chronological order (possibly starting at the very beginning of the History section) or whether we start later in time (e.g. at the "Age of Discovery"). I personally think we get more "bang for the buck" focusing on the last few hundred years and then revisiting the first 1500 years afterwards. However, other editors may have a different order of priorities. --Richard S (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. I don't mind what order things are done in, so long as we actually resolve things before moving on. At the moment issues get raised, debated for a while, & then die down without any real resolution, while another bunch of issues are opened for the same treatment. Johnbod (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No section is "resolved"; very little novel wording has been accepted anywhere, and all the sections seem to retain both error and bias. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I just don't think it is true that "very little novel wording has been accepted anywhere". Most of the issues raised have resulted in changes, but not necessarily ones that have a wide degree of acceptance. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll accept the distinction. The changes have not, in general (except perhaps in the lead), satisfied those of us who were dissatisfied before; but there certainly have been verbal - if not substantive - shifts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. On the whole I think this is because we have not stayed with issues long enough to hammer out a widely accepted version, but been distracted by new issues being raised. Heaven knows, it is tedious work fine-tuning draft wordings, but I think the possibility for generally aagreed wordings is there. As it is, the passages get left before that stage is reached. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that, but let's test the hypothesis. Pick one of the sentences questioned by Hamiltonstone - or anything else already mentioned, and we can make it the only item currently being worked on. We will see if any expression (including silence) which does not constitute special pleading can be accepted by our dualist contingent. If you are interested, say so now; but take time to consult on which. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

On the whole, I think a sentence would make a better test case; my position on the inquisition paragraphs below is that about 70% of them are simply improper, as NPOV violations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy now? Pt1: Albigensian Crusade & Inquisitions

Fine - let's see if we are finished with the Albigensian Crusade, which flows on the Inquisitions. The old text was:

12th century France witnessed the emergence of Catharism, a belief which stated that matter was evil, "prohibited marriage, encouraged suicide, and ... combined asceticism with immorality." After a papal legate was murdered 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 and to root out the remaining Cathars. Formalized under Gregory IX, this Medieval inquisition put to death an average of three people per year for heresy at its height.

Over time, other inquisitions were launched by secular rulers to prosecute heretics, often with the approval of Church hierarchy, to respond to the threat of Muslim invasion or for political purposes. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain formed an inquisition in 1480, originally to deal with distrusted converts from Judaism and Islam to Catholicism. Over a 350-year period, this Spanish Inquisition executed between 3,000 and 4,000 people, representing around two percent of those accused. In 1482 Pope Sixtus IV condemned the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition, but Ferdinand ignored his protests. Some historians argue that for centuries Protestant propaganda and popular literature exaggerated the horrors of the inquisitions in an effort to associate the Catholic Church with acts committed by secular rulers. Over all, one percent of those tried by the inquisitions received death penalties, leading some scholars to consider them rather lenient when compared to the secular courts of the period. The inquisition played a major role in the final expulsion of Islam from Sicily and Spain.

Now we have:

Twelfth century France witnessed the emergence of Catharism, a dualist heresy that had spread from Eastern Europe through Germany. After the Cathars were accused of murdering a papal legate in 1208, Pope Innocent III declared the Albigensian Crusade against them. When this turned into an "appalling massacre", he instituted the first papal inquisition to prevent further massacres and to root out the remaining Cathars. Formalized under Gregory IX, this Medieval inquisition put to death an average of three people per year for heresy.

Are we all happy with the current text? The first para is nearly all changed, the second all unchanged, so please distinguish between them. Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No, certainly not. It's very long, and very defensive - as one of Raul's Rules says, if you can tell what point of view the text was written from, it's not neutral. This is well out of my field, so I cannot speak off-hand about accuracy - except for the final sentence, which equivocates between "expulsion of Islam", as a ruling power (the normal meaning, in which sense it is false) and suppression of Islam, by religious persecution (in which sense it is weasel-wording). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well suggest an alternative draft then. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Not my field, but:

Twelfth century France witnessed the emergence of Catharism, a dualist heresy that had spread from Eastern Europe through Germany. After the Cathars were accused of murdering a papal legate in 1208, Pope Innocent III declared the Albigensian Crusade against them. When this turned into an "appalling massacre", he instituted the first papal inquisition to prevent further massacres and to root out the remaining Cathars.

Over time, other inquisitions were launched by secular rulers to prosecute heretics, often with the approval of Church hierarchy, to respond to the threat of Muslim invasion or for political purposes. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain formed an inquisition in 1480, originally to deal with involuntary converts from Judaism and Islam to Catholicism, who might be still practicing their original religion.

is at least an improvement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt if most would see it as such. It will be much too short for the frequent visiting Black Legend fans, and does not include the facts that run against popular Hammer Films preconceptions. but let's see what others think. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a long way out of my field. For example, the references above to Black Legend and Hammer Films both mean nothing to me. However, since I jumped in earlier, I want to try and make a constructive contribution. The general tone and referencing of PMA's text is the kind of thing I would be expecting in this article. One reservation (and it is one i haven't thought through that carefully) is that I would at some point want a sense of what the inquisitions were and/or what they did (in the sense of what was their nature, what kind of institution were they?) At present we have "...first papal inquisition to prevent further massacres and to root out the remaining Cathars". What I would want is a phrase or sentence about here that explains what an inquisition is. And, again as a lay person, a version such as suggested by PMA that did not use the phrase "Spanish Inquisition" together with a link would seem rather to avoid mentioning the most readily-known example that someone might look for in the text. Finally, i thought the sentence "In 1482 Pope Sixtus IV condemned the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition, but Ferdinand ignored his protests" was interesting in that it helps to show the complexity of the relationship between church and state in these matters. Earlier on in the text the point was made that inquisitions often had the approval of the church, yet in this particular case, the church went on to criticise their administration. I think that is an interesting point to try and retain if possible. These remarks aside, I like the general approach of PMA's text. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Black Legend and Hammer Films. Presumably the bit you want back is regarded as POV by PMA. Of course it is easier to avoid POV accusations by saying nothing about anything, but this does not help meet FAC comprehensiveness requirements. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The "Black Legend" is an opprobrious nickname for unfavorable accounts of Spanish colonialism in the Americas; it is thus off-topic for this section - and probably for this article; Hammer Films is a producer of lurid (and inaccurate) historical films. In short, Johnbod is expecting an inwash of lumpish Protestant teen-agers, whom we should take the opportunity to re-educate.

I am strongly opposed to this. We will get middle-school students - every general topic article does, and some part of them prove their presence by vandalism; but we are not here to ladle knowledge down our readers' throats (especially by presuming they have seen one side of the issue from an Ian Paisley clone, and making our account counteract what we presume by leaning over the other way just as far). First of all, the presumption is false; many teenagers have seen nothing. More seriously, that approach gives a slanted account to everybody, which is clean contrary to policy.

In short, Hamiltonstone's questions and approach are well-taken, and when I get back to sources I will also rewrite for content. This includes the sentence on Sixtus IV - although the present phrasing does tend to imply that he spoke like a time-travelling Amnesty International representative, and what he said was somewhat (and interestingly) different. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

My comments (without the age-bias suggested by PMA - if anything it is older editors who are more prone to preconceptions I would guess; teenagers today are morely likely to be merely ignorant) are merely based on watching this page intermittently over a long period. I suggest he reads Black Legend, which will correct his idea of what this means. From it I find the useful link to Historical revision of the Inquisition - exactly the sort of link a summary style article like this is supposed to contain, but which has I think never been linked here. If we are "not here to ladle knowledge down our readers' throats" then what are we here for? Amusing ourselves by endless talk page battles with other editors? Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with PMA, the Black Legend article is a good example of whitewashing of history and Misplaced Pages should not be an apologetic's web-site - people can go to Catholic-Answers for that. The Cathars are interesting from the pov of what fueled the movement and its popular support e.g the perceived widespread corruption within the official Church. My own opinion is that the article continuously seeks to apologize for the very human failings of the Church, e.g. the issue is not how many people were willing to be put to death for their beliefs during the period of inquisitions but rather the issue of religious toleration and coercion that the Church only emphatically dealt with during V2, in the aftermath of the holocaust and the Church's own experience of being on the receiving end of such intolerance in some communist states. EB treats the Inquistion wrt to to the Cathars as follows: "In 1252 Pope Innocent IV licensed inquisitors to allow obdurate heretics to be tortured by lay henchmen. It is difficult to determine how common this practice was in the 13th century, but the inquisition certainly acquiesced in the use of torture in the trial of the Knights Templar, a military-religious order, in 1307. Persecution by the inquisition also contributed to the collapse of Catharism, a dualist heresy that had great influence in southern France and northern Italy, by about 1325; although established to defeat that heresy, the inquisition was assisted by the pastoral work of the mendicant orders in its triumph over the Cathars." Taam (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

And clearly you have your own POV here! So "Spain and Spaniards" are indeed" "cruel", "intolerant" and "fanatical""? Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• What indeed are we here for? To write from a point of view that neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints; Johnbod may find the page behind the link interesting - if he has expressed his view clearly, he will be surprised by its attitude.
• Those who are not here for that should be encouraged to go elsewhere; either to articles where they are not present to fight, or to projects which do not have neutrality as a core value.
• In accordance with this, we should not endorse nor disparage any one school of historical research. Historical revision of the Inquisition should be linked to from a balanced account of ecclesiastical historiography; it would be nice if this page contained room for one, but it doesn't. Linking to it from here would be like linking to an article on Cold War revisionism - by itself - from Cold War. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning something does not mean endorsing it. In the absence (I presume) of "a balanced account of ecclesiastical historiography", it is better to link Historical revision of the Inquisition from here than not - the existing text, unlike yours, has a very suitable place to hang the hook. Believe it or not, I have read WP:NPOV. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

Have a good one everyone.Haldraper (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

O come, O come, Emmanuel/And ransom captive Israel Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A Merry and Peaceful Christmas to all! Xandar 23:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Kala Christouyenna & Milad Majeed! Majoreditor (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

My wiki-card is Nativity at Night (Geertgen tot Sint Jans); and a happy New Year! Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

A belated Merry Christmas to all. Peace on earth (and at Misplaced Pages); goodwill to all editors.--Richard S (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Philosophy and religion good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• GA-Class Catholicism articles
• Top-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• GA-Class Religion articles
• High-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Selected anniversaries (March 2007)
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics