User talk:NancyHeise/Archive 4

An offer

Nancy, if you would like, I will try to read through the opposes and the article again with a good eye towards NPOV, on Wednesday (I can't really fit the time it'd take into my schedule until then) and try and help explain/navigate/research things that might help with the statements. However, I don't wanna subject myself to being attacked about this if I put forth comments that aren't always in agreement with some of the other editors on the article. Let me know if this would be welcome. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that is a really generous offer. If anyone dares to attack you over your suggestions you can count on me to get personally upset with them! I appreciate all your help, past, present and future! Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 21:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll help as well. As you seem to be asking for very specific phrasing suggestions, I'll try to provide some. And I'll also give feedback on POV balance; this will include some comparisons to the Islam article because it's most similar in scope amongst FAs and because I've tracked its progress through the FA process. Two points beforehand:

• I don't quite understand why people are saying I've given no specifics. For instance, I pointed to the Aztec caption. That could simply be removed.
• Most importantly: an article can be POV even when sourced. This you really need to understand and think about. Balance and phrasing are distinct issues from sourcing, and both affect POV.

I will probably offer the suggestions here tomorrow or the next day. I simply cannot comfortably comment on the review with Xandar and Ottava laying into me so rudely. Marskell (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your help very much and look forward to working with you. I have seen the Islam article and have often pointed editors of RCC to that page as a good example of a religion article. I welcome your future comments and I apologize for any problems or sour responses in the past. I agree that we need help in phrasing. I do not agree with removal of the Aztec picture. I want an NPOV and factual article, not one that hides notable facts either for or against the Church. That is why I have not had a problem with the picture of Pope Urban preaching the Crusade.NancyHeise ^talk 16:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, on my browser (IE7), I have never been able to see the color coding that Geometry guy installed on the FAC talk page. Do you see color coding there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I just saw it now, I did not see it before, maybe something has changed to make this happen? I am sorry I was busy yesterday and will be busy today too. I will not be able to attend to this page until this evening and tomorrow when I can give it a lot a attention. NancyHeise ^talk 16:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, G guy corrected the formatting so that now I have color, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I am printing Gguys color coded comments list to try and come up with different words to use to replace the ones he doesnt like. NancyHeise ^talk 17:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nancy. See User:Marskell/RCC. Marskell (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

And I added some other bits there too. Following Marskell's lead, I worked a bit off the Cultural Influences section. Like Nancy, I'm busy today, so hopefully this helps some. If you need sourcing for some of this stuff, I can probably find it somewhere in my stuff, assuming I haven't already packed those books. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Ealdgyth I just went through your comments and am printing the entire page to ponder and research while I am waiting for my daughter's after school activities today. I will be addressing all of these very good comments this evening and tomorrow. Hopefully we can come to agreement on a very NPOV version of this section. I appreciate your and Marskell's timely help in this most difficult matter for which I readily admit the need for outside help.NancyHeise ^talk 17:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

future possible refs

[1] [2]

Note, Nancy that this is saying "Christian" and not "Catholic". You'd need to get the whole book to see what context is contained. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, if you read down to the bottom of the page it says Catholic - also this is discussing Latin American Indians. The only Christian missionaries there were Catholics. Please see the link again. Also, I am not sure I am using this book, I just put it here as part of my research. NancyHeise ^talk 02:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure of the time frame of the reference (since I haven't looked), but Mormon missionaries are huge in Latin America since at least the 20th century. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read the chapters before and after the page shown on the reference and this page is talking about Catholic missionary interactions in Latin America and Canada. It discusses Protestants in the United States. I couldnt stop reading it is so interesting, they go on to discuss the interactions of the British in India. Neat book. NancyHeise ^talk 03:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I wish I had the time to read it for pleasure :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I can just imagine you must get your share of reading in by doing your FAC duties. NancyHeise ^talk 04:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal note of encouragement

Hi, Nancy. I'm trying to process FAC today, and have decided that it's time to close the FAC. I want to leave you a personal note of encouragement, recognizing your hard work (and pleasant nature in addressing issues, rare on that FAC) and because I believe the article is now in good position to make it over the hump on its next FAC, which I hope you will submit. In fact, I'm going to archive it separately, as I'm having difficulty processing the other FACs because of the load time issues now on the FAC page.

On a very positive note, I believe the article has come a long ways during its many FACs: you gained three new supports from previous opposers this time through (Dweller, Ealdgyth and MikeSearson) and the discussion of issues to be resolved is now on a much higher level than in the earlier FACs. With or without the bronze star today, the article is on the right path and I believe it can and will make it. Please don't be discouraged :-)

On the downside, the combative tone from some other participants, and the length of aggressive and dismissive responses, is part of my decision to close the FAC rather than restarting it (a restart is the other option to get clarity on a FAC when an article has significant support but valid unstruck opposes, reflecting some issues that have been addressed but not struck and other areas where work is still needed).

My decision to close rather than restart is based on:

1. The amount of ongoing discussion in so many places indicates productive work is still underway but we're not out of the woods yet (besides the unprecedented 500KB FAC page, and a couple hundred more KB on the FAC talk page, there is ongoing dissention—not just from those labeled by others as "POV-pushers"—on the article talk page, with another 500+ KB discussion on article talk since the FAC started, as well as the productive work underway at Marskell's talk page). I believe these discussions can be productive, and result in a cleaner and likely successful FAC next time through.
2. A clean close with a well-supported, new FAC next time is in the better interest of the article long-term: if the article is ever questioned at WP:FAR, a well-supported, well-reviewed article at FAC is a strong defense, and a controversial FAC may give fuel to future objectors.
3. A restart can be most effective when most significant issues have been resolved and hollering has died down: it's not clear to me yet if all participants on that FAC understand how detrimental the combative tone has been and how much it has prevented advancement of the FAC and discouraged some of Wiki's most experienced FA writers from engaging to help. I'm hoping other participants will realize the importance of adopting a collaborative tone, following your example, next time through.
4. Regardless of which Opposes we now can categorize as actionable vs. just unstruck, it is clear that work is now underway to NPOV the text, which I hope will lower the criticism next time through. Please don't succumb to these claims of "anti-Catholic POV" being introduced or characterizations of editors as pro- or anti-Catholic (none of which have been correct, btw, based on my knowledge of individual editors): the goal is a neutral article, where the reader can't discern the POV of the writer. Examples are as simple as changing "critics, however, accuse" to "others say" and Marskell's examples. This sort of work at the clause level doesn't gut the article: it just makes it read more neutrally. I hope you'll continue the kind of work underway with Marskell and Ealdgyth, and then based on that work once it is finished, have a re-read of the unstruck Opposes to see if any improvement can be made there, and then work on making the prose shine (reference Jbmurray's comment that the article "is a chore to read. This is both because it dispenses with the stylistic strategies by which good writing guides a reader; but also because it zig-zags from point to point, governed by the footnotes rather than any attempt to make the prose flow.") I suspect you will find it easier to complete this work outside of the scrutiny of FAC, if you continue to engage editors like Marskell, Ealdgyth, Ceoil, Johnbod, Malleus, Ottava, Karanacs, and maybe even encourage Awadewit and Jbmurray to join in. Wiki's most experienced FA writers have all shown a willingness to help, but different levels of discouragement at different times because of how the FACs have gone.

I hope there will be a next FAC, with efforts to 1) avoid the categorization of others into pro- or anti-Catholic; 2) better manage the FAC page itself by encouraging discussion of individual items on article talk; and 3) engage reviewers without dismissing concerns. Your hard work has earned the respect of many other editors: I do hope this close will encourage you to continue, and that you will understand that I see it as the best path towards the ultimate goal of featured status. Respectfully, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, I'm sorry to say this but the POV arguments have really worn me out. I am not so sure I will be indulging in this activity again. Maybe there is someone more NPOV than me who can successfully bring this article to FA. NancyHeise ^talk 18:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Take some time away from it. Edit another article, one less "controversial", maybe a saint? There are a number of saints that need work, and would benefit from your efforts. Or go out on a limb and edit a math article! Take some time to recharge your batteries before getting into the fray again, you'll find it helps a bunch. You're a good editor, don't let things get you down. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hear Hear! You did a great job, Nancy, take a short break or like Ealdgyth suggests...try editing something important but maybe not as high-profile: Francis of Assissi, Theresa of Avila, and a few others are almost the and could use you attention. You did a great job, don't take it to heart.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, please don't view the article critique as if you are POV: learning to write in Wiki-style encyclopedic NPOV can be tricky, and many of us have been down that path. It's not you :-) I do hope you'll be encouraged to continue once you're refreshed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I just want you to know that I did ask Awadewit and JBMurray and everyone else who voted either for or against the article in the last FAC to help on this one. [3] [4]. I am not sure what else to do other than what I have done and I don't know if I can go through this again to see it fail all over again because of people who come out of nowhere with opposes even after I have sought their help on the peer review [5]. Marskell was kind enough to try and help with NPOV but it is amazingly frustrating to be called POV over and over again when I am giving my good faith effort to place facts in context [6] because of many people's distorted perceptions of the Church which have no basis in scholarly works. Yes, I need some time away, this is very painful right now. NancyHeise ^talk 20:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry the FAC didn't succeed, and I can imagine how discouraged you must be feeling right now after all the effort you've put in over such a long period. I think SandyG made the right choice in the circumstances, even though I remain convinced that that the article more than adequately meets the FA criteria. Sadly though, different standards are applied to different articles, and this one will always be high profile, and so subjected to greater scrutiny than yet another hurricane FAC. I hope you'll find the strength to continue with the article. I think it's very close and with a bit of off-FAC polishing I have very little doubt that it would have every chance of success at a next FAC. There are many of us, myself included, who want to help you in that task you set yourself. The hard work's been done now; one final push and you'll be able to reap the reward. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear that after this fifth round of the farce that FAC is broken and that no Catholic article that isn't a "blistering expose of Catholic evil" is going to make it past the clique of POV-pushers at FAC. I think it is the FAC process and personnel that need a review now so that a few biased opposers are not allowed to continually stymie an article until it fits in with their viewpoint. The running of the FAC by Sandy has been chronic. She has done nothing to rigorously test opposes and see that they were precise and fitted the criteria. To heasr the same rubbish come from her after five similar FACs with every attempt made to pin-down and try to deal with the concerns of POV "reviewers" from the same clique of editors is a joke. Either take the article straight back to FAC now, or forget the whole idea. The bronze star means very little in real terms anyway by the standard of much of the junk that gets passed on the nod. Xandar 23:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Sisyphus for exceptional Perseverance and Patience
	I Johnbod award this for exceptional patience, perseverance and hard work on Roman Catholic Church. We'll get the rock to the top of the mountain one day! Johnbod (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, so sorry! I really thought we were going to do it this time. My feelings are closer to Malleus than Xandar, but anyway take a good break & see how you feel in the New Year. Even opposers agree the article is hugely improved, so your efforts have not been wasted. Johnbod (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I am fine

After my husband took me to Saturday evening Mass and my favorite Mexican restaurant - and with the help of a couple of really good frozen margaritas with salt and enough chips and salsa for four, I am better now. Because I have enjoyed so very much the friendship of neat people on Wikipedia and because I think we are almost there, I will persist in this effort. I think we all need a break so maybe we can all regroup after a couple of weeks and then will resubmit to Peer Review and try to get everyone on board this time before we go to FAC one hopefully last time. I would like to discuss at Peer Review some FAC etiquette topics for both editors submitting a page to FAC and for FAC reviewers. We should all try to improve ourselves from past FACs and not have the harsh words slinging around as before from either side. This is supposed to be a fun project, not an opportunity to grow hatred. I look forward to working with you all again after a short break. Love, NancyHeise ^talk 23:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yay for you, and good for your husband also, very smart man there. Let me know when you're ready to face things again, and I'll hopefully be a bit less busy. The next two-three weeks are going to be killer for me, but after that, things should be a bit easier, I hope. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the lovely picture, it's very much appreciated. I'm sorry I wasn't able to do more, hopefully in the depths of winter things will be easier to do. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And thank you Nancy, you made my day with that Barnstar! Remember, Jesus lost the only election he was ever in - the crucifixion candidates were Jesus Christ and Barabbas, and Barabbas was freed by the mob. Gabr-el 01:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually when I was in dire mourning over this lost FAC, my first thought was about St. Benedict and how he had a vision of what was going to happen to his monastery Monte Cassino. He saw that it was going to be overrun by barbarians Lombards and all the monks killed. He pleaded with God to at least allow the monks to escape and they did but the monastery they had worked so hard on was destroyed. Little did St. Benedict know that what he brought to the world was not the actual monastery that got destroyed but his Rule of Saint Benedict which became the framework of all Western Civilization that began to be built around future monasteries that used the Rule. So I imagine that even if we fail in our efforts whatever they may be or however insignificant, there is always the possibility that there is something good to come out of it after all, even if we don't know right away what that is. NancyHeise ^talk 01:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Something good has already come out of it, one of the best encyclopedia articles on the Roman Catholic Church to be found anywhere. Take pride in what you've achieved, take time to reflect, and then go for the final FA push. You deserve it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You know something, I was browsing on the internet one day probably looking for something for RCC and I actually found our article on a couple of other people's websites. It was the exact same article I swear! I guess people swipe things off Wikipedia or something, I am not sure how that works but I was glad to see that our work was not a complete waste of time. NancyHeise ^talk 02:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nancy. I'll just add my own note of sympathy here. You've put in a load of work. As others have said, stepping back is probably in the interest of the article and yourself. While there's been some difficult back-and-forth I hope we've established at least enough of a rapport that we can work together later. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you are still willing to work together. However, you must know that I am very upset at your characterization of my edits as POV when that was not my intention. As you can see from my efforts to show you the quotes, I am paraphrasing scholars in every edit I make. While I may have shown patience with these accusations in the past, it is beginning to wear me out and I continue to be perplexed as to why others think I am being POV when I am just placing facts as presented by scholars on the page - facts which I have even toned down from how they present them! Please let's continue to work together but please don't call my work POV anymore. These edits are my best effort to show Reader the information as presented by scholars, complete with context. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 13:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment and sorry to hear it didn't get the golden star, must be draining and a real headache! There is probably a temptation to simply remain quiet, however I suggest you message Jimbo Wales about this incident. From what I can see in the review the majority supported passing it, a minority who didn't, you dealt with their specific requests calmly, politely, citing scholary sources. If systematic bias or bigotry is at play, it certainly needs dealing with at a higher level, since Wikipedia is an objective project, that anyway can edit (even people interested in Catholicsm, or so I heard!). :-) Victory's Spear (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. It is very upsetting to me to see supporters of the article so upset. I was hoping the whole thing could be more fun and a lot more happy! I am not going to complain to Jimbo Wales. I am just going to continue to enjoy my little Wikipedia hobby without getting too upset when things don't go my way. NancyHeise ^talk 16:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Flip

Very dissapointed at how thing turned out, but thats how they turned out. Trying to find a midpoint in all of this is a delicate balancing act, and although it is a big ask, I hope you might stick with it. All involved are learning as to how to develope such a broad, emotive and divisive subject. Not a nice position for you, but I think you are doing very well indeed. Ceoil ^sláinte 04:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ceoil, I really really enjoy certain people on Wikipedia and you are certainly one of them. I hope you will continue to be involved too. I like working with you. NancyHeise ^talk 13:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

RCC

Dear Nancy, thanks for your note and I'm sorry that the RCC FA turned into such a bunfight. So here's this for you:

ϢereSpielChequers is offering you a Wiki Beer! Liquid refreshment promotes WikiHarmony and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the harmony by offering a beer to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Best served refrigerated (not applicable in England). Temperature and Alcoholic strength varies according to age, religion and geographic location of recipient, US residents below the age of 21 are best advised to keep this beerstar until travelling in a country with less ageist drinking laws. NB This Beerstar is compatible with all known fake IDs

If you fancy joining me on a less contentious project I could do with your theological perspective on List of demons. ϢereSpielChequers 08:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks WereSpielChequers! I actually have a very low tolerance for alcohol, my two margaritas last night was almost over that limit. I do like beer and have one every Saturday night, my husband is a more civilized and refined person who prefers wine. Thanks for your note of encouragement. The bunfight is to be expected now on RCC. I think it must make Wikipedia a more interesting place because the article certainly attracts more attention than any other FA I've seen except maybe for Samuel Johnson. I'll come have a look at your demon page but honestly, I am not an expert on Angels or Demons. I might know a little bit and may have some references you might need. NancyHeise ^talk 13:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem with archiving

Archive 22, which you have just created, is headed "Do not edit the contents of this page". How do we remove from it the RfC that you moved to it from the active discussion page? If the request remains there, the list will continue to direct people to that archive page. Perhaps one can just go ahead and remove it, in spite of the request to make no edits to the page. I'm sure you know better than I what to do. Thanks. Soidi (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I don't intend to revive it on the active page. Soidi (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I will take the main points out of archive and put it on the talk page with a link to show people the previous discussions on the matter. NancyHeise ^talk 13:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have myself removed the RfC from the archived page, where I found it again by checking the list. Thanks again for taking my queries seriously. Soidi (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you for the barnstar. It's a shame some of your collaborators are rather less appreciative of FAC and its regular reviewers. --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I contributed to that conversation after you showed this to me - I was not aware that this was taking place, thanks for the heads up. NancyHeise ^talk 16:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure what "in-group justification" is, but I see no devious plot here by FAC regulars to exclude RCC from FA. --Dweller (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I am creating a list of dos and don't for future FAC reviewers and RCC editors to consider when interacting on the next FAC. I will post it to the RCC talk page shortly. Thanks for you help, sorry for all the fuss. NancyHeise ^talk 12:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

! I dunno if you ever watched Blue Peter, but to use their catchphrase, here's one I made earlier. --Dweller (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yours is much more concise and more likely to be read than mine. I would like to use yours at the top of my next FAC nom but I want everyone to see and consider my list at least while we are having this discussion. There should be some rules at FAC that a reviewers comments are automatically disqualified if they become abusive. Perhaps the opposite could also be considered too. There should be some minimun level of civility expected of people participating at FAC with some kind of consequence if they violate that level. NancyHeise ^talk 13:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to use it / amend it whenever you like. Good luck with it. I expect a call when the next FAC round begins... --Dweller (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Dear NancyHeise,

The next FAC will succeed. I'll also try my best to help the Roman Catholic Church article.

Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your generous offer to help - I look forward to working with you on this project! It should be fun. NancyHeise ^talk 15:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, give me few days. Today I'm sick. It will take some time to recover. The article is big, so I'll analyze the entire article after I recover. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take all the time you need - and feel better. There is no rush at all, I wasn't considering attending to it until at least another week. I was thinking of improving some of the other related articles in the meantime. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 15:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Marauder40 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you for all the hard work. Maybe next time. Don't take all the negative remarks personally. Marauder40 (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, you did a great job with this FAC. I think that you and the opposers are finally on the same wavelength, which is a huge breakthrough and will make the process less stressful for everyone. Please understand, though, that the article can read as slightly POV without you intending to have written in a POV way. You have proved beyond a doubt that you have the best interests of the article at heart and that you are doing your very best to create an article that meets all of WP's policies and guidelines. The NPOV policy is tricky for a lot of editors - it's not always easy to figure out why some phrasing is problematical, and the "gotcha"s change depending on your topic. The RCC article is really, really close to getting that bronze star - if you continue on the path you are on I suspect that your next FAC nomination will be successful. That will be an accomplishment for which you can be very, very proud. Karanacs (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Karanacs, I hope you will continue to be a major part of this process as you have been in the past. Your help is much appreciated and we need you to help with the NPOV efforts. NancyHeise ^talk 17:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RCC ideas

[7] might be useful in Catholicism Today section. NancyHeise ^talk 16:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

From Karanacs - :Hi Nancy, I read this while researching Spanish Texas. It came from Weber, David J. (1992), The Spanish Frontier in North America, Yale Western Americana Series, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, ISBN 0300051980 , p 185 or 186. NancyHeise ^talk 19:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User:NancyHeise/RCC experiments

Hello. What sort of help do you think you need? I think plenty of people are looking at the history section. Gimmetrow 06:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping to gain input from experienced editors on what they see from reading the article. JB made a comment that the article is a chore to read which I sort of agreed with after all the changes and new information I was asked to add by FAC reviewers. I felt it messed up our prose and introduced, in some cases, unnecessary details that could easily be found by clicking the links in the article. I was just wondering if you had any ideas to offer for improvement or if you were satisfied with the article. Also, I am wondering if you are just another editor like the rest of us or if you are some paid Wikipedia employee, you don't seem to participate at FAC, Sandy seems to go to you for lots of technical info and you sort of pop into the RCC article every now and then offering some important advice. Who are you? Perhaps you could offer me some sage advice before I attempt another RCC FAC? NancyHeise ^talk 22:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

One idea is to invite each of the fac commentators to visit the article one-by-one for a day each to read and make fixes. They go through and make some changes, you can discuss them a bit, and move on. Part of the problem at fac is how much the article changes. A week later and it's rather different, yet rereading it takes a lot of time. One at a time will go slower and should resolve most of the issues. The article brushes over some points while going into much detail on others. This is mostly in the history section, but I think it's a little uneven on certain notions of doctrine, too - for instance the degrees of authority and certitude in different forms of church teachings is barely touched. Gimmetrow 07:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Podcast

Would next weekend work for you, too? Scheduling these things is always difficult. See here for additional time options. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I signed up for Sunday Nov 23rd at 6pm. NancyHeise ^talk 18:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Nancy, just a quick note to say many thanks for your additional review of María Ruiz de Burton. That is much appreciated, and very generous of you! Thanks again! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is really great that you use Wikipedia in your lessons - good for you! NancyHeise ^talk 18:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Communion question

Hi Nancy, is this true? When I've visited RC churches (thanks to my age necessarily post-Vatican II) there has always only been the wafer for congregants. —Angr 21:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I replied there but my knowledge on that is limited to my personal experience which is what I conveyed. I hope it helps. If you really want me to, I could ask a priest but I think my answer will be enough. NancyHeise ^talk 03:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nancy, your answer was enough. It was just a matter of something an anon removed from the article, not something they added to the article anyway. The reason I asked you in particular was that I figured with all the research you've done for the article Roman Catholic Church you might have come across a discussion of this so your answer wouldn't be based solely on personal experience. Thanks for your help! —Angr 07:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, I did not run across that particular question in my research. I am now curious as to what really decides the issue and I will ask our pastor next time I see him. NancyHeise ^talk 14:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Podcast on Sunday

Just a reminder that the Wikivoices podcast on controversial articles hosted by Scartol and Awadewit is happening on Sunday at 6 pm EST. Please add ideas to our list of discussion topics here and come prepared to give a short summary of your work on controversial articles at the beginning of the podcast. Awadewit (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder I am still planning to participate. NancyHeise ^talk 15:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added some suggestions for "conversing about controversy". If you have any further suggestions, please do add them. Awadewit (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't have anything to add and your suggestions helped me tweak my summary. Thanks for helping. NancyHeise ^talk 02:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

FAC summary statement for podcast

I have been the nominator of Roman Catholic Church the four times it has been up for FAC. Each time it has failed it has resulted in article improvement. This past FAC had 24 supports (11 from experienced FAC reviewers) and 9 opposes (two, possibly four of whom were considered experienced FAC reviewers). It is encouraging to me to see this improvement and see more and more supports from regular FAC reviewers. FAC is doing what it is supposed to do - get the issues out and addressed - find out what people think so we can address the issues that they are wondering about - that is really interesting stuff.

Opposing reviewers consistently ask for more information in the article, not less. In my efforts to respond to these wishes, it is very apparent that what some editors want to see in the article is not always backed up by scholars. I can not insert material if I cant find a reference to support it. Many top FAC reviewers have made serious mistakes about sources and content. If I had submitted to many of their wishes, the article would be factually incorrect or would have tossed very important facts and sources. This has been and continues to be one of the main reasons for long discussions on the FAC page. This past FAC, most opposes had both some good points in them that I incorporated but also several very incorrect points, unsupported by scholars. Also, I found it difficult to address some accusations of POV when standard facts were cited as examples of POV. I did not understand how these things could be considered POV instead of just fact. Thus on this point I think that it is inherent in a controversial article that there will be some opposes that will not be addressable and I suspect and hope that the FAC director and his assistant recognize this.

Some FAC reviewers are very very rude and provacative in their comments, there might be some help given to all sides if some kind of referee would step in and mention to FAC reviewer or page supporter that a maximum level of civility is desired here. If we don't expect people to have some manners, they won't. If they know ahead of time that certain behaviours will make their arguments invalid, they might be inspired to participate in a manner that is more likely to result in article improvement. For my part, in an effort to help eliminate agitation I have seriously considered asking that the FAC page be a place for only the nominator to respond to FAC reviewers questions. If other editors want to discuss issues with that FAC reviewer, it could take place on the FAC talk page. In this way, the actual FAC page would not become cluttered with so much conversation. Suggested format:

• FAC reviewer comment
• FAC nominator response with invitation to continue discussion on FAC reviewers talk page
• Diff pointing viewer to conversation

RCC

You asked me to help out at RCC. I have some time this week. What do you think about trying to tackle some of the prose issues? We could sandbox a subsection at a time or something. Let me know. Awadewit (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a great idea. Thanks for your help. Also, I wanted to tell you that the podcast was interesting but I am not sure I can incorporate ideas put forth by the other participants. I will have to listen to it again. NancyHeise ^talk 14:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, per some discussions on my talk page and at WT:FAC, please be sure to let me know before you're ready to re-nom at FAC, so we can discuss options. No hurry. Also, I do think working with individual editors who have expressed a willingness to help will generate better progress than another Peer review, where you could get a grabbag of more of the same rehashing of old issues, depending on who shows up to PR. (Also, you might not be aware that Marskell is no longer active; he may still post from time to time, but he posted a notice to my talk of semi-retirement.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that very helpful advice. I was not sure what to do to address this situation. I am not in a hurry to resubmit to FAC because I want to make sure I have everyone's comments who have offered to help - JB, Awadewit, Ealdgyth, Marskell. I will invite Marskell even though he has posted semi retirement in hopes he might read the page after it has a once over by these other editors to see if he still thinks it sounds POV. I will discuss with you first before resubmitting to FAC after that. NancyHeise ^talk 15:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Pius XI

Thank you, Nancy, I will gladly include this info in the Pius Article in near time. I was holding a conference in the Vatican on this very topic in 1992, in which Cardinal Pietro Palazzini documented, that Vatican II documents include over 250 references to Pius XII, he focused on his moral teaching as it influenced the council. I will be more visible in the next few weeks. Cheers and Thank's again.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The podcast is live

Nancy, thanks again for participating in the recent podcast about controversial articles. We're happy to announce that it's live, and you're invited to listen to the finished product in all of its OGG format glory. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 02:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I found it all very interesting and I was glad to have been invited. NancyHeise ^talk 15:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Categories

Hi Nancy, I saw this and figured I'd just contact you directly about it; if you visit the Wikipedia main page, at the top-right corner it says "Contents · Categories · Featured content · A–Z index"; if you click on "Categories" then the "top-most" (i.e. general) categories will be shown there, and someone can then click on categories to choose more specific categories. Gary King (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That clears things up for me, thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 22:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Belated Happy Thanksgiving!!!

Turkeys and gravy!!! Thank you God!! And God bless you!!!!! :) :) :) Gabr-el 06:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

God bless you too - thanks so much! NancyHeise ^talk 22:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Looking back at my crazy message, I must have been high of the gravy lol. By the way, check this out if you will: http://www.kaldu.org/2008/07/july26_08E1.html - if I decide to take this path, this is where I intend to go. The Chaldean Catholic Church in Iraq has been thoroughly persecuted by the Arabs and Kurds there, and it seems likely that my Eastern Rite will move its seat here. Its the first Chaldean Catholic Seminary outside of Iraq, in the world!!! Gabr-el 23:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful! I am praying for you to know God's will and to have the courage to do it! NancyHeise ^talk 23:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometime next Summer. If you remember it was one month roughly since I said that I felt I was ready to take the burden. June, and as far as I am feeling, at the latest June. Thanks Nancy for the support. Gabr-el 23:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

My favorite priest always says "God is never outdone in generosity." There is nothing to fear as long as you remember to trust Jesus - Peter would never have sunk if he had remembered to do that - but I guess he eventually did remember since he went on to finish the task he was assigned! NancyHeise ^talk 23:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but giving up marriage is not easy lol dejavu. But its been easier, lately. Gabr-el 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You probably already know this but I am going to preach to you now anyway. The God who made marriage has made many wonderful things. Many of these things we dont discover until we first make an act of faith by stepping out to do what God wants us to do even though we might be asked to sacrfice something to do it. Giving up marriage in this life does not mean you are asked to give up love. Real love happens when you do God's will and it is very strengthening and satisfactory. Good, happy and successful priests are those who are not afraid to love and have people they love praying for them. Love is what makes prayer loud. I pray for my favorite priest every day but especially on Sunday and through my prayers for him I always ask God to help all priests. When someone you love prays for you, it is like you are a dry plant and someone has just poured a whole bunch of water on you that is being absorbed into your whole soul giving back your life. The Rosary is a great way to pray for someone you love (or not as is sometimes the case when praying for enemies!). Chastity is one of the keys to God's kingdom. NancyHeise ^talk 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

New review of RCC

I'll try to provide one but I can make no promises on time. I hope all is well, Marskell (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Marskell, I am busy getting ready for Christmas so I am not in a hurry about this either. Take your time and I will be glad for whatever you can offer in the way of helpful suggestions. :) NancyHeise ^talk 17:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Review of RCC

Sorry I've been so busy. I just popped in. One comment about the section on "status of women", I would avoid that phrase entirely. It may be important to western women, but it really means nothing in the context of the church. What is important is that the Catholic church rejected infanticide, wherever it was practiced, whether it's the Aztecs or the Romans. What the article reviewers have failed to apprehend, and this is the point you need to hammer home is that this was an innovation, an idea which would not be here today if the Catholic church did not exist. I know it's difficult to see from the inside, but the Catholic church was revolutionary in both their organisation, and in their ideas which have been transmitted around the world.

The second point, is equality, which is a core doctrine of the Catholic church. In teaching that men and women belong to one another, and that the two become one flesh, is radical. Islam does not preach it. Judaism did not practice it, but Christianity stated that the bond was between two equals, was indissoluable.

Look at your article this way. If St. Peter were to read the article, would everything in there make sense to him? Do you use Jargon, which is an artefact of today? Our faith is one that we are claiming has remained the same as it was for St. Peter. If something in the article is not pertinent to his time, then I don't think it needs to be there.

Same with the issue of Pius XII. Undue weight. He is just one pope. Who are the most important Popes to the Catholic church? 1. St. Peter, because he started the church. Then who? Is Pope Pius XII one of them? Benedict XVI, yes. Pope John Paul II, because we are looking at recent times. Then who? Second Vatican council, yes. First Vatican council, yes. Pope Leo, Pope Gregory, Pope Innocent II, in short anyone who gets a 'great' after their name is deserving of mention. Everyone else, no.

Church abuse scandal. Who cares? How is it any more important to the history of the church, then the abuses prior to the counter-reformation. Yes, it's important, but not in this article. Does it deserve a mention? No.

I know what you are trying to do in accommodating all the critics, but you need to look at the article as an organic whole. Everything there needs to work together. Fixing and patching up is great, but it makes the article disjointed. Anyways, I will try to send you my edits to the whole article, what I think we can fix, and what can go. I think there have been some worthwhile comments in the FA review, but that most of them have to do with some of the issues here.

Thank you Benkenobi (you forgot to sign your name). I appreciate your comments very much. I am in the process of gathering everyone's comments and will incorporate them as best I can. Some of your comments are directly opposed by previous reviewers who asked to see certain criticisms in the article. Because so many reviewers and editors wanted to see more info, especially info regarding criticisms, we included these in the article. Rarely has anyone asked us to remove these mentions and I think they serve a much needed purpose by allowing Reader to see the entire picture of these events which were also covered in depth in the University textbooks we used to create the history section. I like your ideas in your first three paragraphs, I think they provide very good insights. NancyHeise ^talk 17:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Trying again

Hi Nancy. I'm editing very little and thus can't promise specific responses at specific times. I thought I'd leave a general note in lieu of listing specifics.

I think you and I have a difference in editing style that has made things difficult. Previous comments of mine have largely been intended as examples of prose structure issues that I find through out the article. Thus it's not simply a matter of "fix this and I support". I think this article needs to be examined in sum for reorientation. (It's unfortunate, for instance, that we got so side-tracked on the Aztecs—I meant it as one instance of a larger attempt to whitewash the spread of Catholicism in the Americas.) My efforts to make comparisons to Islam seem to have failed. But I'm going to try one more to highlight what I mean.

How does the RCC article treat the difficult subject of the sex abuse scandal? Six sentences, 212 words. As often with potentially critical material in the article, the last sentence on the topic serves to downplay and apologize for the issue.

How does the Islam article treat the difficult subject of terrorism? Half a sentence, 15 words: "...while transnational groups like Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda engage in terrorism to further their goals." That's it; it was specifically added at FAC on my request. Could more be said? Of course! The article could provide blah, blah, and more blah about terrorism. But by saying nothing else it avoids undue criticism of Islam and apologetics on Islam's behalf. Another small example from the 'Golden Age' section: "During this time expansion of the Muslim world continued, by both conquest and peaceful proselytism..." Again, very simple. No need to go off on tangents because no one disputes that Islam spread both by conquest and peaceful proselytism. That Roman Catholicism spread by conquest is also beyond dispute and yet, despite more words, the article doesn't actually say as much (remember that the religion proper redirects to the institution); instead, consistently throughout the article, quotations are chosen to cast the Church in a flattering light at points of perceived criticism.

And the upshot of all this? Islam is 42k readable prose while RCC is 72k. The former is also remarkably stable. So what would I do with the sex abuse paragraph in RCC? I'd cut it by 80%. What about 'Pope Benedict XVI and Catholicism today'? I'd probably cut the entire thing; it's mainly over-specific "recentism". I realize that this suggests a fundamental reworking, and perhaps you or other editors don't want to do that. But I hope it's at least clear that I have not been clamouring for more criticism; if the article had a greater degree of brevity and better let the facts speak for themselves extra criticism would not be necessary. In this my oppose is somewhat different than others. As it stands, I would still oppose if this were renominated now.

Best, Marskell (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I completely agree with Marskell here. The more details get added to the history section, the more details others want to add (because they think that this detail is at least as important as that one, or scholar X disagrees with that detail so let's rebut it). I think that it might be a difficult process to get to a much trimmed down, tighter history section, but it would likely minimize a lot of the arguments in the future. This history section did get trimmed quite a bit for this last FAC, and I noticed that the number of opposers dipped as well; I think that there must be some correlation there. Karanacs (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that Marskell makes a very good point as well. Sometimes less can be more. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Marskell, Karanacs and Malleus. Based on my conversations (over almost a full year) with the many editors to the page, what you are asking for is exactly the opposite of what 99% of the editors to the page wanted. I personally do not see the value of an RCC page without the crucial information that Readers actually come to the page looking for. My efforts to bring RCC to FA have failed so maybe someone else would like to chop it up and try it at FAC. I will abstain from voting if it will help because I would probably not support the page if it were so confined. Thanks for your comments anyway, please do not consider my response as being ungrateful. I am grateful for your help but I respectfully disagree that it would meet Reader's curiosity about RCC if we were to follow your advice. NancyHeise ^talk 03:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I want to clarify that what you call "apologetics" in referring to the last sentence of the sex abuse paragraph - I would consider necessary "context". Elimination of context and plain citation of facts is an easy way to misinform Reader. For instance, the FA Pius XII lists a lot of facts but gives Reader no context for those facts - example - it tells Reader that the Church maintained a position of neutrality during the war but never tells Reader that the Church tried to prevent the war and worked against it (both facts listed in Encyclopedia Americana which also never mentions the Church's neutrality). Mentioning "neutrality" but failing to tell Reader that the Vatican has no military and that the Church was under severe and outright persecution which was made more severe whenever it spoke out against Hitler makes such a simple presentation drastically POV and a vehicle for misinformation - which is really what the original Pius XII FA is. I never looked at that FA until it was brought up in the last FAC and I was amazed that it passed FA with 6 supports and 2 oppose (for being POV and the other for lack of context)[8]. NancyHeise ^talk 03:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there are some places where Marskell's approach is right, or a move in that direction could be useful. In terms of WP realpolitik it probably is a sensible approach. But whilst Islam may be a model as to how to pass FAC (though would it do so today? - it is very lightly referenced, and even with my limited knowledge, the history section seems full of questionable statements), I think RCC is already the better article, and "Islam" is a questionable model for it, especially in terms of skating over issues. The RCC article does in fact recognise shortcomings in the Church's history in a way which "Islam" never does, and this should be recognised. The paragraph in "Islam" beginning "Modern critique of Islam includes accusations that ..." is exactly the kind of "set 'em up and knock 'em down" stuff that Marskell complains of. Johnbod (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like for you to elaborate on what you think is useful. I too think that there is room to incorporate some of his comments but not all. Maybe there is room for compromise here. I also left a note on Ottava's page to see what he thinks of these suggestions. NancyHeise ^talk 23:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Some notes

OK, I'm piggybacking on the two sections above, having just (again) torn my hair out over the second most difficult FAC this year (Major depressive disorder, MDD), and after listening to the podcast.

First, in an editing area I understand well, I see the similarities between MDD and RCC, relative to Marskell's point. Autism, Asperger syndrome and Tourette syndrome are all stable and relatively controversy free (in spite of being very controversial topics), and they all make aggressive use of summary style, with autism under 6,000 words, and AS and TS under 5,000 words, relying heavily on sub-articles where more controversial issues can be examined in detail. On the other hand, Major depressive disorder has taken the opposite approach, trying to be all things to all people, and came to FAC above 9,000 words and has been a torturous FAC. Food for thought, and this is a point that has been raised (but not heard) throughout the RCC FACs (it hasn't been all calls for adding criticism, one way to solve the criticism issue is as Marskell suggests).

Second, some podcast thoughts. Try to remember that Wiki is not a vote, FAC is not a vote, and anytime you hear yourself saying or see yourself typing the word "vote", you may be on the wrong path :-) Also, it's never about just "facts on a page"; it's which facts are presented and how they are presented. There is no such thing as a "top source"; it's never black-and-white, but how sources are used.

Whichever way you decide to go, I still think you can make it by working with individual editors :-) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. The article is very stable right now except for the daily vandalism. I responded to Marskell's comments above, please see. I will continue to work with individual editors but I don't support Marskell's suggestions. I think they would render the article uninteresting. FA's should be interesting one page summaries of their topics that contain the information a Reader would want to see. Over the past year, 99% of Readers wanted to see more information, especially info on the notable criticisms. NancyHeise ^talk 03:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I really do think the reason that so many people asked for more information is because they were trying to balance other information that was already in the article. If we trim both the way the "good", the "bad" and the "neutral" are presented, it would probably solve that problem. I'm going to think about this a while and if I have time over the holidays I'll mock up some examples to see what you think. Karanacs (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure of people's motivations for asking for more information but I am open to suggestions and would like to see examples of this new idea. I appreciate any help you can offer here. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 18:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not averse to some further trimming - but as always, it is the DETAIL of the trimming that is the critical matter. Xandar 23:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Nancy, I have recently gotten out of the hospital. I am not going to be able to do much on Wikipedia in the coming weeks, I'm afraid, so I'm not going to be able to help with RCC in the near future. I do apologize. Awadewit (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. NancyHeise ^talk 16:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Hey, thanks. However, I used mostly copyeditting help from other great editors since most of the initial opposed to Frederick were about the prose and I wasn't too good at that. Lots of people helped, you can search through the FAC and see a lot, specifically Jappalang, EyeSerene, and lots of others who helped copyedit it. Once my FAC is complete I'm sure I can come take a look, good luck. --Banime (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami

Wooow! Gabr-el 00:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Congrats for the TFA. Scartol • Tok 14:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Gosh I had no idea this was on the main page until you posted me. It is being relentlessly edited as we speak. I am glad it is being read but not sure what to do about all the edits. I will check it for accuracy when the fuss dies down. NancyHeise ^talk 19:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the best way to handle it...it's too much to try to keep up with during Main Page Day. Congratulations! Karanacs (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Lector

Hey, take a look at this, I was blessed a Lector at my Rite - I am the dude in the black shirt http://www.kaldu.org/2008/images/Kaldu08LectorOrdinations/pages/IMG_1715_jpg.htm

and here also, I am the one bowing before the Bishop lol: http://www.kaldu.org/2008/images/Kaldu08LectorOrdinations/pages/IMG_1724_jpg.htm

It was a special day for it was our first Female Sub-deacons too:

http://www.kaldu.org/2008/images/Kaldu08LectorOrdinations/pages/IMG_0073_jpg.htm

Gabr-el 19:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am joining January 1st 2009. Gabr-el 07:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow - Congratulations! And you are such a handsome one too! I am glad you are joining the seminary. I will pray for your perseverence because I know that not everyone who enters endures. The Rule of Saint Benedict says that the monks are supposed to test the candidates to the monastery before accepting them into the community. I don't know if they do that in the seminaries but I know some married men who were seminarians before leaving to get married. They are very holy husbands and fathers and participate in the life of the church. Perhaps that was God's path for them, I don't know but I am very impressed with and have the utmost respect for those men who persevere in pursuing the priesthood, I know they had to say "no" to some enticing and different paths in order to say "yes" to God. One of our priests turned down a pro baseball contract to enter the Seminary. Can you imagine - he could have had millions of dollars as a pro player and probably all the women he could handle but he knew God wanted him and he made a conscious choice to follow God's will instead of this other enticement. So my prayer for you is that you persevere in knowing and doing God's will for you so he can use you for the great things he could do in our world through you. NancyHeise ^talk 00:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

also, I didn't know there were such a thing as sub-deacons, especially female ones - that is news to me. NancyHeise ^talk 00:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Nancy, you and your prayers have played no small part in strengthening and supporting me. Young men do have a tough time in the world and are easy prey to sin, like maggots, lol. Basketball player hey? I always think about St Paul and the sacrifices he made. The man was a rich Roman senator citizen, well versed in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and knew the Torah and the Tannakh like the back of his hand and he gave all of that to Christ. If this is not my path, it doesn't matter. At the seminary, they teach us to read and write classical and modern aramaic. Gabr-el 07:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Baseball, not basketball. Yes and that same priest, who grew up in Miami, just celebrated his 35th anniversary as a priest last summer. He speaks French, Spanish, Italian, English and a little German. Like most of the priests here, he is very well educated and successfully runs his parish which also includes a school. As a whole, it is a huge business that he is in charge of administering in addition to being a spiritual shepherd to the parishioners. All that and he makes only about $29K per year yet he is the most happy and cheerful person who really enjoys his vocation. He has inspired many vocations and touched many lives, mine included. If he had chosen the baseball career I doubt his life would have been as fulfilling or would have inspired or touched so many people. I have to share with you one of his sermons he preached when the Gospel was about the father who asked his two sons to go work in the vineyard. As you know the Gospel is about a father who asks his two sons to go out and work, the first son says "No" but later feels bad about it and then goes out to do what his father wants, the other son says "Yes" but never goes to do the work. Father Dennison then said that while the first son eventually did the father's will, he doesn't win the "spiritual gold medal". Then he said to imagine the father had four sons instead of just two that included one who said "yes" to the father and actually does go to work in the vineyard and another who says "no" to the father and never feels bad about it and never goes out to work. He ended his sermon by asking us to reflect on which "son" are we? NancyHeise ^talk 16:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning

Just letting you know that if you keep reverting me (or other users) at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami, you will clearly violate WP:3RR. I believe you have already reverted 3 of my edits. Keep in mind that full or partial reverts count, and it doesn't have to be the same material. I'm not sure why you are so reluctant to let me freely edit the page (WP:OWN?). I just wanted to drop you a friendly reminder that if you keep reverting (per WP:3RR) you could be temporarily blocked from editing. Good luck.-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, maybe if you would talk about your edits before eliminating content it would help? All of your eliminations result in my readding and placing more refs after them. I think you need to slow down and work with me instead of eliminating valuable content that just needs a new ref. NancyHeise ^talk 04:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

EWTN

Thanks for adding the tidbit about SIGNIS. I never knew this organization existed, nor its status vis-a-vis the Holy See. Certainly deflates the argument that EWTN is somehow a "rogue" Catholic organization, being independent of the USCCB. Korossyl (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Permissions emails

You poked me on my talk page on Meta and not my en-wiki talk page. To answer your question - he needs to email you, agreeing to a Wikipedia-friendly copyright license. (The GFDL is one of them, but not the only one. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported is the one we recommend, because of its simplicity) Once he does that, upload the file and forward his email to permissions@wikimedia.org. Someone with OTRS access (which includes me) will then get the OTRS number, and tag the picture as approved. Raul654 (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

:Thank you for helping. I received this email from him this morning (his email address is posted on the Florida Catholic website so I dont think I need to delete it here)

From: Christopher Gunty <cgunty@thefloridacatholic.org>

To: nancyheise@aol.com Sent: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:42 pm Subject: RESEND: Permission to Use photograph

Copyright (c) 2008 The Florida Catholic Inc. Permission is granted to Nancy Heise to photograph, copy, distribute the front page of The Florida Catholic Miami Edition for the purposes of an entry regarding the Archdiocese of Miami on Wikipedia.com under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2.

I hope the specific language above helps, in addition to the language below which I sent to you yesterday. Thank you, Christopher Gunty

Dear Ms. Heise,

The Florida Catholic Inc. grants you permission to use a photograph of the front page of the Florida Catholic newspaper for an entry regarding the Archdiocese of Miami on Wikipedia.com.

Thank you for your request.

Christopher Gunty Associate Publisher

-- Christopher Gunty Associate Publisher The Florida Catholic, Inc.

Newspapers for the Archdiocese of Miami and the Dioceses of Orlando, Pensacola-Tallahassee, Venice and Palm Beach

Web site: www.TheFloridaCatholic.org

Magazine and book publishing services

Orlando, FL USA Internet: CGunty@thefloridacatholic.org cgunty@earthlink.net St. Francis de Sales, Pray for us.

=============================================

Is this enough? I honestly don't want to ask him for another email. I think he has been very patient and kind in his response and I dont think it would be appropriate to ask him for more. If this is not enough permission I think I would rather let the picture be deleted. NancyHeise ^talk 18:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I forwarded his email to OTRS. NancyHeise ^talk 18:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Wikipedia OTRS for accepting this permission to use the image. The article Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami is so much better with this picture kept. : ) NancyHeise ^talk 16:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Hi Nancy, this is for you and yours!

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate the Winter or Summer Solstice, Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah or even the Saturnalia this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec08}} to your friends' talk pages.

Merry Christmas from me too! Xandar 22:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you guys too! NancyHeise ^talk 06:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Status of the Pope

This issue of the relative authority of Pope and the College of bishops has arisen on the Catholic Church page, based on what looks like Original Interpretation of Lumen Gentium on this issue. This continues on the talk page. Have we an authoritative source to settle the wording? Xandar 22:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm on it! NancyHeise ^talk 06:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Akutan Zero

Hello Nancy-- I saw your recent edits to this page. I have been remiss in not posting some follow-up comments to the talk page after quoting some sources there a couple of weeks ago. Can you look at the talk page and revisit your edit? It seems the captured warplane did not in fact influence the design of the Hellcat. Regards, and best wishes. Kablammo (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thank you, I answered on that article's talk page here [9]. NancyHeise ^talk 21:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I understand that the original meaning of "merry" was "peaceful" (cf. Russian "мир"). I sincerely and heartily wish you a merry Christmas and a new year of constructive collaboration. Soidi (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

From me too! Merry Christmas to you and your family! —Angr 17:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, and have a solemn Feast of the Circumcision. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, im in england!!!Gabr-el 18:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you guys! Merry Christmas to you all too! Gab-rel, have a great time in England! FYI, "Merry" to me, means "very cheerful and happy", not just "peaceful" - because we are so blessed to know that Jesus is our savior and the "light of the world" - the reason for our "merriment"! OK , this leads to Personal Story here: For about 10 years I belonged to a Rosary group at the Catholic grade school where all my kids attended. Each Wednesday morning we met after dropping the kids off and we wrote names of people and issues we wanted to pray for on a small spiral notebook that we placed in the middle of the table and then prayed a Rosary for all of them. One December the ladies were discussing how a local dept store chose not to decorate for Christmas because it was trying not to promote any religion (It went out of business a few years later). My friends were discussing how to react to that and some said they were not going to shop for Christmas presents there. As we started to pray the Rosary I kept thinking in my mind about how disturbing that was and wondered to God "What is the proper Christian response to this?". During the Rosary the answer came and it was this: "We are so blessed because we know who Jesus is and what his birth means for the world. Other people do not know and our response should be to be sorry that they do not know and to pray for conversion of hearts." Everytime when I pray a Rosary, I always pray for that "conversion of hearts" and think about how "blessed we are to know" .NancyHeise ^talk 11:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for the message back Nancy, I got your earlier response here and read it. I was in England for fun mostly, I had lived there from 1992 till 2006, so I went back to visit where I grew up. Hope everything is well and that the birth of the new year brings a birth from our old lives. Gabr-el 01:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gabrel. NancyHeise ^talk 01:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sweeping Statements

As member of the (Anglican) Church of Ireland I live in an overwhelmingly Roman Catholic country, and have a high regard for the church you have joined and for its priests. But I do feel that you must be careful with regard to some of the statements you make. For example it is simply not true that to be a godparent or sponsor to a RC child you have to be a Roman Catholic "in good standing" (or otherwise). Similarly, I doubt if you can prove that "all of the schools for the poor in third world countries are catholic schools". I have contacted the Church Mission Society and the USPG for information on this.

The phrase, "it ain't necessarily so", is worth bearing in mind. In theory there is little or no inter-communion. In practice three RC priests have invited me to take communion. In this part of Ireland we have joint baptisms and even joint wedding ceremonies. The lessons of ne temere and sectarianism have been well learnt. Millbanks (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There are Roman Catholic politicians who vote for pro-choice laws, against official Catholic teachings, there are dissenting priests and nuns who openly speak out against Church policies but that does not make those policies disappear. Priests who give Catholic Eucharist to non-Catholics are violating Church law and teaching. I am not writing these laws, I am just placing facts on a page. Also, my answer to the person asking me about being a sponsor was just my own experience. I was not putting referenced facts on a page so I don't think it is fair for you to check my response. It is a fact of life here in South Florida that you must be a Roman Catholic "in good standing" to be a godparent to an RC child. What Church policies are or are not enforced in other dioceses around the world are not completely known to me so I can not comment on them. I just know that those policies and rules are taken very seriously here, and no one is killing each other over sectarianism even so. Also, I have yet to begin work on the Wikipedia page where we discuss the schools. I have already done some of the page but I need some more books on India to be able to finish that section. I will be including information on the poor schools in the third world countries that are Catholic schools. Your help will be much appreciated. NancyHeise ^talk 19:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

possible future ref for Indian Catholic schools. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7587319.stm

Thanks. I became a godfather to my RC niece in 1970. I doubt if it makes her baptism invalid. I was asked again to be a godfather to a RC cousin's child in 2001, but declined because I now feel that it would not be right to pledge myself to bring up a child in a faith other than my own.

As for being offered the eucharist, I was invited to a wedding in Westminster Cathedral and e-mailed in advance to ask if I could take communion. I received a polite and friendly reply from a Monsignor, saying, "yes, of course". Are you telling me that a Monsignor at Westminster Cathedral was "violating Church law and teaching"? On another occasion (in Australia) I had to attend a funeral, and rang the priest who again said yes, as long as I accepted what RC beliefs were. I said that I did, though I did not entirely share them. He said that that was not a problem in this instance. The third occasion was when I attended a RC service and asked the priest for a blessing. He said yes. When the time came, he blessed me and then offered me the sacrament.

I hope you feel comforted by these instances rather than the reverse. I do. But some priests I know would not admit a non-RC to communion. However in one case, a devout high Anglican asked the local RC priest if he could take the eucharist. The priest said, "sorry, I cannot say yes; but you can come to the communion rail". He did, and was offered and took the sacrament.

Nancy, living in an RC community fills me with joy even though I do not share all your beliefs. Millbanks (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What beliefs do you not share? When you receive the Eucharist and you say "Amen" you are saying "I Believe." We believe that the sacrament is Jesus. Anglicans do not. If you believe the sacrament is Jesus, why don't you just become Catholic? Also, here in the US, I know an Anglican priest who visits Gethsemani monastery in Kentucky (Thomas Merton's monastery). He said he used to be able to receive communion there but now he can not because the new rules have forbidden this. I believe there has been a tightening of these rules across the US, I am not sure if this was worldwide and came from the Vatican or was just US. The RCC article discusses the rules for receiving communion and provides references to the catechism, canon law and nihil obstat, imprimatur scholarly sources. These references say that there is no intercommunion allowed with Anglican but there is with Eastern Orthodox. NancyHeise ^talk 23:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nancy, and you pose a lot of questions. First, I'm aware that as an Anglican the rules say that I am not allowed to receive RC communion except in the tightest and most extenuating of circumstances. I am also aware that these rules are by no means entirely adhered to. I get the impression that the present Pope is offering no olive branch to the Anglican Communion, in spite of the fact that he apparently gets on well with the Archbishop of Canterbury. This is in sad contrast to Pope Pius VI, who described the Church of England as "our beloved sister church".

Next, what beliefs do I not share? There are three main ones. First, I do not accept that the Pope has, by divine right, jurisdiction over the universal church, and that in certain instances his utterances are infallible. Second, I do not accept that belief in the Immaculate Conception and/or the Corporal Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary are necessary for salvation. The Church of Ireland, to which I belong, teaches that neither Holy Scripture nor the understanding of the Scriptures by the early Fathers of the Church, supports these doctrines. (I have other points of disagreement too, but that's enough for the time being).

As for transubstantiation, I find it difficult to grasp. I can accept consubtantiation, though, and do not necessarily deny transubstantiation, following the stanza, "Twas God the Word who spoke it/ He took the Bread and broke it/ And what His Word doth make it/ That I believe and take it". Incidentally, it is too sweeping a statement to say that "Anglicans do not" believe that the sacrament is Jesus. Many do.

Finally, my baptism certificate states that I am a member of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, and the Church of Ireland regards itself as both catholic and reformed (ie Protestant). Millbanks (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You probably don't follow our news over here in the UK, no reason why you should, but the Church of England is in the process of introducing new rules to allow women bishops. I mention that only because there now appears to be a significant minority of C of E priests now considering switching their allegiance to the Catholic Church, as others have done here in the past. So I'd be surprised if the Vatican has introduced new rules to restrict who can receive communion. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some Cof E clergy have moved to Rome over women priests, and some are threatening to do so over women bishops, though I gather that the Pope has said that disapproving of women clergy is not of itself a good reason to move. I'm not sure how large the "significant minority" is, but almost every Anglican I know (and I know quite a lot), accepts women priests, and most of us welcome them. Having women bishops seems a reasonable next step. Millbanks (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph 1401 here [10] covers this issue. It says the Ordinary may, in certain grave cases, issue the sacraments to a Protestant if three conditions exist. NancyHeise ^talk 21:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The trick though, is in the interpretation of "grave necessity". A desultory reader may take that to mean grave physical danger, as in danger of death. Others may interpret that to encompass grave moral danger, and judge that in whatever way they choose. Anyway, good luck with your development of the RCC article; I'll be looking out for your next (hopefully successful) attempt at FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think and hope that it was the Church's intention to allow some flexibility to the priest in determining the meaning of "grave". I think it may mean moral as well as physical danger. Thanks for your terrific friendship and support over at RCC I wish I were more of a friend to you, please ping me if you ever need my help, I am not very good at watching other people, actually I don't know how to use the "watch" feature. I am not sure what is going to happen to RCC, I am currently involved in the most incredibly dull argument over the name issue. NancyHeise ^talk 22:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Anglican/Roman relations are at very ineresting point right now. I wish we were debating this and not the name. I think since you last edit to the article we should just archive the whole mess and see what happens. -- Secisek (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Name nonsense

Check out my proposed solution. You know what this is about. -- Secisek (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to help but we had gone over proposed solutions in extreme depth before overwhelmingly deciding on the current form. Please see my response on the RCC talk page. I appreciate your efforts, please understand my efforts to respect the vast consensus reached after much intelligent and in-depth discussion and research.NancyHeise ^talk 23:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have integrated my proposal in to the existing work. Please take a look. It would be nice if we get this solved to a large degree, although the vitrol which a now retired user (Vaquero) provoked a few years back may never completely allow this thing go away. I try to ignore this as much as I can. -- Secisek (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Check out my third proposed solution. Also, away from the flames, I'll note that I feel Whitehead's work is largely an opinion piece, but in the spirit of possibly burying this once and for all, I'll buy it as a WP:RS per the case already made for it. Happy New Year. -- Secisek (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Whitehead is not an opinion piece. His book excerpt that is referenced in article text is used by EWTN and Our Sunday Visitor in their Catholic Answers - a program that answers viewers questions and this particular question was asking what is the name of the Church. NancyHeise ^talk 02:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I would feel better citing the book rather than the website. Can you get a page number, etc.? The question of what some Anglicans or other Christians think of the phrase "properly called the Catholic Church" becomes moot if it is cited. That is why I chose "properly" in the compromise, because that is the exact word that was used in Whitehead. I also don't think it is productive at this point to point to past consensus. I know it is frustrating, but I think it is clear the text as it stands is open to dispute. What ever text we settle on will be disputed again at some point. The hope is we can produce something that will attract less negative attention and stand longer than the last consensus version did. Such is the nature of Wikipedia.

How did I let myself get involved with this again? -- Secisek (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Whitehead was cited for the word "properly" last time, but that didn't stop the objections. I am quite friendly to "properly", but that won't mean everyone is. Soidi has actually come up with a modern German book by Richard Faber, quoted in this section which actually makes our point about "Roman-Catholic" being rejected by Vatican 1. Xandar 01:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Secisek, I used the EWTN citation instead of the book citation because it is necessary to show that this major Catholic media outlet used Whitehead and no other source to explain to worldwide Catholic viewers the name of the Church. I do not think that the actual book citation is better because of this. The book is called One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic by Kenneth D. Whitehead published by Ignatius Press and the excerpt begins on page 301. Perhaps we can cite both the book and EWTN and add an explanation to the EWTN ref that it is used in their Catholic Answers program to explain to viewers the name of the Church. NancyHeise ^talk 20:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As you wish. You have my support. --Secisek (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)