Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NancyHeise

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 19:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

[edit]

NancyHeise has done exceptional work in improving the article Catholic Church.(Article as it looked before Nancy's first edit in Jan 2008) However, Nancy has also contributed to the battleground mentality that currently exists at this article talk page. She has displayed article ownership tendencies, has failed to assume good faith, has been incivil, and has pushed a POV.

Desired outcome

[edit]
  • User:NancyHeise stops assuming bad faith against other editors and focuses her comments on content rather than the editor
  • NancyHeise stops pushing a POV and instead works towards a neutral POV
  • NancyHeise is less quick to revert good-faith changes to the article
  • NancyHeise stops insisting that text and sources already in the article must stay there and stops pointing to a false interpretation of consensus
  • NancyHeise makes more of an effort to follow dicussions on the talk page so that the same points don't need to be repeatedly rehashed.

Description

[edit]

This is a long-term pattern of behavior, going back well over a year. The pattern is very visible in a recent discussion at Talk:Catholic Church on whether the article text accurately represented the sources on the views of historians on the founding of the Catholic Church. The talk page discussion expanded to include whether the view presented in the article was a consensus opinion among scholars.

Most diffs are from this recent discussion, which has ranged from at least September 27 through at least October 27). A few older diffs (from September 2009 and from 2008) are presented to show that some of the behaviors have been ongoing for a long time. Diffs for older behavior can be provided on request.

In short, NancyHeise is too quick to revert other people's edits to the article, continually insists that sources/text already in the article should not be heavily modified or removed, and has pushed a POV (including cherry-picking sources, using sources out of context, synthesizing material, and presenting choices in a "poll" in an extremely POV manner). She also exhibits an "I didn't hear that" tendency in ignoring arguments made against her position. If an editor pushes for changes that Nancy disagrees with, she often fails to assume good faith, becames incivil, and sometimes makes personal attacks.

Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit]

On October 26, NancyHeise told another editor "You can't expect your edits to stick if a lot of people disagree with you.". This is a very reasonable comment, used to justify why she reverted another editor. However, NancyHeise's behavior often implies that she does not believe this tenet applies to her own editing. The diffs below show a variety of behaviors she uses that often stifle discussion and prevent other editors from making changes to the article.

False claims of consensus

[edit]

Despite being repeatedly told her interpretation is mistaken(Feb 2008, Jun 2008, Sep 2009, 23 Oct 2009), Nancy often refuses to consider changes to the article because there is "consensus" since the particular point in question was not discussed at PR or FAC

POV-pushing

[edit]
  • After several weeks of discussion, the phrase "many historians agree" was removed from the lead, in a paragraph discussing the Catholic Church's teachings on its founding. Five editors endorsed this removal on the article talk page (two, including NancyHeise, had protested the removal). Nancy reverted the removal and posted the following poll.[1] (full content replicated here) Note that the reasons behind the wish to eliminate this phrase were not given.

Our article text, the one that has gone through several FACs and peer reviews, states in the lead and in Origins and Mission section that there are different opinions among scholars regarding the Church origins. WP:NPOV requires us to present these views giving each side equal weight. We have done this but some editors here are saying that there are no historians that agree with the Catholic POV on the origin of the Church even though we have included three sources in the article to support this POV. I have also provided some more sources on the talk page above. See [2] and [3]. Because Karanacs and Richard are eliminating our consensus text in favor of hiding these important facts, I would like to have a vote here to see what true consensus decides. Please vote Support if you favor our consensus version of text or Oppose if you would like to eliminate these facts altogether. *Consensus text is here: (third lead paragraph and second para in Origins and Mission)[4] *This is what happens when we lose the consensus text [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church&oldid=321477186

  • repeated reversion of tags on the article:

[5] [6] [7] [8] see consensus of last FAC

(these two are from other incidents: [9] [10] )

Continually asking for information that has already been given

[edit]

NancyHeise often causes circular discussions, asking for information that has already been provided and discussed. All of these links are from the same discussion, which began October 8.

Accusations of bad faith, incivility, personal attacks

[edit]

Nancy refuses to remove information that she finds in a source

[edit]

Using sources inappropriately

[edit]

Several editors have tried to explain why some of the sources used in the article are not appropriate for what they are citing or are being used out of context: 21 Oct, 12 Oct 12 Oct 12 Oct

NancyHeise refuses to even discuss the point

Another attempt by the same editor to explain [18]; NancyHeise's ignores his point [19] and continues "He is speaking as a Catholic historian expressing what Catholics believe to be the origin of the Church"

  • Provides 1840s Catholic apologetic tract as support for a sentence on what historians believe [20][21]

Applicable policies and guidelines

[edit]

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:OWN
  2. WP:AGF
  3. WP:NPOV
  4. WP:OR

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

[edit]
  1. Warnings for civility/assuming bad faith: 12 Oct first 12 Oct second 12 Oct third 23 Oct; request to stop focusing on personalities 14 Oct
  2. Warnings about battleground mentality 20 Oct
  3. NPOV explanations 29 Sep, 30 Sep 12 Oct

Other attempts are linked from the evidence above.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

[edit]

Note that in most cases, warnings and diffs to repeats of the behavior are entwined in the Evidence section above.

  1. further focusing on editor and not content; Oct 26 "you are really very unkind and cruel in your posts, it is difficult to have a level headed discussion with someone who has so much emotion coming out on the issue. "

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

[edit]
  1. Karanacs (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Harmakheru (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Leadwind (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

[edit]
  1. Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 18:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Geometry guy 20:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Seems accurate. Hipocrite (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Soidi (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Taam (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cirt (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Aditya Ex Machina 14:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by Jbmurray

[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

(I consider myself semi-involved at best, in that though I have contributed to the page, and to FAC discussions, I am not a regular editor and was in fact only asked back recently to look at the section on Liberation Theology. Hence the article and its talk page found their way back on my watchlist and I made a few brief contributions to the discussion, almost all of which are included in the summary below.)

Yes, Nancy is not a bad person, but she does very definitely treat the Catholic Church page as a battleground. This is now a familiar story... a well-intentioned editor comes in to help improve the page, and because Nancy does not agree with them she starts to treat them as an enemy. Most recently, this has happened with Hamarkheru. I tried to point out the problem fairly early on here.

I think that ultimately a basic problem is that Nancy simply doesn't understand how the scholarship upon which Wikipedia rests actually works. She really doesn't seem to understand how to evaluate or even (sometimes) read a source well. The reliance on Google's categorization, for instance, was as I pointed out a new low, but far from atypical. On the other hand, there are times when, frankly, the problem is not mere ignorance or misunderstanding, but becomes a lack of good faith and even dishonesty on Nancy's part. The recent poll (as I among many others pointed out) is a good if sad example.

Again, none of this is to dispute the time, effort, and dedication that Nancy has put in to this article. But far too often, that effort is self-defeating. If Nancy had been able to cooperate and collaborate better with other editors, particularly editors who have a better understanding than her of the scholarly methods and principles that underlie this site (for whom she shows, sadly, a special contempt) then this article could have been featured months if not years ago. Indeed, at this stage the greatest obstacle to the article's ever becoming featured is, unfortunately, Nancy herself.

(There's a certain sad irony that Nancy is both the greatest obstacle to this article's being featured and yet also the number one reason why there's even any possibility that it might become featured. As all seem to agree, if this article does becomes featured, she would deserve the "lion's share of the credit.")

I should add that in my view this is not at all a content dispute (though that seems to be the view of at least one non-involved editor elsewhere). What's at issue is the way in which Nancy responds to content disputes: she makes them a question of "us" and "them" (turning the article into a battleground) and takes the position of the one who is persecuted either doctrinally (by those whom she calls "viciously anti-catholic") or personally (people are being mean or "nasty" to her, she'll say, as in this edit summary). Hence she escalates content disputes into a battle in which she is endlessly presenting herself as the victim. For the page to progress, and if there is any chance of it reaching Featured Article status, this must stop.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree that this is not a content dispute, although it does involve interpretation of scholarship. The particular dispute above is one example of a pattern of behavior, which recurs all too frequently when other editors request changes to the article. Karanacs (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I was particularly struck by the diff above concerning scholars. Universities and colleges are key sources of scholarship, both because many scholars are academics, and because the research degrees of universities and colleges teach scholarship to the next generation. One cannot be a "simple Wikipedia editor trying to put facts on the page as they appear in works written by modern scholars" if one also endorses a view that such a significant body of modern scholars are "pompous and proud and they are convinced they know it all and you don't know anything." Geometry guy 21:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think the phrase about Nancy turning the article into a battleground is precisely the problem, indeed it understates the problem. In addition, she does not report sources accurately; she quotes them if they seem to her to be on her side. [I did not respond for a long time because Nancy's statement might indeed have heralded improvement; but it hasn't. 11:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)] Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Pmanderson's summary is accurate. On the other hand I disagree with the summary that follows here, suggesting that Nancy be banned. In her Response, she has expressed regret for what she has done wrong. Is it too much to believe she is incapable of improving? Soidi (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is sad. I was hoping that Nancy would positively engage in this Rfc, at least step back and reflect on what has been written here. Unfortunately she does not. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cirt (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by Septentrionalis

[edit]

I cannot agree that NancyHeise has improved Catholic Church; indeed, the version linked to above is distinctly better than the current version, although shorter.

I have not posted on this until today because I hoped the eloquent statement below would herald an improvement of behavior; true contrition must include a determination to do better. But it has not.

The full text of the "poll" request above is:

Our article text, the one that has gone through several FACs and peer reviews, states in the lead and in Origins and Mission section that there are different opinions among scholars regarding the Church origins. WP:NPOV requires us to present these views giving each side equal weight. We have done this but some editors here are saying that there are no historians that agree with the Catholic POV on the origin of the Church even though we have included three sources in the article to support this POV. I have also provided some more sources on the talk page above. See [22] and [23]. Because Karanacs and Richard are eliminating our consensus text in favor of hiding these important facts, I would like to have a vote here to see what true consensus decides. Please vote Support if you favor our consensus version of text or Oppose if you would like to eliminate these facts altogether.
  • Consensus text is here: (third lead paragraph and second para in Origins and Mission)[24]
  • This is what happens when we lose the consensus text [25]

It would be bad enough to have a "poll" with blatantly prejudicial text like Because Karanacs and Richard are eliminating our consensus text in favor of hiding these important facts, I would like to have a vote here to see what true consensus decides. Please vote Support if you favor our consensus version of text or Oppose if you would like to eliminate these facts altogether. but the worst part of this is that it does not say what the issue is, merely "are you for the Catholic Church and facts, or against it".

This is how she views every issue. Unless she is banned, no work will be done, and sources will be misrepresented.

For a more recent example, see this edit, with edit summary: adding text from Catholic Church page that has been arrived at through long discussion with various editors. This is the same disingenuous claim; the text is her proposal, or rather demand, and the long discussion has largely consisted of other editors disagreeing with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And her conduct is resuming: she claims as a reason for keeping her preferred version that the article text was the result of several editors discussing this issue over the course of several weeks; these discussions being exactly the same discussions by Harmakheru, Karanacs, and so on which she decries below. These are accompanied by links to these discussions and the flat lie You don't seem to have any editors in agreement with your statement that the agreed article text is biased. There is no agreed article text; because several editors hold that the present text is biased. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This fulmination on the talk page here has caused an editor to become neutral about the argument in this section; and yet it is fairly restrained compared to some of her posts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to #Outside view by Marauder40, far below; the chief reason for listing the things Nancy has done is to persuade her to stop doing them. (The second reason is lay the groundwork for someone else to prevent her from doing them, but that is a second-best option.) She herself admits that she has done wrong; it would be nice if she would now do right. (I don't expect it, but I would be pleased to be wrong.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reversion of tags is further evidence of bad faith. Its edit summary (Karanacs eliminated these tags and Septentrionalis/PM Anderson put them back. I don't think there is consensus for these tags and Sept has not provided any sources) contains one direct lie (Karanacs removed tags from a quite different text, which I would not have disputed); one mischaracterization (I added tags because the sources provided say something different); and a fraudulent account of policy (tags do not require consensus; they are not text; they require the existence of a dispute).

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I would like to thank Karanacs for her time and attention in compiling this Rfc. I pray to God every day asking Him to please make me know my sins so I can stop sinning and be a better person. (I'm not joking) I did not know I was such a problem editor.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. NancyHeise talk 19:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afterthought - I have provided some notes on the discussion page to help those who are interested to understand some of the above accusations. See [26]

NancyHeise talk 15:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside views

[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by Ottava Rima

[edit]

I am sad to see this RfC. I am sad to see any of the Catholic Church related disputing. However, it is expected, as the issue is controversial as everyone has their own beliefs and feelings, and the Catholic Church is an easy focus on these issues. Although this pains me to see such fighting, I am sometimes thankful that my own conflict of interest (being a Catholic Ethicist and an employee/apologist for the Catholic Church) prohibits me from having any say. However, I don't bother to even click on such articles but I am constantly worried of what I would see, and I am absolutely terrified of clicking on the talk page for the same reason.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Delta1989 (talk/contributions)

Outside view by Delta1989

[edit]

I would first like to state that I am a Roman Catholic. That having been said, Wikipedia can be a very stressful place, and because we are an unusual encyclopedia, it becomes very difficult to know what is the "right" course of action. We all make mistakes (which is a reason that we have an "undo" button), and we all can get very heated in our discussions. I've taken a look at some of the edits, and while they can be seen as somewhat objectionable (of course - that's why this page was created), the edits aren't unforgivable. They are quite the opposite. It seems that this behavior pattern has been made clear only when this request for comment was posted. I believe, from this, that we can all learn how to be civil, respectful, and proper only through experience, through trial and error. I wish NancyHeise the best, of course.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Delta1989 (talk/contributions)
  2. Soidi (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Johnbod

[edit]

I am also very sorry to see this Rfc. Let's face it, the article has always been a battleground, as the 35 archives show (not to mention diversions like Talk:Catholic Church/Essjay's edits), and probably always will be. The article history stats are revealing: 28 editors have made over 90 edits each to the talk page, which has had over 500 editors in total, and many of these are of pamphlet length. Nancy has devoted a fantastic amount of effort to the article, and at least everyone can usually clearly see where the front line is at any time. No other article I know (I avoid US Presidents etc) has the same capacity to whip up disputes generating 10,000s of talk page words from nowhere. Typically these are essentially over a very few words that have been in the article for a long time, and have been extensively discussed before. The naming issue over the summer was the last outbreak - a good deal lamer than this one. It is also typical that the cast is completely different everytime, except for Nancy and a few others. Since Nancy became involved the article has been hugely improved - unlike the majority of editors to the page she is actually interested and involved in all of it, and all of the time. Like most page-watchers, I don't know how she does it, & have in the past advised her to take things easier for a while. In many areas of the article she has worked very successfully with editors coming at things from a very different angle, and shown she accepts NPOV and is keen to implement it in the article. Areas where opinions are ascribed to "historians" have been a particular problem, and I have said several times that Nancy is too insistent in retaining material sourced to general and popular histories, and sometimes stating these too simplistically or emphatically. The present storm in the teapot is not the first where I've said (agreeing this time with PMA) that the phrasing bringing in historians in general should just be cut. Nancy is not a historian, and does regard all books we broadly accept as WP:RS as of equal status, which is not the way academic historians look at things. Given the history of the article I can understand Nancy's reluctance to change what has already been discussed before, but I accept her defence of positions can be too long & too strong. But if she caved in everytime someone produced material referenced to an academic historian I expect the article would pretty much look like Criticism of the Catholic Church. Her exasperation can lead her to get over-involved and rude in the heat of the moment, which she has been ready to apologize for in the past - she may have done so for some of the older diffs above. She has had to deal with a very great deal of abuse herself, some of it in this latest argument, and to handle some very difficult editors indeed.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Delta1989 (talk/contributions)
  3. Malleus Fatuorum
  4. I agree with just about all of this. It is interesting that you point out that the cast of characters, for the most part, is often different from dispute to dispute. Although in some cases this may be due to editor specialization (I am much more familiar with history than theology, and my interest lies mainly before the 19th century), I suspect in some cases editors leave because the atmosphere on the talk page can become quite difficult; few people wish to spend weeks debating a few words. Karanacs (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Further discussion on talk page
  5. I agree with the above that Nancy has contributed essentially to this article. She has remained polite and courteous when other editors may not have done. I believe she has also acted as a moderating influence on more extreme views about what this article should say. In the difficult journey to reach the neutral point of view, in which significant views are represented fairly and without bias according to the scholarship in reliable secondary sources, she has been an enormous help. However, it asks too much of one editor to do all this; the article is now much in need of broader input. Geometry guy 21:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree with Geometry guy and Johnbod. User:Moreschi/The Plague is generally applied to national articles and disputes. I think this article is one of the few others that it is relevant to. John Carter (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I agree as well. The article deals with a topic about which many people have strong feelings, and naturally generates more than its share of vigorous disagreements among editors. Nancy isn't perfect, but I've generally been favorably impressed by her attitude. She's clearly committed to improving the article, and has spent a great deal of time at least trying to work through disagreements with other editors instead of just throwing in the towel. While she has lost her patience at times, on balance I do believe she has been a moderating influence. Her participation has significantly improved the article. EastTN (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yorkshirian (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree –Juliancolton | Talk 03:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. How can one stay engaged with any active article, wishing (if with too much heart) the best for the article, without it being "too long"? The revolving door of 'passioned editors wears, the accusations of ownership ensue, and any and all imperfections too evident. Where will you find that "broader input" combined with continuing care? This is one of the top WP questions - why would you expect Nancy to have solved it perfectly? Still, it is necessary sometimes to disengage, and for some length of time. The health of the article may suffer for awhile, but your health will improve immediately. Shenme (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I endorse Johnbod, though not Geometry guy. Soidi (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I endorse all of what Johnbod wrote and much of what Geometry guy wrote. I think she has been more polite and courteous than some of the other editors (some of whom have been downright nasty) but, at times, she has been less than civil. At times, she has been a moderating influence;at others, she has been obstinate and obstructionist. Geometry guy's comments seem to emphasize the positive aspects of her behavior while ignoring or glossing over the negative ones. --Richard S (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Agree - I agree that Nancy has done a lot to improve this article and ends up taking the point and the heat of most of the discussion. She has been extrememly courteous, but like many on here she can get heated at times, for which she usually asks for forgiveness. Marauder40 (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Agree. Majoreditor (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-involved view by Peter Jackson

[edit]

First I should explain what I mean by semi-involved. I don't edit articles (as WP has no effective procedure for resolving content disputes & enforcing content policy) & don't regard myself as taking part in the editing process, the decision-making. I simply make comments. I made this clear on the talk page, in particular stating I wouldn't take part in any vote on how the article should be. Nancy correctly didn't notify me of the poll she called. One of my comments was quoted above, & possibly some of the diffs linked may be mine too.

The only comment I want to make right now is in response to something in the view by Jbmurray above, which accuses Nancy of bad faith & dishonesty. I'd just like to point out that the fact that she was happy to include the exact wording of sources where the reader could see it suggests she honestly believed they supported her position, even though it seemed obvious to a number of us that they didn't.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Peter jackson (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Much, perhaps most, of the problem is Nancy's tendency to read her views into whatever book she reads, and to explain away whatever, no matter how authoritative, that seems to contradict her view . Soidi (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, I think Peter's comment and Soidi's elaboration are spot on. Too many other editors fail to assume good faith where Nancy (from her POV) is bending over backwards to work towards an NPOV treatment. The problem is that Nancy has a deficient understanding of NPOV and of what the sources say and her insistence on reading the sources to her advantage has been maddeningly infuriating to those who read those sources differently. --Richard S (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-outside view by Yorkshirian

[edit]

As with all religious related articles, there are bound to be contrasting views and POV's brought by different editors (leading to, inevitable at times as everyone is human, semi-heated exchanges). The Catholic Church especially, even more so than Islam or any other Wikipedia religion areas, due largely to the demographics of the English-speaking world, has a quite numerous "opposition" grouping. Nancy has brought much to the project and her work on the article is commendable. She cites her sources and tries to balance things out, as well as collaborating with users on the talk to thrash any issues out. I don't think WP:OWN is a valid claim or characterisation, IMO, its just that this is a specific article area Nancy happens to be interested in putting her time and efforts into here. I am surprised that there needs to be a RfC, since this seems to be more about content disagreements.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Yorkshirian (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. EastTN (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. These ARE content Disagreements, and this is a bad faith attempt to create a massive wall of people against Nancy in order to change the article their way. --Rockstone (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View of Xandar

[edit]

Unfortunately what I see here is an attempt by people involved in a content dispute, especially Karanacs, to further their point of view by other methods. Karanacs, Hamakheru, PMAnderson represent one point of view which they and people of like mind wish to impose on the article. This tends to be a critical-liberal POV which holds that the Catholic Church was probably not founded by Peter, and that it is largely an oppressive and negative religion. Most have not had long-term constructive contributions to make on the article, but have parachuted in, highly critical of the past editors on the article and with a set Point of View that they wish the article to express. In this some of the persons concerned have been extremely abrasive and non-collegiate in their approach. One only has to look through the talk page to see this.

Such people have an incredibly negative personal view of the Catholic Church, and seem to wish the article itself to reflect only that highly-negative slant. They have brought forward sources that support their point of view, and by and large Nancy, myself, and other long-term editors on the page have made no objections to major alternate points of view being put forward. However there has to be balance and rigour. Hamakheru and some others adopt the position that ONLY their sources and views are valid, and that any sources presenting or supporting positive or traditional views about the church should be set aside as in some way biased, accusing the academics concerned of being biased, or Catholics, or Christians, or some other epithet. This is not a good way to proceed. If people stated that we must ignore all American historians when dealing with the USA, and insisted that only Iranian historians were worthy of inclusion as sources, we would not see that as a constructive position. From the accusers here we have also seen straw-man arguments, providing sources that attack a point not central to the issue being discussed, and then claiming that such sources back them on the central issue. I think Nancy has been targetted because she stands up for the facts, insists on a fair balance of coverage and very sound research, and does not allow herself to be steamrollered. This is borne out by the fact that comparison of the WP Catholic Church article with comparable articles in other encyclopedias, or articles on other religions in Wikipedia itself , show that this article is actually far more diverse in its range of opinions on its subject than the vast majority of these other examples. I am also surprised that I was not notified of this Rfc, only finding out about it by accident.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Xandar 01:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yorkshirian (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Rockstone talk to me! 01:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by MoreThings

[edit]

I've been following this RfC but wasn't going to comment because I've had no involvement at all with the article or with any of the editors. I realise that neutral editors are invited to comment on these RfCs but I think most people feel reluctant to appear out of the blue and start holding forth about another editor. But now that Xander's post seems to have broadened the discussion, I've decided to pipe up.

I'd be happy to give a detailed run down on my views on God, the universe, and stuff, and if ever I work out what they are I'll do just that. I can say that I'm not especially pro- or anti-Catholic and I can say the same about religion in general. I have the greatest respect for anyone who takes WWJD as a credo.

I first read the article a couple of weeks ago and I approached it with a completely open mind. My lasting impression was that I simply couldn't trust what I read; it felt massaged. It felt as though it could have been okayed by the Vatican press office. I subsequently read the most recent FAC and it seemed to me that many of the issues raised there are present in the current article.

Just a couple of examples. A lead is supposed to cover controversies and summarise the article. The lead of this article is about the size of the OT but all it can manage is a single sentence on "issues facing the Church". In Africa, of AIDS, the Pope said: "You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem". Is that not controversial? What of the way the Church has dealt with those clergy who have their very own interpretation of what "suffer the little children" means? Has that not been controversial? The Crusades? Dum Diversas? The term Holy War appears nowhere in the article.

Or looking at the very last section on the Church today. Is that something you would expect to find in an encyclopedia, or is something you would expect to find in a leaflet pressed into your hand or pushed through your letter box? I don't know whether those specific examples are Nancy's work, and I'm deliberately trying to avoid making this too personal, but looking at the stats on the talk page of this RfC, skimming the article's talk archives, and reading comments from long-time editors, it's clear that Nancy has been the major driving force in bringing the article to where it is today. Nancy has created much of the content and polished almost all of it. My feeling is that, though she may not fully realise it, she is wearing Catholic-coloured glasses while she's doing that polishing. I think Nancy would probably agree that her life is imbued with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Where she might disagree is that I feel that article is imbued with those same teachings.

WP runs into problems with articles for which there are a huge number of reliable sources. It becomes possible to construct diametrically opposed positions, each supported by reliable sources. The challenge is to write an article which gives due weight to each viewpoint. That's a big ask for any editor who is strongly committed to one particular viewpoint, almost impossible if that viewpoint forms the bedrock of your life.

Nancy clearly cares deeply about the article and has done an incredible amount of work on it. My feeling is that the article will probably remain stalled until she is able to accept that the goal of having The Catholic Church as an article which she can endorse unequivocally is mutually exclusive with the goal of having it as an FA.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. MoreThings (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Richard S (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Indeed, this was more or less my comment on the first FAC that I commented on. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I agree also with the remark by Septentrionalis below, within this section. (I am not talking about any other section.) And I agree with Karanacs, i.e. with what he commented just below, again within this section. Soidi (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC),,[reply]
  5. Afterwriting (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Very well said, and I agree that Nancy has not been the only driving force behind the "massaging". Karanacs (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. My only quibble is that Nancy's views are not merely Roman Catholic, but those of one particular faction within the Church. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Peter jackson (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RelHistBuff (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The article sets out prove matters in an overtly (poor) apologetic style of writing. I don't agree that the article has improved since Nancy became involved -- too much controversy has been introduced Taam (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cirt (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Marauder40

[edit]

First off, let me say that I took a month off from WP for reasons that I will not go into. After coming back I have been reading through what I missed on the Catholic Church page and this page. I do not see the purpose of this RFC. Everything on this page seems just like one of two things, either an attack on the page itself or Nancy. The entire stated outcome of the RFC is to get Nancy to do x, y, and z. None of the desired outcomes is anything that WP or any editor other then Nancy can control. Everything that is stated are things that is expected of any editor and I am willing to bet that almost every editor on WP has violated several of those issues on occasion. Is there any purpose to this RFC other then airing Nancy's "dirty laundry" and as another place to complain about the Catholic church page other then the Catholic church talk page? I personally think this entire exercise seems more about punishing Nancy then getting a better article. There seems to be a lot of people throwing stones and very few people trying to work civally to an agreement.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Marauder40 (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NancyHeise&oldid=1142569746"