Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive1: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 220:

Vassayana's position was not the position of the consensus of editors in both the peer and GA review. The book by National Geographic was written in consultation with the top historians and advisors in the world listed in both the front and back of the book. This is not a self published source, it is a collaboration of historians and is by far the best reference anyone could use for this article. It is very third party and very reliable source. While there are many opinions on the roots of Christianity, there is no one who can bring forth a better, more reliable reference than what already exists in the article. It was also the consensus of editors that the language used is neutral in this article. "traces its origins" is not the same as "it origins are". What Vassayana is proposing is unreasonable and is not the consensus of editors. For more approvals of what exists, please see other editors comments on my talk page. This issue should not be part of FA if it has already passed GA. Please respect that. [[User:NancyHeise|NancyHeise]] ([[User talk:NancyHeise|talk]]) 14:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:There was not a clear consensus regarding this. We settled the matter in the form of a compromise for the infobox (some of which, I notice now, has been reverted). I withdrew myself from the debate because it didn't seem like at the time we were proposing anything new. However, I believe I established through multiple, reliable sources, that the traditional view isn't the only ''notable'' view. That not only are there prominent Catholic scholars who disagree, but other secular historians. I agree with Vassayana that the Roman Empire subsection needs more balance. And you also neglect to mention that Vassayana was the first person to reviewed this for GA, and it failed on January 17th. These issues were raised back then, where never settled on the talk page, and should still be addressed if FA is the intention. Just because another reviewer didn't mention it during the next GA doesn't mean we get an easy pass to ignore this important NPOV issue here at the FA.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|^[talk]]] 15:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)