Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deus Caritas Est/archive1

Deus Caritas Est

This is essentially a self-nom, put together just under two months ago when Benedict XVI published the subject matter of the article, his first encyclical. It is rather short, but I think it meets the criteria.

It was peer reviewed, in which the main comments were that (a) not enough time had passed since it was published for a full appreciation of its impact (not much I can do about that, apart from waiting for a few years!); and (b) it is a bit dense, and the theological concepts could be unpacked a little (but I hope the wikilined articles - e.g. agape, eros, logos - do that already as that). Comments and criticism are entirely welcome :) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. One definite complaint is that the quotes from the encyclical's text should be clearly cited, probably using the paragraph numbers given in the encyclical. Also, when those passages quote the Bible or various theologians, make it clear what is quoted and where the quotations are coming from. That's my biggest complaint. Also, I think a bit more analysis of the historical significance of Deus Caritas Est would be useful; the paragraph mentioning Nygren, Barth, and Tillich is very nice, but the article could use a bit more in terms of references to previous papal encyclicals and other promulgations from the Church. It's a new encyclical, of course, but I don't think there's any reason to object to it solely on those grounds--the text of the encyclical is out there, and it isn't going to change. Kevin M Marshall 15:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Excellent work! Brisvegas 09:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nothing much to say besides support, a very educational article. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Enormous improvements over the pre-peer reviewed version. Well referenced and well written, and laid out in a way that it is accessible to readers with little knowledge of many concepts mentioned in the article. One tiny note – in the lead, should "was the first encyclical" instead read "is the first encyclical?" Other articles for papal encyclicals switch between "is/was," and most of our articles for, say literature, read "is." So apparently I'm pedantic and OCD, but is there any standard we should have for encyclicals? — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "Was" makes no sense in that context, I've changed it. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The article is promotable as it is, but it's really on the weak side now. The structure biases toward quotations from the text, and I feel like we have two Roman numerals of an outline without a third. I. History of the encyclical. II. Key passages. And? You see what I mean? Something else needs to be present. What I've recommended elsewhere is a section giving some context of reception. I know that the uninformed talking heads only wanted to say, "Gosh, it's not what we expected," but I don't mean them. Has this enyclical at this point actually signalled a change in direction? Has it, for example, actually marked a softening of Ratzinger's stance on Liberation theology (to which he was most vehemently opposed, as he was the one who dressed down Bishop Ramirez)? The encyclical seems to take a much softer tone toward the issue than Ratzinger's previous announcements, when he was in charge of orthodoxy for JP II. Has this encyclical been a shaping force in the new announcements about gay seminarians? Have dissident RCC theologians reacted? Something...anything...to go from "this is how it came out and here are some words from it" to "and this is the world's view" or "and this is how it affected the church's later actions" would be more than welcome. Again, it's not a crippling structural flaw, but it's sure noticeable. Geogre 04:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the further comments, Geogre. I agree that the article would be better for some discussion and reaction, but I am not aware of there being much yet. I would be very happy if someone can point me towards the published views of Catholic theologians (there are lots of blog posts, of course) but I think it is simply far to early to talk about changes in approach, or softening of tone. The encyclical does not mention homosexuality at all, and conforms with the church's view that the only valid form of sexual expression comes in the form of monogamous marriage between a man and a woman. It seems a bit odd to ban gay people from seminaries, and say "God is love" at the same time, but there we are. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: While much of the article is well-written, well-sourced, and well-organized, it contains (IMO) an overly-extensive (and therefore unencyclopedic) section of quotes from the encyclical. Brief quotes can be illustrative, but when they become this extensive they are editorializing. This makes a big part of the article, in my opinion, into what is essentially a List. So I am in the odd position of suggesting that an article would be improved by the removal of information, but so it goes. -- Gnetwerker 00:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments and compliments. As it happens, the quotations section is not my work and I am not entirely happy with it either (see the talk page). Would you be happier with a shorter, more succinct, selection of "key" quotes? The whole text is subject to copyright, which the Vatican has recently decided to assert for papal writings, and so cannot be copied to Wikisource; there are links to the full text, of course. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't know the text was copyright, that makes the problem worse, but in any case the solution is the same: the text needs to be much, much briefer, highlighting only key quotes that (also) can be argued to be "fair use". -- Gnetwerker 16:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Popebenedettoencyclical.jpg is tagged as "fair use". However, it is not discussed in the article, it is not particularly informative on its own, and it is only tangentally related to the subject of the article, so it shouldn't be used. --Carnildo 01:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the image shows the pope signing the thing, which is mentioned in the text. I have made the caption more explicit, to tie the article and the image together more strongly - it this sufficient? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • How is a picture of the Pope signing it neccessary for understanding? What information does it contain that can't be conveyed by text? --Carnildo 04:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Of course it is completely fair and legal to use to use it here. Why on earth do you imagine the Vatican permitted the photograph to be taken if it was not to publicise "Deus Caritas Est". Therefore it is completely fair to use it here in what is intended to be an educational, non-profit making account of "Deus Caritas Est" Giano | talk 14:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Possibly in the legal sense of "fair use", but it doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for fair use. --Carnildo 19:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am not arguing with you Carnildo. It is fair use believe me! Giano | talk 19:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• I believe this legitimate fair use. If we take arguments such as "what information does it contain that can't be conveyed by text" to the extremes which some users appear to be advocating, then there would be no fair use images on Wikipedia at all. Every image can, to some extent, be described in text. For example, the Mona Lisa is, obviously, a "picture of a woman". This photo is relevant to and adds value to the article without devaluing the market value of the original work; as such it is proper fair use. TreveX^talk 23:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Support: Seems to be a fair and unbiased account to me Giano | talk 14:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - can we please remove the reference citations from the lead and shift them into the main article body? I say this because the lead is only a very general summary of the most salient main points of the article — as no info should be in the lead that isn't dealt with further in the main article there is no need for references. The point of the lead is not to introduce specific facts: it is to be almost like an executive summary of the main article. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Object There is a fair bit of interesting basic info here, but many major questions were left unanswered. I'm neither a follower nor even particularly aware of the working of the Catholic church, and I left this article with more questions than when I began.

• Basic impact of the encyclical not summarized or described I imagine a new Pope's first major pronouncement must send a lot of signals about his direction, yet nowhere did I find a simple analysis of how this fit or what it might mean to the Church itself, and to the world at large. There is no political context.
• The general theme of the encyclical is not clearly explained The translation of the title to "God is Love" gives me some indication of what this is about, but the whole of eros-agape-logos bit leaves me confused. There are clues that I can maybe work out to some sense, but the article really doesn't make it clear what all of this is about. Is this about charity, the Church's role, free sex, what? In plain words, what is being addressed, what is the purpose and intent?
• In the Summary section, the genesis and structure of the encyclical is not made clear There is discussion of the "first half" and "second half", one being more philosophical, the other based on a report, mention of a "Paragraph 39" and other such detail, but no context for this is given. Are encyclicals all like this, with first halves and second halfes? Are they usually report-based? Is this a particularly long one, or a short one? Is this "typical"?
• The "ongoing debate" about eros and agape is mentiioned but not clearly summarized or even explained The first paragraph of the Summary section left me entirely confused. "Anders Nygren, a Lutheran bishop, in his mid-20th century book Eros and Agape" is mentioned without explanation, as is the statement, "The encyclical is closer to the "Caritas tradition" in catholic theology as opposed to the Nygren position". Are these common knowledge, things I should know about? I get the idea that maybe the encyclical is about internal debates about eros and agape, but...what? Since the general real-world context of this encyclical hasn't been explained either, I'm not clear about what's going on.
• The mass of quotes in "Some key passages" (50% of the article), is hard to decipher, and doesn't seem to summarize things - why all of these uncommented quotes? These quotes aren't easy reading, more like legalese, fine print, their meaning is not always easily evident. And, since the section has no introduction, I'm not even sure why these are "key passages". Are the other passages unimportant, or do they build up to these, which are conclusions? How were they selected and by whom? Why are some phrases emphasized with italics? This seems like a condensed version of the encyclical, but not a summary.
• The references seem slim: are newspaper articles and press releases the best analysis available? Even at only two months old, surely more "experts" have reviewed and discussed this encyclical than reporters at the Times, the Telegraph, the Chicago Sun-Times? Not only do these sound like fairly lightweight analysts for the infallible words of the Pope/God, but ironically the titles of some of the news stories actually summarize more than this article does — Pope's first encyclical on love and sex is lost in translation, Vatican 'cashes in' by putting price on the Pope's copyright — bringing up aspects not clearly discussed here. The article says there was a two-day conference in January to discuss the encyclical, what did they have to say?
• What is the final section, "Other events", about? What does it mean? Was the publication an "event" and there were other related events? There is mention of discussion conference, and then the "feast" on which the encyclical was published. I'm not sure what the purpose of this section is. Maybe it's just the title...

Overall, I really didn't feel very informed about the subject after reading the article, and I did feel required to do a lot of reading, side reading, and deciphering just to arrive at that point. These seem to be fundamental problems with comprehensiveness and summary style. This is more like one particular description of the encyclical itself, with little context or analysis: a "condensed version"... --Tsavage 17:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your usual thorough and thought-provoking review. I'm sorry that you didn't feel very informed after reading the article - I'll see what I can do to address your concerns. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)