about the Catholic church article has been refused FA, despite the Islam article getting it. His complaint is that whereas there is an element of criticism in the Catholic article, there is almost none in the Islam article. Yet FA status does not reflect this.
I haven't looked in detail, but there seems some truth in what he says. It also reflects my own experience in medieval history articles, where there are a number of editors prepared to make the most absurd claims about medieval Islam (unreferenced and in some cases entirely false). My view is that there is some anti-Christian, pro-Islam bias in Wikipedia, but this is difficult ground isn't it.
Here is Xandar's splendid rant on the talk page:
I think it's quite clear that after this fifth round of the farce that is FAC, that the FAC system 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. The FAC process and personnel need an urgent and thoroughgoing review so that a few biased opposers are no longer allowed to continually stymie an article with vague and unspecified allegations of POV until it fits in with their viewpoint. The running of the RCC FAC by Sandy has been chronic. She has done nothing to rigorously test opposes and see that they were precise and fitted the criteria, and has consistently made laughably biased interventions on behalf of the the same clique of "reviewers". I notice the same Marskell who came late to the FAC with POV opposes, is actually admin co-ordinator on Featured Article Review - the same FAR that voted the extremely unbalanced Islam article (see beneath) a free ride back to FA status! Unbelievable! The bronze star means very little in real terms now by the standard of much of the junk that gets passed on the nod, while articles of effort and substance on major topics are treated in this manner. (Many of the articles passed are about obscure highways, Video Games or buildings like today's Featured Article Priestfield Stadium!)
Feature Article co-ordinator, SandyGeorgia, attempted to imply that the process worked by arguing here that the Islam article passed the system. Actually all that shows is the double-standard of the system being run at FAC. Just look at the Islam article - particularly the History section. Is there ANY mention of the massacres of Mohammed perpetrated on Jews and fellow Arabs? Any MENTION of the destruction of neighbouring civilisations, piracy slavery? NOT A WORD! Oppression of women? Not mentioned. Mention of massacres in Spain, Byzantium, Armenia, Greece? No sign. The Crusades were "launched" by Christians. No mention of the Muslim attacks on Byzantium, Georgia and Armenia that provoked the response. One section is even titled with the amazingly POV heading "Golden Age"! Imagine if we had put that title up on a section of the Catholicism article... 1000-1500 Golden Age of Catholicism! How the same people who supported Islam would have had an attack of apoplexy - and been supported by the same SandyGeorgia who now tells us how wonderful and NPOV Islam is! Yet "Islam" flies through, and Sandy and her followers at FAC strain at gnats over the Catholicism article, wanting us to list every negative action ever commited by a Catholic and cut out anything that might hint Catholics ever did anything good. That single comparison shows the hypocrisy of the present process and why major changes need making to ensure the process is truly unbaiased and not he preserve of a certain clique. Xandar 09:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)