text:
Talk:Mises Institute

SPLC
The Southern Poverty Law Center is not a neutral source, it is an ideological adversary of libertarians and Mises Institute. Should every entry about an ideological organization include criticism by opponents? Is this a Wikipedia custom? Nicmart (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone claiming the SPLC is biased other than those the SPLC has pointed out the shortcomings of? In other words: are you claiming that the SPLC has a realistic or unrealistic lack of support for the Mises Institute? (Compare "NASA is not a neutral source, it is an ideological adversary of flat earthers.")198.135.124.107 (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Also, I removed the retort from Lew. There's no source given to illustrate why the retort was notable (it's just his personal writings), and it's just an appeal to emotion and audacity instead of anything actually answering the SPLC reports claims. It doesn't make sense to give the majority of the paragraph to that, unless we're going to expound on why the SPLC labeled them that way in the first place.198.135.124.107 (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

In any event, the SPLC is a participant rather than a source. IMO the whole section should go, but coverage of their response as such to the SPLC is certainly appropriate. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "participant"? They are an independent source which reported on the subject; reporting is not the same as participation. –dlthewave ☎ 15:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * By "participant" I meant that they are a political organization giving their opinion or talking points. North8000 (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The SPLC is a third party, independent organization with a strong track record of impartial reliability. It's given 1.2 lines of the paragraph, with "Intelligence Report" in scarequotes, and its main argument is summarized in a few words. Lew Rockwell, the primary source with an obvious lack of impartiality, writing in a personal tract, is given 4 lines in which he makes arguments from incredulity and appeals to emotion.
 * That is far from a balanced PoV. That is a clear concession to the puffery of the article's topic.
 * There are several other places ("despite the historical Mises seems have sympathized to some conservative or right-wing cultural views") where the institute's claims are not presented as their claims, but as the encyclopedia's PoV.
 * It is fair for the wiki to record the article topic's response to criticisms. It is not fair for the wiki to, as it has done here, presume that the article topic is automatically in the right and present the article as such. The article should be from the consensus point of view of independent parties, as we do everywhere else, not the point of view of a single organization. As it is now, the article reads as a barely concerned self-written piece. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It's fair to point out that sources that Wikipedia deem reliable (e.g., the Washington Post) have pointed out that the SPLC is unreliable. These sources accuse the organization of having a history of charging individuals with false accusations. For example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html By Wikipedia's own standards, the SPLC cannot be taken as a reliable or neutral source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.218.12.34 (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note the "opinion" part: that's only the personal opinion of columnist Thiessen. — Paleo  Neonate  – 09:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * SPLC is widely cited off-wiki as an authority. Its biases are open and known. We always attribute its views, but there's no reason to exclude them as they are the single most cited source for this kind of analysis. Guy (help!) 10:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 * I am no fan of the SPLC (they should 'never be used as a source for whether an organization is a hate group or and individual is part of a hate group; they have been caught lying about that far too many times) but they are otherwise widely recognized by reliable sources as an authority, and there is zero reason to remove what they say in this case as long as it is attributed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 * , No, they have not been caught "lying". They have been wrong, and corrected themselves, occasionally. But reliable independent secondary sources routinely quote them, and thus so do we, but only with attribution. A review of the history of the individuals involved does make it rather obvious why SPLC listed them. Guy (help!) 19:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 * They are unreliable on whether a hate group exists or on who is a member of a hate group. In other areas they are still widely cited by reliable sources and can be used with attribution. See Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 280, where the strong consensus was that the SPLC is no longer reliable as the arbiter of what is and isn't a hate group.

 * Re: "They have been wrong, and corrected themselves, occasionally", please show your evidence that the SPLC ever retracted their false claim that the First Iowa Stormer Bookclub exists. They have never issued a correction or in any way admitted that they were wrong, despite multiple print and TV news sources asking them about the claim.

 * See this report from the Iowa City Press Ciitizen:

 * Apparently, someone with the screen name "Concerned Troll" posted "The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub was a success!" on the Daily Stormer website, claiming that this "book club" met sometime in September 2016 at a unnamed restaurant somewhere in the Amana Colonies, Iowa. Based upon nothing more that that single post the SPLC listed the Iowa town a "refuge of hate" and listed them as as the home of the The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub neo-Nazi group.

 * One small problem: The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub never existed. They never met. The restaurant was never named. The local police did a thorough investigation and found zero evidence for the meeting ever happening or or the group ever existing. Someone with the user name Concerned Troll posted something on the Daily Stormer website and that's all the "evidence" the SPLC needed.

 * The Des Moines Register contacted the SPLC, and Ryan Lenz, a senior investigative writer for the SPLC initially told them that claims by community and Iowa County leaders that no such groups exist in the town are wrong.

 * Then later, after there was a storm of controversy, the SPLC silently changed the claim to say that this imaginary hate group is "statewide". And the SPLC still to this day refuses to provide any evidence other than the internet post by "Concerned Troll" to support that claim.

 * The SPLC vigorously stood by its claim for a full year, ignoring all calls for any actual evidence, and only reluctantly posting a "correction" that falsely claims that the nonexistent group exists on a statewide level

 * When you make a claim without a shred of evidence other than a post on a neo-nazi website by an admitted troll, and then stand by your claim for well over a year without providing a shred of evidence, and then change the claim to another false claim, you no longer have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as required to be considered a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Bogus coat of arms
That's a quite a coat of arms apparently claimed by the Mises Institute. I mean, I'm no expert on reading heraldry, but apparently they're claiming that it was a crown-grant, which is most impressive for an American organization formed in 1982. Was it from the King of the Moon? I realize that this kind of thing has fallen by the wayside, but this is the modern equivalent of claiming several doctorates backed by diploma mills. I don't know if Wikipedia should be giving it the time of day. AndroidCat (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything the the article claiming it was a crown-grant. I think that on the US they are self-taken. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's inherent in the coat of arms: A barred helm with a crown on top means a major grant of nobility from the crown. (Heraldry was the emojis of the day, and even illiterates were expected to understand them at a glance.) Rather than that silly twaddle, why not use the logo from their website? https://mises.org/sites/default/files/logo_v3.png AndroidCat (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * the CoA is from the Mises Family. From the Mises institute website: The Mises Institute's coat of arms is that of the Mises family, awarded in 1881 when Ludwig von Mises's great-grandfather Mayer Rachmiel Mises was ennobled by the Emperor Franz Josef I of Austria. https://mises.org/profile/ludwig-von-mises this took me 30 seconds of research Maxlysle (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , which is bullshit. The Mises family coat of arms belongs to the Mises family, not to the recently formed think tank. I can't set up the Queen Elizabeth Institute and use the royal coat of arms. Guy (help!) 00:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's probably true, unless your relationship with the queen is as close as Rothbard's was with Mises. It might also be easier if the queen is driven out of England by the Nazis. Kind of a weird comparison. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , the grant of arms was to the Mises family not the institute. I could be the Queen's best mate (rather than merely having been invited to a Palace garden party once), I still could not use her coat of arms on my hypothetical Queen Elizabeth Institute. Guy (help!) 23:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just that Mises was close to Rothbard; Lew Rockwell also got the permission of Mises's widow to set up the organization in the Mises name. Crawl of the wild (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 * Kind of a moot point since I don't think American law prevents the use of heraldry which isn't independently trademarked. Is this thread a proposal to remove the coat of arms from the article? I don't see the point in discussing this otherwise. –  MJL  ‐Talk‐☖ 17:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox parameters
, with regard to this What is the point of having motto and mission parameters to Template:Infobox institute if we can't use them? Calgarianic(ide) (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , they are deprecated in the parent template per WP:MISSION, but it seems nobody remembered to follow up in subject-specific templates (I have now started that process). Wikipedia has had many naive ideas over time, and that was one of them. The problem is that mission statements are not NPOV - especially with think-tanks, who often describe themselves in terms even Orwell would consider a bit blatant.Guy (help!) 12:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * One could conclude the same thing about the names of many think tanks or government agencies. Should we censor those too? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , not including PR is not "censorship", and: YES. Absolutely. We should not include mission statements. See WP:MISSION. Seriously. Go, nuke it wherever you see it. Guy (help!) 13:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 * I think JzG should stop massive deleting content before there is a clear consensus about this. He is the one against the consensus. In my oppion his massive deleting is not justify. But could be better that the user writes here especific suggestions of redaction instead of just doing non sense cutting citing subjective interpretations of WP Politics. He also deleted a summary of duplicated topics that I do yesterday to reduce any possible judge of promotion, I think that the constructive intention of the user should be more clear and will be more clear if we makes punctual proposals of redaction here before than in the article. --Krapulat (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a better idea. Go read the discussions at talk:Knights of Columbus, as a perfect recent exemplar of an article where fans of a subject tried to have most of the content drawn from the subject's own affiliated sites. That ended up with at least one topic ban. I'm sorry it got so bad before anyone noticed, but it has to be fixed. Wikipedia does not allow so much of any article to be drawn from the subject's own sites, and does not allow mission statements (see WP:MISSION). This is all part of core policy and has been for ever. You're welcome to bring content back paragraph by paragraph after substituting the primary source for a reliable independent secondary source, but reversion to the self-sourced version is a violation of WP:NPOV. Guy (help!) 14:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What you call "WP politics" is what everyone must follow on Wikipedia, that is not for free speech or WP:PROMOTION (WP:NOT being policy). — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Re "Wikipedia ....does not allow mission statements (see WP:MISSION)", WP:MISSION is not a policy, it's not even a guideline, it's an essay. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , an essay describing the relevance of WP:NPOV to misison statements. Guy (help!) 14:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 * Completely agree with Guy here. Virtually all organizations self-promote which is why independent sources are crucial. What is the importance of the mission statement? If it's covered in independent sources, discuss in the body, else omit. (I am not finding any reliable, independent sources which mention the mission statement in full). buidhe 14:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Debate on the Reliable Source Noticeboard concerning Mises
Following this suggestion, I am notifying all viewers of this talk page that there is currently a discussion involving Mises on the reliable sources noticeboard. Flickotown (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

SPLC IS NOT NEUTRAL
SPLC is not neutral source, you have to share only neutral sources, otherwise you can find a denounce for defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.97.52 (talk • contribs)

 * SPLC is an accepted source for facts such as this. Sources are not required to be neutral. See WP:BIASED.
 * Your "you can find a denounce" statement appears to be a violation of WP:No legal threats. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding to what Binksternet wrote, please see WP:SPLC. Llll5032 (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Critics to the organization or to persons?
The section of Criticism has a paragraph that I see inaproppiate, because the content is not really criticism to the institution (that it is an independent academic organization, not a political proselitism organization) but to persons that have done a kind of activism or expressing opinions in their activism outside their institutional functions. As those lines are not specific criticism to the labor of the institution, I think this paragraph needs to be erased. If there are criticism to persons in particular those criticism have to been in the respective articles.

"The Mises Institute has been criticized by some libertarians for the paleolibertarian and right-wing cultural views of some of its leading figures, on topics such as race, immigration, and the presidential campaigns of Donald Trump. "

--Krapulat (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Sheffield's essay characterizes the institute itself, not just the leading figures. Llll5032 (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Let's check it. Anyway that article is from 2008, let's work just on what it say. But, Trump presidential campaign was from 2016, and there is not an institutional support/communicate of it. That could be inmediatly erased.--Krapulat (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Sheffield's essay is from 2016. Llll5032 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to post this here because it took a little while to track down. SPLC is citied as quoting Steve Horwitz's Fist in Glove quote. He is Horwitz quoting it himself. https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/12/how-did-we-get-here-or-why-do-20-year-old-newsletters-matter-so-damn-much/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonesyPHD (talk • contribs) 21:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mises Institute


text:
Talk:Slop bowl

reference not checkable
The links are broken, text I deleted follows in case any one wants to check its accuracy:

tea drinkers emptied their undrunk, cold tea into the slop bowl before refilling their cups with fresh, hot tea. It is generally believed that before teapots became a standard item tea was made by pouring hot water directly in the cups with the dish as a small lid while brewing. When you were finished drinking you poured the leafs into one of these bowls. They were anyway a standard part of the early tea sets. Some people would date it back to before 1730. Cited from http://www.gotheborg.com/index1.htm?http://www.gotheborg.com/qa/chinese_imari_bowl.shtml

Quill 22:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Slop bowl


text: Talk:Skull cap

title: Talk:Skull cap


text: Talk:Sepulture

title: Talk:Sepulture


text: Talk:Runt (disambiguation)

title: Talk:Runt (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Media Lab Europe

NPOV: Rationale
I have placed the npov tag on this article as an anon user is continously editing this article and whilst this does not, at present, constitute vandalism it is none-the-less clearly written in a point of view style that does not fit within wikipedia standards of writting articles. This article does not represent, at present, the best of the community working togetheir but rather a revert war that has to stop and be discussed. Djegan 19:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

''Note: I do not place the npov tag here as a recognition of the edit summary "authors seek talk but chane pages prior to talk - if page remains as is for 24 hours talk will then occur" which the anon user 83.70.44.230 has placed in the edit history. Anyone that contributes to wikipedia with this type of ultimatum is not welcome.'' Djegan 19:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

''Response: Don't understand how user Djegan is able to decide what is and what is not welcome. Appears instance of belief of control rather than acceptance of diversity.''

 * 1) The fact of your recent change in tone speaks for itself, all are welcome who respect others. 2) I have placed the npov tag for discussion, if i need control their are easier faster ways to get it, this is not how i work; i respect others opinions and will keep my remarks to the point. 3) When we look at the work that has been carried out on this article over a few days we must agree that very little substance has been added by anyone and that rather a narrow range revert war has taken place which has seen little improvement; only a handful of points have changed. Djegan 18:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

a) if i need control their are easier faster ways to get it Threatening, bullying and hectoring statement - this seems to be the source of problem hardly indicative of respecting others.

b) very little substance has been added by anyone only a handful of points have changed.

One possible explanation could be that each of my changes (based on primary sources) has been rejected by virtue of individual perspective or taking secondary sources as gospel.

''Before you state what you believe to be true cross reference it to the primary resources. Or it will inevitably be considered by the majority of people who prefer evidence to opinion in an encyclopedia as suspect.''

 * But you never gave any references, you deleted information with references and you wrote with a ranting tone, that's why I reverted your changes, if you give direct references to available supporting material, you preserve existing supported information and you write in a reasonable way, then there would have been no problem.Notjim 09:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Reply/ It's the same old thing isn't it?

You still can't (wont?) make the distinction between primary sources (official record) and secondary sources (what someone else wrote about).

It's like quoting a creationist newspaper when trying to explain evolution rather than scientific journals - you can't help but come out with the wrong conclusions that way. Quoting secondaries as source is generaly considered poor science and shoud not be done.

I'm not here to teach people to write properly. My goal is to have a properly written article that meets accepted standards.''

 * But you originally gave no references at all!Notjim 12:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anon, if you are claiming harassment by me then thats a little misfortunate considering your own preditory and unilateral action. Everyone who respects others is welcome here, no matter how you twist it. Djegan 18:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

 * this is not a personal attack Djegan 19:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)\\

your own preditory and unilateral action.

How is this neither personal nor an attack?

 * It is for you to articulate on how this could be a personal attack, merely stating it is not sufficent - been critical of someones actions is not a personal attack. I suggest you read No personal attacks which gives a broad overview of what is meant by personal attack and cites specific examples - Resolving disputes is a good place to start if you think I have been harsh on you, I hope I have not. Djegan 23:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
Look, I have no involvement in the fight over media lab, in the content I added to the article I tried to reflect the balance of what I read in the papers and the articles I found on-line. Obviously the arguement about the lab and the fate of the lab are on-going and raw, but to say that the editting history is evidence of some sort of bias is silly. Lets talk here before making any more changes, I thought the article was even even and informative before the anonymous contributer began changing it and if there are problems, I think they need to be discussed. Notjim 9 Apr 2004 (sorry my keyboard is f/p and I have no tilde)

 * I agree that the anon has an agenda, the article needs to be simplified somewhat but presenting it as if the government or universities are at fault is somewhat disengenous to say the least. I understand your frustration as I have added material to he article only for it to be removed without any reason other than fancy npov claims as are usual when anon users decide to muscle in and push over everyone else. It should be an overview of what the organisation was and its effects and not just a fantasy claim of conspiracy as the anon is attempting to present. Djegan 19:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anon, stop accusing me of some pro-Irish bias, its so annoying, nationality is irrellavant when discussing science and scientists. The work I cited in the article was the only work I could find reference to in the international press, I didn't think about the nationality of the person doing the work. if there are other examples, great, add them with a link to the reference. Stop assuming I have an angle on this, I don't. Notjim 11:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * If neccessary than the ip of the user should be blocked or prevent editing to the page until discussed. It is obvious the anon editor has a insight that is bias. It may be appropriate to cut down the size of this article and make size relative to importance of the institution. Djegan 17:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So know you have not got your way you seem to be reduced to recommending censorship. hardly encouraging support for your claimed neutral perspective (e.g. "Stop Assuming I have an angle on this"). The world outside Ireland looks at these things a sight differently. You need to understand and acknowledge that for that is the root of your dissatisfaction.

 * I might be Irish but who said I live in Ireland??? Additionally your ip clearly traces back to Ireland, a different window on the world to me. What I say above stands, like it or not, you are invited here to articulate and discuss your ideas not to be sarcastic or preditory. Djegan 18:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think I can see the problem Anon, you are adding things you believe to be true, that is, you are informing people of what you think is a view, but, the standard is to add things that are supported by reference, the Mind Group work was internationally recognised, that is supported by the link to the BBC site, if any of the other work achieved recognition and there is a reference, please add it. There was poor management and poor morale, that is supported by the internal report obtained through the Freedom of Information act, reproduced on a MIT website and linked to the article. BTW you are making assumptions about my relationship with Ireland that are laughably incorrect.Notjim 19:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Length
Djegan, I agree that this article needs tidying and editing for style, I don't think it should be cut down, since MLE is closed but is still in the news, this is the one chance to easily find information for the article and so this information should be preserved. It would be hard to believe that article length was proportional to importance unless you are a very enthusiastic manga fan. I do think there should be more about what happened when the lab was working relative to the stuff about the closure.Notjim 19:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I am concerned that this article is too detailed on specifics and rather should be more information about the substance of the lab. Whilst I am not going to insist or implement this it should be given due consideration that the article needs to move in a different direction, quite frankly all this editing has choked the article with references and over specifics which means that it is as difficult to read as ever, it has no flow. Djegan 19:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, broadly I agree.Notjim 19:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Balance
There is widespread dissatisfaction with much of what appears on Wpedia about Ireland. The underlying perspective is 'all the bad things that happen in Ireland are the cause of Foreigners' This article oozes such a perspective which you are seeingly oblivious to.

Generally sources quoted are secondary not primary. Secondary sources are continually referenced here suggesting a deficient understanding of the difference between evidence and opinion leading to concerns as to the quality of writing and independence. Web site and FoI are source documents. Where on source documents is the document quoted assertion about management/morale found? Happy to have that pointed out. Try to resist the urge to extemporise in the search for a desired fact, it will make for better writing.

MLE web site has complete list of references to its work by media. Group chosen in this article has modest impact. Most people in field seem to view the EEG work as derivative (check the number of citations in scientific literature; no of citations = 0)but then they are irish so that doesn't seem to matter......

 * If you have a particular problem with Irish contributions or articles I suggest that your raise these on the individual talk pages. This article is too obscure for any serious discussion to take place on a greater conspircy you have raised. Djegan 19:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, I was trying to be balanced by mentioning something the lab achieved, there was this work, it was in the papers. Is there any other work to mention that was in the papers, was there any high citation articles, etc? I am offended you refer to the quality of the writing, I thought I wrote quite well and as for the irish thing, do you really think notjim is an irish name, i'm a foreigner here.Notjim 19:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Avoidance of inconvenient facts
I note none of the original authors addressed the questions raised. Simply found them inconvenient. Writing an article with reference only to primary sources yields a dispassionate (but clearly unwelcome) text. Nothing in my edits refers to anything but primary sources yet are constantly deleted because of reference to some wild opinion pieces of fevered Irish press which are taken as gospel.

The route problem here is lack of acceptance of fact and eager obsequy of opinion.

 * No personal attacks Djegan 21:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Anon, can you point us to these primary sources for me, I could only find a few facts with sources

''It is here http://www.dcmnr.gov.ie/Corporate+Units/Freedom+of+Information/February+2005.htm

and here http://www.medialabeurope.org''

True False FoI indicates not for profit form of Lab False Low Key indicates prejudicial mindset contracts came from major companies and were 1M+ False all sources reported on MLE web site True but this is portrayed as frequent changes again prejudicial Until you can find report all references are to secondary sources False FoI indicate MIT agreement Quotes seem to support this Prejudicial use of dumped again indicative of biased mindset
 * The lab got thirty odd million for the Irish government
 * To the first approximation it didn't make any money and wasn't worth anything when it closed
 * It won some prize for electronic art and a few low key contracts
 * The mind games group seemed to get discussed in the international press and seems to be taken reasonably seriously (the liminal systems and haptics groups ditto, but I couldn't find a source.)
 * There was a change of director
 * The internal report said that there were internal problems - "inmates running the asylum" "hell" etc
 * The Irish government was willing to spend up to 5m a year to keep it going, but with conditions MIT found unacceptable, perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly.
 * Negroponte thought the lab was cool
 * Media Lab Asia is no longer linked with MIT, there seems to be some dispute as to who dumped whom.

I added content that tried to reflect this and provided references. If there are other facts, with references, put them down here and then we, together, will try and include them in the article. Here is my full disclosure, I am working as a scientist in Ireland, I had no contact with the media lab but know a few people who did, these people weren't irish but were working for irish universities, usually because they got a job here, they all thought it was pretty cool but kind of a mess. I was sorry when it closed,

I tried to write the most balanced article I could.

The debate seems to indicate you have not succeeded

Notjim 08:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Stop calling me biased, I am getting sick of it and its kind of ridiculous.Notjim 10:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Easy solution to this is to avoid terms such as 'low-key' for 1M+ contracts, 'dumped', 'frequent changes' (ie once) Look at what you do from someone else's perspective.

Nothing Personal
Nothing here that can fairly be construed as personal attack. Argument, emphasis, interpretation and process of articulating is clearly within remit of critique. Don't think writers are deficient as human beings. I have no specific interest in them as people or personalities. Simply argue the skills and approach deployed by them are in this instance insufficient. Perhaps authors don't understand that obsequy (Funeral rite) and obsequious (smarmy) have widely different meanings? If so apology and withdrawal by them welcome.

Some examples of invoking this claim in Wikipedia seem to be a means of avoiding inconvenient debate.

Note desire to invoke debate and then close it off. If this is the case seems reasonable to resume process of editing article.

Discussion seems at end
Will draft article based on factual sources while acknowledging commentary in media Will address Lab not just closure

Seems Much Improved
Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this. The swivel-eyed Irish nationalist perspective seems to have been restrained now and it reads much more like a genuine encyclopedia entry.
 * All I can say is oh for god sake, it has gradually been brought into alignment of a very particular view, I am guess close to some faction within the lab and less neutral not more so. I wrote much of the original material and to call me a swivel-eyed Irish nationalist is firstly offensive and secondly wierdly wrong. I give up. Notjim 13:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedic?
The final sentence, 'Consistent with the premise of MIT's OpenCourseWare movement, it seems there may be no substitute for "being there[citation needed]."' makes for a great journalistic ending, but it is fundamentally opinionated and not encyclopedic. I will abstain from making changes to this articles (due to my own involvement with the subject), but I suggest someone remove or replace it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidswelt (talk • contribs) 01:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing and wanted to write a remark about that. The statement is not factual, opinionated, subjective and unclear what is actually meant (What does "being there" mean? What substitute for what exactly? etc. I believe the article will not loose anything by losing this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.226.232.210 (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Media Lab Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091016104131/http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/research/index_en.html to http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/research/index_en.html
 * Added tag to http://hct.ece.ubc.ca/nime/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051126030850/http://www.hea.ie/index.cfm/page/sub/id/826 to http://www.hea.ie/index.cfm/page/sub/id/826
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20060925154146/http://hct.ece.ubc.ca/nime/2002/ to http://hct.ece.ubc.ca/nime/2002/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051213234300/http://www.tcd.ie/Economics/staff/gurdgiec/Content/Policy_Articles/MediaLab_final.pdf to http://www.tcd.ie/Economics/staff/gurdgiec/Content/Policy_Articles/MediaLab_final.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Media Lab Europe


text:
Temple of Caesar

The Temple of Caesar or Temple of Divus Iulius (Aedes Divi Iuli; Tempio del Divo Giulio), also known as Temple of the Deified Julius Caesar, delubrum, heroon or Temple of the Comet Star, is an ancient structure in the Roman Forum of Rome, Italy, located near the Regia and the Temple of Vesta.

The remains of Caesar's altar are a pilgrimage site for visitors from across Italy and the world. Flowers and other items are left there daily and special commemorations take place on March 15 to commemorate Caesar's death.

History
The temple was decreed by the triumvirs Octavian, Antony and Lepidus in 42 BC after the senate deified Julius Caesar posthumously. However it was completed by Octavian alone: he dedicated the prostyle temple (it is still unknown whether its order was Ionic, Corinthian or composite) to Caesar, his adoptive father, on 18 August 29 BC, as part of the triple triumph celebrating his victory over Antony and Cleopatra. It stands on the east side of the main square of the Roman Forum, between the Regia, Temple of Castor and Pollux, and the Basilica Aemilia, on the site of Caesar's cremation.

Ancient accounts of Caesar's cremation after his death in 44 BC are somewhat confused. According to Suetonius, a conventional funeral was planned for the Campus Martius, but the actual cremation, in all accounts, took place in the Forum after a rousing speech by Mark Antony. Caesar's body was brought to the Forum by his political supporters and placed in front of the Regia, which had been the personal headquarters of Caesar as Pontifex Maximus. The Regia was also, traditionally, the residence of Rome's kings:  the choice of location may also reflect popular support for Caesar's "royal" status as a Dictator perpetuo.

The sources disagree about the precise sequence of events. Cassius Dio says the crowd wanted to burn Caesar's body on the Capitolium:"Then, seizing his body, some wished to convey it to the room in which he had been slaughtered, and others to the Capitol, and burn it there; but being prevented by the soldiers, who feared that the theatre and temples would be burned to the ground at the same time, they placed it upon a pyre there in the Forum, without further ado."But Suetonius suggests a "divine" intervention with hints of a more mundane popular demonstration:"The bier on the rostra was carried down into the Forum by magistrates and ex-magistrates; and while some were urging that it be burned in the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol, and others in the Hall of Pompey, on a sudden two beings with swords by their sides and brandishing a pair of darts set fire to it with blazing torches, and at once the throng of bystanders heaped upon it dry branches, the judgment seats with the benches, and whatever else could serve as an offering. Then the musicians and actors tore off their robes, which they had taken from the equipment of his triumphs and put on for the occasion, rent them to bits and threw them into the flames, and the veterans of the legions the arms with which they had adorned themselves for the funeral; many of the women too, offered up the jewels which they wore and the amulets and robes of their children."Arrian added a mechanized wax effigy of Caesar displaying all of Caesar's wounds.

A cremation within the city's ceremonial heart was both unusual and politically charged: Caesar's impromptu pyre recalled the cremation of populist firebrand Publius Clodius Pulcher inside the Cura Hostilia in 52 BC. The popular enthusiasm led to the creation of an unofficial monument on the east side of the Forum, opposite the Regia, which was the site of oaths and sacrifices. There seem to have been at least two monuments at different times: an initial one which was removed the consuls within six weeks of Caesar's death and another which was rebuilt in the summer of 44 BC. By the fall of that year the spot had become the physical epicenter of the Caesarian movement: Octavian held a public rally of Caesar's veterans in November and publicly swore his fidelity to Caesar's memory with his hand extended towards the column, topped with a statue, which now marked the spot of the pyre.

By the end of 43 BC, Octavian, Antony and Lepidus had united to form the Second Triumvirate, with a solid core of Caesarian support. The new regime formally deified Caesar in 42, and a decree of the tribal assembly undertook the creation of the a temple in recognition of his divinity: a powerful assertion of populist supremacy. The pursuit of the Caesar's assassins was a more pressing matter, however, and work proceeded slowly if at all: It is likely that Octavian's triumviral partners did not share his enthusiasm for the Caesarian cult, which provided him with a powerful political base. Construction may not have begun in earnest until 32 or 31 BC. In any event, the temple was not formally dedicated until 29, after Octavian had defeated his erstwhile partner Antony and assumed sole rulership of the Roman world.

The temple was finally consecrated as part of Octavian's "triple triumph" in 29, celebrating his victories in Dalmatia, Egypt, and at Battle of Actium.

The temple's roots in Caesarian popular politics were visible in its design. Its high podium provided an excellent speaker's platform, or rostra (known as the Rostra ad divi Iuli to distinguish it from the rostra augusti at the opposite end of the Forum). Like the older rostra it was decorated with the beaks of ships, in this case those taken at the battle of Actium. It faced the long open space of the central forum, which at the time of its construction offered plenty of room for popular gatherings and the erection of grandstands. This platform would be commonly used for imperial eulogies, political addresses, and contiones. Drusus and Tiberius delivered a double speech in the Forum; Drusus read his speech from the Rostra Augusti and Tiberius read his from the Rostra ad Divi Iuli, one in front of the other. The emperor Hadrian delivered what was perhaps a funeral speech from the Rostra ad Divi Iuli in 125 AD, as can be seen on the coin series struck for the occasion. The temple was also hosted a legislative voting assembly. The political and religious messages mixed seamlessly: the rostra stood above the circular altar which was the focus of the Caesar cult and which marked the site of Caesar's cremation. The temple thus embodied the Augustan "restoration of the Republic" in a setting that could only remind voters of the Caesarian party and its leader.

The temple functioned as a cult center for the cult of the deified Julius Caesar. Augustus used to dedicate the spoils of war in this temple. The altar and the shrine conveyed the rare right of asylum. After Augustus' death, a festival was held every four years in front of the Rostra ad Divi Iuli in honour of Augustus. The decorations included a famous painting by Apelles depicting Venus emerging from the sea, a nod to the claim of the Julian gens to descent from the goddess -- the plan of the temple overall recalled the plan of Caesar's Temple of Venus Genetrix, reinforcing the "family" connection.

It seems that in that very place there was a tribunal praetoris sub divo with gradus known as the tribunal Aurelium, a structure built by C. Aurelius Cotta around 80 BC near the so-called Puteal Libonis, a bidental used for sacred oaths before trials. After the funeral of Caesar and the building of the temple, this tribunal was then moved in front of the Temple of Caesar, probably to the location of the so-called Rostra Diocletiani.

The temple remained largely intact until the late 15th century, when its marble and stones were reused to construct new churches and palaces. Only parts of the cement core of the platform have been preserved.

Iconography
Some months after Caesars' death, a comet appeared in the skies over Rome. The comet was bright enough to be visible in daylight, appearing an hour before sunset for seven consecutive days. The comet's appearance coincided with funeral games sponsored by Octavian on behalf of the assassinated dictator; popular opinion (helped along, it is usually believed, by Octavian and the Caesarian party) saw this apparition as proof that Caesar had ascended into the heavens alongside the gods. Inevitably, the comet became known as the sidus Iulium or, in English, "Caesar's Comet".

The comet quickly became a key part of the iconography of the deified Caesar. Pliny, in his Natural History, quotes Augustus as During the very time of these games of mine, a hairy star [= a comet] was seen during seven days, in the part of the heavens which is under the Great Bear. It rose about the eleventh hour of the day, was very bright, and was conspicuous in all parts of the earth. The common people supposed the star to indicate, that the soul of Cæsar was admitted among the immortal Gods; under which designation it was that the star was placed on the bust which was lately consecrated in the forum Octavian added a star to the statue of Caesar which he was in the process of erecting on the site of the future temple, and from then on a star became a common graphic motif in allusions to Caesar's divinity. The star was typically shown as an eight-pointed radiate star, sometimes with an additional "flame" marking it as a comet. Coins with this image were quite common under Augustus, but the image continued in use at least until the first century: the last known example is a solitary issue by the Rhine Legions during the confusion of the Year of the Four Emperors. It was sufficiently important to the visual identity of the Aedes Divi Iulii that Pliny described the building as "a temple dedicated to a comet" A coin issued in 36 BC (seven years before the dedication of the temple, presumably representing an early design) showed a tetrastyle temple with a start in its pediment and the inscription DIVO IUL on its tympanum. The final version of the temple included a statue of Caesar accompanied by a star: this may have been the statue first erected in 44 or a new one reflecting a similar iconographic program. The position of the temple on its high pedestal, looking down onto the forum and symbolically proclaiming the presence of the deified Julius, was a pointed reminder to the crowds in the forum of the connection between the new imperial order and Caesar's legacy.

Architecture
The plan of this temple is missing in the Imperial Forma Urbis. The remaining fragments for this area of the Roman Forum are on slabs V-11, VII-11, VI-6 and show plans of the Regia, the Temple of Castor and Pollux, the Fons and Lacus Iuturnae, the Basilica Iulia and the Basilica Aemilia. Vitruvius wrote that the temple was an example of a pycnostyle front porch, with six closely spaced columns on the front. However, the arrangement of the columns is uncertain, as it could be either prostyle or peripteral.

The column order originally used for this temple is uncertain. Ancient coins with representations of the Temple of Divus Iulius suggest the columns were either Ionic or composite, but fragments of Corinthian pilastre capitals have been found on the site by archaeologists. Some scholars hypothesize that the temple had an Ionic pronaos combined with Corinthian pilasters on the cella walls, i.e., at the corners of the cella; other scholars consider the temple to have been entirely Corinthian and the coin evidence as bad representations of Corinthian columns. The distinction between Corinthian and composite columns is a Renaissance one and not an Ancient Roman one. In Ancient Rome Corinthian and composite were part of the same order. It seems that the composite style was common on civil buildings and Triumphal arch exteriors and less common on temple exteriors. Many temples and religious buildings of the Augustan Age were Corinthian, such as the Temple of Mars Ultor, the Maison Carrée in Nîmes, and others.

The temple was destroyed by fire during the reign of Septimius Severus and then restored. Comparisons with coins from the times of Augustus and Hadrian suggest the possibility that the order of the temple was changed during the restoration by Septimius Severus. The entablature and the cornice found on the site have a modillions and roses structure typical of the Corinthian order.

The original position of the staircase of the podium remains uncertain. It may have been at the front and sides of the podium, or at the rear and sides of the podium. The position at the rear is a reconstruction model based on a hypothesized similarity between this temple and the Temple of Venus Genetrix in the Forum of Caesar. This similarity is not proved and merely based on the fact that during the public funeral and Mark Antony's speech the body of Julius Caesar was set on an ivory couch and in a gilded shrine modelled on the Temple of Venus Genetrix. The front position is based on some evidence from 19th century excavations and on an overall impression of the actual site, and on the depictions on ancient coins.

Rostra
Dio Cassius reports the attachment of a rostra from the battle of Actium to the podium. The so-called Rostra ad Divi Iuli was a podium used by orators for official and civil speeches and especially for Imperial funeral orations. The podium is clearly visible on coins from the Hadrian period and in the Anaglypha Traiani, but the connection between the rostra podium and the temple structure is not evident.

Also in this case there are many different hypothetical reconstructions of the general arrangement of the buildings of this part of the Roman Forum. According to one, the Rostra podium was attached to the Temple of Divus Iulius and is actually the podium of the Temple of Divus Iulius with the rostra (the prow of a warship) attached in a frontal position. According to other reconstructions, the Rostra podium was a separate platform built west of the temple of Divus Iulius and directly in front of it, so the podium of the Temple of Divus Iulius is not the platform used by the orators for their speeches and not the platform used to attach the prows of ships taken at Actium. This separate and independent podium or platform, known as Rostra ad Divi Iuli, is also called Rostra Diocletiani, due to the final arrangement of the building.

Upper decoration of the frontal pediment
From an analysis of ancient coins it is possible to determine two different series of decorations for the upper part of the frontal pediment of the temple. Fire tongues (their identification is uncertain) decorated the pediment, as in Etruscan decorated antefixes, similar to the decoration of the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill. The fire tongues perhaps recalled the flames of the comet (star) on Augustan period coins. With a star as the main decoration of the tympanum, as can be seen on the Augustan coins, the whole temple had the function to represent the comet (star) that announced the deification of Julius Caesar and the reign of Augustus, as reported by Pliny the Elder.

A statue at the vertex of the frontal pediment and two statues at the end corners of the pediment, the classical decoration for the pediments of the Roman temples, date to Hadrian's reign.

Other Augustan era buildings with that particular type of Etruscan-style decoration appear on coins, as well as on representation of the frontal section of the Curia.

The niche and the altar
The niche and the altar in front of the temple podium are also a problem of interpretation based on scarce data. They were visible in 29 BC when the temple was dedicated and when Augustus' coin series with the temple of Divus Iulius was struck from 37 BC to 34 BC. For the period after the coinage of that series there is no clear evidence. It is known that at some time the altar was removed and the niche filled in and closed with stones to create a continuous wall at the podium of the temple. According to various hypotheses this was done either in 14 BC, or probably before the 4th century AD, or after Constantine I or Theodosius I, due to religious concerns about the pagan cult of the emperor.

Richardson and other scholars hypothesize that the filled in niche may have not been the altar of Julius Caesar, but the Puteal Libonis, the old bidental used during trials at the Tribunal Aurelium for public oaths. According to C. Hülsen the circular structure visible under the Arch of Augustus is not the Puteal Libonis, and other circular elements covered in travertine near the Temple of Caesar and the Arcus Augusti are too recent to belong to the Augustan era.

Measurements
The temple measured 26.97 m in width and 30 m in length, corresponding to 91 by 102 Roman feet. The podium or platform area was at least 5.5 m high (18 Roman feet) but only 3.5 m at the front. The columns, if Corinthian, were probably 11.8 to 12.4 m high, corresponding to 40 or 42 Roman feet.

Materials

 * Tuff (inner parts of the building)
 * Opus caementicium (inner parts of the building)
 * Travertine (walls of the podium and the cella)
 * Marble (podium revetement, columns, entablature and pediment of the temple; probably marble from Luni, i.e., Carrara marble)

Decoration and position of the remains
The frieze was a repetitive scroll pattern with female heads, gorgons and winged figures. The tympanum, at least during the first years, probably showed a colossal star, as can be seen on the Augustan coins.

The cornice had dentils and beam type modillions (one of the first examples ever in Roman temple architecture) and undersides decorated with narrow rectangular panels carrying flowers, roses, disks, laurel crowns and pine-cones. Remnants of the decorations, including elements of a Victory representation and floral ornaments, are visible on site or in the Forum Museum (Antiquarium Forense).

Interior
Augustus used the temple to dedicate offerings of the spoils of war. It contained a colossal statue of Julius Caesar, veiled as Pontifex Maximus, with a star on his head and bearing the lituus augural staff in his right hand. When the doors of the temple were left open, it was possible to see the statue from the Roman Forum's main square. In the cella of the temple there was a famous painting by Apelles of Venus Anadyomene. During the reign of Nero Apelles' painting deteriorated and could not be restored, so the emperor substituted for it another one by Dorotheus. There is also another painting by Apelles, depicting the Dioscuri with Victoria.

title: Temple of Caesar


text:
User:Academician

I'm just this guy, you know?

title: User:Academician


text:
Talk:Rusk

UK Rusk
Changed "british" "butcher" to "british butcher" - as although most people eat products with rusk in two or three times a week they don't know what rusk is. If you asked a brit about rusk they would probably think that you meant the farleys rusks. So the text must have been meant originally as a butcher that is british or "british butcher".

Removed haggis as almost all haggis made in britain is made with oats not rusk. If you have a recipe using rusk I would like to try it out so please post.

Added stuffings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.117.91 (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Haggis came from one of the a rusk manufacturer's websites that's cited in the article.  Socrates2008 (  Talk  )   20:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

moved paragraph by user:90.168.70.200
IMPORTANT: I think 'rusk' corresponds more to the Italian biscotti that is dipped into coffee than the French biscottes (to which this article is linked), with this latter being simply 'French toast' in English. They are both types of twice-baked breads but are very different in appearance and use: an image search in the respective national google pages will corroborate this. There is also a distinction in Spanish, which may or may not exist in other languages, between 'pan tostado' and 'biscote', with the former being French toast made from baguette bread and 'biscote' using bread loaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.203.201.92 (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree when you say that rusk and biscottes are essentially different. Although the most precise translation of fr:biscottes would be Melba toast, they both are a variety of rusk: bread that has been sliced, then baked again until brown and crisp. The difference in shape is not significant. And note that French toast is something entirely different — bread dipped in milk/egg and fried, which is the French pain perdu. --ABehrens (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Rusks -- used for teething, not weaning?
The article on rusks says they are "sometimes used as a baby weaning food." Surely they meant teething, not weaning? March 15, 2010 Lgeubank (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They're used for both. When broken and mixed with milk they aid the process of weaning onto solids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.248.12 (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Zwieback
The Zwieback page is not much more than a stub and it's 50% trivia. It already has a section here, let's just merge it back. Nick (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Not even sure if there's anything to really merge. I might just redirect it. Will take a look now. Equazcion  ( talk ) 04:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I started merging but I'm not so sure anymore. More input would be good. Equazcion  ( talk ) 04:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rusk


text:
Talk:Sarcade

VfD
On May 7, this article was nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found at Votes for deletion/Sarcade. The result was keep. — Xezbeth 14:51, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sarcade


text: User talk:195.137.96.115

title: User talk:195.137.96.115


text: Category:Chinese Basketball Association former teams


text:
Wahiawa Botanical Garden

The Wahiawa Botanical Garden, 27 acre is a botanical garden on a high plateau in central Oahu, Hawaii, United States, located between the Wai'anae and Ko'olau mountain ranges. It is one of the Honolulu Botanical Gardens, and home to a collection of tropical flora requiring a relatively cool environment, with emphasis on native Hawaiian plants. It is nicknamed the "tropical jewel" of the Botanical Gardens. The Garden's site began in the 1920s, when the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association leased land from the State of Hawaii for experimental tree planting. Most of the Garden's large trees date from that era. The property was transferred to Honolulu in 1950, and opened as a botanical garden in 1957. It is open seven days a week, from 9am to 4 pm.

Plant collections
The Garden's collections include: Blue Ginger (Dichorisandra thyrsiflora), Jade Vine (Strongylodon macrobotrys)), Hāpuu ii (Cibotium chamissoi), Koa (Acacia koa), Blue Jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia), Nageia nagi, Angiopteris evecta, Shaving Brush Tree (Pseudobombax ellipticum), Autograph Tree (Clusia rosea), Nutmeg (Myristica fragrans), Allspice (Pimenta dioica), Travellers' Palm (Ravenala madagascariensis), Chrysophyllum oliviforme, Common Screwpine (Pandanus utilis), Parkia javanica, Guanacaste (Enterolobium cyclocarpum), Candle Tree (Parmentiera cereifera), Elephant Apple (Dillenia indica), Moreton Bay Fig (Ficus macrophylla), Queensland Kauri (Agathis robusta), Brownea macrophylla, Chicle (Manilkara zapota), Camphor Tree (Cinnamomum camphora), Mexican Cedar (Cedrela odorata), Bamboo (Bambusa vulgaris), Rainbow Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus deglupta), Ochrosia elliptica, Iei.e. (Freycinetia arborea), and Māmaki (Pipturus albidus).

title: Wahiawa Botanical Garden


text:
Catholic Church in China

The Catholic Church (, after the Chinese term for the Christian God) first appeared in China upon the arrival of John of Montecorvino in China proper during the Yuan dynasty; he was the first Catholic missionary in the country, and would become the first bishop of Khanbaliq (1271–1368).

After the 1949 takeover by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Catholic and Protestant missionaries were expelled from the country. In 1957, the communist government established the Catholic Patriotic Association in Beijing, which rejects the authority of the Holy See and appoints its own preferential bishops. Since September 2018, however, an agreement was reached, giving the Pope the power to veto any bishop which the Chinese government recommends. However, the Church has claimed this agreement was breached in November 2022 and July 2023 when two bishops were installed without prior approval or consultation by the Vatican.

Chinese terms
Terms used to refer to God in Chinese differ even among Christians.

Arriving in China during the Tang dynasty, the earliest Christian missionaries from the Church of the East referred to their religion as Jǐngjiào (景教, literally, "bright teaching"). Originally, some Catholic missionaries and scholars advanced the use of Shàngdì (上帝, literally, "The Emperor from Above"), as being more native to the Chinese language. Other Catholic missionaries coined the neologism Tiānzhǔ (天主, literally, "Lord of Heaven") which became the dominant usage. Within the Catholic Church, the term '' (公教, literally "universal teaching") is not uncommon, this being also the original meaning of the word "catholic". When Protestants arrived in China in the 19th century, they favored Shangdi over Tianzhu. Many Protestants use Shén (神), which generically means "god" or "spirit" (although Catholic priests are called shénfù (神父, literally "spiritual father") or Yēhéhuá (耶和華, a transliteration of Jehovah). Meanwhile, the Mandarin Chinese translation of "Christ", used by all Christians, is Jīdū (基督).

Catholics and Protestants
The modern Chinese language generally divides Christians into two groups: adherents of Catholicism, Tiānzhǔjiào (天主教), and adherents of Protestantism, Jīdūjiào (基督教) or Jīdū Xīnjiào (基督新教—"New Religion"). Chinese speakers see Catholicism and Protestantism as distinct religions. Thus, in Western languages, the term "Christianity" can subsume both Catholics and Protestants (i.e., Christians as opposed to, for example, Hindus or Jews). In Chinese, however, there is not a commonly used term that can subsume the two (but today in Chinese Catholic literature, the term "Jīdū zōngjiào" (基督宗教) is used to signify all Christian sects, as the term in Chinese means "religion of Christ"). Eastern Orthodoxy is called Dōngzhèngjiào (東正教), which is simply a literal translation of "Eastern Orthodox Religion" into Chinese.

Tang dynasty (618–690, 705–907)
The Catholic Church first entered China during the cosmopolitan Tang dynasty era, although it had few native Chinese followers until the 16th century in the Ming dynasty.

Yuan dynasty (1271–1368)
A series of reports about the Far East reached the Catholic West in the mid thirteenth century.

 * The Nestorian Christian and Turkic Chinese monk Rabban Bar Sauma ( c. 1220–1294) travelled from China to Europe to meet Pope Nicholas IV.
 * The long-present Church of the East had been the most geographically dispersed Christian church, but was by then in decline, and it may have suffered competition from the new Catholic missions and Islam: "controversies with the emissaries of .... Rome, and the progress of Mohammedanism, sapped the foundations of their ancient churches." The Catholics and Orthodox considered Nestorianism as heretical, though the so-called Nestorians mainly did not hold the particular beliefs attributed to Nestorius that had been anathematized. The expulsion of Christians by the Ming Dynasty seems to have ended the Church of the East in China.
 * Also in the thirteenth century, Armenian King Hethum I, Giovanni da Pian del Carpine, and William Rubruck visited Mongolia.
 * In 1245, Pope Innocent IV sent a series of four missions to the Mongols. The first was led by the Dominican André de Longjumeau. Three other missions were sent between March and April 1245, led respectively by the Dominican Ascelin of Cremone (accompanied by Simon de Saint-Quentin, the Franciscan Lawrence of Portugal, and another Franciscan, John of Plano Carpini.
 * Towards the end of the century Hayton of Corycus wrote about China and the Mongols.
 * At the turn of the century, the Italian book The Travels of Marco Polo stated being circulated in manuscript.

Missionary priests of the Latin Catholic Church in Europe are recorded to have entered China in the late 13th century, with the earliest being Franciscans. The Italian Franciscan priest John of Montecorvino arrived in the new capital Khanbaliq (modern-day Beijing) in 1294. In 1299 he built a church and in 1305 a second opposite the imperial palace. Having made a study of the local language, he began to translate the New Testament and the Psalms. Estimates of converts range from 6,000 to 30,000 by the year 1300.

In 1307 Pope Clement V sent seven Franciscan bishops to consecrate John of Montecorvino as Archbishop of Peking. The three who survived the journey did so in 1308 and succeeded each other as bishops at Zaiton, where John had established. In 1312 three more Franciscan bishops arrived from Rome to aid John until his death in 1328. He converted Armenians in China and Alans in Beijing to Catholicism. Armenians in Quanzhou were also Franciscan Catholics. The Franciscan Odoric of Pordenone visited China during this era. Katarina Vilioni's Catholic tombstone was found in Yangzhou.

The mission had some success during the rule of the Mongol-led Yuan dynasty, but various factors led to an ultimate shrinking of the mission. Six centuries later, however, John of Montecorvino's attempt at the translation of the Bible became the inspiration for another Franciscan, the Blessed Gabriele Allegra, to go to China and in 1968 complete the first translation of the Catholic Bible into the Chinese language, after a 40-year personal effort.

In 1338, representatives of the Great Khan (Toghon Temür) arrived in Europe inviting the Pope to send priests for the local Christians. Friar John of Marignolli and between fifty to one hundred fellow Franciscans were dispatched, arriving in Khanbaliq (Beijing) in 1342. This mission stayed with government encouragment until the Mongols were overthrown in around 1368 and the antagonistic Ming dynasty was installed. The last reported Franciscan being stoned by Buddhist monks in 1400.

Ming dynasty (1368–1644)
During the Catholic Reformation's explosion of missionary efforts around the world, particularly in Asia, Jesuit and other Catholic missionaries attempted to enter China. They had mixed success at first, but eventually came to have a strong impact, particularly in inter-cultural scientific and artistic exchanges among the upper classes of China and the imperial court.

The permanent mission was established in 1601 by the efforts of the Jesuit Matteo Ricci. His whole approach was quite subtle, interesting the Wanli Emperor and the Ming Chinese authorities in aspects of western technology and learning as a point of opening. He also made attempts to reconcile Christianity with the Classic Confucian texts, though he was hostile, along with the other members of the Society of Jesus, to Taoism and Buddhism.

Ricci died in 1610 but the Jesuit mission went on to become an important part of the Imperial civil service right into the 18th century. In 1644 a German Jesuit, Adam Schall von Bell, was appointed Director of the Board of Astronomy by the new Qing dynasty. Jesuits were also given posts as mechanics, musicians, painters, instrument makers, and in other areas that required technical expertise. Likewise, the development of Catholic Christianity in China originated an interesting process of cultural and artistic hybridization during early globalization and up to the present. An example of this is the Christian works of art made in the cloisonné technique.

Qing dynasty (1644–1911)
In the Qing dynasty, the Jesuits' pragmatic accommodation with Confucianism was later to lead to conflict with the Dominican friars, who came to Beijing from the Philippines in the middle of the century. Dominican leader Domingo Fernández Navarrete in responding to the question "Was Confucius saved?" said that since Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Seneca, and others were all damned "how much the more Confucius, who was not worthy to kiss their feet"? In responding, António de Gouveia, a Portuguese Jesuit, said that Confucius was certainly saved, "which is more than can be said for King Philip IV of Spain."

While up to this point there had been debate among Western clergy as to whether to ordain Chinese men as priests, the debate was settled in 1654 when Luo Wenzao (also known as Gregory Lopez) was ordained a priest for the Dominican Order.

Due to the Chinese rites controversy, the Kangxi Emperor banned Christianity in China after 1715, saying "Westerners are trivial; how could they understand Chinese great philosophy? in addition, no Westerners know the Chinese classics. Their discussions (of Chinese philosophy) are ridiculous. In my view, the missionaries' talk is the same as those heretic Buddhist monks, Taoists, and other superstitions. The (knowledge of) Westerners is no more than this (the missionaries' talk). We could simply forbid them from spreading their religion in China, for the sake of avoiding troubles." ("只說得西洋人等小人，如何言得中國人之大理？況西洋人等，無一人通漢書者，說言議論，令人可笑者多. 今見來臣告示，竟與和尚道士異端小教相同. 彼此亂言者，莫過如此. 以後不必西洋人在中國行教，禁止可也，免得多事. ")

Under the "fundamental laws" of China, one section is titled "Wizards, Witches, and all Superstitions, prohibited." The Jiaqing Emperor in 1814 added a sixth clause in this section with reference to Christianity. It was modified in 1821 and printed in 1826 by the Daoguang Emperor. It sentenced Europeans to death for spreading Catholic Christianity among Han Chinese and Manchus (Manchurian people, originally from North China). Christians who would not repent their conversion were sent to Muslim cities in Xinjiang, to be given as slaves to Muslim leaders and Baigs. Manchu Christians would also be removed from their Banner registers after being given as slaves to the Baigs.

"The clause stated: "People of the Western Ocean, (Europeans or Portuguese,) should they propagate in the country the religion of heaven's Lord, (in Chinese: 天主教， the Chinese name of the Catholic Church) or clandestinely print books, or collect congregations to be preached to, and thereby deceive many people, or should any Tartars or Chinese, in their turn, propagate the doctrines and clandestinely give names, (as in baptism,) inflaming and misleading many, if proved by authentic testimony, the head or leader shall be sentenced to immediate death by strangulations: he who propagates the religion, inflaming and deceiving the people, if the number be not large, and no names be given, shall be sentenced to strangulation after a period of imprisonment. Those who are merely hearers or followers of the doctrine, if they will not repent and recant, shall be transported to the Mohammedan cities (in Turkistan) and given to be slaves to the Baigs and other powerful Mohammedans who are able to coerce them. (...) All civil and military officers who may fail to detect Europeans clandestinely residing in the country within their jurisdiction, and propagating their religion, thereby deceiving the multitude, shall be delivered over to the Supreme Board and be subjected to a court of inquiry.""

Some hoped that the Chinese government would discriminate between Protestantism and Catholicism, since the law was directed at Catholicism, but after Protestant missionaries in 1835–6 gave Christian books to Chinese, the Daoguang Emperor demanded to know who were the "traitorous natives in Canton who had supplied them with books." The foreign missionaries were strangled or expelled by the Chinese. During the Boxer Rebellion (1899–1901), Catholic missionaries and their families were murdered by Boxer rebels.

The Qing dynasty imperial government permitted French Catholic Christian missionaries to enter and proselytize in Tibetan lands, which weakened the control of the Tibetan Buddhist Lamas, who refused to give allegiance to the Chinese. The Tibetan Lamas were alarmed and jealous of Catholic missionaries converting natives to Catholicism. During the 1905 Tibetan Rebellion the Tibetan Buddhist Gelug Yellow Hat sect led a Tibetan revolt. The Lamas massacred Christian missionaries and native converts to Christianity and besieged Bat'ang, burning down the mission chapel and killing two foreign missionaries, Père Mussot and Père Soulié. The Chinese Amban's Yamen was surrounded and Chinese General Wu Yi-chung was shot dead in the Yamen by Lama forces. The Chinese Amban Feng and Commandant in Chief Li Chia-jui managed to escape by scattering rupees behind them, which the Tibetans proceeded to pick up. The Ambans reached Commandant Lo's place, but the 100 Tibetan troops serving under the Amban, armed with modern weaponry, mutinied when news of the revolt reached them. The Tibetan Lamas and their Tibetan followers besieged the Chinese Commandant Lo's palace along with local Christian converts. In the palace they killed all Christian converts, both Chinese and Tibetan.

Republic of China

After the Rites controversy of the late 17th century and early 18th century ended in the expulsion of missionaries from most of China, access to the people of China was difficult for the Catholic Church. The controversy revolved around the reluctance of the Church to recognize local Confucian customs of honouring deceased family members. To the Chinese, this was an ancient ritual; to the Vatican it was a religious exercise which conflicted with Catholic dogma.

In the 19th century, the French government had taken control of Catholics in China, and the Catholic Church almost exclusively appointed French priests as the ordinaries of China. The French also effectively blocked efforts of Pope Leo XII to establish direct relations with the government. After the Revolution of 1911, which led to the founding of the Republic of China, reform-minded priests such as Vincent Lebbe and prominent Catholic laymen such as Ma Xiangbo and Ying Lianzhi protested to Pope Benedict XV that the French who made up 70% of clergy and controlled the Chinese Church were chauvinist and disdainful of China. Chinese priests were discriminated against and many left the clergy, as Ma Xiangbo himself had done. Benedict directed the establishment of the Catholic University of Peking, which opened in 1925.

Within months of his election, Pope Pius XII issued a further change in policies. On 8 December 1939, the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith issued—at the request of Pope Pius—a new instruction, by which Chinese customs were no longer considered superstitious, but instead an honourable way of esteeming one's relatives and therefore permitted by the Catholic Church. The government of the Republic of China established diplomatic relations with the Vatican in 1943. As the Church began to flourish, Pope Pius established a local ecclesiastical hierarchy and elevated the Archbishop of Peking, Thomas Tien Ken-sin, SVD, to the Sacred College of Cardinals. After World War II, about four million Chinese were members of the Catholic Church. This was less than one percent of the population but numbers increased dramatically. In 1949, there existed:
 * 20 archdioceses
 * 85 dioceses
 * 39 apostolic prefectures
 * 3,080 missionaries
 * 2,557 Chinese priests.

People's Republic of China
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) began targeting Christian missionaries and monasteries during the Chinese Civil War. Even as Protestants began fleeing the country, the Catholic Church ordered over 3,000 of its missionaries in China to remain even as the CCP won the war. After the proclamation of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949 by the CCP, the Catholic Church was initially allowed to operate independently but faced growing legal obstruction and scrutiny. All foreign missionaries were required to register with the government, and Chinese authorities interrogated Catholics and investigated hospitals and schools. It also forced many churches to close by issuing prohibitively high taxes. The Chinese government began mass arrests of foreign missionaries after intervening in the Korean War, but Catholics were ordered by the apostolic nuncio Antonio Riberi to remain and resist. Riberi and Bishop Tarcisio Martina were themselves arrested and expelled for false allegations that they were involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Mao Zedong. Mao also ordered the arrest and execution of all members of the Legion of Mary, which he believed was a paramilitary unit.

In 1950, the Holy See stated that participation in certain CCP-related organizations would result in excommunication from the Church. In response, initiatives including Fr. Wang Liangzuo's "Guangyuan Declaration of Catholic Self-Reformation" gained support from Chinese Catholics. In turn, apostolic nuncio Antonio Riberi circulated a letter denouncing such proposed reforms, and in March 1951 Fr. Li Weiguang and a group of 783 priests, nuns, and lay Catholics signed a declaration opposing what they viewed as Vatican interference and Western imperialism.

China broke off diplomatic relations with the Holy See in 1951, deporting Riberi to British Hong Kong. The CCP framed these actions in terms of Chinese Catholics reclaiming their church in the context of broader opposition to Western imperialism.

By the summer of 1953 the Catholic Church had been completely suppressed.

Since then Catholicism, like all religions, was permitted to operate only under the supervision of the State Administration for Religious Affairs. All legal worship was to be conducted through state-approved churches belonging to the Catholic Patriotic Association (CPA), which did not accept the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. In addition to overseeing the practice of the Catholic faith, the CPA espoused politically oriented objectives as well. Liu Bainian, chairman of the CPA and the Bishops Conference of the Catholic Church in China (BCCCC), stated in a 2011 interview that the church needed individuals who "love the country and love religion: politically, they should respect the Constitution, respect the law, and fervently love the socialist motherland."

Clergy who resisted this development were subject to oppression, including long imprisonments as in the case of Cardinal Kung, and torture and martyrdom as in the case of Fr. Beda Chang, S.J. Catholic clergy experienced increased supervision. Bishops and priests were forced to engage in degrading menial jobs to earn their living. Foreign missionaries were accused of being foreign agents, ready to turn the country over to imperialist forces. The Holy See reacted with several encyclicals and apostolic letters, including Cupimus Imprimis, Ad Apostolorum principis, and Ad Sinarum gentem.

Some Catholics who recognized the authority of the Holy See chose to worship clandestinely due to the risk of harassment from authorities. Several underground Catholic bishops were reported as disappeared or imprisoned, and harassment of unregistered bishops and priests was common. There were reports of Catholic bishops and priests being forced by authorities to attend the ordination ceremonies for bishops who had not gained Vatican approval. Chinese authorities also had reportedly pressured Catholics to break communion with the Vatican by requiring them to renounce an essential belief in Catholicism, the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. In the past, however, authorities have permitted some Vatican-loyal churches to carry out operations.

While Article 36 of China's Constitution provides for "freedom of religious belief" and non-discrimination on religious bases, it also states that "[n]o one shall use religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the state's education system" and "[r]eligious groups and religious affairs shall not be subject to control by foreign forces."

A major impediment to the re-establishment of relations between the Vatican and Beijing was the issue of who appoints the bishops. As a matter of maintaining autonomy and rejecting foreign intervention, the official church had no official contact with the Vatican and did not recognize its authority. In later years, however, the CPA allowed for unofficial Vatican approval of ordinations. Although the CPA continued to carry out some ordinations opposed by the Holy See, the majority of CPA bishops became recognized by both authorities.

In a further sign of rapprochement between the Vatican and Beijing, Pope Benedict XVI invited four Chinese bishops, including two government recognized bishops, one underground bishop, and one underground bishop recently emerged into the registered church, to the October 2005 Synod on the Eucharist.

On 27 May 2007, Pope Benedict XVI wrote a letter to Chinese Catholics "to offer some guidelines concerning the life of the Church and the task of evangelization in China". In this letter (section 9), Pope Benedict acknowledges tensions: "As all of you know, one of the most delicate problems in relations between the Holy See and the authorities of your country is the question of episcopal appointments. On the one hand, it is understandable that governmental authorities are attentive to the choice of those who will carry out the important role of leading and shepherding the local Catholic communities, given the social implications that – in China as in the rest of the world – this function has in the civil sphere as well as the spiritual. On the other hand, the Holy See follows the appointment of Bishops with special care since this touches the very heart of the life of the Church, inasmuch as the appointment of Bishops by the Pope is the guarantee of the unity of the Church and of hierarchical communion."

Underground bishop Joseph Wei Jingyi of Qiqihar released a two-page pastoral letter in July 2007, asking his congregation to study and act on the letter of Pope Benedict XVI and naming the letter a "new milestone in the development of the Chinese Church." In September 2007, a coadjutor bishop for the Guiyang Diocese was jointly appointed by the Vatican and the Chinese official Catholic church.

Demographics
The number of Catholics is hard to estimate because of the large number of Christians who do not affiliate with either of the two state-approved denominations.

Estimates in 2020 suggested that Catholics make up 0.69% of the population.

The 2010 Blue Book of Religions, produced by the Institute of World Religions at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a research institution directly under the State Council, estimated Catholics in China to number about 5.7 million. This Chinese government estimate only included members of the Catholic Patriotic Association (CPA). It did not include un-baptized persons attending Christian groups, non-adult children of Christian believers or other persons under age 18, and unregistered Christian groups.

The Holy Spirit Study Centre in Hong Kong, which monitors the number of Chinese Catholic members, estimated in 2012 that there were 12 million Catholics in both branches of the Catholic Church.

In 2017 Hebei Province had the largest Catholic Christian population in China, with 1 million Church members according to the local government. Generally, Catholic institutions were dominant in North and Central regions of China.

Hong Kong and Macau
The Catholic Church is allowed to operate freely in Macau and Hong Kong. In fact, Donald Tsang, the former Chief Executive of Hong Kong, is Catholic. However, Pope John Paul II was denied a visit (which was deemed "inappropriate") to Hong Kong in 1999, by then Chief Executive, Tung Chee Hwa, who was in office from 1997 to 2005, a decision many believe was made under pressure from the central PRC government. The two territories are organized into the Diocese of Hong Kong and the Diocese of Macau.

Diplomatic relations with the Vatican
The issue of Sino-Vatican relations has been a highly contentious one and often difficult for both sides (see below). The Catholic Patriotic Association (CPA) is a division of China's Religious Affairs Bureau, and has oversight over China's Catholics. According to at least one source, however, China's Catholics, including its clergy and religious sisters, are no longer required to be members of the CPA.

By 2007, the Vatican had indicated on multiple occasions that it desired to establish full diplomatic relations with China, and would be willing to move its embassy from Taiwan to mainland China if necessary. A major obstacle between the two sides remained the Catholic doctrine that only the pope can appoint bishops of the Church. Bishops in the CPA were government-appointed, a frequent aggravating factor in Sino-Vatican relations.

Some, including Hong Kong Cardinal Joseph Zen, saw the progress between Vietnam and Vatican officials towards re-establishing full diplomacy as a model for Sino-Vatican normalization of relations. By late 2004, prior to the death of Pope John Paul II, Vatican and Chinese government representatives were in contact with the apparent goal of moving closer to the normalization of relations. In late 2004, John Paul II received a "quasi-official" Chinese delegation in the Vatican. These overtures continued after the installation of Benedict XVI as Pope.

The Holy See and the Chinese government have long attempted to reach an agreement or workable compromise to maintain their influence over bishop appointments in China. In Pope Benedict XVI's 27 May 2007 letter to the bishops, priests, consecrated persons, and lay faithful of the Catholic Church in the People's Republic of China, he expressed that bishop appointments are "one of the most delicate problems in relations between the Holy See and the [Chinese] authorities." The Holy See understood that state authorities were attentive to bishop appointments because of the social impact church leadership has on the activities of the local Catholic communities. Pope Benedict XVI affirmed that the apostolic mandate on bishop appointments is strictly religious in nature; it is not meant to challenge the political authority of the government by addressing the state's internal affairs.

Despite the Vatican's continuous appeals for China to grant total freedom to the Holy See when exercising its spiritual authority on appointing bishops, China maintained its tight control on leading and monitoring the Catholic Church in China because it believes that "religion is closely linked with the comity between different ethnic groups, social stability, national security and reunification, as well as China's relations with foreign countries." For the Chinese government, internal religious affairs are matters of sovereignty. In a public address on 13 December 2001, CCP general secretary Jiang Zemin stressed the importance of regulating religion because of the influence it has on the political and social landscapes of a society. He stated that religion is a basic right that is to be enjoyed by all citizens, but activities should be within the scope of the Constitution and laws.

Provisional Agreement between the Holy See and the People's Republic of China
On 22 September 2018, the Holy See and the People's Republic of China signed a two-year "Provisional Agreement between the Holy See and the People's Republic of China on the appointment of Bishops", set to expire on 22 October 2020. According to the communiqué released by the Holy See Press Office, the Provisional Agreement aimed to create "conditions for great collaboration at the bilateral level." This was the first time that an agreement of cooperation has been jointly signed by the Holy See and China. The exact terms of the Provisional Agreement have not been publicly released but people who are familiar with the agreement stated that it allowed for the Holy See to review bishop candidates recommended by the government-sanctioned Catholic Patriotic Association (CPA) prior to appointment and consecration. The Provisional Agreement granted veto power to the Holy See when reviewing the bishop nominees that the CPA has put forward. Anthony Yao Shun, bishop of Jining, was the first bishop appointed under the framework of the Provisional Agreement. Pope Francis readmitted seven bishops appointed by the government without Pontifical mandate to full ecclesial communion in addition to the new appointments. In a communiqué released by the Holy See on 22 October 2020, the Holy See and China entered into a note verbale agreement to extend the Provisional Agreement for an additional two years, remaining in effect until 22 October 2022.

While the agreement is viewed by the Holy See as an opportunity to increase their presence in China, many thought that it diminished the Holy See's authority over the local church because it shared decision making powers with an authoritarian government. Cardinal Joseph Zen, former archbishop of Hong Kong, strongly opposed the deal, stating that the agreement is an incredible betrayal of the Catholics in China. As a response to the criticism, Pope Francis wrote a message to the Catholics of China and to the Universal Church on 26 September 2018 to provide context on how to view the Provisional Agreement. Pope Francis recognized that the Provisional Agreement is experimental in nature and will not resolve other conflicts between the Holy See and China, but it will allow for both parties to "act more positively for the orderly and harmonious growth of the Catholic community in China." China, on its part, also positively views the agreement, stating that it is willing to "further enhance understanding with the Vatican side and accumulate mutual trust, so that the momentum of active interaction between the two sides will continue to move forward." Despite strong opposition from the White House and conservative Catholics, the Holy See and China extended the Provisional Agreement.

In November 2020, a month after the Provisional Agreement was extended, China released the revised "Administrative Measures for Religious Clergy." The enforcement of the new rules took effect on 1 May 2021. The Administrative Measures prioritize the Sinicization of all religion. Religious professionals are obligated to carry out their duties within the scope provided by the laws, regulations and rules of the government. The new rules do not consider the collaborative process set in place by the Provisional Agreement between the Holy See and China when appointing bishops. In Article XVI of the Administrative Measures, Catholic bishops are to be approved and consecrated by the government-sanctioned Chinese Catholic Bishops Conference. The document does not state that collaboration and approval from the Holy See to appoint bishops is required, going against the terms of the Provisional Agreement. Just a month before the release of the new rules, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian had stated that China is willing to work together with the Vatican "to maintain close communication and consultation and advance the improvement of bilateral ties" through the Provisional Agreement. Appointment of bishops without the consent of the Holy See violates the Catholic Church Canon Law 377.5, which states that "no rights and privileges of election, nomination, presentation, or designation of bishops are granted to civil authorities."

In July 2022, Pope Francis stated that he hoped the Provisional Agreement would be renewed, describing the agreement as "moving well." As of July 2022, six new bishops had been appointed under the agreement.

According to Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need, at least 20 priests were under arrest at some point in 2023, some of whom had been missing for several years.

title: Catholic Church in China