Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church/Archive 14

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Dealing with naming conflicts

The guideline on naming conflicts sets the following standards for making a choice among controversial names:

If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and one or more English-language equivalents exists, use the most common English-language name.

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage:

Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources)
Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term).

Now, it seems to me that we have followed this set of policies and guidelines to arrive at some conclusions. We have used objective criteria to determine common or self-identifying usage. These criteria included use of google to determine that "Catholic Church" was the most common name and that "Roman Catholic Church" is also frequently used. Searches of the Vatican site determined that the Church uses "Catholic Church" in its constitution and legal documents. We also determined that "Roman Catholic Church" is used in encyclicals (particularly for ecumenical purposes) and that "Roman Catholic Church" is the legal name of many individual churches. Any note would have to include these facts, IMO.

I dispute that "Roman Catholic Church" is the legal name of "many individual churches" we would need a reference for that. I can't find one and the Annuario Pontificio, which lists all the individual dioceses does not have a single one that is called "Roman Catholic". Also, the term "Roman Catholic" is not used by the Church in encyclicals. The term is used by separate organizations like ARCIC that are created by joint agreement between Catholic and other religious organizations. However, I am very happy you have nailed down the points above in what policy to follow. Our discussion has been difficult because some think that fringe sources constitute WP:RS when they do not meet WP:V. NancyHeise ^talk 09:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

For the use of "Roman Catholic Church" as the legal name of individual churches, please look at the sources provided by Secisek here. Click on the links that say "Scroll to the legal copyright at the bottom." For the use of "Roman Catholic Church" in encyclicals and speeches by Popes, Defteri provided the following research:

Using "Search" on www.vatican.va produced the following cases of "Roman Catholic Church" (in English) used by Popes with regard to the whole Church, not just to the diocese of Rome or the Latin Church: Pius XI ref), Pius XII (ref), Paul VI (ref ref), John Paul II ref ref ref, Benedict XVI (ref ref).

Note that the ones by Pius XI and Pius XII are encyclicals. Sunray (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

We've already been through the above. Most are joint declarations with Anglicans and others. One of the encyclicals is a use of RC in a QUOTATION (ie not a use by a Pope), that leaves one rogue use in one old encyclical. As far as a few individual US churches websites, that really doesn't signify. It's what the World Church does that counts. As I said earlier, most of these are historic local usages. I find it strange that one use at the bottom of a website seems to make Roman Catholic that church's "legal name", but x,000 uses of Catholic Church by the worldwide Church in far more important documents doesn't apparently make that the Church's legal name....

These things can be mentioned in the note, but they are marginal uses, and must not be given the undue weight some want to give to this OR. Once again, the fact that the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is far more widely known as the Mormon Church, and itself often uses the name Mormon,(far more often than the CC ever uses RCC), does not detract from the fact that Mormon is not its official, proper or legal name. And this is reflected in Wikipedia.

It should be possible to get an agreed note, but only if people do not try to overstate and draw false conclusions from what sources say. It is also perhaps not wise to try to write a note without an agreed article text. Xandar 22:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You stress the importance of not overstating or drawing false conclusions. That seems important to me. The note will need to be crystal clear on usage. Sunray (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, I really appreciate your help so very much. I also appreciate Secisek's efforts in finding all the uses of Roman Catholic online by various individual Church's websites. However I have to point out that the structure of the Catholic Church is that all individual Churches are like subsidiaries of a corporation, the corporation in the Catholic Church is the individual Dioceses. Each Church is not a separate entity, for either legal or accounting purposes, that is why when the Church is sued, they sue the diocese and the bishop, not the individual parish. A website's copyright is not the legal name of the actual Church corporation as identified by the Church itself but in some English speaking States and countries such as England, the Church is required - by State Law- to use the name "Roman Catholic" in legal documents, even though this is not the official name of the Church - this is what our sources also tell us namely Catholic Encyclopedia and John McClintock. The Annuario Pontificio contains the actual official names of each diocese around the world. None of them have "Roman Catholic" in their official names and I can reference this to Annuario. Also, all of the Church's self defining documents, those officially agreed to by the highest authority of the Church, the Vatican Councils, are signed by the various pope's using the formula "I (pope) Bishop of the Catholic Church". The term Roman is allowed as a descriptive name, hence its use in ecumenical dealings with Anglican Church but the difference between a descriptive name (ie. Holy, Apostolic, Roman, etc) and THE official name "Catholic Church" is described in several of our sources. NancyHeise ^talk 01:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, none of the names of the dioceses in the Annuario Pontificio, what you call "the actual official names", has the word "Catholic" (in any language). Take your own, for example: the Annuario just gives "Birmingham U.S.A.", followed by its "Curial" name in Latin, Birminghamien(sis) in Alabama. Neither form has either "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" or "Catholic Apostolic" or, as Greek Orthodox dioceses would have, "Sacred". Soidi (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

New direction

What we have not yet done is apply WP:VER to the various sources mentioned to determine their reliability. I note that the section on reliable sources gives precedence to peer reviewed publications: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources." I think we should review the sources with these criteria in mind. Obviously, any source we use would have to support legal and constitutional documents of the Church.

Would participants be able to agree on a course of action to determine the construction of a mutually agreeable note? If we can work collaboratively on that, great. If participants cannot work collaboratively on that right now, I am going to request that they stop further work on that until the wording of the lead is finalized. My reasoning is that in order for this mediation to be successful, we need to find things that we can work on collaboratively. We need to start building on successes. I assure you, though, I have every reason to believe that we can produce a note that will be acceptable.

My final request is that all participants who have not yet responded to my three questions in the section headed Summary of discussion and next steps. I apologize for the length of this post. Thank you for your patience and cooperation. Sunray (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this new direction. All sources dealing with the Church name have been collected by Richard, Gimmetrow and myself and are listed here. All we need to do is apply the policies according to your plan. NancyHeise ^talk 09:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Richard (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, provided that participants respond to your Summary of discussion and next steps first. Majoreditor (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Test of consensus

This is my sense of the consensus:

While not all participants have spoken, those that have indicated a preference favor the following wording for the lead sentence:

The Catholic Church, also known as or the Roman Catholic Church¹ is the...

The option of renaming the page to "Catholic Church" is the preferred option. The note would clarify the usage.

Do all participants either support the above or agree to stand aside? If not, what are the outstanding concerns? Sunray (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Insofar as this removes the word "official" from the main text, it is an improvement, but the note also has serious issues and needs substantial modification. Since mediation is ongoing, should the article not have a topnote alerting readers to the dispute? Gimmetrow 01:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a template that can be placed on the article talk page. I'm just about to call it a night, but if someone would like to dig that out and put it up that would be great. Otherwise, I can do it tomorrow. Sunray (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Done Sunray (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I mean more than that. I mean a notice in the article. A {{disputed}} tag, or comparable, as a notice to readers. Gimmetrow 06:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you think it needs it, by all means, go ahead and add it. I am not a big fan of such tags - which imply to the reader that there is something wrong with the article. In this case, I'm not sure that is true. As to the dispute, I like to think that we are making considerable progress :-) Sunray (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As a response to replies below: although I personally would prefer the article be at CC, I don't think, practically speaking, that it's likely to happen. I think it would be a distraction to tie resolution of this mediation to moving the article. In my view, there are issues here related to WP policy that can and should be resolved on their own. Gimmetrow 02:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I would urge that we adopt either the sentence proposed above or "The Catholic Church or the Roman Catholic Church. Then I would suggest that we start a Proposed Move discussion to move the article to Catholic Church. Then, having started the discussion, we should return here to discuss the note. --Richard (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

~~I've made that modification to the wording.~~ What do others think of the approach Richard is suggesting? Sunray (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly feel that it is foolish to start at this point a Proposed Move discussion about the title of the article, when we are still far from agreeing on the alleged single official name of the Church. Would it not be better to concentrate our energy on the discussion on which we are already engaged, without adding to it a simultaneous discussion on another issue that will prove even more contentious? I hereby register my strong opposition to the proposal; but, if the rest of you are determined to go down this path, I cannot stand in your way. I reject all responsibility for the result. Richard speaks of "returning" here after "starting" the other discussion. Even that sounds like a proposal to suspend the discussion that we are supposed to be engaged in, even if only for enough time to "start" the other discussion. But is it perhaps possible that some want to start a different discussion just for the sake of putting the present one indefinitely in the freezer and perpetuating the "single official name" claim in the article? Past experience shows that the other discussion will not be easy. We should settle one difficult discussion before starting another no less difficult one. Defteri (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, I thought about that before making my proposal. I tried to figure out what order of steps would lead us to an amicable resolution of this dispute. There is the risk that the move to Catholic Church will become another tarpit. However, I cherish the glimmer of a hope that this dispute will become easier to resolve if we move the article to Catholic Church and change the title to something neutral like "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,...". If we could accomplish that, all that would remain would be the wording of the Note. Even that is not an easy task, I admit, but it is nonetheless an easier one than the one we have in front of us now. --Richard (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If I read him right, Defteri has said he would stand aside regarding the article title change. He is suggesting that we continue the discussion about the official name and how to refer to it. It may be possible to work on both tracks. We would have to be very well organized to do that. Sunray (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but please wait at least another 12 hours, so as to be sure that the others are really determined to get into another tarpit.

I think Xandar and Nancy have both indicated that they will still insist that the article must proclaim, at least in a note, that "Catholic Church" is the one and only official name of the Church. That is tarpit enough without pushing us into another as well. We would have hope of getting free of the present tar only if they would give some even slight indication of willingness to allow also an indication of the verifiable fact that the Church refers to itself in its official documents, not just in off-the-cuff remarks, by other names too. Am I wrong in thinking that they have both said that they won't, not even with a change in the title? Defteri (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Defteri, let's please not lock ourselves or others into non-negotiable positions. Let us find things we can agree on and then work on things that we don't agree on. The two things we seem to agree on are: this article should be at Catholic Church and the lead can omit mention of "official name" status for "Catholic Church" as long as it neither asserts nor denies that status. What the Note to say is still to be determined. We might wind up trying for an NPOV presentation of relevant sources, stating that some sources say it is the official name and other sources suggest otherwise. I don't know where we will wind up and trying to lock that down now impedes progress rather than furthers it. --Richard (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What we are here to discuss is precisely an NPOV presentation of relevant sources, stating that some sources say it (CC) is the official name and other sources suggest otherwise. I believe that Xandar and Nancy have indicated that they will accept no such solution even if the title is changed. If they were willing to accept a change under some condition, that would make the condition interesting. But, as things are, whether the other discussion brings about a change or, as in the past, results in no consensus to change, this discussion will not have been assisted in the slightest. So why add to our already existing troubles? I have already indicated that I will not stand in the way if the other editors involved here are bent on what to me seems folly. But am I really asking too much when I beg you to have twelve hours' patience? Defteri (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No hurry. Twelve, twenty-four hours, whatever. By all means, let's hear from the rest of the crew before proceeding. I am not bent on changing the title or the lead in a hurry. I just figured that achieving small, agreed-upon successes would help this process. Also, I am a bit concerned that we will assume that it is possible to change the article title and then find out that it is more difficult than we expected. Alternatively, we might be assuming it is impossible when it might in fact be feasible. I would like to know the answer rather than guess at what the truth is. If others disagree, I will not push the point. --Richard (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I would go along with Sunray's suggestion at the top of this section: "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church", combined with the title move to Catholic Church. This would enable the word "official" or "proper" to be removed from the main text, since the text would no longer imply the contrary. Such a move should not occasion such a tarpit as this, since the issues are simply those of WP naming policies. As far as the note goes, I am quite amenable for the sources to be set out for the readers examination. What I am against is an OR conclusion being drawn from the sources that the Church has two official names. If the note says that Roman Catholic and other names have been used by the Church, it needs to specify very clearly in what CONTEXT and FREQUENCY these other names have been so used. Xandar 23:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church is ok but Roman Catholic Church, also known as the Catholic Church isn't? What is the difference? In the spirt of moving forward, how is one fine and the other completely unacceptable? I would be fine with the first usage provided there was a perpetual agreement not to move the page as part of the compromise. I would also Strongly oppose any attempt to move the article from its present location which is exactly the other major reference dictionaries and ecyclopedias put it. -- Secisek (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Secisek; I STRONGLY disagree with moving the article from it's current position; further, I believe I may be the original author of the phrase "The Roman Catholic Church, also known as the Catholic Church". I stongly feel that that is the correct wording to remove any potential point of view or lack of clarity; explanatory information can be added, if individual editors wish, to argue that "Catholic Church" may be an official wording, but it is not the ONLY official wording. As I've stated in numerous places, my own church is unique in that it is both Roman Catholic and Anglican (Episocpal) and it's own name (The Church of the Holy Apostles Anglican-Roman Catholic) has been officially blessed by three of the last four popes (Only JP didn't personally bless the existence of the church, due to his short time in office). From that, alone, Roman Catholic has been at least unofficially blessed. Perhaps we should return to the current status quo, and simply contact the Vatican directly to find which name should be used, officially. Might take time, but at least there would be a difinitive answer. As a Catholic who strongly feels that the term is being grossly misused by some to push a POV that only one particular part of the Church uses that term, I would be willing to accept a definitive answer from there. Bill Ward (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

While remaining strongly of the same view as before, I now step aside and will not comment further on this question. I leave the decision to others, even if they do decide to start chasing after a new hare instead of concentrating on the subject of discussion. Defteri (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason why ordering is important is that one way round gives the false impression that RCC is the proper name of the Church and Catholic Church is the nickname. On the name move, what other dictionaries do is not material to Wikipedia policies. The prime considerations for naming are how the group self-identifies and English language usage. Xandar 22:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Secisek asks about the order of the two names: My take on this is that several participants have been attempting to reconcile the requirements of WP policy, which I would summarize as follows: Where there are two names, the official name or the one most commonly used should be the name of the article. Where there are two names commonly used, as in our case, the policies and guidelines suggest a process, which I've outlined in the section on "Dealing with naming conflicts," above. I think we have followed that. I appreciate your agreement to go along with the first wording. I'm not clear on what you mean when you say that you would oppose any attempt to move the article from its present location. Do you mean you do not favor re-naming the article? If so, how could we deal with the policies on article names? Sunray (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I have been away for a few days. I am very happy to see this progressing intelligently with Sunray's help. I support Sunray's suggestion at the top of this section to reword the lead sentence first and then rename the article to Catholic Church. NancyHeise ^talk 01:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gimmetrow's remark above, "I think it would be a distraction to tie resolution of this mediation to moving the article." Changing the title of the article is clearly what

Secisek too meant, when he said he would oppose any attempt to move the article from its present location. Xandar rightly understood him in that way, saying that the title does not have to be what Secisek wants it to be, namely the same as the articles that other encyclopedias have about this Church. Soidi (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the "CC, also known as RCC" wording as well. I also think renaming the article is logical since the lead would start with CC. Will there be any issue moving the talk archives along with the rest of the article? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the archives automatically move with the talk page. Sunray (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Beginning on the note

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

The note currently in the text says that "...in common usage it refers to the body also known as Roman Catholic Church and its members" and cites Walsh [1] for that. I can't find anything directly on point in Walsh, except where Walsh refers to "the Christians commonly known as Catholics". Although Walsh notes that many "object to the epithet 'Roman'", the full quote is "the Christians commonly known as Catholics should more properly be known as Roman Catholics". Since the source is cited it is presumably considered reliable, but the source expresses some form of alternative view which is suppressed here.

The end of the note says: "Within the Church, the term refers" - what "term" is that? It comes after a quote from the CE about the designation "Roman Catholic", so a reader sees: "Neither do the Catholics always seem to have objected to the appellation [Roman Catholic], but sometimes used it themselves. Within the Church, the term [Roman Catholic] refers to the Diocese of Rome..." This is misleading, as it says that Catholics only use the term "Roman Catholic" to refer to the diocese of Rome. There is no suggestion of any alternative view. Gimmetrow 19:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, at a minimum, the sentence should be expanded to include usage of "Roman Catholic" to refer to Latin-rite churches. And, though some have disputed this, we also have numerous instances where "Roman Catholic" has been used within the church to refer to the whole Church. --Richard (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The note says "refers to the Diocese of Rome or to the Roman Rite..." The "Roman Rite" part was omitted for brevity since that wasn't my focus, but rather the omission that "RC" is sometimes used to refer to the entire Church. Gimmetrow 04:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Although an instance in less precise nineteenth-century usage exists, there is absolutely no twentieth- or twenty-first-century case of official usage of "Roman Catholic" to refer to the (singular) Latin Rite Church, still less to Latin rites. Use of "Roman Catholic Church" to mean the local Church in Rome is extremely rare: much more common are consecrated phrases like "sanctae romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalis" (without "Catholic") meaning "Cardinal of the holy Roman Church", which in English would most often be translated as "Cardinal of the holy Church of Rome". But "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to the Church as a whole is, of course, quite common, and is found even in highly official texts. Soidi (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910, makes use of this usage here. "As part of the Latin Church England must submit to Latin canon law and the Roman Rite just as much as France or Germany. The comparison with Eastern Rite Catholics rests on a misconception of the whole situation. It follows also that the expression Latin (or even Roman) Catholic is quite justifiable, inasmuch as we express by it that we are not only Catholics but also members of the Latin or Roman patriarchate. A Eastern Rite Catholic on the other hand is a Byzantine, or Armenian, or Maronite Catholic." Xandar 22:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There are no sources to support Soidi's assertion above. Regarding Gimmetrow's comments, we eliminated Walsh's obvious statements of opinion which use word like "should" and included his statements of fact which use words like "are". There was previous discussion on the talk page regarding being careful to eliminate scholars statements of opinion and include only statements of fact. This was done to make sure the page adhered to NPOV.NancyHeise ^talk 01:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV does not exclude significant views. The current note excludes signifcant views. You draw the conclusion. Gimmetrow 02:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, since you are now trying to raise the temperature further by putting the improper template (dubious) on referenced material in the agreed first sentence of the article, I can presume that your interest is primarily POV-pushing and stalling any reasonable agreement or progress in resolving this dispute. I have removed the tag since it is there not for legitimate purposes but to push a POV. Xandar 11:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Your reply notes no disagreement with my objections to the note. Thank you. Gimmetrow 14:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit-Warring

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

It seems that gimmetrow has decided to short-circuit the discussion here by edit-warring on the article page. Putting the template (dubious) on referenced material in the agreed first sentence of the article, is improper use of the template. The material is referenced and the product of consensus and ongoing discussion here. There is already a quite extensive ongoing discussion, so the template is not being used for its appropriate purpose ie to flag up an issue where something has slipped past consideration and to launch a discussion. The template used deliberately expresses an unreferenced point of view, and I believe that his reverting the template amounts to edit-warring. I can only presume that this insistence rest is primarily POV-pushing and raising the temperature in order to stall any reasonable agreement or progress in resolving this dispute. Xandar 12:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is any POV-pushing, it is from the editors who have stonewalled all possible improvements to a policy-violating text for months. This is not a game, Xandar. Gimmetrow 14:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I note that the same editors who refuse to allow any change to a policy-violating text also refuse even to alert readers to this. (Not just now, but multiple times in the past the same editors have removed "citation needed" and related tags without addressing the issue.) What do you stand to lose by a discreet tag alerting readers, Xandar? Gimmetrow 14:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

When you put "citation-needed" in before, a few months ago, it was explained that there WERE citations for this statement, primary and secondary. It was just that you didn't agree with them. Additionally, you could find no reliable sources saying the opposite. This was misuse of the tag, since you were applying your personal opinion to negate the sources. Changes to the consensus wording needed to be negotiated and verified. Using the "dubious" tag is just as wrong. And it is certainly not discreet. This tag should be reserved for seriously outlandish material which is unreferenced, not the result of a debate and consensus among editors. Xandar 20:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As has been stated multiple times, the sources you are claiming to use do not, in fact, support the text, and I and others have provided numerous sources to show this. When you removed the tags, you implicitly made a contract that you would provide full and sufficient sources to support the disputed text. This has now gone on for months, and is nearing a year. Remember: if I'm right, you have been continuously supporting a text which violates multiple Wikipedia policies including original research, verifiability and neutral point of view. That's pretty serious. Gimmetrow 21:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, Sunray was doing a good job mediating this discussion and you are being an obstructionist to the process with your provacative manner. I was looking forward to a clear evaluation of the sources using WP:V and coming to consensus agreement on a new form of lead sentence but it appears that is getting lost amid the wasteful efforts here regarding your unhelpful and antagonistic efforts. Are you trying to sidetrack real evaluation of your weak sources compared to the solid sources that actually support the article text you dislike? NancyHeise ^talk 19:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trolling, Nancy. You have failed to reply on the merits. At this point you are just being obstructionist. Gimmetrow 19:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Gimmetrow, that it is wrong of Nancy and Xandar to prevent any indication being placed in the article to show that the view they have expressed there is not universally held. But if we quarrel with them there, they succeed in distracting attention from the substantive discussion here. Let them be. For now. Soidi (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, very well. For now. Gimmetrow 20:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

By now you are all well aware of this, but, because what just happened was a surprise to me, I am going to repeat this one more time: Would all participants please avoid personal attacks? Accusing each other of POV-pushing or trolling are, at best, non-productive and run the risk of stalling the mediation. So let's rally, folks. We are making progress. Comment on content... Sunray (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Source comparisons

Latest comment: 15 years ago32 comments6 people in discussion

I have compiled the best sources put forth from all of those presented so far, including those presented on Richard's page. These sources are really the only ones that we can consider using for the article because all others fail some sort of WP:V test. What makes these sources the best are that they are modern (not published in the 1800's), scholarly (created and cited by scholarly experts), and they do not fail the specifics set forth in WP:V's self published criteria or that put forth in the Questionable sources criteria.

Source analysis
source and link	cited by	produced or approved by Scholarly expert on the Catholic Church	Primary document	date published, self published	meets WP:V
Kenneth Whitehead, PhD One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic [2]	EWTN, Our Sunday Visitor	Yes, the sources citing this book have scholars on their editorial staff [3] and various PhD's and other experts per [4]. and members of the Catholic Hierarchy on their board of directors in addition to being member of SIGNIS and the world's largest religious media organization [5], [6], [7]	No	1996, published by Ignatius Press, not self published	yes
Catechism of the Catholic Church [8], [9]	cited by all Catholic Churches and required by all in teaching the faith	yes, created by numerous Catholic experts who are scholars	yes	1994 by Libreria Editrice Vaticana, a self publishing source	Yes because self published sources are allowed to be used in articles about themselves
Academic American Encyclopedia [10]	cited 92 times by Googlescholar	yes	No	1995, published by Grolier, a third party	Yes
Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition [11] "The Church of Rome alone, officially and in popular parlance, is the "Catholic Church".	cited by 2 [12]	yes	no	1911, published by The University Press	yes
Catholic Encyclopedia definition of Roman Catholic here; definition of Catholic here[13]	cited by 22 [14]	yes	no	1913, published by Robert Appleton Co	yes
New Catholic Encyclopedia [15]	cited by 1	yes	no	1967, published by Catholic University of America	yes
Merwin-Marie Snell, PhD [16]	per Googlescholar, this author is an oft cited notable expert on Catholic Church [17]	yes	no	1903, published by Dominican College	yes

I would like to ask for a list of sources that support "Roman Catholic" as an official name of the Church that would meet the requirements of WP:V. These requirements specify that the source can not be self-published (like the Arthur Piepkorn's Lutheran Confessions) and others. Almost all of the sources put forth to support "Roman Catholic" fall into the category of Questionable sources defined by WP:V as such

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves.

On the other hand, the sources that support "Catholic Church" as the "official" name meet the requirements of WP:V. Specifically Whitehead. I have a list of PhD's and other academic experts who comprise EWTN's list of editorial experts here [18] and [19]. The fact that the world's largest religious media organization [20], [21], [22], whose editorial staff is comprised of so many experts, whose board is comprised of Catholic Hierarchy and belongs to SIGNIS uses Whitehead, is significant. The fact that the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica and 1995 Academic American Encyclopedia support the claims as well as other notable Catholic writers and experts is significant. The fact that non-experts and self published sources claim something different should not outweigh the facts presented by the actual experts and the obvious evidence found in the most significant primary documents such as the Catechism and the Vatican Council documents signed in the name of the Catholic Church, not Roman Catholic Church. NancyHeise ^talk 19:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You have again failed to reply to the substance of the dispute. Are you, or are you not, representing only one point of view? Are you, or are you not, applying rules inconsistently to exclude some sources and some points of view? Are you, or are you not, misrepresenting sources? Are you, or are you not, presenting lines of argument which are not actually in sources? Are you, or are you not preventing others from fixing these issues, and even preventing a notice to readers? Gimmetrow 20:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The sources identified above represent the most modern (they aren't published in the 1800's) scholarship (written and cited by scholars) that are not self-published books written by non-experts. I am applying the criteria supplied by WP:V, not pushing a POV. I have provided links to the actual sources in the table above so anyone can read for themselves and come to decision on whether I am misrepresenting sources or not. I imagine that if I intended to do any misrepresenting, I could have easily omitted the links but that is not my intention. NancyHeise ^talk 20:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

God help modern scholarship if it has to classify as "scholarship" a Sunday newspaper, a television station's website that hosts contradictory views and a book that says the term "Roman Catholic" is not used by the Church herself (when popes and bishops etc. repeatedly use the term), that claims that, because one particular term is used (along with many others) in some documents, that particular term alone must be the proper one, that thinks the Roman Rite is a particular Church ... Soidi (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Since none of the sources currently in Nancy's table actually support the disputed text, Nancy is still not replying to the substance of the dispute. It's been stated ad nauseum that Whitehead does not say "CC is official name"; the CCC also doesn't (which ought to be a significant omission for you, Nancy, given that you represent the CCC as not just a summary but a "detail"[23] of the church's beliefs). But source selection is an issue. So, why do you omit Walsh [24]? Why do you omit Richard McBrien? Why do you omit Granderath ("one of the most important contributions to the literature of dogmatic theology") and related historical accounts of what actually happened at Vatican I? It is apparently a matter of definition that "the only sources that qualify as WP:RS are those that support Catholic Church as the official name." [25] Are you automatically dismissing any other view simply by declaring it "widely acknowledged as extremist"? Nancy, you are extremely rigid on any source or argument which goes against you point-of-view, but you allow sloppy reasoning when it supports your point-of-view. For example, you have repeatedly argued that Whitehead is reliable because of EWTN because of SIGNIS because of the PCSC. When someone attempts to show the OR in that argument by creating a seemingly parallel argument, you scream "unsourced OR"[26]. Well, if that's "unsourced OR" and you don't even want it on a sandbox page, then you should be able to see why someone might object to the parallel argument in a high-profile mainspace article. No? Gimmetrow 21:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I see Gimmetrow got in before me, and will have expressed himself much better than I can. But I will still paste here my own observations, which have been held up by edit conflicts.

As for the others sources that Nancy has pasted, do any of them say that "Catholic Church" is the one official name that the Church uses? The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not say it. The Academic American Encyclopedia says the Church claimed CC as its title, but not as its only title. The old 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica says the the Church of Rome alone is known officially and in common parlance as the Catholic Church (as everybody agrees), but it does not say that the Church of Rome is known as nothing else but the Catholic Church both officially and in common parlance (in fact it is known by several other names both officially and in common parlance), the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia article exhorts Catholics not to use "Roman Catholic" but admits that the English bishops did use the term in an official address to the British Sovereign and publicly justified the use of the term, the New Catholic Encyclopedia says that, though the term "Roman Catholic" was resented by English Catholics, it in fact became accepted! Why on earth do you quote these as if they supported your contention that there is one and only one officialy name of the Church, and that that name is CC? Soidi (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow. Not only the CCC, but also the Code of Canon Law and the Eastern Catholic Code of Canon Law clearly and officially repeat the definition from Lumen Gentium as to the name of the Church. Your hang-up on the usage of the word "official" takes nit-picking to an extreme, since you will not also admit the word "proper". In addition, there is the work of Madrid and the britannica and other quotes that DO use the precise word "official" that you are demanding. As far as I can see, claims that Roman Catholic is official come from fringe and non-reliable sources. But why not be constructive and set out clearly what wording you WOULD like and what references you propose to back it up?

Soidi your point about other names is a red-herring. We only need a source saying that the Church has an official or proper name, not a negative statement saying there are no other names in case this might be claimed by someone. I see no reliable verifiable source saying that the church has other official names. Your other points are assertions or OR. Again, the time for negativity is past. Xandar 21:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, I outlined what I would like said ages and ages ago. Do I need to cut and paste it again? Neither the CCC, nor the CJC actually define an "official" name for the church. Neither does Lumen Gentium. We've argued all this before. And where did I argue against "proper"? If you wanted to say something like

Whitehead argues the proper name of the church is the Catholic Church; others, like Walsh and the Bishop of Brixen at Vatican I argue that "Roman Catholic Church" is the proper name of the Church; yet others, like Snell, say the church's name is "the Church". As McBrien says: "To choose one side, however, is not necessarily to reject the other... What is important is that each side explain and support the reasons for the position taken."

we might have something. Gimmetrow 22:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I like the text proposed by Gimmetrow --Richard (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the table, Nancy. I find it a useful compendium of sources. Because WP policy and guidelines point us to usage and primary sources in determining an official name, I think that we should not only include the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but also Lumen Gentium and the Code of Canon Law. The primary sources determine how the names are used. I think that Gimmetrow has given a reasonable example of the style of the note with respect to secondary sources. I would suggest that the text on secondary sources be preceded by a summary of usage, listing key primary sources for each name. Then, I would suggest adding the commentary, using secondary sources. I think that we should confine our examples to modern ones (i.e., post Vatican II). Sunray (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Usage does not determine the "official name" - a declaration or definition does. Neither the CCC, LG nor CJC define or declare the official name of the Church to be "the Catholic Church". Indeed, the CCC has a section called "Names and Images of the Church".[27] One would think, if "Catholic Church" were the name of the church, it would be discussed there, but it's not. What is discussed? The name Ecclesia: '"The Church" is the People that God gathers in the whole world.' As I stated at the start, this focus on "CC is official name" is an attempt to address a different issue - the problem with the name "Roman Catholic Church". Mainstream writers address that issue directly - they discuss the problem with the name RCC. That's what we should be doing in the article. Gimmetrow 05:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I too thank Nancy for placing the table of sources. It makes clear that the best of them do not at all say that CC is the Church's only official name. Do any of us deny that "Catholic Church" is used as an official title of the Church, one of the titles that it claims as its own, proper to it and to no other group? The better sources do not say what Nancy and Xandar attribute to them. (I see that Xandar once again wants to cut an important aside from his quotation of Lumen Gentium, a quotation that at no point says that CC is the only official name for the Church, no matter how much Xandar's wishful thinking makes him picture it as saying so.) Do any of us deny that, at least in one sense, the name that the Church most often uses is CC? So why think it a conquest when some source says that the Church uses CC as its name? Will Nancy and Xandar please open their eyes at last and see that CC is not the only name by which the Church refers to itself officially?

I said that CC is, in one sense, the name the Church most frequently used. In another sense, "the Church" is by far the most common name by which it refers to itself - just look at the text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which has extremely few mentions of "Catholic Church", but hundreds of "the Church". But, I think, that name is best left with names like "the Mystical Body of Christ" or "the Bride of Christ". It is not normally used, perhaps never used, in the context of distinguishing the Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him from other groups of Christians. For this purpose, that Church does use the name CC. But can anyone deny that, for that same purpose, it also uses RCC? CC is thus not the only official name by which the Church indicates its particular identity. And I have not spoken of other names like "Igreja Catóólica Apostóólica Romana" (I leave this name in Portuguese because of Xandar's quibbling about the order of the adjectives when translated into English), which John Paul II used more than once, and similar names. Soidi (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

First, let's get rid of one rather silly red herring. "The Church" is not a formal official or any other name of the Catholic church. It is shorthand and is used by every denomination in the world in internal documents to describe itself. The Baptist Church uses it, the Anglican Church use it - just as a company contract will say "the company" instead of repeating "General Motors" all the time! This does not mean that the name of General Motors is "the company"! So lets get rid of that rather ridiculous argument quickly. We're supposed to be being serious here - not just using any delaying tactic, however spurious.Xan dar 11:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Next, let's look at Gimmetrow's proposed note text.

Whitehead argues the proper name of the church is the Catholic Church; others, like Walsh and the Bishop of Brixen at Vatican I argue that "Roman Catholic Church" is the proper name of the Church; yet others, like Snell, say the church's name is "the Church". As McBrien says: "To choose one side, however, is not necessarily to reject the other... What is important is that each side explain and support the reasons for the position taken."

This falls into the error against NPOV of giving minority or fringe opinion the same or greater weighting tha than informed verifiable and majority opinion. As WP:NPOV states:

In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. For example, to state that "according to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

In fact with three to one in favour of his viewpoint, Gimmetrow's text would lead the reader to believe that those stating that Catholic Church is the name of the Church are the small minority! As for the sources... The hearsay about what a Bishop of Brixen may have said a hundred and forty years ago is irrelevant. We don't even know what he said, and his views, if correctly reported, were not acted upon. Anyone who says "The Church" is an official name can be discounted at once as a fringe theorist. Quoting a non-Catholic like Walsh for views of how the Church self-identifies is also wrong. Walsh can be quoted but he must be identified as who he is and what POV he comes from. Xandar 11:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Further to Gimmetrow's comments on the Catechism. he is not looking at the right section. The part that quotes the Lumen Gentium definition is here. in Section 816, repeated in 870. "Catholic Church" is used throughout. Xandar 12:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I go to the CCC section called "Names and images of the Church" and I find ecclesia, not "Catholic Church". I go to your section and I find a discussion of the four notes of this Church. This is not a red herring. The Church is not parallel to a company - the Church claims it is the *only* Ecclesia or People of God. If the church has any "official" name, the most basic and fundamental is Ecclesia. Of course, saying so is theology, and as Soidi says it doesn't function very well when the Church talks with other Christian groups, but you have the article text saying "officially" without any qualification or restriction. If you're not going to allow any context or restriction to the claim, then you have a problem.

And the claim is still without sources. Really, this is absurd. You have provided only one source (Madrid) which is on point. Everything else is original research and synthesis. We've provided multiple other sources to question that claim. Essentially, you have taken a niche argument, one that is suspect at best, one that mainstream authors do not use, and placed it at the start of the article with a bunch of sources which don't actually support it. These sources DO support a discussion of the reasons RCC is disliked, which is what mainstream authors do on this point, but that is something different. The note doesn't actually support the article text, but rather something else. Gimmetrow 13:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are getting into deep water, trying to deal in an amateur way with complex theological issues. "Ecclesia" is simply Latin for "church" or the chosen people of God. if you are looking for its use as a name, you are looking at the wrong church. What you are missing is that the whole section "Names and Images of the Church" to which you refer, is about 'the wider theological concept of the Church, ie. the mystical body of Christ, existing both in and out of time, in earth and in heaven, rather than the earthly official society. Section 771 of the Catechism states "The Church is at the same time: i) a "society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ; ii) the visible society and the spiritual community; iii) the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches. In pother words, you are at cross-purposes with what that section is about.

Paragraph 3 to which I directed you, is about the earthly organisation of the Church and its recognisable marks, this says "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him." In other words here is the official identifying statement of the Church and its name, which is repeated again in the summary of the section, in Lumen Gentium, and in the Codes of Canon Law such as that of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Xandar 23:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to AGF and assume you meant "amateur" in the sense of someone passionate about a topic, and not something derogatory. Gimmetrow 01:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I meant amateur, in the sense of persons who are not professional experts in the matters under discussion. Xandar 10:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you've made a derogatory, condescending and dismissive ad hominem personal attack rather than reply with anything substantive. Gimmetrow 11:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of putting forth the best sources is to comply with WP:V. I have compiled these sources and we need to use these to come up with an agreed wording for the first sentence and the note. They all basically say the same thing, that Catholic Church is the name accepted as the title for the whole organization. They also give explanations as to use of Roman Catholic. We need to incorporate this information into the note and lead. I think that the note and lead already has this information in it but I am willing to agree to wording changes if that will make Gimmetrow happy without creating the false impression that Roman Catholic is the official name. Also, I received an email from a priest who is a top official in the Diocese of Hawaii that explains use of the term Roman Catholic in the legal copyright of their website. I have asked him for permission to print his email and for guidance from Raul on how to upload this email officially on Wikipedia. I think it will dispell some misconceptions being thrown around here about Church use of the term "Roman Catholic". If it helps, he says exactly what Whitehead and McClintock also say but I would like for you to see that for yourself. NancyHeise ^talk 18:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to respond to Gimmetrows question as to why I omitted certain sources such as McBrien and Granderath. I omitted sources that were not modern and those that were not created or approved by multiple scholars - WP:V says to use those sources with a reputation for fact checking. McBriens book Catholicism was officially censored by the Church for its inaccuracies. [28] The sources in the table represent those that have multiple scholarly oversight. All others do not. Soidi says that EWTN has hosted an opposing opinion on the Church's name but he knows this is incorrect. If you check the reference that he says is evidence of an opposing opinion here [29] you can clearly see that it is a question and answer site that does not say what he suggests. NancyHeise ^talk 18:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I have tried to find what, if any, scholarly credentials Whitehead posseses, but I haven't found anything. His books are written so they avoid making outlandish assertions, so he probably has an education, but he makes errors as if he's writing outside his field of expertise. You argue that Whitehead is reliable because his work is hosted by EWTN which is a member of SIGNIS, etc. Well, McBrien appears to be a professor of theology at a Catholic University which is a member of the IFCU which was approved by Pope Pius XII.[30] He has written a lot about the church so he apparently has some expertise. I would expect (without checking) that he has a licentiate in sacred theology and probably a doctorate. So apparently the only reason you reject him is because someone disagrees with some of his views apparently unrelated to the point at hand? Gimmetrow 01:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

All this back and forth about the sources is still beside the point. None of the sources listed above says on point that the "official name" of the church is the "Catholic Church", and the disputed text is still, after all these months, unsupported. Gimmetrow 01:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"They (the sources placed in Nancy's table) all basically say the same thing, that Catholic Church is the name accepted as the title for the whole organization," says Nancy above. This would be true if "the name" were changed to "a name". They don't say that "Catholic Church" is the only title for the whole organization. So of what use are they?

Nancy still has not responded to the following observations:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not say that "Catholic Church" is the one official name that the Church uses. The Academic American Encyclopedia says the Church claimed CC as its title, but not as its only title. The old 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica says the the Church of Rome alone is known officially and in common parlance as the Catholic Church (as everybody agrees), but it does not say that the Church of Rome is known as nothing else but the Catholic Church both officially and in common parlance (in fact it is known by several other names both officially and in common parlance). The author of the Catholic Encyclopedia article exhorts Catholics not to use "Roman Catholic" but admits that the English bishops did use the term in an official address to the British Sovereign and publicly justified the use of the term. The New Catholic Encyclopedia says that, though the term "Roman Catholic" was resented by English Catholics, it in fact became accepted! (In any case, "resented by English Catholics" is not the same as "rejected by the Church", which continues to use the term.) Why are these sources presented as supporting the contention that there is one and only one official name of the Church, and that that name is CC? Soidi (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me get this straight - Gimmetrow is suggesting that we place greater reliance on a book officially declared to be full of inaccuracies by the Church (McBrien's Catholicism[31]) rather than use a source that is the only source used by the world's largest religious media outlet whose editorial staff is full of PhD's and other experts and whose board of directors contains members of the Catholic hierarchy and other priests? Gimmetrow, that will be a hard position to defend at FAC and elsewhere. I can not agree to that logic. Responding to Soidi, all of these sources point to one name as the name "claimed as its title" over the other name which is and AKA used sometimes. I am not sure why we are so willing to toss Academic American Encyclopedia and Whitehead in favor of sources that clearly do not meet WP:V. Can you please tell me what wording you would prefer? All you have done to date is object to every wording suggestion put forward by others, including consensus, that is supported by WP:V sources. NancyHeise ^talk 16:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall saying "greater reliance". I really don't care whether McBrien or Whitehead is more reliable, because the source you keep referring to - Whitehead - doesn't say what you claim it says, and therefore doesn't support the disputed text. I don't need to cite any sources to argue that. The only reason to bring up other sources is to try to get you to admit your bias. So let's get this straight: you are suggesting that we place greater reliance on a single book published by someone with no known relevant academic credentials, a book that has never been peer reviewed as far as we know, and which has demonstrable factual errors in the relevant passage, over the multiple works of a professor of theology at a fairly significant university, with known scholarly credentials (doctorate in sacred theology [32]) writing in his field of expertise? Gimmetrow 00:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh my gosh Gimmetrow - we can't use a book no matter who authored it if it has bad reviews from other scholars, in this case the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops who declared it full of inaccuracies and officially censored it. It is falls under the definition of "fringe source" at WP:V. On the flip side, no matter who authors a book, if it is cited by scholars who are experts in the field and used by them to explain something - that makes it peer reviewed, that makes it scholarly. If there were a single bad review of Whitehead's book by a scholar who is an expert in the field, I would not consider the source but that is not the case with Whitehead. NancyHeise ^talk 03:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW Kenneth Whitehead, is a scholar who holds a PhD, from Fransican University of Steubenville. [33]. NancyHeise ^talk 03:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That says he has an honorary doctorate. Are you really saying that because one of a reputable scholar's works was allegedly criticized, but not by the Vatican and not in any way that had any consequence (he is still a professor of theology at a catholic university), that you reject him as an authority on anything else he's ever written about? But you accept without question the writings of a non-scholar with obvious factual errors on the very point you wish to cite? And that you, in fact, defend citing those very factual errors as true? Gimmetrow 12:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Honorary doctorate from Franciscan University of Steubenville is a legitimate doctorate bestowed on an individual for lifetime acheivements in a certain field that equate to an academic education in that same field. Wikipedia does not differentiate between one or the other in WP:V. NancyHeise ^talk 18:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't, perhaps it should. Honorary doctorates are not the same as earned doctorates. Gimmetrow 01:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming policy guidelines

Latest comment: 15 years ago28 comments7 people in discussion

It seems to me that we are sidestepping a key issue here. I would like us to get clear on how article names are determined according to WP policies. The policy on naming conventions directs us to "use the most common name of a person or thing." In the case of a controversial name, where there is a naming conflict (our case, right), I will (again) repeat the criteria given in the guideline:

Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources)
Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

Check me if I am wrong, but I think we have determined that the "Catholic Church" is the most common name in general use and by the Vatican, right. It is the name mainly used in legal and constitutional documents, is it not? It is the name most commonly used in official communications by the church to describe itself, right? This is not to say that other names are not used. We have documented several other names that are also sometimes used, right? Note: We recognize that the Church does not say "the official name of the Church is..." Therefore, we are going by usage.

Again, check me if I'm wrong, but I think that we have determined that the name "Roman Catholic Church" is also in common use, right? It is widely used outside the Church to refer to the church. It is used by the Church in ecumenical communications, and it is used by individual churches. "Roman Catholic Church," is not as frequently used, but it is used (in those senses mentioned), right?

So would we not want the note to simply follow the standards and criteria given in applicable WP policies and guidelines? If I've missed something, please let's discuss it now. Sunray (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The criteria Sunray quotes for naming articles ("Wikipedia's policy on how to name pages") are indeed of interest in our present debate.

CC and RCC are in common usage in English (CC probably more commonly but not solely).
CC and RCC are currently used as official names (CC probably more commonly but not solely), as in agreements signed with other Churches (RCC probably more commonly but not solely)
CC and RCC (and many other names) are used by the Church to describe itself (CC most commonly - apart from "the Church" - but not solely).

These criteria directly concern the naming of the article, where it is impossible to use two or more names, and so the most easily recognizable one must normally be chosen, not the others. The Wikipedia policy gives first place to "Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church" in its examples of "often unproductive" debating of controversial names, and I think we should not waste time on unproductively debating here the title of the article. What we are debating, I believe, is the distinct "official name" question: Does the Church have one and only one official name? On this question I think the criteria Sunray mentions are indeed helpful: CC and RCC are both in common usage in English; they are both currently used as official names; they are both used by the Church to describe itself. Soidi (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, just perhaps, it is worthwhile to point out that, when Sunray says that "the most common name in general use and by the Vatican" is the name to choose for the title of the article, we must understand the phrase "the most common name in general use" as a paraphrase of the actual words of the Wikipedia policy: "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". The actual words of the policy, with its reference to ambiguity, make it even more likely that a debate on changing the name of the article ("moving" the article) would be altogether unproductive. But, as I already said, that is not what we are debating here, and I don't want this remark to be used as a red herring to distract from what we are debating. Soidi (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What is being ignored here is the guidance on names which are used by self-identifying bodies. Wikipedia:Naming_conflict. I think it deserves a substantial quote:

"A city, country, people or person by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself Muhammad Ali. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names. ... Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name.

"Example. Suppose that the people of the fictional country of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. The Maputans oppose this usage because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term. Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans call themselves Cabindans is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen. By contrast, the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective. It is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide. In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" does not conflict with the NPOV policy. It would be a purely objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. On the other hand, not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV."

The example here is a perfect parallel to the Catholic Church issue. In other words, the name used in Wikipedia should be the name by which the group primarily self-identifies. Xandar 11:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This Wikipedia policy too is helpful in the present debate. "The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk." The Church that calls itself the Catholic Church sometimes calls itself the Roman Catholic Church, and other names. "The fact that the Cabindans call themselves Cabindans is objectively true." The fact that in official documents the Church calls itself the Roman Catholic Church, and other names, is objectively true. "By contrast, the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective." By contrast, the claim that the Church headed by the Pope has no moral right either to call itself Catholic or to call itself Roman Catholic is purely subjective. I don't question the right of the Church to call itself the Catholic Church, but Xandar at times questions the right of the Church to call itself the Roman Catholic Church, to the extent even of denying that in the documents in which it calls itself the Roman Catholic Church it is really doing so. "Not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV." Not using the term because of Xandar's objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Xandaran POV.

Indicating as it does that articles do not have to use as title an official name - still less an alleged official name - it would also be helpful in a debate on changing the title of this article. It accepts "United States" as a good name for an article on a country that does have a documented single official name, a name different from the article's title. However, that is not what we are debating. What we are debating is whether the Church has chosen to have only one official name. It certainly does not act as if it had only one. Soidi (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Good examples from policy and guidelines. I might have missed something, but I haven't seen use of "Roman Catholic Church" in official documents other than ecumenical communications. I don't think it appears in the constitution or catechism or other such documents, does it? At any rate, I think we have the basis for the note now. Sunray (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The best answer to your question is to refer you to User:Richardshusr/Names of the Catholic Church which, although it was started by me in my userspace, is the result of the joint effort of several participants in this mediation. If by "ecumenical communications", you mean communications with other churches, the answer to your question is "No". See the uses of "Roman Catholic" in Divini Illius Magistri and Humani Generis. --Richard (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The page you and others have put together on Names of the Catholic Church has been most useful. As was mentioned, this could become a new article. While the note could refer to it, the note itself would logically be a fairly tightly worded paragraph. Sunray (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And the fairly tightly worded paragraph would logically reflect what is in this collection of sources, which clearly show that the Church officially refers to herself by more names than one. Soidi (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add my thoughts to this discussion. Having the article name at Roman Catholic Church gives Reader a false impression that the name is more commonly used and/or is the official name unless we have some wording to let them know that the sources meeting WP:V say otherwise. Either we change the article name to Catholic Church (which I do not favor) or we have wording in the lead sentence to let Reader know the real truth. We have already searched for various wordings over the past five months and the only consensus reached was for "officially known as". We tried "more properly and commonly known" we tried "or", we suggested "titles itself as" and various other wordings but there has not been a new consensus agreement. I also responded to the remarks made on sources in the section above that I would like for you to see. Thanks.NancyHeise ^talk 18:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, it was Anglican editors who objected to the "more commonly and properly known as" and preferred "officially known as". It seemed to be the jackpot solution because both Catholic editors and Anglican editors agreed to "officially" after reviewing the sources. NancyHeise ^talk 18:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The only way of getting out of the fruitless and increasingly pedantic argument about "official" and "proper" names is to go for the plain and simple solution of "The Catholic Church also known as the Roman Catholic Church.." with the rename. That is the simplest solution since it is clear that some people will never agree a usage which states the normative official/proper name of the Church in so many words. Xandar 23:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If I understand Xandar rightly, he does envisage, under certain conditions, omitting all reference to a supposed "normative official/proper name of the Church in so many words". That would be very welcome. Unfortunately, though, even if he does mean what I think he says, his idea of "the rename" is unrealistic. As the Wikipedia policy article on the matter indicates, a discussion on that would be "unproductive". But I applaud what may be a sign of a more open attitude. Soidi (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

While renaming the article wouldn't be easy, I wouldn't underestimate the value given to a consensus of editors on the article page. Assuming that we have, or are close to, that consensus, it would be a matter of preparing a convincing description of our reasoning to present in the RfC. Consensus would be the key to achieving success, IMO. Sunray (talk) 07:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are anywhere near a consensus. In view of what the Wikipedia policy pages say, I am now definitely against something so unproductive as raising the question. Defteri has been against the proposal. Secisek has declared his strong opposition to changing the title of the article. Nancy has said, just above, that she does not support changing the title. How many did declare in favour of changing the title? The proposal was in two parts: the first was to change the order of RCC and CC in the text; the second was to make a change also in the title of the article. Going only on my memory and without checking back, I think that maybe Xandar was the only editor who explicitly proposed changing the title of the article. The situation does not look anything close to a consensus on changing the title. I even suspect that some of those who, in the abstract, were/are in favour of changing the title would, for the same reasons that I now see, be against raising the question. Soidi (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The policy doesn't say "don't do it," it just points out the difficulties, absent consensus. I need to hear more from participants who do not favor the name change. Other than the fact that it is difficult, do you have other reasons for not supporting a name change. I would also like to hear from Defteri and Secisek on this. Sunray (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. There are only two solutions that avoid the article giving the false impression that the Church's proper name is RCC. We either keep the current name and continue to state in some clear formulation the proper/official name of the Church in the first sentence, or we use a more ambiguous formula, but place the title at Catholic Church. Rejecting both solutions can only be seen as obstructionism, and there has to come a time when obstructionists get ignored. Xandar 09:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

We already ignored them but they kept arguing the matter on the talk page for the past 5 months so I suggested this mediation to try to help bring the matter to a close. NancyHeise ^talk 16:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am not opposed to renaming the article "Catholic Church" but I dont think we should consider it if Soidi and Gimmetrow object because they are the only reason we are even considering it. I prefer the article just the way it is at RCC with the term "officially known as" in the lead because that is the form of sentence that most editors preferred, not just in the consensus vote but also after the last FAC where 24 people supported the page and 13 opposed but only one of those (Soidi) opposing for the lead sentence issue. When you have 99% of editors agreeing to one form and 1% disagreeing and all efforts to come to 100% agreement have failed to reach a greater percentage of agreement, all that is left is to stick with the form that 99% agreed with. I think that is where we are now. Soidi and Gimmetrow have not put forth a more acceptable format nor have they put forth more acceptable sources. Gimmetrow's suggestion to use Richard McBrien's Catholicism, a source that has been officially censored by the Church as containing inaccuracies[34], is not a source that meets WP:V, it falls under the category of questionable sources covered by that policy. I suggest we close this mediation because it seems clear that no matter how good the sources and clear the evidence is, Gimmetrow and Soidi are going to oppose unless we put forth a lead sentence that is misleading and that would not be more acceptable to the greater Wikipedia community than what we have already achieved. NancyHeise ^talk 16:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that most FAC reviewers are not required to provide an exhaustive list of every single very tiny thing that they would like to see fixed in the article. The fact that a reviewer did not mention the naming issue does not mean that the reviewer agreed with the wording at the time, but that it did not rank as highly as other (potentially broader) issues that the reviewer wanted to have addressed. FAC provides consensus on whether the article broadly meets the FA criteria, not consensus on a particular wording. Karanacs (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that we either have consensus or are very close to it. I suggest that participants not respond to each other with their opinions. It will be much more helpful to stick with the facts and aim for a result that is in keeping with the policies. I have asked participants to comment about the option of changing the article name. Most have said that they either favor that or would stand aside. Let's keep working on points of agreement. Sunray (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for article name change - further discussion

A significant number of participants favor a name change for the article. The policies regarding that have been clarified. I suggest that we discuss this further. Would those participants not in favor of a name change please elaborate on their thinking? If they prefer an alternative approach it would be good to propose that now. Sunray (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, I hope you do not consider this to be a mere repetition. I am against a name change for the article because, in the first place, only one editor has actually proposed that the article name be changed, and that is not "a significant number". Gimmetrow, Xandar, Richardshusr, Marauder40, jbmurray, SynKobiety, NancyHeise declared in favour of "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,..." (see #Proposed alternatives). But, of these, only Xandar also asked for a change of the title, and some of the other six, NancyHeise for example, do not favour that change. In the second place, I am against a change of name for reasons that include the requirement that the article's name must be sufficiently unambiguous, and "Catholic Church" (though unambiguous in the context of what the Church calls itself) is, in my opinion and, I feel sure, in that of many others, too ambiguous for the title of a Wikipedia article. Soidi (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry... I am also in favor of changing the article's title. In fact, I think I was the one who brought up the topic. I am only afraid that we will not be able to get consensus when we propose it at Talk:Roman Catholic Church. I do think it's worth trying so that we know what is and is not feasible. We could put a time limit on the proposal (decide up or down in a week; pull the plug if we don't have 80% support at the end of the week).

I really do think the title change and the proposed compromise wording together will go a long way towards resolving this dispute.

--Richard (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of the name change [as stated before]. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The argument of ambiguity against placing the article at Catholic Church is offset by the fact that typing in "Catholic Church" redirects to this article anyway. Not being a paper encyclopedia has the advantage that one click of a top-link can then (as now) transfer the minority of readers who want another meaning of Catholic Church to get there. The first line will still prominently include the name "Roman Catholic Church" for those seeking that designation. Along with an automatic redirect from RCC, this should solve any potential ambiguity problems. However a veto should not be allowed to people who object to the move on illegitimate sectarian lines, which are contrary to Wikipedia policy. Xandar 23:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Secisek's point about major reference dictionaries and encyclopedias: I checked the Encyclopedia Britannica and it uses the title "Roman Catholic Church". I suspect he is saying that we should follow the standard set by the professionals. I think it's a valid argument but I am of the opinion that we should follow Wikipedia's naming policy instead. --Richard (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard, one of the largest Encyclopedia's, Encyclopedia Americana has the article at "Catholic Church", not Roman Catholic Church. I think the professional standard set here is that we can place it either at one or the other and still be within the parameters of professionalism set by the major encyclopedias. NancyHeise ^talk 01:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)