Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 32

FAQ: Name of the article
Many have asked why this article is named "Catholic Church". There are many volumes of discussion about the name of the Church in the archives. In summary, after months of active discussion, a mediation was held on this subject. The outcome of the mediation and subsequent consultation are summarized below.

Outcome of mediation
This was a multiparty mediation filed on January 19, 2009 by NancyHeise and signed by 19 participants, of which 17 have been active. The mediation was accepted by the Mediation Committee on January 27 and Shell Kinney agreed to mediate on February 10. Due to off-wiki commitments, Shell withdrew from the mediation; Sunray took over as mediator on March 4, 2009.

The mediation centered on the first part of the lead sentence of the Roman Catholic Church article, which was then as follows: "The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church..." At issue was the use of the word "officially" and also the significance and relative importance of the two names. Other issues in dispute pertained to the explanatory note for the two names and the use of sources in the note. Participants reviewed several alternative proposals for the wording of the lead sentence.

Research by participants determined that the name the "Catholic Church" was the most common name and also the name most commonly used by the church, when referring to itself. There was a rough consensus in favor of changing the first part of the lead sentence and much thought and discussion went into rewording the lead. It was agreed to re-draft the explanatory note to accompany this wording. This called into question the name of the article. Participants were guided by WP policy and guidelines on naming.

Consultation process
The mediation on the name of the Church was concluded successfully. Part of the action plan that arose from the mediation was to hold a community-wide consultation regarding a proposed article name change to Catholic Church. The consultation centered on one key question: Can one church appropriate a name for itself? The discussion on this topic examined other churches' use of the term “catholic.” The related topic of whether the term “Catholic Church” was thereby ambiguous was also discussed. There were lengthy discussions regarding the process of the consultation and the interpretation of WP policy and guidelines on article naming. 

There was general agreement on the following:
 * The Church most commonly refers to itself as the “Catholic Church.”
 * The Church also refers to itself as the “Roman Catholic Church” in some contexts.
 * The proposed lead, supported by a new explanatory note, adequately reflects this.

A majority of those who commented expressed the view that the proposed name change was in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines on article naming and indicated their support for it. This, was deemed by the mediators to support the consensus of the mediation. That consensus was to rename the article, modify the lead sentence to read: "The Catholic Church also known as the Roman Catholic Church...," and add the new explanatory note prepared as part of the mediation.

The page was renamed on July 2, 2009. The consultation on renaming the article may be found in Archive 30. Further discussion continued on the talk page and can be found in Archive 31. We trust that the results of the mediation and the archived discussions will answer most questions on this subject. Users are requested to familiarize themselves with this material before re-opening this discussion. Sunray (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Continuation of thread
Sunray archived an active discussion thread. This is its continuation. Sunray has restored an unsourced, ambiguous and arguably POV sentence to the article. Please read the text without the sentence. Is the sentence necessary? What does it mean? Why is it there? I am removing the sentence pending discussion in lieu of tag, for now. Gimmetrow 22:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence is part of the mediated agreed note, and can't just be whipped out by one person. You were offered alternate forms, but wouldn't accept any - even one you initially proposed yourself. Without the sentence, the following examples appear just that, random examples. We would either have to list huge numbers of such specific documents, or have the sentence there.  Xan  dar   00:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you refused to discuss the issue during mediation, I consider your repeated attempt to invoke consensus now rather contradictory, and even a violation of WP:CIVIL. You have had months of opportunity to provide a content-based justification and explanation for the sentence, and have refused to do so. You have refused to explain either exactly what the sentence means, or to provide sources for it, or to change it to something acceptable. For weeks now, your replies have been, in my view, nothing but procedural attempts to obstruct improvements to the article. Please provide a content-based reason for the sentence, or stop impeding improvements to the article. Gimmetrow 02:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could re-read the discussion. The rationale for the sentence was discussed at length. Xandar has explained it once again, above. I'm not sure whether you don't get it or you won't get it. The fact is, though, that there was consensus on this during the mediation and neither the consultation nor the subsequent discussion has modified that. Please accept the consensus. Sunray (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above is not an explanation, nor does it address content. What I'm trying to figure out is what you and Xandar actually think the sentence means. Can you declare clearly and explicitly and precisely what the sentence under dispute actually says? If you can do that, then we might be able to figure out why it is supposedly necessary, how it could be rephrased to actually say what you claim it's supposed to say, and how that could satisfy Wikipedia's verifiability policy. But if you and Xandar persist in refusing to declare clearly and explicitly what the sentence is supposed to mean, then I have really no alternative but to treat it as unsourced and biased, and argue for its removal so long as the sentence remains undefined and unsourced. Per WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". One of the main problems here is the sentence admits of multiple meanings, and when you or Xandar are pushed on one meaning, discussion switches to another meaning, and around in circles we go. We've already been through this dynamic before with a vague phrase that its defenders refused to define in meaning - and it took 1.5 years, multiple RFCs and a mediation to get a single word to comply with WP:V policy. Gimmetrow 08:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While demanding an explanation of the sentence, you have given no consistent or valid reason for its removal. You have actually come up with two separate and unrelated arguments: 1) That there is confusion as to its meaning; ie that it doesn't restrict itself to CC versus RCC, which I don't think is true as most people would understand it - and several alternate wordings have been proposed. 2) That it is not referenced to a secondary source. That argument has been answered by Sunray - that the sentence is supported by the examples that follow. Just as the (unreferenced) sentence that the Catholic Church uses RCC itself is referenced to an example. This was the route we decided to take at mediation to deal with the arguments from yourself and others opposing previous wordings that were based on secondary sources you and others didn't like. The alternative to these sentences would be to list documents using CC and RCC in actual proportion to actual Vatican usage - which would be ridiculously exhaustive.   Xan  dar   10:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does this mean, Xandar, that you are stating definitively and finally that the sentence means precisely and only: "On vatican.va, the term CC appears more often than RCC"? Gimmetrow 14:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The phrase in the note is the following: "The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents." In the discussion on this talk page, I summarized the findings of the mediation on this as follows: "If you take the Vatican II documents, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Code of Canon Law, the terms "Catholic Church" or "Catholic" are used dozens of times. The terms "Roman Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic" do not appear in those documents." How does this not support the statement that of the two, the name "Catholic Church" is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents? Sunray (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your reply illustrates many of the problems I'm trying to get addressed. First, you've stated a different meaning from Xandar for the sentence, and also different from a meaning you've stated before. This illustrates why, if anything like this sentence remains in the article, it needs clarification and precision. You've also asserted that term A is "usually the term" used - not that term A is used more often than term B, but simply that term A is "usually the term", ignoring terms C, D and E. You've based that on an evaluation of a particular set of documents. How is the reader to know which documents were chosen? Or, for that matter, why those documents? I think the relative frequency of use of various terms in a document is likely to depend on the context and purpose of the document. And finally, one of the statements you made (that certain terms "do not appear in those documents") may even be factually incorrect, but there is no way for a reader to check or verify this, since the source or reasoning behind the sentence is nowhere to be found in the article. With bias, original research, and possible factual errors here, can you not see why there is a problem with this sentence? Gimmetrow 14:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What I said above was simply background on the mediation and supplementary to the note. The sources given in the note refer to the primary documents of the Church, in keeping with the guidelines on naming. The important thing here is that we have consensus on the current wording of the note. Would you be willing to respect the consensus and move on? Sunray (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Around in circles we go. This is not about the guideline on naming, but about the policy of WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. The sources in the note do not support the interpretation given either by you or by Xandar for this line. Sunray, it was stated during mediation that issues with the note would be discussed later. I assumed, in good faith, that this would actually occur. If you wish to invoke "consensus", you should not simultaneously reject the rest of that "consensus". Recent PRs and FACs consistently noted a pattern of bias in the article - even pervasive bias. It has already taken far too long to achieve some progress on just one case of that bias, only to have that progress undermined by another vague and unsourced sentence. The disputed sentence was, I believe, authored by the same editor who created the initial text that led to mediation, and who refused, during 1.5 years and multiple RFCs prior to mediation, to comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV policy. So long as editors support and enable that sort of behaviour, this article seems doomed to languish in pervasive bias forever. Gimmetrow 23:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gimmetrow, with all due respect for your many good works on Wikipedia, I truly believe it is you who continues to languish in POV behaviour unsupported by Wikipedia policy. We had a mediation, reached a consensus and yet we are still burdened by your complaint - one for which you have no consensus or Wikipedia policy to site. Please stop and move on and let the rest of us move on too.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 04:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Folks, this argument has been going on since the dawn of WP. The most succinct, direct and honest outline of the argument in favor of CC as the title was written some 3 years ago and appears here: CC v. RCC. I never saw anyone refute it. It is fair and adheres strictly to WP conventions. So, please, just let it rest, folks.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But that is not what we're talking about. We're talking about a sentence in the article - a sentence which does not have a reference, and which has multiple interpretations. One of those interpretations - an interpretation that gets repeated often, unfortunately - is almost certainly incorrect, and yet the editors here refuse to either provide sources as required by WP:V, or make any adjustments to the sentence to narrow down the interpretations so that it avoids WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Gimmetrow 08:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Gimmetrow, it's as if your computer is infected with a virus that causes it to not show anyone's responses to your argument. It has been addressed over and over again, ad nauseum.  You just refuse to accept it.  Disagree if you want...you're entitled to your opinion.  But it has been well-established how the sentence you dislike so much adheres to WP policy, including NPOV and NOR.  To everyone else who has been responding to Gimmetrow...I think we need to realize that Gimmetrow is not going to stop, and perhaps we should just stop feeding him with responses.  He refuses to listen, and it has turned into a case of I just don't like it.  Unless he comes up with something new and legeitimate, it's probably best to resist the temptation to respond and to just move on. --anietor (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Anietor et al, It took 1.5 years, multiple RFCs and a mediation to get some small degree of compliance with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR on one fairly simple point. It could be argued that 1.5 years of impeding improvements establishes a long-term pattern of violation of those Wikipedia content policies. If you intend to continue this pattern of behaviour, and intend to continue preventing and impeding other editors from fixing issues in the article, the next step will probably be a RFC to discuss your user conduct. Gimmetrow 03:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect that's unlikely. WP procedures say that, before you can launch an RfC about user behaviour, at least 2 people must have complained to the person(s) concerned, other than the person placing the RfC. Peter jackson (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Others have complained about ownership issues. The custodians here have been beneficial to the article in many ways, but not all. It shouldn't take 1.5 years and the sustained efforts of multiple experienced editors to get the custodians to partially address a single point. Gimmetrow 13:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I should have added that the 3 complaints must be about the same behaviour in the same article.


 * I agree results are often unsatisfactory. Wikipedia has a very nice policy of neutral point of view, but no effective system for enforcing it. Arbitrators and administrators are not authorized to do so, and the community, in general, simply doesn't. Thus editors are left to haggle things out among themselves to arrive at "consensus". (This is something that can be enforced in the existing system: if people try to fight wars with each other they can be dealt with.) The result of this system is, I think, fairly predictable:


 * in theory, "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." (WP:DUE)
 * in practice, it tends to present competing views in proportion to their representation among the editors of the article


 * Peter jackson (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no reply, I guess I will pose the question: under what conditions does a sentence satisfy WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies when it does not have a source, when editors cannot consistently explain its meaning, and when most of the explanations provided seem to be based on reasoning that cannot be cited to any source? And are those conditions present here? Gimmetrow 04:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I rather suspect your comment comes under the heading "rhetorical questions". Peter jackson (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Back away lads, this horse won't go no mo. Sunray (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please discuss content. Gimmetrow 01:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's now been over a week without substantive reply. We have an unsourced, ambiguous sentence in the article for which editors refuse to either provide sources as specified by Wikipedia verifiability policy, or discuss the issue. This dynamic is similar to the dynamic that has gone on for at least 1.5 years already, and which led to the latest mediation. I have allowed the article to remain in your preferred version pending discussion, but if there is not going to be discussion, then Wikipedia policy should be followed and the sentence should be removed. Gimmetrow 08:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And still no response. In summary, we have a sentence in the article which claims: "The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents." This sentence admits of multiple meanings and it has no source. No clarification or source has been provided in the next, and attempts at clarification above have been contradictory - in other words, those defending the sentence cannot even consistently explain what it means, or provide sources which state this. Grammatically, the sentence claims that a particular term is "usually" the term the Church uses in its own documents. I explicitly dispute this. The Church uses other terms as commonly or more commonly than this term. This is specifically and explicitly an issue with a claim in the text which is not sources as required by WP:V (policy), and which, because it has no sources, is possibly contrary to WP:OR and WP:NPOV. If there is no response in a day or so, I will remove the sentence. Gimmetrow 01:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As announced, due to failure to reply with substantive discussion, I have removed the sentence. Gimmetrow 09:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh...no. There was no failure to reply.  There was simply a failure for you to see the replies that every other person can see.  Stop with the IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Farsight001 (talk) 09:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are required by WP:Verifiability to provide sources for disputed phrases. You did not. Sentence is removed. Further restoration without sources is a violation of WP:V policy. Gimmetrow 10:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You must have missed the part of wiki policy about really effing obvious statements not actually needing citation, or would you prefer a cite for things like "Europe is a continent" and "2+2=4"? And if so, then you problem is with policy, not with this sentence, so I suggest you bitch there, not here.  You have already had this explained to you by multiple people in multiple ways and you will not listen.  Your edits border on vandalism at this point.Farsight001 (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not "effing obvious" - that's why I'm disputing it. Per WP:V, please now provide sources in the article which show that "Catholic Church" is the term the Church "usually" uses in its own documents above all other terms (and not just RCC). Gimmetrow 11:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Back on 5 July 2009, Richard proposed and Sunray supported this sentence: "In its own documents, the Church uses "CC" more frequently than "RCC." That would have solved my concern with this sentence - two months ago. Gimmetrow 12:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure, just as you don't seem to be able to see that CC is preferred by the Church, that some people also don't actually know that Europe is a continent. That, however, does not stop it from being extremely obvious that it is, and we need not provide a source that states that Europe is a continent for those miniscule minority that didn't know that. Farsight001 (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Farsight, please address content. The issue is a claim in the text that CC is "usually" used, therefore more frequently than every other term. That is unlikely to be the case, since there are, indeed, terms used as much or more frequently than CC. This could have been resolved easily months ago. At this point, unless sources are provided in the text as required by WP:Verifiabilty, I will remove the disputed text, and will view editors who restore the text as doing so in violation of Wikipedia policy. Gimmetrow 22:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I addressed the issue. Other addressed the issue.  You are, flat out ignoring them.  I explained this multiple times to you already, and you in no way addressed what I said.  Nor have you addressed what others said either.  You are ignoring the discussion and then claiming that it didn't take place.  Do you actually think we're that stupid as to fall for a childish game like that?  Get a freaking clue.  Your continued edits whilst refusing to recognize discussion can be construed as vandalism, and considering your long track record of POV-pushing on Catholic related articles, I don't see why you think you can get away with this bullshit. Farsight001 (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please address content and avoid making personal attacks. Now, do you have any evidence whatsoever that "Catholic Church" is used more commonly than every other term the Church uses in its own documents? Gimmetrow 23:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Rationalizing "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic" across all relevant articles and categories
I raised this question over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism a few weeks ago and got relatively little response. Now, User:History2007 is raising a significant objection to "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic". See this diff. Recently, User:EastmeetsWest moved Roman Catholic theology to Catholic theology. History2007 has moved it back. I think we need to engage History2007 and help work out this issue or we will never have a consistent set of article titles. --Richard (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have reservations about "Catholic theology" as well, because the initial capital C probably isn't enough to indicate that the word is being used to refer to the Catholic Church, as opposed to some sort of inchoate "catholicism" or "universality". Would there be any real objections to retitling it Theology of the Catholic Church, which is less ambiguous in a number of ways? We can always have redirects in place for any titles which would reasonably refer explicitly to the article in question. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't share your reservations but I don't object to Theology of the Catholic Church either. Eventually we have to look at the possibility of something like The Ten Commandments in the teaching of the Catholic  Church.  In any event, it would be better if this discussion were conducted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism instead of at this Talk Page. --Richard (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The diff you quote is extremely long. If you want lots of people to look into what you're talking about, you might want to mak ethings easier for them. Peter jackson (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Peter. I copied the URL for the diff from the edit history without actually looking to see what the diff looked like.  It is very difficult to read.  The relevant section of  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism  is here. --Richard (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem, of course, is that the terms "Catholic" and "Catholicism" do not equate to "Roman Catholic" and "Roman Catholicism" as these terms also have other meanings - as, also, does "Catholic Church". Therefore "Catholic theology" does not only meaning "Theology of the (Roman) Catholic Church".  We were assured in the naming discussion for this article that changing it to "Catholic Church" would not lead to similar changes to other articles but this assurance has not been honoured - and to no one's real surprise I expect. Afterwriting (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Like Richard, I have no problem with Catholic Theology, but Theology of the Catholic Church is also acceptable. As far as CC being ambiguous, we have been over that for 4 years at least and a consensus has been reached. There is no such other real world entity with the name CC, only a theological concept or abstraction. If we really need to have an article on that, it should be called Catholic Church (theological concept), or some such thing. Anyway, it is a use of the term that is fairly technical and used by theologians and not everyday parlance. WP is written not for the specialist, but the average person. Okay, enough of that.

Richard brought up somewhere else the idea of a general nomenclature for a variety of Catholic topics, perhaps, Catholic teaching regarding X. I prefer Catholic teaching on X which he also suggested. Anyway, it would be helpful to arrive at a general nomenclature for these articles pertaining to the Catholic Church so that they are in harmony with the main article and with each other.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In this case all such articles need to include "Catholic Church" in their names and not just "Catholic". Afterwriting (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the name change of the article to "Catholic Church" has now led to ambiguity. When the article was titled "Roman Catholic Church" I understood clearly that, especially in the beliefs section, that this is what people who were fully in communion with the Bishop of Rome held as being true, and I had no objection to this - indeed would have supported this so long as the scope of the article made this clear. This is a prime reason why the Church has never gave up the title of the title "Roman Catholic Church", perhaps user Soidi, who appears to be the most knowledgeable editor, can confirm. There is no strong reason in my part for reverting the article name but it has now to be recognised by the editors who control the present article that the new name  allows notable sources to be included, especially in the beliefs section, that do not subscribe to the present definition of "Catholic Church" and there is a lot changes that now have to be made to the lede and the body of the article Taam (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam, I have no idea what you are talking about. As an Eastern Catholic who is not at all "Roman" but a member of the Catholic Church, this article only now makes sense. It is customary in the West to assume that Roman Catholic refers to the entire church while this is simply not true. Anyway, as the mediation has recognized there is no reason to believe that someone looking for Anglican theology would look up "Catholic theology." Yes, there are theological disputes, but WP is not in that business. WP is in the business of communicating to the average reader. And, all evidence shows that Catholic Church in the normal everyday use of the term refers to the Catholic Church. So, of course there is no problem. There is only a problem for those who have theological differences with the Catholic Church. Those are duly noted. There really isn't anything more to talk about--except the nomenclature for related articles. --EastmeetsWest (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont know what you mean "As an Eastern Catholic who is not at all "Roman" but a member of the Catholic Church,", it may be as clear as day to you but I suggest that for those who are are not part of the community that it is highly ambiguous. As an outsider I want to know what the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome holds as true. Taam (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would only add that after looking at your recent edit history and article name changes that you only confirm for those who are willing to see the goodness in all people that a certain brand of "Catholicism" is only about imposing your version of Absolute Truth on the rest of humanity. This is not the religion I am familiar with. Taam (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I can accept that, afterwriting. How about Catholic Church teaching on X. That would work for articles regarding teachings anyway. For articles that do not have to do with teachings specifically, we might have to look at separately. However, clearly institutional topics such as lists of Catholic bishops or something ought to just have the term Catholic, as there is no such thing as a bishop of the theological entity "Catholic Church." Are there really people who call themselves Catholic bishops who are not members of the Catholic church? Wouldn't they clearly be bishops of such and such a church? After all there is no other real world institution with the name "Catholic Church."--EastmeetsWest (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam, It is of course not about absolute truth. WP is not able to arrive at that. It is only a matter of WP naming conventions. Naming conventions have already be discussed and a mediated solution arrived at. Now, it is a matter of consistency in WP article naming. So, lets get on with it. Plenty of work to do to make WP consistent.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With every respect to you, and without malice, please practice what you preach. The Pharisees (according to modern scholarship) get a poor press in the NT, but legalism, wiki policy this or that, seems to be very popular amongst the overtly "catholic" editors of wiki articles. I have a high regard for catholic scholarship but most definitely it is not reflected in wiki articles imo. Taam (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam. Hmmm....   So, let's get back to the topic at hand. If we agree here on some general format for consistent Catholic article naming, how do we go about making the changes? --EastmeetsWest (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that those who are very loyal to the teachings of the Church shot themselves in the foot when they changed this article to "Catholic Church" for the reasons given above. Because you now allow, quite rightly, with the name change alternate views as to what "Catholic Church" means and what it believes. To repeat I am an outsider but the new article name means that I can no longer be sure what the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome now teaches whereas the previous title makes it clear. The same holds true for other articles, an example would be mariology which is present in both Roman Catholic and Anglian communities (I know from visiting Walsingham). My strong suggestion is that in Wikipedia articles should use "Roman Catholic", not least to clarify what set of doctrines are at issue, but also to follow your Church who uses the term Roman Catholic in ecumenical documents. If Wikipedia is not such an an envoriement then I don't know what is. Taam (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam, when you said: "the new article name means that I can no longer be sure what the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome now teaches whereas the previous title makes it clear." you expressed exactly the right point. That was a key point that I was trying to make. There is no longer an assurance that what these articles say corresponds to the teachings of the Bishop of Rome. In other words, we have inaccuracy and ambiguity. Time to pray for order. Amen. History2007 (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding, given time I'm sure I could pick out scholarly sources, was that the Church never gave up the title "Roman Catholic Church", indeed they invoked it, to ensure that there was no ambiguity regarding doctrine and to emphasise the aspect of communion with the Bishop of Rome. I am very late to this discussion and haven't read all the archived pages but I am amazed that somebody like Lima-Soidi ever let this move take place. From my experience with him, even if I don't share his beliefs, he is far more knowledgeable about the subject than any of the other editors here and should have been in a position to advise the others of the mine-field they were entering.Taam (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, Taam. When you typed the words "Catholic Church" into Wikipedia, what else were you expecting to arrive at other than the Church which is in communion with the Pope? Where is the real world ambiguity? Relativistic meandering in regards to the name Catholic Church and its obscure application to other entities which have a completely different WP:COMMONNAME is red herring and kind of old hat now. As for ecumenism; obviously most major Churches strive for unity, however the Catholic Church's existence in the world doesn't revolve around its relationship to Anglicanism, so the word "Roman" is not needed in the vast majority of articles. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yorkshirian, please read carefully what I wrote, it answers your points. Taam (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact is that we now have ambiguity. What is the Wikipedia definition for "Roman Catholic" as of today please? Any ideas? I do not know where to find that definition now. Where is it defined now? Lots of churches have that written on their doors. So an encyclopedia must define that term. Where is the definition please? History2007 (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The objection is a little confusing. Catholic Church refers to the communion of particular churches in communion under the authority of the Bishop of Rome (as stated in the article).  There is no inaccuracy or ambiguity.  As to Taam's confusion, Anglicans don't fall into this communion, they are not part of the Catholic Church (catholicity being a separated concept), and the name change doesn't change what church is being discussed.  You can still "be sure what the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome now teaches"  --anietor (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Anietor, you speak with the voice of innocence but please be assured that there is plenty who reject teachings of the Popes yet most definately identify with the "Catholic Church" whereas the previous name made it clear the article related to those in communion with the Pope. Taam (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Again: what is the definition of "Roman Catholic" within Wikipedia as of today please? Where is it defined? Is that a hard question to answer? It just needs a link. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And Taam, I agree on Lima - he is an expert. But his last edit was in July. He must be on vacation, to have let this happen. History2007 (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Lima participated in the mediation under the user name Soidi. It was Soidi, Gimmetrow and Afterwriting who insisted that the lead be changed so as not to assert that "the official name" of the church is "the Catholic Church".  The mediation found a compromise by neither asserting nor denying that the church had an official name or what it was.  Part of that compromise was to change the article title to Catholic Church and to mention "Catholic Church" first in the lead sentence.  Another part of the compromise was the drafting of a note explaining the background issues surrounding the two names "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church".  Soidi, Gimmetrow and Afterwriting all agreed that they had no objection to moving the article to Catholic Church.  Gimmetrow still has some outstanding concerns regarding the Note.


 * The mediation agreement explicitly limited itself to the title of this article and declined to extend the naming decision to any article other than this one. AFAIK, Lima/Soidi has not commented on the use of "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic" in the titles of other articles.  However, I am inclined to believe that he would not object to the proposed renaming to "Catholic ...." over "Roman Catholic ..."


 * --Richard (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Decent summary. Yes, there weren't a lot of objections to the actual move of the article, but not everyone had the same reasons. The "why" was rather diverse. Gimmetrow 03:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Returning to the original subject of this section, what I posted in Richard's discussion at Project Catholicism was that Categories and Dioceses should usually go to "Catholic Diocese of..." or sometimes just to "Diocese of...." if that is the only diocese in the locality. For theological articles I have no objection to either of the choices on offer to maintain precision. Where say Pilgrimage in Catholicism might be ambiguous since the theological concept of Catholicism spreads wider than the Catholic Church, either Pilgrimage in the Catholic Church or Pilgrimage in Roman Catholicism would be acceptable solutions. In the discussion on the name change for THIS article it was said that it did not mean other articles should rigorously follow. That is because, while it was important that people not be misled about the proper organisational name of the Church, particularly in this article, that principle did not apply so strongly to subsidiary articles.  Xan  dar  23:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting
Hi guys. I am still waiting. Again: what is the definition of "Roman Catholic" within Wikipedia as of today please? Where is it defined? Is that a hard question to answer? It just needs a link. Or shall I put in a request for that page to be built? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if Wikipedia is in the business of defining terms like "Roman Catholic". I would term it an unofficial term in use largely in the English-speaking world, coined to designate Christians in communion with the Pope. However it is a term disliked by many of those persons for various reasons.  Xan  dar   23:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would expect an encyclopedia to define a term that appears on the door of thousands of churches. My personal definition, which is very unofficial is based on the real world method of "follow the money": i.e. a Roman Catholic is someone part of whose donation eventually ends up in Rome because the church he goes to has a financial relationship with Rome. Eastern churches do not fall into that pipeline. But I would not expect Wikipedia to use that definition. Hence a more formal definition is needed. History2007 (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your definition is a matter of OR and personal interpretation. The name has zero to do with that chain of supposition. I don't think WP is in the business of defining every term that appears in popular usage. However the Catholic Encyclopedia has a full historical discussion of the term here And if you are really interested, there are poages and pages of referenced debate in the recent archives of this page.  Xan  dar   23:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That was a useful reference. I will thus build a page for Roman Catholic based on that in a few days. The term is widely used and obviously needs clarification. The Catholic encyclopedia is a solid enough reference to use, and I will find a few more in a few days. I will then redirect Roman Catholic to that new page instead of this one. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems a reasonable course of action and if you use up to date teaching material regarding beliefs then it can be a handy reference for those who want to know what the Church in communion with the Pope believes, but it would have been much better to have retained the original name for this article to avoid all the chaos that is going to result. Taam (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. The redirect from Roman Catholic comes to this page as part of the consensus agreement that took a LONG time to work out. We're not changing that without a good consensus to do so. We do not want a POV fork to develop around any article on an alternative name. If you want to write a very brief article just on the usage "Roman Catholic" that is linked to from this article, that might work. But we cant change the redirect and it mustn't be a POV fork.  Xan  dar   00:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I will certainly not do a POV but use the Catholic encyclopedia. And I will not write a dissertation either, but a brief page with a description of the usage. The term needs definition. As is it redirects to a place that does not define it. So it needs a definition and that page will include a clear link to this page. History2007 (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But the redirect from Roman Catholic comes here, not to any new article. That is the consensus. We do not need specific articles for alternate names. Mormon Church goes to LDS, not to an article on the name Mormon. Bombay goes to Mumbai not to an article on the name Bombay. If you want to write a specific article on naming it gets a link from here, that's all.  Xan  dar   00:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How does that work again? A term links to a place with no definition, then links to the definition? Sounds like the way cab drivers drive the tourists in New York. And what will that page be called? The real definition? History2007 (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The definition is in the first line of the article which says "The Catholic Church also known as the Roman Catholic Church". There is also a brief note which can be clicked. When the article was named RCC we didn't have another article titled Catholic Church. A further article on the name RCC and its history would not be the prime article for the body. Any new article Roman Catholic (term) or Roman Catholic (name) would have to be linked from here as a minor topic.  Xan  dar   01:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As Xander noted, there is no consensus for creating a separate RC article. Indeed, the consensus is for what we have now, with Roman Catholic redirecting to this article. That is the appropriate, unambiguous, consensus-based structure. Your proposal is POV and without significant support (in terms of sources or consensus), so let's not start start an edit war here. You know that's where this is likely headed if you try and change it to what you personally prefer. Being bold is one thing...ignoring consensus is another. --anietor (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about POV? I have not even written one line of the definition page and you guys are screaming POV? Is this trial before the crime? Why don't you write a page based on the Catholic encyclopedia instead of all this talk? Makes me laugh.... Anyway, it is past my bedtime now... I guess I must be guilty by virtue of being in Rome for a few days now.... By what method will I be tortured? Anyway, I will type more tomorrow. History2007 (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What I meant is a WP:POVFORK, where two artiocles are created on the same topic which, besides being confusing, can be hijacked to present differing POVs. In addition, trying to override consensus has POV elements. I suggested above a method which could meet your concerns on naming without creating a POV fork or misapply a redirect.  Xan  dar   01:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was going to do it that way anyway. The link was the topic. Now.. good night... History2007 (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now that I am more awake, I think the best way for the "definition page" will be to do what we did for the right hand template for this article. As Xandar may recall I posted a prototype of the suggested fonts, arrangements etc. on the talk page, it got played with by the 3 or 4 of us that were testing it for readability etc. In a day or two I will post a prototype of the definition page for the term Roman catholic on this talk page, so people can edit it, make suggestions etc. Then we see what things look like once that prototype has become stable. And by the way, it is not just an English speaking issue, e.g. these  also have Roman Catholic as a term. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the two Wikipedia articles you link to, the French one refers to "Roman" Catholics as being separate from Eastern Catholics. The Italian one refers to the term in the main "Catholic Church" article, describing it as a largely English protestant invention.  Xan  dar   19:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The French statement is certainly true, and the Italian one works half the time... like everything else in Italy I have encountered ... History2007 (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I certainly would not support an article on "Roman Catholic" that does not restate essentially the consensus already achieved. If it were to reflect the current consensus and the Catholic Encyclopedia's explanation of the term, I could support an article called Roman Catholic (terminology). But, an article simply called Roman Catholic would definitely be a case of POV Forking. Regarding all those churches with the name Roman Catholic, it should be noted that they are all Latin Rite churches, a fact which supports the current consensus for Catholic Church.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a start for the page. Please feel free to comment and or modify it.

--

Roman Catholic (term)
The term Roman Catholic first appeared in the 16th century. Its roots may be traced to the differences between specific groups of Christians in communion with the Pope and others. Historically the differences were with Protestants, but later were even used to distinguish this group from other Catholics who recognize the Pope.

Roman Catholic churches are generally distinguished by the fact that they are part of a hierarchical diocese and archdiocese structure under the Vatican, and that they follow the Latin Rite. Some such churches use the term Roman Catholic as part of their name, e.g. St. Paul's Roman Catholic Church, Princenton, NJ. . As of January 2009, the were 630 Roman Catholic archdioceses. The churches that form these archdiocese are distinct from other Catholic churches which are organized as eparchies.

History2007 (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, no comments, so I guess it was brief enough that did not bother anyone. And clearly not a POV fork. So I built it. On renamings, based on this page, in cases where Byzantine and Eastern art get involved, some renamings are actually necessary, e.g. I renamed my article on Roman Catholic Marian art to Marian art in the Catholic Church because it had many Eastern icons in it anyway. But articles that include theological issues (such as Mariology) can not be subject to the same change since the content was not written with that perspective. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Waiting just 10 hours (and just overnight in the Western Hemisphere) and getting no response is hardly acquiescence, History. The proposal is confusing ("definition"?  it's more of an entomological discussion than a definition), inaccurate (conflating Roman with Latin-rite) and goes against consensus, especially if it is a redirect from Roman Catholic, which currently goes to this article.  I'm sure others will be chiming in shortly.--anietor (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually that type of page was also Xander's suggestion, if you read above. And he even offered a link from this page to that. And it has no redirect from Roman Catholic, which was the objection. The page is there by itself, as a definition, which is needed. There was no consensus that such a short page should not be built: the objections were to make a POV fork, which the page is not. As for it being etymology, all definitions have some type of etymology. The basic content history came mostly from the Catholic encyclopedia, and the other reference, so please feel free to correct what I wrote if you see errors. What exactly are those errors in that definition? If you see errors, please correct them. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your change from Roman Catholic (definition) to Roman Catholic (term) was a good one. Substantively, the article would lead a reader to the conclusion that the term RC, today, refers only to Latin-Rite Catholics, which is not entirely the case.  More recent Church documents use the term RC to refer to the world-wide Catholic Church (Latin-Rite and Eastern-Rite), including several encyclicals.  The article as written now would lead a reader to believe that the term RC can, today, be substituted for the term Latin-Rite.  Perhaps that is why you included the term "generally", but I'm not sure it's clear enough (unless, of course, you disagree and are taking the position that the 2 terms are synonymous).  Thoughts?--anietor (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Anietor, for Heaven's sake do me a favor: clarify this thing for me and others like me by writing a clear, and concise set of definitions and descriptions and have it agreed to by other experts. As a Roman Catholic (whatever it may mean these days) I have no idea where these conceptual errors that you refer to are suddenly coming from, based on the renaming of this article. If I am confused, so are many other people who hesitate to say so. There is so much talk on this page and yet a clear and clean set of answers are hard to come by. On that note, now that I am on my complaint soap box, let me say that Wikipedia today does not do such a great job of clarifying things about the Eastern practices, for people like me. E.g. Do the Easterns pray the Rosary? Wear the scapular? Somewhere there should be an easy to read table of who believes in what. Who can do this? Thanks History2007 (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * History, if my comment was not clear to you, and I'm required to give you a thorough discussion of Latin-Rite, Eastern-Rite Catholics, then you are not qualified to write the article in the first place. If you write such a simplistic two-paragraph article on "Roman Catholic", ask for comments, and then complain when people do comment and say that you need definitions of the very terms you are writing an article about, I can't really help you.  Anyone can start an article, but "for Heaven's sake", write about something you have researched first.  Did you even read the article on Latin Rite Catholic Church, along with its sources?  Your article in inconsistent, and leads me to believe you haven't done some basic research before diving in.     --anietor (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I used to be clear, until this new renaming. What I do not understand is the extent of the rename. That was my request. The paragraph Latin_Rite does give some ideas, but is not conclusive. It involves guesswork as to what the Church intends. And by the way, I have written close to 100 articles on Roman Catholic issues... History2007 (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The wording as it stands is confusing and not helpful. The first paragraph is okay, since it simply refers to the terminology, like the Catholic Encyclopedia article. Once you go on and try and define a Roman Catholic Church, you are on rocky ground. "Roman Catholic" is two things a) Another name for the Catholic Church, applied to it by protestants and others 2) A name used by some for the Latin-rite dioceses of the Catyholic Church. Your wording seems based on OR in some respects, doesn't give the history of the term, and states as fact that "Roman Catholic" churches are those churches of the Latin Rite - which is not true. Some people use this term for those churches, but it is NOT proper usage. We have to be very careful here not to spread common misconceptions.  Xan  dar   00:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * People are discussing this even below. So I will type below. And the line between "popular misconception" and "common use of language" is an interesting line, with lots of DMZ in many cases.... anyway, I will type below. But how I wish I did not have to be in this debate.... sigh... History2007 (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)