Talk:Catholic Church/Page rename proposal/Archive 2

Wikipedia guidelines
Soidi: The policies are posted at the top of this page. At your request, several editors have cited specific items that apply. Editorial decisions (including article name changes) are made by consensus based on WP policies and guidelines. Sunray (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you tell me, please, which of the policies posted at the top of this page requires a change in the title of the article. As Cody says, the naming policy insists (when referring to self-identifying terms) only on using a common name in English, which is also used officially by the organization it describes, and does not specify "most preferred" or "most used".  No editor has cited a policy that applies.  They have quoted rules about how to tell which name is most common, but have indicated no rule about which of the names used by a self-identifying entity to choose.  They have quoted policies that hold good for RCC (the title in possession) as well as for CC, but no policy that says that CC must necessarily be chosen.  Soidi (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)  Did you perhaps mean the rule: "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"?  That is not applicable to the (Roman) Catholic Church, which is not an inanimate or non-human entity disputed by two jurisdictions, and is instead able to pick its own names on its own authority.  Soidi (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your last sentence. Which clause do you not agree with: that the Catholic Church is an inanimate entity, or that the name has been disputed by other churches? Or do you disagree with both?  Sunray (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[out] It seems that my last response wasn't clear. Policy does not require a name change. That was the outcome of the mediation: A consensus decision that the name should be changed to the Catholic Church. The naming convention set out in the policy (WP:NAME) is the following:
 * "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article..."

Thus it is clear in policy that the most common name is the one to be used.

Where there is a conflict between names, the policy refers to a guideline (WP:NCON), which sets out a standard 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."

Again, the most common name is the standard to be applied. The guidelines further specify objective criteria. Here's a my assessment of the findings of the mediation regarding the two names:

Notes re: table
 * 1)  The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents. It appears in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  It is also the term that Pope Paul VI used when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council. (From "Explanatory note," above).
 * 2)  "CC" is the name usually used by the Church to describe itself. "RCC" is used primarily in inter-faith communications.

Would you please specify: a) whether there is something in the foregoing that is unclear, and, b) if there is something that you disagree with? Sunray (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sunray. Instead of simply affirming the existence of some Wikipedia policy on the subject, you have quoted something concrete from WP:NAME, which at first sight seems convincing: "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article."
 * It is much less convincing, if the quotation is completed. The part you quoted (but without the period mark that is not part of the quotation, but that you included within the quote marks) continues: "(making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in disambiguation guideline). The naming conflict guideline may help resolve disagreements over the right name to use."
 * "Catholic Church" is ambiguous as an article title: it could refer to an organization or to a theological concept. So, as Cody indicated, if we want to move from "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church", we must disambiguate the new title by adding something in parenthesis.  I don't remember what else he suggested as a parenthesis, only the unsatisfactory "Catholic Church (Roman)", which I think nobody would consider to be an improvement on "Roman Catholic Church".  A title must indicate without ambiguity what the article will be about.  It is no good to say that the article itself will explain later: we need to know from the title itself what it refers to.  Saying that no other church uses the name "Catholic Church" (even if it were true) is also irrelevant: the title "Catholic Church" does not indicate that the article will be about a church rather than about the theological concept of "Catholic Church".  So we must apply the policy "making the title unique when necessary" that you omitted in your quotation.
 * The disambiguation guideline referred to in WP:NAME has the following: "When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta) that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used." The applicability of this Wikipedia policy to the present case seems obvious.
 * Finally, I must frankly say that the table that you put at the end of your comment is quite misleading. It should be as in the following table, which for some reason I cannot get to appear ahead of my signature:
 * Soidi (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have removed Soidi's table because I think it is confusing to have two tables with contradictory information. I would hope that we can modify the above table, by consensus agreement. Sunray (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think its rather in bad faith to characterize Sunray's comments as "misleading". With regard to to WP:NCDAB, this is clearly the primary topic, so only a disambiguation link would be appropriate.  So which naming convention do you see here that overrides the general principal to use the most common name as set out in WP:NAME?  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 12:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is in perfectly good faith that I characterize the table as misleading. Sunray's comments are by no means misleading.  But the table gives the impression that CC is "the official name" of the Church and "the name it uses to describe itself", as if the Church used no other name in its official dealings and limited itself to that one name when speaking of itself!  There is absolutely no suggestion that Sunray acted in bad faith.  He most certainly did not.  But the table is misleading.  Soidi (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was considered bad form to accuse other editors of bad faith. But doing so seems to be a growing custom on this page.  Soidi (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Soidi. Your table is the misleading one, using non-standard categories devised by yourself, and stating that Roman Catholic Church is an official name (untrue), and a name the Church uses to describe itself - which is a huge twisting of the facts. The sources used to decide what name the Church uses officially and to describe itself are CONSTITUTIONS TREATIES and other major defining documents. All of these use Catholic Church. As for your new disambiguation argument, it fails several tests: I think "ambiguity" problems with the title Catholic Church have been addressed here and in the google search evidence. A google search under "Catholic Church" today shows:
 * 1. There is no other article called "Catholic Church" to disambiguate from. This is because there has not been a need for another such article. "Catholic Church" as a theological concept is a relatively specialist subset of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church concept, and is covered in linked articles such as Catholic and Catholicism. There having being no other article of the same name, a disambiguation bracket is not needed. If such an article were to be created, it could be disambiguated easily as Catholic Church (Theological concept).
 * 2. "Catholic Church" already redirects to this page. This is because 99% of users typing in Catholic Church want this article. There have been no complaints about this redirect in the 4 years it has been operating (- as part of the former agreement.) Therefore the problem that Soidi aleges, clearly does not exist.
 * 3. Once readers have arrived at the page by typing in "Catholic Church", the fact that the article title reads "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church" makes no difference from the point of view of potential ambiguity. There will still be a disambiguation link, and the first line of the article text will say "Roman Catholic Church". This usage of Catholic Church (even if there were other articles with the same name) is clearly a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
 * 4. Even the disambiguation page from "Catholic Church" does not link to an article covering the meaning of "Catholic Church" that Soidi thinks so important. This proves quite clearly that Soidi's alternate usage is not one even a tiny minority of users appear to have a need for.
 * 5. Adding a bracket (besides being superfluous) would still require, for the benefit of users, that "Catholic Church" redirected to this page - again eroding the "ambiguity" argument.
 * 6. The construction "Catholic Church (Roman) would be inaccurate, since it does not include the Eastern Catholic Churches, and would give rise to more user confusion and ambiguity than anything else.
 * 7 Soidi's "solution" to this self-invented problem is to use "Roman Catholic Church" as the article title. However this presents greater and more real problems of ambiguity A) The title does not cover the whole Church (as our sources tell us) since Eastern Catholics are not Roman - it applies only to the Latin Church in much usage. B) It raises ambiguity and uncertainty as to what is the proper or official name of the Church - the argument that brought us to this long mediation process in the first place! These are real, rather than invented, ambiguities.
 * 8 Soidi's argument that any church using a concept in its title must have disambiguation brackets or be given another name would impact on other groups too. Presbyterianism - should this not be Presbyterianism (denomination) or Westminster Presbyterianism? Baptist would have to be Baptist (denomination), so that readers looking for all people who believe in baptism would not be confused. Is Eastern Orthodox Church clear enough without brackets so that it doesn't confuse Oriental Orthodox Church seekers? Church of Ireland, Church of England etc. should also receive disambiguation brackets, so that they do not mislead people into thinking that these are articles about all the Christians in those countries. The rules obviously do not dictate this.
 * No mention of "Roman Catholic Church" apart from Wikipedia in the first 5 result pages
 * No reference to Soidi's concept of the "Catholic Church" as a separate theological concept. I gave up checking after 10 pages of results.
 * The only references to anything other than the subject of this article being separately identified from page 3 onward as "Anglican Catholic Church", "Old Catholic Church" etc.

 Xan  dar  13:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Soidi's table seems to be improperly constructed and now appears to be floating at the bottom of the page.  Xan  dar  13:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed the "floating table" issue so our entries now appear in chronological order. I assume Soidi made an innocent mistake on that...I know that creating tables can be a pain in the neck!  Soidi, please correct me if I'm wrong.  I'm just trying to get our edits to appear in chronological order.  --anietor (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but Soidi's table is also wrong. The OFFICIAL name of the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. There are other names used to describe- but there is only one OFFICIAL name. --Rockstone35 (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I agree about that, Rockstone35! Don't interpret my comment about "fixing" Soidi's table as an endorsement of it.  I was just helping with a technical problem.  I disagree with Soidi, but I certainly don't mind helping with a logistical table-making issue.  Think of it like that famous story of the warring armies in WWI who decided to meet on the battle field and sing "Silent Night" just for that one Christmas Eve! :-)  --anietor (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As stated, I've removed the second table. It is crazy-making to have two tables with conflicting information on them, IMO. My suggestion would be to discuss the table that was initially created and make changes based on reasoned argument and consensus. It may not work as well as singing Silent Night, but will have to suffice, given the medium. :) Sunray (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol! We can still sing Silent night! :P. Anyway- that sounds good, if we want to edit the table- we can! --Rockstone35 (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree Sunray's table is accurate. Soidi has not answered Sunray's questions regarding identifying what he thinks is incorrect about it and supplying adequate reliable sources to support his position. What seems to strike me over and over again about Soidi's argument is that this is simply a case of I just don't like it which is not a reason to abandon the consensus of the mediation.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 18:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Nancy. Those making a case must supply adequate reliable sources to support their position. In this case, Sunray's table claims that CC is the official current name of the subject and the name used by the subject to describe itself. Not a name, but the name. Sunray is therefore obliged to provide adequate reliable sources to support this position. Until those sources are provided, it is not strictly necessary for anyone to do anything but note that those sources have not yet been provided. So, please provide the source where the Church says that CC is the official name of the church. (And please be careful about claiming what is the "consensus" of the mediation.) Gimmetrow 19:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sunray, as the mediator, is not going to provide these sources for you. You have the entire mediation and the summary which outlines what sources were used to reach these conclusions. You need to understand that while the optimum outcome is for every editor involved to agree with the chosen approach (i.e. a consensus), for purposes of Wikipedia, a super-majority is often considered sufficient so snide comments about claiming consensus out of the mediation are really unnecessary.  If you have arguments to make for your position, please do so; I think everyone here would great appreciate an end to WP:IDONTHEARTHAT responses. Shell   babelfish 19:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I quite agree with the latter part of what you say - Nancy's response repeated ad nauseum, that no sources have been presented, needs to stop. This has gone on now for over a year. Furthermore, since Sunray is now presenting an opinion as part of the dispute, and is no longer a mediator, it is quite acceptable to ask for sources. Really, though, I am pointing out that the supporters of Sunray's position need to provide sources for that position as required by WP:V. It is only equitable, especially if they want to ask others to supply sources - sources which have been supplied multiple times - as Nancy demands above. Gimmetrow 21:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Working off Sunray's table makes sense to me as well. Is it really appropriate to edit his actual table, though? It's essentially Sunray's submission summarizing his analysis.  I wouldn't edit someone's text in a talk page if I disagreed with it, so I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of editing someone else's table.  It also seems like it would quickly devolve into an edit war with people switching the "Yes" and "No" entries.  --anietor (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the idea is that if you feel something needs to be changed in the table, to discuss that change and if there's a consensus for it, then make the change. You're right that edit warring would be unhelpful in resolving things. Shell  babelfish 19:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am having difficulties with my Internet connection. I would have liked to reply earlier to Sunray's two statements ("The Catholic Church is the name used by the pope to sign official documents"; "CC is the name usually used by the Church to describe itself. RCC is used in inter-faith communications"), which have made me laugh.
 * Out of the tens of thousands, more likely hundreds of thousands, of documents signed by the Pope in the course of the twentieth century, "I, X, Bishop of the Catholic Church" was the form in which Popes signed exactly 17 of them (the 16 Second Vatican Council documents plus one more). And those 17 signatures are supposed to make "Catholic Church" the one and only official name of the Church, to the exclusion of all others!  LOL!  The present century has yet to see even one document signed in that way!
 * And the term the Popes have used for the Church in solemn agreements with the heads of other churches is supposed not to be official! What sort of a name is it then?  Am I supposed to believe that the name used for a state in an international treaty signed by the head of that state is also merely unofficial!  LOL!  I would have thought that such a document, identifying the state (or the church) with a view to its relations with other entities, would be the very place to look for an official name of the state (or the church).  But I am expected to believe the opposite!
 * Am I also seriously expected to believe that the term by which in those inter-Church agreements the Church refers to itself is not even a description of the Church, as seems to be suggested! Well then, what on earth does it describe?
 * Remember too that these important inter-Church agreements are not at all the only documents in which the Church uses (to all appearances) the name "RCC" to describe itself. The majority of the cases that I listed above, when challenged to prove that there were more than five of them, are not inter-Church agreements.
 * Now how about putting back the really fact-based table that was so high-handedly eliminated (as if I alone have no right to propose such a presentation)? If desired, I will give serious sources for its statements, without pretending that 17 signatures are enough to prove that no other form is official, or that what appear to be uses of a certain name by the Church in its official documents can be ignored. Soidi (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered my question. Which naming convention overrides that general principle that we should choose the most common English name as spelled out in WP:COMMONNAME? -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 21:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Soldi above asked for a policy or guideline which "required" the move. I believe that that request may have been at least a bit of a straw man argument. Policies and guidelines rarely require anything, with the possible exception of BLP articles. Policies and guidelines do however indicate that the name "Catholic Church" is the preferred one for this article, specifically WP:COMMONNAME, and, now, WP:CONSENSUS, as the majority of editors involved seem to believe that, based on naming guidelines, that is the preferred name. In addition to answering the question Kraftlos asked above, I would hope Soldi refrains from attempting to start discussion based on points which seem to at least me to have been created as a pretext for argument. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:NAME also says "Be precise when necessary" and, under "Controversial names", says: "If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain." (However, there is one passage of WP:NAME, added in late 2006 based on the CC/RCC dispute, that bears some consideration: "The article title should also not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles.") Consensus from mediation is not necessarily for the name change; quite a few of the participants in the mediation would be better described as "not strongly opposed". It wasn't the central issue of the mediation. Gimmetrow 21:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

But there is a good reason to change it. The last debate probably ended because people were tired of fighting the change. Consensus has changed, and Wikipedia has evolved a lot since 2004. --Rockstone35 (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And let's remember that the immediate reason for the decision to go for the proposed change now, is ending the VERY long-running argument over the way that the self-identified name of the Church should be spelled out in the article.  Xan  dar   23:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Gimmetrow points out that the policy says that in the case of controversial names, "if the article name has been stable for a long time and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain." This is an important point, I think. Let me see if I can clarify things a bit. The last debate on renaming the article occurred in 2006. Many people at that time wanted to rename the article "Catholic Church." However, it was decided to retain the current name. The Church's name and the wording of the lead sentence, have been frequently discussed since. Scanning the archives, I note that it was discussed at least once in 2007, again in March/April 2008, and has been discussed almost continuously since September 2008. That discussion led to the mediation, which began in February, 2009. The fact that the mediation produced a consensus on the name and the wording of the lead sentence, qualifies as a good reason to reconsider the name, IMO. As to the support from the mediation participants. A supermajority of the seventeen participants supported the name change. I believe only one person voiced "weak support," some others stood aside. I record two who were opposed. Sunray (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, just this year, we found so many tertiary sources and the only scholarly source to speak about the Church's name, all of these say the same thing, that the Church "claimed as its title" Catholic Church. This is evidence of vast scholarly consensus of "one" claimed title. See (Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, The Church by Richard McBrien) and  Academic American Encyclopedia. I consider this vast scholarly evidence concurring with "official" name being Catholic Church. The conversation in 2006 did not consider these sources and many of us were not part of that conversation.   Nancy Heise   ''' talk 00:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nancy, no matter how often you repeat this statement of yours, you cannot turn the Church's exclusive claim (to the exclusion of all claims by other groups) to the title of "the Catholic Church" into a claim that this is its only title, especially when it is clear that it does use other titles.
 * I notice that the claim that 17 signatures in a century in the form "I, X, Bishop of the Catholic Church" makes "CC" the one and only official name of the Church remains above.
 * Kraftlos has asked me again to answer the question, "Which naming convention overrides that general principle that we should choose the most common English name". For his benefit I repeat my answer.  The rule about the most common English name reads: "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in disambiguation guideline). The naming conflict guideline may help resolve disagreements over the right name to use."
 * "Catholic Church" is ambiguous as an article title: it could refer to an organization or to a theological concept. A title must indicate without ambiguity what the article will be about.  It is no good to say that the article itself will explain later: we need to know from the title itself what it refers to.  Saying that no other church uses the name "Catholic Church" (even if it were true) is also irrelevant: the title "Catholic Church" does not indicate that the article will be about a church rather than about the theological concept of "Catholic Church".
 * The disambiguation guideline has the following: "When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta) that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used." This Wikipedia policy strongly suggests that RCC is better than CC here. Soidi (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You've already said all this, Soidi. The point is that there IS no other article with the name "Catholic Church", (just as there is no other article with the name "Baptist"). And if such an article were to be written it would be easy enough for it to be disambiguated by using the title "Catholic Church (theological concept)", and a link placed at the top of this main article.   Xan  dar   15:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The closest thing we have to a Catholic Church (theological concept) page right now is probably Four Marks of the Church, which could be rewritten to that title, I suppose. I would however question whether it is required to use the name Catholic Church (theological concept) or anything similar because, as has already been stated, the "theological concept" seems to be derived, so far as I can see, from the phrasing of one or another church councils, so it's status as a "theological concept" is kind of dubious, and, so far as I can see, anyway, no particular stressing in those statements about just the words "catholic church" in those statements, so there wouldn't seem to me to be that much cause in creating such a separate page, although I guess I could see the proposed title being a redirect to the Four Marks of the Church page. John Carter (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am certainly not suggesting that such an article be artificially created. My point was that there IS no such article on WP to disambiguate. Since Wikipedia has been going for many years now with millions of articles, this would indicate that no-one has in all that time seen the need for such an article - and that it is not such an important strand of thought as Soidi suggests. IF someone decided to write such an article at some time in the future, I suggested a way that it could be handled.  Xan  dar   23:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Soidi: You said: "I notice that the claim that 17 signatures in a century in the form "I, X, Bishop of the Catholic Church" makes "CC" the one and only official name of the Church remains above." You are questioning the accuracy of the statement in the table. My understanding was that participants in the mediation considered that the important constitutional documents of the church were included in those Vatican II documents. I recall this citation: The four documents referred to as "Constitutions" are among the 17. What conclusion do you reach about this? How would you suggest we change the wording in the table? Sunray (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Church has no written constitution. Apostolic constitutions are not constitutions in the sense in which that term is used in civil law.  They can be concerned with Catholic universities, the study of Latin, the setting up of a new diocese, a new edition of the Roman Missal, the ranking of churches (buildings) in Rome to be assigned as titular church of cardinals, rules of fast and abstinence,  ... (these examples are from the 300 or more issued by Paul VI), but, as I said, none of them is a constitution in the sense in which it is used in Wikipedia policy. Those issued by the Second Vatican Council and which for that reason he signed with the "I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church" formula (while the other bishops signed them without any mention of "Catholic Church") were only four.  (The only documents that the Pope signs with the "I, X, Bishop of the Catholic Church" formula are those that are also signed by hundreds of other Catholic Bishops, whose signature is not in that form.)  One could draw the conclusion that nearly all the Church documents technically known as "constitutions" are not signed by a Pope with the "I, X, Bishop of the Catholic Church" formula, but that not even one of them is at all relevant to the Wikipedia rule about examining a constitution to know what is a country's official name.  So that rule is irrelevant for the official name of the Church.  Soidi (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to claim that these documents are the Constitution of the Church, but perhaps by my reference to them as "important constitutional documents" was misleading. Nevertheless, the Church lists these under the heading "constitutions." Are you suggesting that these are not official documents of the Church? Sunray (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If Soidi is suggesting that the dogmatic constitution on the Church is not a major constitutional document, he needs a lot of sound references to back that up. The constitution and other documents of Vatican II referred to here are some of the few INFALLIBLE documents of the Church - ie the most formal and official possible. In addition, the Codes of canon Law are certainly constitutional documents, and those of botht the Eastern and Western Catholic Church use the name Catholic Church and quote Lumen gentium.  Xan  dar   23:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course they are official documents of the Church. What else could they be?  Personal letters of the Pope?!  Apostolic Constitutions are one class of official documents.  Other classes include "Apostolic Exhortations" and "Apostolic Letters" (the word "Apostolic" is a reference to the Successor of the Apostle Peter, as when the Holy See is referred to as "the Apostolic" See). A sub-class of Apostolic Letters are motu proprios.  They are all official documents.  As are the agreements with other religious leaders signed by the Pope on behalf of the Church, not merely on his own private personal behalf.
 * The documents known as Apostolic Constitutions are not "constitutions" in the sense in which this word is nowadays applied to documents such as the United States Constitution. Laws passed by Congress are not "constitutional" documents in that sense.  The same holds for laws promulgated by the Holy See, whether in the form of Apostolic Constitutions or Codes of Canon Law: they are not "constitutional" documents, just as the Italian Code of Civil Law and Code of Criminal Law are not "constitutional" documents, but can instead be changed without going through the process required for changing the Constitution.
 * But they are, all of them, official documents. And you will find the Church, the Church as a whole, not just the diocese of Rome, called "Roman" as well as "Catholic" in the Church's official documents.  Soidi (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What Soidi has just placed on this page above, is unreferenced WP:OR. The documents of Vatican II are the "Dogmatic Constitutions" of the Church. They are the most core self defining documents the Church has created, they are the most recent documents and therefore they are all the more important. The Church itself calls them "Constitutions". I don't think we need any more obvious evidence than this.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 12:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want your interpretation of the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council to be accepted, you should first get the articles constitution, which mentions the original meaning of the term, and Apostolic Constitution altered to fit your ideas. Only four of the sixteen documents of the Council are called "constitutions" (in the sense this word has in Roman Law and in Canon Law, not in the modern sense). Of these four, only two are described as dogmatic. Soidi (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Accepted?" By whom? Are we straying from the point here? The note, and the table above refer to "official documents." Participants who wrote the note considered that the Vatican II documents, the Code of Cannon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church qualified as official documents. These documents mention the "Catholic Church" many times. They do not refer to the "Roman Catholic Church." Sunray (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely you are not saying that the only official documents of the Church are these 18? Or that the Church never uses "Roman Catholic" to designate itself?  The point is that CC is not the only way in which the Church does officially refers to itself, and that the claim that CC is the one and only official name is contradicted by the Church's own practice.
 * Wikipedia's own articles, cited by me, say that in ecclesiastical (and pre-modern) use "constitution" has a meaning different from the meaning that the same word has when referring to the constitution of a country. Nancy says the opposite.  If Nancy wants her view of the ecclesiastical meaning to be accepted by Wikipedia editors, she should take into account what is in Wikipedia articles on the matter.  It does not seem even-handed to suggest that it is not she, but someone who questions her view, who is straying from the point.  Soidi (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to derail the topic here- but most people here agree that the most common and official name of the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church, right? Theological reasons do not work as shown below on naming conventions:

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:

* Does the subject have a moral right to use the name? * Does the subject have a legal right to use the name? * Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights? * Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

Therefore, there is every reason to change the article name, and no reason not to. Soidi, you are fighting a losing battle. The most common and official name of the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church- both internal to the Church and External. No one is going to hear "Catholic Church" and think "hmm... Orthodox Catholic or Roman Catholic?". --Rockstone35 (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

- 	It could be argued that Roman Catholic as a title is also ambiguous, e.g.: - 	Old Roman Catholic Church - 	Reformed Roman Catholic Church - 	MyTuppenceWorth (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, MyTuppenceWorth. And the problem with Soidi's argument about CC not being the "only" name of the church, as you demonstrate, is that it would mean that no name could be used for the title of the article, which is obviously an illogical and unavoidable conclusion of his position.  Nobody is arguing that the church has NEVER been referred to by another name.  But under WP guidelines (cited repeatedly above), Catholic Church is the appropriate name for the article.  It is the name that the church uses for itself, and no ambiguity exists.  The fact that there are other titles applied to it (probably countless titles over the course of history) does not change that fact.  --anietor (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 18:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Table on naming criteria
Since Sunray suggests that the above discussion has strayed off the point, I think it would be good to discuss the following separately from all else.

Sunray's table above still claims that CC alone is "the" current official name of the Church, and that CC alone is "the" name used by the Church to describe itself. As a basis for the first of these claims is given the statement that CC "is the name used by the pope to sign official documents" - a misleading statement, because the pope hardly ever uses the formula "I, X, Bishop of the Catholic Church" to sign documents, a formula employed only 17 times (out of a probable more than 100,000) in the whole of the twentieth century. The grounds alleged for the second claim is that "CC is the name usually used by the Church to describe itself. RCC is used primarily in inter-faith communications." This admission that RCC is used shows instead that CC is not the one and only name used by the Church to describe itself. Soidi (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The table is accurate, for the reasons/notes stated. It is bizarre how you continue to talk about how the Catholic Church "is not the one and only name used by the Church to describe itself". How many editors have pointed out to you that is doesn't have to be the one and only name?  The Church has several names it uses for itself.  By your argument, we would have to keep the article without any title because it wouldn't be the one and only title.  The fact is, CC is by the far the most common title used.  Digging up cites that indicate the use of other names doesn't change that fact.  The Catholic Church has used RCC, Mother Church, Universal Church, Apostolic Catholic Church...the list goes on and on.  We all understand your personal position and aversion to what is the proper title for the articlee, but Wikipedia naming policy leads to one conclusion as to the appropriate title for the article...Catholic Church.  It's what the Church itself uses, and what is the unambiguous title for the Church.  The proposed note provided sufficient clarification.  If you think the note needs modification, perhaps your efforts would be better directed there.  --anietor (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you (plural) agree that CC isn't the only name that the Church uses, how do you justify saying that CC is "the" name the Church uses, when it is only "a" name, or "the most common" name, but not "the" name? That is the question to which those who insist on saying that CC is "the" name continue to refuse to give an answer.  Soidi (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the name is "the" name or only "the most common name" is a straw man. If you have additional thoughts to add about the proper name of the article or the supporting note, then please do so; remember there was a time limit placed on this discussion so it behooves you to ensure any points you may have are heard.  Any additional threads that appear to be attempts to side-rail productive discussion will be closed. Shell   babelfish 08:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. Whether CC is or is not "the name" (as if there were no other) is very much the issue.  If CC were "the name", as is claimed by some, there would be no question about the title to use for the article.  But the claim is false.  Why is it being defended so tenaciously, and proposed as a reason for changing the title, thus making it the issue?  Soidi (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Soidi, if this is what you truly understand of the discussion that's gone on, you seriously missed a great deal of the reasoning behind some editors belief that the name should be changed. As I understand it, none of their arguments claim that there is a single name; the closest anyone has come to that statement is Nancy's discussion of the church "claiming the name as its title".  You're fighting an argument that no one is making. Shell   babelfish 18:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it correct to speak of one out of several names as if it were the only one, by calling it "the name"? The phrase has been defended without no attempt whatever to explain how one of several can be "the" one.  Is it unreasonable to ask for an explanation?  Soidi (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Referring to one name of an entity (out of several) as "the name"
If, in support of a proposal to change the title of the article about an entity, one of the entity's names is insistently referred to as "the name" of the entity, is it off-topic or "side-railing" to question the correctness of this use of the phrase "the name"? Soidi (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since both "mediators" insist that the answer to this question is yes, I seem to have no choice but to ask for outside intervention to check whether the general opinion of Wikipedia editors agrees that no editor is allowed to object to the use of "the name" (when there are others) as a means of obtaining a change of an article's title. Soidi (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Shell it was who said that questioning the admissibility of the reference to "the name" was side-railing. Soidi (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It has become increasingly obvious to me that the mediators are no longer acting in ways appropriate to being mediators and, for whatever reasons, are now taking sides on certain issues in very inappropriate ways. They also don't seem to have an adequate grasp of the issues involved in mediating these matters.  Therefore I must support seeking some kind of "intervention" as this mediation process is no longer credible - in fact it is a disgrace. Afterwriting (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we've moved on to a new level of silliness. Soidi, when a mediator urges you to focus on the issue so that your viewpoint is heard, take it for what it is...a reminder that there is a time limit on comments and it's in your and everyone's best interests to avoid going off on tangents. Seeking "outside intervention", as you put it, is not an appropriate response. Your position is clear, and you keep repeating it over and over again, and seem to now be lashing out in an attempt to derail the commentary process because you don't like what most editors' positions are. This "throw everything at the wall to see what sticks" approach is just being disruptive to the process. We know that you just don't like it. The proper response, however, is not to mischaracterize the issue, which you've been doing and which you've been called on repeatedly. Moving on to criticizing a mediator, who just reminded you of the time limit and encouraged you to state your viewpoint and stay on topic, isn't helping either, and just represents a death-throes posture. --anietor (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not off-topic. I would prefer if we addressed the question that I posed and not discuss (at least here and now) the question of the "mediators". My view of the answer to the question, as is clear from what I have written above, is that it is by no means off-topic or "side-railing" to question the correctness of using the phrase "the name" as a reason for moving the article from "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church". It is rather the duty of those who insist on using "the name" for just one of several names, to justify an expression that ignores the admitted existence of other names as well as that one. Soidi (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not criticized a mediator, nor am I criticizing a mediator. I have asked other opinions on whether "the name" is a correct way of referring to one of several names in this context. Is it? Would it not be better to give, in the appropriate place, your opinion on this question, instead of attributing motives to a fellow-editor? Soidi (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect to statements that the mediators are "taking sides," I would like to try to clarify a few things:
 * I have attempted to summarize the consensus of the mediation with respect to the naming criteria specified in WP guidelines. This should not be confused with "taking sides," IMHO.
 * I based my summary on the "Explanatory note" worked out by parties to the mediation and posted at the top of the page.
 * Both Shell and I have said that if the summary in the table is not an accurate summary of the consensus we will consider ways of modifying it, based on further discussion and consensus.


 * The RfC seems like a valid way to generate additional discussion. I would request that participants not refactor each others' comments. if any refactoring is needed, the mediators will find ways to do so. I look forward to continuing civil discourse. Sunray (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sunray. Soidi (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that this is the THIRD request for comment Gimmetrow or Soidi has initiated and all of these RFC's have led to consensus being that Catholic Church is the official name of the Church.(see previous RFC's ) We now have a mediated result that comes to the same consensus. I am just wondering how many consensus' we have to come to before Soidi accepts the facts are not only the facts according to the scholars and primary Church documents, they are also the facts according to Wikipedia consesus of editors who have discussed this issue at great length and with much research.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 18:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You folks might want to go read what Soidi actually put for the RfC: Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy. Shell  babelfish 18:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a rather obtusely-worded comment. I'm torn between concern that it inaccurately reflects the issue, annoyance that it represents an attempt to derail a legitimate discussion, and indifference since the Rfc is so absurd.  I agree that every editor should be given wide latitude to say his/her piece, and it is sometimes a tough call to say when someone crosses the line into disruptive behavior.  To say Soidi is flirting with that line is being generous, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.  In any event, I only hope that nobody is getting frustrated to the level of discouragement.  Mediators, thanks for trying to keep us focused.  I say that as someone who is willing to acknowledge that I may have wandered a bit from the issue now and then!  --anietor (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Anietor, does your understanding of "the name used by the Church" leave room for more than one name used by the Church? I think you are one of those who admit that the Church uses more than one name. Soidi (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Soidi, you have now passed directly into the absurd. The table you object to pulls its wording directly from the policy you've repeatedly said no one is telling you about.  Every attempt to get you to discuss the actual subject seems to be failing.  Other editors can make of this what they will. As I said in one of my other many attempts to re-engage you, editors will form a consensus without you if you choose not to participate in this manner. Shell   babelfish 18:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What is absurd is speaking of one name among several as if it were the only one. Does your understanding of "the name used by the Church" leave room for more than one name used by the Church?   Or do you, unlike some of the other contributors, claim that in fact the Church uses only one name? Soidi (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the interesting thing: I don't make a claim. I'm not certain which is the better or more appropriate name and its not up to me to decide. It is up to me to facilitate that discussion and help keep people on track. Sunray offered to change the table if you'd like to discuss it, but changing that wording doesn't change the opinion of others here or the discussion. I haven't seen any editor claim there was only one actual name ever used - in fact, editors have even pointed out more than just the two. Continuing to argue this point is wasting your effort which could be used to discuss any other concerns you might have over the proposed naming or note. This decision is going to be made by consensus, not by the wording of a table used to illustrate the discussion. Shell  babelfish 18:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is what I have been trying to do: discuss the correctness (or otherwise) of using "the name" in this context where the names are more than one. But you (unlike, I may add, Sunray) refused to let me discuss it, saying something about a straw man.  You were refusing to allow discussion of the question: Is it correct to use "the name", when in fact there are several?  Soidi (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And this is mediation has produced at least the third consensus to agree that Catholic Church is the name the Church uses for itself in its most official and self defining documents, a name that no other church uses to describe itself in their official name unless they also use a prefix in front of it like "Old Catholic Church" or "Anglican Catholic". I am just wondering how many consensus' do we need to eventually move on from Soidi's same old argument and make the changes that consensus has agreed?   Nancy Heise   ''' talk 19:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel your frustration, NancyHeise. Perhaps the solution is to move on ourselves.  Soidi will just reply to any editor that disagrees with him, and will go off of this same tangent.  Let's just refocus ourselves and not get pulled into irrelevant side issues and Clinton-esque discussions of what the meaning of the word "the" is.  It has taken up a ridiculously disproportionate amount of space, and we're probably just encouraging it by reacting to it.  Does anyone have a legit issue, perhaps with the note, so we can better focus our time and resources?  --anietor (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nancy, I don't see what that has to do with trying to justify the use of "the name". Have you forgotten that there are other names too that the Church uses?  And Anietor, you haven't yet answered my question: Does your understanding of "the name used by the Church" leave room for more than one name used by the Church? I think you are one of those who admit that the Church uses more than one name.  Soidi (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's bear in mind that the proposed change of wording to the article's lead sentence is: "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church..." Thus both names are recognized. The proposed explanatory note was developed to support and qualify this wording. Sunray (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And so let's agree that speaking of only one of these two names as "the name" is illegitimate. Thanks, Sunray.  (See you tomorrow.)  Soidi (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not illegitimate at all. The guideline refers to "the name." That supports the policy requirement (per WP:NAME) to use the most common name. Thus "the name" = the most common name.  How is that not clear? Sunray (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Defining "the name" as "the most common name" works easily only if "most common" is unambiguous. Sometimes an entity has multiple names, and one is "more common" in one context, but others are "more common" in other contexts. Compare, for instance, musicians who have a "stage name" different from their legal name. They may use their personal legal name for taxes and contracts, but their stage name for albums and concerts. The articles here tend to be at the stage name because that term is how they are "commonly known" to the general public. Likewise, most countries are located at a name commonly used by the general public, rather than their legal (constitutional) name, like Italy rather than Italian Republic. When you try to apply that guideline to RCC/CC, people may argue about what context is more relevant, or whether other guidelines (about "being precise", for instance) should take precedence. Gimmetrow 21:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sunray- do you think that this RFC is acceptable? I will remove the request for comment if you like. I think they are freaking out because they know they will lose. I imagine 90% of any new editors will be citing the fact that it is "endorsement of one particular Church" and other religious reasons. Ignore what THEY say since wikipedia policy is clear. --Rockstone35 (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do think that having an RfC is fine. We said we would do community-wide discussion. Some participants seem to think that there is wider commentary needed. Fair enough. You point out that the wording of the RfC is not entirely conducive to a reasoned discussion of the overall proposal. However, the mediators and other participants can guide newcomers through all the verbiage and side-tracking. Sunray (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there has to come a time when obfuscating, delaying-tactics and swamping an issue with repeated posts saying the same thing and refusing to engage in real discussion have to be seen for what they are. In my opinion Soidi and one or two others have a deep-seated ideological opposition to the namd "Catholic Church" being used or claimed by this Church. Soidi has made more than a thousand posts on this matter since September 2008, and seems prepared to go on indefinitely pushing his position. We should not allow the timetable to be derailed and move on.  Xan  dar   21:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sunray, how long does the RFC remain open to discussion? We have already gone through two of these, community wide consensus remains the same no matter what we do so far whether it is RFC's, mediation or just plain talk page discussion. Nothing changes, the vast majority agrees the name of the Church is Catholic Church while Roman Catholic Church is agreed to be an aka, (also known as). This is true for Catholic Wikipedia editors, non-Catholics and those of no religious affiliation. The only people arguing against it are a very small and persistent minority led by Soidi and Gimmetrow who have not produced any references to support their opinion that some other church in the world has the name "Catholic Church" as their claimed title. Unless some other church has this name as a title and this can be referenced to WP:RS sources, the argument claiming Catholic Church is ambiguous is unreferenced WP:OR and should not be continuously raised on this page.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 00:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would strongly suggest you refactor the above comment. It is wrong on various factual grounds and misrepresents, at least, my position and the statements I have made. Gimmetrow 00:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gimmetrow, can you provide a diff to even one instance where you have agreed with consensus? We went to mediation because of your persistent refusal to come to agreement even when it is clear that the majority of editors and scholalry sources do not agree with your particular point of view.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 01:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Nancy, we went to mediation because of your persistent refusal to address misleading and ambiguous statements in the article, statements which still, to this date, have neither been properly sourced nor modified to remove the misleading implications. Gimmetrow 02:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not an invitation to attack each other. Gimmetrow if you have concerns about the proposal, this is the time to address it. Shell   babelfish 03:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My primary concerns are with the text. The problem is that people are making the same arguments for the move that are a problem with the text, so I'm concerned that even if the article were moved, it would not actually facilitate improvements in the text. In itself, an article move largely doesn't matter as much as it once did. The article name was formerly contentious (in wiki reasons) because it was used as a precedent for other article names. This use has been disallowed by WP:NAME now for 2.5 years, so right now, even without a page move, the contentious "disambiguations" of, for instance, diocese names can not point to "RCC" as a precedent requiring "Roman Catholic Diocese of Paris" rather than "Catholic Diocese of Paris" or "Diocese of Paris". It also, unfortunately, may mean that even if the article name were changed to CC, the new name also wouldn't be a precedent for changing other articles or categories. Gimmetrow 04:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sunray wrote: ''The guideline refers to "the name." That supports the policy requirement (per WP:NAME) to use the most common name. Thus "the name" = the most common name. How is that not clear?'' Sorry, it is not at all clear. "The" is the most common word in this quotation; but you wouldn't just say that "the" is "the word in this quotation". I don't understand why people aren't satisfied with the factual "the most common name", instead of insisting on the misleading claim that (while the Church does use other names also to describe itself) CC "is the name used by the subject to describe itself".

Thanks again, Sunray, for discussing the question, instead of talking around it as others do. Soidi (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Soidi. Your posts are getting less and less intelligible.
 * Gimmetrow. We have discussed the article text, and this is proposed to be altered as part of a consensus package including the name change. The issue arose, as you know, because of arguments about the wording of the text needing to make a definitive statement as to the actual name of the Church. If left at RCC without such a statement, the implication is falsely given that RCC is the Church's proper name, and "Catholic Church" is a nickname. I think some of us have already said that the change of name of this article is a separate issue from other article names. This article is the prime article about a self-identifying entity. It is therefore important that it gets the name of the entity right. Some articles (discussing theology and other aspects) may be better off with the "Roman" Catholic heading, since it defines the line of thought more precisely. Dioceses vary. Where there is confusion, as say in New York, where many dioceses exist, it may be better to use "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic". In, say, Paris where little or no confusion exists "Diocese of Paris" may be the best name.  Xan  dar   09:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Does your understanding of "the name used by the Church" leave room for more than one name used by the Church? I have put this question to Shell and Anietor. I now put it to you.  As for the other question, about a quotation in which "the" is the most common but not the only word, I trust Sunray to understand the question: Would you say simply that "the" is "the word" in the quotation, as if it were the only word in it?  Soidi (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing the point of this RfC. Its good that it might get more people into this discussion, but I think we've already done everything we can to get as wide of participation as possible here. It's not as if this is some hidden discussion, it's right in the open for everyone to see and notifications were placed all over to invite participation.

As for the the incident that I think lead to this notice being put up, I don't get any indication that the mediators were telling you that discussing the name of the church is off-topic; but that the quibble between "the most common name" and "the name" was totally unproductive. Because of technical requirements, Wikipedia will only allow the article to be under one name. So by policy, we are choosing one name (though the next most common name is discussed in the lead and in the note); that does not mean the same thing as declaring that this is the only name. No one has said that, no one thinks that. If you have any evidence that RCC is more common, please present that now; otherwise we don't need to discuss this any further. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 10:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What made you think that I imagined that the choice of one name for the title implied that the Church had no other name? I had no such silly idea: after all, the present title does not exclude other names, and a "CC" title too would not exclude other names. Have you not noticed that I was talking instead of the statement, the claim, expressly made above, that CC "is the name used by the Church".  Remove or correct that expression and the problem is gone, while you can still uphold your proposal to alter the title of the article.  Does your understanding of "the name used by the Church" leave room for more than one name used by the Church? I have put this question to Shell and Anietor.  I now put it to you and to Xandar.  Soidi (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Soidi- if we can't use the name Catholic Church because it is not the only name of the Church- what makes Roman Catholic Church a better name? Should we have two names? Or should it be Catholic Church/Roman Catholic Church as the title instead? Your logic is failing horribly, you are clutching at straws. --Rockstone35 (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I say we can't use the name CC because it isn't the only name of the Church? The logic that is failing horribly is that of those who prefer not to read what I have written.  The topic that I raised, the topic that you and others should address but are avoiding, is the statement above, that CC "is the name used by the Church".  Like saying: "Microsoft Windows is the operating system that computers use."   Soidi (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The Catholic Church IS THE NAME USED BY the Catholic Church. You keep ignoring our proof and references- and you just like picking your own arguments. You must have some moral reason against the rename.

I'm Catholic, but that isn't why I want the rename done. Though I probably wouldn't take much interest in this if I wasn't, Catholics and non-Catholics alike agree that this page should be renamed. You are fighting a losing battle Soidi, good luck. --Rockstone35 (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pleasant fellow. Not untypical.  Soidi (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed that this is a lost cause. It has already been established stated on this page that the Church of Rome (neutral name) uses the name "Catholic Church" on its website almost exclusively, and, thus, qualifies as "the name" of the body in question. Other names which members of that church, possibly reluctantly, use to help differentiate it from other bodies in some areas do not carry the same sort of official approval and thus cannot be said to be on an equal standing with the main name of the body. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It was not reluctantly that Pius XI and Pius XII used the name in their encyclicals. It seems not to be understood that I am not at all as much against the proposed change of title as against the baseless claims being advanced to advance its adoption.  As I have already remarked, saying that CC is the name used by the Church is about as baseless as saying that Microsoft Windows is the operating system that computers use.  Soidi (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pius XII died over fifty years ago. If that is the most current support for your contention that you have, then there is no real support for the contention that the name RCC is an alternate name used by the church today, but rather only that at one time it may have been. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it isn't the most recent. Above, when similarly challenged, I gave examples by more recent Popes, including BXVI.  Soidi (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a huge body of roughly 1 billion people. At various times, in various locations, particularly when dealing with people or subjects where the name "Catholic Church" is used by others or where the use of the name is challenged, it would be politic to add a word or two. I think the relevant question here is percentage of usage. As I remember from what I read above, the Vatican's website uses only the term "Catholic Church". Even individual popes, despite their prominence in the church, do not necessarily by their own usage, particularly in general public statements, supercede the official name of the body. I do see your point, but with a body this large there will be any number of names which have been attributed to the body. Some of those names, particularly the more insulting ones used by those who think the Church of Rome isn't "Christian", may even have been used at various times in official documents or statements by church officials, probably generally either pointing out the error of the accusation or in jest, but still used. That doesn't mean that we should be adding "Whore of Babylon" as an alternate name for the church either. I think percentage use is a relevant factor, and the question is "Is the name used often and significantly enough by the church itself to qualify for inclusion in the lede?" That question does not necessarily include public comments by local or regional officials, as those individuals are not "the church". So far as I can see, the answer to that question is "No." I acknowledge that the name RCC is often used in the English speaking world, and that most of us are most familiar with English press, but I haven't seen any real evidence presented that the church itself uses the name RCC. And, yes, even names used in encyclicals of individual popes, while a very good indication of their own thinking, are not really any sort of official "policy" statements, but rather specific statements of discipline to deal with issues before the church at that time, so even they aren't so "official" as to make usage there a clear statement of official sanction of the church of the name. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Does the percentage justify calling Microsoft Windows the operating system that computers use? Soidi (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On almost all the occasions listed, in which the Popes used "RCC", English was not the language they used. The one case that comes to mind when English was certainly used was an address by Pope John Paul II to the (Catholic) President of Ireland. The fact remains that the Church, in the person of Popes and in declarations of the Holy See, does use RCC.  The fact remains also that computers sometimes run on operating systems other than Microsoft Windows.  Soidi (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh my goodness...if I click my papal red shoes together 3 times, will this silliness go away? Stop feeding the flames of irrelevant arguments and move on to real issues. Soidi doesn't care for editors' reasoning processes and their use of the word "the". Resist the temptation to respond any more. It's taking up time better spent on real issues regarding the actual proposal we're supposed to be discussing. For example, it's taking every ounce of self-control for me not to comment on the silly Microsoft "analogy"...but I'm going to resist! (despite a hilarious "heretical operating system" joke that's ready to burst out of me...  ;-)  --anietor (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The analogy is seriously flawed: First, operating systems run on computers not vice versa; Second, the various names given to the Church represents a many to one relationship. Your analogy is many to many; Third, your analogy includes two entities (OS and Computer) and one entity label (Microsoft Windows). What is being discussed here is ONE entity (Church) and one entity label (the name of that Church); Fourth, the name in your analogy (Microsoft Windows) is not the name of an OS but rather a series of software operating systems; Fifth, you are probably unaware that one computer can run multiple operating systems.

So, the Church (one entity) we are discussing is known by many names (labels): Catholic Church, Roman Catholic Church, Holy Mother Church etc. Your analogy, however, has the many-to-many relationship of many computers (each an entity) running many operating systems (each an entity): Windows, OSX, Linux etc., and the one-to-many relationship of each operating system having many names (labels). For example, in addition to OS X the Mac operating system is also known as Leopard or iPhone OS depending on the platform. I fail to see which of your entities represents The Church. The analogy is just absurd.MyTuppenceWorth (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the anology is absured- but you have to give him brownie points for trying.He might not get far, but I'll give him an e-cookie! :P --Rockstone35 (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that these three editors would not consider correct the sentence "Microsoft Windows is the operating system that computers use" (or "Microsoft Windows is the operating system that runs on computers", or "Microsoft Windows is the operating system that runs on this particular computer that runs multiple operating systems" or whatever similar sentence we might form to meet Anietor's contradictory quibbles). I speak of the sentence.  The sentence is analogous with the sentence "CC is the name used by the Church".  As is the sentence that I presented to Sunray: "'The' is the word in this quotation" (where "the" was only the most common word in the quotation).  Sunray had sense enough not to quibble that the realities described in the analogous sentences are different.
 * Anietor has not yet answered the question: Does your understanding of "the name used by the Church" leave room for more than one name used by the Church? Soidi (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry- your argument is absurd Soidi. You were creative in the way you found it, but the argument is still absurd. There are MANY computers with MANY operating systems. With the Catholic Church- there is ONE Church with MANY names. --Rockstone35 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The same quibble again. It is the form of the sentence that makes it similar to the topic sentence, not its content.  In isolated sentences of this kind, no matter what they are about, "the" indicates something unique, not one out of several.  When I speak of the fly on the tip of your nose, I am indicating that there is only one fly on the tip of your nose; otherwise I would say something like "one of the flies on the tip of your nose" or "the biggest/smallest/etc. fly on the tip of your nose".  It is the refusal to admit this fact of the English language that is absurd.
 * Why don't you answer the question: Does your understanding of "the name used by the Church" leave room for more than one name used by the Church? Soidi (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church as the name of the article is in keeping with its use among scholars who regularly refer to it as the "Catholic Church". This is proven by the fact that Encyclopedia Americana lists it at Catholic Church with a see Catholic Church at the entry for Roman Catholic Church. I have already listed several times, the vast number of scholarly sources including encyclopedias that say the Church "claimed as its title" the name "Catholic Church" with no prefix. I want to add some more scholarly works and their use of the word Catholic Church and Catholics to the debate to prove that there is no ambiguity or confusion in the academic world regarding the term. (Uniate church is also part of the Catholic Church but are the Eastern Rites as opposed to the Latin Rite. They are using Roman Catholic in the same sense that the Catholic Church uses it - to identify that part of the Church that uses the Latin rite) I think these extremely scholary sources make clear that no one is going to confuse the article name "Catholic Church" with either the Eastern Orthodox Church or other churches that claim "catholicity". None of them uses the name "Catholic Church" as either an official title nor a common title as these sources indicate. So far, the argument on this page has provided no sources that meet WP:RS or WP:reliable source examples to substantiate Soidi's opposition for the proposed article name change and we now have many that support it.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 18:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Columbia History of Western Philosophy by Richard Popkin (1999 Columbia University Press) persistently distinguishes between "Catholics" and "Protestants". When speaking of Catholics they are referring to the members of the Roman Catholic Church, see page 282.
 * The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity by John McManners (1990 Oxford University Press) distinguishes between "Catholics" (referring to Roman Catholics), "Protestants", and "Eastern Orthodox" (referring to Holy Orthodox Church) see page 274.
 * The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (1997 Oxford University Press) distinguishes Roman Catholic Church members as "To be in complete communion with the Church of rome is to belong to the Catholic Church." and adds "However, the addition of 'Roman' has become more common during recent decades of ecumenism, not least in recognition of the status of uniate Churches and of other uses of the world 'Catholic'; 'Roman Catholic' is therefore used in this article and throughout the Dictionary." page 821
 * The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church definition of "Catholic" does not mention that this term is applied to Eastern Orthodox Church as a name, it does say that it is the name of the Catholic Church. It says it was a name applied to the undivided church but after the schism the western Church referred to itself as Catholic and the eastern Church as Orthodox. It also says that since the Reformation, Roman Catholics have come to use it exclusively of themselves. In present day usage it distinguished those Christians from Protestants. page 305
 * HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism lists on page 242 the definition of Catholic Church as this: "is the worldwide Church that recognizes the Bishop of Rome, the pope, as "the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity of the bishops and of the mutitude of the faithful (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, n. 23)." This clearly is referring to the official Church Constitution that also uses the same term "Catholic Church" with zero mention of "Roman Catholic Church".
 * I'm sorry, but I cannot see what all this has to do with the question whether the expression "the name used by the Church" implies that there is only one name. So this is another case of talking around the topic instead of addressing it.  Only this case is more long-winded than most.  Soidi (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Nancy's comment is an example of addressing the topic head-on and not veering off on tangents. Nancy's comments go to the very heart of the discussion, which is the proposed change in the article's title (and the corresponding note).  Soidi's repeated focus on this question of whether "there is only one name" is of no relevance, particularly when the proposed lead sentence is "The Catholic Church also known as the Roman Catholic Church...."  So Soidi's frustration seems to be directed more at what individual editors personally believe (irrelevant).  If there were a specific phrase, section, note, etc. that incorrectly "implies" that the church has one, and only one, name that has ever been used by itself or others in any context, I would agree that this is a valid concern.  But since that is not the case, and Soidi keeps asking editors to "admit" to what they believe, then there's no real issue.  --anietor (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay Soidi, I'll play along. If we Can't Use the name "Catholic Church" because there is more than one name, then what makes "Roman Catholic Church" any better? HUH? Should we not have any name then? Should we have "Church of Rome/Catholic/Roman Catholic/[enter 80,000 other names here]" As the title instead? YOU are trying to harp on a point that is absurd. YES there are other names, but only one is the true name- and that is "Catholic Church". --Rockstone35 (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nancy is not addressing the topic of this section. Neither are you, Anietor, nor you, Rockstone.  She didn't even really pretend to do so, for she only copied here the comment she made on the topic of a different section.  This section is not about the proposed lead sentence.  Nor is it about whether "Eastern Orthodox Church" should be altered to "Orthodox Church".  It is about the claim that CC "is the name that the Church uses".  That is a specific statement that has been made here, and that I am questioning.  This statement does imply that the Church uses only one name, does it not?
 * The claim is made above that "Catholic Church" "is the name that the subject (the Church) uses" (emphasis added). I say this is false.  If you disagree with me, it would be at least an improvement if, instead of talking about the proposed lead sentence (Anietor), and the best name to use for the Church (Rockstone), and other matters that come into your mind, you would state that, in your opinion, the statement is true.  Then you would at last be addressing the topic of this section.  If you say that the statement is false, we can ask Sunray to remove the statement, and this matter will end.  If you say that the statement is true, then we can at last talk about the topic of this section, instead of talking around it.  Soidi (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would we ask Sunray to remove a statement made in a talk page? This is a talk page, not the article itself.  If you disagree with an editor's statement, you respond to it.  Your disagreement with it doesn't mean you remove that editor's comment!  Especially when it is a good-faith, sourced and well-reasoned analysis.  You can certainly disagree with it, with the analysis, or with the conclusion.  But you don't remove it!  My goodness...can you imagine the edit wars that would ensue if disagreement with a talk page position allowed an editor to remove another editor's entry?  Disagree all you want.  That's part of the process.  We are trying to build consensus to improve the article; not to attack each others' positions and arguments and remove all trace of opposing views.  Soidi, I encourage you to review talk page guidelines.  --anietor (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And, while you are at it, you might want to review WP:DE as well, perhaps particularly WP:IDHT. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * John Carter's post strikes to the heart of what is happening here with Soidi. I would like for the discussion to stay on topic and my post adds to the list of sources that support moving the article to Catholic Church without worry about ambiguity. Scholars clearly identify that term with the Catholic Church and do not have any problems, neither should we. Eastern Orthodox and the various other churches claiming "catholicity" clearly have other names that they claim as their titles with no overlap with Catholic Church. This should be the end of the discussion. I ask Soidi to provide WP:RS sources that meet WP:reliable source examples to support his assertions or not post here anymore, it is disruptive and I think it violates the two policies John Carter points to above.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 20:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am marveling at how much energy has gone into this. No offence but it seems like an argument over which side of the plate a napkin should be placed on.  Both names evoke, the same thing.  There is nothing unambiguous about Roman Catholic or Catholic- you still think Rome, Pope and St. Peter's Basilica.  Aren't there other articles that need everyones help more?  BTW I came here from the Community Portal and don't plan on offering further comment so if you want it please put it on my talk page. I don't think I have much to offer anyway. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that hardly any of those above want to speak about the topic of this section. The question raised here is not the title to give to the article, nor what reliable sources say about that matter.  What I have questioned is a statement given by a mediator as a summary of the objective situation.  It is not a statement by a participant in the discussion such as Nancy or Anietor.  It is given as an accepted point on which to build conclusions.  The question is whether that bald statement, that CC "is the name used by the Church", is compatible with the idea that the Church uses other names too.  The problem is refusal to get to the point by editors who won't even come out and say explicitly that the unqualified statement "CC is the name used by the Church" does leave room for other names.  They prefer to talk about more general matters.  Soidi (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't matter what topic you've stated in the section heading, your taking the discussion off-topic as that phrase doesn't occur in any of the proposed changes to the page. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 05:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It has to do with the understanding of a guideline page that is used as a/the reasoning for the page move. I think it has something to do with a table Sunray added to the talk page at one point, intending that it be discussed and modified. Soidi seems to be trying to discuss it. Gimmetrow 06:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The topic of the section is the claim that a mediator made in the following table and on which the mediator invited comments. I have commented. People like Kraftlos are refusing to do so. It is their comments that are off-topic.

Tag moved down
Is it off-topic to discuss a statement by a mediator about the result of a mediation? Soidi (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is about the statement by a mediator that the following was agreed on in a mediation process that arose because the opening phrase of the article on the Roman Catholic Church declared "Catholic Church" to be the name by which the Church is officially known. I maintain that I have a right to raise the question whether that mediator's assessment of the result of the mediation is factual. Most editors refuse to discuss this question and only talk around it, and another mediator has said that discussing it is off-topic!

The following is what the first mediator has declared to be the result of the mediation effort:


 * {| class="wikitable"

!width="500"|Criterion !width="100"|CC !width="100"|RCC
 * +Naming criteria per WP:NCON
 * - bgcolor="#cccccc"
 * -valign="top"
 * Is the name in common usage in English? || Yes || Yes
 * -valign="top"
 * Is it the official current name of the subject? || Yes1 || No
 * -valign="top"
 * Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? || Yes || No2
 * }
 * Notes re: table
 * See explanatory note. The Catholic Church is the name used by the pope to sign official documents.
 * "CC" is the name usually used by the Church to describe itself. "RCC" is used primarily in inter-faith communications.
 * Notes re: table
 * See explanatory note. The Catholic Church is the name used by the pope to sign official documents.
 * "CC" is the name usually used by the Church to describe itself. "RCC" is used primarily in inter-faith communications.

You will notice the illogical leap from "CC" is "the name usually used" by the Church to describe itself to the claim that CC is "the name used" by the subject to describe itself. And the illogical leap from the fact that the Popes sign a total of about 17 documents in a century with the formula "I, X, Bishop of the Catholic Church" to the conclusion that this is the only official name of the Church. Soidi (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sunray said: "Here's a my assessment of the findings of the mediation regarding the two names". Taking it that the mediation led to acceptance by all of the claim that CC (and no other name) is "the official current name" is a highly peculiar assessment. The whole mediation operation began because of objections to that claim, and it certainly did not conclude in an agreement that the claim was confirmed. Soidi (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You've been repeatedly asked to state which changes should be made to the summary. Instead of doing this, you are taking out discussion of a page move proposal and using it to attack Sunray and Shell, accusing them of bias or taking sides, rather than working with them to improve that summary. On a side note, that summary by the way was a starting point for this discussion, not the conclusion, so it's not particularly relevant to the outcome here.  If it was stated incorrectly, it has been made abundantly clear what your position is and no one would mistake your agreement to conclude the mediation to contradict what your current position is.


 * This RfA is off-topic as it is directed at the mediators instead of the actual proposal. Instead of repeating yourself until you're blue in the face, you'd be must better off simply stating what changes you want to be made to the summary rather than complaining that people wont argue with you.  We only have a short time left to discuss this move proposal, this is not productive.  So to repeat, would you simply state what changes should be made to the summary, or simply drop this? -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 05:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So we are not allowed to question the mediator's conclusion that all or almost all of us agree that "Catholic Church" is the one and only official name of the Church? If Afterwriting, Gimmetrow, Richard, SynKobiety say the group did actually agree on this, then I will of course desist. If CC is the one and only official name of the Church, we can just leave the present opening words of the article as they are, note included.  Soidi (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder too what is the thought of others who watched the discussion, but were not allowed to intervene. Soidi (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not at all persuaded that there is only one "official" name. The clearly demonstrated evidence shows that there are in fact a number of names which are used by the church in official documents and in differing contexts.  One of these names is the "Roman Catholic Church" which, regardless of its possible origins and how people have understood or used it at different times, is a name the church has, and still does,  freely choose at times to call itself.  Whilst "Catholic Church" is the name the church usually uses for itself, no one has produced any compelling evidence that it is "the" (one and only) official name - only that it is the most usual name the church uses for itself.  Whatever merits there may be for changing the article's name there is no justification for claiming that "Catholic Church" is the only official name as the evidence provided by the church itself clearly disproves this claim. Afterwriting (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the article does not claim that CC is the only official name, you're complaining about a problem that doesn't exist. The proposed lead sentence includes "also known as."  The proposed note states "referred to and refers to itself in various ways."   As Kraftlos says above, you should state what changes should be made or drop it.  You're fighting phantoms here.  If individual editors take a position, as part of their discussion, that you perceive as endorsing a "one and only name" stance, that still is of little relevance.  What matters is what the article states, what title it is given, and whether it conforms to WP policy (which it does) and is a result of consensus (which it is).--anietor (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article at present does make such a claim in its very first words. Furthermore, one who held the status of mediator and was thus not just "an individual editor" presents a report of the mediation according to which the editors agreed by super consensus that CC is the only official name, a report that, if allowed to stand, could be quoted in support of keeping/putting that claim in the article. I believe the report is mistaken and that I have a right to question it.  Soidi (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The changes to the articles haven't been implemented yet because at the end of the mediation, I pushed to have an open discussion, before we made the changes to the article (rather than WP:BOLDly making the edits. So please, refer to the action plan as that is probably where this is heading.  If you have anything to say about that plan, get your two-cents in now; don't worry about how other people might have have perceived the mediation, all that's relevant is the proposed actions, specifically the name change.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 21:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries on "the"
A quick search of half a dozen online dictionaries include the following definitions for the word the:

used to mark a noun as indicating the best-known, most approved, most important, most satisfying, etc. www.dictionary.com

used to indicate that someone or something is the best known or most important of that name or type. Compact OED

used before a noun, and generally stressed, to emphasize one of a group or type as the most outstanding or prominent. www.TheFreeDictionary.com

used as a function word to designate one of a class as the best, most typical, best known, or most worth singling out. Merriam Webster

indicating most famous or important: the best, only, or most outstanding. Encarta

the best or most remarkable. Collins MyTuppenceWorth (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is quite interesting but the problem is that there is a big difference between "the" being used to indicate "best known" or "prominent" and so on and when its used to indicate "only". In the context of this article it is false to claim or even imply that "Catholic Church" is the "only" name of the church - but that is exactly what some editors want to claim despite all evidence to the contrary. Afterwriting (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree.--User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 17:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)