Wikipedia talk:Proposed naming conventions (Catholicism)

Why this page
It has been suggested that such drafts might be better in the Project Namespace. This is the obvious name if so.

See User talk:Andrewa/Roman or catholic.

Note that I am not proposing to move User:Andrewa/Roman or catholic here as it is. It's possible that with input from others, it might become a suitable proposal. Or, a fresh proposal using points made in it and other past proposals might be better. Andrewa (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Curiously, User:Andrewa/Roman or catholic seems to advocating even more restrictive use of "Roman Catholic" than the failed Proposed naming conventions (Catholic Church), with its Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church) idea. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, in some ways it is. If it's clear what is meant by Catholic then there's no need to add the qualification IMO. I'm not rejecting the idea that Cuius regio, eius religio might help, but I didn't see the need for it. But again, my background might be showing here... it's not a concept the Protestant tradition adopted very widely. Andrewa (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Not quite clear
Hello! In Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_5 you asked User:RevelationDirect whether they would like to contribute to another discussion. I followed that link and arrived at an almost empty page. The main content is a link to User_talk:Andrewa/Roman_or_catholic, but that page looks very messy and I'm unclear about its purpose. So what are newcomers supposed to contribute? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For future readers: this "almost empty page" happened to be the project page that this talk page belongs to. I have added a bit of text on the project itself to clarify its purpose. Feel free to amend this text. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , This is a new naming convention proposal initiated by  with background in the Proposed naming conventions (Catholic Church).  Whereas the former kind of normative proposal failed, since then Wikipedia has notably even further leaned towards the main message of it still. This means that if a new, identical proposal would be proposed, this would arguably be even less normative, and rather in fact more descriptive. For an equivalent, accepted, existing naming convention, please see Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints). Arguably the old rejected Proposed naming conventions (Catholic Church) should at least be taken into account. More senior editors, such as  are of course also welcome. Feel free to contribute! Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , I agree it's confusing. I created Proposed naming conventions (Catholic Church) just to alert others to the fact that there was a discussion relating to that page name, concerning the page previously at . That page is not IMO ready to be a naming convention proposal yet, that's why it's a subpage of my user page, but I've just moved it to User:Andrewa/Naming conventions (Catholicism) in the hope that this makes things clearer.


 * I have not edited the project page since this initial version, and I find the current content confusing too. It has grown to be far more than a soft redirect. Andrewa (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Descriptive as much as normative
As of September 2018, as seen in User:Grabado/List, "all [applicable] articles and categories actually follow the convention as laid-out in Proposed naming conventions (Catholic Church)", the previosly failed naming convention that is. With the assistance of and others, in fact even these articlesä text contents further follows the convention of Manual of Style/Catholic Church. Hence, the only thing missing is a formalised acceptence of this state other than a mere practice. Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Guidelines discussion
Location to go through the different section in hope to find WP:CONSENSUS to the proposal draft.

The universal Catholic Church
To be settled.

Catholicism
Just some background. In category space I have been in debate for quite a while with User:Chicbyaccident about Catholicism versus Catholic Church. The issue is whether the Catholic Church is part (an important part though) of Catholicism or whether Catholic Church and Catholicism are (almost) equivalent. By the way there is also a third view which equates Catholicism to Catholicity but I suspect that is really a minority view and it is a whole different discussion.

While I strongly regret that there is no article Catholicism on Wikipedia, I notice that there are many equivalent pages that do exist: Traditionalist Catholicism, Protestantism, Christianity, Islam, Communism, Liberalism etc. all characterized by a distinction between the religious or social "movement" on the one hand; and the specific organizations that have been formed within the movement on the other hand. I am also noting that the word Catholicism is used a lot, also by Catholics themselves (see e.g. ).

Here is a list of topics (not exhaustive) that could be elaborated to a new article Catholicism:
 * Catholic organizations, of which the Catholic Church is "just" one, but there are also Catholic organizations outside the church (e.g. Category:Catholic trade unions)
 * Catholic people, of which many on Wikipedia belong to clergy of the Catholic Church, but there are also lay Catholics
 * Catholic spirituality, of which much is in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church, but not everything (e.g. folk saints)
 * Catholic music, part of which hasn't been approved by the Catholic Church (see Contemporary Catholic liturgical music)
 * Anglo-Catholicism and Independent Catholicism, not part of the Catholic Church, but other than that regarded as Catholic

So my proposal would be to use "Catholic Church" whenever the formal organization is meant, and "Catholicism" in all broader contexts. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It is true that WP:CONSENSUS has determined that Catholicism equates Catholic Church. Notably, though, the category tree still to date deviates from the article realm with its Category:Catholicism. Consequently, WP:BURDEN would be on anyone defending that deviation.
 * Are you sure you that your reasoning wouldn't mean following a misattribution of Protestant ecclesiological logic to the Catholic Church and its ecclesiology? This is consequently imperative to whether Traditionalist Catholicism, Protestantism, Christianity, Islam, Communism, Liberalism etc. can be said to actually be "equivalent pages", right?
 * By consequence, lay Catholic organisations, people, music etc. can actually be said to be Catholic insofar as it at least vaguely, indirectly pertains to the Catholic Church. If not, they may be Independent Catholic lay people or whatever, but not Catholic, in the WP:CONSENSUS sense that Catholic redirects to Catholic Church, as does Catholicism. Remindedly, we still retain Independent Catholic/Independent Catholicism/Category:Independent Catholicism, Anglo-Catholic/Anglo-Catholicism/Category:Anglo-Catholicism, and none is arguing for their abolition. So, seemingly, it seems alright. In essence, are you sure we are not creating a problem that isn't there? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Is "Catholicism" becoming the premiary naming for the Catholic Church? Please see: Talk:List_of_converts_to_Catholicism (and other recent categories discussions). Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Particular churches sui iuris
To be settled.

Latin Church
To be settled.

I'm confident that all usage of Catholic Church is unambiguous, so that all current mentioning of Roman Catholic Church in Wikipedia may be changed to Catholic Church (or changed to Latin Church if Roman Catholic Church is wrongly used to mean Latin Church). But I can imagine that there is some hesitance when "Catholic" is used as an adjective but not in conjunction with Church. For example I would strongly prefer "Theology of the Catholic Church" as an article title over Catholic theology, considering that independent Catholic churches and Anglo-Catholic churches may well have some differences in theology. But on the other hand the usage of "Roman" would not really solve this, it would merely add more confusion because it is not clear whether it refers to the Catholic Church (probably) or only the Latin Church (possibly). But where should I leave this comment, other than here? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments . I guess this is exactly a place for this discussion. A central location, finally. Being an expert on consistency matters on Wikipedia especielly in categories, it's great to have you here. I woud mostly concur with your reasoning. Would you mind editing the very naming proposal page accordingly, please? As for the specific discussion about the name of the Latin Church, and by consequence its adjective, including for dioceses, I suppose the Latin Church should be the main point of reference for that. And currently, that main point of reference could use some labor, couldn't it? Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no reason for me to edit the proposal, as I concur with the text of Proposed_naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church). I just want to emphasize what I have written above because presumably these aspects have not been considered well enough in the previous discussion that led to the rejection of the proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So, have you any ideas on how to get these aspects... considered well enough to avoid another rejection? I'm not promising to support it, but I'm interested in hearing your arguments as to why it should be reconsidered and accepted.
 * But you do raise an interesting point that neither my draft nor the rejected proposal deals with adequately in my opinion. According to our current articles  both the Latin Church and the Catholic Church are sometimes referred to as the Roman Catholic Church, so the term is ambiguous. That'a another reason to avoid it, surely? (I think many probably also say Catholic Church when they mean Latin Church, but maybe that's getting needlessly complicated.) Andrewa (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am following your arguments. Perhaps we would need an RfC for this question. I have helped populating Category:Latin Church with the intention to bring about hopefully a better overview of the preexisting state for this issue. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic" is widely used in Wikipedia and outside of Wikipedia to refer to the Latin/Roman-rite/Western part of the Church. I believe that the term "Roman Catholic" should not be replaced by just "Catholic" when it is used in articles or categories in the specific sense of Latin/Western Catholicism, as opposed to Eastern Catholic topics. When the term "Roman Catholic" is used to mean "Catholic" at large, I have no objection for the term to be replaced, following consensus on the Catholic Church talk page.

Examples of a few uses of the term Roman Catholic in Wikipedia and in external references: "Some Eastern Catholics who use the Byzantine liturgical rite and call themselves "Byzantine Catholics" deny that they are "Roman Catholics", using this word to mean either Catholics who use the Roman Rite or perhaps the whole Latin Church, including those parts that use the Ambrosian Rite or other non-Roman liturgical rites: "We're Byzantine rite, which is Catholic, but not Roman Catholic"."

"Individual eparchies of some Eastern Catholic churches may be suffragan to Latin-rite metropolitans. For example, the Croatian Catholic Eparchy of Križevci is suffragan to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Zagreb. Also, some minor Eastern Catholic churches have Latin prelates. For example, the Macedonian Byzantine-Catholic Church is organized as a single Apostolic Exarchate, whose present ordinary is the Roman Catholic bishop of Skopje."

"Some do use the term "Roman Catholic" to refer to Western (i.e. Latin) Catholics, excluding Eastern Catholics. An example is the statement in the book When other Christians become Catholic: "...the individual becomes Eastern Catholic, not Roman Catholic."

Similarly the Catholic Faith Handbook for Youth states that "...not all Catholics are Roman Catholics and there are other Catholic Churches," using the term "Roman Catholic" to refer to Western Church members alone. The same distinction is made by some writers belonging to Eastern Catholic Churches."

"We use the term Roman Catholic Worship throughout to make it clear that we are not covering all forms of Catholic worship. There are a number of Eastern Rite churches that can justly claim the title Catholic, but many of the statements we make do not apply to them at all."

"Some of the writers who draw a contrast between "Roman Catholics" and "Eastern Catholics" may perhaps be distinguishing Eastern Catholics not from Latin or Western Catholics in general, but only from those (the majority of Latin Catholics) who use the Roman liturgical rite. Adrian Fortescue explicitly made this distinction, saying that, just as "Armenian Catholic" is used to mean a Catholic who uses the Armenian rite, "Roman Catholic" could be used to mean a Catholic who uses the Roman Rite."

"The territory received by Austria-Hungary in the partition of Poland included Galicia (modern western Ukraine and southern Poland). Here the Greek-Catholic Ruthenian (Ukrainian) peasantry had been largely under Polish Roman Catholic domination. The Austrians granted equal freedom of worship to the Greek-Catholic Church and removed Polish influence. [...]"

"The term of "Roman Catholic Church" is sometimes also used to refer to the Latin Church, for instance when used by Eastern Catholics,, but can also be used for the Catholic Church as a whole in some context, such as non-Catholic contexts."

Therefore, this use of the term Roman Catholic is quite prevalent and should be respected. Replacing it blindly by Catholic brings more ambiguity, not less. Place Clichy (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making the efforts with explaining your thoughts above. I'm inclined to largely agree with many of the points. However, I am still hesitant to support raison d'être of distinguishing Latin Church-pertainance in all entries (and/or categories). Yet, I think your arguments merit more more evaluation than just mine and the few other's here. Would you mind making it an RfC right here on this talk page? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

“Latin Church” should refer to the particular church. There is an issue of where “Roman Catholic Church” should go. “Roman Catholic Church”should only redirect to “Latin Church” because of rites(capital ‘R’ for particular churches;lowercase ‘r’ for liturgies). To clarify, “Latin Church” is associated with Latin liturgical rites. As such, “Latin Church” redirection seems appropriate. Latin liturgical rites are an umbrella term for various Rites. This is unpopular but the bigger question is to avoid confusion.

“Roman Catholic” vs. “Roman Rite Catholic”: “Roman Catholic” refers adjectively to a Catholic person in Rome. While the latter is more specific, nowadays “Roman Catholic” is not used in this context and people may just say Italian Catholic. This is a debate over influence- Wikipedia may be able to change people’s minds and thus teach them the key nuances of terms. I agree that “Roman Catholic” could stay the same in current articles, BUT a gradual change in articles from “Roman Catholic” to “Latin Catholic”.

This means if there is a consensus editors won’t start changing article immediately because that will shock viewers. “Roman Catholic Church” should be redirected to the disambiguation page because “Roman Catholic Church” can either mean the “Church in Rome” or “Roman[Rite]Catholic Church”. In others words for sure, “Roman Rite Catholic Church” should redirect to “Latin Church”. Name corrections can happen but it should be done over a span of 5 years or more.

External sources are another point of contention that being “Roman Catholic Church” could mean either “Latin Church” or the Church as a whole. Eastern Christians would view “Roman Catholic” as the “Latin Church” and rightfully so. However non-Catholics/outsiders would be an ambiguous source on what is referred to. Wikipedians should use context and assume point of view. That is to each source make your best judgement call to whether the church as a whole or the “Latin Church”. Now back to gradual change. This is a general observation: Do not mothers wean their children? Criticism is most welcome.Manabimasu (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Eastern Catholic Churches
To be settled.

National polities
To be settled.

Ecclesiastical provinces
To be settled.

Episcopal conferences
To be settled.

Dioceses
To be settled.

Dioceses of the Latin Church
To be settled.
 * For relevant recent discussions (15 August 2018), see:
 * Category talk:Roman Catholic dioceses in Europe
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_15

Dioceses of the Eastern Catholic Churches
To be settled.

Individuals
To be settled.

Related subjects
To be settled.

Disambiguations
To be settled.

Redirects
To be settled.

Categories
To be settled.

Shortcut
See Wikipedia talk:CATHOLICISM. Andrewa (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

3OR on Catholic Church
Here you inserted the 3OR template without the proper parameters, resulting in a very messy beginning to the section. Would you please read the documentation for the template and fix it? I would do it myself except I don't want to change what you intended to do. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Rite vs rite
There is a distinction between the capital “Rite” and “rite”. I will show sources. The English translation of CCEO blurs this distinction. I refer to http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/la/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19901018_index-codex-can-eccl-orient.html. Please look at the following references Can. 28,Can. 35, Can. 39, Can. 40, Can. 41, Can. 82, Can. 96, Can. 146, Can. 169, Can. 193, Can. 290, Can. 322, Can. 330, Can. 343, Can. 346, Can. 403, Can. 405, Can. 576, Can. 584, Can. 781, Can. 828, Can. 1492. The distinction has been in distinct in Wikipedia and the consistency is missing. This has got to be in the Naming Convention. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Also look at this http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm


 * If that's the spark which would make you complete the whole naming convention, then sure. PPEMES (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)