Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church/Archive 2

Possible Solution for Discussion
From the discussion above in Richardshusr's section:

I do want to establish that there are certain locutions that I think are unacceptable. These are "also known as the Catholic Church", "also called the Catholic Church", etc. All these suggest that the Catholic Church is properly called "the Roman Catholic Church" but is "also known as" or "also called" the Catholic Church. This inverts the true relationship of the two phrases and thus should not be contemplated.
 * --Richard (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "which usually calls itself the Catholic Church"? Or "refers to itself as"?  Or "prefers to be called"?  Or something similar?  Defteri (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes... I'm fine with all of those. I was specifically ruling out "the word 'also'" especially when used in the phrase "also known as" as these tend to suggest that the official or preferred name is "Roman Catholic Church" and "Catholic Church" is some sort of abbreviation.
 * --Richard (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Possible solution? Support.  Soidi (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Possible solution - Could it be this easy? Support. -- Secisek (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds accurate, would we include the note with it? -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 01:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, heh... I certainly hope it IS this easy. However, I would like to point out that, IMHO, I am the moderate in this debate. The parties that need to agree are Soidi & Gimmetrow on one side and NancyHeise and Xandar on the other side. It is promising that Soidi supports the locutions proposed by Defteri. Let us see if the others also agree... (And yes, I think we still need a note) --Richard (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Defteri's solution seems to solve the problem between using the word "official" and losing all context of which name is used more often. Thoughts, other suggestions? Shell  babelfish 04:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My position is an has always been to support whatever consensus decides so I will be happy with a new consensus vote here. However, there is not one term being supported in the above scenario but three and we have about 10 other parties to this debate who have yet to weigh in. I am interested to know which sentence is being supported and what these other 10 or so editors think about the suggestion.  Nancy Heise    talk  08:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, I emailed a Catholic Church bishop I know and gave him a link to this discussion. I asked him what he thought and he replied "We call ourselves Catholic Church, others call us Roman Catholic Church."  Nancy Heise    talk  12:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable published source, especially since many other Catholic bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, do call it the Roman Catholic Church (among other names). Since Nancy wants a concrete phrase to be proposed, may I propose the first of those I mentioned, namely "which usually calls itself the Catholic Church"?  It seems uncontroversial.  Defteri (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * New Source - I just came back from the library. I did some more research on this issue and found a very academic and very neutral source that states "At the time of the Reformation in the 16th century, the Church of Rome claimed the word catholic as its title over Protestant or Reformed churches." The words "claimed as its title" appear to me to mean that it officially adopted this name as its title, the same thing that Whitehead and all the other sources support. Please see the entire quote and source information here . I pasted the quote there so I wouldn't clutter up this page, I hope that is OK. I would also like to know why there is such opposition to the use of the word "official" when we keep continuing to find more and more solid sources that support use of the word and we have no reliable sources that state otherwise?  Nancy Heise    talk  15:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes the Church does claim the word "catholic" as its title over Protestant or Reformed churches, and calls them "non-Catholics". This doesn't seem to me to mean that it ever chose "Catholic Church" as its one and only official name. Would it perhaps be best to reserve this section for discussion of the proposed compromise?  Defteri (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Defteri, Nancy's source is relevant to this discussion (thought, IMO, not compelling). Like you, I do hope that we will spend more effort in trying to reach a compromise than in reinforcing a position which we know has little chance of achieving a consensus.  We should seek to win by reaching an agreement, not by getting our way. --Richard (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an academic, scholarly, non-Catholic Church source that states that the Church claimed as its title "Catholic". I suggest: "Roman Catholic Church, which titles itself "Catholic Church"(note 1)".   Nancy Heise    talk  16:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nancy, I think I proposed something close to this "which calls itself the 'Catholic Church'" but Xandar objected arguing that "calls itself" makes 'Catholic Church' sound like an illegitimate name that only the church uses. Perhaps he would have a different opinion of the phrase "which titles itself".  --Richard (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Elements of a possible solution
(edit conflict) - The following text addresses the general issues at the core of the debate and is not specifically related to the discussion of Nancy's communication with a Catholic bishop or her quote from the Academic American Encyclopedia.

I would like to remind everybody that many of the elements of the "possible solution" under current consideration have been discussed before here. (Gee, that was me that made the "New proposal".)

I do think I responded too casually to Defteri's original query on this page as to what I would accept.

First of all, I am kind of like Nancy in that I am interested in consensus although I think consensus means true unanimous consent to a compromise solution, not 15 votes from a past consensus suppressing the voices of a few editors who are currently expressing concerns.

Secondly, I am less stuck on the issues than others seem to be. I just wish all valid concerns to be addressed in any final resolution of this dispute.

So, I would like to see us discuss and agree on a compromise solution that is more detailed than just the few words that Defteri proposed. Instead, I would like to have us all agree to a consensus solution that addresses each of the following issues:
 * 1) Title of the article
 * 2) Which comes first "Roman Catholic Church" or "Catholic Church"
 * 3) How to characterize the name "Catholic Church" ("official name" or something else but emphasize that it is the most frequently used)
 * 4) Very brief historical background of the names "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" (max 1-2 sentences each)
 * 5) When and where the name "Roman Catholic Church" is used

Here are what I see as the elements of a possible solution...

--Richard (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Title of article remains "Roman Catholic Church" (not my preference but this is needed to avoid reopening a different dispute)
 * 2) "Roman Catholic Church" appears first (despite issues that this raises we seem to agree that this is dictated by WP:MOS)
 * 3) Lead sentence uses the phrase "which prefers the name 'Catholic Church' in official contexts" (it's a true statement but one that does not deny the use of other names in official contexts)
 * 4) A note which explains
 * 5) the fact that the church has used and preferred the name "Catholic Church" since the 4th century
 * 6) the reason why the Church dislikes the phrase "Roman Catholic Church"
 * 7) the fact that the bishops at Vatican I made an explicit decision to remove the name "Roman Catholic Church" from Vatican I documents and that it does not appear in Vatican II documents (my objection in the past has been that the phrase "Roman was rejected" is too terse to convey what really happened)
 * 8) the fact that the bishops at Vatican I explicitly
 * 9) the fact that the names "Roman Catholic Church" and "Roman Church" are sometimes used in official church documents and in other official contexts, especially in Anglophone countries.
 * 10) if necessary, we might point out that when "Roman Catholic Church" and "Roman Church" are used in official church documents, they are originally expressed in Latin and give the Latin equivalents


 * Just a thought here - notes aren't really supposed to be lengthy and since leads should cover the material in the article would it make sense to include a section in the article that addresses the naming in more detail? Shell  babelfish 19:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for bringing this up. The short answer is that the consensus seems to be towards putting this material in Note 1 while trying to keep the note short. (i.e. about the length of the current note).
 * I have previously proposed having a section in the article discuss the name but that idea was not well received. We have also discussed having a separate article on this topic but, to me at least, it seemed a bit much to dedicate a whole article to it.  However, if we were to consider this approach, my proposal would be to rename this article to "Catholic Church" and then have "Roman Catholic Church" discuss the history of the name with a soft redirect to "Catholic Church".  I haven't mentioned this approach before because the idea of this article residing at "Catholic Church" would likely incense some Anglican Wikipedians who feel that doing so is a misappropriation of the word "Catholic" to which they feel they have equal claim to.  --Richard (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well said, Shell, in my poor opinion. And Richard, please, I think you are raising far too many disputed matters. I will go through your points, one at a time.
 * 1. This is claiming that it is the RCC and not the EOC that is identical with the fourth-century Church. Not NPOV.
 * 2. If, as you say, the Church dislikes the phrase "Roman Catholic Church", why then does it use it? You mean, I suppose, that some elements in the Church, especially in English-speaking countries, dislike it.  The reason is doubtless that some non-RCs use the phrase to express their view that the RCC is only a section within the Catholic Church, a view that the RCC rejects.  But in contexts where that view is not under discussion, Popes have happily used the phrase, even recently.
 * 3. The bishops at Vatican I did not "make an explicit decision to remove the name "Roman Catholic Church" from Vatican I documents". On the contrary, they overwhelming voted down a proposal to do just that.  All they did was to lengthen a single phrase, from "The Holy Roman Catholic Church believes ..." to "The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church believes...".
 * 4. is incomplete. So, thank God, it has not raised further problems.
 * 5. It seems that the names "Roman Catholic Church" and "Roman Church" are less used by the Church in Anglophone countries than in others.
 * 6. The only significance I can see in this point is that it shows that the use of these terms is not really an Anglophone phenomenon.
 * I fear that raising these matters will only make any solution quite impossible for many months. Why not concentrate on the matter (the WP-licitness of "the Church's official name") which Shell Kinney has kindly volunteered to help us settle, and leave all such questions for later?  Defteri (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Defteri...
 * Re (1) Good point but that is what the RCC claims so it's OK to state their POV.
 * Re (2) Yes, I agree that it is probably some (but not all!) English-speaking Catholics such as Whitehead who dislike it but they seem to have convinced the other bishops at Vatican I not to use "RCC"
 * Re (3) Yes, you're right, I seem to have been confused about what happened at Vatican I. What I meant to say is that the English-speaking bishops waged a successful campaign to avoid the use of the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" from the Vatican I documents
 * Re (4) I meant to say that the bishops at Vatican I explicitly endorsed "Roman" as a proper description of the church (I may have once again got the specific details wrong but you get the idea)
 * Re (5) I can't speak to which countries use RCC more and which ones less. Maybe we can drop the bit about "especially in Anglophone countries".  That is an assertion that others have made with sources but that I personally don't know anything about.  I do know that RCC is used in Anglophone countries.
 * Re (6) Yes, that's precisely it. Some sources argue that RCC is an invention of Anglophones, specifically Anglicans.  Other editors have insisted that it is not and that it is used outside the Anglophone countries.


 * As to your general comment that I am introducing too many new issues, I beg to differ. I think that all of these issues are inextricably intertwined and that we cannot resolve the "official name" question without addressing these related issues.  What I have written above is an attempt to incorporate all of the issues that have been raised in relation to the name of the church.  IMO, the question is not whether "Catholic Church" is the preferred and most frequently used name of the church in official contexts.  I think everyone agrees that it is.  The question really revolves around whether "Roman Catholic Church" is also an acceptable and proper official name of the church.  That is what my "core issues" tries to address.


 * --Richard (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I do not accept all that you say, I will say no more, at least for now, on your 6 points. I will only say that I by no means agree that there is a consensus towards putting in, with regard to the proposed revised text, a note giving all or even some of your points.  Defteri (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My 6 points are not so much mine per se as they are what I think is needed to reach consensus amongst the various parties involved in this dispute. IMHO, if we can present these points, I think we can satisfy all concerned without getting into very careful parsing of a handful of words.  For example, the three words "'Roman' was rejected" created a lot of heartburn whereas I think there isn't really any dispute anymore amongst us about the facts of what happened at Vatican I.  I think what we need is more facts and less interpretation of the facts.  It also helps the reader understand how to parse what we write in the lead and helps explain to any future editors the reasoning behind the specific phrasing that we have chosen.
 * If you feel this is the wrong forum to discuss my 6 points, feel free to continue this discussion off-line on my Talk Page.
 * --Richard (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that there are likely issues to consider about the note, but lets refocus on how the first sentence can be worded in a manner everyone can accept. Defteri and Nancy have both made suggestions - lets talk about those suggestions and see if we can't settle on a wording. Shell  babelfish 14:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Decomposing the problem into its parts
Following Shell's suggestion to focus on the first sentence and leave discussion of the Note for later, I see the following:

Everyone seems to agree that "Roman Catholic Church" comes first in the sentence and "Catholic Church" comes second. Everyone also seems to agree that the church strongly prefers to use and does use "Catholic Church" most frequently in official documents. The major bone of contention is whether "the Catholic Church" is the exclusive official name of the church.

Here are what I see as the various dimensions of the wording question...


 * 1) Which verb to use (i.e. "calls/is called" vs. "titles/is titled" vs. "refers/is referred to"
 * 2) Whether or not to use the verb reflexively (i.e. "is called" vs. "calls itself")
 * 3) Whether to mention the word "official" and how ("officially" vs. "in official contexts")
 * 4) Whether to use the word "prefer" which weakens the statement by suggesting that other names are acceptable but not preferred
 * 5) Whether to use the words "usually", "frequently" or "most often"

I believe these dimensions cover the range of solutions that have been proposed. I think the biggest bone of contention has been around point #3. Some want to say "officially called the Catholic Church". Others such as myself want to weaken the statement with words and phrases like "prefer" and "in official contexts".

I would like to suggest that, instead of just putting up possible candidates for consideration, we should first determine which, if any, of the above dimensions are unacceptable or unrelinquishable by any of the involved editors.

While I don't feel quite as passionately about this as others, I would be comfortable with with most combinations of the above dimensions as long as the statement doesn't wind up with a phrasing that baldly states "officially called the Catholic Church". I'm not sure but I think the others such as Soidi and Gimmetrow faction would agree.

I know that Xandar and NancyHeise would prefer a phrasing that says simply "officially called the Catholic Church". The question seems to be whether they would accept a weakened phrasing using one or more of the above dimensions.

--Richard (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Lets not make this more complex than it has to be. Did you have any comments about either of the two suggestions made above (one by Nancy actually) - they're highlighted in yellow to make them easy to find. Shell   babelfish 17:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I don't think I'm not making it more complex than it has to be. Every one of the dimensions that I mentioned has been debated in the Talk Page and has elicited both support and opposition.  The problem, as I see it, is that we've been going around in circles on proposed candidates raising issues one at a time instead of focusing on the issues as a group.  If we are going to consider candidates, we need a rubric for evaluating the candidates and understanding why one is acceptable to some editors and unacceptable to others.  Otherwise, we have no way of knowing why we like some candidates and dislike others.
 * --Richard (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the discussion seems to be stalling out and perhaps Shell can help us with some suggestions on how to make progress towards a solution. In the meantime, I still disagree with Shell's suggestion that the above rubric is making things "more complex than it has to be". I see the rubric as decomposing the problem into its parts so that we can determine where we agree and where we don't. Actually, I think we pretty much know what the crucial question is but maybe making it explicit will keep us focused on it.

So here is another table that I have constructed to help me understand what the issues are and who stands on which side of each issue. This table is transcluded here and can be edited at this page. Feel free to modify the table but please do not include any extended discussion of the issues in the table or here in this section. The table is meant to summarize our discussions which should be conducted at the bottom of this mediation page.

Discussion of alternatives
I have taken the liberty of formatting the current alternatives under discussion into a table that is located at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church/Alternatives and transcluded here. If you know how to edit Wikipedia tables, you are welcome to update the table as the discussion proceeds. If not, just contribute to the discussion here and I or someone else will update the table as necessary. --Richard (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find your table in edit mode. Defteri (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To edit the table, you have to edit this page. --Richard (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Do reduce processing load on the browser, I have removed the transclusion of the table from this section since it is the same table being transcluded into this page twice. The table described above is now transcluded in the section "Proposed alternatives" below. The actual table can be found at this page.


 * Addressing your question about the suggestions made above...


 * I don't wish to be restricted to voting on the first solutions that somebody proposed. Just because I feel a proposal is "acceptable" doesn't mean that I think it is the best solution.  That's why I laid out the rubric that identifies all the dimensions that we have discussed.  We need to understand all the options rather than focusing on a limited choice.  I want to find a lasting consensus rather than one that resembles a shotgun marriage.


 * Defteri's proposal did not commit to a specific wording. It mentions three separate candidates, all of which are acceptable to me because they weaken the statement by using "prefers to be called" or "which usually calls itself".  By leaving out the word "officially", it opens the door for the idea that the church considers other names to be acceptable and, in fact, uses other names in official contexts (which is, IMO, the crux of the problem).  If Xandar, NancyHeise et al can agree to a formulation that leaves this door open, I think we have a path to a solution.


 * IMO, Nancy's proposal ("which titles itself the Catholic Church") is just a variant of the unacceptable "which officially calls itself the Catholic Church". It doesn't leave the door open enough because "titles itself" is very close to "officially calls itself".  Of course, we haven't heard from anybody else opposing her proposal so I might be wrong.


 * --Richard (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Richard's last comment here. However, at 12:41 on 19 February 2009 Defteri did propose just one concrete phrase, which I have put in bold above, not knowing how to yellow it: "The Roman Catholic Church, which usually calls itself the Catholic Church".  What do other editors think of that phrase?  Defteri (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would add "in official contexts" or "in official documents". And I would solicit Xandar's opinion as he is the one that I remember objecting the last time this phrase was proposed. --Richard (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. So the opening phrase would become: The Roman Catholic Church, which in its official documents usually calls itself the Catholic Church, ...  Defteri (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, again. Soidi (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am OK with the phrase if it eliminates the word "usually" - "The Roman Catholic Church, which in its official documents calls itself "Catholic Church" (note 1) ..." None of our sources uses the term "usually" and we have no basis for including it. No official Church document calls the Church "Roman Catholic Church". We also have no scholarly works that point to any such usage as evidence for the Church's name.  Nancy Heise    talk  14:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anybody among us deny that the Church in its official documents calls itself by more names than one? Defteri (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take the bold liberty of copying here a comment left by Xandar on NancyHeise's Talk Page on the grounds that those comments are freely licensed per GFDL and that, if he had wanted them to be private, he could have emailed them to her.
 * Nancy. I'm not to happy with "which titles itself" the Catholic Church, for the same reason I don't support "which calls itself" the Catholic Church. Both forms of wording carry the unfortunate implication within them that this is a false or presumptuous claim. Compare "Mr Barnet, who calls/titles himself Lord Delamere." Also, "Which titles itself" could be subject to the same objections that have been used against other forms of wording, ie. that the Church has also sometimes "titled" itself by other names. The word "officially" does provide precision, and limits the use of that argument.


 * If "Officially known as the Catholic Church" is pedantically (and in my view incorrectly) resisted, another, even less challengeable, form of words that could be agreed in order to achieve a solution could be: "The Roman Catholic Church, in official usage, the Catholic Church."
 *  Xan  dar  10:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I have disagreed in the past and still disagree with Xandar's assertion that "calls itself" and "titles itself" carry the unfortunate implication within them that this is a false or presumptuous claim. However, this could be addressed by the phrase "prefers to be called" or "prefers to use the name 'Catholic Church'". However, I think this is a second-order problem.

Defteri, Soidi, Gimmetrow and myself wish to establish that there are other official names that the church uses in official contexts, even if they are used far less frequently than "Catholic Church". It seems that Xandar and others wish to limit the argument "that the Church has also sometimes "titled" or called itself by other names."

The purpose of proposing phrases "usually","most often" or "prefers to" is precisely to leave open the door for the use of "other official names". This is a door that Xandar and Nancy wish to keep closed and is, IMO, the crux of the issue.

Is there any way to use Xandar's proposal "The Roman Catholic Church, in official usage, the Catholic Church." as the basis for further discussion? I would comment that, in order to be parsed correctly, the proposed phrase should read "The Roman Catholic Church (in official usage, the Catholic Church)...". Otherwise, it is unclear which phrase "in official usage" is to be associated with. --Richard (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard, the problem Xandar, I and all the other editors who supported the term "officially" have is that the opposing position does not have any WP:RS references to support their position and "officially" now has five that range from both Catholic and non-Catholic academic sources that support all the requirements outlined in WP:reliable source examples. We can't just go with something just because some wikipedia editor likes it, it has to be supported with actual references. The position that the Catholic Church sometimes uses other official names has not been established by any references to support that belief. If there were, then the opening statements of the opposing side should have included links to such references. Please be reminded that your reference to the rare Catholic Church web site that uses the name "Roman Catholic Church" does not meet WP:RS and it is not clear from such sites if the term is being used to differentiate that church from another Eastern Rite Church down the street. Also, Soidi's use of original documents violates WP:OR and we already know that the Church has its own meaning of "Roman Catholic" which refers to the Roman rite.  Nancy Heise    talk  16:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Nancy, we all know that the Church has its own meaning of "Roman Catholic" and that Pope Pius XII made the Church's meaning clear, when he "insisted upon the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is exactly the same thing as the Mystical Body, and thus ... made it clear to any student of theology that the other names of the Church also apply exactly and exclusively to the religious society over which the Bishop of Rome presides as visible head", as J.C. Fenton remarked. Does anybody among us deny that the Church in its official documents calls itself by more names than one? Defteri (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts about the phrase "which usually uses the name 'Catholic Church' in official contexts' ? --Richard (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...this isn't much different from Defteri's proposal except that it says "uses the name 'Catholic Church'" instead of "calls itself the Catholic Church". I wonder if "uses the name" is sufficient to address Xandar's concern about the implication of a "false or presumptuous claim". --Richard (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why have you omitted the proposal "The Roman Catholic Church, which in its official documents usually calls itself the Catholic Church"? It has at least one other person's support.  And at least to me it seems to be the most mid-way proposal, including as it does the word "official", which was proposed by yourself.  Defteri (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I obviously missed that proposal as I was reviewing this page for proposed alternatives. I have added it.  I think it's too verbose but otherwise I could live with that formulation.  (NB: I support the word "official" as long as it does not get used in a way to suggest that "Catholic Church" is the only name used in official contexts which is apparently what NancyHeise wants to do by taking out the word "usually".) --Richard (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I could support dropping the word "usually" if we establish in the note that other names are used in official contexts though far less frequently than "Catholic Church". --Richard (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But that's part of the problem. It's "true" that the church refers to itself with the name X, but without some indication or hint that it also refers to itself with the names Y and Z, simply saying "the church refers to itself with name X" is misleading. It's not at all obvious that "Catholic Church" is the most common name which the church uses to refer to itself, either. Gimmetrow 20:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be much better to find a wording that doesn't need exegesis in a note. At the very least, we should concentrate on the wording of the text itself before venturing into the quicksand of a discussion on a note. Removing "usually", as Nancy proposes, brings up what is no more than a variant of her thesis that the one and only name of which the Church ever makes official use is CC.  This, as Richard says, is contrary to fact.  Defteri (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)