Wikipedia

Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 31

< Talk:Catholic Church
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Xandar in topic Name
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35

Outcome of mediation

Overview

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

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

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

Consultation process

This summary and action plan are posted to the article talk page for community consultation. Shell Kinney and I will be facilitating the discussion, which will close at 12:00 noon, UTC, on June 26, 2009. The participants in the mediation welcome discussion regarding the action plan. Sunray (talk)

This plan and its discussion have been moved to a subpage, Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Page rename proposal to avoid disrupting other on-going discussions. As issues are discussed and resolved, they will be archived or collapsed on that page. Shell babelfish


Conclusion of mediation

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

The mediation on the name of the Church [1] is now concluded successfully. Part of the action plan that arose from the mediation was to hold a community-wide consultation regarding a proposed article name change to "Catholic

Church." The consultation centered on one key question: Can one church appropriate a name for itself? The discussion on this topic examined other churches' use of the term “catholic.” The related topic of whether the term “Catholic Church” was thereby ambiguous was also discussed. There were lengthy discussions regarding the process of the consultation and the interpretation of WP policy and guidelines on article naming. [2]

There was general agreement on the following:

  • The Church most commonly refers to itself as the “Catholic Church.”
  • The Church also refers to itself as the “Roman Catholic Church” in some contexts.
  • The proposed lead, supported by a new explanatory note, adequately reflects this.

A majority of those who commented expressed the view that the proposed name change was in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines on article naming and indicated their support for it. This, in the view of the mediators supports the consensus of the mediation to rename the article, modify the lead sentence to read: "The Catholic Church also known as the Roman Catholic Church...," and add the new explanatory note prepared as part of the mediation. These actions will be taken within the next few days. All editors are enjoined to respect this consensus. Sunray (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you choosing your words carefully? In legal language "enjoined" refers to an enforceable order. Peter jackson (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
A common dictionary meaning is "instruct or urge." I like that better. And since most will recognize that consensus is a policy, rather than a court order, I figured that this would be a good word. There may be a better one, but there it is... :) Sunray (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I had the same reaction as Peter jackson. On the other hand, it's just a word and I accept Sunray's explanation. At the end of the day, the point is that there is a consensus of over 20 editors supporting these changes or at least agreeing not to object. This dispute has lasted nearly a year. Anyone seeking to overturn the consensus should be aware of the lengthy discussion that has gone into the forging of the consensus and should consider the difficulty of getting 10-15 of those editors to change their minds. I would want to see at least 7-10 editors offering dissent before reopening this discussion.
That said, the core of the mediation hinged on the status of "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" as "official" names of the Church. The nub of the agreement was that Wikipedia would neither assert nor deny that the Church had a single "official" name; however, the consensus agreed that there could be a strong implication that the most commonly used name in official documents and contexts was the "Catholic Church". At the same time, Wikipedia will assert that "Roman Catholic Church" is sometimes used in official documents and contexts although some Catholics dislike this name because of its use to further sectarian polemic.
Any other text in the lead or the Note is open to debate although much of that text was extensively discussed and so shifting the consensus on that text is also likely to be difficult.
--Richard (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Since we needed an admin to make the move, I've gone ahead and done it. It didn't seem to make much sense to do that and not make the rest of the changes, so I gave that a stab as well. One thing I wasn't clear on was the hatnote - I think I've got that correct, but feel free to fix it if that's not quite right (I had no idea how many otheruses and redirect template variations there were!). Shell babelfish 18:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the talk also be renamed?--Rockstone35 (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I should have specifically checked that the talk page worked correctly. It and the archives should now all be properly moved. If you see anything else funny, please let me know. Shell babelfish 19:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions about explanatory note

Latest comment: 15 years ago60 comments11 people in discussion

Points #1-3

Carlaude contacted me on my talk page to remind me that some questions and concerns he had raised during the page rename consultation had not been dealt with. The issues he raised during the consultation are the following;

As some of the participants are aware, but have not addressed, the new explanatory note cantains unsouced allegations, namely:
(1) While I am sure Protestants have used the term, so have other Christians, NonChristians, and as is clear elsewhere, "Catholics" have used the term of themselves.
More to the point the cited souce does not attripute this to Protestants; it attributes it just to others and Wikipedia should only attribute it to others."
(2) The reference cites only a basic info about the book and a http address at books.google.com that will be a dead link once the book falls below sales quotas someday. It should quote the source, Walsh, Michael (2005). Roman Catholicism as such:
If the whole quote is deemed too long including part of it could be fine.
(3) Since RCs have theological reasons for objecting to "Roman Catholic Church" then (to not be POV) you have to include the theological reasons of other Christians for objecting to "Catholic Church."
Non-RC Christians, object that rather than merely being under the implication that their Church is "one of other, equally valid, kinds" of Christians, Catholic Church implies that every other church is not even "one of other, equally valid, kinds."
Wikipedia:Describing points of view#Usage_note says "Wikipedia should describe all major points of view, when treating controversial subjects."
Wikipedia:Describing points of view says "An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy."
--Carlaude talk 11:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In his first point, Carlaude notes that the citation (Walsh) does not use the term "Protestants." I think he is correct that it is misleading to do so in the explanatory note. It seems to me that a fairly simple change to the note might address this concern. For example, by simply eliminating the word "Protestant" or substituting the word "others" for it, the statement conforms to the citation.

His second point seems to me to be a technical fix needed for the citation. His third point is more complex. He is questioning whether the note is neutral in not mentioning that many Christians are opposed to the name "Catholic Church." This seems like something we should consider. i will hold my own view for now, but will participate in the discussion (not as mediator). Sunray (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't like to reopen the issue of the note this quickly. However Carlaude's points may have got buried in the other discussion. The first and second point seem fairly minor. As far as the third point goes, I am loath to put too much in the article on the views of other Christian groups on every issue. I don't want to set any sort of precedent on that line, since the article would quickly become a debating ground between differing denominations. On Carlaude's proposed wording: "many Roman Catholics dislike the label "Roman Catholic Church" as a suggestion that theirs is only one of several equally valid churches; whereas other Christians object that the label "Catholic Church" presumes it is the one uniquely valid church."
I doubt this is mandated by WP rules. If this were so, then "Orthodox Church," "Assembly of God", and "Church of England" would probably have to have the same disclaimer. If we were to accept this wording, I would certainly add "some" before "other Christians". Xandar 22:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
As for other Churches and there article names-- we would not be in the same situation for any other group. "Church of England" is a name that supports the implaction that other denominations are valid. The name of "Assemblies of God" (and other groups) could be misunderstood to have implication, but they have no history or doctine to support such an idea. It is not really an issue because they have no other name.
The "Orthodox Church" (meaning the Eastern Orthodox Church) might well have some history of claiming itself to be the "one uniquely valid church" but its article uses the name Eastern Orthodox Church-- a name that does not imply one uniquely valid church, like "the Orthodox Church" could. In fact until a few weeks ago "Orthodox Church" pointed to a disabiguation page, mostly due to the Oriental Orthodoxy; the article is not named Orthodox Church and if it were it would cause a bit of difficulty with Oriental Orthodoxy-- which is not part of it.--Carlaude:Talk 06:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that "some" should be inserted before "other Christians" if the second clause is inserted. I also would like to see sources for the second clause. I don't doubt the truth of the statement but I think we need to be clear as to what percentage of other Christians feel this way (I don't mean an exact percentage but are we talking 10%, 50% or 80%?). I know that there are evangelical and fundamentalist Christians who feel this way but what percentage does that represent? It may take a while before we are able to wrap our brains around this issue. I also think this belongs more in "Criticism" than in the Note. A whole section or even article can be devoted to "Ecumenical relations between the Catholic Church and other churches". --Richard (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the premise of #3, the statement is: "Since RCs have theological reasons for objecting to "Roman Catholic Church" then (to not be POV) you have to include the theological reasons of other Christians for objecting to "Catholic Church." This position is of the CC, not other Christians. The beliefs, doctrines, etc. of other Christians is irrelevant at this stage because it is the CC's teaching, belief, etc. Carlude, do you have a reference for stating that other Christians object to the name Catholic Church? All we have been talking about is what the CC believes, teaches, etc. in relationship to the name of their church. How others feel about it is a different topic entirely.
I think it is more appropriate to abbreviate CC, rather than RC. --StormRider 01:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
But we have not just talking about what the RCC believes and teaches. This part of the note talks about why some prefer one name over another. If we wanted to remove all the langage that indicated why many Roman Catholics dislike the label "Roman Catholic Church" over "Catholic Church" it would also be NPOV but I didn't think we wanted to do that. --Carlaude:Talk 07:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with number one, I thought we had caught that while we were still in mediation, but I guess that slipped through. Number two, I have no problem with adjusting the referencing and abbreviating as long as the meaning is preserved. I've read somewhere on Wikipedia that there's an archive site that will preserve a link, though I don't remember off the top of my head where that was. As far as #3, I agree with you; but I think this needs to be treated delicately. I don't think we lose anything by not stating the non-catholic position, but it does seem to naturally follow from the CC objection to the name RCC. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure inserting "some other Christians" is fine.
The source for the second clause is the the source for the first clause. That is also why it is best to leave them togther. There are two sorts of Christians here, as Walsh makes clear-- those that understand "Roman" before "Catholic Church" to imply there are other "equally valid" Churches-- and those that do not.
"Catholic" is not a word invented or used only by Roman Catholicism so there is no reason to think it is only the Roman Catholics that understand the words to have such a theological implication. I also do not see what being evangelical or fundamentalist whould have to do with it. To me, I would think it be more common among the Anglicans or "other" Catholic, but I am just saying "other" Christians.
There was never provided a "percentage" of how many Catholics had an opinion and there should be no like burden to find a poll of all other Christians. --Carlaude:Talk 07:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Umm... did you intend to put this below my comment? Because I was agreeing with you, this is kind of confusing. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for posting your agreement. I my comments were more directed to those above you but I was just trying to post at least some of my comments at the bottom, per normal people. Sorry if that was unclear.--Carlaude:Talk 21:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. The name "Church of England" historically meant the C of E, & excluded eg Presbyterian Church of England
  2. Some radical Protestants would reject the whole idea of "catholic" as simply unbiblical, & wouldn't care less who claims it

Peter jackson (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I made the first change proposed above, substituting "others" for "Protestants," as several people agreed with that and no one opposed. The second change, I am unsure about. I don't think that we necessarily need to make the change now. If the book drops off google's radar, we can simply re-work the citation accordingly. Does anyone hold strong views either way on this? Sunray (talk)

Point #3

To sum up,

  • For:
  • I, Carlaude, proposed this.
  • Kraftlos, says "I agree with you; but.. needs to be treated delicately."
  • Seemly for:
  • Sunray, says "This seems like something we should consider."
  • Richard says "I don't doubt the truth of the statement"
  • Against:
  • Xandar, is loath to "put too much in the article on the views of other Christian groups on every issue" and doubts "this is mandated by WP rules."
  • Storm Rider says "I disagree with the premise" as "All we have been talking about is what the CC believes, teaches..."

While I will point out that Wikipedia is not run by voting, I think there also is fatal flaw in Storm Riders argument as I pointed out above-- this is not just about what is believed or taught-- and with no follow up from him. Likewise I am not sure if Xandar has an argument, based on any Wikipedia policy. He seem to be just implying that if the nonRCs get a view expressed in the article here.. or anywhere.. it might be more and more. Again he did not follow up. If no one wants to say much more this looks like WP:CON to me.Carlaude:Talk 21:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Question: What is the name by which the Particular Churches refer to the parent church, and what do they use to refer to themselves internally? It might be possible (I don't know) that they also refer to themselves, as "(X) Catholic Church", like maybe "Maronite Catholic Church", and in the process possibly differentiate themselves from the "Roman Catholic Church", which uses the other rite. I don't know if the point is applicable, because I'm not that familiar with the Particular Churches, but it might conceivably be relevant. John Carter (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
[3][4] Here are some typical Eastern views from US church websites, which tend to think of rite or patriarchate when using the term Roman. But you can find other terminology [5]. On the general point here, the note is about the way the church uses names. I agree that the word "protestant" doesn't belong as it's not in the source. However, to some extent I agree with Xandar that it doesn't seem necessary here to note what non-RC believe, except insofar as it has an effect on the terminology Catholics use. Here, we are noting (per source) that some Catholics dislike RCC for because of the meanings used by non-RCC. The same source (Walsh), I believe, also notes that some Catholics prefer to use RCC for ecumenical reasons. I would think that an appropriate form of balance, and it's already said. Gimmetrow 01:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Catholics do not own the page Catholic Church and this is basiclly about the implication to other churchess. Is a bad practice and bad precident to share two different Catholic views and call that ballance. What is the fear of printing a nonRC view?Carlaude:Talk 01:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that anyone fears publishing a non-Catholic POV. My question would be: Is such an addition relevant for the note - which is, after all, an explanation for the naming of the article? So no, I am not persuaded that we should make this change and I don't yet see a consensus for it. Sunray (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying that I think the substance of what Carlaude wants is in the note in the previous sentence "Hence this has been the title used in some documents involving ecumenical relations", which is phrased in terms of the way the church uses terms. I wouldn't be opposed to extending that sentence in some way, though, if Carlaude wants to make that point more explicit. Gimmetrow 11:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Point #4

  • While we're here. This line, "The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents", is supposedly meant to say "The name CC is used by the Church more often than RCC in its own documents". Why can we not just say that? Gimmetrow 13:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Is that an issue of substance or semantics? They both seem to mean the same. Do you think the second version sounds better, or is there a difference or nuance you attribute to version # 2?--anietor (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The "rather than" line is separated off by commas, so it doesn't restrict the main clause. Thus it makes the statement: "CC is usually the term". The other form makes the statement restricted to two terms, "CC is used more than RCC". Gimmetrow 16:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
That sentence has long bothered me. I think that Gimmetrow's suggested change is simpler, and, thus, likely to be more easily understood by the average reader. Sunray (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The existing sentence is a little ugly, however Gimmetrow's proposed change significantly weakens what it states. "..used more often than RCC.." would tend to imply that the Church might use CC 51% of the time and RCC 49% of the time - which is false. Better would be: "The name CC is generally used by the Church in preference to RCC in its own documents", or something similar. Xandar 23:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Then say "The name CC is usually used by the Church over RCC in its own documents." Carlaude:Talk 01:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Words like "preference" and "over" would imply things that are more controversial than relative frequency of terms in a document, and they aren't sourced. Would "The term CC appears [much] more often than RCC in its own documents" make Xandar happy? Gimmetrow 16:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with what Gimmetrow is proposing although I think a better wording would be "In its own documents, the Church uses "CC" more frequently than "RCC". (add "much more frequently" if you like although "much more" is kind of vague and subjective). Using Xandar's "generally used" approach, I would prefer "In its own documents, the Church generally uses "CC" and, less frequently, "RCC". (or "much less frequently" if you insist) --Richard (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Richard's wording: "In its own documents, the Church uses "CC" more frequently than "RCC." Each proposed version has been a slight improvement. Great collaboration! Sunray (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I would say that "much more frequently" is necessary here to present the correct picture. Otherwise we have the 51%-49% problem again. Xandar 23:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Saying "much more frequently" makes it sound like we really know just how much it is used-- and we don't.
Their was consensus on the text saying "usually"; it says "usually" now; if you object strongly to normal "more frequently" we can continue to say "usually" while still making other changes. Carlaude:Talk 00:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
In the course of the mediation several searches of the Vatican website were conducted. If you take the Vatican II documents, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Code of Canon Law, the terms "Catholic Church" or "Catholic" are used dozens of times. The terms "Roman Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic" do not appear in those documents. Either "usually" or "much more frequently" would seem appropriate. Sunray (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Searching the Vatican website could support a text that says "...CC is used... much more often... in the Vatican's own documents..." but "Vatican's own documents" is not the proposed text. It would also be all original research.
There is a church not far from my house that says "Roman Catholic" on the sign out in front of it. I would imagine that eveytime they send someone a letter, their letterhead also says "Roman Catholic" on it. Now, that is just in my own town. How do we know how often this is happening world wide? We don't know, and there isn't any reliable source telling us that we do.--Carlaude:Talk 08:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Usually" seems more appropriate phrasing than "much more often" because we cannot accurately clearly determine at what point "more often" become "much" more often. It also needs mentioning that Vatican documents are not the only measure of the church's own usage of its names as the church is not just the Vatican and the use of "RCC" in other official church contexts outside of the Vatican is far more common than some people are prepared to admit. Afterwriting (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Usually" would be satisfactory as a qualifier. It is the agreed term. As far as some local parishes using "Roman Catholic" occasionally, this issue has been gone through before several times, and is irrelevant. The usage is historic and local in some English-speaking countries where this was the Government designation for the church. Documents and pronouncements from the worldwide church overwhelmingly use "the Catholic Church" and only very rarely RCC, generally in certain ecumenical contexts. Xandar 00:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
My concern is not with the comparison term ("usually" or "more frequently"), for which any number of options would probably be fine. My concern is to make it clear that the sentence makes a comparison between two terms only, and that it doesn't carry implications for other terms. "Between CC and RCC, the church's documents usually use CC"? Gimmetrow 00:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The use of "Roman Catholic Church" within parts of the church apart from the Vatican (and not just by "local parishes") is not "irrelevant" as Xandar claims - nor is it "only very rarely" used. It is actually used quite often though, as we all acknowledge, significantly less than "Catholic Church". What is actually now "irrelevant" is whether this was ever the "Government designation for the church" in any particular country. Regardless of whether it ever was, or not, the fact is that within the church the name "Roman Catholic Church" is sometimes used for various reasons and is no longer just imposed on the church from without. Whatever the actual facts of its historic origins and use may be, it is clearly an established fact that within the church it *also* calls itself the Roman Catholic Church on a reasonably regular basis. For those, like Whitehead, who falsely insist that "Roman Catholic Church" is not a name also used by the church, denial really is a river in Egypt. Afterwriting (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that the name "Roman Catholic Church" is widely used. I think that the lead sentence and the note reflect this. At this point, we are just considering fine tuning some of the wording in the note. We need to bear in mind the policies and guidelines on naming. The principle in policy was to chose the most common name and the objective criteria further specified "official" communications (such as constitutional documents). So we have done all that. What do participants think of Gimmetrow's suggested wording?:
"Between CC and RCC, the church's documents usually use CC" Sunray (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately that is a very ugly construction, using "Catholic Church" twice. Better would be: "The church's documents usually use CC rather than RCC" Xandar 22:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
"The church's documents usually use CC rather than RCC." Going once... Sunray (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't solve the problem. Gimmetrow 09:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me. What problem doesn't it solve? Carlaude:Talk 09:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem that it can be read as making an absolute statement which has implications for other terms used to refer to the church. Gimmetrow 09:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Please explain. What are, for example, the "other terms" that are "used to refer to the church"? How is "Between CC and RCC, the church's documents usually use CC." any better than what Sunray has written above? Carlaude:Talk 13:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, Lumen Gentium was referenced a lot in this debate. It uses "Church of Christ" almost as much as CC to refer to the church, and other terms feature often. If Xandar wants to avoid an opening for a 51/49 split for CC/RCC, I want to avoid asserting it's 90/10 when it could be 20/2. (This does illustrate the unreferenced nature of the claim in this sentence, but that's separate.) Gimmetrow 13:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see this at all. The phrase: "The church's documents usually use CC rather than RCC." is only referring to CC and RCC. Terms like "Church of Christ" don't come in to the phrasing. And tbere is no need for them to. I doubt seriously that one reader in ten thousand would even imagine that CoC might be the name of the Church. (Its use in LG is in a different context.) It is just not a significant factor that deserves mention in WP. Xandar 23:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Going twice. Sunray (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The sentence Xandar constructed says "The church usually uses CC". That means the "the term usually used by the church is CC". This is a statement that this one term is the main, primary term used over all other terms. The "rather than" clause then says that, just in case the reader thought otherwise, the term usually used by the church is not RCC". So am I to understand that Xandar refuses to change this sentence to a form which is clear and excludes the absolute statement (since asserting the absolute statement essentially undermines the result of mediation)? Gimmetrow 02:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Point #4, I hope we are almost done here

There are two alternate wordings proposed: 1) "The church's documents usually use CC rather than RCC," and, 2) "Between CC and RCC, the church's documents usually use CC." The latter puts a finer point on the fact that the comparison is only between these two names. However, in practice, they seem to be very close in meaning. Xandar and Gimmetrow, would one of you be willing to remove your objection to the other phrase? Sunray (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow's wording 2, not only uses Catholic Church twice in the same sentence, it tends to give a false impression of a toss-up between the names. I see option 1 as being quite unambiguous, however I would be prepared to settle on Gimmetrow's earlier suggestion: "The term CC appears much more often than RCC in its own documents" Or, for clarification, "The term CC appears significantly more often than RCC in the church's own documents". Xandar 00:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't really like Gimmetrow's wording latest wording, but going back to the claim of "much more often" is or "significantly more" is a significantly worse idea. I thought we finally dropped that.
Does anyone else see Lumen Gentium as a concern, when folks refer to this church in a socity that is on information overload 24/7? Carlaude:Talk 12:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the comment about information overload. Anyway, I'm not at all tied to any particular wording I may have mentioned at any point in this discussion. My concern is that the line we're talking about ("The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents") can mean various things, some of which may be wrong or biased. It needs more precision. Part of the problem is that the line doesn't have a source; if it had an explicit source then the source would limit its meaning. If it is "sourced" by the next two sentences, that CC was used in some documents and RCC in some others, then the sentence serves no purpose and should be eliminated. My understanding is that the sentence came out of a google hit comparison of the terms CC and RCC on the Vatican website. While this seems a bit like OR, I'm willing to accept the jump that the current Vatican website is representative of all Church documents, but the line seems to make a different jump - that a comparison of the relative frequency of two terms means more than the comparison of those two terms. Does the sentence really say anything other than "On the Vatican website, the term CC is used more often than RCC by a ratio of X"? Gimmetrow 13:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
If so-- what do people think about these any or all of these wordings? (#3, #4, #5 are new, but 1 & 2 just repeat the above choices for reference). Carlaude:Talk 17:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. The church's documents usually use "Catholic Church" rather than "Roman Catholic Church."
  2. Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome used the name "Catholic" to distinguish itself from the various Protestant churches. Between "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church," the church's documents usually use "Catholic Church."
  3. Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, to distinguish itself from the various Protestant churches, the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome used the name "Catholic Church." Between this term and "Roman Catholic Church," the church's documents usually use "Catholic Church."
  4. Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome used the name "Catholic Church" to distinguish itself from the various Protestant churches. Between this term and "Roman Catholic Church," the church's documents usually use "Catholic Church."
  5. Between the two terms commonly used today, the church's own documents usually use "Catholic Church."

Why do we need this sentence?

I've been ignoring this discussion because I didn't really care that much about what was being argued. However, today I started to wonder why we even had this sentence.

You all are going to hate me for this but maybe it will make sense if you think about it...

Why do we need this sentence at all? After all, I dont' think we can source the statement to secondary documents. (Parse that sentence carefully. No source that I've seen presented over the last year talks about the "church's own documents" or even "official documents". Whitehead talked about the "proper name" of the church and Madrid did says "official name". However, even they don't talk about the church's "own" or "official" documents. Sources may discuss specific documents but, as far as I can remember, nobody uses the phrase "church's own documents" or "official documents" to discuss the corpus of church documents as a whole.)

Relying on any observations by Wikipedia editors as to relative frequencies of use in church documents (i.e. primary documents) is basically OR.

Try reading the Note again without the sentence in question and consider whether the Note is diminished by deleting the sentence altogether.

It feels to me as if this sentence was constructed precisely for the purpose of establishing the "preference" for "Catholic Church" over "Roman Catholic Church", a question that may be more of a burning issue for the editors of this article than it is for the average reader.

It seems we are insisting on telling the reader something that he doesn't necessarily need to know and that we only know from our own intuition and original research.

--Richard (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The sentence does have one important purpose, though: It responds to the criteria set out in WP:NCON. It is supported by the next two sentences in the note ("It appears in the title..."), which refer to primary sources. Some sort of statement along these lines seems useful to introduce those sentences. The wording now in the note was part of the consensus. What we are considering is merely a tweak. I would suggest we just pick a version that we can all live with and move on—or leave it as is. Sunray (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Remove the sentence then. It is an unsourced, ambiguous sentence admitting of multiple interpretations, include some interpretations with bias. If it cannot be clarified and sourced properly, it should be removed. Gimmetrow 05:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Gimmetrow, you seem to be changing your position and the apparent reason for your objection. The sentence is part of the agreed consensus, so removing it is not an option presently. Of the suggestions that have been put forward for alternative wordings, the ones that seem possible substitutes for the contentious line are:
  • "Between this term and "Roman Catholic Church," the church's documents usually use "Catholic Church." (Carlaude)
  • "The term CC appears much more often than RCC in its own documents" (Gimmetrow)
  • "In its own documents, the Church uses "CC" more frequently than "RCC." (Richard)
  • "The name CC is generally/usually used by the Church in preference to RCC in its own documents", (Xandar)

Xandar 22::::33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And Richard also suggested/proposed removing the sentence. Let's discuss the article and not attempt to make mere procedural arguments. Gimmetrow 11:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
There was a consensus to include the note in its current form. We can change it if there is a new consensus to do so. Sunray (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
And we can remove it, too. Please discuss content rather than attempt to make procedural arguments to obstruct improvements to the article. Gimmetrow 19:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Please don't remove elements of the note unilaterally. The note is consensus and needs agreement for change. Xandar 02:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
You have now added an unsourced, unverified and arguably POV statement to the article. Per WP:V, you are required to provide sources for unverified statements. If you wish to invoke the result of mediation, despite your refusal to discuss this issue during mediation, then I remind you that this sentence was tagged with [citation needed] at the end of mediation. Gimmetrow 02:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
This is nonsense - and you know it. YOU were one of the people who created this row by denying the references we put in the article from Madrid and others, on the basis of your own OR. We settled on removing the references and stating facts that allowed the reader to come to their own conclusions. That was the result of the mediation. Now you are AGAIN trying to stir up trouble on this issue - for what motivation I cannot imagine. You wanted the sentence rewritten, arguing we could mistake the RCC-CC balance for something else. You were accommodated. You were offered further changes to the wording - one of them your own suggestion. You backed out on that and keep on changing your reason for objection and disruption. The mediation was concluded as stands with a consensus version. Yet you seem to want to play kiddie games and start edit-warring again. First by removing the sentence without consensus, and then by putting citation-needed tags on the agreed wording. (And we know from past experience that no citation would satisfy you anyway.)
So stop. The "principle" you are arguing is indefensible. You claim the sentence "The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents" is not cited. But as was explained to you during mediation. Neither are the sentences "The Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance." which is not cited at all, and "Especially in English-speaking countries, the Church is regularly referred to as the "Roman" Catholic Church; occasionally, it refers to itself in the same way" is cited only to a primary source. So we could also play around and put "citation-needed" tags on those. Give it up. Xandar 00:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Changing the series name

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

Now that we have offically changed the name on Wikipedia to it's real name, Catholic Church- we should begin changing all references to Roman Catholic Church. First up "Part of a series on the Roman Catholic Church" is in the name of the series, we need to change the name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstone35 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of us realised all along that it wouldn't be too long before this sort of nonsense started if this article's name was changed. Good luck trying - you'll need it! Afterwriting (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It was stated during the discussion, that the result only applied to this article. Other articles would have to be dealt with on an individual basis. For example I would see that "Roman Catholic" might be useful on articles on theology, where confusion could arise as to "catholic" beliefs accepted by all churches with a claim to catholicity, and beliefs specifically belonging th the Church subject to this article. With organisations, "Catholic" should be used if it is used by the orgainisation. In names of bishoprics, where Eastern and Western Catholic bishops, or bishops of other denominations also exist with the same title, "Roman Catholic Diocese of..." might be the better choice. In other places "Catholic Diocese of..." or just "Diocese of..." might be more accurate, easily found, and in co-ordance with popular and actual usage. It is silly for example to talk of the "Roman Catholic Diocese of Rheims" - as if there were others. Xandar 22:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that article renames and the like should be done carefully and on a case-by-case basis. In some instances Roman Catholic is still appropriate. When in doubt it's best to pose the question on the talk page of the appropriate article. Majoreditor (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Xandar raises an interesting point in referring to (possible) duplication of titles between different Catholic rites. In such cases "Roman Catholic" would itself be likely to confuse. "Latin rite Catholic" would be clearer. Peter jackson (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is true that this was not listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves then it is quite clear that the move should not have been made, that it should be reverted immediately, and that the possibility of moving to Catholic Church should be discussed. Accordingly I am restoring the POV tag. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note the wording that {{POV}} includes: ‘Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.’ Ian Spackman (talk)
The "dispute" was resolved. It was resolved through an arduous process of comments, RfC, mediation, and, ultimately, consensus. An editor's disagreement (i.e. sour grapes) over consensus does not justify throwking a POV tag on the article. The issue was already addressed and resolved. --anietor (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct! I inadvertantly clicked the wrong edit link and put my comment at the bottom of the wrong section. I’ll add it to the one where there is quite clearly an unresolved dispute: the article’s name. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

need help re footnotes (Origin & Mission)

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just added footnotes 47-51 (re "Origin & Mission"), which are external links for CRS, Cath. Charities, Caritas Int'l, St. Vincent dePaul Society, & Worldwide Marr Encounter (to their websites). Although I used the cheatsheet, I unfortunately did not do them correctly. When you look at nn. 47-51, you'll see that each one has red lettering, indicating my error(s). I just printed out Wiki's "Tutorial (External links)", which I will try to understand and work on -- in the Sandbox, which may take me a while .... In the meantime, would one of my fellow users be so kind as to correct my footnotes, by adding the reference name for each footnote, e.g., Catholic Relief Services, Catholic Charities, Caritas International, Society of St. Vincent dePaul, and Worldwide Marriage Encounter. Thank you for your help and your patience. Happy Independence Day! Eagle4000 (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed these links. Citations shouldn't be needed for these well-known charities. Sunray (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Rationalizing the use of "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic" in article titles

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please see my proposal here. --Richard (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's such a knock to Wikipedia that it says "the Catholic Church is also known as the Roman Catholic Church". This is untrue. This is: "The Roman Catholic Church is how most people in America refer to the Rite of the Catholic Church which they experience the most, which is the Roman Rite." It is in ignorance that most Americans use this designation, as the Roman Rite is one of Seven. Do Americans see a Byzantine Catholic church and a Roman Catholic church (2 buildings) side by side and say, "Oh, these two churches are run by different organizations?" No, they don't, because they are ignorant. But the truth is that both churches are run by the Catholic Church. There isn't really any "Roman Catholic Church", only a Roman Rite. It's a big deal, and it makes Wikipedia look like it was written by ignorant people.

35.8.218.53 (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Fly in the ointment

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There's a body calling itself the catholic Church of God (Peter Day, A Dictionary of Christian Denominations, Continuum, 2003, page 89). Peter jackson (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. And your point? Their name was a lowercase c. And the Fact that no one caught that means that it probably isn't important. And there is no Wikipedia article on it. If it ever becomes popular, we can add it to a dab link. --Rockstone35 (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The lower-case c was my own typing error. The rest I leave to you. Peter jackson (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Error in disambiguation at top

Latest comment: 15 years ago24 comments11 people in discussion

The Church is not technically headquartered in Rome, it is located in a tiny enclave called the Vatican City, a sovereign state which is surrounded by the city of Rome. The city of Rome belongs to an entirely different state, the Italian republic. It is great to see that this has been moved to Catholic Church by the way! - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point. Do you define cities administratively or geographically? If a conurbation isn't an administrative unit, is it not a city? Are there any other cities in the world straddling national boundaries? Peter jackson (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you, Yorkshirian, may be overstating the situation to call this an error. This is akin to saying George Washington wasn't the first U.S President-- since the the Continental Congress had presidents also. For example, during most of its history, the RCC was certainly headquarted in the city of Rome. Then there was a period were the papcy did not accept Italian sovereignty of the of the suronding city, and thus considered Rome part of its domain. Then only in 1929 did we get the Vatican City per say. If Old Jerusalem were divided would one part not be Jerusalem anymore? When Berlin was divided was one part not Berlin anymore?
But if you want, I guess you could say "headquartered within Rome." Carlaude:Talk 13:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Try to be careful whom you're addressing. The placement of your remark innediately after mine would imply that "you" means me. In fact I didn't call this an error, someone else did.

I see you've thought of 2 examples of the sort of thing I was asking about. Were Berlin & Jerusalem 2 different cities each when they were divided between states? Peter jackson (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Guess I thought context made in clear.
Yes, I guess the examples of Berlin & Jerusalem makes my other points rather moot, IMO.
People have talked about dividing Jerusalem now days... so we can imagine how it might happen... but I was not aware of it ever happening in the past. Has it? Carlaude:Talk 15:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
From 1948 to 1967, part of Jerusalem was in Israel, part was first in Palestine, then in Jordan. Peter jackson (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

While I do share Carlaude's position in hoping for the restoration of the Papal States, that doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon. I think this is a unique case in that the enclave is surrounded by a city, but the Vatican City is no more "in Rome", than San Marino is "in Italy" or Lesotho is "in South Africa". In conclusion; it is best to avoid terminology which may mislead the reader. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

By definition, a country is not said to ever be "in" another country. It is either part of the same country or surrounded by the other country. But lots of things can be "in" two countries an be the same thing: forests, mountains, lakes, railroads, deserts, tunnels. Lesotho and South Africa are just two countries, one surrounded by the other with no "Lesotho City" or the like. The City of San Marino is completly within San Marino and so it is not a city divided between two states, and in fact the city is very nearly surrounded by other parts of San Marino. Clearly Berlin and Jerusalem are beter analogies.

But I am fine with either "This page is about the church headquartered within Rome" or "This page is about the church headquartered in Vatican City, Rome", since I am not so sure as many readers (in the US at least) know where the "Vatican City" is. My fellow Americans are terrible at geography. Carlaude:Talk 19:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Its still not in or within Rome; the Catholic Church is headquartered in or within the Vatican City which is a sovereign state just like Lesotho. That it happens to be a tiny country is neither here nor there. The Italian President has no say in how the Vatican is governed because its not part of his country, the Italian Republic, unlike Rome which is. In any case, I don't see why this mess would be needed anyway? It wasn't there before and Catholic Church has always redirected here, a link to "Catholic Church (disambiguation)" is all that is needed. It seems to be pushing a fringe agenda beyond bounds. Keep it simple. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The RCC is also headquartered in or within the Italian Peninsula, Europe, former the Roman Empire, the Mediterranean Basin and the UTC+1 Time Zone. Being in one thing does not mean you are exculed from being in any other thing.
Catholic Church has not always redirected "here". The page moved to "here". Back then Catholic Church redirected instead to Roman Catholic Church. There was no "Catholic Church (disambiguation)" before, and there also was no need to indicate which "Catholic Church" the Roman Catholic Church was. Carlaude:Talk 20:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In connexion with Yorkshirian's apparent preference for legal as opposed to de facto definitions of cities, I'd point out that London, legally, is a city of about 1 square mile in area & population about 4000. The de facto city is legally Greater London. Peter jackson (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Since, the current title of the article is ambiguous as an wiki article title (for example it cannot make the distinction between the title "Catholic Church" (which is used my multiple Churches) and the descriptive "catholic Church" (which is an important concept for many Churches)), a more explicit disambiguation line at the top of the article is necessary. I believe the following "This article is about the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, for other Churches which claim this title or catholicity, see Catholic Church (disambiguation)." should be used as a more explicit disambiguation line. Cody7777777 (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The current title is not "ambiguous". Some editors object,on theological grounds, to the title as it is now. There is no indication that there is any ambiguity, or that anyone has ever typed in "Catholic Church" and then stared inquisitively and in a state of confusion at the article that popped up. --anietor (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe it was explained here why it is ambiguous (I assumed it is not necessary to repeat all of the same arguments again, please check earlier posts). The statement that there are multiple Churches claiming this title or catholicity, is a fact (not some sort of "fringe theory"). The wiki naming policy states that when multiple entities use the same name, disambiguations should be given. Even the fact alone, that there is a disambiguation page for it, proves that it can be ambiguous. There is also no evidence that all the readers of wikipedia consider that this title can refer only to the Church discussed in this article. As far as I see, there is no evidence that this title is not ambiguous, it is an assumption (and it can be considered to be Original Research). So, as far as I see, as long as this article has this ambiguous title, an explicit disambiguation line at the top of the article is necessary (in fact, a disambiguation should normally be added to the title itself). Cody7777777 (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not buying into the ambiguity argument; all of the other churches primarily use other names to self-identify. The only church that primarily self-identifies as the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. In English, when someone says the Catholic Church, everyone knows exactly which church is being discussed. Although I realize that you have repeatedly banged this drum and trumpeted the need for "an explicit disambiguation line", I don't think anyone has bought into your favorite topic. Move on unless you have found churches of significant size (read millions of members with a world wide membership) that primarily use the title Catholic Church. I don't think one exists and more importantly no one is confused by the title. --StormRider 23:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
If it wouldn't be ambiguous it would probably not have a disambiguation page, but there is also an entire article called Catholicism discussing about the ambiguity of the term. Even the current note in the lead states, "There is some ambiguity about the title "Catholic Church", since the Church is not the only institution to claim catholicity". The title of the article cannot make distinction between the title "Catholic Church" (which is used by multiple Churches (I believe this was shown in earlier posts), and as far as I know, it is not encyclopedic to ingore such things) and the descriptive "catholic Church" (which is a very important concept used by many Churches). There is also no proof that the readers of Wikipedia, consider that "Catholic Church" can refer only to the Church discussed in this article, and the assumption that it is not ambiguous, can be considered to be Original Research. As far as I see, an explicit disambiguation line at the top of the article is needed, at least, as long as this article has this title. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Please dont throw around the term Original research. What we're discussing here is an organization decision, not a matter of content and original synthesis. Any "original research" here is merely advisory. I dont know if you're aware of this, but extensive research that was done on these terms. At least from the rest of the internet (web sites, search engines) there's no abiguity here about which church is being discussed, Catholic Church is much more commonly used than catholic church or any other church using catholic in its name. Even less when you take into account the existing disambiguation and the links in the explanatory note, though these were provided more as a compromise rather than any actual confusion. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 17:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I see, it was already shown in earlier posts that the term "Catholic Church" has multiple uses (I assume it is not necessary, to repeat the same arguments again, please check earlier posts). The claim that the term does not have multiple meanings (and that it is not ambiguous), is an assumption, and it can be considered Original Research, because there is evidence that it has multiple meanings. In this case, as long as the article has this title, an explicit disambiguation at the top is necessary. If there is something else to discuss here, we could rather discuss the wording, of the disambiguation line. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but Wikipedia runs by consensus and no one has decided to set up a Wikimonarchy. This is your POV, it is not recognized by anyone but you and you have not demonstrated that it is ambiguous. Until you demonstrate that to the community, you might want to consider a blog, or even writing in your own journal, but this time of demanding and attempts to confine conversation to your own POV is worthless. There is nothing further to discuss; it borders on trolling and I will refrain from further feedings. Cheers. --StormRider 19:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but to be honest, at least in my opinion, this (claim that it is not ambiguous, without proving it, especially when as far as I see, it has been shown that the term "Catholic Church" can have multiple meanings,) nearly gives the impression, of a WP:JDLI argument (which normally should be avoided on Wikipedia), but I could be mistaken of course. As far as I know, all articles of Wikipedia should follow the wiki rules such as Neutral Point of View, disambiguation, No Original Research, Naming conflict, etc. I think these rules, are normally supposed to be applied even the majority of editors would disagree with them, ("...few decisions on Wikipedia are made on a "majority rule" basis...","Wikipedia is not a democracy; policy and guidelines are not ratified through a vote"), however, as far as I see, in many cases these wiki rules seem to have been ignored, to push some subjective POVs (this does not refer just to this article), at least in my opinion this disrupts the purpose of Wikipedia. Cody7777777 (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry to admit that I have gotten to the point where seeing Cody's posts makes me jump to the conclusion that he is repeating his same old arguments about whether the Catholic Church has the right to call itself "the Catholic Church". My instinctive reaction is to see his posts as disruptive repetition of the same old arguments and therefore trollish. In fact, I was inclined to word a strong admonition to Cody to stop being disruptive.
On reflection, however, I see this reaction as a failure on my part to assume good faith and, if I may be so bold to suggest it, perhaps a failure on the part of other editors as well. This failure allows the discussion to go off the rails by focusing on whether or not there is an ambiguity.
In fact, Cody is right in at least the base assertion: there is indeed some ambiguity about the phrase "catholic church". If there were no ambiguity, there would be no need for a disambiguation page.
We should just admit that there is an ambiguity and agree that the current issue is how much to say about the ambiguity in the hatnote.
At one point, I had changed the hatnote to something very much along the lines of what Cody suggests "This article is about the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, for other Churches which claim this title or catholicity, see Catholic Church (disambiguation)."
Someone subsequently changed it to the current version which reads "For other uses, see Catholic Church (disambiguation)."
I think both versions of the hatnote are reasonable although the current version has the superior virtue of being shorter. Long hatnotes are a bad idea as one can imagine them getting carried away and becoming mini-paragraphs of explanation which is what Cody's version is headed towards.
So... I am willing to accept the shorter version on stylistic grounds.
Cody seems to think that it is important to insert the explanatory text in the hatnote. Others disagree.
He sees it as a content issue and I see no substantive reason why his version is unacceptable. My only concern about it is stylistic (i.e. shorter is better).
Cody is very persistent in his pushing for his POV; oftentimes this is perceived as being overly persistent to the point of being disruptive and trollish. I would advise him to find a more congenial and collegiate style of collaboration.
At the same time, I would urge other editors to look past the annoying interaction style and focus on the issues rather than getting derailed.
I don't agree with Cody on his proposal but let us understand the proposal for what it is and not get overly worked up about it. In my opinion, there's nothing substantively wrong with what he proposes; it's just too wordy and arguably inappropriate style for a hatnote.
--Richard (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
How about simply "This article is about the Roman Catholic Church. For other uses, see Catholic Church (disambiguation)"? That's much shorter than Cody's version, while still explaining to a reader who might have expected something else here what it is he's actually looking at. +Angr 13:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems good. Defteri (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems bad! This article is named the Catholic Church, and its official Name is Catholic Church. I like the 2nd one better. --Rockstone35 (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Did the Wikipedia community ever discuss this move?

Latest comment: 15 years ago55 comments16 people in discussion

I'm having trouble getting an overview of all the talk pages, subpages, archived pages, and whatnot, but it looks like this article was moved to Catholic Church without a request for move that the entire Wikipedia community was invited to discuss. Rather, it seems it moved on the basis of the mediation, which only a small number of editors were party to. Is this the case? Or was there a community-wide discussion that I've overlooked? +Angr 17:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

See this page Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Page rename proposal. A link to which is at the top of this page. Marauder40 (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. I'm still not finding a community-wide discussion of the page rename proposal. +Angr 18:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
You are right Angr, it should have been listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves and wasn't. I for one, wanted it to be made well know but the powers that be seemed very content to have participants be mostly the regular page participants.
I do think they would have been willing to have it listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves, if it had been brought up by someone at the time. Carlaude:Talk 18:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The proposal was one element of the consensus of a mediation involving 19 participants. Part of that consensus was to consult the Wikipedia community about the proposed page renaming. In addition to discussion on this talk page, Carlaude listed the page rename proposal at over 20 wiki projects and an RfC was also launched. The mediators consider this to have been a broad, and sufficient, consultation. Sunray (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I saw Carlaude's message at WP:WikiProject Anglicanism, but since it linked to a page connected with a Request for Mediation, I didn't contribute there. I wanted to wait for the Requested Move, since I wasn't a party to the mediation, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Instead, there was no Requested Move, and the page was moved solely on the basis of apparent consensus among the mediation participants. (And frankly, having read Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Page rename proposal, I don't see anything like consensus to move the page even among those participants.) It is bad enough that the page was moved without going through the agreed-upon procedures for a potentially controversial page name change and without any attempt to seek consensus from more than a dozen people, but even worse that the result was a move to a name that so blatantly violates one of Wikipedia's nonnegotiable core policies. +Angr 21:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
This is absolute nonsense. The whole mediation procedure lasted six months and the name itself change went through the exact procedures laid down in wikipedia policy on potentially controversial name changes. In fact we went through a wider consultation than was laid down in the policies. Just because you missed the process is tough. You clearly have not bothered to read even the page that you linked to (Wikipedia:REQMOVE), since it states that controversial moves are discussed on the article talk page, not on that page. Nor have you read through wikipedia's naming policies and the arguments in the debate, or you would have seen that NPOV is not the relevant policy, and that the actual policies have been followed and formed the basis of our discussions. Xandar 00:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Requested moves aren't discussed at WP:REQMOVE, but they are entered there so that people are aware they're happening. And there are polls: lists of people saying "Support" or "Oppose" so that consensus is possible to gauge. And of course, they happen on pages where everyone is entitled to contribute, not on mediation pages open only to the mediation participants. None of that happened here, as far as I can tell. And the naming guidelines do not trump NPOV, which is a nonnegotiable core policy. Under this name, the article no longer meets the Good Article Criteria (since NPOV is one of them) and will certainly never make it to FA. +Angr 06:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Voting is evil. Gentgeen (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Not nearly as evil as moving an article to a controversial, highly insulting, non-NPOV name without giving the community the opportunity to discuss it first. +Angr 11:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community had amble opportunity to engage in the discussion. The change was made following widespread invitations for participation, postings at over a dozen locations, RFC, mediation, painstaking debates lasting months and, eventually, consensus. Angr wishes he had participated, but didn't. There are undoubtedly other editors who wish they had participated, although there's no indication how many would have supported the move and how many would have been opposed. No use speculating about that. The move was conducted in accordance with Wiki policies, and reflects a NPOV, and makes the article more likely to meet Good Article criteria. --anietor (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Carlaude wrote: "I do think they would have been willing to have it listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves, if it had been brought up by someone at the time." I did bring it up several times. Most recently on 29 June. Soidi (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't have understood your June 29 comment as a reminder for someone to list the move then discussed on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page. Carlaude:Talk 16:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I wish I had been allowed to participate, but I wasn't, because the discussion only took place in the context of a Request for Mediation to which I wasn't a party. The topic of the request for mediation was only the wording of the lead paragraph; changing the name of the article was outside the scope of the mediation. Thus the move was conducted in direct violation of Wiki policies and has resulted in an article name that pushes one point of view while being highly insulting to a great number of people. Soidi was quite right in the link he posted above: you should have followed Wikipedia policy about controversial page moves rather than pretending that a consensus formed behind closed doors by a tiny group of editors with a vested interest in the article is representative of community consensus. +Angr 11:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't misuse article tags to push your own very evident POV. The move has been made after open discussion and in full accord with WP policies. Orthodox Church was moved with far less time spent, publicity or pparticipation. Your feelings of insult over a name a body chooses to describe itself are inconsequential. 94.116.51.228 (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Consensus, even if it had been reached through the proper channels, can never override WP:NPOV, which is nonnegotiable. From the introduction to WP:NPOV: "The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." +Angr 15:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Assuming that there is a consensus that the article title is, in fact, not neutral... I think that's on you to prove, right? --Elliskev 15:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I point to every previous attempt to move this article to Catholic Church (see the archives): when there was a public discussion for all Wikipedians, the request failed every time, because the name is not NPOV. How could it be? Equating the Roman Catholic Church with the Catholic Church (in fact, it's merely a subset of it) pushes a POV that no one but Roman Catholics holds, and is as insulting to Catholics not in communion with Rome as renaming this article Papistry would be to Catholics who are in communion with Rome. +Angr 15:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Just because the Orthodox Church move was done wrong-- if with little input-- is not an argument that the RCC move was somehow done right. Why are offesive Wikipedia article names suddely deemed inconsequential? How did this "consensus" not come down to just a vote of whoever was reading? Carlaude:Talk 16:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
That the Catholic Church self-identifies as the "Catholic Church" is not a point-of-view. It's a fact. It doesn't really matter how anyone "feels" about it. Discussions of whether or not the name is appropriate make sense withing the article, as they are prusented by reliable sources. We don't get to take a stand. The "most neutral" name is that which is used by the subject. --Elliskev 16:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
It is a "fact"-- but it is also a fact that it also self-identifies as the "Roman Catholic Church." I don't see anywhere a policy or rule stating the "most" neutral name is that which is used by the subject-- as if we could then make a corollary rule that the more neutral name is the one used more by the entity to self-identify. Carlaude:Talk 17:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
StormRider's comment below is worded better than my comment above. I meant what he said. I just didn't say it as well. --Elliskev 18:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Angr, you stated above that you saw the notice to comment, but chose not to. Please stop saying you did not have an opportunity or were somehow prevented from doing so. The truth is you chose not to; to say otherwise is disingenuous.
This issue has nothing to do with NPOV. It has everything to do with what the Catholic Church calls herself. The name she chooses in all major documents (outside of ecumenical statements) is Catholic Church. That is not POV, that is just the facts of the matter. You are confusing a doctrinal issue with a naming issue. Doctrinally there is there catholic church to which many orthodox churches claim to belong. However, that catholic church is not the church being identified as the Catholic Church. This specific topic was discussed, but one of the points made is the simplest one; a doctrinal position does not over-ride an entities right to call itself whatever it chooses.
Please take care in how you argue this case from this point forward; be clear about what you think is policy and how this action violated accepted policy. It did not violate NPOV and you were aware of the vote and chose not to comment. --StormRider 16:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
While you raise a suitable point, Storm Rider, about the catholic church-- there is key point at which your view breaks down. Entities have the right to call themselves whatever they choose-- only in the "real world." On Wikipedia the names of articles-- and hence the names of the said entities, have to be NPOV. Catholic Church is offensive because it does equate itself with the catholic church and it does "presume it is the one uniquely valid church". Carlaude:Talk 17:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not "choose not to" comment; the page I found was part of a Request for Mediation that I was not a party to, therefore it would have been inappropriate for me to comment there. Since the possibility of changing the name of the article was not within the scope of that Request for Mediation, it seemed clear to me that there would have to be a Requested Move, and that's what I waited for in vain. Even if we put aside the issue of whether or not the current name is NPOV, the fact remains that the page was moved without the benefit of a Requested Move; the only discussion took place within the context of a Request for Mediation that was not open to people outside those named in it and whose stated scope was only the wording of the lead paragraph, not the possibility of changing the article name. +Angr 17:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
That logic also makes no sense. The Church of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ and so many others exist without any problem BECAUSE it is the name of the church. There is a doctrinal position that exists and will always exist that there is a catholic church. The founders of the Protestant Reformation were clear they broke from the Catholic Church, but they remained part of the catholic church. If this position breaks down, how did these reformers find it doctrinal acceptable to bread from the CC and yet somehow remain part of the universal, one and holy catholic church? --StormRider 17:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Do not see what point you are tring to to make. The Church of Christ and Church of Jesus Christ exist with those names because "entities have the right to call themselves whatever they choose" in the real world, and there is no other name to call them on Wikipedia. They also lack a history older than the English langage itself of calling those outside of itself not part of the Christian Church. (Your point seems a bit disingenuous since those links were not even to church bodies but disambiguation pages of church bodies, but I think you will find one if not both of the above apply to the bodies in question). Carlaude:Talk 17:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The point is that many churches, by their name, claim to being something...THE church of Jesus Christ; however, the doctrine of many other churches claim to be the same thing. Even the Catholic Church claims to be that same thing. However, each of those churches (on both pages; disambiguation was intended to demonstrate just how many churches there are with these types of names) claim to be the church that belongs to Jesus Christ; it is His church. Yet, we allow them to call themselves by their chosen name.
The same principle applies to the Catholic Church; the Catholic Church is her preferred name. It is not POV, does not violate NPOV, and it is the name she chooses to call herself. I don't need to argue with you about the numerous references because you were there for the discussion.
The point is not rocket science; it is easy to see and understand. There is a difference between a doctrinal position and a name a church chooses to call itself. In this instance, the name she chooses to call herself is Catholic Church. --StormRider 19:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The plenty of cases of Wikipedia policies that rightly take into accout how and when things can be offensive... to others. Claiming otherwise does not make it other wise and no most bodies do not claim to be the only true Church of Christ, unlike yours that you name below and on other occations, but just claim to be "Church of Christ" only In other words just choose a name with Paul's admonishment in mind from 1 Corinthians 1:12-13. Carlaude:Talk 23:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Angr has clearly STILL not bothered to read the relevant policies OR the arguments gone through in mediation and the Move Debate - otherwise he would not make the arguments he does. The points Ang makes were discussed fully in the debate, and are specifically ruled out by Wikipedia naming policy. It is not up to Wikipedians to decide to call an entity any other name than that by whhich it principally self-identifies. As far as process goes, this process has lasted fully six months, followed WP policy to the letter, and been more widely consulted on than any other. I notice that Angr on his talk page recently cut someones article within seven days without even informing him that that discussion was taking place, so he is in a poor position to talk about others. Similarly the decision to change from Catholicism, to RCC , several years ago, was made on the talk page, with a lot less consultation than this decision. Angrs position that "Roman Catholic" is more NPOV than the name the Church actually and properly calls itself, and is called by most people, (as proven in the discussions,) defies logic. It is personal POV, and counter to WP policies. I ould claim to be offended by Church of England, Baptist Church, Orthodox Church, Assemblies of God, Church of Ireland etc. Puting a tag on the article is also a misuse of tags. They ae not to be used to push personal POVs. Xandar 18:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is rather irrelevent whether certain Protestants find the Catholic Church's name "offensive"; each one of their tiny groups are a minority within Christianity. I would personally prefer the article Islam to be located at "Mohammedanism", but as the actual practioners of that religion seem to find this offensive (just as the largest amount of Christians in the world, Catholics, dislike the addition/insult of the word "Roman" to their religion) and instead call their religion "Islam", then it would be unreasonable for me to try and push my personal POV onto that article. Nobody has ever typed in the words Catholic Church to Wikipedia and then being confused that they haven't been located to an obscure Protestant sect, this is just pedantic. This isn't Protestantapedia its Wikipedia. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is true that this was not listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves then it is quite clear that the move should not have been made, that it should be reverted immediately, and that the possibility of moving to Catholic Church should be discussed. Accordingly I am restoring the POV tag. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note the wording that {{POV}} includes: ‘Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.’ Ian Spackman (talk)
If you read the WP:RM it actualy says "There is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry." Marauder40 (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
There has been extensive consultation regarding this move. WP:RM is not a policy. Would you be able to show us the policy that says a move must be listed at WP:RM? Sunray (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to have to second (third?) what others are saying here. There was considerable discussion and a variety of ways in which is community was engaged that went far beyond simply listing the discussion at WP:RM. Shell babelfish 20:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
If I wanted to consult extensively—or even a bit—about a potentially controversial move I would certainly list it there, policy or no policy: Wikipedia works by consensus. Seems to be a very odd ommision indeed. When you believe that there is no significant likelihood of significant disagreement then you act bold. (I have just unilaterally moved Mount Grappa to Monte Grappa.) But in this case it does very much look to me like an attempt to prove that Roman Catholic boys can piss further than Protestant ones.
Right - the mediators who worked with a large group of editors for more than 6 months to resolve the issue were secretly Catholic and wanted to make sure that any solution failed since notifying multiple religion-based Wikiprojects specifically is obviously less effective than using a general RM page. Or wait, would that make us closet Protestants? :D Shell babelfish 21:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Informing ‘multiple religion-based Wikiprojects’ is cool is it? What about those of us who may privately say ‘A plague on all your houses and absurd sects’, but who as Wikipedians simply want balanced coverage of religious matters just as we want balanced coverage of—say—political matters. That looks like a procedure designed to exclude us. Ian Spackman (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Except for the notification here and the RfC and the year long discussion with multiple RfCs and other solicitations for outside opinons. The point is Ian that this group went above and beyond trying to solicit input about the move. I'm sorry that you missed the notifications and the lengthy discussion but you interest in labeling this as an attempt to exclude one group or another really stretches the limits of good faith. Shell babelfish 21:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
How stretch? All I did was to spot angr’s [that could be a miss-spelling] objection and find it cogent. I don’t know where he is coming from—but almost certainly not from my origins. As to my good faith which you randomly bring into question, I quite often edit on topics closely related to Catholicism—typically early medieval saints such as Saint Baudolino of Alessandria or Saint Evasio of Casale and try to be scrupulously fair. It would be good if that fairness would be afforded to me. But I am not holdng my breath. Ian Spackman (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a note. User:Carlaude has requested full protection of this article at WP:RFPP. --Elliskev 20:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, since when did 12 edits need a request for full page protection, especially on an article this large. Marauder40 (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Why? Because there is an on-going debate on POV? Or for some other reason?Ian Spackman (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Not one single complaint has been registered that supports why the name change should not have been made; it seems more that individual editors whine about not getting to have their say. I can hear my mother saying, "Now tweedledee, grow up. You know that you can't do everything!" Thousands of editors were notified of the discussion and most chose not to participate. The choice was made AFTER months of discussion. Say M-O-N-T-H-S and then tell me this was a hasty decision.

If you have a reason why the change should not have been made, then state it concisely, but fully. Do not say, "It is POV". Explain exactly how it is POV. Better yet, please read the entire archive of the entire discussion for the several months that it took place. When you do, you will see why your reason makes no sense and why it is, if anything, NPOV.

In addition, this was not a conversation of just Catholics, but one that included many different groups of Christians and even some heretics (thank you very much, I am LDS; as such I am either a cult member or a heretic ready for burning...breathe everyone that is humor). This is a simple case of defining what church calls itself and ignoring, appropriately so, everything else. The only way this becomes a POV issue is when editors confuse a doctrine with a name. The leaders of the Protestant Reformation saw no confusion whatsoever; they left the CC and still found that they were members of the one, holy catholic church. Cheers. --StormRider 21:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, the POV tag does not belong. That tag is used for the content of the article and I have seen no explicit discussion on this page as to how the article is POV. Without such a claim with associated reasons directing editors how to correct the POV, the tag can and should be deleted. IF the tag is meant for the title, then you have the wrong tag. I am not aware of a tag to address a dispute over an article's title. --StormRider 21:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I have again removed the mischievous tag - which has been used improperly here. These tags are not meant to be placed on any article where a minority are in disagreement with a consensus decision. Otherwise no major article would be free of them. So far there has been not attempt by Angr and his friend to engage with or discuss wikipedia naming policies or the MONTHS of discussion on this matter that have been arbitrated patiently over that period. Angr has been challenged several times now to come up with his detailed reasoning in the light of WP Naming policies, why the agreed decison was wrong. He has so far failed to do so, and instead taken disruptive actions.
As far as the Move page is concerned: it is oversubscribed, very few people plough their way through it, and it does not encourage contentious moves to be discussed there. The precise wording states: In some situations the appropriateness of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. There is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry. Xandar 22:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I strongly object to ‘mischievous’. (And I cannot recall a Catholic [Roman or otherwise] friend who was so incapable of mounting a argument. But of course you don’t need to win an argument. All you need to do is piss further. And of course you will do that. By sheer number of ‘vile bodies’.) Ian Spackman (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I see Angr has restored his tag again while making NO EFFORT to engage productively in the discussion of the mediation result, or respond to points made. Again, with the abusiveness of Spackman above. this looks like disruptive editing. Xandar 11:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm waiting for someone to respond to my points rather than simply bad-mouthing me. The mediation results are irrelevant, as mediation is not the appropriate venue to discuss controversial page moves, because mediation pages are restricted to those who are parties to it, because the scope of this mediation was the wording of the lead, not the name of the article, and because people expect to find page move discussions at Requested Moves, not tucked away on a mediation subpage no one except the mediation participants has on their watchlist. +Angr 13:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Which points that you've raised have not been responded to? Sunray (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
All of them, but never mind. +Angr 21:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that during the last phase of the mediation (repsectively the "Community consultation"), it was shown that the wiki rules don't really favor the renaming to simply "Catholic Church" (it can be checked here and here, but this seems to have been ignored (at least, in my opinion). Also, if the entire "Consultation" is checked, I think it will be noticed, that there were some users in that discussion who disagreed with this moved, so I don't think there was a too solid consensus supporting this, there was rather a consensus to allow this move at that time (at least, in my opinion). (It should be noted that there are some sources[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11][12][13] which explicitly claim that the official name of the Church discussed in this article is the "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church", I am not claiming they are right, I'm just mentioning them.) I believe, that a disambiguation in parentheses, should be added to the current title, like "Catholic Church (in communion with Rome)" or "Catholic Church (Roman)" (this was suggested earlier here during the mediation), or some other description in parentheses. Cody7777777 (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In brief, the move to Catholic Church was discussed in mediation, brought to the Talk Page and then implemented over the objections of a couple of editors (i.e. with the sense that there was a substantial, perhaps even overwhelming consensus supporting or, at least, not objecting strenuously to the move). Even after the move, the amount of dissent is relatively small (countable on one hand).

As pointed out, there is really nothing magical about Requested Moves. It is not the same kind of process as WP:AFD. That is, if an admin deletes an article that neither fits speedy deletion criteria nor has been through the AFD process, there is a bit of an uproar.

Moves depend upon consensus, generally formed on the Talk Page. WP:RM is more oriented towards being a process for requesting an admin to resolve some of the technical issues around non-trivial "moves over redirect".

That said, if you really believe that this move was done against consensus, there is nothing stopping you from reopening the discussion (which is, in fact, what you have already done).

However, I suggest you take a survey to see where the consensus lies. Yes, I know Cody thinks that polls are not a substitute for discussion and voting is evil. However, at some point, discussion ends when people feel nothing new is being added to the discussion even if one or more editors wish to reassert their arguments ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

If the move to Catholic Church gets less than 70% support, I will admit that there is something less than a full consensus for that title. However, I doubt that you will get 70% support for moving it back to Roman Catholic Church and so the question is how hard you wish to fight this battle since it is doubtful that you can "win" it and the best you can do is extend it indefinitely by posting here until some kind admin decides to put you out of your misery by blocking you.

--Richard (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The application of WP policy and guidelines on naming was thoroughly discussed during the mediation and again during the consultation. The policy on naming conventions and the objective criteria for making a choice among controversial names were applied. The consultation supported the consensus to change the name. Further discussion now doesn't seem to be producing any new insights.
Richard points out the strength of the consensus and observes that the opposition has been primarily from a small number of editors. He also says that there have been no errors in process. I agree with that. The issue of a vote was raised before. While it was not supported then, it is always a tool we could use if needed. Right now, I see no evidence to suggest that it is needed. How about we just accept the consensus and move on? Sunray (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I asked a question above, "Did the Wikipedia community ever discuss this move?", and I have my answer: No, it didn't. There was a consensus among people who wanted the article renamed that the article should be renamed, and no one else's opinion was asked. The decision to rename the article was already a fait accompli when it was brought to the talk page ("it is the consensus of participants to rename the article 'Catholic Church'"), and before Carlaude had informed the other WikiProjects of the decision. It was nice of him to do so, but rather pointless, since any opposing voices raised after June 12 could be safely ignored since consensus had already been reached in mediation (which of course is closed to non-participants). However, I no longer have the stomach for this drama, and I really should have known better than to start an argument with people who think the Holy Spirit protects them from error. I won't re-add the NPOV tag, but its absence does not mean the article is free of NPOV issues; neither does the presence of the Good Article tag on this talk page mean the article meets the GA criteria. +Angr 21:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Angr. It has been amply demonstrated that not only did we follow the exact policy set out by wikipedia for potentially contentious moves, we exceeded the requirements by a long way, by posting on multiple fora that included dozens if not hundreds of editors never concerned with this article. The discussion on the name "Catholic Church" itself has been going on for almost exactly a year, with no limitation on contributors and several Wikipedia RfCs. The last six months of the debate was done under official mediation. When the mediation was completed, with an agreement to go for the name change alng with revised wording, the issue was put up for discussion yet again, with the requirement for a reasonable level of consensus to be attained. This was in the light of WP NPOV naming policies - which were the only issues then involved. So it has not just been Catholics involved in the decision. If it had, we could have got it over and done with in September last year. As far as article content is concerned, a full peer review is planned for September. Xandar 22:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

ALL Catholic is NOT Roman Catholic

Latest comment: 15 years ago20 comments9 people in discussion

The opening statement seems to be misleading. "The Catholic Church, Also known as the Roman Catholic Church..." I am Catholic but by no means am I Roman Catholic. My roots are in Eastern Orthodoxy which many believe is the main branch of Catholicism from which the Roman branch broke away from (not visa versa). We accept the Roman Catholic Church as one of our equals. We accept the Roman Catholic pope as Bishop equal to our Bishop. There are many different branches of the Catholic Church and to state that "Catholic" means Roman Catholic is intensely offensive. It has the feel that the rest of us have been brushed away from the article like annoying dust. DSnow101 (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you read any of the material here? We are talking about the name of the Church, not the theological concept. The article on the Church you belong to is called Orthodox Church. It does not mean no other Church is orthodox. It is the name of the Church. Are you going to the Orthodox page and arguing they cannot use that name for their church because other churches believe that they are orthodox? If not, you are not being consistent. There was a proposal to rename that page "Orthodox Catholic Church". The proposal was overwhelmingly rejected by the vast majority of orthodox contributors - who did not see "Catholic" as a NAME of the Orthodox Church (see Talk:Orthodox Church). In addition the guidance on Wikipedia:Naming conflict states that self-identifying names should be used, even if others object to them or claim to take offense. Xandar 23:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's an accurate picture of the discussion. "Orthodox Catholic Church" does seem to be an official name, but it's almost totally unknown to everyone else, so most people thought it an inappropriate article title. Peter jackson (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The participants did make the clear distinction between the theological concept and the most widely used and accepted names used by the Church. Some said that "Orthodox Catholic Church" would be understood by a large number of Orthodox as Uniates in communion with Rome. Xandar 11:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think any one there rejected "Catholic" as a name of the (eastern) Orthodox Church, they probably rejected it as a wiki article title, (the lead of that article starts as "The Orthodox Church, officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church", and although it is off-topic, it should be noted that the move of that article to simply "Orthodox Church", at least in my opinion, was done against both the WP:NCON and the wiki disambiguation policy and without a too solid consensus, and as far as I see, there is also no proof that "Orthodox Catholic Church" refers in english to the uniate.) The Orthodox Saint Raphael of Brooklyn claimed that the the (Orthodox) "Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any official document."), the same book also states that "both (the RCC and the (E)OCC) share the name catholic". The following book claims that "the Greek and Russian Churches, no less than our own, claim and use this title of Catholic". Aleksey Khomyakov, also stated "The Orthodox Eastern Church is the whole of the Catholic Church now living upon earth—The titles "Orthodox" and "Eastern" merely temporary" (I am sorry if someone feels offended by his statement.) The more recent book by the orthodox theologian John Meyendorff makes the difference between the title "Catholic Church" and the descriptive "catholic", "Christ alone renders the Catholic Church catholic" (in this book "Catholic Church" refers to the (E)OCC). There is no evidence, that the (E)OC has ever officially renounced the title "Catholic Church" (this assumption is rather Original Research), it has no reason to do that (especially since it also uses today canons (the canons of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils) which use the title "Catholic Church"). All of the following [14],[15],[16],[17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38][39] refer to the (E)OCC as the "Catholic Church". Some of these sources may be older, but the wiki policy states that in religious cases "Secondary sources are not necessarily from recent years - or even centuries.". I think it's clear enough that there are multiple organizations which claim the title "Catholic". It is subjective criteria for Wiki to claim that only a single Church truly has the right to use the title "Catholic Church", and to deny the rights of other Churches to the title "Catholic Church", it is against the WP:NPOV rule of being impartial. (If it wouldn't give this impression, we probably won't be having this discussion now.) Nonetheless, the WP:Naming conflict states "A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names." (it speaks here about clashes of entities' name, not of article titles), so a disambiguation in parentheses should be added to the current title of the article. Cody7777777 (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh lord. Cody, although I have a high level of respect for you, there is a distinct odor of troll wafting in the air when you start up with that stuff. You made those arguments something on the order of 15 times over at Talk:Orthodox Church and convinced no one (except maybe me). It is time to give it a rest. Folks, if you wish to discuss the title of the Orthodox Church, please do it over at Talk:Orthodox Church. We do not need to revive that argument over on this page. --Richard (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


One thing we must keep in mind. Yes some groups have tried to alter the nature of language, when it comes to the name "Catholic Church", but they have failed in this spectacularly. Saying something like "The Orthodox Eastern Church is the whole of the Catholic Church now living upon earth—The titles "Orthodox" and "Eastern" merely temporary" isnt really "offensive", its more amusing banter when taking into consideration the Council of Florence and so on, it appears as humourous bravado. But in any case they have still failed in a major way, in popular discourse without the words "Eastern Orthodox" nobody would have a clue you were speaking of that organisation.

Its a similar situation in England, in popular, practical and realistic discourse, "Catholic" and "Catholic Church" applies to the topic of this article and not Anglicanism, no matter if the word "Roman" is used in ecumenicalism. This is an important point to get across in the article I think; there is no real-world ambiguity when it comes to the name Catholic Church, even to the negationists who would try to manipulate language for their own position, when they hear the words "Catholic Church" spoken they known exactly which organisation is been spoken of, even if they don't like it. I can't believe so much time is wasted on going over the naming issue though. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, because in english it refers many times to the Church discussed in this article, "Catholic Church" (without any disambiguation) was used as a redirect here, but there is some difference between using it as a redirect or as an article title. Also, it should be noted that "Roman Catholic Church" also applies in "practical discourse" to the content of this article. Regarding, the statement made by Aleksey Khomyakov, for the orthodox he is correct, since from an orthodox point of view, the Patriarchate of (Elder) Rome, has broken away from the (Orthodox) Catholic Church (this point of view can be checked in this encyclical), and the Council of Florence is considered a "Robber Council" by the orthodox. Since there are multiple organizations claiming the title "Catholic Church", Wikipedia (since it has a neutral point of veiw rule), should not give the impression that an organization deserves this title more than others (that would seem like subjective criteria) and it is against the disambiguation policy ("A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names."). Also, the descriptive "catholic" is a very important concept for many Churches (and there is no proof that the readers of Wikipedia, consider that "Catholic Church" can refer only to the Church discussed in this article), so I don't think there is any evidence that it is unambiguous as a wiki article title (and I believe it was explained above why it is ambiguous, but even the fact alone that there is a disambiguation page for it, proves that it can be ambiguous). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
There is still no significant real-world ambiguity when it comes to the use of the name Catholic Church in the English language. See, WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia isn't here to push crankish fringe points of view beyond bounds, there is already a simple disambiguation at the top which is more than enough. You have been unable to prove that it warrants more than that - ie, that people actually expect to be redirected to any other subject than this when they type in "Catholic Church" on Wikipedia. In the English language, the name "Catholic Church" is not commonly used to designate the Eastern Orthodox Church; if practioners of that religion dislike that, then its a matter of sour grapes but not one which needs to be dragged out beyond bounds on the top of this article.- Yorkshirian (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

RICHARD. I respectfully ask you to ask this editor Yorkshirian to exhibit a more mature dialog and refrain from making trollish and inflammatory comments.i.e.

"Saying something like "The Orthodox Eastern Church is the whole of the Catholic Church now living upon earth—The titles "Orthodox" and "Eastern" merely temporary" isn't really "offensive", its more amusing banter when taking into consideration the Council of Florence and so on, it appears as humourous bravado. But in any case they have still failed in a major way, in popular discourse without the words "Eastern Orthodox" nobody would have a clue you were speaking of that organisation."

AND Our patriarchs' opinions are not fringe. Read who Cody is quoting. I have remained out of this debate, while I could post things most ugly. Out of respect for the explicit comments of Orthodox church fathers, I will practice restrain and remain out. I find this individuals comments unbecoming. As an English encyclopedia which can not use the English word Universal but insists on calling a largely European church by a Greek word- catholic, a church that obviously is not Greek and has individuals like Yorkshirian making mocking condemnation of THE GREEK church, well the humbris of this is breathtaking. There is ample reason for us as Orthodox and Latin to continue to hate, being disrespectful is key to this though. Just some passing thoughts about how people are talking to Cody and addressing the East here. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, AGF. The point is Wikipedia is here purely as an encyclopedia, an educational instrument it is not here for people to dominate an article with a fringe point of view, hoping it will stick out of "political correctness" (the argument of the person who opened this section). The idea that in the English language the name "Catholic Church" is synonymous with the Eastern Orthodox Church is a fringe point of view. Chewing over the etymology of the word "Catholic" (which has its own article) is an irrelevence when measuring whether or not use of the name Catholic Church in the English language is actually ambiguous or not in the real world. Latins could enact this same pantomine over the word "orthodox", spinning on the word "orthodoxy" - but it would be a waste of time since the term "Orthodox Church" in the English language is commonly used to refer to some in the East. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, LoveMonkey... while I find some of Yorkshirian's language regrettable (e.g. "fringe", "crank" and "humorous banter"), I basically agree with the thrust of his argument. No one is arguing that the Orthodox Church is not "catholic". No one is disputing the fact that it claims to be the true continuation of the "Holy Catholic Apostolic Orthodox Church" and that they believe that the Roman Catholic Church is a schismatic (yea, perhaps even heretical) splinter group. No one is disputing that on occasion they use the name "Orthodox Catholic Church" in theological treatises and even official contexts.
What we are discussing is what these phrases mean in common usage, in English or in any other language. Even if there were a Greek Wikipedia, it seems highly unlikely that the article in that wiki would be titled Orthodox Catholic Church. Moreover, it seems highly unlikely that the title "Catholic Church" would point to anything other than an article on the Roman Catholic Church (yes, even in this hypothetical Greek Wikipedia). What is the title of the article in the Russian Wikipedia? I don't know Russian so I can't check but I highly doubt that it is Orthodox Catholic Church. Is there a title "Catholic Church" in the Russian Wikipedia? To what article does it point to?
For what it's worth, look at the article on the Nazi Party. The official name of the party is the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated NSDAP), commonly known in English as the Nazi Party. The article is at Nazi Party but the official name is provided in the lead sentence. No one speaking English uses the full official name. Heck, even the Germans didn't use the full official name.
At the end of the day, LoveMonkey and Cody7777777 are arguing theology and the rest of us are discussing common usage in the English language.
--Richard (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Richard pls...Angr is an admin also look back at this section at the top..You seem to have missed DSnow101 (who is actually someone else).LoveMonkey (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment: There is a Greek Wikipedia. The title of the corresponding article in it is "Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία" (Orthodox Church). Soidi (talk) 05:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, the correspondents of this article are called Καθολική Εκκλησία (Catholic Church) in Greek and Римско-католическая церковь (Roman Catholic Church) in Russian (showing that contrary to the footnote, it's not only in English that the Roman Catholic Church is called Roman Catholic), while Католическая церковь (Catholic Church) is a redirect to Католицизм (Catholicism). The correspondents of Orthodox Church are Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία (Orthodox Church, as Soidi said) and Православие (Orthodoxy). In Bulgarian Wikipedia, however, it's called Източноправославна църква (Eastern Orthodox Church). +Angr 07:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bravo..Angr.. Yes there is a cultural understanding. If people do not wish to address the substance of this at least they can stop with the Ad hominem. There is the implication and inference that is not being addressed. BTW I would not have posted if people had not become so blatantly disrespectful. For I find it strange that the Latin word for Catholic, which is Universus (or whatever Latin conjugation of it) can not be used for the Latin church. This obviously is what is at task. Disregarding the validity of this point is pointless as it is time honored (and has nothing to do with Political Correctness) that it be pointed out the short coming of the title as it stands within that article it's self as that would make the article closer to NPOV. But alas for the no, ad-hom, dodging and duplicity. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC) talk 12:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement that there are multiple Churches claiming this title or catholicity, is not "fringe theory", but a fact (I believe there were shown in earlier posts, enough sources (written in english) proving this, I assumed it was not necessary to re-post them again here). The wiki naming policy states, that when multiple entities use the same name, disambiguations should be given. There is also no evidence as far as I see, that there "is no real-world ambiguity" about this title, this is an assumption (and it can be considered to be Original Research), and as far as I see, it was explained above why it is ambiguous, please check earlier posts. As long as this article has this ambiguous title, an explicit disambiguation line at the top of the article is necessary (in fact, a disambiguation should normally be added to the title itself). Cody7777777 (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Richard I am not here to speak for Cody, he can do that himself. I am just pointing out that people again are not really addressing anything they are instead attacking. I can not AGF if people repeatedly engage in regrettable commentary. I mean what reason do I then have to AGF if people attack my religious fidelity as fringe? LoveMonkey (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Cody and Love Monkey - you lost this argument even on your own Eastern orthodox (now Orthodox Church) pages. Love Monkey, talking about attacking comes ill from someone who has been taken to task for abrasiveness on the Orthodox pages. Wikipedia is not itself a source for Wikipedia articles. What we are interested in, as has been repeated countless times, is what the church primarily calls itself. End of story. Xandar 13:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be about three different discussions going on. Again Cody is not DSnow101 and I don't think they have collaborated. End of Story. I am not here to further this debate my interjection was to point out the regrettable commentary which will inflame partisans. There is no need for it here, good you missed that. And another aside. People can post their opposition, I nor Cody, DSNow101 have started an editwar. Standing up against outragious allegations of fringe and the like is not abrasive. Making those allegations is. The final inferred discussion is on Unity as the word catholic means that. I can imagine that it is now but a word on paper, since people's unfortunate commentary and legalistic wrangling have pretty chocked the naivete' right out of us useless moderates. Smile it's not like me and Cody and DSNow are the only ones reading all this. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Linking of "Christian Church" concept in lead dubious?

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

There is a link to the concept Christian Church in the article, which would seem to suggest that the Catholic Church is part of a wider, egalitarian, "super Church" of absolutely everybody who considers themselves a Christian. The Catholic Church rejects this concept, regarding itself as the visable, one Church of Christ, the Christian Church itself. Surely it is POV to link a concept which it rejects in the intro? - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, what is the source of your belief that the Catholic Church considers itself the "one" church? So far as I can tell, they/we (I am a Catholic) consider themselves to be the most legitimate formal continuation of the one 'true' church, whatever that might mean, but acknowledge the existence of other church bodies, which would presumably allow them to describe themselves as a part of the broader Christian church. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The Catholic section in that article should give you an outline, the source itself from the Vatican website; Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the Doctrine of the Church. Also see, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, it is very POV to express any views in a Catholic Church article that are not the Catholic Church POV. People might get confused about Catholic Church teaching if any non-Catholic ideas were in there. After all, the Catholic Church owns this page and Wikipedia has no right to imply that the Catholic Church is part of a some wider Christianity. Carlaude:Talk 23:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Catholic Church identifies itself as Christianity, but there is no evidence that it recongises itself as within a wider "Christian Church" with various sects which decided to break off from the Catholic Church a few centuries back. In fact, theologically it regards the teachings of all schismatic sects as heresy (obviously, otherwise they would be Catholics, not in schism). According to the Vatican link posted the Catholic Church only recognises itself as the Church of Christ, if there is another organised Church in existence which they're supposedly subject to (where is headquartered? I can't see it anywhere?) they certainly haven't been informed. Essentially the concept is a form of negationism on par with the attempt to take the words "Catholic Church" away from this organisation. It is a form of negating Papal supremacy when it comes to the leadership of Christians on earth, by "levelling" all theological concepts. Obviously since the Church teaches that the Pope is the apostolic successor of Saint Peter, to accept some sort of egalitarian "super Church" would be advocation of schism. Thus it is incorrect, POV and misleading to chain it up within a concept it explicitly rejects, in this article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
That position is several hundred years in the past. Have you ever heard or read the views of the Catholic Church towards the Eastern Orthodox Church, or any of its sister churches? If you need references, you will find a plethora in the archives, but we can supply them anew also. Jean Paul II was adament in his teaching of Christianity and the validity of the baptism, teaching, etc. of many other Christian churhes. --StormRider 04:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Not at all, the Vatican reasserted the fact that the Catholic Church is not within a wider "Church" as recently as 2007; which you can read in this link.[40] From the same year in 2007, Pope Benedict XIV confirmed the Church's continuing view that Jesus formed only one Church and the Catholic Church is it - other forms being either defective or heretical.[41][42] Also there is some sort of confusion here, there is a difference between people who derive a worldview from the teachings of Christ, and thus call themselves Christians and on the other hand claiming that there is a wider "super Church" which the Catholic Church itself subject to (the schismatic "Christian Church" theory). If you can provide evidence of the Church ever claiming the latter, then please do so. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The Church has always recognized the validity of baptisms by whomever performed, if in the correct form & with the intention of doing what the Church does. My understanding is that the Church claims that there is 1 true Church, that it is it, & that other churches are imperfectly parts of it. Peter jackson (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

My actions on the Catholic Church page

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

When this page was moved from the title "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church, 118 revisions were deleted to make way for the move. I moved this page to "Catholic Church/Temp", and moved some of the deleted edits to Catholic Church (disambiguation) to perform a history merge on the disambig page. Since the title of this page is controversial, I thought it'd be a good idea to explain my actions here. Graham87 06:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, here is a diff that will illustrate what I've done more clearly. The revision on the left was formerly at the title "Catholic Church", and was deleted before I found the article. The edit on the right was the first edit at the title "Catholic Church (disambiguation)", until I did the history merge. The intermediate revision is a redirect to the title "Roman Catholic Church". Graham87 06:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who has Catholic Church on their watchlist will now also have Catholic Church/Temp on their watchlist and may wish to remove it. +Angr 06:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Or... I had Catholic Church (disambiguation) on my watchlist, and now I have this page on my watchlist. Great ;P -Andrew c [talk] 21:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Length

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

As per WP:LENGTH, I still feel this page is too long to be easily readable. The solution I suggest, as before, is to replace the history section with an overview of the Church's history and a link to the page on the history of the Church which at the moment is replicated in the middle of this page.Haldraper (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The length issue has been discussed before. Articles on large subjects like this are allowed to be longer than the average length. While trimming has and will be done on all sections, the History section is central to the article and cannot be cut by much without losing balance and coverage of key issues. It is a compromise between brevity and the need to cover significant events in a useful manner. Xandar 01:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Xandar, all that is covered on the page on the history of the Church. What specific events/periods are 'central to the article and cannot be cut by much without losing balance and coverage of key issues' in your opinion?Haldraper (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Name

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

I note that the Encyclopaedia Britannica article is titled "Roman Catholicism" and this seems to circumvent arguments about the lack of explicit declarations of an official name in Church documents whilst also setting it within the wider field of Catholicism. Taam (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The name issue has been dealt with as per Wikipedia policies, over the course of a year. We don't copy EB or other encyclopedias. Xandar 01:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Taam, discussing the title isn't going to help anymore. We are not reverting this! --Rockstone35 (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
You can file a request at WP:RM to change this, which is what should have been done when this article was retitled recently. Consensus can always change, and there could have been more people involved in the renaming issue. Kusma (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Consensus can change, but i doubt the consensus has suddenly changed in under a month, when the last consensus took over a year to solidify.
And no, WP:RM is for moves that require admin tools, such as when there is already a redirect in the target article space; several participants are admin, no request was required as they could perform the move themselves. Proposed page moves are to be discussed on the article talk page, which is what happened and the move was conducted in line will all required policies and procedures and incorporated as wide of participation as possible. It's unfortunate that people just now noticing the name change chose not to or missed out on the discussion, but they had ever opportunity to do so. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong, WP:RM is for all controversial moves. It is the central place where move suggestions are listed for the whole community to see. In this case, the discussion seems to have taken place on a subpage, where it was essentially hidden from most of the community, so it may be a good idea to list it at WP:RM to find out what the consensus of the wider community is. In particular, I do not think that the move request was visible on the article itself. Kusma (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I see no indication in the policies regarding naming or controversial names, nor in the help instructions that notification at WP:RM is in any way required; but as I said earlier, it is a place to request moves over redirects. Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy, and consensus shouldnt be called into question because a form wasnt filed. The fact that participants made a good faith effort to notify all related Wikiprojects would indicate that the wider community was consulted. I know some people are looking for a vote here, but we dont decide things with votes. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RM was not needed, period. --Rockstone35 (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Time to stop wikilawyering. If you think a consensus can be developed for moving this article back to Roman Catholic Church, then post a RM to do so. If you can even get 30% in favor of moving it back, then you have at least some argument that an RM might not have garnered a full consensus for the move to Catholic Church. If you can't get 30% in favor, then this obsessing over procedure is just wikilawyering and does not represent a substantive enough body of opinion to be worth all this discussion. --Richard (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Kusma is right that notice of the discussion should have taken place, and he is presumably right that consensus could change as well. Why the mediators didn't list it there during the mediation effort, which I myself wasn't an official party because of my being sick at the time the mediation was filed, I don't know. However, I do believe that there was a reasonable discussion regarding the issues during the mediation effort, and that, for better or worse, while more opinions could have been expressed, the outcome did take, to at least some degree, all the factual evidence into consideration. If and when I ever get around to finishing the list of Christian-related categories, which I've been at for two months now, I'm probably going to have to propose changing the names of some categories, and creating others, and I have to imagine that the idea will be discussed at some length then as well. And, believe it or not, even those User:John Carter/Christianity category tree is already eight pages long and I'm not even finished with the first direct subcategory yet, I do think that it will, in time, be finished. I hope. I really hope. John Carter (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
No. I wish people would read some of the pages of discussions and debates we've had on this. As I posted above As far as the Move page is concerned: it is oversubscribed, very few people plough their way through it, and it does not encourage contentious moves to be discussed there. The precise wording of the PAGE ITSELF states: In some situations the appropriateness of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. There is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry In other words, long discussions are not suited to the WP:RM page. Interested parties should discuss on the article talk page. In addition to which the discussion was widely circulated across the faith related community. Nor has anyone out of the two or three who have moaned since the decision was made, brought up any valid or new points related to the naming policies. End of story. Xandar 00:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_Church/Archive_31&oldid=1092042223"